Loading ...
I was so fortunate as recently to obtain an interview with Dr. Joseph Shaw, Tutorial Fellow in Philosophy at St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford. I asked him both about Catholic traditionalism in Oxford and the UK as well as about his personal role in the traditionalist cause. I hope that this interview will be of general interest, but of especial interest to those of us who are in academia as coming from a fellow Catholic academic. Though I am proud to call Dr. Shaw a friend of mine, I began by asking him to tell our readers a little about himself:
I was born the sixth and youngest of Catholic convert parents in 1971, and was the only one of my family to endure the new order of Infant Baptism, an indignity to which I have not subjected my own offspring…. I was educated the old-fashioned way, i.e. in ill-heated boarding schools far from home (London) from the age of 8. From the age of 13 this was ‘Catholic’, but naturally I learnt little about the Faith there. Then I went up to Oxford, more by luck than for any other reason, where I have been studying and teaching since 1991: History (for a year), Politics and Philosophy (for the rest of my first degree), a year’s Theology, the BPhil (which is a two-years Masters in Philosophy) and the DPhil. That was great fun. After four years as a Junior Research Fellow in Wolfson College, I have returned to where I did my degrees, St. Benet’s Hall, to be in charge of the Philosophy teaching there. St. Benet’s is a small Catholic hall, effectively a miniature College of the University, with Benedictine monks, as well as lay students, in situ, which makes it an interesting place, although most people pass through Oxford without even hearing of it. It’s a great tribute to the University that it finds room for such an unusual institution; in fact the Dominicans, Jesuits and Capuchin Franciscans each have a similar Hall, which is a great foundation for Oxford’s Catholic life.
As the Latin Mass Society representative, I should imagine that you have your finger on the traditionalist pulse in Oxford. Would you give our readers some idea of the current state of things in Oxford as well as a précis of the history since the Council (as far as you know it)?
In Oxford, Mass was first said regularly in a private house, I think, and then in a room belonging to the local ‘Women’s Institute’. (The WI is a worthy organization best known for making jam for charity stalls, at least until the European Union made it illegal to sell home-made food.) Then it moved to a large room attached to the North Oxford Conservative Club. (The Conservative Party prides itself, locally, on having bars for its members. No, seriously.)
So this wasn’t an SSPX institution, it was just a retired priest (latterly the recently deceased Fr. Michael Crowdy) saying a private Mass in an odd venue, and a crowd of fifty or so people turning up. In about 2000 Fr. Crowdy wanted to pass on the torch and, although by then he was living in the SSPX house in Bristol, he asked Fr. Andrew Southwell, who at that time was a novice of the FSSP, to take it on. Fr. Southwell agreed, subject to the approval of Archbishop Vincent Nichols. Nichols welcomed the chance to regularize the situation of this little group.
However, about half of the congregation refused to go along with this arrangement and persuaded the SSPX to supply a priest for them. Although Fr Southwell was and remains exclusively committed to the Old Mass, the hardliners at the Mass centre didn’t want anything that was permitted by the Archbishop. And that’s something I find hard to understand.
It was shortly after the schism at the Mass centre that I started to go to Fr. Southwell’s Masses at the Community Centre. They were now a recognized Indult provision, and advertised by the Latin Mass Society, but no church was made available and, happening as they did in a sort of sports hall, some people remained suspicious of them. And that’s something else which I find hard to understand. In any case, after about three years Archbishop Nichols asked the Oxford Oratorians to say a Traditional Mass on Sundays, and to cut a long story short, the Mass at the Oratory has replaced the Community Centre arrangement. However, since they take place at 8am, and with bi-ritual priests, we lost a number of people to the SSPX when the transition happened. On the other hand, we gained people who clearly prefer to have Mass in a consecrated church, and particularly on feast days when the Mass is at 12.15. So we average 50 on a Sunday, but we can get up to a hundred people on feast days.
It was then, in 2004, that I became the local rep of the Latin Mass Society. I got the list of local members and I saw that the assistant priest at a parish in North Oxford, Fr. John Saward, was among them. Fr. Saward is a remarkable man, a Anglican clergyman convert and a theologian, who was the English translator of Benedict XVI’s The Spirit of the Liturgy. Anyway, he’s now Priest in Charge of his parish, and says Mass for us on First Fridays and private Mass once a week as well.
I also organized a Pilgrimage in honour of the Catholic martyrs of Oxford, and a Gregorian Chant Training Day. I must say that both the Oratorians and Fr. Saward have been very accommodating for these kinds of events. And we’ve had a traditional Reception into the Church, a Requiem and Burial, and a Wedding, over the last couple of years. So there is a lot going on here.
Within reasonable distance of Oxford’s city centre, one can find Greyfriars, Blackfriars, the Oratory, SS. Gregory & Augustine, and the Catholic Chaplaincy of the University. Do you think that room (both physically and metaphorically) could be found in Oxford for a parish dedicated exclusively to the traditional Mass and Sacraments?
