Deceit, Sleight of Hand, and Ferrawood

by Omar F.A. Gutierrez

In the previous section I demonstrated how it was that the term "neo-Catholic," the definition of which the authors themselves state is necessary for fruitful debate lacks any real meaning and thus undermines the entirety of the Ferrawood argument. Here I mean to address some of the statements used by the authors to advance their position. I address them s that I might lay them aside.

These statements exemplify the poverty of logic in The Great Façade. More disturbing, however, is the almost brazenly dishonest methods the authors use in order to advance their argument. The errors that are provided in the following section are not the result of the authors' sloppy research or misapplied principles. They are their conscious inventions. There can be no doubt of this because of the all-too-frequent occurrence. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the errors that the authors peddle in their book. They are merely a sampling of some of the more offensive and odd.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part i

The first example of a statement or series of statements that the authors give which does not meet the level of good argument is found on page 14. It is a common statement that many traditionalists make regarding a common accusation by those the authors refer to as "conservatives." It reads:

Finally, a traditionalist is someone who believes that the postconciliar novelties — especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism — ought to be abandoned because they have caused grave harm to the Church, as shown by overwhelming empirical evidence of drastic ecclesial decline in nearly every area immediately following the appearance of the novelties. This is not simply (as neo-Catholics constantly argue) the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc* but rather an inference of cause and effect virtually compelled by the available evidence.

* Literally, "after this, therefore because of this." Such reasoning is, at work anytime someone claims a causal connection between events A and B simply because B followed A in temporal sequence.

The authors continue onto page 15 by saying that these empirical facts of widespread abandonment in the churches and seminaries can be backed up by "every available statistic." It would not be my purpose here to question the statistics or the empirical facts which the authors are good enough to provide, at least in part, at the bottom of page 15, footnote 11. My difficulty begins with the authors' claim that neo-Catholics deny that there is even a crisis. The neo-Catholics the authors label and whom I personally know do not deny this. In fact I do not know of any orthodox Catholic who denies that we are living through a crisis in the Church. A further difficulty lies in whether or not empirical facts and statistics release the authors from the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I would argue that it does not.

The fallacy as defined by the authors in the above-quoted footnote is exactly right. One commits it when one assumes that chronological events are linked causally merely because of their order of occurrence in time. I would agree that there is some aspect of causal relationship between Vatican II and the statistical facts that are brought out. What is not clear, what the authors have not said, what I have never heard is the exact nature of this causal relationship.

For instance, has there been a survey that has determined the precise reasons why the millions of Catholics ceased to attend Mass? Did those who left say that it was because of the changes in the liturgy? Is there a statistic that demonstrates the fidelity of those who left the Church before the changes? Is there evidence from the ex-priests that the reason for their departure was the radical abandonment of tradition? If so what aspect of the council did they object to specifically? What novelties did they find to be so offensive?

It is very difficult to believe that the millions of Catholics who abandoned the priesthood, fled seminaries, and avoided churches were negatively affected by the novelties in the Vatican documents, because it is also an empirical fact that the vast majority of Catholics have still not read the documents of Vatican II some 35 years later. Are those who claim Vatican II to be the reason for their departure using the council as an excuse for what was really a desire to abandon organized religion? Do we honestly believe that those who left the Church did so because of their horror over the novelties, or did they leave because they simply wished to live the modern life? The empirical data and the statistics do not address any of these questions, questions which must be answered to release the authors from the above fallacy.

The data also does not tell us whether or not the statements of Vatican II are true. Catholics can, and in fact have, left the Church in large numbers because of true doctrines the Magisterium proclaimed. How many of those who left did so because the council reinforced a true doctrine? Is there empirical data or available statistic that demonstrates the veracity of the council? Even if the authors were able to provide surveys of fleeing Catholics that demonstrate that novelty was the cause of their departure, this does not address the real question, which is of course whether or not the changes are true or not.

It is finally impossible to agree that the authors do not commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc when the empirical data and the statistical facts prove but one thing: Many Catholics left the Church in the immediate aftermath of the council. The data does not tell us why, and it is precisely the why which needs to be discovered. For all their information the only thing the authors can tell us is that B in fact followed A after a short period of time. The authors then say that because they can prove that B came immediately after A they are then allowed to make an inference that they are "virtually compelled" to make regarding the causal relationship between A and B.

But this is a textbook definition of the fallacy the authors claim they avoid. Merely because one can demonstrate the proximity in time between two events does not prove that the latter is caused by the former, or at least exclusively caused by the former.

Note well that I am not denying any connection between the obvious decline in Catholic vigor and the council. I am simply stating that there is nothing in the empirical data or statistics that point exclusively to novelties. There are any number of different explanations with varying complexity that can aid us in understanding what occurred after Vatican II. In fact the explanation given us by the authors makes the least sense, for they claim the introduction of novelty caused the abandonment. How is this? Did 50,000 Catholic priests leave the priesthood "in the immediate aftermath of the council" because they refused the Novus Ordo? If the novelties appeal to modern temperaments and appease the modern desire for emotional gratification, then why did the novelties drive so many modern men out? Does it not make much more sense that some truth that was upheld by the Church drove scores of persons outside her loving embrace?

