Emily, you are kind to open up some essays to everyone, but I want to encourage anyone who is not a subscriber to become one. You don’t get thoughtful writing like this anywhere online. I look forward to these essays, and they are well worth the $6/month–which can barely buy you a coffee-shop drink these days.
I thought the speech wasn't very well written for a commencement speech, honestly. It was mostly about what Harrison Butker thinks about things in the Church today...which is fine, but not really what graduates need to hear at their commencement? He needed a better editor!
There's a good spin to put on a lot of things here, but most of it just didn't need to be said. If he had wanted to sum up the landscape of America, he could've done it in a line or two, and then moved onto encouraging the graduates to bring their whole selves into whatever sphere they're called, for the glory of God and renewal of the country. That would've been a much more stirring commencement address. Although who really remembers their commencement address? These kids probably will now!
Also, I have made a rule to never take life advice from millionaires. They have a warped view of reality!
I, similarly, noticed the writing, in addition to all the other issues already addressed in the post and subscriber comments. My first thought was, “This guy obviously never participated in a 4-H speech contest.” 😂 (or any other formative writing/public speaking experience)
Thank you so much for writing this Emily! Back when I was a much younger, more impressionable first-time mom I got a culture shock when I opened myself up to the world of online Catholics. It was just blogs at the time. But never in my life up until that point had I ever had somebody imply I was less-than because I worked. And not only that but I *gasp* CHOSE to work because I felt it was where God called me to be. I almost quit my career as a physician because of the sudden guilt I felt. Thankfully I came to my senses and didn't quit, but this is the reason this speech hurt my stomach. This online Catholic world is exhausting. And that's pretty sad. Im too old now so I simply stop following people. But as a female conservative Catholic physician I'm a minority and I'm up against *many* other female physicians who think the Catholic Church is awful. The world of medicine is an extremely secular place. Gosh I try hard to be an example of what Catholics are truly about. But public displays like this just make it SO hard to make any progress. There are a few hundred thousand female physicians up in arms right now online over this and their already skewed views on the church have been solidified. Awful things being said. His mistake is not something little. Words have power whether he meant them in a certain way or not. Back to square one I guess. It's exhausting.
You aren't at square one unless you choose to be, why would your work and witness be eliminated due to someone else's opposing comment? It isn't a zero-sum game and I doubt people who know you would think, "ah well, I used to think based on all the good she has done that this was possible, alas, the media says some guy says women cant do both, so must be she's just a fake!" Also, seems likely he didn't even say what's being made out. As noted in Catholic Vote today, "[Butker's] own mother Elizabeth Butker is a longtime clinical physicist at Emory University School of Medicine."
I normally find your discussions balanced, but this time this reaction strikes me as more defensive, perhaps though because you ARE one of those who would most likely hear criticism in how he phrased some things. I think that, whereas it's hard to do, we owe it to anyone to choose the charitable interpretation. Esp if they're just another layperson who is trying to figure out how to use their platfrom, one they didn't really seek, in the best way possible.
I do think his theology/priest/bishop comments were a bit nonsequitor and sort of just rambling, prob he initially had a reason for including them, but isn't well-versed enough in giving speeches to tie everything back together to help his point. Reading The Pillar's selected quotations, I saw clearly that his aim was to encourage people to be boldly Catholic, but reading the actual speech I was a little confused at times. Eh well. I'd prob not have done better. You may have! (Sincerely said! Hard sometimes to tell in text. You have a way with words though and are good at striking a balanced & charitable tone.)
Re: Catholic birth control, it would seem that because those words have definitions (birth control is not NFP and NFP is not birth control, Catholics are Catholics), one should stick to the established definitions when trying to figure out what is meant. There is not a negligible amount of Catholics who use actual birth control. Seems unlikely he is out to lampoon Catholics that are trying to follow Church teaching, even if he does happen to disagree on the necessity of NFP.
Re: women at home, seems reasonable and likely he is speaking to the tendencies that are most pervasive in our society, wherein women MOSTLY aim to get decent jobs, etc. As much as he appears to understand the graduates are a different group than the overall culture, he is discussing their impending sort of launching out into that culture, so why would he not address the temptations that culture will offer them? Seems about right to me. And his wife apparently thought as the culture in general does before embracing her current life, so a good story to back up his ideas.
Re: Jesus and the Jews, I guess it went entirely over my head. I actually was at a loss where you found anti-semitism or the suggestion of it because it jist didn't register. I also am out of the loop enough to not know what he's referring to, so maybe that's just my ignorance.
Anyway, my point in here commenting is just, I think, to say that it's hard to get every single word exactly right (esp without editors and speech writers amd such, esp if we are just regular people, not scholars or theologians or linguists) and if we shut up for fear of whom we might accidentally offend even as we are also essentially praising them for their fearless living out of their faith (ie all you all faithful Catholic women keeping the Church's teachings even while it might be something different than expected or assumed), we might never speak again!
