Backlash: comparing opposition to Francis and Disney's Star Wars (part III)
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
In this final post I will explain how both the anti-Disney Star Wars backlash movement and the anti-Francis backlash movement use an older, still-living authority figure as their rhetorical anchor against the new usurper, and spread their propaganda primarily through social media.
Appeal to the old leader
To undermine present leadership, the backlashers idolize the previous leadership. His untouchable authority and sanctity is a rallying cry, and he is set up in direct opposition to the new. From their POV, these "true believers" know that the old leader remains the only "true" authority.
For Star Wars, the old authority is the creator of Star Wars, George Lucas. The stories he created are the gold standard against which all future instances of Star Wars must be strictly judged. The themes and conventions he instilled are untouchable and timeless; they can brook no contradiction or alteration. When Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, he brought the "true" Star Wars to an end. We saw in my previous post how a prominent internet traditionalist coined the term "Jedivacantist" to describe how he applies his traditionalist principles to Star Wars. The appeal to Lucas was bolstered when Lucas himself compared the sale of his company to selling his own children to "white slavers." He quickly apologized, but the damage was done. He is, willingly or not, a figurehead for the anti-Disney camp.
For the Catholic Church, the old authority is Benedict XVI. His choice to resign the papacy in 2013 (just a few months after Lucas sold Star Wars) allows them to proclaim "Benedict is my pope," as far-right Italian politician Matteo Salvini recently said. Any change in emphasis, tone, or tactics from Francis is refuted by appealing to Benedict, even if vaguely or inaccurately. A few take this to the extreme of claiming that Benedict is still the real pope, that his resignation was invalid. Such conspiracy theories are so prevalant that (guess who!) Cardinal Burke gave them credence on a right-wing podcast (source). No doubt recognizing how dangerous this is, Burke later took it back in an interview with Ross Douthat.
As with Lucas's"white slaver" remarks, some writings by Benedict XVI have boosted the false narrative that pits him against Francis. Last year he published a missive blaming the sex abuse crisis on the sexual revolution. Many interpreted this as undercutting Francis's blame of clericalism, although there is no reason to think that was Benedict's intention.
Much more problematic has been the publication of Cardinal Robert Sarah's book in which he "begs" Pope Francis not to allow any exceptions whatsover to the law of priestly celibacy. When first announced, Benedict XVI was listed as co-author, which gave the appearance that he, too, was asking Francis not to make any changes. This would have been an astonishing breach, given that Benedict promised to hide himself and obey his successor at the time of Francis's accession. The furor this created immediately prompted Benedict's secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, to clarify that Benedict only wrote the essay attributed to him in the volume, and never saw, let alone co-authored, the introduction begging the pope. As a result, Cardinal Sarah will be listed as the sole author of the volume, with a contribution from Benedict. Unfortunately, the English-language version by Ignatius Press (part of the anti-Francis resistance) will still list him as co-author. Although Benedict appears inculpable, the narrative that he is against Pope Francis has now been cemented. Indeed, conservatives like George Weigel are digging in. Given that the Church has had schisms between different popes before, this putative polarity between Francis and Benedict XVI is harmful to the Church's unity at the foundational level. We have just learned today that Archbishop Gänswein has been relieved of his responsibilities as Prefect of the Papal Household as a result of this disaster.
But this is all a rhetorical ploy. There is little daylight between the current pope and the previous one. In truth, there is continuity. The College of Cardinals chose Francis, and those cardinals were all appointed by JP II and Benedict himself. Benedict frequently called for the protection of migrants and refugees, the protection of the environment, and the abolition of the death penalty. Francis's changing of the Church's teaching on the death penalty was the culmination of what JP II and Benedict had already taught (see my post). Because Benedict was seen as an ally to conservatives, they rarely denounced his words, though sometimes they did. On the issue of priestly celibacy, Benedict was clear:
It is similar with Star Wars: Kathleen Kennedy was Lucas's hand-picked successor. The most hated idea of TLJ, that Luke had gone into hiding on an island due to his failure, came from George Lucas himself (source). Furthermore, those with longer memories will recall that, long before Kennedy was the scapegoat, Lucas himself took even more criticism than she has for the prequels and the changes he made to the original trilogy in re-releases. So the idea that one could pit a pristine Lucas Star Wars against the corrupted Disney Star Wars cannot be taken far.
Social media
My final point is one of great significance: all these modern backlash movements are born and bred on social media and could not exist without it. They use blogs, podcasts, Twitter hashtags, and YouTube channels to produce a steady stream of content attacking the newer institutions. The tiniest bit of news, no matter how trivial or innocuous, is twisted through the social-media propaganda machine to advance the grand narrative. Social-media content defending or praising the new is overwhelmed by a huge mass of negativity. Critics create a social-media bubble that inundates any who fall into it with an endless stream of misinformation and misinterpretation.