This truth proclaimed, I would posit, was the intrinsic evilness of artificial birth control. Could the authors believe that the Church's widely known teaching on contraception, unlike her other teachings from the council that required one to read the documents, had no effect on driving Catholics from the Church, especially since it is well known that so many Catholics were contracepting at the time? Did there appear protests and full-page ads against the Church after the reform of the Mass? Or is it not a fact that these protests occurred after the 1968 encyclical was promulgated? Even if the authors refuse to admit a causal relationship between Humanae vitae and the abandonment, would they deny the effect of the sexual and the technological revolutions on the secular world and thus the Church? Are not these more likely explanations for a causal relationship between A — the council — and B — the abandonment?¹

It can be no surprise that those who remain in the Church and still contracept remain because they are culturally Catholic (per Anna Quindlen) and not because of a faith founded on the doctrines of the Church. This explains the loss of faith even within the Church. Those who contracept despite the Church's clear teaching on the matter would have little reason to submit to the other doctrines of the Church which they consider demonstrate a pattern of oppressive, patriarchal rule. They subject the entirety of Catholic doctrine to the method by which they justify their central issue of dissent, which is of course contraception. Certainly, they stay within the Church because bishops and priests let them. Their consciences are not pricked at the pulpit or in the confessional with the truth of the evil that is contraception.

This fact is something lamented by traditionalists and the so-called neo-Catholics, persons like Dr. Janet E. Smith and so many others. It seems as though conservatives at least attempt to conserve the Church's teaching on contraception. No doubt if there were a movement of bishops to preach the truth about contraception, thousands of contracepting Catholics would leave the Church in disgust. Would the authors blame this one novelty as well?

All of this is, of course, beside the very real fact that there was a crisis in the Church well before Vatican II. Cardinal Newman tells us that he too was living through a crisis. Did this crisis disappear sometime between Newman's life and Vatican II? Were two World Wars the result of a vibrant Christendom in Europe? When priests were being publicly executed in Mexico, was this crisis of faith a result of novelties from the Vatican? The authors' statistics do not tell us why people come or why they go. They just tell us when they left and how long they were gone, and that is not good enough to free one from the fallacy.

The authors write that:

These same modern people, in turn, in whose name the liturgy was deformed and its language made "plain," no longer finding in the Mass the mysterious and supernatural stopped attending Mass altogether. For this and many other reasons, neo-Catholic efforts to deny any connection between the Council, the "spirit of Vatican II," and the devastation in the Church cannot be taken seriously.²

Here they commit the same fallacy. What evidence do they offer, what survey of modern people did they take which demonstrates that the reason, the why, for the lack of Mass attendance is the lack of mystery and the supernatural in liturgy? Furthermore, there is an almost equal amount of empirical data that tells us where so many went to after they left the Church. They became Protestant. Why were they drawn to these churches which certainly suffer from this lack of mystery and the supernatural in liturgy? Does the fact that Protestants had long ago allowed members of their denominations to practice artificial birth control not enter into the equation?

I do not know of any, orthodox Catholic who denies "any connection between the Council . . . and the devastation in the Church." Some connection exists. This seems plain. But the nature of this connection is what needs to be explained, and the authors do nothing here to make clear this connection but to simply state over and over that the connection is causal and the reason is the novelty. In fact, the answer traditionalists come up with makes the least sense. The fact that so many left the Church and became Protestant or neo-pagans does not suggest that they left because they no longer had their Latin Mass or their old feast days. Novelty does not seem to be the real culprit behind the loss of faith or numbers.

So, why do the authors insist that it must be the novelties? It must be, because the devastation occurred immediately after their introduction. If this was a science lab and the question was chemical, I could agree with the inference. However, history is not a science lab; people are not chemicals; argument is not mathematical equation; and just because one can prove that B came after A — no matter how soon B occurred after A — does not mean that A caused B.

This is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In order to avoid this fallacy the authors would have to provide evidence that the reason why so many left was due to the novelties introduced at the council. The only evidence they offer, however, is that many did leave chronologically proximate post the introduction. No one doubts this fact, but beyond this nothing else is offered to us. That a great deal of The Great Façade presumes the veracity of this claim calls into question its entire thesis. The fact that the authors' thesis is so greatly based on a fallacy demonstrates that this Ferrawood argument is unanswerable because it is lacking, not because it is logical.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part ii On page 52 the following claim is made after a long list of so-called novelties adopted by the Church and our Pope:

The preconciliar Popes, following the teaching of St. Paul, taught that the wife was subject to the authority of the husband and must obey him as the Church, obeys Christ (assuming the husband's commands are just and moral), but John Paul II has taught that St. Paul meant that this subjection was mutual and that he was merely speaking in a way suited to the culture of his time.

This statement with the following three pages is perhaps the most egregious example of the authors' blind zeal to find error in everything, a zeal that causes them to create error where there has never been any. The authors claim that Pope John Paul II "flatly contradicts" Pope Leo XIII by asserting that subjection is not required on the part of the wife for it is only required on the part of the Church to Christ. To come to this conclusion is to read contradiction into the text.

Mulieris dignitatem, the text that pits John Paul II against the teaching of St. Paul and the preconciliar Popes, appears on page 53 of The Great Façade, after a portion of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Arcanum, and reads in the authors' text:

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: 'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife' (Eph. 5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a 'mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ' (cf. Eph. 5:21) . . . Whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church, the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between the husband and wife, the 'subjection' is not one-sided but mutual."

On page 54 the authors then comment:

To all appearances, this meditation on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians flatly contradicts the teaching of Leo XIII, who emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5:22-23 — which is to say, God Himself — teaches that subjection is required not "only on the part of the Church" to Christ, as John Paul II asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught explicitly in the above-quoted passage. It is significant that John Paul II quotes only the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians — "For the husband is the head of the wife" — while omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is the head of the Church."

Now that as much context has been given, I must express how astounded I was to read the authors' accusation. This accusation is an example of either a complete breakdown in logic or a wholly sinister attempt to sully the name of the Pope.

