This amiable, constructive exchange (albeit with no clear resolution) occurred in
the combox for my related paper,
Origins and Ongoing Evolution of the Term, Radtrad. Jeffrey Stuart's words will be in
blue. I thank you for his articulate, charitable presentation of his view. I remain unpersuaded, but I always appreciate someone who cogently presents their viewpoint.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, as an apologist I have to have some sort of way to
distinguish between mainstream "traditionalists" who simply prefer the Tridentine Mass, and those I call
radtrads.
What do you suggest? If I
make no differentiation, I catch hell for supposedly lumping every sort
of "traditionalist" together, as if I consider
all of them extreme
fringe wackos (which I do
not at all).
I can't win for losing. If
I seek to be charitable by drawing this distinction, I get misery. But
if I just use the term "traditionalist," then I can't even make the
critiques I make of excesses and errors, because people will think I'm
bigoted and attacking the
whole movement across its entire spectrum.
Also, St. Paul vociferously and repeatedly condemned sectarianism and folks who were causing division.
There
is a place to do so. One function of the apologist is to warn people of
certain errors, in order to try to prevent them from falling into it.
We try to protect the flock from them.
Thanks for your reply.
Rightly or wrong, I think I sense a bit of
frustration as you write, “I can't win for losing.” I think in a
nutshell, that is my point. You are correct in saying that. There is
nothing to win here, only potential for loss in communication. So why
is that?
While I’m not going to say I am the only one in the
World who has had this experience, I have at times been called both a
“neo-Catholic” and “RadTrad in my lifetime. Now I am the same person in
both instances. So to me, when someone uses those terms it really says
more about that person than the individual they are attempting to
label. It’s a “I’m not you” sort of statement depending on whatever
they see “you” as being.
Also, no matter how much effort you
put towards trying to define such terms, everyone uses them differently
and the distinction can be so fuzzy that the collateral damage is very
real as you end up offending people that you didn’t mean to offend. So
then, you have to take time explaining what you meant in using the label
which often, in my opinion, makes matters on worse. Think of an
individual who uses the word n****r and tries to explain how he really
only means a certain segment of black people. It’s a no-win situation.
You only dig a deeper hole in the sand.
Further, because it is a
fuzzy term and because it is often seen in an “us vs them” manner, it
compels people to take sides. So, someone uses the term “RadTrad” to
discuss a viewpoint he doesn’t like. Listener hears this message,
reflects on the fact that the person being called “RadTrad” has very
similar views, and therefore concludes that given this debate, he sides
with the “RadTrad.” Net result is further polarization.
Communication
can be difficult even when we try to be exacting. But ultimately, you
have to reflect on whether it is working even if you think you have done
everything possible to be clear and make distinctions. As an
apologist, I think you would agree with me that some methods of
explaining certain Catholic teachings resonate with a protestant
audience more than others. Yes? While we might agree that Mary is the
Co-Redemptrix and we can back it up with all manner of justification,
it’s probably not the most effective means of entering into a discussion
with a fundamentalist. Same applies here. And if you have to take
extra time to constantly explain this term, then I would say
communication isn’t happening and a different approach is warranted.
For instance, look at all of the effort you have to take to affirm that
you have no beef with so-called “traditionalists.” I don’t think that
is where your time as an apologist is best used.
My suggestion?
Don’t use the terms at all and stick with words that have distinct
meaning. If the person is a sedevacantist, then call him that. If the
person is heterodox in thought, then use that term. If the person is
just being a rude jerk, then that use that term. Label the behavior and
apply it to individuals who demonstrate it openly.
To close, I
appreciate the work you have done over the years and even have some of
your books on my shelf. I wish you all the best and God’s continued
blessings.
I appreciate very much your calm, reasoned, charitable approach and the time you've taken to explain it.
The
problem still remains of how to identify a clear and troublesome
category of folks. We need to have a name for them. We can't use a
17-word sentence every time they are referenced. Language doesn't work
that way.
As I explained, in using "radtrad" I seek to be
charitable to the mainstream of "traditionalists." It's actually an
ecumenical effort at bottom.