There is certainly room, in terms of churches and congregations, but moving Novus Ordo Masses out of the way even for a Traditional Mass in a prime Sunday morning slot, let alone for a Tradtional parish, would be extremely difficult. If it did happen it would certainly attract a lot more people. People are prepared to travel a long way for the Traditional Mass, but at 8am this is impossible. Again, very few students will get up for an 8am Mass. And it’s hard to encourage someone to experience the Traditional Mass if it means getting up early on Sunday, so promoting the Mass is difficult. A Traditional parish would be ideal.
Many people have heard, of course, of the University of Oxford, but few know about the Catholic history of the city and university. Would you give our readers a few reasons why they should know more about this city and its rich Catholic history?
Yes: Oxford has always been a great centre of Catholic thinking. The medieval University and town were filled with religious houses of every kind, and supplied many high-ranking prelates to the English Church. After the Protestant Revolt, the Catholic University and seminary founded by Cardinal Allen at Douai was, at first, a kind of Oxford in exile – almost the whole faculty of New College, for example, was expelled for ‘Popery’, and many ended up working on the Douai Bible. Even after the initial expulsions, Oxford continued to be the place where people came back to the Catholic faith, and set off overseas to become priests, many of whom, like St. Edmund Campion, were martyred. The surrounding area was home to many Catholic gentry, who themselves suffered greatly for the Faith. Later, Oxford became the historic centre of High Anglicanism, support for the Stuarts, Toryism, and so on.
Almost every ancient college has martyrs, and there are two sites of martyrdom in the town. I have put an old Catholic guidebook to Oxford online, in the form of a blog, ‘Catholic Oxford’, and I’ve been adding to the entries on each college and so on. You can look up pretty well anything of any age and find numerous Catholic associations.
The contrast with Cambridge is very striking. Cambridge of course has its Catholic heroes – St. John Fisher was Chancellor – but it was a hotbed of Protestantism and later, of political radicalism. No, no, let’s not talk about that boggy place in the fens. ‘Cambridge people rarely smile, being urban, squat, and packed with guile’, said Rupert Brooke, and he should know!
In America, traditionalists often look up to Archbishop Burke (St. Louis), who has done much for the ICKSP, or to Bishop Bruskewitz (Lincoln, NE), who has done much for the FSSP, as protectors of traditionalists, even though Burke and Bruskewitz are not themselves traditionalists, properly so-called. Are there any bishops in Great Britain who have helped or are helping the traditionalist cause? Are there any who have been especially inimical to it? If so, in what ways?
There’s no getting away from the fact that the Traditional Orders have not been welcomed to the UK, and Indult Masses have not been allowed in any generous way. The orders have a couple of footholds, but their situation is still tenuous.
The main contrast with the US and, indeed, with countries like France, is the relative uniformity here. There has been no Bruskewitz and, I suppose, no Weakland either. They are neither hot nor cold, and I won’t say what Our Lord will do with them, but the reader will understand. They seem to form a closed little club, who stand by each other against criticism, but demand from each other pretty strict adherence to the party line.
A common complaint from the SSPX is that indults are only granted near an SSPX chapel to undermine it. Maybe that happened a few times, but in general I just wish the Bishops took as much interest in Traditionalism as that implies.
To answer your question, I see the most hope for some more adequate Traditianal provision in Archbishop MacDonald of Southwark, who could possibly even succeed Murphy-O’Connor in Westminster. He has been more than tolerant of the bi-ritual parish which developed in St. Bede’s, thanks to Fr. Andrew Southwell. There are some truly awful bishops, and a very good article from the New Oxford Review focuses on Crispian Hollis of Portsmouth. Bizarrely, however, Hollis is the only bishop in England and Wales to allow the Fraternity of St. Peter (or any other Traditional Order) the use of one of his churches every Sunday (in Reading, at 12noon). By contrast, you’ll see from the Latin Mass Society Mass listings that some dioceses have practically no provision of the Traditional Mass. The bishops of those places are just colourless nonentities.
If the universal indult (whatever that is) were to come along tomorrow, what impact do you anticipate it would have on the lives of traditionalists in Oxford? Do you think that there would be an immediate increase in the number of old rite Masses publicly available in Oxford? Are there priests waiting in the wings, whom you know, who would take advantage of such permission?
I know from my own experience that the sense of the Traditional Mass being outside the pale of polite society is a powerful thing keeping people away from it. Yes, it is weak souls who are affected by this consideration, but in order to make someone a committed Traditionalist, you have to get a non-committed Novus Ordo Catholic at least to try it out. And again, if a non-Traddie asks his parish priest about it, chances are he’ll be made to understand it’s strictly for people with two heads, and no sense in either of them.
Even now, with the current provision in Oxford, the Old Mass must seem like an oddity for a bunch of eccentrics, at an unpopular time etc.. Which is (partly) why I spend so much energy on publicity, with posters and eye-catching events like the pilgrimage (which was even reported in the Catholic Herald), just to get us onto the radar-screen of ordinary Catholics. So if the Universal Indult changes this perception of the Traditional Mass, it will make a big difference. It will give comfort to our friends and make our enemies more cautious in their attacks. Furthermore, I personally don’t agree with the worry that lots of unsympathetic priests will put on bastardized versions of the 1962 Mass. Those priests blanch at the thought of Latin, for heaven’s sake; I don’t see the attraction for them of such a thing.