The Holy Father writes that the one-sided subjection in the relationship between Christ and the Church is to be distinguished from the relation between husband and wife where "the subjection is not one-sided but mutual." This notion of mutual subjection disturbs the authors. They write, "This whole notion of 'mutual subjection' is a conundrum since there cannot be a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler with a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads." While the authors may think it telling that the Pope omitted the second half of what they consider "the key sentence from Ephesians," they may need to be reminded of the words of the Apostle at the very beginning of this catena.³ These words are quoted by John Paul II, and they color the entirety of his "meditation." In fact one could argue that since these words of St. Paul appear at the beginning of the catena they color the entirety of the biblical text in question. These words are, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ."

One wonders how the notion of mutual subjection could be such a "conundrum" for our authors when it is clear that St. Paul calls for this at the very start of his words on marriage. In the footnote on page 55 they admit that "there is certainly a sense in which husband and wife, unlike Christ and the Church, are subject to each other — in the order of charity. But the precise teaching of St. Paul in Ephesians relates to the order of authority, as Leo XIII and Pius XI made clear." Before we turn to the words of the preconciliar Popes, let us turn to the Holy Father's original text from Mulieris dignitatem.

The authors admit that in the order of charity husband and wife are to subject themselves to one another. Do the words of John Paul II reflect that this is his understanding here? In point of fact they do. In paragraph 23 of Mulieris the Pope writes that Ephesians expresses the truth of Genesis where we find the first scriptural teaching on marriage. The two are called to a love that unites them. The Pope writes, "The Letter to the Ephesians once again confirms this truth, while at the same time comparing the spousal character of the love between man and woman to the mystery of Christ and of the Church" (emphasis mine). After this sentence the word "love" appears 12 times and "compassion" three more in paragraph 23 alone. The entire context of this meditation on Ephesians is the similarity and difference between the love God has for His people, the love Christ has for His Church, and the love that a couple has for each other.

The authors quote from paragraph 24. In quoting the Holy Father they omit the following, "This is especially true because the husband is called the 'head' of his wife as Christ is head of the Church; he is so in order to give 'himself up for her' (Eph. 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life." One is immediately reminded of the words of our Lord when He says that there is no greater love than to give one's self up for one's friends (John 15:13). It is stupendously clear that the order within which the Holy Father is speaking regarding this subjection between man and wife is the order of charity not authority. This order of charity is pointed out in the Pauline text itself (5:21, 25, 28-29). The Holy Father in no way denies that in the order of authority the wife is only subject to the husband, because he is not concerning himself with the order of authority in this document. If the authors think he ought to, that is one thing. It is quite another to state that the current Pope "flatly contradicts the teaching of Leo XIII" and "apparently contradicts Pius XI on the same point." Let us turn to the teaching of these Popes.

When one turns to the pertinent texts from Arcanum and Casti conubii one does not find the contradiction that the authors are so eager to discover. The authors quote from section 11 in Arcanum, ignoring the first two sentences which read, "Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help." In the words of John Paul II this mutual subjection through unfailing and unselfish help is to be distinguished from the relationship between Christ and the Church, for Christ is never subject to the Church. Further, Leo XIII addresses the order of authority in paragraph 11 only after spending paragraphs nine and ten on the nature of the order of love that makes the order of authority possible. The subjection in authority according to Leo XIII is only possible through the "very great mutual love" that exists there in marriage.

When we turn to Casti connubii we find that Pius XI has taught that the order of authority, which the authors feel is the primary understanding for verses 22 and 23, is understandable first in the order of charity, for this order of authority is an "order of love." We read:

25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband" [1 Cor. 7:3], express not only a law of justice but of charity.

26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church" [Eph. 5:22-23].

The authoritative order is understandable only in the context of charity. We read in the following paragraph in Casti:

But it [the subjection] forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

Once again, this subjection in the order of authority is not to overshadow the mutual subjection which the two are to have toward one another. In both Leo XIII and Pius XI the order of charity comes before the order of authority. The latter is possible only through the reality of the former. In the Pauline text itself, the first words are in favor of that mutual subjection John Paul II speaks of. There is no reason to doubt that the Holy Father would agree that in the order of authority the subjection in a marriage is one-sided. Still, as the text from Eph. 5:21 — that is God Himself — states, the couple is called to mutual subjection, and this is the overriding theme for the larger catena. The meaning of the catena must include both senses. The authors' apparent lack of careful reading and reckless accusation against John Paul II on this matter is inexcusable.

The authors' statement that the Pope claims that St. Paul "was merely speaking in a way suited to the culture of his time" is simply false. The word "merely" does not appear in the Pope's text. And would the authors deny that St. Paul's words were "rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time"? Did the Apostle write this epistle in French? If St. Paul did not speak in the customs and religious traditions of his time he would have been a poor Apostle. The Holy Father is not saying that because these words of St. Paul are rooted in customs and traditions that they are to be dismissed or are now inaccessible but to experts in historical archaeology. Rather, the Holy Father suggests that St. Paul's contemporaries would have easily accepted the notion that the husband is the head of the wife and that St. Paul is attempting to take this commonly held view and add to it a specifically Christian understanding.

In Christian marriage the wife is to obey the husband (a commonly held idea), but the two are to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" as well (a specifically Christian idea)! The husband is the head (a common opinion), but he is to love his wife "as Christ loved the Church" (a Christian opinion)! She must subject herself to him (commonly held), but he is to be willing to "hand himself over for her" (held by Christians)! St. Paul is consciously taking the commonly held position of the time regarding marriage, a position "so rooted in the customs and religious traditions of the time," and adding onto it the Christian understanding of love, of charity, of the agape selfless-love that Christ embodied.