My web page devoted to these issues
is entitled,
"Catholic 'Traditionalism' and its Extremist 'Radtrad' Fringe". That makes the distinction quite clear (and was designed to do
so).
My recent book is called,
Mass Movements: The Extreme Wing of "Traditionalism," the New Mass, and Ecumenism. You'll be happy to hear that I was persuaded to remove "radtrad" from the subtitle.
We
can come up with any number of alternate terms: the people involved
will be offended whatever we do. "Ultratraditionalist" has been used; I
used to use "quasi-schismatic." People use a variety of epithets that
are simply insults ("wackos," etc.)
You suggest "rude jerk." Like
that
will go over very well? :-) But "rude jerk" does not identify the
essential problem; it's not primarily a matter of
behavior (apologetics
analysis in general is about
belief, not behavior), but rather, of the
"us vs. them," legalistic, exclusivistic, Pharisaical views being
espoused.
My job as an apologist is to critique and refute error
and to try to prevent people from being 1) harmed by it, and 2) falling
into it themselves.
It's easy for the non-apologist to say,
"well, don't use this term because it's mean and causes problems." I'm
happy to discuss whether my chosen term is inadequate or uncharitable,
and whether it should be discarded, but I need an
alternative, because we still have the practical issue of identification for a distinct group.
I
think I mentioned in the paper above that I have gone through almost
identically the same dispute concerning "anti-Catholic," which has a
long, indisputable, perfectly legitimate use among scholars.
People
don't like being labeled that. But there is such a group. I am far
more offended by the belief-system and lies of those who are correctly
called that. They oppose Catholicism. I oppose abortion and have no
problem with "anti-abortionist," so why should an anti-Catholic object
to a simple description of what is so plainly their beef?
It's
the same here: the beliefs that radtrads espouse and how they view
orthodox Catholics are infinitely more uncharitable and offensive and
outrageous than a mere shorthand term for "radical traditionalist," that
uses the chosen self-description and simply adds a pointed but not
inherently insulting indication of how far along on the spectrum a
person is.
I still think it is perfectly justified, until I am
persuaded that an alternate term (besides "rude jerk") is more
appropriate and sensible. If I am, I'll revise my book and go through my
entire blog and replace "radtrad" with the new alternate term. I've
modified or removed papers many times before when it was warranted (for
one of several reasons). It's nothing new with me at all.
But I
guarantee as sure as I'm sitting here that I'll catch hell no matter
what term is used. I could call them anything whatsoever and it won't
matter, because they reserve the right to use their offensive terms of
orthodox Catholics, while we are supposed to have no "right" at all to
identify them.
They're simply "traditionalists," according to
their self-description, but the whole point is that they are
not just
that (and it insults the mainstream "traditionalists" to contend that they are), and
so have to be identified more specifically.
Thanks again for your time.
There is nothing to win here, only potential for loss in communication. So why is that?
I
would say that it is because too many people are being irrational and
uncharitable in defining and using descriptive terms, whereas I am
painstakingly expending effort to very carefully define terms and to be
as charitable as I can in doing so.
I don't deny that "radtrad"
has a certain pointedness and semi-humorous, tweaking "bite," but not
nearly as much as Jesus' "vipers" or "whitewashed tombs, full of dead
men's bones" or calling Herod a "fox" (or St. Paul describing some people, "whose god is their belly"). I think it is fully justified and
as charitable as it can be under the miserable circumstances.
Definition
of terms is absolutely crucial for rational discourse to take place. We
have to know exactly who we are talking about, so there is not further
confusion.
The only way to do that is to use terms consistently
and to define them with great care. I do so at the beginning of my book
and at the top of my "traditionalist" web page, so that there can be no
confusion as to
my use. I've even done a paper about its etymology.
But
people will still be offended no matter what, because that is what
happens when you disagree with folks. I've gone through this same
dispute over the term "anti-Catholic." It goes with the territory in
apologetics, along with being personally attacked ourselves because we
dare to say that "
a is right and
b is wrong." People don't like that.
It's human nature.
