Loading ...
While trowling through the blogosphere today I ran across a link to Karl Keating’s World’s Toughest Catholic Quiz. Apparently this was first published in 1993 in This Rock (which is, I guess, a Catholic magazine of some kind?) There is now a link to it on the Catholic Answers website; they report there that it is one of their most frequently requested articles. I took a look.
I should say from the outset that I went into this with no strong views about Karl Keating. I knew that he was some kind of Novus Catholic apologist, but that’s about it; as a relatively recent convert, and never having been a Novus Catholic myself, this is the kind of cultural knowledge that I tend to have missed. Anyway, so I pulled up the quiz with an open mind, but as I read through the questions I became more and more irate. I’m just going to put this plainly: this is terrible apologetics.
In the introduction to the quiz, Keating reports that he gave it to an audience full of “well-informed Catholic business leaders and their spouses” and that few got more than half right. Well, that’s not too good… but do you think they might have been thrown off by the fact that some of Keating’s answers are ambiguous, misleading, or just plain wrong?
Let’s start with the most obvious errors. Here is question 8:
A sister is
a. Neither a lay person nor a cleric.
b. A cleric, but no longer a lay person.
c. May be installed as a chaplain of a hospital.
d. Is the female equivalent of a deacon.
e. None of the above.
This one looked okay to me while I was looking through the quiz, because it seemed to have a straightforward answer, namely a. A sister is not a cleric, but neither is she a lay person; she belongs to the third possible category, namely the consecrated religious. Here is Keating’s answer:
Question 8
a. Wrong, because sisters (women religious), like brothers (men religious), are lay people. They are not ordained—they take vows, which is different.
b. Wrong, because sisters are not ordained, and only the ordained are clerics. There are three grades of clerics: deacons, priests, and bishops.
c. Wrong, even though in some places sisters are termed “chaplains.” According to canon law (canon 564), chaplains, properly speaking, are priests. It isn’t correct to call someone a chaplain merely because he (or she) provides some sort of spiritual counseling.
d. Wrong, because there are no female deacons, because women cannot be ordained as deacons, priests, or bishops.
e. Correct, because all the other possible answers are wrong.
Huh? At least he’s consistent in grouping consecrated sisters in the same category as consecrated brothers, but whose definition of “laity” includes the consecrated religious? I don’t know where Keating got this from, but there are quite a number of authoritative sources that would disagree with him, such as, for example, Lumen Gentium, which states:
“The term ‘laity’ is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church. That is, the faithful who by baptism are incorporated into Christ, are placed in the People of God, and in their own way share the priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, and to the best of their ability carry on the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world. Their secular character is proper and peculiar to the laity… By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will.”
Is Lumen Gentium too Novus for Keating, or what? But enough of that. Let’s move on to question 14:
The sacrament of confession
a. Must be received before receiving Communion by anyone guilty of a mortal sin.
b. Is superfluous if you privately and sincerely confess your sins to God.
c. Must be received by all Catholic adults at least once a year. (This is one of the six precepts of the Church.)
d. Was done away with by Vatican II, except in cases of the three sins which “cry out to God for vengeance”: murder, adultery, and sexism.
e. None of the above.
I’m sure I wasn’t the only one to be puzzled upon reading this. Aren’t a and c both true? Apparently not, in Keating’s book:
Question 14
a. Correct. Compare answer 5.d.
b. Wrong, because this would imply Jesus set up a superfluous sacrament—confession—and he never did anything superfluously. See John 20:22–23.
c. Wrong, because this is not one of the six precepts of the Church, for the simple reason that you need to go to confession only if you commit a mortal sin, though it is good to go frequently even if you commit only venial sins.
d. Wrong, because this is another nonsense answer. The word “sexism” didn’t even exist during Vatican II.
e. Wrong, because 14.a. is correct.
Where is he getting this from? I looked through multiple listings of the six precepts of the faith, from the Baltimore Catechism to the USCCB and everybody lists annual confession as one of the six precepts. The Catechism of the Catholic Church’s word on the matter is as follows:
“The second precept (’You shall confess your sins at least once a year’) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness. (2042)”
Maybe Keating found some saint or theologian somewhere who claimed that confession was only necessary for those who had actually sinned, so he thought he would be clever by exploiting this little loophole in his quiz. But I think he at least owes an explanation of why he can blithely assert that this isn’t one of the precepts of the Church, when every authoritative document seems to confirm that it is.