And yes, there are priests waiting in the wings to say more Traditional Masses. Without legal restrictions, the limiting factor will be times and venues, and therein lies the problem I mentioned earlier, of needing to move Novus Ordo Masses out of the way to make room for the Traditional Mass. If there is opposition from the congregation, it will be very hard for priests to do this. Instead, they may put on Masses early in the morning, on Sunday evenings, and so on. So instead of one not-entirely-satisfactory Sunday Mass time, we could end up with several! Of course this would still be a step forward, and I will welcome any extra Mass anywhere. It will just be harder work for me to keep up with a more fragmented situation.
What is your impression of the popularity of traditionalist ideas among the student body at Oxford? As the LMS rep and a tutor at St. Benet’s, are you in a position to “recruit” others to the movement? Do you have ideas about how to get more students involved?
Like Satan, I’m always prowling about looking for souls to devour, and Oxford is a brilliant place to proselytise for Tradition. Undergraduates tend not to have hang-ups about the Mass; they are perfectly happy to try it out, and are interested in all the ideas, and in Gregorian Chant. In fact, getting a schola together to sing at a Mass is the best way I’ve found so far of physically getting the little blighters into church while the Traditional Mass is going on. They don’t always come back, of course, but if they add the experience of the Old Mass to their other University experiences, that’s something.
As well as the earlyness of the Sunday Mass, coupled with the innate laziness of undergraduates, the main problem I have is that the ‘official’ organisations for Catholic students (the Chaplaincy, the Newman Society, the Catholic Halls etc.) are wedded to the Novus Ordo, so I can’t use them directly to promote the Old Mass. I can’t advertise through them, or give them talks, or anything like that. I’m sure that will change, however, as time goes on.
Because of your casuistry blog and other webpages, people can easily associate the name “Joseph Shaw” with Catholic traditionalist views. On the other hand, among my comrades and me at Cornell (and now in other places), we hesitate - or dare not - show our faces or our names, until we’ve secured our place in academia. Liberals, who tend to populate the upper echelons of academia, are tolerant, but not of antediluvian, pre-French Revolution religious views such as ours. What influenced your decision to go public, as it were? Do you think that an academic who is also a Catholic traditionalist is more likely to be welcomed in Oxford than at other universities, whether in Britain or America?
It’s true that Oxford is a relatively friendly place for Traditionalists. But my policy is born partly of necessity: being an LMS rep means that my name is printed in the quarterly magazine (with my telephone number, in fact). I can’t hide that, and since I want people I don’t know to get in touch, to join the serving team, or whatever, I have to be out in the open.
Will it harm my career? I don’t think so. The chances of anyone on an interviewing panel in the UK having the faintest idea of what all the fuss might be about concerning the Mass is almost zero. This is partly because there are no Catholic institutions to speak of, to which I might apply for jobs. The only exception is the formerly Jesuit Heythrop College in London, which achieved notoriety when it hired a self-described witch. (A small prize will be given to the first person to find the word ‘Catholic’, describing the institution on Heythrop’s website.) But also the intra-Catholic situation seems much less heated in the UK. There’s not the bitterness against Tradition among English neo-conservatives that you seem to find in America.
It’s true, of course, that people of liberal political or theological views would smell me out, but they’d do that anyway, from my published academic work. The fact that I work in areas not far away from Traddie issues puts me in a stronger position, I think, because mine are not just unfashionable or embarrassing private views, but professional positions I’d be happy to defend. For example, if people questioned my views on the desirability of a Catholic confessional state, I’d start talking about political theorists like Michael Walzer and Joseph Raz (both Jewish, incidentally), who have argued powerfully against the coherence of the idea of a state that is neutral between different values.
What was the topic of your D.Phil. dissertation and what are your current philosophical interests? What papers do you teach? Which is your favorite to teach?
My D.Phil. was on commands, as a moral phenomenon. It arose out of a realization that the problems divine commands are supposed to have (as in ‘the Euthyphro dilemma‘), are equally applicable to the commands of the state, to parental commands, and indeed to promising. (The version of the Euthyphro dilemma applied to promising goes like this: Do you promise X because it is obligatory, or is it obligatory because you promise it? Silly question, you say: but the Enlightenment consensus on commands is that the second option is impossible to defend.) I have some published papers on divine commands arising out of this.
Since then, I’ve been writing and publishing on intention and double effect. Like commands, it’s an aspect of ordinary moral thinking with important connections with Catholic teaching. And also like commands, modern philosophical treatments are hamstrung by bad Enlightenment arguments.
I regularly teach Ethics, Philosophy of Religion and Mill’s Utilitarianism; these are compulsory for certain students, so there’s always demand. My favourite things to teach are the more specialist papers on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, and parts of Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.
What do you think British traditionalist Catholics are contributing today to the traditionalist movement as a whole? What differences would you remark between British and American traditionalists?
Everything in the UK seems less impressive than the equivalent in the US. Thanks to the absence of the Traditional orders, very little has developed here. And we lack your optimism, the sense that things are possible with hard work.