I'm not saying that you are being
unreasonable. We're actually discussing the matter rationally and
calmly, which is extremely refreshing to see. I'm just saying that you
don't seem to realize that
some concrete identifying term is needed, and "rude jerk" just doesn't cut it.
Another thought occurred to me. For a radtrad to say that he is simply a
"traditionalist" insults the vast majority of legitimate
"traditionalists" in much the same way as a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness
or Unitarian calling themselves "Christians" is an insult to ones who
truly are Christians (who accept the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, etc.). And these groups always reject our classification of them as "heresies" or "heretical sects" or "cults."
It's the very co-opting of the term to describe the narrow, objectionable group, that is completely unacceptable.
"Traditionalist"
has its own difficulties that I have written about ("traditionalists"
aren't the only ones who care about and hold to "tradition"), but for
now it is a term widely in use, and I am willing to bow to it, as long
as I can put quotation marks around it as a mild protest: as I always
do. I bow to it because the group calls itself that, and at some point,
that becomes normative, inasmuch as language can be.
But the
radtrad calls himself the same thing, while being radically different.
Again, we have a problem of insufficient differentiation, and so we use
radtrad to indicate a "traditionalist" who is "radical" and far right:
almost to the point of schism, and certainly already divisive in
precisely the sense that St. Paul so often vehemently
condemned.
I’m actually maintaining that you don’t need to generalize the group at
all and when you do, even when trying to be very specific, you don’t
gain anything. In fact, you only lose. I suppose you could see my
points as those of a “non-apologist” with an implication that there are
aspects of your craft that I don’t understand. That’s fine. But in
return, I could point out that I have experience in strategic
communications and deal with issues like this in my current employment
as a matter of course.
Clearly, your intent is a good one. I
can see that. But measuring the effectiveness of communication is more
than just what you actually say. You have to look at how it is received
as well. And if your goal is to communicate effectively, you have to
take into account that reception even though you don’t directly control
it. It might me that a change in tact is in order so that you get
through to the recipient in a way that works for them.
Using
pejoratives to label groups of people only serves to causes more
division. This is almost a guarantee. It’s a vicious cycle. And I
would say we have seen that play out in spades in the Catholic
blogosphere and I don’t see much value added. Instead, I see division
amongst the Body of Christ. In fact, I had a well-known member of the
clergy comment to me last week that “the Catholic blogosphere is
absolutely toxic and it’s from all sides.”
Now let me clarify
what I am proposing because I don’t think my point was clear enough. I
say, do not label groups of people. Don’t call them neo-Catholics,
progressive Catholics, Peace & Social Justice Catholics, Traditional
Catholics, RadTrads, etc. It’s counterproductive for all of the
reasons I stated before. Instead, label specific beliefs or specific
individuals on their behavior.
So I’m not suggesting you
exchange “RadTrad” for “rude jerks” in talking about a group of people.
I’m saying that if an individual is a rude jerk, then simply call him a
rude jerk. If someone espouses a view that there is no valid Pope,
then point out the errors of Sedevacantism. Keep it specific and keep
it focuses on bad thoughts and bad behavior of individuals. That’s
where you energy would be most productive, not defining particular
so-called sub-cultures within the Universal Church.
God bless.
This still doesn't solve my problem of identifying a tangible error of a
certain number of people. There has to be a label in order for folks to
know what I'm talking about in the first place.
It is also
relevant to point out that I didn't start this whole ball in motion. I'm
dealing with the existing state of affairs as an apologist. I
didn't set out to classify people as "traditionalists." They have done
that themselves, and I have registered my principled disagreement with
it (on much the same grounds as you are using now: that it is a useless,
unnecessary qualifier to "Catholic").
But there are different
types of "traditionalists" -- just as there are wildly different types of
Catholics (orthodox / obedient / magisterial and nominal and cultural
and modernist / dissident / liberal).
This is reality. I didn't make it what it is by my labeling. It is what it is.
So
in this issue there remains a definite need to classify and identify a
far-right element of "traditionalism" that gives the entire movement a
bad name. Someone suggested that "ultra-traditionalist" was preferable. I
replied that it means the same thing (
ultra =
radical) and so would not
resolve the "problem."
