Rhetoric, Manipulation, and Ferrawood's
Editor's note: About three years ago, The Wanderer published a monograph by Stephen Hand titled, Traditionalists, Tradition, and Private Judgment — which addressed a radical statement by self-anointed Catholic traditionalists titled "We Resist You to the Face" in which its authors "declare themselves in a state, of resistance relative to the teachings of Vatican Council II, Popes John XXXIII and Paul VI and to your teachings [of John Paul II] that are objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary Papal Magisterium."
Now, spokesmen for this same claque have published a book titled The Great Facade which attacks a wide range of faithful Catholic authors, scholars, and commentators for their complicity in defending the "conciliar Church" and the "conciliar Popes." Coining a new term of opprobrium for such people, the faux traditionalists have, come up with the term "neo-Catholic" which seems intended to put Catholics so named into the moral equivalency of "quislings" — those who cowardly collaborated with the Nazi regime which then occupied much of Europe. And of course, what does it say of the Church and the Papacy which these "neo-Catholics" faithfully serve?
The book no doubt has a certain appeal to those Catholics, mainly younger ones, who have little education in the Catholic faith or Church history and who are troubled by the widespread confusion and chaos in Catholic teaching and practice as the surrounding culture seems headed for the abyss. Yet shooting holes in the hull of the Barque of Peter and attacking its helmsman, as The Great Facade seems to do, appears to be a strange approach to addressing real problems.
A young theologian, Omar Gutierrez, has written a brilliant and devastating critique of The Great Facade which begins in this issue and which will end five issues hence. We highly recommend this series for any Catholic who is troubled by the present crisis in the Church or who must contend with the confusion and misunderstanding, exhibited by the self-styled traditionalists among family or friends. — Alphonse J. Matt Jr., Editor, The Wanderer
Part I
"Catholics have nothing to fear from ideas." I was handed The Great Façade1 by self-described traditionalist friends of mine some time ago with these, words. They wished that I should attempt to answer the traditionalist argument found within its pages. This book was, for them, one of the finer arguments for the traditionalist position to date. As far as they were concerned, Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods Jr. had finally presented the traditionalist argument in clear and concise terminology. I was only too willing to take up the challenge.
Now, for those who are wont to judge a book — at least in part — by the comments on the back cover, one finds in this case reflections that resemble those my friends expressed to me, only more forceful. Specifically one finds the notion that as Catholics are now compelled to look outside of the Vatican to find Catholic Tradition, they need a book that will show them the truth of Vatican II's "regime of novelty." This book by Ferrara and Woods "refutes, with devastating logic and precision, all the common neo-Catholic objections to the traditionalist position, while confounding all the usual neo-Catholic excuses," for the Vatican's "ruinous mistakes." This book answers the desire of "millions of so-called 'traditional' Catholics" who "are abandoning the feeble neo-Catholicism that has arisen over the past forty years and seeking to return to the virile Catholicism of the perennial Church." The authors "cut through the confusion and the double talk and get to the heart of the matter." No doubt, the reader should expect a formidable argument.
David Allen White, writing for The Latin Mass magazine2, reviews The Great Façade, saying that it "will stand as an essential work when this shameful forty-year calamity that has devastated Holy Mother Church will be studied in the future." He goes on to say that "[i]n analyzing the debacle in the Church and the mindset of its defenders, the authors have performed an invaluable service. They have clearly and rationally laid out the issues that must be examined and addressed before any genuine renewal can take place . . ." The book is marked by "clarity, reason, logic." According to White, the authors are "clear-headed and non-acrimonious" in their analysis, and this "stands in stark contrast to the contortions of thought and nasty label-slinging to which formerly intelligent Catholics have had to resort in attempt after attempt to defend the indefensible." White is so confident that this volume is logically sound that he doubts it is even possible to demonstrate that The Great Façade has any errors: "If the clearly stated argument of this superb book has holes in it, then let the opposition locate and address them. I do not believe they can do so. I believe the analysis in this book is airtight and comprehensive."
Verbal Sorcery
Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered this book to be so lacking in intellectual soundness and honesty that I was wholly compelled to write against it. In light of the overwhelming praise that it is given by the traditionalist gallery, I believe this book can only do more harm than good. The Ferrawood argument, as I have come to call it, is not clear or logical. It is manipulative and rhetorical. Such an argument cannot possibly shed a kind light on the traditionalist movement.
I do not deny that there is a crisis, and I believe traditionalists are too often dismissed without being given much thought. Nor do I wish to quell what I see as very useful and helpful voices coming out of some corners of the traditionalist movement. However, this book is an example of a work that can only do damage to this movement, for this book is filled with a verbal sorcery that is dazzling but equally deceptive. Perhaps the most egregious example of this sorcery is the invention, definition, and constant use of the term "neo-Catholic."