The one thing I think British traditionalists could contribute is their sense of humour. There is plenty of humour in Traddie circles in America, but I think the British have a particular charism here, of seeing the lighter side of serious things. G.K. Chesterton wrote a rather strange novel called ‘The Napoleon of Notting Hill’, in which one character treats local traditions are a source of whimsical fun, and another takes them deadly seriously. The danger with the first is that it is insincere and patronising; the second tends to fanaticism. Chesterton’s point was that you’ve got to hold the two things together, to keep sane: you’ve got to take the traditions seriously, but keep your sense of your own ridiculousnessness. British traditionalists have obviously rejected the first extreme, but the general culture here makes the second extreme very unlikely, so they end up quite balanced. Americans sometimes become scandalized by the way British people joke about religious matters, but I think it is important. We may have something to teach you here. ‘Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there’s always laughter and good red wine. At least I have always found it so. Benedicamus Domino!’ (Hilaire Belloc).
There are other good things about the Traditional Catholic scene in the UK, which may or may not be unique to us. First of all, I like the fact that the Traditional congregations I know are socially representative. One of the things I’ve always hated in social settings is being expected to mingle only with people my own age, or sex, or state of life, or indeed background. There are as many stereotypical Traditionalists are there are types of people, and that’s another important way of keeping sane.
Traditionalists think about the whole range of doctrines and social issues in a genuinely Catholic way. They are very active in the pro-life groups, but also being interested in the wider issues, political, social, and devotional. Bishop Fellay recently said (in an interview with Brian Mershon) that ‘the great majority of the Ecclesia Dei movement sticks to the Mass, but not to the doctrine.’ Well, that’s not my experience: never have I met such well-read, orthodox and sensible Catholics. I’m equally impressed by the Traditional priests serving us: Fr Southwell, Fr du Chaxel FSSP and the recently arrived Fr Durham FSSP.
Finally, the Traditionalists whom I know are vastly more friendly and helpful, and willing to get involved, than the average Catholic. I think this is because Traditionalists share an understanding of what has gone wrong, and what kind of things need to be done. I’ve been involved in organizing two big projects, a Summer School (we’ve now done it for two years) and a Family Retreat (we did the first last Spring), both of them run by St Catherine’s Trust, which I helped to found. For both we needed a huge amount of help at every stage: advice, expertise, teachers, supervisors of children, singers, servers, people to give talks, people to give money, people to shift equipment about. And the response has been fantastic. I can’t praise our staff and families enough. People keep coming forward to offer real expertise and long stretches of their holidays, for no material reward. (If anyone reading this would like to help or donate, please get in touch!)
Partly as a result of this I’ve made the resolution always to help other people’s Traddie projects, if they are basically sound, if I possibly can, even if they’re not doing it the way I would be doing it, etc.. I always sing at Masses if I can, I promote the local pro-life events, I introduce people to petitions and websites, I give talks and write book reviews, notably for the Traditional home-schooling groups which are springing up. In this regard there’s an interesting blog promoting all those campaigns that get started and then forgotten about, ‘Catholic Action UK.‘ If I can give one piece of advice to your readers, it would be this: when someone else has set something up, good in intention but imperfect in execution, don’t compete, don’t carp, give it a boost and it might achieve something.
Plurimas agimus tibi gratias, Doctor Shaw!
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Well, in some ways I find Wessex’s explanation more “understandable.” Proklos made it sound as though people stayed away from the Church because of very deep loyalty to the faith, and that seems wrong. Wessex implies that bitter feelings and petty rivalries keep people in their various camps. That’s more plausible, though hardly edifying.
As I understand it, even the SSPX formally acknowledges the “credentials” of those in charge in Rome — that is to say, that their authority is genuine, even if it is often in practice ignored.
It is strange isn’t it, Dr Shaw, that institutions like the chaplaincy should be dedicated to that which you call the Novus Ordo, but other people call the Roman Rite.
It is quite queer that the chaplain should seek to educate the students in the missal that is currently in use, and has been for nearly 40 years.
How strange those little people are…
Proklos said: Converts like Frs. John Saward and Aidan Nichols OP and children of converts like Dr. Shaw and Bishop Crispian Hollis never really understand what the true mass means to old line Catholics…
Dr Shaw’s parents were both pre Vatican II converts. How old a Catholic family do you have to belong to before you “really understand what the true mass means to old line Catholics who suffered for the faith in England for centuries”?
What an amazing comment from Proklos. Rather than argue with him, I suggest he reads Joseph Pearse’s book ‘Literary Converts’, where he will find not only that the Catholic Church in the UK has constantly been reinforced by conversions, but that many of the most determined defenders of the Traditional Mass, in the wake of the Council, were converts. Hugh Ross Williamson, Evelyn Waugh and David Jones, to name but three, had a far stronger grasp of what Catholicism was all about than most ‘cradle Catholics’ of their day.
On Heythrop: the non-discrimination requirement written into their statutes is now the law of the land. That doesn’t mean institutions can’t advertise their Catholic ethos - if they have one.
On the Chaplaincy and the student societies: I didn’t say it was either strange or surprising that they are wedded to the Novus Ordo. What is disappointing is that they are unable, say, to invite a Tradionalist to give a talk, or have the occasional Traditional Mass. An allergy to the historical Mass of the Roman Church is deeply worrying in any Catholic, especially in light of the encouragement given to that Mass by successive Popes. This aversion to Traditionalism is just sour ecclesiastical politics, and it is sure to pass: and what will you do then, ‘Newman’?