I appreciate your point about how things
are received, but that can't be the final (or only) determinant,
because, as I've noted, people are offended no matter what name they are
given, if they know it is a "critical" classification, implying
disapproval of what they believe. This is why the racist virtually never
agrees that he is one or should be called that.
Do we stop using
the terms "racist" or "bigot" or "prejudiced person" because of this?
No! The political liberal wants to run from that term, even when it is
clear that it is applicable and descriptive. Pro-abortion people want to
play games with words and use "pro-choice" so they can cover up what it
is they advocate (abortion on demand). Even many Protestants don't want
to use that word of themselves and want to call themselves
"Christians": as if that is helpful to identify what they believe. That problem will never be solved (of people not liking their title given to them by someone else).
Again, you say that I shouldn't use any term at all, but it's not
possible
to do that as an apologist who is identifying an error and critiquing
it. Its absolutely necessary to have some identifying term, as one can't
write a long sentence every time someone in the group is referenced.
If I can't use a name for the phenomenon I am critiquing, then I can't critique it at all, pure and simple. And I think it
should be critiqued and refuted, as it is a dangerous, spiritually deadly movement, drawing people in every day.
You said, “This still doesn't solve my problem of identifying a tangible error of a certain number of people.” If
you have identified a “tangible error,” then address it. Stay away
from generalizing whole swaths of people as being associated with that
error. Your generalizing only serves to create collateral damage and
takes you “off message.”
You ask, “do we stop using the terms
"racist" or "bigot" or "prejudiced person" because of this?” Question
is, does applying a term like that to a whole group of people achieve
our ends? Racism is wrong. We clearly agree on that and when such
behavior is encountered, we should condemn it in individuals. But when
people say things like “all of those racist southerners” then you start
to offend people that you didn’t want to offend. Again, now you are
reacting to collateral damage and “off message.” Wasted time and
energy. Instead, stay focuses on bad ideas and individuals.
You
remark that the “problem will never be solved (of people not liking
their title given to them by someone else).” I see two courses of
action out of this. Either avoid the problem or carry on as you
suggest. If the latter, then I don’t know why others on the Catholic
blogosphere get offended when some other group classifies them as a
“Neo-Catholic.” All of the reasons that you present here in terms of
needing to be accurate in classification and such can be used by those
who employ such terminology. Both sides will claim the mantle of
ultimately being “Catholic” and this amounts to “it depends on where you
sit” as to which terms you apply. Not very unifying for the Body of
Christ.
Ultimately, this labeling from both sides will continue
to be destructive and bear no good fruit. It will further harden
rhetoric and entrench people into increasingly polarized tribes. Unless
some people of good will attempt to break the cycle by simply not
participating.
As for me, while almost exclusively attend a FSSP
parish, I eschew all manner of modifiers to my being Catholic and that
includes the word “traditional.” I didn’t convert to the Universal
Church only to fall back into loose “denominations” within the Church.
That’s my perspective.
I appreciate the discussion here and leave you the last word on this point.
God bless.
I would also note that mainstream "traditionalists" themselves
draw the same distinctions I do, but simply use different terms. I
mentioned one "traditionalist" with whom I clashed recently. She used
the term, "wacko."
Here is what Dr. Taylor Marshall, a "traditionalist" and
friend of mine, stated, referring to some radtrads who immediately
bashed Pope Francis:
Way to go, trads! We have been working so
hard under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI to demonstrate that we
are not an inbred subculture of angry, hateful, quasi-schismatic,
Jansenistic, holier-than-the-Pope Catholics. Everyone thinks that we who
attend the 1962 liturgy are judgmental, Pharisaical, and rude (click here for details). And guess what. You just amplified that terrible
reputation one hundredfold.
("Traditionalists and Pope Francis: Can We Take a Deep Breath and Please Calm Down?," 14 March 2013)
In another related article he makes many similar comments:
. . . like all stereotypes, the traddy stereotype is greatly exaggerated but based on reality.
