Hyperbolic Traditionalists: Karl Keating

[Kaesekopf]

And yet another debate/discussion of trads turns to +Williamson, the Holocaust, and the six million.

That isn't the hill to die on.

[columba]

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.

I don't think this is true. The credentials of those bishops appointed were well known by all the conciliar popes. Precisely because of their theological leanings they were chosen; unlike those bishops ordained prior to the council who kept intact the same faith they received. well, they were excommunicated.

Even if it were the case that there was not such a close involvement by the pope in the post-Vat2 bishop chosing process then that's the choice of the reigning pope. If he had the good of the Church and the faithful at heart he would make sure he knew the calibre of the men he was ordaining before ordaining them. If by some accident one or two loose cannons slipped through undetected they would be removed immediately on showing their true colors -damage limitation so to speak, if of course the pope had the good of the Church and the faithful at heart. Currently, the only thing that can remove a bishop bar being too traditional or questioning the "holocaust" is some kind of sex scandal.  Heresy or apostasy -well, they're minor concerns, of no real importance.

As for all those professional lay Catholics earning their living from a watered-down gospel, they're having their reward. Karl Keating especially needs to decide whether he wants to serve God or mammon. Doesn't he know that he can't have both?

[Larry]

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 can never dislike Keating because his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism helped me to escape a flirtation I had with Protestantism in the eighties. Frankly, Keating's book was my first step to becoming a Traditionalist. For that, I'll always be grateful to him.

But you're correct, Gerard. He calls Archbishop Lefebvre a man of poor judgement for consecrating +Williamson, and yet gives Paul VI and JPII a free pass on the disastrous appointments to the episcopacy they made time and time again. If he wants to talk about poor judgement, how about JPII's support of Maciel Maciel and the Legionaries? The consequences of that alone has caused more damage than any mistakes that +Marcel Lefebvre may have made over the course of his entire life. And that's just one horrible decision compounded by countless other bad decisions that have affected the entire Church structure for the past forty five years.

I'd say that, on Judgement Day, +Lefebvre will have much less to answer for than the Popes of VII.

[Godfrey of Bouillon]

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

I'm almost positive the priest he is referencing is Fr. Gismondi, the head pastor of St. Anne's in San Diego. I go there and see KK from time to time. Fr. Gismondi is a good man. I have no doubt he has told KK things that seem to indicate to KK that they are "on his side", but I also know what these priests say to others (including myself) that are quite different than the "company line". The priests at St. Anne's have had to correct the CA staff privately on a number of occasions for erroneous positions.

Now, having said all this, these priests go to a Catholic school once a month to serve the students the TLM. This school does not have a chapel of their own, so they use the next door neighbor Lutheran church for these masses. It has scandalized a few parishioners of St. Anne's, and I myself thinks its scandalous. So, take that for what it's worth as to the mindset of these FSSP priests at this parish that KK attends. My bet is most FFSP priests would never do this, but who knows anymore these days....

[Larry]

I know when I went to a FSSP retreat years ago, Fr. Bisig and Fr. Emerson said that their apostolate was to continue the work of +Lefebvre within the structures of the Church. They were critical of the VII documents and said they had ambiguities that would have to be explained or clarified by a future Pope or Council. But then there are the more liberal members of the FSSP like Fr. Devillers, who seemed to just want to be able to say the Old Mass, but didn't have a problem with some of the new theology.  So it wouldn't surprise me if Keating knows an FSSP priest who agrees with CA on "rad trads".

[Gerard]

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.

The issue is consistency and principles.  +Williamson has been consistent in his approach in his explanations of his personal beliefs and his explication of the Catholic faith.  The rest of them have not been consistent. 

And ironically it is the "hyperbolic" reaction to what Williamson has said that betrays the lack of principles of the people slamming him. 

Bishop Williamson is not an "anti-semite" in any rational sense of the word.  Neither is Ferrara nor Keating.  The only difference is Williamson doesn't care about being labeled by people that will oppose him because he defends Christ from them.  Ferrara doesn't have the foresight or hindsight or the scope of vision to see the connection Williamson has made, nor is Ferrara particularly competent to judge Williamson on it because Ferrara's refutations are only cursory and serve as a citation to belittle and besmirch. 

Keating just spouts off opinions of a jackass. 

Pete Vere is consistent in his attacks on Bishop Williamson and he's taken the time to "come out of retirement" to take some extra shots in which Keating, Vere and Ferrara can all agree to show disdain for Williamson.

Williamson stated his views 25 years ago in an eavesdropped conversation, it was publicized and it was well known, I'm sure even Pope Benedict really knew about it.  Williamson was asked about it, he answered it. 