Regarding Jesus and the Jews, Congress recently passed a resolution to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism into the Civil Rights Act. I personally think this was an admirable move because I have been ALARMED by the rampant and pernicious rise of antisemitism including among my own circle of acquaintance. However, some are saying it does encroach on free speech. One of the tricky things about free speech is you can actually say things that are hurtful and wrong. One of the bullet points in the IHRA definition of antisemitism defines “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” Catholics are actually very clear that Jesus died for the sins of humanity, not just because the Jews were bloodthirsty or something. It’s right in the lectionary for Good Friday: “The Passion narratives are proclaimed in full so that all see vividly the love of Christ for each person. In light of this, the crimes during the Passion of Christ cannot be attributed, in preaching or catechesis, indiscriminately to all Jews of that time, nor to Jews today. The Jewish people should not be referred to as rejected or cursed, as if this view followed from Scripture. The Church ever keeps in mind that Jesus, his mother Mary, and the apostles were all Jewish. As the Church has always held, Christ freely suffered his passion and death because of the sins of all, that all might be saved.” Pope Pius XI also said in 1938, “(I)t is not possible for Christians to take part in antisemitism. We acknowledge for all the right to defend themselves, to adopt measures of protection against what threatens their legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites.” Sadly it seems as though a lot of contemporary Christians are in fact embracing ugly ideas about antisemitism—this isn’t to pick on Harrison Butker, because it’s becoming more and more widespread. It is probably in the air we breathe as Americans. Sorry this was so long but I felt like it was worth giving a detailed response to in case a lot of people are missing this context.
Thanks for that! I have mixed (knee-jerk, un-thought-out) reactions to this news, and they include both that the desire behind a resolution like that is encouraging but also the attempt to do something seems misguided in that legislation will not actually fix antisemitism but likely will be abused, or at least be there ready and waiting to be abused. I could easily see grounds for praising or criticizing such a move. Maybe not in a commencement speech except as a setting-the-stage type thing, as this is the world they're going into, fraught with challenges.
Yeah, you’re not wrong that it’s mixed. Note that it was only a resolution, no legislation was enacted. It was more a sign of support. I did not like how Butker said “Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail” because that’s not accurate (they didn’t pass a bill, it was a non-binding resolution), it can’t land you in jail (again, it was a resolution, it didn’t come attached with any consequences), and also as Catholics, we really should not be saying “the Jews killed Jesus” anyway. That isn’t Church teaching. And yet, it’s also true that limiting free speech is a slippery slope and if this really were placed into the Civil Rights Act, that could be problematic from a free speech standpoint—even though I honestly agree with the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and this recent push towards embracing it from both the right and the left is absolutely alarming. I guess scapegoating the Jews for all of societies anxieties and woes is as old as the hills. So upsetting.
I don’t comment much on really anything but I’m very curious to see part 3. I certainly listened to the speech with more of the charitable take and am glad to have read a contrary opinion that I trust (never the AP, ha). Thinking back over my own life in times where I’ve shared my faith publicly, albeit less publicly than this commencement, it can be difficult to think and speak clearly. Especially when it is something so intrinsic to our being as our relationship with the Lord. I applaud him for not giving a fluffy speech and I pray that the charitable way in which I read it was truly how he meant it.
I appreciate what you write, Emily. And I was wondering if you would offer some thoughts on the speech. It was actually dropped in my Bible Study message group and we discussed there too. I avoid social media like a horrific plague and don’t follow the “news” at all. So I thank you for taking the time to share your concern, thoughts, and expertise on this speech.
As a homemaker, homeschooling mom who did not end up with the career that I expected, I appreciated hearing Butker mention that being a homemaker/stay at home mom was hard work and not something to be dismissed.
I watched his speech (available on YouTube) and thought that he needed an editor who could articulate his thoughts in a more charitable manner. This being said his inflection and body language are not things we can read through a script. His love for his wife was quite evident when he talked about her; he had to pause during the speech to compose himself. He also mentioned that some of the controversial issues he talked about were things he (Harrison Butker) “loved”, “appreciated”, and “valued”. I didn’t feel the force behind it to require the graduating class to follow him in those same areas.
I will say I was surprised by his statement about “Catholic birth control”. I have only heard that in connection to the various NFP options that allow husbands and wives determine if they are able to have sexual intercourse during a woman’s cycle. I was a little miffed at the statement. My husband and I used NFP so that I can get help for my cycles and know when we can achieve a possible pregnancy. I also know NFP is not 100% accurate and we don’t use it to avoid getting pregnant, but rather determine if it’s a good time for us to have babies. I needed to avoid getting pregnant so I could donate blood for my mother’s-in-law kidney surgery (to remove kidney and kidney cancer). So that statement was disheartening to me.
I also appreciate the other women who are commenting. It’s good to see things from different viewpoints and converse about it in a gentler manner (at least I hope).
My 22-year-old daughter is part of the Catholic young adults/singles/dating world and what you’re saying is very true. The few young Catholic men who even seem interested in pursuing dating often throw lots of stipulations at potential dates: “…IF you attend/start attending the TLM” “…IF you agree you wouldn’t work after marriage” etc (sir, do you even have a job which could support a family?) I hadn’t paid a ton of attention to Harrison Butker’s commencement speech because most of the chatter I’ve seen about it was from non-Catholics using it as another reason to be hyperbolic about how awful and extremist Christians are. But I’m sorry to hear it contained some of these odd and awkward calling cards of the “manosphere” as you’ve been calling it. So discouraging.