The Traditional Mass was offered in Oxford in the private chapel of Miss K.Pond, a distinguished scholar of Spanish literature and the mystics. I think that it was the first Traditional Mass Centre in England and was served by SSPX and priestly “predecessors”. When the Mass there stopped, the Oxford Mass centre started in Middle Way in,I think, 1986.It was served by the late Fr Basil Wrighton, a priest of the Birmingham Diocese living in retirement at the recusant stronghold of the Eyston family at East Hendred. It was always an Independent Mass centre serving many different types of traditional Catholics. Its successors, Fr Crowdy, Fr Southwell and others all have done wonderful work aided by other fine people, like Michael Morley,Julian Griffiths, Dr Joseph Shaw and the late Miss Penelope Renold. It is so sad to see division and confusion : see the many comments about this interview on ANGELQUEEN FORUM. Joseph Shaw is absolutely right that we all need to stick together and encourage and help one another. Alan Robinson (rpienne@eircom.net)
Perhaps if those people wishing the Newman to promote the Old Mass would free it from its financial ties to the modernist Chaplaincy then they might yey be able to promote the traditional rite. Less talk, more action!
Thanks, Anonymous. Being on the scene in Oxford I have made your point, and made the corresponding offer, to no fewer than three Presidents of the Newman Society. You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
In addition to financial support, the Chaplain has a lock-hold over the mailing list. But even this doesn’t present an insurmountable difficulty.
As it happens the Newman Society’s termly dinner used to be in the Traditional Rite, and was celebrated by Fr Jerome Bertram of the Oxford Oratory. (Juridicially, of course, this was a private Mass.) This has been forbidden by the Chaplain. Dr Shaw has also been ruled out as a speaker to the Newman, even on topics unrelated to the liturgy.
I do not believe this pathetic situation can long survive a Motu Proprio.
“Detraction may easily become a mortal sin, and certainly is a mortal sin in important matters, where grave results are the consequence. St Paul numbers it amongst those sins which close heaven against us. The Holy Ghost says that the detractor is cursed by God, that he is an abomination before God and men. Detraction is great or small according to circumstances, or to the dignity of the person spoken of. It is a greater sin to make known the defects and faults of our superiors, our parents, of husband or wife, brothers, sisters, or relations, than those of strangers, because we should have more charity for our friends than for others. To speak badly of persons consecrated to God, of the servants of the church, is a much greater sin on account of the lamentable results to religion and of the detriment to their position. The Holy Ghost speaking by the mouth of the prophet says: ‘To abuse and revile His (the Holy Ghost’s) servants is to touch the apple of His eye’; that means, nothing can offend Him more. This sin consequently is a crime, the enormity of which surpasses all comprehension.”
– St John Vianney
the Newman Society’s termly dinner used to be in the Traditional Rite, and was celebrated by Fr Jerome Bertram of the Oxford Oratory
What does a Traditional Rite dinner look like? It sounds rather splendid.
Termly Mass, apologies. What a nice quote about detraction. I assume the reference is to the Chaplain detracting (or calumniating) Traditionalists, by suggesting that their views are not respectable. We mustn’t judge him: that belongs to God alone. What we must do is seek to undo the damage to reputations and to the truth which he has caused. Yea, detraction is a terrible thing.
Rather than learn a lesson, you compound your fault.
Anonymous-es, please use some distinguishing mark so we know who’s dissing whom. Thanks.
On this confusion of Anonymity, perhaps I can help out. The long quotation on Detraction is certainly from Lawrence Lew OP. I’d recognise his holier-than-thou attitude anywhere.
Anonymous the Last, I wasn’t asking for you to identify someone else, just for each of you to adopt a at least a pseudonym by which we could tell you apart.
To the anonymous person who said this: On this confusion of Anonymity, perhaps I can help out. The long quotation on Detraction is certainly from Lawrence Lew OP. I’d recognise his holier-than-thou attitude anywhere.
I expect a retraction immediately please. You have maligned me unjustly.
This is my first comment on this post and, for the record, I never write anonymously; if it’s worth saying in public, it’s worth putting my name to it.
- fra’ Lawrence Lew, O.P.
I posted the quotation on detraction, and I am certainly not Lawrence Lew OP. Leave him out of this.
“On this confusion of Anonymity, perhaps I can help out. The long quotation on Detraction is certainly from Lawrence Lew OP. I’d recognise his holier-than-thou attitude anywhere.”
I’ve been reading the vitriol on this site with growing incredulity. Lawrence is a friend of mine, and holier-than-thou he is NOT. NOW, I’m ANGRY.
I’m sorry that’s the best you could come up with, since you clearly didn’t have a real argument.
And you folks *wonder* why people have such negative stereotypes of traditional Catholics? The inability to listen, intolerance for other points of view, the nastiness shown towards those who disagree with you - note especially the diatribe against Richard Finn, who is one of the kindest men I have ever met; Joe Six Pack’s bullying of Vicky in “Where are your children?” (makes you wonder how he treats the women *in* his life, eh?); the utterly inappropriate reporting of an exchange in the confessional NAMING THE PRIEST (every priest I know was horrified); your tiresome slagging off of Fr Jeremy Fairhead (trust me, I KNOW how the Newman Society behaved, and Fr Fairhead was in the right - and yes, I’ve had Oratorians agree with me).