It's not a crime intellectually, morally, spiritually and in the Thomistic understanding of law, legally. 

It's always the reaction to Williamson that is irrational and hyperbolic, not what Williamson actually says or does. 

[tradne4163]

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.

Full disclosure: I'm not SSPX aligned, nor is Vakarian, as far as I know.
While the FSSP does do a good job of promoting pre-Vatican II devotions and whatnot, they more often than not condemn the SSPX. it's a bit of a cognitive dissonance there, considering that many of the rank and file share a lot of common ground with the Society. Then again, I'm a sedevacantist myself, so I don't really have a dog in the Ecclesia Dei vs. SSPX fight anymore.

[Lynne]

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.

Another 'gift' from Pope Paul VI to Pope JPII, papal nuncio, Abp Jean Jardot. He's the person we have to thank for many of the awful bishops in the US.

http://northlandcatholic.blogspot.com/2009/01/archbishop-jean-jadot-former-nuncio-to.html

[Lynne]

The problem is Keating and Ferrara are afraid ultimately of taking on the problems in the Church that deal with EENS...

Someone on Facebook mentioned that Karl Keating has a difficult time with EENS because he has some relatives who are Shintos. I don't know why someone thinks that just because they *deny* a teaching of the Church, said teaching won't apply to them... I know, it's a common folly but still, as the CEO of a large Catholic apologetic organization...  ???

[mikemac]

I don't like using this wrong term but being "anti-semitic" or not is not a dogma of the Church.  Just for questioning history a person should not be put outside of the Church.  Why is it so taboo to question it.  I think Bishop Williamson was treated unfairly, by everyone.  What was that line that St. Pope Pious X said?  You do not recognize Jesus Christ, so I will not recognize you, or something like that.

[Gerard]

Hah!  Keating is truly a sanctimonious ass. 

This one poster had a pretty decent run of pointing out Keating's hypocrisy and the pile on against Williamson. 

He pointed out that Scott Hahn and Tim Staples and others of the CA stripe are simply lackluster and substandard and shouldn't be hanging out a shingle telling Catholics about the Faith. 

So Keating in order to prevent the discussion from getting too close to the truth posts this classic.

109  Karl Keating - El Cajon, California - Catholic Answers Staff
Michael Contaldi (post 107):

You have worn out your welcome. Your user account is being closed.

Before you speculate whether certain converts have converted far enough to meet your requirements, you need to get your own intellectual house in order. Your comments about those men are rude and offensive, and your comments about Richard Williamson, anti-Semitism, and Jews (as in post 99) are offensive and obnoxious. You seem to be another one for whom it's "all Jews, all the time."

You are free to ply your wares elsewhere, but not here. We have no obligation to give space to people such as you.

September 4, 2013 at 11:28 am PST

The Catholic Answers all purpose answer when they don't really have an answer to defend themselves with. 

[Kaesekopf]

Someone should ask him if he writes "Rembert Weakland" or "Roger Mahony" or "(whatever) Trautman" when he refers to "Catholic" bishops, like he does Richard Williamson (sic).

[Gerard]

Someone should ask him if he writes "Rembert Weakland" or "Roger Mahony" or "(whatever) Trautman" when he refers to "Catholic" bishops, like he does Richard Williamson (sic).

I don't think you can actually get to the man's conscience by pointing out hypocrisy. 

If a man engages in unsavory behaviors over things of the faith.  I mean if he makes it his job, what does that say about the state of his level of "fear of the Lord"?   

For the life of me, I do not understand how a professing Catholic can employ evil methods (and I'm not talking about popping off in a bit of temper ) but rather conceal and promote religious errors and even when corrected, defend the religious errors. Added to that is the trashing of exceptional, good Catholics and using deceptive methods to mislead people about them. 

EWTN is the most guilty of the former even over Catholic Answers. 

Fr. Groeschel used to litter the airwaves with heretical statements and occasionally flat out heresies, but nothing, and when he slipped up and made truly imprudent comments about the homosexual/pedophilia/ephebophilia situation, he was off the air. 

He should have been off the air 20 year before that. 

It's an example of fear of man over fear of God.  If they can't be motivated by how they will stand before the judgement seat of God and make an accounting for their words and actions, how are we going to motivate them to become honest? 

[Kaesekopf]

Well, it's less getting to his conscience than to his followers' consciences.  Perhaps they could then see the hypocrisy behind his actions and start to question.

Edit: Hey, cool, 3300!

[Gerard]

Well, it's less getting to his conscience than to his followers' consciences.  Perhaps they could then see the hypocrisy behind his actions and start to question.

Very true.  I forgot about that aspect.