It has been called the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. More recently, Philip Jenkins has called it the last acceptable prejudice. The references are to anti-Catholicism. Sad to say, my alma mater, Princeton University, appears to have confirmed that anti-Catholic bigotry is, indeed, acceptable in some quarters.

This spring, Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs sponsored an exhibit called Ricanstructions by Juan Sanchez. One of his works, titled Shackles of the AIDS Virus, features Catholic devotional objects, including images of the Virgin Mary. Another, Crucifixion No. 2, arranges naked female torsos in the shape of a cross.

Catholic students, but not only Catholic students objected to the display, and the sponsorship. Princeton professor of politics Robert P. George said that the implicit message of the display was, "Like the ancient canard about Jews using the blood of Gentile children in the Passover meal, it is an outrageous allegation that people of the slandered faith, acting on the principles of the faith, are responsible for killing people." This was active sponsorship. Princeton cannot claim that it was merely tolerating Sanchez’s free speech as if this was a campus bulletin board where people post whatever they want.

In response to the controversy, Wilson school dean Anne-Marie Slaughter issued a statement, “This is an exhibition that has previously been displayed without controversy in a number of highly respected museums, by an artist who has received considerable critical acclaim.” So much the worse for the museums and the critics, one might think. Slaughter made the familiar argument that art should challenge and provoke us although her expression of regret that the display had caused pain to Catholic students seems somewhat contradictory.

But Slaughter also conceded, in meeting with offended students, that the Wilson school would probably not have sponsored a display that used Muslim religious symbols in a manner similar to the way Sanchez had used Catholic ones. Charles Colson, commenting on the display, conjured the possibility of a Shackles of Terrorism complete with crescents. No doubt such a display would have been written up, and condemned, a lot more widely than an anti-Catholic exhibit. It is, needless to say, inconceivable that Princeton would sponsor artwork that pointedly blamed homosexual promiscuity for the spread of AIDS.

Why the special animus of cultural elites, including academic elites, toward Catholicism? Not that long ago, all branches of Christianity saw eye to eye on questions of sexual morality and the sanctity of life. Even today, Catholics are hardly alone in condemning nonmarital sex, including same-sex sexual activity, and abortion. I suspect that several factors are involved.

First, the Catholic church is the largest organized holdout from what liberals regard as progress. Second, the bigotry toward Catholics may in Part reflect a deeper bigotry toward conservative Protestants, who are seen as not worth engaging.

Princeton's honor code stipulates that students and faculty alike can be punished for denigrating other people’s religions. But one need not consult that policy to see that Princeton has brought dishonor on itself by its official bigotry.

Click for a Printer Friendly Version