Do traditionalists EVER speak without an undercurrent of smug snideness towards the rest of the world? Ever? When you’re in the outside world, how do you behave? Do you let people in front of you in a queue when they have only one item? Do you help someone up if they fall? Do you genuinely listen to others when they have problems or make choices you don’t agree with? Volunteered? Done time on a suicide hotline? Or are you too busy creating a narrow little church and projecting your insecurities on everyone else by trying to bully them into submission?
If you have the truth, you’re not bothered by anyone who challenges you. So you get upset when other people challenge you b/c…
You want the traditional mass, fine. But stop treating everything and everyone else in the church like it’s a bad smell under your nose.
And stop thinking everyone else is an idiot b/c they don’t agree. Whether you come out and say it or not - e.g. “priest”, if you prefer - the self-righteous undercurrent is there. Show some respect for others, and you might find more listening ears.
Back to the original quote - for God’s sake, if you don’t have the guts to expose yourself, sirrah, do not presume to expose anyone else.
By dear Brigid, please calm yourself! Consider how the following quote:
“If you have the truth, you’re not bothered by anyone who challenges you. So you get upset when other people challenge you b/c…”
might reflect back on your own post. No doubt you’ll reply that you were objecting only to people’s attitudes and not to the content, of their posts. But the line between those two categories is not altogether bright, and lashing out in this manner is no more helpful coming from you than it is from the Traditionalists you criticize. You always put yourself on slippery footing when you directly accuse others of being holier-than-thou.
Traditional Catholics have their faults, no doubt, and it might sometimes be an act of charity to help them realize those faults, but I think this blog gives ample evidence of representatives who are willing and eager to discuss their ideas like gentlefolk. We do have our bullies and our miscreants here, but I would observe that virtually every religious blog I have been to, whatever the general persuasion of its authors, has much of the same. Indeed, forums for politics and sports and a multitude of other things display similar patterns. Message boxes, by making communication less personal, seem to lower people’s inhibitions across the board. You might yourself have noticed this.
It can indeed be very irksome to see people behaving rudely, particularly if they are slandering yourself or other people you know and admire. I actually know nothing about the incidents you mention and I take no position on them. (I don’t remember the post you reported regarding the confessional, I don’t know Lawrence Lew at all, in print or in person, and I know nothing about the incident with Fr. Fairhead.) I only know from long experience here that you will make little headway in your claims if you do not make a concerted effort to be courteous and fair. I’m not sure you can accomplish that by drawing sweeping conclusions about Latin Mass Catholics in general, or our blog in particular, on the basis of a few personal skirmishes.
If necessary Iosephus could stop comments on this thread, but it would be infinitely nicer if everyone would just try to behave themselves.
If you recall, Clara, Brigid’s grievances all relate to a post or two of Iosephus’ about happenings in England, and the dogged response of a certain Br. Lawrence Lew, OP.
It was a most unpleasant discussion, as I recall, and if anything, it resulted in the extreme diplomacy found in this latest interview.
To extreme diplomacy let us return, then. Now that you mention it, I do have some memory of the events in question (though not of the confession story), and I never quite understood why they (evidently) caused so much bad blood. Certainly many others on this blog (Johnboy, for example, or me) have both endured much heavier assault here than Fr. Fairhead, Vicki, or Lawrence Lew ever have. In the world of the blogosphere, it’s imperative not to let a snippy conversation get you too bent out of shape.
However, the source of the discontent may lie in an oft-observed phenomenon: conservative Novus Catholics and Traditionalists often encounter some friction in their interactions. No doubt Brigid would cite as a source the pompous, uncharitable, superior attitudes of the Traditionalists, and they can get a bit overconfident at times, but in fairness, the Novus folks have chips on their shoulders as well. When a Novus Catholic is entirely accustomed to seeing all enemies on the left, he is often quite flustered and perturbed by criticism from the other side. And then people get their backs up a bit, which, as I recall, did happen to some degree in that unpleasant exchange.
Perhaps all of us could do with a little more patience.
May I make a suggestion? In the light of what has been said in this blog and others recently. As we are nearly upon the holy season of Lent, that you shut this blog down. It seems to me to be the occasion of great sin(not least enormous hurt and anger). Those of you write for it would do well to begin this time by sacramental confession and living out in the next weeks the disciplines of prayer, fasting and almsgiving. I think it would be of greater spiritual benefit both to you and the Church.
“No doubt Brigid would cite as a source the pompous, uncharitable, superior attitudes of the Traditionalists…”
That is *exactly* what I’m talking about. You claim diplomacy - which, mind you, I NEVER did…I SAID I was angry - and under the guise of humour and rationality, you try to build an argument by tearing someone else down. Whether you’re aware of it or not, it happens over and over again, where anything that affirms your worldview gets embraced uncritically, anyone who challenges it - no matter how evenly - gets these little barbs poked at them.
