Hyperbolic Traditionalists: Karl Keating

[Basilios]

From Karl Keating's blog on CA.

After Catholic Answers Live aired, on August 12, its second two-hour program devoted to "radical Traditionalism," a priest from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a religious society that celebrates Mass exclusively in the Extraordinary Form, wrote to us:

"Thank you for your fidelity in addressing this issue despite false accusations from some of 'attacking' traditional Catholicism. I thought your distinctions were clear between 'radical Traditionalists' and those in full communion with the Church."

This priest had no problem understanding the program, which, like a May 31 program on the same subject, featured Tim Staples and Patrick Coffin. He understood the distinction drawn between fringe groups of "radical Traditionalists" and the much larger body of regular Traditionalists.

The same can't be said for Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara. Matt is the editor of, and Ferrara is a writer for, The Remnant, a fortnightly newspaper that some consider to be the chief Traditionalist publication in the U.S. The day after the August 12 program aired, Matt and Ferrara uploaded to the Remnant-TV website a video castigating Catholic Answers.

"The Church is in the state of absolute chaos," said Ferrara, leaning into the camera, "and here they are wasting radio time." Wasting radio time? Ferrara didn't mention that out of 1,600 airtime hours broadcast by Catholic Answers Live since the show's debut, only these four hours have been devoted to the topic of radical Traditionalism: that's one quarter of one percent. Is that too much for an issue about which we get many questions?

We have devoted far more program hours to the New Age movement, but we get far fewer questions about New Age beliefs and practices than we do about radical Traditionalism. Where has Ferrara voiced concern that we are "wasting radio time" on the New Age movement--or on the many other topics that we've devoted more than four airtime hours to?

More problematic than Ferrara's arithmetic is his language: "The Church is in the state of absolute chaos." The word "chaos" is hyperbolic; the adjective "absolute" raise the hyperbole to its highest possible degree. The phrase "absolute chaos" suggests that the Church everywhere outside Ferrara's immediate sphere is as bad off as it possibly can be and is ready to expire.

That may be his view, and it may be Michael Matt's, but it is not the view held by the large majority of Catholics, whether Traditionalist or non-Traditionalist. Most Catholics acknowledge serious abuses within the Church but also acknowledge extensive good. Judging from their choice of words, Matt and Ferrara seem to see almost nothing good. How could they, if the Church is in "absolute chaos"? (If they do see much good in the Church, then why do they so cavalierly use loaded terms like "absolute chaos"?)

In the video Matt complained that the term "radical Traditionalism" shouldn't be used at all because it was coined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftwing organization that, despite its name, does nothing to alleviate poverty but delights in discovering "hate groups." (Matt's implication seemed to be that Catholic Answers is sympathetic to, or even in cahoots with, SPLC--else why mention SPLC at all?)

In 2006 SPLC produced a report on what it called the "Radical Traditionalist Catholic, Anti-Semitic Movement." A dozen organizations and many individuals were mentioned. Some truly qualified as anti-Semitic; most didn't. One of the organizations listed was The Remnant. Thus Matt's animus toward the term "radical Traditionalism." But the term didn't originate with SPLC. It was in use years before that group used it. A term doesn't lose its value just because a scurrilous organization uses it in the title of a report.

The fact is that there are radical Traditionalists, people who can be distinguished from run-of-the-mill Traditionalists by their beliefs, actions, and attitudes. The two Catholic Answers Live programs discussed such folks—among them, for example, sedevacantists, those who reject Vatican II, and those who say the vernacular Mass isn't really a Mass at all.

In their video Matt and Ferrara complained about an unnamed blogger who had been cited by Philip Lawler at his own blog. They said the unnamed blogger unfairly characterized Traditionalism. "We don't reject Vatican II!" said Matt. But then the blogger didn't claim that Matt and his associates did.

The blogger was Taylor Marshall, and his blog post appeared on July 30. He listed nine attributes that he thought distinguished radical Traditionalists from regular Traditionalists. I don't agree with everything on his list. He said, for example, that a sign of radical Traditionalism is "the denial of the charismatic gifts and the charismatic movement." I think this is incorrect. One can find Catholics all across the spectrum who deny not so much the existence of charismatic gifts but the utility or prudence of the charismatic movement.

But Marshall did identify things that commonly are found among radical Traditionalists: "the denial of the Jewish holocaust," "the outright denial of Vatican II as a valid council," "disdain for Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis," and "the belief that Latin Mass Catholics are 'A Team' and Novus Ordo Catholics are 'B Team.'"

Those attributes don't amount to a definition of radical Traditionalism, but they are useful indicators. The irony in all this was that Marshall was writing about Pope Francis putting a restriction on the celebration of the Latin Mass by the Franciscans of the Immaculate—a Traditionalist group of which Marshall is an associate member! In other words, Marshall is a Traditionalist himself.