This is what the Pope means in Mulieris dignitatem when he writes: "The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a 'mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ' (cf. Eph. 5:21)" (emphasis mine). The authors twist and obfuscate the Pope's words in order to paint him into a corner and score rhetorical points with the "casual reader." The sinister nature of their project comes out too clearly here.

They even go so far in their criticism of the Pope as to say that the religious tradition of the time of St. Paul was Christianity.⁴ This is a marvelous revelation. I imagined that the reason St. Paul found it necessary to be the Apostle to the Gentiles was because the religious traditions of the Gentiles were decidedly not Christian. Though certainly St. Paul was writing to a Christian community, this community could not have been older than five or so years, and it certainly would have existed demurely within the wider pagan and Jewish-Greek world. A tradition of the reader may have been Christianity, but the greater traditions of the readers at the time were not Christian.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part iii

On page 94 the authors partake in a bit of illusion; they practice a sleight of hand. They quote John Paul II from his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei in the following manner: "facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities, or individuals until now linked in various ways, to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions . . . "

Then the authors state that the "spiritual and liturgical traditions" referred to were previously the traditions of the whole Church. The next point is that since these traditions have been abandoned by the Church hierarchy there is now, as demonstrated by John Paul II's words, an antipathy — or at least a tension — between the old traditions and the current spiritual and liturgical practices disseminated by the Vatican. The authors write that the Pope admits for all to see that a special commission "is now, required to determine how those who continue to adhere to the former traditions of the Roman Rite may be 'facilitated' in remaining united to 'the successor of Peter'." Continuing, they write, "When our traditions suddenly became 'their' traditions, adherence to those traditions just as suddenly became a problem with respect to ecclesial 'communion.' Since the Pope and nearly all the hierarchy have moved away from those traditions, Catholics who decline to move with them are perceived as having ruptured their 'communion' with the Pope."

The sleight-of-hand the authors engage in goes as follows: the authors switch 1) adherence to Catholic traditions with 2) being linked to Lefebvre and the Fraternity he founded. The authors' false claim is that there is a tension between the Vatican and traditions instead of with Lefebvre. They state that the Pope has admitted that the traditions of the Church are themselves a problem. However, this could not be further from the truth.

The issue of tradition (again, one of the key terms which should have been defined by the authors but was not) will be part of my argument to appear later, but the point to be made here is that the tension, of which the authors speak, is not with the traditions that are adhered to by those addressed in Ecclesia Dei. Rather, tension exists between the Vatican and Lefebvre and those who followed Lefebvre, which is the clear meaning of the text quoted above. The authors are lying when they state on page 95 that "a papal document has noted an apparent antinomy, which the Vatican thinks must be resolved, between adherence to the spiritual and liturgical traditions of the Roman Rite and adherence to the Vicar of Christ." This is simply not the case. The antinomy that exists is between the Vicar of Christ and Marcel Lefebvre, his schismatic actions, and those who follow him.

The authors have taken the words of the Pope, once again, and conjured up an error. The tension, the antinomy, that exists, exists because of the public, frequent, and stubborn refusal of Marcel Lefebvre to obey the Supreme Pontiff. In order to support the claim that the tension is between the Vatican and the Church's own traditions the authors write on page 101 that there are "countless cases of good people humbly petitioning their bishops for a traditional Latin Mass under the terms of the papal indult, only to be ignored or actually scolded."

No doubt this occurs, but the authors' assumption is that it occurs because of the supposed tension between the Vatican and these traditions. I do not doubt that bishops do ignore and scold good and humble people over their desire for the indult. The question is yet again, "Why?" Is it because of the traditions? For some bishops, yes. But for orthodox — or what the authors might refer to as neo-Catholic — bishops the tension is between those who would use the indult as a means of division within the diocese, those who organize public, frequent, and stubborn disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff and the teachings of Vatican II as Lefebvre himself did. If there is a tension between the traditions before the council and the current practices on the part of good bishops, it is due to the antinomy and brazen disobedience of traditionalists like Lefebvre for the council and the Popes who implement it, and it is due to the inflammatory rhetoric that comes from the authors and those of their ilk.

The fact that the authors have partaken in this sleight of hand, betrays what is already common knowledge, and this is that the authors do not themselves believe that Lefebvre and those who followed him are in schism. Because Lefebvre did no wrong in their eyes, the problem cannot be what the Holy Father actually says it is, viz. the violation by Lefebvre of the Pope's sovereign rights over Apostolic Succession, but rather the traditions which Lefebvre believed are constitutive of authentic Catholicism. The authors have witnessed a tension and assigned its cause to the wrong locus. They have taken the words of the Holy Father and made them to mean something they do not mean. This tactic likewise lacks intellectual honesty.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part iv

On page 112 the authors are accusing the Church of a "do-nothing" attitude. They are about to enter into a foray of charge's against John XXIII and Vatican II when they write:

It is well known that Blessed Pope John XXIII began the Second Vatican Council on a note of almost surreal optimism, happily proclaiming a suspension of the Church's condemnation of error: "Nowadays . . . the spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than the arms of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than, by issuing condemnations . . . We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world was at hand." Those sentiments became a kind of template for the next forty years, and we have seen the results of the new attitude.

