Replies to "Traditionalist" Catholic Kevin Tierney's Strong Criticism of Current-Day Catholic Apologetics and Apologists

I came across Kevin Tierney's piece on Christopher Blosser's excellent site, Against the Grain ("Career Catholicism": 1-27-11). Kevin wrote the initial post, Difficulties of the "Apologetics Mindset" (Common Sense Catholicism January 25, 2011). He was in turn responding to a thought-provoking piece in First Things ("The Apologetic Substitute," by David Mills: 1-24-11).

I had already seen the Mills article but didn't want to respond (having written so many times, analyzing the apologetics movement and defending it against bum raps), but then I saw that my name was mentioned (the only apologist's name besides Mark Shea and Christopher West), implying that I am a representative of several false views and trends that Kevin observes (or thinks he observes) in the apologetics community. Otherwise, why mention me in this context? The other two references to other apologists were also derogatory.

Since I do not agree with several things he seems to think are widespread in lay apologetics, as characteristic of either myself or any real apologist that I know (someone with true credentials, not merely a blog that anyone can put up), I felt that it would be of some small usefulness to make this known. So I replied on Chris Blosser's site and also here (which goes to my Facebook and Twitter pages automatically, too).

There is a growing trend towards bashing Catholic apologetics these days (or at least how it is perceived to be commonly undertaken). I've noticed this for several years now. Particular ire is directed towards full-time apologists (a class of which I am a part) and converts and lay apologists (I'm guilty on those two counts as well). I have some personal theories as to why this might be, but it is probably best to not delve into those. Here I am simply responding to some of the observations made. Kevin's words will be in blue.

I've added a few things here, compared to my reply at Against the Grain.

* * * * *

Many Catholic apologists in this age of social networking and the blogosphere have long ago stopped writing about actual apologetics.

That's certainly not true in my case. I still write probably 90% apologetics; at least 80%. I do have other interests: politics, sociology, the abortion and feminism issues, race relations, music, history, nature photography and travel. But even so, I write mostly apologetics. And I've been doing it full-time for over nine years.

With a few notable exceptions, the apologetics movement had some of the harshest critics of those who were attached to the Latin Mass and various approaches to handling the faith.

This doesn't apply to me, either. I have attended the Novus Ordo Latin Mass for over twenty years now, and my parish was one of the few in metro Detroit to offer the Tridentine Mass when it was rare to do so, and it still offers it. I've attended myself (though I personally prefer Novus Ordo). I was always in favor of letting folks worship as they pleased.

It wasn’t enough to accept Vatican II as a valid ecumenical council whose decrees are binding upon the faithful. It had to be “the highest form of thought the Church has ever had.” (To paraphrase Dave Armstrong in a dispute I had with him in the past.)

I don't remember the context of this remark or something like it; however, there is such a thing as the Mind of the Church, and that does develop over time, so there is a sense in which, yes, Vatican II would be the highest level of manifestation of that, in some way. The Church knows better about which direction to go, than any Tom, Dick, or Harry so-called "traditionalist" who thinks he knows better than Holy Mother Church what is good to do and not do. And I refer mostly to what I would call "radtrads."

Kevin, on the other hand, has expressed the classic "traditionalist" disdain for Vatican II: playing the game that it was "ambiguous" and thus open to exploitation by the liberals:

On the other hand, the liberal makes the point that many of his views were once condemned, then accepted at Vatican II. Now I of course don't believe Vatican II taught explicit error, though I do believe by it's [sic] ambiguities, the liberals had a field day with it. (9-18-03)

. . . the problem of the past 40-50 years (essentially the time since Vatican II) the problem has been a weakness of faith. This is now obvious, and a restatement of the argument that since Vatican II, be it the implementation or the Council itself, the faith underwent a severe crisis. To say the Council had nothing to do with this is really to close one's mind to actual arguments against your opinion. (9-22-03)

The view that Vatican II might not have been prudent, but indeed her reforms have caused more harm than good is not an obscure argument, but an argument that has over 40 years gained acceptance, to where now even mainstream publications are willing to admit this. (11-18-03)

Of course, since noone [sic] really knows what Vatican II taught, or where Vatican II taught something dogmatically not taught before, noone [sic] really knows what to give assent to, other than that which was already taught before in Tradition. is there something new we must give assent to? . . . I just ask him to please be consistent, if he's going to say we're guilty of "classifying forms of Catholicism" when attacking Neo-Catholicism, I will not allow him to do the same. (11-20-03)

Everything goes, as long as you laud Vatican II, and wish no real restoration of the Traditional Mass. (12-5-03)

To say that John Paul II did some good and some not so good things is indeed beyond the pale. If you don’t refer to him as “John Paul the Great”, it is evidence you are resisting the Holy Ghost. These are prudential matters that cannot be solved by the intellectual formulations of apologetics.