Maybe this is why Matt and Ferrara didn't name Marshall, not wanting their viewers to look up his blog and see that they were claiming, loopily, that a Traditionalist was writing against his own position.

Michael Matt's imprecision in saying that (an unnamed) Taylor Marshall claimed that Traditionalists such as Matt "reject Vatican II" is indicative of the looseness with which he and Ferrara have been writing and speaking about the two Catholic Answers Live programs. (The Remnant ran no fewer than three front-page articles against the programs.) Matt and Ferrara shoehorn their opponents into taking positions that they don't in fact take and into saying things they don't in fact say.

In their video Matt insisted that "the whole Traditionalist position is being attacked by neo-Catholics," among whom he includes the staff of Catholic Answers. To him and to Ferrara, "neo-Catholics" either are oblivious to the multitudinous ills in the Church or are knowingly complicit in them. They go along to get along, don't want to upset bishops by complaining about the hierarchy in public, and are cowed into silence out of fear of losing episcopal patronage or protection. They lack the gumption displayed by those associated with The Remnant.

In fact, people labeled "neo-Catholics" are simply orthodox Catholics who don't share The Remnant's unrelenting (and often skewed and uncharitable) grousing about the Church and about Catholics who don't toe that publication's party line and who don't follow its stylebook. In the minds of The Remnant folks, you can't be a traditional Catholic unless you use their rhetoric, focus on their issues, and share their priorities.

Let me end with a small amusement.

In their video Matt and Ferrara complained about the neologism "radical Traditionalism," saying that it was misleading and unfair, that it painted with too broad a brush, that it lacked precision. Yet throughout their video they labeled their opponents with the even vaguer (and newer) "neo-Catholics," a term that Ferrara admits he first popularized in a 2002 book.

[james03]

Flashback from about 10 years ago when the neo-Catholics used to show up on angelqueen and get utterly destroyed in debate.  Since Keating considers the Remnant to be the flagship of Tradition, maybe he'll take up their offer to be interviewed by his radio service.  Yeah right.

I am disappointed by the FSSP priest.  He should stay out of this debate at best.

I hope everyone realizes that the neo Catholic establishment HATES Trads.  Just look at the Franciscans of the Immaculata.  These angry neo Catholics are seething with envy at our success.  As I've said, the liberal Catholics (heretics) are not a threat.  They are comedic relief.  The greatest threat to the Catholic Faith is the neo Catholic.

Most Catholics acknowledge serious abuses within the Church.....They (neo-Catholics) go along to get along, don't want to upset bishops by complaining about the hierarchy in public,

Man, total flashback.  We have "abuses".  And we have those evil bishops.  Nothing about the Pope doing outlandish things.  Pretty soon they'll be talking about how the Pope is a prisoner in the Vatican again.

[Lynne]

He's such an a**

[Gerard]

Boy, this is unfortunately an exhibition of Catholic stupidity in the comboxes. 

It's pretty scurrilous how they all turn into pusses about Bishop Williamson as a foil by which they can be distinguished. 

That just tells me they are all scared of being labeled "anti-semitic."  Keating will throw the Remnant under the bus with the SSPX as being "anti-semitic" but  the Remnant by proxy with the SSPX will throw Williamson under the bus. 

Pathetic.

update: The poster named Michael Contaldi has shown that he's a thinking and fair person.  He's defended Williamson and is at least honest in his posting on sedevacantism though I think he's wrong in his personal conclusions. 

I also think he's unaware of the Remnant's articles on that topic a few years ago when he suggests they write about it. I think it was called the "Opposeing the Sedevacantist Enterprise" or something like that.   

But they are all missing the point of the collaboration between neo-Ultramontanism and liberalism as the mechanism of destruction in the Church. 

Ferrara seems to be too timid at times in truly spelling it out or he still doesn't get it.  In one post he's appealing for collaboration with Keating in addressing the problems of the Church.  He doesn't get it, that Keating et al are already doing their collaboration with the liberal hierarchy.

In 1965 Karl Rahner would have looked and acted like someone closer to "traditional Catholics" than a representative of Catholic Answers would today.  So, why do people think the "conservatives' have more in common with traditionalists than liberals? 

[Gerard]

I hope people go back and actually read the bizarre set of comments between Keating, Ferrara, Matt and a few other people that were better left unheard from. 

Pete Vere and Kevin Tierney are chiming in and sounding as bizarre as ever. 

Vere is taking the opportunity to make the tangential pile on regarding Bishop Williamson even more disgusting.  Ferrara is of course agreeing with Vere in whatever absurdities Vere tosses out.  The interesting thing is that Vere is validating what Bishop Williamson has been saying all along, that Bishop Fellay has turned the SSPX
Of course Vere is stupid scum so he doesn't even see what he's doing.  Keep going Pete!  Then retire again.