This "surreal optimism" about the world and the status of the Church has helped cause this great crisis we now experience, so argue the authors. Now let us turn to page 273. The authors write:

The neo-Catholic myth of a moribund preconciliar Church is exploded by none other than Blessed Pope John XXIII himself, who declared in the very document convoking the Council that the Church was in the midst of "the rise and growth of the immense energies and of the apostolate of prayer, of action in all fields. It has seen the emergence of a clergy constantly better equipped in learning and virtue for its mission; and of laity which has become ever more conscious of its responsibilities within the bosom of the Church, and, in a special way, of its duty to collaborate with the church hierarchy."

Why is the impression of Blessed John XXIII surreal optimism at one point but accurate and keen observation at another? Well, because it fits the machinations of the authors. Choosing what they wish, and blinding themselves to all that might disable their specious argument is one of the aspects of Ferrawood that is most disturbing.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part v

One can almost feel the authors flinch when they quote the words of neo-Catholics regarding the state of the preconciliar Church. They write on page 97:

Thus in his General Audience of November 26, 1969, Pope Paul noted with evident satisfaction that the new rite would draw the faithful "out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor." This cruel and unwarranted insult to the piety of many centuries of Catholic faithful — their usual torpor? — is a classic example of the contempt in which the postconciliar establishment holds the preconciliar Church, and we here see that even a Pope is not immune.

Yes, shame on Pope Paul VI for suggesting that there may have been a problem with the fact that the faithful sat in Catholic churches praying their rosary during Mass. Even some dedicated traditionalists admit this. Now, let us turn to the words of Pius XII from Mediator Dei where he quotes Pius XI.

192. Besides, "so that the faithful take a more active part in divine worship, let Gregorian chant be restored to popular use in the parts proper to the people. Indeed it is very necessary that the faithful attend the sacred ceremonies not as if they were outsiders or mute onlookers, but let them fully appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and take part in the sacred ceremonies, alternating their voices with the priest and the choir, according to the prescribed norms. If, please God, this is done, it will not happen that the congregation hardly ever or only in a low murmur answer the prayers in Latin or in the vernacular" [Pius XI, Constitution Divini cultus, n. 9]. A congregation that is devoutly present at the, sacrifice, in which our Savior together with His children redeemed with His sacred blood sings the nuptial hymn of His immense love, cannot keep silent, for "song befits the lover" [St. Augustine, Serm. 336, n. 1] and, as the ancient saying has it, "he who sings well prays twice." Thus the Church militant, faithful as well as clergy, joins in the hymns of the Church triumphant and with the choirs of angels, and, all together, sing a wondrous and eternal hymn of praise to the most Holy Trinity in keeping with words of the preface, "with whom our voices, too, thou wouldst bid to be admitted" [Roman Missal, Preface] (emphasis mine).

Shame on Pius XI and Pius XII for referring to the people as "mute onlookers," for pointing out that the people "hardly ever" respond in even "low murmur[s]" to the great liturgical prayer. Are these Popes cruel in their criticism as well? I would guess that the authors would not characterize them this way because these Popes are not neo-Catholics, whatever this term means.

But here we find a clear example of remarkably insipid commentary on the part of our authors, a commentary which fails to take into account the easily accessible facts of history. What is further revealed in this quotation from Pius XII is that the Popes truly do desire an active participation that is physically active, and not only mentally or spiritually active. It is true that we need not think of active participation as meaning constant jumping, yelling, and waving of one's arms. However, the "usual torpor" of the preconciliar Church is something that the Popes also wanted to avoid.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part vi

It is well known that traditionalists are fond of quoting Cardinal Ratzinger as though he were squarely in their camp. The authors do not completely fall prey to this tendency. They do spend several pages later in their work criticizing the more "liberal" opinions of the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Still, there are a number of positions that are attributed to Ratzinger by the authors' that do not take into account what is clear to anyone who has read the cardinal's works, viz. Ratzinger's position is deeper and more complex than the traditionalists know or want to believe.

The authors write on page 168:

In view of the wholesale liturgical changes imposed by Pope Paul, that the new liturgy is a dramatic rupture with the Church's entire liturgical past is a matter of simple common sense. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has argued that the imposition of the new rite represents a break with tradition. Clearly, commenting on the work of the Consilium, Ratzinger says, "In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product."

Once again the authors are dabbling in verbal sorcery. The first sentence states that the new liturgy itself is a rupture with tradition. The second sentence states that Ratzinger claims that the "imposition" of the new rite is a break with tradition. Then in the third sentence the authors quote the good cardinal in the effort to prove that Ratzinger agrees with the first sentence. We are left then to believe that Ratzinger, being the commonsense fellow that he is, argues that the new rite itself is a break with tradition. However, if Ratzinger agreed with this notion, why did he make this statement?

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its content (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasure of prayers and prefaces, for the new Eucharistic prayers and the increased number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history. In my view, a new edition will need to make it quite clear that the so-called Missal of Paul VI is nothing other than a renewed form of the same Missal to which Pius X, Urban VIII, Pius V, and their predecessors have contributed right from the Church's earliest history. It is of the very essence of the Church that she should be aware of her unbroken continuity throughout the history of faith, expressed in an ever-present unity of prayer. This awareness of continuity is destroyed just as much by those who "opt" for a book supposed to have been produced four hundred years ago as by those who would like to be forever drawing up new liturgies. At bottom, these two attitudes are identical⁵ (emphasis mine).

The Missal to which the authors attribute so much destruction is a Missal the cardinal is "grateful for." What he finds objectionable is not a new Missal that breaks tradition but "the idea of a new book." Ratzinger states that the Missal of Paul VI is the same Missal of time immemorial. Apparently he does not have as much common sense as the authors thought. The cardinal makes the following point as well: The notion of this continuity from Peter to Paul VI is undermined not only by those liberals who wish to create their own liturgies with complete autonomy but also by those who would deny the present continuity and "opt" for the old book, the old rite. Is this not what the traditionalists do? Is it not clear then that the authors were again being deceptive when they suggested Ratzinger's disapproval of the current Roman Rite on page 168?