Because the negative content is so voluminous, and amplified by sharing and re-tweeting, the critics claim that "everybody" agrees with them. Their inaccurate narrative is treated almost as the default. "Everybody hated TLJ." "Everybody thinks Pope Francis is creating confusion." "All young Catholics prefer the Latin Mass." This is a big, bold lie. In the real world, support for both the new Star Wars movies and for Pope Francis remain high. The Last Jedi made $1.3 billion and was given a positive review by 91% of movie critics. Francis's approval rating among Catholics is around 70%. Admittedly, it used to be around 80%, but the timing of the most recent poll (late 2018) suggests that the primary reason for the drop was disappointment with his handling of sexual abuse, rather than his supposed liberalizing or "confusion." The anti-Francis contingent tries to leverage this legitimate discontent into their narrative, weaponizing the abuse crisis (this is Viganò’s game).
Social media is one of the most fundamental "signs of the times." It has allowed all manner of fringe, extremist ideas, formerly confined to strange newsletters and webpages, to go mainstream. The idea that the pope is not really the pope (sedevacantism) has been a fringe belief in Catholicism since Vatican II. But it had no influence within the Church. Now, thanks to social media, conspiracy theories are held, or at least seriously entertained, by many Catholics, including bishops and cardinals. The "Overton window" has been moved by extremist voices on social media.
This is the nature of the cultural divide we face. It is not confined to politics or even religion. And now, not even our popular entertainment is safe. TV and movie franchises have become proxy battlegrounds for the culture war, giving rise to "toxic fandom." J. J. Abrams, the director of two of the three Star Wars sequels, has acknowledged this:
Catholics shouldn't be using tactics and strategies from the culture war to assess and rebut the pope—any pope.
In this final post I will explain how both the anti-Disney Star Wars backlash movement and the anti-Francis backlash movement use an older, still-living authority figure as their rhetorical anchor against the new usurper, and spread their propaganda primarily through social media.
Appeal to the old leader
To undermine present leadership, the backlashers idolize the previous leadership. His untouchable authority and sanctity is a rallying cry, and he is set up in direct opposition to the new. From their POV, these "true believers" know that the old leader remains the only "true" authority.
For Star Wars, the old authority is the creator of Star Wars, George Lucas. The stories he created are the gold standard against which all future instances of Star Wars must be strictly judged. The themes and conventions he instilled are untouchable and timeless; they can brook no contradiction or alteration. When Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, he brought the "true" Star Wars to an end. We saw in my previous post how a prominent internet traditionalist coined the term "Jedivacantist" to describe how he applies his traditionalist principles to Star Wars. The appeal to Lucas was bolstered when Lucas himself compared the sale of his company to selling his own children to "white slavers." He quickly apologized, but the damage was done. He is, willingly or not, a figurehead for the anti-Disney camp.
For the Catholic Church, the old authority is Benedict XVI. His choice to resign the papacy in 2013 (just a few months after Lucas sold Star Wars) allows them to proclaim "Benedict is my pope," as far-right Italian politician Matteo Salvini recently said. Any change in emphasis, tone, or tactics from Francis is refuted by appealing to Benedict, even if vaguely or inaccurately. A few take this to the extreme of claiming that Benedict is still the real pope, that his resignation was invalid. Such conspiracy theories are so prevalant that (guess who!) Cardinal Burke gave them credence on a right-wing podcast (source). No doubt recognizing how dangerous this is, Burke later took it back in an interview with Ross Douthat.
As with Lucas's"white slaver" remarks, some writings by Benedict XVI have boosted the false narrative that pits him against Francis. Last year he published a missive blaming the sex abuse crisis on the sexual revolution. Many interpreted this as undercutting Francis's blame of clericalism, although there is no reason to think that was Benedict's intention.
Much more problematic has been the publication of Cardinal Robert Sarah's book in which he "begs" Pope Francis not to allow any exceptions whatsover to the law of priestly celibacy. When first announced, Benedict XVI was listed as co-author, which gave the appearance that he, too, was asking Francis not to make any changes. This would have been an astonishing breach, given that Benedict promised to hide himself and obey his successor at the time of Francis's accession. The furor this created immediately prompted Benedict's secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, to clarify that Benedict only wrote the essay attributed to him in the volume, and never saw, let alone co-authored, the introduction begging the pope. As a result, Cardinal Sarah will be listed as the sole author of the volume, with a contribution from Benedict. Unfortunately, the English-language version by Ignatius Press (part of the anti-Francis resistance) will still list him as co-author. Although Benedict appears inculpable, the narrative that he is against Pope Francis has now been cemented. Indeed, conservatives like George Weigel are digging in. Given that the Church has had schisms between different popes before, this putative polarity between Francis and Benedict XVI is harmful to the Church's unity at the foundational level. We have just learned today that Archbishop Gänswein has been relieved of his responsibilities as Prefect of the Papal Household as a result of this disaster.
