I had never read before that "neo-Catholic" was used to refer to 19th-century Spanish Carlist reactionaries. That seems odd (what was "neo" about them?); I wonder if the first paragraph is correct. (Your second paragraph is great, though I wonder how long it will last as is.)
I was wondering the same thing about that first part. But thank you for your comment on our paragraph.
However, I suppose sloppy terminology is nothing new. I am reminded of a negative leftist review of Thomas Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" which referred to it as a "neocon version of U.S. history," when of course Dr. Woods, a pro-Confederate paleolibertarian who despises Bush, is about as far from being a neocon as it is possible to be. Apparently some leftists have taken to using "neocon" as an epithet for anything they don't like, with no understanding of of what it really means, just as this liberal Fr. Joe O'Leary has confused "NeoCaths" with aspects of traditionalism, inspiring the ridiculous "Proud NeoCath" graphic. Perhaps the same kind of confusion was at the root of this alleged 19th-century use of "neo-Catholic."
I know! I just can't believe how &*%$ing STUPID ppl can be! I read that same Fr. O'Leary article and about threw a temper tantrum. To call traditionalists "neo-Catholics" or real conservatives "neo-cons" COMPLETELY misses the distinction being made by the terms.
Of course, what's funny is that ppl who misuse these terms almost uniformly use them to show that they're hip and that they have their fingers on the pulse of the current religious and political climate. In fact, however, the improper use of these terms shows the exact opposite