When, on page 171, the authors write that "no less an authority than Cardinal Ratzinger all but endorses" the view of Gamber which is simply that since "it can be shown that not a single predecessor of Pope Paul VI has ever introduced major changes to the Roman liturgy, the assertion that the Holy See has the authority to change the liturgical rite would appear to be debatable, to say the least," they are again noting connections that do not exist. According to the authors, Ratzinger "all but endorses" Gamber's view by stating in The Spirit of the Liturgy that "the authority of the Pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition."⁶ However, the context of this sentence in Ratzinger's work does not endorse the view of Gamber. Gamber argues that the Pope cannot introduce major changes to the Roman liturgy for to do so would be to destroy the rite and the Pope cannot destroy the rite since his primary duty is to preserve tradition.⁷ Ratzinger, as we have seen, accepts the major changes in the rite as being an integral part of the tradition.

So what is the cardinal saying in The Spirit of the Liturgy? He writes that "after the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council." This "impression" arose because we have been "presented with the idea of a new book." The authors have not taken the meaning of Cardinal Ratzinger at all.⁸

On page 146 the authors write that the idea that the Pope can do anything with the liturgy is an idea "vigorously defended by the neo-Catholics," and it "has yielded terrible consequences, Ratzinger insists." Actually, I know several of these so-called neo-Catholics personally, and I know they do not vigorously defend this idea. I do not know anyone who vigorously defends this idea. Clearly Ratzinger argues against the notion that the Pope can do anything, and yet the prefect is certainly no traditionalist. Is he a neo-Catholic? The authors would answer in the affirmative.

As is the traditionalist habit, the authors are selectively quoting the works of the cardinal to support their argument. Their attempt to make the cardinal say and agree with positions that he does not agree with is not fair to the "casual reader" or the cardinal. The statement that Cardinal Ratzinger agrees with the notion that the Ordo Missae, of 1969 is a break with tradition is one often put forward by traditionalists and by the Ferrawood argument. The prefect of the CDF clearly does not agree with the authors or the traditionalist movement on this matter.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part vii

As one reads The Great Façade, one wonders if the authors read the works that they quote. Here I am specifically referring to the statement on page 270 where they quote Cardinal Ratzinger from his work Introduction to Christianity. They write:

Will man always be man as he is at this stage of evolution — a unity of physical body and spiritual soul — or will he finally "ascend" to the ultimate convergence of all things at Teilhard's Omega Point, the terminus of evolutionary "complexification" at which the "arbitrary" distinction between matter and spirit will no longer be seen? It should not be surprising at this point that Cardinal Ratzinger (when he was Fr. Ratzinger) dabbled in this very notion: In his Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger, after several favorable references to Teilhard's "thought," speculates: "if the cosmos is history and if matter represents a moment in the history of spirit, then there is no such thing as an eternal, neutral combination of matter and spirit but a final 'complexity' in which the world finds its omega and unity." Thus Ratzinger openly declares: "Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons . . . "* But it was the physical Body of Our Lord that was gone from the Tomb after the Resurrection, the same Body that had died on the Cross . . .

* Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), page 277. Defenders of the cardinal will protest (without citing any proof) that the views of Fr. Ratzinger are no longer the views of Cardinal Ratzinger. Yet this book was republished with his knowledge and consent in 1990. To our knowledge, the cardinal has yet to retract any of the questionable opinions that fill his books, interviews, and addresses.

The authors argue that after citing Teilhard de Chardin, Fr. Ratzinger "dabbles" with Teilhard's notion of the Omega Point and even denies the resurrection of physical bodies. Damning evidence, no? In fact, so say the authors, neo-Catholics have nothing to say in defense of the cardinal but to claim, with no proof, that he has rejected these youthful, theological indiscretions. However, when one turns to the cardinal's words one will realize quite, simply that the cardinal has no reason to reject his thoughts as Fr. Ratzinger. He does not reject them because there is nothing wrong with them. The authors are once again boldly deceptive. The cardinal does not say what the authors suggest he does. This is patently obvious to one who has simply read pages 276-277 of Introduction to Christianity.

The first point to be made is that there can be little question in the "casual reader's" mind — that same mind that would be too confused by the use of the term "conservative" — that Cardinal Ratzinger's statements appear in the context of Teilhard de Chardin's thought. The implication, then, is that Ratzinger endorses Teilhard's thought. Once again, this is deceptive language employed by the authors. Not only is Fr. Teilhard's name not mentioned on page 277 of Introduction, but it is not even mentioned in this section. In fact the name does not appear in the entire chapter. Neither his name nor works are mentioned in the text or the footnotes of this chapter of Introduction. How can the authors claim that several favorable references were made about the Teilhard's thought before Ratzinger's speculation? They might answer that somewhere in the book in some chapter Ratzinger made such references, and since 277 is the second to last page in the book clearly then this speculation comes after favorable references to Teilhard's thought. This is simply rhetorical manipulation.

When one turns to what Fr. Ratzinger states one finds that the question at hand in this section of Introduction is the nature of the resurrected body. To understand this nature Ratzinger turns to Scripture and philology, not Teilhard de Chardin. He points out the difference between the Greek and Hebrew understanding of man. For the former there is a dichotomy between man's material self and spiritual self, a dichotomy out of which gnosticism grew.⁹ The Jewish understanding of man differed in that there were three fundamental aspects of man, not two. These are the flesh, the body, and the spirit, and these aspects are reflected in the thought of St. Paul.