Now, rhetoric is to be expected in debate. Though it bears a less than noble reputation, rhetoric is valuable. Rhetorical styles and flares are what make argumentation as pleasurable as it can be. I have to admit that the Ferrawood style is impressive and — if I agreed with it — very entertaining. However, rhetoric is not reasoned argument. It is not a series of propositions and facts strung together to demonstrate the reasonable truth of something. Rhetoric is not logic, much less "devastating logic." Rhetoric is meant to entertain, to enhance, to emphasize, to persuade. It is dishonest to attempt to pass off rhetoric as though it were itself argument. The Latin Mass magazine's White, an English teacher at Annapolis, ought to be able to tell the difference. He ought also to know the danger of the Ferrawood style of rhetorical argumentation.
Though a valuable tool, rhetoric is not good in and of itself. Its objective value is dependent upon the individual using it. If the rhetoric engaged in does not correspond to the truth it can be used to lead unwary listeners down a path of error. St. Augustine writes that, "There are also certain rules for a more copious kind of argument, which is called eloquence, and these rules are not the less true that they can be used for persuading men of what is false; but as they can be used to enforce the truth as well, it is not the faculty itself that is to be blamed, but the perversity of those who put it to a bad use."3
Rhetoric is not bound to the truth. It is bound to the speaker, and thus it is the speaker who must be pure. The truth must be the light by which he functions, and it is the truth that is too often lost within the Ferrawood argument. The authors' insistence on the use of the term "neo-Catholic" is rhetoric; but they claim the use of the term is a necessary part of their argument. Rather, the term is the prime example of deceptive and manipulative rhetoric.
Page 12 in The Great Façade begins by stating that the definition of terms is absolutely necessary for fruitful debate. So far this seems a reasonable approach. However, the terms in chapter one that appear key and pivotal for the Ferrawood argument are not central to the argument, nor do they draw out the "exact nature of the controversy" between conservatives and traditionalists. The terms most important to the authors are "traditionalist" and "neo-Catholic," or more precisely "neo-Catholic" in place of "conservative." Meanwhile, the authors completely ignore terms like "tradition," "novelty," "Magisterium," "authority," "doctrine," "dogma," etc. These are all terms with specific theological meanings, and all terms which have been lost on the authors.
When reading The Great Façade, one finds either a complete lack of definition or a complete misunderstanding of basic theological distinctions. Of course it is also telling that the central terms for the Ferrawood argument are labels not ecclesiastical terms. Labels, even if accurately defined, are imposed on persons, and the authors do not give us any reason to believe that they are qualified to label anyone accurately. The fact that none of the truly central terms in the debate are defined can only lead one to assume, from the very start of the book, that the Ferrawood argument can bear absolutely no fruit for this debate.
On page 5 the authors make clear that those who would refer to themselves as "conservatives" are not worthy — at least in action — of such an honorable title.4 If Ferrara and Woods believe that what the conservatives are conserving is not worth their effort, or deny that they conserve anything at all, then that should be the argument. The authors' project is no doubt to demonstrate this. However, we are no further into the book than the first six pages before the authors presume their case already won and insist that conservatives be referred to as neo-Catholics. This term assumes the authors' argument as presented and successfully defended from any error. It would have been more in line with honest debate had the authors allowed myself and every reader to come to our own conclusions about the newness of the conservative faith after the authors have presented us with the arguments. But from the beginning we are given a language which the authors have invented and by which the rest of the "debate" is supposed to proceed.
What the authors are doing by insisting on this term is stating from the start that, "In order for this debate to bear fruit the first and most important rule is that we, the authors, are right. In order that the casual reader will be clear on this matter it has been decided that the terminology necessary to this debate presumes our thesis to be correct." Through the use of this term there is a constant level of deception that permeates the entire book. The authors' claim that using "conservative" would confuse the "casual reader" approaches a disingenuousness that is only too characteristic of the entire Ferrawood argument. Not surprisingly, as one becomes familiar with the "neo-Catholic thing" one begins to realize the illusion of the whole "neo-Catholic idea." In the end the neo-Catholic is just a man of straw, a prime example of an invention created to guarantee rhetorical victory.