Vere writes:

My concern though is not that we are dating ourselves by rekindling some of the old debates, but rather that by rekindling these old debates we are coming across as increasingly irrelevant to younger generations to traditionalist like Kevin Tierney. With the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, and the reconciliation of Fr. Aulagnier (who cofounded the SSPX with Archbishop Lefebvre and was its first ordinand) even the SSPX has softened its stance over the last decade."

But Ferrara has a habit of ingratiating himself to anyone who happens to side with him on a particular issue for a particular time and he has a habit of retconning the past to suit the present (and example of this is how lavishly he praises Mother Angelica for the condition of EWTN prior to her retirement when in reality the worst of EWTN with the charismatics is its earlier days.
Ferrara's other big failing is when he judges people's competence on things that he has no greater competence in and papers over his incompetence with attacks and insults of "absurdity" or whatever else he can come up with.  The fawning over Pope Benedict and the allowance of the lie that the excommunications were ever valid and then lifted instead of declared null is another.

Perhaps Tom Woods was right in some of his criticisms of Ferrara and dropping the whole lot as a poisonous bunch. 

Anyone who has been around English speaking Traditional circles for more than 10 years can see the same old hippy wannabe's finally having their "movement to manage" along with the dullards that think they can be intellectuals if they write excessively. 

It's like a greatest hits package of self-identified "trads" and "faithful, orthodox Catholics but really are various levels of liberal Catholics sounding like morons.

I am personally very glad I let my subscription to the Remnant run out and I have no interest in renewing it. 

[Habitual_Ritual]

I am personally very glad I let my subscription to the Remnant run out and I have no interest in renewing it. 

Christian Order Magazine is great.

http://www.christianorder.com/

[nmoerbeek]

Flashback from about 10 years ago when the neo-Catholics used to show up on angelqueen and get utterly destroyed in debate.  Since Keating considers the Remnant to be the flagship of Tradition, maybe he'll take up their offer to be interviewed by his radio service.  Yeah right.

I am disappointed by the FSSP priest.  He should stay out of this debate at best.

I don't take any quote seriously unless they put a name next to it. 

[tradne4163]

Flashback from about 10 years ago when the neo-Catholics used to show up on angelqueen and get utterly destroyed in debate.  Since Keating considers the Remnant to be the flagship of Tradition, maybe he'll take up their offer to be interviewed by his radio service.  Yeah right.

I am disappointed by the FSSP priest.  He should stay out of this debate at best.

I don't take any quote seriously unless they put a name next to it.

Given the "official" stance of the FSSP, it's credible and unsurprising.

Sent from my Kyocera Rise on Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Lynne]

Flashback from about 10 years ago when the neo-Catholics used to show up on angelqueen and get utterly destroyed in debate.  Since Keating considers the Remnant to be the flagship of Tradition, maybe he'll take up their offer to be interviewed by his radio service.  Yeah right.

I am disappointed by the FSSP priest.  He should stay out of this debate at best.

I don't take any quote seriously unless they put a name next to it.

That's what I thought too.

[zork]

Flashback from about 10 years ago when the neo-Catholics used to show up on angelqueen and get utterly destroyed in debate.  Since Keating considers the Remnant to be the flagship of Tradition, maybe he'll take up their offer to be interviewed by his radio service.  Yeah right.

I am disappointed by the FSSP priest.  He should stay out of this debate at best.

I don't take any quote seriously unless they put a name next to it.

Given the "official" stance of the FSSP, it's credible and unsurprising.

Sent from my Kyocera Rise on Tapatalk 4 Beta

This. It's why I still don't really trust the FSSP.

[Gerard]

I find this article and moreso the commentary so enlightening and revealing about the crisis in the Church in general. 

More of Ferrara's jackassery adding to the pile on against Williamson.

Ferrrara is a product of the 60's.  He views the whole crisis as an opportunity for nerds from the 60s to have their "movement" that leads to the "holy grail" of "regularization.  It's amazing how these guys expose themselves when their real emotional needs override the reality of the crisis. 

Williamson did a service for the Church and Ferrara sees only "damage to the movement" and "credibility of trade" as far as anti-Catholic heretics and pagans are concerned. 

#45  Christopher Ferrara - Richmond, Virginia
Peter, thanks for the text of this important letter. I was warning about Williamson for some five years before his nonsense finally exploded into the worldwide media.

That man may have single-handedly derailed the regularization of SSPX on which Pope Benedict was so intent. If the enemies of Tradition had planted a double agent in the Society, he could not have done a better job of sabotaging it.

But all in God's time.

September 2, 2013 at 9:53 pm PST

Followed by Keating's jackassery:

#65  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff
Michael Contaldi (post 28):

Yes, someone can be a Catholic while being an ignoramus in terms of history. Richard Williamson is a good example. I am glad he was expelled from the SSPX, but he should have been expelled many years earlier. In fact, he never should have been consecrated a bishop and never even should have been ordained a priest.