It was not mere prudential matter to see "trads" trashing Pope John Paul II up and down. When that happened, I defended the man. With his beatification now imminent, where does that leave the "trads" who wanted to trash him? Will they accept the verdict of Holy Mother Church or persist in their smear campaign? We don't have to hold that he was perfect or without flaw. But he was saintly, and he was a great man and pope, who advanced the Church in wonderful ways. He was the right Holy Father at the right time. This is God's providence.

Since Kevin wants to make this point of objection to "John Paul the Great," I thought it might be instructive to see the sorts of things he has said about Venerable (soon to be Blessed) Pope John Paul II through the years (and some things I would myself vociferously object to):

There are many who proclaim that our current Pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II, has been the greatest Pope of the 20th century, if not of all time. A Pope's job is to protect the flock, and be a firm guard against novelty, binding the Church to the Deposit of Faith. I am in no way uncharitable in saying that the current Pontificate has failed drastically on both counts. . . . There is no comparison between St. Pius X, St. Pius V, and John Paul II. These 2 popes were the only 2 saints in the papacy over the past several centuries.

On regard of holding firm to the Deposit of Faith, as one who refuses to deny empirical evidence, I must say the performance here has also not been very positive. While he has done some good, by speaking out in clear force against womens ordination, all too many times we have seen the compromising of the Churches traditions to that of the world. . . .

Is John Paul II the worst Pope ever? I wouldn't think so. While there have been many unfavorable aspects of the Papacy from an empirical standpoint, which cannot be disputed, we have had far more disastarous [sic] Popes from the Past. Yet to call him "John Paul the Great" after he stood over the gravest apostasy since the Arian crisis, I believe is insulting to those who truly have the name of Great, such as St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great, as well as truly holy pontiffs such as Pius V and Pius X. (7-31-03; back when Kevin used to link to radtrad organizations Seattle Catholic and The Remnant with approval)

Whether or not Neo-Catholics realize it, they cause more damage to the Holy Father then Traditionalists, and they do it under the guise of "Loyalty." Traditionalists are loyal to the Pope, yet we are loyal to the office of the Papacy, regardless of who is in it. Therefore, if a Pope causes scandal, we follow what Tradition teaches us, and Neo-Catholics refuse to look at, that a Pope may be resisted, and doing such is actually a work of charity and respect, not of malice and arrogance. (9-2-03)

Readers of this blog will recognize the quickening auto-demolition of the Novus Ordo Novelty Regime, enacted by the implementation of Vatican II. At times, one has to keep a sense of humor in all of this. The Novus Ordo goes further and further down the downward spiral, while the Neo-Catholics keep screaming "New Springtime", "John Paul The Great" and "Here's what that prelate REALLY said", it becomes humorous just how out of touch with reality so many Neo-Catholics are. . . . this is a symptom of a much larger problem within the Novus Ordo, of essentially the entire Church being too afraid to actually act like Bishops and Popes. They will issue document after document, but refuse to take action, unless of course you are a traditionalist. Of course, there aren't many traditionalists, so they can't put up a fight. We have a Vatican who even though they may be right, as they surely are on the manner of homosexuality, they refuse to tell everyone they are right with their actions. Anyone can write a document. It takes leadership and courage to follow through on that, something I believe the current Vatican, and it's aging, ailing Pope are lacking. Of course, the same can be said for the New Order the Post-Vatican II pontiffs worked so hard to launch, it's aging, and ailing. Let's just hope too many souls aren't wrecked in it's [sic] destruction. (9-2-03)

Mention John Paul II as "John Paul the Great" and anyone who disagrees is just a stupid schismatic. Never mention any scandal he has done. . . . Condemn priests, Bishops and cardinals for the same thing the Pope does, yet don't mention the Pope did the same thing. (9-3-03)

He then states that we believe Kreeft is not a traditionalist because "He loves John Paul II." That of course shows just how arrogant our Lidless Eye Inquisitior is, and just how blinded to reality he is when it comes to traditionalist circles. Traditionalists do love the Pope. But Love is not always saying yes. Just as with a regular family, the worst thing you can do with an alcoholic is act like there never is a problem. Neo-Catholics are like an alcoholic's kids who won't stand up. The Father is still a good man probably, just going through a crisis, and needs the help of his children, not their praise for nothing. . . . And of course, he "believes in Vatican II." What does this mean? That it's a valid council? The majority of traditionalists will admit this much.(Of course, everything in Neo-Catholicville is an issue of mere validity, not fruitfulness.) (9-11-03)

