I've seen this article, mocking those who have coined the term 'neo-Catholic' on several sites. The obvious reference of the Seattle G.K.Chesterton is Mark Shea. The point is to dismiss, and deride, those who have lashed out at the so-called neo-Catholics.
And who are these neo-Catholics? Depends. Like conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, radical - it's probably in the eye of the beholder. But the gist is that it points to those completely loyal to the Church, now. Wherever it goes and whatever it does. It's now 6:39 AM, 06/03/2014, and all is Awesome in the Church. How do we know it's awesome? Easy, everything proves it. And that which doesn't isn't important.
Fact is kiddies, the Church, like all of Christianity, is changing. Post-Christian secular progressive thought has kicked serious butt in recent generations. Many of the ideas by 19th century revolutionary thinkers has made its way into the bloodstream of the dying West. And that includes the bloodstream of Christianity.
And the Catholic Church is no different. In the eight years since I began my journey into the Church it has changed. Things that were off the table eight years ago are being kicked around. Things that were said as absolute a decade ago have moderated. Certainly there is what the Church is on paper, and what it is in the real world. And if the Paper Church is still as solid in the traditional Faith as it was 50 years ago, the Church in the Real World looks increasingly like it is being influenced by, and not influencing, these non-Christian ideas and forces.
So the loyal Catholic? What can he do? One of the foundational beliefs of Catholicism is that the Church cannot be wrong. Liberal Catholics don't appear to hold to this, at least in terms of the Church's moral teachings. If not its theological teachings. But Conservatives who cling to the belief that it is impossible for the Church to change the cores of its teachings, or ever be wrong, are faced with a dilemma in light of the obvious shifts going on.
And I think those trying to pound that square peg into the round hole of what is happening are who the term 'neo-Catholic' is applying to. How can they say what the Church taught about something like the Death Penalty 50 years ago was right (and not just stupid and barbaric), while accepting its reasons for changing now? How can it toy with the idea that maybe there is no Hell after all, and have any connection with the previous 2000 years? What does it mean when the Church says homosexuality is a disordered appetite but appears to have no real concern about its ramifications outside of the marriage covenant? Liberal Catholics can just say, like liberals in general, that the Church was wrong. All those silly old timers who just aren't as awesome as we are. But non-liberals who can't just dismiss so easily the Church's past as fraught with error? I think it's those who are trying to do so who the term applies to.
I could be wrong, but that's my guess. Again, it's a vague term probably saying more about the ones using it (people who fear the Church is changing and altering things that shouldn't be altered). But I'll bet I'm not too far off the mark.