That Williamson was chosen for these roles by Marcel Lefebvre is an indication of what a poor judge of men the archbishop was.

September 3, 2013 at 10:52 am PST

Keating does a double shot by making Williamson an excuse to bash LeFebvre.  Of course applying those standards to JPII is beyond Keating's intelligence or more likely his character.

[GloriaPatri]

I find this article and moreso the commentary so enlightening and revealing about the crisis in the Church in general. 

More of Ferrara's jackassery adding to the pile on against Williamson.

Ferrrara is a product of the 60's.  He views the whole crisis as an opportunity for nerds from the 60s to have their "movement" that leads to the "holy grail" of "regularization.  It's amazing how these guys expose themselves when their real emotional needs override the reality of the crisis. 

Williamson did a service for the Church and Ferrara sees only "damage to the movement" and "credibility of trade" as far as anti-Catholic heretics and pagans are concerned. 

#45  Christopher Ferrara - Richmond, Virginia
Peter, thanks for the text of this important letter. I was warning about Williamson for some five years before his nonsense finally exploded into the worldwide media.

That man may have single-handedly derailed the regularization of SSPX on which Pope Benedict was so intent. If the enemies of Tradition had planted a double agent in the Society, he could not have done a better job of sabotaging it.

But all in God's time.

September 2, 2013 at 9:53 pm PST

Followed by Keating's jackassery:

#65  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff
Michael Contaldi (post 28):

Yes, someone can be a Catholic while being an ignoramus in terms of history. Richard Williamson is a good example. I am glad he was expelled from the SSPX, but he should have been expelled many years earlier. In fact, he never should have been consecrated a bishop and never even should have been ordained a priest.

That Williamson was chosen for these roles by Marcel Lefebvre is an indication of what a poor judge of men the archbishop was.

September 3, 2013 at 10:52 am PST

Keating does a double shot by making Williamson an excuse to bash LeFebvre.  Of course applying those standards to JPII is beyond Keating's intelligence or more likely his character.

I am no great fan of Keating, but to be fair the Holy Father doesn't have nearly as close a relationship with the bishop choosing process that +Lefebvre did. Not that this necessarily excuses the more awful bishops consecrated during JPII's reign as pope.

[Gerard]

Except for the fact that Keating is wrong on all counts.  Williamson is an excellent bishop and easily the best of the four chosen by LeFebvre and he's leagues above any other bishop that has a "regular canonical status". 

The problem is Keating and Ferrara are afraid ultimately of taking on the problems in the Church that deal with EENS and the relationship of the Church to the Jews and exactly how the crisis in the Church is directly related to the negative campaign against the Church fed by the post-WWII narratives concerning the particular persecution of Jews during WWII. 

Ferrara succinctly refuses to acknowledge the line of "blame" from the holocaust to Jules Isaac visiting the Popes to the second Vatican council and subsequently the elevation of said holocaust and the attacks on Pius XII and ultimately the Church herself. 

Williamson sees like other people, the insidious root of the attack.  The defensiveness against skeptics is simply a protection of the root.  Williamson has done nothing but be the only prominent Churchman to actually poke at a critical point of attack against the Church. 

Ferrara doesn't really care that much about "defending the 6 million" figure.  He's afraid of backlash and he's afraid to even question it because of that backlash.  It's easier to believe it and he sees no payoff in challenging it because he doesn't see the connection to the crisis in the Church. 

[FaithByProxy]

Given the "official" stance of the FSSP, it's credible and unsurprising.

Sent from my Kyocera Rise on Tapatalk 4 Beta

This. It's why I still don't really trust the FSSP.

The FSSP is doing God's work. I would be in a horrible place right now if I hadn't recently gained access to one of their chapels. My priest is more critical of the issues within the church than any of the SSPX priests I encountered ever were, no lie. Perhaps it's because he's an older priest, but God bless him for working so hard and so long to bring the traditional faith to so many Catholics, and for being totally unafraid to present the truth. I don't think it is wise or fair to condemn outright all priests of the FSSP, just as it wouldn't be wise or fair to condemn outright all SSPX priests.

[GloriaPatri]

Your problem, Gerard, is that you have already decided that +Williamson is the only faithful successor of the good Archbishop. You fail to consider the possibility that Williamson is wrong and that the Society and its Superior General is in the right, or if you do consider it you consider it in a shallow manner. And too often to I see the pro-Williamson side elevate +Williamson on a pedestal that no individual bishop should be raised upon. At times it comes off, imho, as a bit cultish, though I am sure that is not the intent. In summary, too many people put too great trust and faith in the bishop, to the point where they are uncritical of what he says.