Let's face it, we are currently faced with a Vatican Adminsitration that is powerless to do anything about the dissent that they invited in. Many of the top heads now are pioneers of the Revolution that was Vatican II and it's implementation, and now they are viewed as ultraconservatives! To put it bluntly, while we have a Pope, we have a visible Church, that church is out of control, and noone wants to actually put a stop to it in Rome. They would rather "dialogue." . . . My only hope is this will again prove the Neo-Catholic position further beaten, so those Catholics who are doctrinally Orthodox can return to the fullness of tradition, and fight this war against the liberals we are losing, but eventually will win. (9-30-03)

Well, as it is known now, the Pope has stomach cancer. Things do not look like they will go on much longer, . . . I'm looking for a truce between Neo-Catholics and Traditionalists during this time. I for one am laying down my arms until things pass, for one, to reflect on death, how it truly does come to all, as much as people don't think it will. Whether or not one liked this Pope, . . . (10-12-03)

John Paul II is no conservative. He certainly would not view himself as one. He is conservative on moral issues, and that's about it. He is conservative in the sense he doesn't dissent from any dogma of the Catholic faith. On everything else, he ranges from moderate to the most liberal a Pope has been on a given issue. (1-13-04; I guess he decided to ditch the "truce" and take up arms again, against the leader of the Catholic Church)

Kevin even ridiculously blasted the present Holy Father (before he was pope):

Yet along comes Ratzinger to shatter these Neo-Catholic fantasies. His Eminence candidly admits that these ideas of growing numbers of Catholicism are flat out myths. Yet rather than lamenting this, he praises it, saying that the Catholic Church and her mission is not necessarily about numbers. . . . Ratzinger then talks about how since Vatican II, we now have a minority that "renews the world." With all due respect, there cannot be a larger disconnect from reality! The world has gone(and continues to go at breathtaking speed) to hell in a handbasket, so the Catholics are not "renewing the world." Ratzinger, being a European, should recognize this, as Europe will not even recognize any Christian heritage, much less a Catholic one. . . . The only Christians that are "renewing the world" are certainly not following that which is Vatican II. (8-10-04)

Kevin was all of 20 and 21 years old and barely shaving when he made these atrocious judgments of the Holy Father. He thought himself perfectly qualified and wise enough to do so. Even now, he wants to object to the title of "John Paul the Great," when Holy Mother Church is getting ready to beatify this holy and great man.

For many of them, defending the faith is not just their vocation, but their occupation. They need to put food on the table through it for their families.

I'm doing fine, thank you. No one's starving over here. I pay my mortgage and bills on time, etc.

The only problem with this is unless you are really good at what you do; you can only beat a dead horse so many times.

The problem is career apologists who aren't called to do that. One must be called or it ain't gonna work. Not full-time. If one is called to it, then they will have the motivation and the ability to do good work in the field. And it will be fruitful. I never lack anything to write about. I don't repeat myself over and over. I am constitutionally averse to too much repetition, so that was never gonna happen! But I haven't gotten away from an overwhelming emphasis on apologetics.

If you’ve been writing apologetics at least once a week for 3 years, you’ve basically demonstrated all that is wrong with Protestantism. Yet your children still need to eat. So people start going into other areas they really have no business being in, but attempt to speak with the same level of authority. In the secular world, this is known as the mentality of “publish or perish.”

I do agree to the extent that many apologists seem to write about lots of other stuff, way out of proportion. Apologetics is defense of the faith. It involves doctrine, and also an understanding of Catholic moral and social teaching. Jesus is Lord of all of life, but one can go too far into areas best left to others.

The mindset prominent amongst many apologists today is that of what I have derisively called “sola intellectua.” In this mindset, the Catholic Church is simply a proposition of intellectual formations. Provided one demonstrates an intellectual belief in a given doctrine or principle, that is the height of catholicity. This is obviously wrong.

I agree. Any apologist who actually thinks that is an idiot and has no business even calling himself an apologist. But I'd like to see it documented that any apologist of note has actually been foolish enough to state such a thing, let alone hold it. I would say this is the Pelagian heresy or worse.

As Fulton Sheen famously said, “Catholics do not submit a dogma. They submit to a person, Jesus Christ.” The intellectualism problem infects all circles of Catholicism.