I guess I’m not easily offended…. And I honestly don’t think Butker was trying to join the manosphere. I think he’s a football player, who is Catholic. He is successful in his career while being Catholic, so Benedictine asked him to do this. He’s not a speaker or theologian. I don’t know why people are so up in arms about a football player’s comments, but I do think a lot is being inferred.
I also don’t understand why there is so much outrage over his choice of words when he is not a public speaker. He probably should have had help developing his speech, but he probably had no idea it would go viral…. He probably thought he knew his audience, even if he wasn’t spot on.
I’m wondering if part of the uproar about his comments is specifically because of who the famous girlfriend of his famous teammate is. A certain fan base feels very possessive over the KC Chiefs.
Thank you so much for addressing this with your usual thoughtfulness, Emily. I first heard that the speech was controversial from a secular source and so thought it was because he was defending articles of the faith that our culture has rejected. But when I read the full text, I was troubled. He presented his personal preferences as the true substance of Catholicism, along with a lot of odd tangents thrown together. I mainly came away thinking that he sounds very young (not that I’m that much older, I’m 40) and lacking in a lot of wisdom and experience. I’ll pray for him and his family.
I hear others echoing this language of trying to put thr most charitable spin on his speech. Is it really "charitable" not to hear the dog whistles in his speech? Honestly asking. Because to me it is not only naive but lacks prudence and is not a face value reading of the words he actually spoke.
It IS a demeaning of NFP, if we read his words in their plain meaning. It IS suspiciously anti Semitic. He is the one who talked about "diabolic lies" in the same sentence as his wife finding her true purpose as a primary wife and mother.
So, frankly I do not see why we should pretend he isn't saying what he saying. It feels...false to do so.
Thing is, if you're advocating for taking words at face value, you also shouldn't change them. Did he say NFP? Or did he say birth control? It's written (I've not listened to verify) he said birth control. So if one takes that phrase -- Catholic birth control -- at face value, one sees a contradiction, one which he rightly condemns. If he had said NFP, then we might argue whether he should be saying that or not, but until we know he MEANT 'NFP' while saying 'birth control', it is uncharitable to conclude so. Or so it seems to me.
I appreciate how hard you are working at encouraging a charitable interpretation of his words, Maria. (I mean that sincerely.)
However…he said “Catholic birth control” and we all know what that means. It doesn’t mean “Catholics using artificial contraception when they know better”. It is a euphemism, used both positively and negatively, for NFP. It is widely known. It is a huge stretch to say “he must’ve meant this other thing that is not really how this phrase is used.”
When he criticized “Catholic birth control,” it was a criticism of NFP.
Anyone has used NFP has feelings about it. Maybe mostly positive, maybe mostly negative, maybe a mix. But NFP is not contraception and it is disingenuous for critics to imply that it is the same, or used with the same mindset and intention. Even when used in an UNgenerous way, it is not the same thing.
This!!! Also, the actual quote is “there’s nothing natural about Catholic birth control”, I’m not sure that could be interpreted any other way. I’m also bothered because of the way this will be heard by non-Catholics. As if there is a “Catholic form of birth control” the Church felt it had to concede to a pro birth control society. As if the Church said “no, you can’t have birth control, but here’s the closest thing we could come up with. Don’t use it unless you’re going to die because we really didn’t want to let you have it, it’s not great, and if birth control hadn’t happened we would never have offered this”. Which isn’t the case at all.
Yes, that is my point. The only way to have a conversation is for words to have meaning. NFP is indeed NOT contraception and therefore it's useful to distinguish with two different words. Contraception would be a better choice than birth control, I definitely agree there. It's clear, at least.
Also, responding you what you wrote before you edited your comment…listen, A LOT of what he said was good and wholesome. I have actually defended his speech more than I’ve criticized it.
But on a few points he seemed to have strayed pretty far from where the Church actually stands, and guides us. I honestly think the comment about Congress passing a bill saying people can get thrown in jail for stating who killed Jesus was the worst of the lot because it was misleading, untrue, very much AGAINST Church teaching, and I’m not sure WHAT beliefs he’s aligning himself to if he holds that view.
Some of his comments about priests were troubling (or at the very least ignorant and short-sighted), and I think his point here about NFP was pretty clear, even if perhaps some, like you, don’t perceive it that way. But for me it’s the antisemitic remark that is really sticking out because there was no need to bring it up at all—if it wasn’t some kind of dog whistle.
I think you might be missing the reasons for the criticisms advanced by the "faithful Catholics" of whom you speak.
Emily wrote about the speech and unlocked her manosphere content for good reason. As a mother of adult daughters who have been telling me about this phenomenon amd how enticing some of the notions are for their young adult peers, I am both interested and
invested in the conversation.
Second: of COURSE we can ignore the ignorance of the folks who might think any use of NFP is suspect. But again, that is a
separate point from whether such ideas have been gaining traction and whether it might be useful to provide a primer about Church teaching, what it IS and what it isn't. Because lots of folks--including our young adult children---are susceptible to these misguided ways of thinking.