Let us look at the definition of "neo-Catholic." Remember please that for the authors this is one of the central terms of the debate and the proper understanding of this term is the prerequisite to any fruitful outcome for the debate between traditionalists and conservatives. We read on page 15:
What, then, do we mean by the term "neo-Catholic"? Before answering, we must first anticipate the banal objection that we are "generalizing" about neo-Catholics and neo- Catholicism. Of course we are. The focus of this book is the idea of neo-Catholicism as a system of novel practices and attitudes that first emerged in the Church during the 1960s. While the neo-Catholic idea can be illustrated with the objective statements and actions of particular individuals who are part of this new constituency of the Church . . . it is not for us to make any judgment about the Catholic fidelity and personal piety of these "people — even though . . . the leading lights of neo-Catholicism are all too ready to denounce their traditionalist brethren as "schismatics" and cast them into outer darkness, without benefit of any canonical declaration by competent Church authorities.
On page 19 the authors write, "A neo-Catholic, then, is someone who more or less lives according to the neo-Catholic idea." And what is the "neo-Catholic idea"? The authors tell us that the "focus of this book is the idea of neo-Catholicism." This "neo-Catholic idea can be illustrated with the objective statements and actions of particular individuals who are part of this new constituency of the Church."
This is what we are given thus far: to have a fruitful debate the authors must define "neo-Catholic"; a neo-Catholic is one who adheres to the neo-Catholic idea; the neo-Catholic idea is demonstrated through the actions, attitudes, and statements of neo-Catholics. Therefore, a neo-Catholic is one who adheres to the neo-Catholic idea, which is discernible in the action of a neo-Catholic. Right?
Wrong. This is a tautology, it is a circular argument, or definition in this case. The Ferrawood argument begins by stating that in order to understand A (neo-Catholic) we must know B (the neo-Catholic idea), and in order to know B we look to A. The authors claim they are focusing on the "idea of neo-Catholicism" but their definition of this idea is based on the actions of those they have already determined to be neo-Catholic. They simply point to the actions of those they label as neo-Catholic and say, "Ah ha, a neo-Catholic!" But what is the neo-Catholic idea? How is it to be understood? The authors go to great lengths in the book to tell us what a neo-Catholic does, but they never define what the "idea of neo-Catholicism" is apart from the actions of those they've already labeled.
We read on page 16, "So, based on the objective words and deeds of some of the more prominent neo-Catholics, we can safely generalize about the neo-Catholic idea." Oh really! The tautological nature of this sentence and thus the Ferrawood argument shines through clearly. One must ask the authors how they can be sure that the "objective words and deeds" they witness are those of neo-Catholics if they do not already have a means by which they can objectively determine who is a neo-Catholic and who is not? They might answer with the following "definition" of the neo-Catholic idea:
Particular applications aside, it is the idea that with the advent of the Second Vatican Council a new sort of orthodoxy suddenly arose in the Church, an orthodoxy stripped of any link to the ecclesiastical traditions once considered an untouchable sacred trust. It is the idea that by virtue of Vatican II the Church has, in some manner never clearly explained, progressed beyond what she was before the Council to a new mode of existence, and that this progression requires an assent on the part of the faithful that is somehow different from the assent required to the constant teaching of all the previous councils and Popes.
The fact that "orthodoxy," "ecclesiastical traditions," and "assent" are never defined aside, this is the idea of neo-Catholicism, and the authors demonstrate the legitimizing proof for their definition by pointing to the words and deeds of leading neo-Catholics. But it is only natural that the words and deeds of those the authors tell us are neo-Catholics would fit this definition of the idea, because this definition was manufactured from the words and deeds of those the authors had already determined were neo-Catholic. This is a circular definition. This is a term manufactured to guarantee rhetorical victory. On top of this, if one were to actually know some of the neo-Catholics the authors label one cannot really match the above idea to them. I know some of those the authors label as neo-Catholic and they do not cling to or foster the above idea.
On page 17 we read the following explanation about this neo-Catholic idea, "What this means is that the neo-Catholic idea is nothing less than a form of progressive or liberal Catholicism — whether a given neo-Catholic knows it or not, is, subjectively speaking, a liberal by intention." Apparently anyone labeled a neo-Catholic could not even argue about the justice of the term, because, as the authors are so good to tell us, they are liberals whether they know it or not. By the authors' own standards for fruitful debate, they have already failed. For this definition is no definition, and this tautology is the central term for the entire work!
The authors' rhetoric does not advance an argument but rather trains the casual reader's mind to associate disapproval with the label neo-Catholic. And this is precisely what neo-Catholic is: a label meant to habituate the reader's mind into dismissing those who have the misfortune of falling under it. This is tactical writing reminiscent of political mudslinging and the ravings of modern liberals5, but it is not argument. The practice of assigning labels that one side has invented to opposing positions in order to stack the argumentative cards in one's own favor and thus avoid contending with the opposing argument is a liberal and precisely modern method of argumentation. Assigning these invented labels aids in dismissing the opponent because the authors of the label can create an opponent ready made for defeat.