I see this mentality in liberal Catholic circles. I haven't observed it in any apologist of note, but I may have missed something. I see it in "traditionalist" circles, too, where there is not enough faith to accept the judgments of Holy Mother Church, and the person puts faith in their own private judgment over against the Church, up to and including outright dissent and what I have called a "quasi-schismatic" mentality.

This approach is in error because Jesus Christ engages more than just our intellects. Our reason and intellect are of great importance, but we cannot stop there. Jesus Christ engages us in every aspect of our life.

No kidding. Like I said, I haven't observed any apologist who is full-time or known as an apologist (beyond just any old blogger) who has been so ridiculous as to deny this.

Understanding the pedagogical mission of the Church might be great for a lecture or a thesis paper, but what does it tell you about living the everyday aspects of your faith? Not much.

One must live their faith. Absolutely.

These sorts of things have dropped to the wayside.

How does one make such a judgment? Where are the examples? Or does the critic lack the courage to name names: if he is convinced that this is widespread?

Rather than placing apologetics against culture, we need to make sure that instead, the work of apologetics flows from the greater Catholic culture.

I have no problem with that. It's certainly what I always try to do in my work.

* * *

Kevin's few responses were brief and filled with veiled insults and irrelevancies. I briefly replied:

Oh David David David....

Only you would take one sentence that mentioned your name just in passing and make it sound like the entire thing is about you. It is good to see that you have grown much in the years of humility since our last discussion. :)

Since I wasn't really dealing with Dave outside of one sentence, I really don't feel the need to have a dialogue with him. Not to mention in his "response" he still has his views, which I think any clear reading of the facts will demonstrate are contrary. I am sure he views the same for me. Allies on both sides would say both of us are mistaken. I simply don't have the desire (or time for that matter) to engage in a mud-slinging war, which is what it always descends into when someone feels that their personal livelihood is being assaulted. (Hint Dave, it's not.)

The only reason I mentioned you was from a discussion awhile back where I wasn't "bashing the Council" or " bashing the Pope" and I felt it was a problematic statement.

A group of colleagues asked me about it, had a chuckle, and we let it pass. I think I will do the same again, and not say anything beyond this one statement. Too much bad blood between myself and David in the past, and I have no reason to think this run would be any different. [on Chris Blosser's site]

The usual (utterly predictable) wrongheaded recourse to accusations of self-importance: missing the entire point. I don't do mud-slinging wars, Chris; not to worry. I stopped posting on discussion boards many years ago because of them. [on Chris Blosser's site]

I only mentioned what Mr. Armstrong said in one sentence. Anything else that was written, I wasn't thinking whether he was guilty or innocent of it. He really didn't enter my mind outside of that one statement.

Which is why I found the whole response of his most curious.

As to the rest, whether I engaged in "Pope bashing" or "Council bashing", I really see no need to answer that charge. Even in the old days of the RTC archives, I believe no such occurence happened, and I think the record speaks for itself. (2-1-11 on his own blog)

Which is why I found the whole response of his most curious.

Well, you obviously would, since you completely misunderstood it as an ego and self-preservation thing rather than a defense of my field, using myself as an example in many cases since I am quite familiar with my own life and actions and goals in what I do (and as a member of the class that you critique).

I also generalized in many places, of course, saying that I was unaware (unlike you) of certain alleged shortcomings being widespread in apologetics. But you're clearly not interested in documenting your sweeping charges. That would create a danger of a dialogue, and we must avoid that at all costs.

And I agreed with you several times, too. I agree that apologists too often don't write enough apologetics. I've thought that for a long time, as well, and have wondered why that was. But no matter to you. You don't wanna look for any areas of agreement. That ain't part of the plan. Your goal is to be sharply critical of apologists, not to hear their side or rationales for what they do. Lectures and dialogues: two completely different things.

You brought up the issues of "John Paul the Great" and so forth. I was simply documenting the stuff you used to say about him, and why an orthodox Catholic might have some problems with those attacks. You brought up Vatican II (in your reference to me). So it was relevant to show folks what your mindset was in those days, that I was responding to. Unlike you, I actually think it is important to document things. I know it is a novelty, but what can I say?

Chris Blosser certainly thought my reply was relevant, since he said I made some good points, and linked to it here, hoping for dialogue. Your opinion of what I wrote is not by any means the only one. It clearly flows from your personal hostility.

I could have posted the Gettysburg Address and you would have seen in that proof positive of my monstrous ego, or that I am supposedly an "integrist" (your Big Lie about me when we last interacted), etc. LOL

I don't remember all the details of our last go-around (besides the integrist nonsense and your psychoanalyzing attempts), but I know that it was acrimonious. If you told me to go to hell or never write to you again or something, I apologize for having forgotten those details.