I edited a lot out of my comment and so apologies for thereby making your response look strange. I don't see value in my own [further] participation in this discussion because I see that I am not open-minded about this topic nor desire to be and a conversation is not fruitful, so I deleted most of what I'd said and will shut up now.
It's fine. I think it can help even lurkers to understand what is behind individual commenters' positions so I find value in posting for their benefit, even though you were clear you didn't want to pursue the matter. Thats why I explained one of my reasons for my read on his speech.
I think you misunderstood my point. The phrase “Catholic birth control” means NFP. That’s how that phrase is used. It is widespread and has been used for decades. I’m sorry if you hadn’t heard that before and it led to confusion but it doesn’t change the fact that most people know what it means. It doesn’t mean “Catholics illicitly using artificial contraception.”
Thank you for saying this. I wholeheartedly agree. I have both listened and read his words carefully. I have taken time in formulating my opinion. I can’t step back from the idea that he was lacking in humility.
I commented and deleted because I don’t feel I was clear enough. I agree with what you’re saying in the sense that I think it’s his responsibility to correct misinterpretations of his if they exist. He’s an adult, a very successful one, and seems to take his faith very seriously. I would think if he saw his own comments misinterpreted, and they were comments about the beliefs of the Church, that he would correct them. I’m not sure, however, that it’s naive or imprudent to consider the possibility of a charitable interpretation while still pointing out concerns. I think that’s just, well, charitable.
I think she was referring more to the huge glut of Catholic influencers online, such as the Manosphere and Tradwives Emily has been writing about lately.
After reading this essay, I decided to switch to a paid subscription. Thank you for speaking up on this issue. I don't see it as a fringe phenomenon anymore, and I don't think it ever was; I can speak from experience that these attitudes were present in the dating scene in the 2000s and 2010s.
I am a Catholic working mother who teaches rhetoric at a university. I feel sorry for Butker: he didn't graduate from a good Catholic liberal arts college. Had he done so, he might have benefited from learning from theologians, philosophers, and rhetoricians, especially if they were women!
Also, I thought his statements about priests were very offensive, too. Priests are human beings, and they SHOULD have puppies if that makes them happy and helps keep loneliness at bay.
Emily, I am a new subscriber and I am so happy to support you. You bring the best perspective on difficult topics and are so good at articulating the nuances of our Catholic faith. While so much is straightforward about Catholicism, a lot is actually not, and I love how you flesh it out. I am the one you describe as the Catholic women NOT online, I am on as little as possible. But I am glad to hear from you what is happening out there. I have to admit I was also the one you described as happy to hear homemaking and motherhood defended, but I guess that shows my age, growing up in the 90’s and being saturated in feminism, I have been naive to think the pendulum swinging the other way would be a good thing. I see how this can be headed to a dangerous place for my girls. I have four daughters, the oldest is 15, and wow I guess this brings a new level of worry for them. I’ve been fearing the hook up culture that I had to navigate, and now I see maybe it’s the wrong concern. Good grief! I, of course, give my girls over to our Lord and trust Him completely, but as a Mom I am grateful to learn that I now need to address with them this twisted extreme ideology possibly taking hold of the “good” Catholic boys they know. I am just shocked to hear how pervasive the manosphere is with young Catholic men. Anyways, I just wanted to say thanks for opening my eyes and also I am so, so sorry about Beautycounter.
I haven’t listened to the speech, though I’ve heard about it. And I’m not a “very online” Catholic woman. BUT- I got together with a very devout friend of mine the other day who told me she feels like a phony because she’s picked up some work outside the home out of necessity, and she doesn’t believe in women working. She’s distraught. She got this idea from these circles you’re talking about. I was so sad for her, knowing how conflicted she is interiorly and lost about the “right” things to do within her vocation. So basically I’m saying, I see the proof of this problem out here in the real world and it’s not good and I’m sad for people.
YES to your thoughts and reflections. There is sanity in all of this and you are finding it. I believe Butker's heart is moving in the right direction, he really loves and appreciates his wife and is trying to be a faithful Catholic. AND he lives in a "bit" of a bubble, his theology background is weak, and he may or may not have had much of a speech class. Looking forward to Manosphere 3.0
Thanks, Emily. If we didn’t have the internet to alert us to these different ‘ways of thinking’, I believe people would settle down into their little groups the way they like to live as Catholics and fringe or mainstream would…shake out that way.
As it is we have more ways to listen to others, who like to tell others, what to do.
Our lives begin when we become an adopted daughter of God and follow His will for living out our vocation according to our unique station in life.
Emily, you are kind to open up some essays to everyone, but I want to encourage anyone who is not a subscriber to become one. You don’t get thoughtful writing like this anywhere online. I look forward to these essays, and they are well worth the $6/month–which can barely buy you a coffee-shop drink these days.
Yes! More people should subscribe! I love Emily’s writing.
I think through this open essay, she is going to get more subscribers. Especially if we share it.
Thank you Emily!
I thought the speech wasn't very well written for a commencement speech, honestly. It was mostly about what Harrison Butker thinks about things in the Church today...which is fine, but not really what graduates need to hear at their commencement? He needed a better editor!