The flesh is the very physicality of man, his purely material self. There are a number of different kinds of flesh (1 Cor. 15:39). In St. Paul's thought there are two sorts of bodies (somata). The first is the natural body. The second is the spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44). Then of course there is the spirit which corresponds to the soul, the animating principle. Now, the spiritual body is the resurrected body. It is "incorruptible." The fleshy body is the natural body. It is "corruptible." At the resurrection, then, the natural body ceases to be natural and becomes more like the spirit. St. Paul states that it is impossible for the physical/fleshy body to be resurrected: "This I declare, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:50). So when Fr. Ratzinger wrote that St. Paul does not speak of the resurrection of physical bodies, he is absolutely right so long as we understand that "physical body" refers to "flesh and blood."

Now, this use of "spiritual body" by St. Paul leads Ratzinger to use the theologically pregnant term "person." This term can be understood in the way that Boethius and St. Thomas Aquinas understood it: an individual substance of a singular rational nature.¹⁰ Ratzinger uses the term "person" here, because it better communicates the singular human substance at the end of time, the resurrected body. For at the resurrection, he speculates, we will have a spirit-body. The spirit and body will make up one singular substance with a rational nature, a person. This spirit-body is different from our own right now, which one might call our soul-body, in that it cannot be split. Our soul can be separated from its body at death. Death has no more power over the resurrected body, because the spirit and the body have become as one, they have become a spirit-body, a spiritual body, and cannot be corrupted. This is what Ratzinger is saying. He is not denying the resurrection of bodies, only fleshy bodies, which is what St. Paul does himself.

Now if the physical, material body can be transformed by grace into a spiritual, resurrected body, this spirit-body suggests that the dichotomy or tension between matter and spirit, which was so central to Greek thought, is not accurate. That is, we need not think of the resurrected body as being a "neutral combination" of matter and spirit where matter and spirit are sort of welded together like pieces of steel. Rather the two are made into one singular substance with a rational nature, a person, and can therefore be referred to as a real "unity." Ratzinger states, "In that case there is a final connection between matter and spirit in which the destiny of man and of the world is consummated even if it is impossible for us today to define the nature of this connection."

This is important to Ratzinger's understanding. The omega of history, the end, marks the point where the entire universe will be reconciled (well or poorly) with the reality of God's being. The physical universe will cease to exist in the current manner by being transformed — like Christ's and Mary's physical bodies — into something that reflects this spirit-body, this "complexity" between matter and spirit. We are not gnostics. Matter is not evil. Thus it is argued that the material world will be reconciled with the spiritual. If matter was good enough to create it must be good enough to maintain. This is all that Fr. Ratzinger is arguing. There is nothing erroneous about any of it.

The authors are once again either wholly ignorant or deliberately deceptive when they present the thought of Fr. and Cardinal Ratzinger in the way they have. If the authors disagree with Ratzinger's speculation about the nature of the connection between matter and spirit at the end of time then they should confront it and disagree with it. If they do not understand it then they should simply keep quiet.

the lesser sayings of ferrawood part viii

Schism is an often-addressed issue in this debate. Before schism is addressed, however, something must be made clear. I do not believe it is at all accurate and certainly not within the realm of Christian charity to suggest that all traditionalists are schismatics. This is simply not the case. Not all self-styled traditionalists would even agree with the Ferrawood brand of traditionalism. That having been said, allow me to address how the authors have completely misunderstood schism.

On page 230 the authors write:

Contrary to what most neo-Catholics assume, schism does not consist in resistance to certain papal commands or policies, but rather a rejection of the Pope's authority in itself. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "[N]ot every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include, besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their divine right to command."

The authors continue with a number of historical examples of persons who resisted statements by a Pope and were not considered schismatic. They wish to make it clear that there is a "crucial canonical and theological difference between schism and simple disobedience in a particular matter."¹¹ There should be no doubt that there is in fact a crucial distinction to be made between disobedience and schism. What is remarkable, however, is that the authors should choose to quote a non-canonical text in order to point out this "crucial canonical . . . difference" when there is the canonical text so readily available for them to use. I am speaking of course about the Code of Canon Law.

Let us look at the definition of schism in the 1983 Code. Canon 751 reads:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

There is nothing in this canonical definition of schism that suggests that to be a schismatic one must deny the Supreme Pontiff's divine right of command. If the authors are under the impression that the 1983 Code is somehow tainted by the novelties that distress them so, perhaps the definition in canon 1325 in the 1917 Code will suffice, "if anyone refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff or if he refuses communion with those members of the church who are subject to him he is schismatic." Let us look to another source for sound Catholic teaching: St. Thomas Aquinas. His definition of schism reads, "Schismatics are those who refuse obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff and who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."¹² The point to be made here is that as sound as the Catholic Encyclopedia is, it does not enjoy the same weight of authority that the Code of Canon Law does or even St. Thomas Aquinas. The authors, however, knowing full well that they could not possibly quote canon law to make the "crucial canonical" distinction, have chosen the definition that appears to fit their argument best.

Their argument continues onto page 233 by stating that since the denial of divine right of the Pope to command is necessary for schism no schismatic would actually appeal to this right. Thus, the signers of We Resist You to the Face, in their appeal to this right, cannot be schismatic. This simply does not make sense, for it means that it does not matter what the party in question is petitioning when they appeal to the Pope. Certainly all heretics are schismatics; however, it is entirely possible for a heretic to appeal to the divine right of the Pope to jettison the Old Testament from the canon of Sacred Scripture. What the party in question is petitioning is the important thing, not that they appeal to the Pope. The fact that the signers of Resist appeal to the Pope does not prove anything. Even a heretic, who is a de facto schismatic, can do this. The authors' argument, then, that the signers of Resist are not schismatic merely because they appeal to the Pope makes no sense.