But this is all a rhetorical ploy. There is little daylight between the current pope and the previous one. In truth, there is continuity. The College of Cardinals chose Francis, and those cardinals were all appointed by JP II and Benedict himself. Benedict frequently called for the protection of migrants and refugees, the protection of the environment, and the abolition of the death penalty. Francis's changing of the Church's teaching on the death penalty was the culmination of what JP II and Benedict had already taught (see my post). Because Benedict was seen as an ally to conservatives, they rarely denounced his words, though sometimes they did. On the issue of priestly celibacy, Benedict was clear:
It is not a dogma. It is a form of life that has grown up in the Church. . . One ought not to declare that any custom of the Church’s life, no matter how deeply anchored and well founded, is wholly absolute. (Source)Indeed, he himself granted exceptions to it when he allowed married Anglican priests who convert to be ordained as Catholic priests.
It is similar with Star Wars: Kathleen Kennedy was Lucas's hand-picked successor. The most hated idea of TLJ, that Luke had gone into hiding on an island due to his failure, came from George Lucas himself (source). Furthermore, those with longer memories will recall that, long before Kennedy was the scapegoat, Lucas himself took even more criticism than she has for the prequels and the changes he made to the original trilogy in re-releases. So the idea that one could pit a pristine Lucas Star Wars against the corrupted Disney Star Wars cannot be taken far.
Social media
My final point is one of great significance: all these modern backlash movements are born and bred on social media and could not exist without it. They use blogs, podcasts, Twitter hashtags, and YouTube channels to produce a steady stream of content attacking the newer institutions. The tiniest bit of news, no matter how trivial or innocuous, is twisted through the social-media propaganda machine to advance the grand narrative. Social-media content defending or praising the new is overwhelmed by a huge mass of negativity. Critics create a social-media bubble that inundates any who fall into it with an endless stream of misinformation and misinterpretation.
Because the negative content is so voluminous, and amplified by sharing and re-tweeting, the critics claim that "everybody" agrees with them. Their inaccurate narrative is treated almost as the default. "Everybody hated TLJ." "Everybody thinks Pope Francis is creating confusion." "All young Catholics prefer the Latin Mass." This is a big, bold lie. In the real world, support for both the new Star Wars movies and for Pope Francis remain high. The Last Jedi made $1.3 billion and was given a positive review by 91% of movie critics. Francis's approval rating among Catholics is around 70%. Admittedly, it used to be around 80%, but the timing of the most recent poll (late 2018) suggests that the primary reason for the drop was disappointment with his handling of sexual abuse, rather than his supposed liberalizing or "confusion." The anti-Francis contingent tries to leverage this legitimate discontent into their narrative, weaponizing the abuse crisis (this is Viganò’s game).
Social media is one of the most fundamental "signs of the times." It has allowed all manner of fringe, extremist ideas, formerly confined to strange newsletters and webpages, to go mainstream. The idea that the pope is not really the pope (sedevacantism) has been a fringe belief in Catholicism since Vatican II. But it had no influence within the Church. Now, thanks to social media, conspiracy theories are held, or at least seriously entertained, by many Catholics, including bishops and cardinals. The "Overton window" has been moved by extremist voices on social media.
This is the nature of the cultural divide we face. It is not confined to politics or even religion. And now, not even our popular entertainment is safe. TV and movie franchises have become proxy battlegrounds for the culture war, giving rise to "toxic fandom." J. J. Abrams, the director of two of the three Star Wars sequels, has acknowledged this:
We live in a moment where everything seems to immediately default to outrage, and there’s a kind of M.O. of it’s either exactly as I see it or you’re my enemy. (Source)Conclusion
Catholics shouldn't be using tactics and strategies from the culture war to assess and rebut the pope—any pope.
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful. (Lumen Gentium 23)The Church needs to be a place where people of different ideologies, views, and beliefs can come together as one body in one Spirit, professing one faith and sharing one loaf and one cup (1 Cor 10:17). The papacy cannot be just another battleground of the endless culture war! We often watch the pope to see "whose side he is on." What we should be doing as Catholics is trying to be on his side because he is the Supreme Pastor.
Comments