There's a good spin to put on a lot of things here, but most of it just didn't need to be said. If he had wanted to sum up the landscape of America, he could've done it in a line or two, and then moved onto encouraging the graduates to bring their whole selves into whatever sphere they're called, for the glory of God and renewal of the country. That would've been a much more stirring commencement address. Although who really remembers their commencement address? These kids probably will now!
Also, I have made a rule to never take life advice from millionaires. They have a warped view of reality!
I, similarly, noticed the writing, in addition to all the other issues already addressed in the post and subscriber comments. My first thought was, “This guy obviously never participated in a 4-H speech contest.” 😂 (or any other formative writing/public speaking experience)
Thank you so much for writing this Emily! Back when I was a much younger, more impressionable first-time mom I got a culture shock when I opened myself up to the world of online Catholics. It was just blogs at the time. But never in my life up until that point had I ever had somebody imply I was less-than because I worked. And not only that but I *gasp* CHOSE to work because I felt it was where God called me to be. I almost quit my career as a physician because of the sudden guilt I felt. Thankfully I came to my senses and didn't quit, but this is the reason this speech hurt my stomach. This online Catholic world is exhausting. And that's pretty sad. Im too old now so I simply stop following people. But as a female conservative Catholic physician I'm a minority and I'm up against *many* other female physicians who think the Catholic Church is awful. The world of medicine is an extremely secular place. Gosh I try hard to be an example of what Catholics are truly about. But public displays like this just make it SO hard to make any progress. There are a few hundred thousand female physicians up in arms right now online over this and their already skewed views on the church have been solidified. Awful things being said. His mistake is not something little. Words have power whether he meant them in a certain way or not. Back to square one I guess. It's exhausting.
You aren't at square one unless you choose to be, why would your work and witness be eliminated due to someone else's opposing comment? It isn't a zero-sum game and I doubt people who know you would think, "ah well, I used to think based on all the good she has done that this was possible, alas, the media says some guy says women cant do both, so must be she's just a fake!" Also, seems likely he didn't even say what's being made out. As noted in Catholic Vote today, "[Butker's] own mother Elizabeth Butker is a longtime clinical physicist at Emory University School of Medicine."
Theresa, let’s be friends ❤️
I’m trying to Like this but it’s not working for me for some reason…
I normally find your discussions balanced, but this time this reaction strikes me as more defensive, perhaps though because you ARE one of those who would most likely hear criticism in how he phrased some things. I think that, whereas it's hard to do, we owe it to anyone to choose the charitable interpretation. Esp if they're just another layperson who is trying to figure out how to use their platfrom, one they didn't really seek, in the best way possible.
I do think his theology/priest/bishop comments were a bit nonsequitor and sort of just rambling, prob he initially had a reason for including them, but isn't well-versed enough in giving speeches to tie everything back together to help his point. Reading The Pillar's selected quotations, I saw clearly that his aim was to encourage people to be boldly Catholic, but reading the actual speech I was a little confused at times. Eh well. I'd prob not have done better. You may have! (Sincerely said! Hard sometimes to tell in text. You have a way with words though and are good at striking a balanced & charitable tone.)
Re: Catholic birth control, it would seem that because those words have definitions (birth control is not NFP and NFP is not birth control, Catholics are Catholics), one should stick to the established definitions when trying to figure out what is meant. There is not a negligible amount of Catholics who use actual birth control. Seems unlikely he is out to lampoon Catholics that are trying to follow Church teaching, even if he does happen to disagree on the necessity of NFP.
Re: women at home, seems reasonable and likely he is speaking to the tendencies that are most pervasive in our society, wherein women MOSTLY aim to get decent jobs, etc. As much as he appears to understand the graduates are a different group than the overall culture, he is discussing their impending sort of launching out into that culture, so why would he not address the temptations that culture will offer them? Seems about right to me. And his wife apparently thought as the culture in general does before embracing her current life, so a good story to back up his ideas.
Re: Jesus and the Jews, I guess it went entirely over my head. I actually was at a loss where you found anti-semitism or the suggestion of it because it jist didn't register. I also am out of the loop enough to not know what he's referring to, so maybe that's just my ignorance.
Anyway, my point in here commenting is just, I think, to say that it's hard to get every single word exactly right (esp without editors and speech writers amd such, esp if we are just regular people, not scholars or theologians or linguists) and if we shut up for fear of whom we might accidentally offend even as we are also essentially praising them for their fearless living out of their faith (ie all you all faithful Catholic women keeping the Church's teachings even while it might be something different than expected or assumed), we might never speak again!