However, Resist is not my concern here. The issue is the authors' claim that the appeal to this power of the Pope relieves one from the charge of schism. This is not the understanding of the Code of Canon Law. This is not its understanding precisely because a schismatic can claim that the Pope may have the right to command but has commanded poorly. Fr. Feeney did this very thing. Any objective schismatic can appeal to the divine right of the Pope. The issue is whether or not the schismatic obeys.

Now, one should not conclude that I would argue that the Catholic Encyclopedia is in error regarding the definition of schism. There is an aspect of the denial of papal privilege in schism. However, the authors assume that what the Encyclopedia requires is a public statement of denial regarding the divine rights of the Pope. This ignores the reality that one can effectively commit the same sin by public and constant disobedience through action or inaction. Though my child may express his love for me in words on a constant basis, does he not effectively undermine my authority as a father when he deliberately disobeys me? And if his disobedience were to become constant and public, is this not an open and complete denial of my authority, my rights as his father?

Schism might require the denial of the divine rights of the Supreme Pontiff, but one need not openly deny these rights with word, nor is one freed from this denial by praising the Pope. One respects these rights of the Pope through word and action. The constant disobedience of persons like Marcel Lefebvre does in fact constitute a denial of the right of the Pope to determine who is made a priest and who is made a bishop.

The surprise and indignation that the authors show at the charge of schism leveled at all traditionalists is somewhat justified. There are too many who dismiss a traditionalist without attempting to deal with the serious questions they raise. Still, the authors betray a fundamental misunderstanding of schism, not just canonically, as I have just pointed out, but also theologically. When St. Thomas speaks of schism it is in the context of charity and those sins against charity. It is pointedly not in the realm of legal penalties.

This being the case, the authors' statement that neo-Catholics have no right to charge schism when there has been no canonical statement to the fact only shows that they hold a legalistic notion of schism that does not take into account the theological reality that the canonical determination is meant to demonstrate. Anyone sins when he persistently, publicly, and vigorously refuses submission to the Pope and communion with those who are subject to him in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and government. Such a persistent, public, and vigorous refusal in the face of statement after statement is an effective denial of the Pope's divine rights and is thus a sign of the sin of schism. When this sin exists it exists objectively regardless of a declaration from the Vatican, because it is a sin against charity. The authors' attempt to recast the definition of schism again demonstrates their dishonesty.

+ + +

In these eight examples I have attempted to show how the authors, in their blind zeal to find fault with anything and everything coming out of the Vatican, have twisted words and ignored simple facts. The Ferrawood argument has been presented by the authors themselves and by sympathetic reviewers as the long-awaited answer to the errors of Vatican II. The "devastating logic" that is said to permeate the book is supposed to have permanently changed the field of debate between traditionalists and the rest of the Church.

What is so painfully clear, however, is that these traditionalists are only too willing to look past the logical, ignore the reasonable, and invent the fantastical in order to justify their predetermined positions. The authors' rhetorical skill is impressive, but this is just rhetoric and lacks anything argumentatively substantive. The readers of this essay ought to keep in mind that not one term central to this debate has been defined by the authors: "tradition," "doctrine," "Magisterium," "novelty." None of these have been defined, and thus nothing can be advanced until they are. In the following section I will address these terms.

Footnotes

1. That Cardinal Ratzinger admits of a kind of meltdown in the Church is well known and often quoted. However, does the cardinal ever give a reason for this meltdown? Certainly the following quotation gives us some understanding of what he thinks has led us — at least in part — to this great crisis. In a certain sense, it was this same love for the beauty of the truth that led [Dietrich von Hildebrand], many years later, in the midst of the crisis that shook the Church after the publication of the encyclical Humanae vitae, to remain ever faithful, defending the teaching of the Magisterium in a small book published after the encyclical was issued." The Soul of a Lion (San Francisco, Ignatius Press) page 12. One might also look at the assessment of Dr. Ralph McInerny in What Went Wrong With Vatican II (Sophia Press).

2. Page 97.

3. A "catena" is a connected series of verses that reflect a single theme or teaching.

4. Page 55: "In the first place, the 'religious traditions of the time' was Christianity."

5. Feast of Faith (San Francisco, Ignatius Press) page 87.

6. (San Francisco, Ignatius Press) page 166.

7. "Every liturgical rite constitutes an organically developed, homogenous unit. To change any of its essential elements is synonymous with the destruction of the rite in its entirety. This is what happened during the Reformation when Martin Luther did away with the canon of the Mass and made the words of the consecration and institution part of the distribution of communion. Clearly this change destroyed the Roman Mass, even though it appeared that traditional liturgical forms continued unchanged — initially even the vestments and choral chant remained." The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, pages 3031.

8. It would be interesting to learn what the authors' reaction would be to the following words from Mediator Dei n. 58 "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."

9. One might recall the last hours of Socrates' life where he bade that his friends not mourn his imminent passing since his real self, his spirit, was now going to be freed from the inherently limiting material self, the burden that weighed his soul down. The Greeks had an antipathy for the material world, while the Judeo-Christian tradition sees the material world as good by virtue of it having been declared good by God.

10. Summa Theologiae, Ia Q.29 a.l.

11. TGF, page 232.

12. Summa Theologiae, IIa, IIae Q.39.

(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 6329 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org