May God abundantly bless you. (2-1-11 on Kevin's blog)

Kevin promptly deleted the above comment, writing:

I've deleted Mr. Armstrong's comments, as I view the ad hominems completely unwarranted at this weblog. If he wants to say those things, he is welcome to at his own blog or elsewhere.

Here, we handle things as adults. An email has been sent to Dave notifying him of this, and if he so wishes, I will forward him what he said (I have a copy in my inbox) and I will let him post it at his blog, should he so desire. He can even come here and notify people it has been said.

But you aren't saying that on this blog. I'm Willy Wonka and this is my Chocolate Factory. Comments will remain undermoderated Dave, but that will change. You are free to post all you want, provided you stick to the issues, and not personal motives, ad hominems, etc. (2-1-11)

So I posted a revised version, minus any hint of what he deems to be "ad hominem." Kevin apparently thinks he can write quite pointed criticisms of my internal motivations, taking potshots at my supposed great lack of humility and so forth, while I am not allowed to respond to him on his blog, if I don't use perfectly polite language and all nicey-nicey, warm fuzzy thoughts. And believe me, the sorts of blistering excoriations he has written in past private correspondence make even my most acerbic criticisms of him above look like rapturous praise and admiration. Let's see if he'll let this "by":

He really didn't enter my mind outside of that one statement. Which is why I found the whole response of his most curious.

I was, in my first reply at Chris's blog, defending my field, using myself as an example in many cases since I am quite familiar with my own life and actions and goals in what I do (and as a member of the class that you critique).

I also generalized in many places, of course, saying that I was unaware of certain alleged shortcomings being widespread in apologetics and asking for documentation of your claims to the contrary.

And I agreed with you several times, too. I agree that apologists too often don't write enough apologetics. I've thought that for a long time, as well, and have wondered why that was.

You brought up the issues of "John Paul the Great" and so forth. I was simply documenting the stuff you used to say about him, that a Catholic might have some problems with. You brought up Vatican II (in your reference to me). So it was relevant to show folks what your opinion was about that in those days, that I was responding to.

Chris Blosser certainly thought my reply was relevant, since he said I made some good points, and linked to it here, hoping for dialogue. Your opinion of what I wrote is not by any means the only one.

May God abundantly bless you. (2-1-11)

He can even come here and notify people it has been said.

Excellent. My original comment can be read at my paper that is noted below in "Links to this post."

I've also copied my revised version above to my paper, in case it, too, is deleted for some reason. (2-1-11)

* * *

Ironically, given his refusal to dialogue at all thus far, and tendency to quickly hit the deletion button, Kevin wrote the following (on 10-6-10) about something that Dr. Janet Smith had written:

Instead of Catholic Exchange, she has it up at the Catholic Education Resource Center. Unfortunately, there’s no comments section at that site like there was at CE. Probably best for Dr. Smith, as now people cannot interact with what she said right in public. The last time the plebeians were allowed their say, it didn't end well. Nonetheless, she prefers the “old media” style of publishing where people cannot interact right away with it, and it takes a more academic tone. Such is her right.

Such is the right of her critics, however, to point out that she still really hasn’t engaged with much of the evidence.

More high irony in the same paper:

I for one think at times, we are far too genteel a society. Whenever someone comes up with a stinging criticism, it is automatically dismissed as a personal attack. If one reads the great masters of rhetoric throughout history (even the Catholic ones!) they recognized at times that a less than cordial approach was required. . . . Sometimes rhetorical wit can prove an argument better than any genteel discussion ever could. St. Frances De Sales knew this well. His The Catholic Controversies was many times a masterpiece of rhetoric. Even in the academic world, then Cardinal Ratzinger worded responses to Cardinal Kasper that many found surprising for a break in the rather genteel decorum such disputes normally have. Neither took it personally. . . . Does stating [opponents] lack any humility or docility further the discussion?

[Kevin wrote about me in his first reply: "Only you would take one sentence that mentioned your name just in passing and make it sound like the entire thing is about you. It is good to see that you have grown much in the years of humility since our last discussion. :)"]

. . . There was absolutely no point to any of her charges, other than to sling as much mud as possible. . . . While watering down her criticisms, Dr. Smith still poisons the well. She keeps the line that, if she were so inclined, she could refute Miss Eden’s entire thesis. If you aren’t going to do it, don’t say it. Stick with the facts you intend to interact with.. . . As Steve Kellmeyer noted (in a mocking tone that Dr. Smith deserved every bit of): . . .

***