Maria
Regarding Jesus and the Jews, Congress recently passed a resolution to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism into the Civil Rights Act. I personally think this was an admirable move because I have been ALARMED by the rampant and pernicious rise of antisemitism including among my own circle of acquaintance. However, some are saying it does encroach on free speech. One of the tricky things about free speech is you can actually say things that are hurtful and wrong. One of the bullet points in the IHRA definition of antisemitism defines “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” Catholics are actually very clear that Jesus died for the sins of humanity, not just because the Jews were bloodthirsty or something. It’s right in the lectionary for Good Friday: “The Passion narratives are proclaimed in full so that all see vividly the love of Christ for each person. In light of this, the crimes during the Passion of Christ cannot be attributed, in preaching or catechesis, indiscriminately to all Jews of that time, nor to Jews today. The Jewish people should not be referred to as rejected or cursed, as if this view followed from Scripture. The Church ever keeps in mind that Jesus, his mother Mary, and the apostles were all Jewish. As the Church has always held, Christ freely suffered his passion and death because of the sins of all, that all might be saved.” Pope Pius XI also said in 1938, “(I)t is not possible for Christians to take part in antisemitism. We acknowledge for all the right to defend themselves, to adopt measures of protection against what threatens their legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites.” Sadly it seems as though a lot of contemporary Christians are in fact embracing ugly ideas about antisemitism—this isn’t to pick on Harrison Butker, because it’s becoming more and more widespread. It is probably in the air we breathe as Americans. Sorry this was so long but I felt like it was worth giving a detailed response to in case a lot of people are missing this context.
Thanks for that! I have mixed (knee-jerk, un-thought-out) reactions to this news, and they include both that the desire behind a resolution like that is encouraging but also the attempt to do something seems misguided in that legislation will not actually fix antisemitism but likely will be abused, or at least be there ready and waiting to be abused. I could easily see grounds for praising or criticizing such a move. Maybe not in a commencement speech except as a setting-the-stage type thing, as this is the world they're going into, fraught with challenges.
Yeah, you’re not wrong that it’s mixed. Note that it was only a resolution, no legislation was enacted. It was more a sign of support. I did not like how Butker said “Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail” because that’s not accurate (they didn’t pass a bill, it was a non-binding resolution), it can’t land you in jail (again, it was a resolution, it didn’t come attached with any consequences), and also as Catholics, we really should not be saying “the Jews killed Jesus” anyway. That isn’t Church teaching. And yet, it’s also true that limiting free speech is a slippery slope and if this really were placed into the Civil Rights Act, that could be problematic from a free speech standpoint—even though I honestly agree with the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism and this recent push towards embracing it from both the right and the left is absolutely alarming. I guess scapegoating the Jews for all of societies anxieties and woes is as old as the hills. So upsetting.
Maria, this is so good 💯 thank you for breaking this down this way so well -- you and I agree 👍
I don’t comment much on really anything but I’m very curious to see part 3. I certainly listened to the speech with more of the charitable take and am glad to have read a contrary opinion that I trust (never the AP, ha). Thinking back over my own life in times where I’ve shared my faith publicly, albeit less publicly than this commencement, it can be difficult to think and speak clearly. Especially when it is something so intrinsic to our being as our relationship with the Lord. I applaud him for not giving a fluffy speech and I pray that the charitable way in which I read it was truly how he meant it.
I appreciate what you write, Emily. And I was wondering if you would offer some thoughts on the speech. It was actually dropped in my Bible Study message group and we discussed there too. I avoid social media like a horrific plague and don’t follow the “news” at all. So I thank you for taking the time to share your concern, thoughts, and expertise on this speech.
As a homemaker, homeschooling mom who did not end up with the career that I expected, I appreciated hearing Butker mention that being a homemaker/stay at home mom was hard work and not something to be dismissed.
I watched his speech (available on YouTube) and thought that he needed an editor who could articulate his thoughts in a more charitable manner. This being said his inflection and body language are not things we can read through a script. His love for his wife was quite evident when he talked about her; he had to pause during the speech to compose himself. He also mentioned that some of the controversial issues he talked about were things he (Harrison Butker) “loved”, “appreciated”, and “valued”. I didn’t feel the force behind it to require the graduating class to follow him in those same areas.
I will say I was surprised by his statement about “Catholic birth control”. I have only heard that in connection to the various NFP options that allow husbands and wives determine if they are able to have sexual intercourse during a woman’s cycle. I was a little miffed at the statement. My husband and I used NFP so that I can get help for my cycles and know when we can achieve a possible pregnancy. I also know NFP is not 100% accurate and we don’t use it to avoid getting pregnant, but rather determine if it’s a good time for us to have babies. I needed to avoid getting pregnant so I could donate blood for my mother’s-in-law kidney surgery (to remove kidney and kidney cancer). So that statement was disheartening to me.
I also appreciate the other women who are commenting. It’s good to see things from different viewpoints and converse about it in a gentler manner (at least I hope).
My 22-year-old daughter is part of the Catholic young adults/singles/dating world and what you’re saying is very true. The few young Catholic men who even seem interested in pursuing dating often throw lots of stipulations at potential dates: “…IF you attend/start attending the TLM” “…IF you agree you wouldn’t work after marriage” etc (sir, do you even have a job which could support a family?) I hadn’t paid a ton of attention to Harrison Butker’s commencement speech because most of the chatter I’ve seen about it was from non-Catholics using it as another reason to be hyperbolic about how awful and extremist Christians are. But I’m sorry to hear it contained some of these odd and awkward calling cards of the “manosphere” as you’ve been calling it. So discouraging.
I guess I’m not easily offended…. And I honestly don’t think Butker was trying to join the manosphere. I think he’s a football player, who is Catholic. He is successful in his career while being Catholic, so Benedictine asked him to do this. He’s not a speaker or theologian. I don’t know why people are so up in arms about a football player’s comments, but I do think a lot is being inferred.