This is the epitome of a rhetorical abuse. The authors define what a neo-Catholic is in a manner favorable to their own argument, thus assuring their victory in debate.
A Logical Answer
It is interesting to note that Michael Davies, perhaps the best-known defender of the traditionalist movement, has objected to the use of this term. Davies' objection, while certainly different from mine, is helpful in that it has moved Ferrara to reveal the reasoning behind this term. In an article for The Remnant titled "The Justice of the Term Neo-Catholic,"6 we read that Davies objects to the term, because it suggests — like neo-modernist or neo-classical do — that the neo-Catholic movement "is an attempt to revive something which has fallen into disuse." Ferrara calms Davies by writing that the prefix "neo" has a rather different connotation in American political jargon. He writes, "In our use of the term neo-Catholic, Tom [Woods Jr.] and I are making an analogy to American politics." Ferrara admits that his use of the term neo-Catholic is part of an analogous view of the Church, a view that sees her as a political body.
In the article Ferrara lays out what may be true in the American political mall, but is not true in the Bride of Christ. The Ferrawood view of the Church is unfortunate and, though rhetorically expedient, completely misleading. The Church is not a political body to be cut up into parties. She is the Mystical Body of Christ. The authors would do well to remember this and avoid inventing terms that perpetuate an erroneous approach to ecclesiology.
The authors might answer my objection by saying that they are only responding to the attacks of neo-Catholics like George Sim Johnston, who uses political terminology himself. Such an answer, however, is not the "devastating logic" we are promised on the back cover of the book.
Furthermore, there is a logical answer to why this defense for their linguistic invention fails. "Schismatic" and "integrist are two terms that are often laid upon traditionalists. However, both these terms have definitions that originated outside of the imagined war rooms of neo-Catholic think tanks. One can find St. Thomas Aquinas defining schism. One can turn to Henri Daniel-Rops or Pope Benedict XV for an understanding of integrism. The authors can at least argue about the justice of the label being applied to them by appealing to these objective definitions. The same cannot be done by neo-Catholics, for this term came forth from the authors' traditionalist imagination. To what objective standard can supposed neo-Catholics appeal to? The only standard is the aforementioned imagination. This is no fair standard, and this is no reasonable argument.
The authors go on to state that they do not wish to pass judgment on the Catholic fidelity or personal piety of a neo-Catholic, but it is simply disingenuous to claim that this book is focused on the "idea of neo-Catholicism" and that there is no wish to make judgments about neo-Catholic fidelity or piety when the authors insist on using a term that is consciously adopted to deride their opponents and which cannot help but focus on persons, not an idea. The authors do not write, after all, that George Sim Johnston is an adherent to the neo-Catholic idea, but that he is a "leading neo-Catholic."7 It is also telling that on page 236 the authors ask if they "may be permitted to indulge in a bit of amateur psychology" over why it is neo-Catholics are so preoccupied with traditionalists. One might ask the authors when it was that ideas took on psyches to analyze? The authors cannot and do not disassociate the idea (whatever this idea is) from persons.
Later in chapter one, page 24, the authors, speaking about neo-Catholics and the neo-Catholic Church, write:
The general result has been a de facto detachment of the greater part of Catholics from the Church's own precisely crafted dogmatic framework, leaving them to drift in a kind of quasi-Catholicism that may not contain any explicit heresy, but that the preconciliar Popes simply would not regard as authentically and integrally Catholic.
Now, the authors do maintain that the piety of the neo-Catholic can rival that of the traditionalist.8 Also, the authors do not state that neo-Catholics are adrift but that "the greater part of Catholics" are adrift. However, I cannot accept that the authors do not mean to refer to neo-Catholics in any way when they write "the greater part of Catholics." It seems rather clear from this statement that the authors are judging at least the objective fidelity of the neo-Catholic. What else could this term mean but to suggest that the neo-Catholic practices a new faith, a new Catholicism? This new faith is clearly not authentic or integrally Catholic. Yet the authors still mean to say that accusing neo-Catholics of taking part in a "quasi-Catholicism," which at any other time in history would have been seen as inauthentic, is not judging the "Catholic fidelity" of neo-Catholics?
How is it not calling into question the orthodoxy of the neo-Catholic by saying explicitly that previous Popes, if given the chance, would reject their faith as inauthentic? This is precisely the sort of statement that brings down the judgment of "integrist" upon the heads of traditionalists. Whether this is a justifiable conclusion is beyond my scope here, but the above statement suggests that the judgment is not too unjust. When the authors write on page 240 that the "postconciliar program of innovation tends materially to oppose the perennial teaching of the Church in a number of areas," what do they imply but that the faith toward which neo-Catholic fidelity is directed is materially heretical?