You won’t ever take responsibility for them, because you will say: “I was just joking, I didn’t mean anything by it.”
Yes, you do. You just don’t want to face the consequences of what it would mean to front up to that and have an honest discussion about it.
Yes, I was *livid* about how people have been treated on here, and I responded accordingly. But the questions I asked were valid.
Now, I know I was angry. The question is, why are you? Why is your building your position founded on tearing everything else down? No one needs to ridicule a priest to say that he’s wrong. No one needs to call an Anglican a “priest” and a hypocrite - that wasn’t salient. The issue here isn’t what you believe. It’s how you choose to express it - at the expense of others.
I want to listen to you, but it’s hard to get past the constant criticism and ridicule of others. Are you aware of how *angry* and pugilistic almost every post sounds?
Until you can really *listen* to both sides without feeling threatened, I will question whether you are doing anything other than clinging to rules that give you answers that you don’t want to find for yourselves and that make you feel safe.
As for the above comment, there is a *certain* group that I’d ascribe that mindset to - on the other hand, amongst the traditionalists I know are some of the kindest, most humble people I have ever met. Just as the Novus Ordo types have both and everything in between. They’re both groups of diverse human beings, not monoliths.
Both groups have incredibly well-balanced members - the sort with a chip on EACH shoulder.
Both groups demonise eachother, b/c they’re talking too loudly to listen, and they’re afraid that if they listen to someone else and agree with them, their beliefs will all come tumbling down around them, leaving nothing. But growth needs resistance, and the best way to deepen your faith is to make sure it is truly challenged on a regular basis.
Now go forth and read the “God Delusion” with an open mind - and realise that Richard Dawkins sounds like a man who has been deeply hurt by religion and needs to see that it can be compassionate.
Why not make it your Lenten resolution to prove that to him?
Bx
“No one needs to call an Anglican a “priest” and a hypocrite - that wasn’t salient.”
Anglicans have invalid orders. They simply are not priests. Their religion was founded in order to rationalize a divorce. This particular Anglican condemns divorce. If this cannot be called what it is — wrong — then you are asking us to put our heads in the sand like ostriches.
Brigid,
I’m so pleased to see you admit that there are some, good traditionalists that I’m half tempted to leave the conversation there. If it’s just us you want to malign, that doesn’t bother me so much. I’m actually — and please believe me that this is sincere and NOT snide! — a little puzzled as to why you’ve continued coming back here since you obviously don’t enjoy our style. Still, since you’ve said so much about our (or perhaps my) inability to understand and respond to criticism, a fuller reply might be appropriate. Since they anger you so much I will make a concerted effort to level with you completely, avoiding any, as you say, “little barbs.”
First of all: I am not angry. I responded to your post because I am one of the administrators of this blog and felt it obligatory for someone to either delete it or else address what you said. Deleting always causes terrible resentment, and I thought I would be an appropriate person to respond, because I had no stake in the initial discussion and thus could not be using my blog administrator power to settle my own grudges. I was trying to be somewhat sympathethic, because I do know how easy it can be to get upset by a tense exchange. At the same time, I’m quite prepared to admit that I was chiding you, with no joking involved. I thought your post was unfair and mildly inappropriate, and I thought this should be communicated to you. Go back and reread the part where you ask whether traditionalists would EVER (list of simple acts of courtesy) and perhaps you’ll see what I mean. In your subsequent post you at least specified that your negative judgment is applied only to select devotees of tradition, but no such qualification was made in your initial post.
Now, a few words regarding your diatribe about listening/not being threatened by challenges from others. Holding one’s own position forcefully can sometimes evidence an underlying insecurity, but that’s putting the matter too simply. Our patron, St. Louis de Montfort, expressed himself quite forcefully at times; was he motivated primarily by terror that his faith might come crashing down around his ears? And I could name many others who were also, in their way, quite forceful: St. Ignatius, St. Bernard, St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus… the list goes on and on.
Obviously I’m not claiming that any of us are on a level with those great saints, but we may sometimes catch a flash of their same zealous joy. Half of us here are converts, you know, who are famously prone to those sorts of enthusiasms. But more importantly: feeling the need to defend one’s faith need not necessarily imply that it is unreasoned. As soldiers for Christ, we should be mortally afraid of losing the battle, not because we fear that we are in the wrong, but because we know the power of our enemies and the vital importance of the tasks set before us. The Church today, and we as members of it are engaged in pitch battle. Of course God will finally win the war, but many of the individual battles may be left in the hands of those who toil as members of the Church Militant. If we are deeply motivated by a fear of “losing”, that might be a more plausible explanation.
To speak for myself (though similar things could certainly be said for others here): I have many faults, to be sure, but settling for unreasoned and “safe” beliefs is not first among them. To give you a very brief sketch of my life: I was raised Mormon and spent my adolescence wrestling with my conscience and my Mormon elders because I couldn’t really believe that their doctrine was true. When I went to college (at Notre Dame) I was delighted by my first taste of Catholicism, but decided not to convert because it would be improper to make such an important decision without first making a full and thorough investigation. So I investigated (attending Mass, reading theology, praying and talking with Catholics and non-Catholics that I knew) for the next seven years, and when I finally resolved myself to be received into the Church at the age of 25, I was a graduate student in Cornell’s department of analytic philosophy. I am still enmeshed in Cornell’s philosophy department, and If you think that orthodox Catholicism is the “safe” way to go among academic philosophers, you obviously haven’t had much contact with the discipline. When it comes to dialogue and articulating my views in the face of criticism, I think I’ve become pretty battle-hardened by attacks from many, many different directions. I certainly have no illusions about any of my beliefs being uncontroversial or “safe.”