I also don’t understand why there is so much outrage over his choice of words when he is not a public speaker. He probably should have had help developing his speech, but he probably had no idea it would go viral…. He probably thought he knew his audience, even if he wasn’t spot on.
But, I’m more of a “let it go” type.
I’m wondering if part of the uproar about his comments is specifically because of who the famous girlfriend of his famous teammate is. A certain fan base feels very possessive over the KC Chiefs.
Thank you so much for addressing this with your usual thoughtfulness, Emily. I first heard that the speech was controversial from a secular source and so thought it was because he was defending articles of the faith that our culture has rejected. But when I read the full text, I was troubled. He presented his personal preferences as the true substance of Catholicism, along with a lot of odd tangents thrown together. I mainly came away thinking that he sounds very young (not that I’m that much older, I’m 40) and lacking in a lot of wisdom and experience. I’ll pray for him and his family.
I welcome thoughts on the following.
I hear others echoing this language of trying to put thr most charitable spin on his speech. Is it really "charitable" not to hear the dog whistles in his speech? Honestly asking. Because to me it is not only naive but lacks prudence and is not a face value reading of the words he actually spoke.
It IS a demeaning of NFP, if we read his words in their plain meaning. It IS suspiciously anti Semitic. He is the one who talked about "diabolic lies" in the same sentence as his wife finding her true purpose as a primary wife and mother.
So, frankly I do not see why we should pretend he isn't saying what he saying. It feels...false to do so.
Thing is, if you're advocating for taking words at face value, you also shouldn't change them. Did he say NFP? Or did he say birth control? It's written (I've not listened to verify) he said birth control. So if one takes that phrase -- Catholic birth control -- at face value, one sees a contradiction, one which he rightly condemns. If he had said NFP, then we might argue whether he should be saying that or not, but until we know he MEANT 'NFP' while saying 'birth control', it is uncharitable to conclude so. Or so it seems to me.
I appreciate how hard you are working at encouraging a charitable interpretation of his words, Maria. (I mean that sincerely.)
However…he said “Catholic birth control” and we all know what that means. It doesn’t mean “Catholics using artificial contraception when they know better”. It is a euphemism, used both positively and negatively, for NFP. It is widely known. It is a huge stretch to say “he must’ve meant this other thing that is not really how this phrase is used.”
When he criticized “Catholic birth control,” it was a criticism of NFP.
Anyone has used NFP has feelings about it. Maybe mostly positive, maybe mostly negative, maybe a mix. But NFP is not contraception and it is disingenuous for critics to imply that it is the same, or used with the same mindset and intention. Even when used in an UNgenerous way, it is not the same thing.
This!!! Also, the actual quote is “there’s nothing natural about Catholic birth control”, I’m not sure that could be interpreted any other way. I’m also bothered because of the way this will be heard by non-Catholics. As if there is a “Catholic form of birth control” the Church felt it had to concede to a pro birth control society. As if the Church said “no, you can’t have birth control, but here’s the closest thing we could come up with. Don’t use it unless you’re going to die because we really didn’t want to let you have it, it’s not great, and if birth control hadn’t happened we would never have offered this”. Which isn’t the case at all.
I agree, there is no other way to interpret it.
Yes, that is my point. The only way to have a conversation is for words to have meaning. NFP is indeed NOT contraception and therefore it's useful to distinguish with two different words. Contraception would be a better choice than birth control, I definitely agree there. It's clear, at least.
Also, responding you what you wrote before you edited your comment…listen, A LOT of what he said was good and wholesome. I have actually defended his speech more than I’ve criticized it.
But on a few points he seemed to have strayed pretty far from where the Church actually stands, and guides us. I honestly think the comment about Congress passing a bill saying people can get thrown in jail for stating who killed Jesus was the worst of the lot because it was misleading, untrue, very much AGAINST Church teaching, and I’m not sure WHAT beliefs he’s aligning himself to if he holds that view.
Some of his comments about priests were troubling (or at the very least ignorant and short-sighted), and I think his point here about NFP was pretty clear, even if perhaps some, like you, don’t perceive it that way. But for me it’s the antisemitic remark that is really sticking out because there was no need to bring it up at all—if it wasn’t some kind of dog whistle.
I think you might be missing the reasons for the criticisms advanced by the "faithful Catholics" of whom you speak.
Emily wrote about the speech and unlocked her manosphere content for good reason. As a mother of adult daughters who have been telling me about this phenomenon amd how enticing some of the notions are for their young adult peers, I am both interested and
invested in the conversation.
Second: of COURSE we can ignore the ignorance of the folks who might think any use of NFP is suspect. But again, that is a
separate point from whether such ideas have been gaining traction and whether it might be useful to provide a primer about Church teaching, what it IS and what it isn't. Because lots of folks--including our young adult children---are susceptible to these misguided ways of thinking.
I edited a lot out of my comment and so apologies for thereby making your response look strange. I don't see value in my own [further] participation in this discussion because I see that I am not open-minded about this topic nor desire to be and a conversation is not fruitful, so I deleted most of what I'd said and will shut up now.