Perhaps the authors do not mean to call into question the fidelity of the neo-Catholic when they write on page 250 that a "neo-Catholic is nothing more or less than a kind of liberal, even if he conforms to the moral teaching of the Church and espouses no formal heresy as such" (emphasis mine). It would be a suspension of every common sense to think that these statements are not judgments on the objective fidelity of the neo-Catholic, that there is no implication that the neo-Catholic espouses at least material heresy.
On the same page and after suggesting that neo-Catholics are guilty of the modernist heresy9, the authors attempt to remind the reader that the fidelity of the neo-Catholic is not being called into question. This time, however, they qualify the parameters of their judgment. They write that they are "speaking here only in the objective realm of ideas, without presuming to judge the subjective faith of any individual." They do not judge the subjective fidelity of the individual, but they are judging the object of their faith. Dr. Janet Smith, H.W. Crocker III, Mother Angelica, and so many others labeled as neo-Catholic maintain a faith that is objectively inauthentic and not integral to the Catholic faith. These persons espouse no formal heresy, but certainly some form of material heresy. This is the necessary and logical implication of the authors' statements.
The authors incessantly use "neo-Catholic" when they introduce a work, organization, or person they wish the reader to be aware of as being untrustworthy. It is difficult to see it as anything but a malignant effort to score rhetorical points. Who can doubt the manipulative nature of this term when the last paragraph of Ferrara's article to Michael Davies reads, "He who controls the terminology controls the debate. It is long past time for traditionalists to take control of the terminology in this debate. Does the term neo-Catholic anger our adversaries, who have been calling us names for decades? Too bad — the shoe fits. Now let them wear it."
Twisting Words and Playing Games
This is not the engaging logical argument we are guaranteed on the back cover. Rather, this demonstrates — better than I could — that the term neo-Catholic is tactical writing closer to the heart of liberalism than to the traditions of the Church. Taking control of the terminology of the debate by inventing terms that are designed for one side's benefit is precisely how the radical liberal intelligentsia have won over the faculties of Western universities.
Clear? Reasonable? Logical? Nonsense! The Great Façade is a farce. It is caught up with a term that is quintessentially manipulative. The term is meaningful only to those who do not actually desire to deal with the arguments of the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger. It is a term that is designed to win weaker minds. It is an invention that ought to be abandoned entirely by the traditionalists.
It is unfortunate that this is not the only example of deception in The Great Façade. There are many examples where the authors twist words and play games with papal statements. However, the invention of "neo-Catholic" is one of the more egregious examples of dishonest debate. For those traditionalists who wish to shake the liberal label, they ought to abandon the Ferrawood argument altogether.
Footnotes
1. The Remnant Press (Wyoming, Minn.), 2002.
2. Book review, vol. 11 n. 4, fall 2002, pages 60-62.
3. On Christian Doctrine, chapter 36.
4. Page 5 "Since [conservatives] have not in fact conserved anything . . . we believe that the term 'conservative' invites confusion among casual readers, for whom it carries a positive connotation, while attaching a venerable designation to people whose actions — or inaction, as the case may be — merit no such honor."
5. Witness "pre-embryo" and "potential human person." These are two phrases that have been invented by the pro-abortion movement to dupe the nation into believing that there is no person within the mother's womb. Neither of these terms appear in the scientific manuals before 1973.
6. I found this article on The Remnant web site. The url is: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage/remnant/neo.htm.
7. FAÇADE page 17.
8. Page 15 "In fact, we are prepared to admit that the lively faith of many who would fit the description 'neo-Catholic,' as we define the term, puts to shame many of those who call themselves traditionalists." Page 25 "That the neo-Catholics have accommodated themselves to the postconciliar revolution does not entitle us to question their orthodoxy or personal piety — any more than neo-Catholics are entitled to question (as they so often do) the Catholic bona fides of traditionalists who do not share their quiescent attitude in the face of disaster."
9. "In many respects, the neo-Catholic fits Pius X's description in Pascendi of 'the modernist as reformer'."
(Omar Gutierrez holds a BA in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio. He studied at the Angelicum in Rome for three semesters, returning to the United States to care for his parents. In the fall of 1999 he entered the master's in theology program at the University of Dallas. He is now working on his thesis, which will be on Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae. Gutierrez is also employed by the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis. He can be reached at this e-mail address: [email protected].)
© Wanderer Printing Co.
This item 6328 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