Judgmentalism
is a problem for any Catholic who is serious about his faith. Whenever
we try hard to enter the narrow gate, we occasionally pause and pity all
the souls taking the other path. Pity often gives way to resentment,
especially when they're having so much fun on the other path. Is there
an inordinate amount of judgmentalism or Pharisaism in Latin Mass
circles? Yes, it's certainly there. However, I don't think that Latin
Masses cause judgmentalism.
To summarize, most of the
stereotypes are not fully accurate but do in fact touch on elements,
good or bad, in communities attached to the Extraordinary Form of the
Latin Mass.
("My Initial Doubts about the Latin Mass," 8 January 2013)
In
other words, these elements are really there, in a small, fringe
element of the "traditionalist" movement. Taylor doesn't settle on a
distinct title for them. I
do: I call those who exhibit these tendencies
"radtrads": precisely to distinguish them from sensible, cogent folks
like Taylor Marshall.
The main disagreement seems to be over how
prevalent radtrads are. We're told they are a very small minority.
That's fine. Maybe they are. But it's still a dangerous error to be
confronted, and these folks are very vocal on the Internet and spreading
poison rapidly, regardless of how small they may be.
Exhibit #2 in my latest argument is "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney. He
recognizes that there is a sub-group that I call "radtrads" ("those who
thrive on urine and vinegar" -- a delightful description promptly
adopted by Mark Shea) but that they are so tiny that they can scarcely
be found at all among "traditionalists." Again, the disagreement is
about
quantity: not over whether the group
exists or not. He writes:
Nobody
(or at least precious few people) say that you can't have reverence and
a love for the liturgy unless you are 100% Extraordinary Form all the
time.
Caricaturing the critique (just as he distorted my
own views in a recent fracas, claiming that I think those who like the TLM are my "enemies"), Kevin opines:
"But,
but, but, buuuut Kevin! Some mean people on the Internet in comboxes
believe that if you aren't a traditionalist, you are a second class
Catholic. These .05% of traditionalists are a blight upon the entire
movement, and until they are eradicated, nobody should ever listen to
anything a traditionalist has to say!" Again, enough with the concern
trolling. Internet comboxes are never the place for sanity and rational
discourse. Putting them on a Catholic website isn't going to change
things. Blame concupiscence. Anyone who actually spends real time
amongst traditionalists in our parishes, at their events, or even at
dinner & drinks realizes the Internet minority is a nasty yet
irrelevant crowd that most traditionalists aren't even aware of.
("Concern Trolling Traditionalists," 20 March 2013)
On a humorous note, I can't help but point out that he says, " Internet comboxes are never the place for sanity and rational
discourse," yet he has them on his own website, and he freely participates in the combox of, e.g., Mark Shea's blog, and in those of others on Facebook (one of which he stopped by recently to claim that I was scared stiff of debate: especially with
him. I'm trembling in my boots . . .). Apparently, then, he makes a tacit exception of his own remarks, which are unfailingly rational and sane, as opposed to the generality of the bulk of the comments of
others.
So
Kevin thinks they are a teensy-weensy dinky fringe group, but he
doesn't deny that they
exist. He's obviously trying very hard to distance
himself from them and to give the "traditionalist" movement far better
PR and a more positive "face."
I
hope they are very tiny. But
they exist and can be identified as radtrads. I know they exist because
I've been dealing with them for 16 years. I've dealt with folks like
Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics, who are now sedevacantists. Regardless
of their actual size, they are vocal and cause considerable damage to
the faith of many. They exist, and I give them a name:
radtrads. If someone can come up with a better name, I'm all for it.
But
I'm right alongside Kevin and Taylor in opposing what these radtrads
stand for. Kevin wants no association with them (they clearly embarrass him and he seeks to marginalize them as any sort of representatives of his own movement); I don't want to
associate mainstream "traditionalists" with radtrads in my analyses.
Because
of that, I must have some term to differentiate the two. The
distinction
has to be made. I can't just refuse to use any labels,
because some might
misuse labels. That holds true for anything whatever,
as any good or true thing can be distorted and abused.
We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
* * * * *
.gif)