It's fine. I think it can help even lurkers to understand what is behind individual commenters' positions so I find value in posting for their benefit, even though you were clear you didn't want to pursue the matter. Thats why I explained one of my reasons for my read on his speech.
I think you misunderstood my point. The phrase “Catholic birth control” means NFP. That’s how that phrase is used. It is widespread and has been used for decades. I’m sorry if you hadn’t heard that before and it led to confusion but it doesn’t change the fact that most people know what it means. It doesn’t mean “Catholics illicitly using artificial contraception.”
Thank you for saying this. I wholeheartedly agree. I have both listened and read his words carefully. I have taken time in formulating my opinion. I can’t step back from the idea that he was lacking in humility.
I commented and deleted because I don’t feel I was clear enough. I agree with what you’re saying in the sense that I think it’s his responsibility to correct misinterpretations of his if they exist. He’s an adult, a very successful one, and seems to take his faith very seriously. I would think if he saw his own comments misinterpreted, and they were comments about the beliefs of the Church, that he would correct them. I’m not sure, however, that it’s naive or imprudent to consider the possibility of a charitable interpretation while still pointing out concerns. I think that’s just, well, charitable.
Sometimes I wish self-branded Catholic influencers had to receive a nihil obstat for their content. Not really - but kind of.
Is he such? Sounded to me like he wasn't really pursuing this speech, but agreed after being pursued himself.
I think she was referring more to the huge glut of Catholic influencers online, such as the Manosphere and Tradwives Emily has been writing about lately.
Aha, that would make sense.
Not a bad idea Kelly😂
After reading this essay, I decided to switch to a paid subscription. Thank you for speaking up on this issue. I don't see it as a fringe phenomenon anymore, and I don't think it ever was; I can speak from experience that these attitudes were present in the dating scene in the 2000s and 2010s.
I am a Catholic working mother who teaches rhetoric at a university. I feel sorry for Butker: he didn't graduate from a good Catholic liberal arts college. Had he done so, he might have benefited from learning from theologians, philosophers, and rhetoricians, especially if they were women!
Also, I thought his statements about priests were very offensive, too. Priests are human beings, and they SHOULD have puppies if that makes them happy and helps keep loneliness at bay.
Oh my goodness, yes. They are not automatons!!!!
Emily, I am a new subscriber and I am so happy to support you. You bring the best perspective on difficult topics and are so good at articulating the nuances of our Catholic faith. While so much is straightforward about Catholicism, a lot is actually not, and I love how you flesh it out. I am the one you describe as the Catholic women NOT online, I am on as little as possible. But I am glad to hear from you what is happening out there. I have to admit I was also the one you described as happy to hear homemaking and motherhood defended, but I guess that shows my age, growing up in the 90’s and being saturated in feminism, I have been naive to think the pendulum swinging the other way would be a good thing. I see how this can be headed to a dangerous place for my girls. I have four daughters, the oldest is 15, and wow I guess this brings a new level of worry for them. I’ve been fearing the hook up culture that I had to navigate, and now I see maybe it’s the wrong concern. Good grief! I, of course, give my girls over to our Lord and trust Him completely, but as a Mom I am grateful to learn that I now need to address with them this twisted extreme ideology possibly taking hold of the “good” Catholic boys they know. I am just shocked to hear how pervasive the manosphere is with young Catholic men. Anyways, I just wanted to say thanks for opening my eyes and also I am so, so sorry about Beautycounter.
Well said! I’m in a similar situation too.
I also am sad about BeautyCounter. I loved their items and am dumbfounded what to do next for my care.
Hi!!!! So great to see you here Annamarie!! I hope you are well!! (Nov-dec 2017 moms group!)
Small world! I was in that group too, but I’ve been off Facebook for years.
Awe!!! It’s good to see your name pop up too. I wondered but couldn’t tell for sure.
I am okay. Would love some prayers for our family. But we are well otherwise!
How are you!!!!???
Would love your prayers for our family and our theatre company 🙏💖
Absolutely. 🙏💙
You've got them!! We are well too -- not really online so much anymore which has been so good
I haven’t listened to the speech, though I’ve heard about it. And I’m not a “very online” Catholic woman. BUT- I got together with a very devout friend of mine the other day who told me she feels like a phony because she’s picked up some work outside the home out of necessity, and she doesn’t believe in women working. She’s distraught. She got this idea from these circles you’re talking about. I was so sad for her, knowing how conflicted she is interiorly and lost about the “right” things to do within her vocation. So basically I’m saying, I see the proof of this problem out here in the real world and it’s not good and I’m sad for people.
YES to your thoughts and reflections. There is sanity in all of this and you are finding it. I believe Butker's heart is moving in the right direction, he really loves and appreciates his wife and is trying to be a faithful Catholic. AND he lives in a "bit" of a bubble, his theology background is weak, and he may or may not have had much of a speech class. Looking forward to Manosphere 3.0
Thanks, Emily. If we didn’t have the internet to alert us to these different ‘ways of thinking’, I believe people would settle down into their little groups the way they like to live as Catholics and fringe or mainstream would…shake out that way.
As it is we have more ways to listen to others, who like to tell others, what to do.
Our lives begin when we become an adopted daughter of God and follow His will for living out our vocation according to our unique station in life.