I’m sorry if I sound defensive by reading you my “resume” but since your criticism related to my personal motivations, I just don’t know how else to make the point. I think you have misread the situation, and you should know that it isn’t right to assume that anyone with strong convictions, or a forceful manner of expression, is merely insecure.
Now, a further word about manner of expression. To begin with, it isn’t always necessary to tear others down in order to build your own position — but sometimes it clearly is, i.e. when others are wrong in relevant ways. You imply that it is always better to do this in what you might call “nice” ways. That is, we should not be snide or sarcastic, should not make jokes at others’ expense, should not deal lightly with matters that are gravely serious.
I am not sure if I agree. Humor has its time and place, and sarcasm can certainly be used wrongly. But we of the Cornell Society for a Good Time believe that it is unhealthy to go around constantly with a long face. Our world is troubled, and, as I’ve suggested above, our personal and professional lives put us in the way of a substantial amount of opposition and personal pain, merely because we are Catholics. We fortify ourselves for the daily battle by forging places where we can laugh at ourselves at the folly of the world… our private meetings together, and this blog.
Satire is a time-honored literary style, you know, and has been used by some very holy souls at times. If you don’t regard Jane Austin as a good enough argument for its merits, try reading the exchanges between St. Bernard and Peter the Venerable. Now there were two gentlemen who knew how to use “little barbs” with skill and flair! Or, for a more recent proponent, look to GK Chesterton, who excelled at nothing if not needling and mocking his opponents. No doubt many were offended, and wrote angry complaints begging him to just be nice. And yet, he is widely acknowledged as one of the twentieth century’s greatest apologists, and has brought scores of souls to the faith. CS Lewis, who admired Chesterton greatly, once compared him to a brilliant swordsman whose blade is moving so fast it can hardly be seen “not because he is showing off, but because he is fighting for his life.” I think that was very perceptive of Lewis, and though I have not a soul as great as Chesterton’s, I often take him as an inspiration, because I too have often felt, as a Catholic, that I am “fighting for my life” in the same sense. For me, as for Chesterton, good humor is the tonic that makes grim battle bearable.
On a more practical level, bear in mind that a lot depends on one’s audience. Of course I address myself differently when I’m talking to my parents, when I’m talking to Iosephus, or when I’m talking to my fellow philosophers at Cornell. That is only appropriate. This blog is primarily directed towards traditionally-minded Catholics; others can come here if they wish, but when they come they should be prepared to witness the “insider” dialogue of traditionally-minded Catholics. So, if I were talking to Anglicans, referring to their “priests” would be belligerent and perhaps mean-spirited. But for this audience, I was only being clear, and if I hadn’t done so, one of our guests would likely have jumped in with, “Look! Clara thinks Anglican orders are valid!” Furthermore, it was relevant to mention Capon’s heresy and personal hypocrisy, because in quoting him with approval, I might be taken to be investing his words with some measure of authority. Given his highly questionable background, that very natural implication needed to be qualified. On occasion Anglicans or others have come here wanting to discuss things, and then I change my tone again to suit the conversation. But it’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you’re terrified of saying anything that might offend ANYONE for any reason.
Now, Brigid, I have devoted a considerable amount of time to answering all of your concerns in what I hope is a fair and courteous way. Please note that I am not claiming that my own behavior on this blog, or that of my companions, has at all times been beyond reproach. But I do think that your characterizations of us have been unfair, and I am genuinely, frankly and honestly confused as to what element of this conversation (or the one last October) was so deeply offensive as to cause, as the last anonymous poster wrote, “great sin” and “enormous hurt and anger”, as well as angry and spiteful recriminations of us, months after the post in question. Perhaps it relates to various outside personal connections between the participants of which I am not aware, but in that case it would probably be best to resolve them in some other sphere; public blogs are not generally an optimal environment for making peace among personal acquaintances.
I am not afraid of you, and I am not upset with you, but I do humbly request that you try to turn your remarks about patience and understanding back against your evaluations of us. If you can approach Richard Dawkins with an open mind, I’d hate to think you can’t do the same for some traditional Catholic bloggers.
As a final word to all and sundry: I think it very impolite to distribute advice to others, particularly others whom we do not personally know, to target specific personal failings during Lent. Lent is a time for concentrating on our own sinful nature, not that of others, and it is distasteful to reference it as a pious-seeming excuse for levying criticisms or complaints.
Ha! I am involved with the Oxford Newman Society and no-one has offered money to us in recent years. If you want to go ahead, the president is Darren Collins: darren.collins@keble.ox.ac.uk. I am sure he would be more than willing to take any money you have to offer.
But I think a previous poster was right when he said that action was the deciding factor in this regard.
does this go through?