Moving on from the wrong to the merely questionable, let’s examine the very first question:
In the Mass
a. Jesus is symbolized by the bread and wine from the moment of consecration onward.
b. Jesus is spiritually present when the community gathers in prayer under the leadership of the priest and ceases to be spiritually present when the priest leaves the sanctuary.
c. Jesus is physically present along with the bread and wine once the consecration has occurred.
d. Jesus is present, and the bread and wine are not present, after the consecration.
e. None of the above.
The answer has to be either d or e. Keating says d, and this is his explanation:
d. Correct, because the bread and wine cease to be present in their essence or substance after the consecration. Only Jesus is present, though the mere appearances of bread and wine remain.
Is it theologically sound to say that the bread and wine are not present after the consecration? That’s pretty ambiguous, I think. In essence he gets the theology right — the accidents remain but the essence is changed — but I don’t know, metaphysically, whether or not we should say that something is present when its form and accidents are present sans essence. I mean, it isn’t a mirage; the thing that you see and eat is really there. Is it really bread? Well… yes and no, but I think more yes than no. In the consecration, Christ becomes bread for us. Indeed, we sometimes call it angelic bread to help describe what has happened, and it’s significant, I think, that the Church thinks that such a transformation can take place only with bread. So I think it’s fair to say that the Host doesn’t cease to be bread in becoming the Body of Christ. Anyway, that’s my best reading.
Now, admittedly, I’m doing some of the work here myself, and I don’t say that my reading is absolutely authoritative. I couldn’t find a treatment of this exact question (”Is the bread literally gone?”) in either St. Thomas or the Catechism. But I think the bottom line is that this question is pretty ambiguous. Keating thinks he’s being clever, when in actuality he’s probably just confusing people through his own confusion.
The theological confusion continues in question 6, which is as follows:
The doctrine of the Trinity means
a. There is one God who manifests himself in the three distinct roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
b. Since the Resurrection there are four persons in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ the God-Man.
c. God is a single divine person who takes on different aspects according to his actions as Creator, Redeemer, or Sanctifier.
d. There are three Gods who work so closely together that it is proper to call them one God.
e. None of the above.
Answers b through d are clearly wrong. I wasn’t sure what to do with answer a, because I don’t know what’s supposed to be signified by the term “roles.” When is that word used in discussing the nature of God? Well, it turns out, Keating declares that answer a is wrong, and he explains this as follows:
a. Wrong, because this is the heresy of Modalism, which says that there is one Person in the Godhead and that Person wears different “masks,” so to speak, according to his different activities.
Earth to Keating: an apologist is supposed to make things clearer to people, not seek to confuse them. And this question is very likely to confuse, because the description he identifies with the Modalist heresy leaves out the most important identifying premise: that God is only one Person. As it stands, it isn’t clear whether the answer is right or not, depending, again, on what one understands a “role” to be. God is manifested to us in different ways through the different Persons, and these three Persons might be said to have different “roles” with respect to us. It’s just a very badly written question.
Finally, let’s take a quick look at question 15. In this case, Keating’s answer is right. But the wording of the question — and also the wording of his answer key — is liable to lead to all sorts of confusion.
15. At the Crucifixion
a. Jesus’ human nature died on the cross.
b. Only the human person of Jesus, not the divine person of Jesus, died on the cross.
c. God died on the cross.
d. Jesus’ human and divine natures both died on the cross, but the universe was kept going by the Father and the Holy Spirit until Jesus’ Resurrection.
e. None of the above.
And his answer:
Question 15
a. Wrong, because natures aren’t put to death—persons are. When you die, it is not your human nature which dies, but you as a distinct person.
b. Wrong, because there is no human person in Jesus. There is only one Person, the divine, who already (by definition) had a divine nature and who took on a human nature.
c. Correct, because the Person who died on the cross was a divine Person, commonly called the Son of God. Since that Person is God, it is proper to say God died on the cross, even though that sounds odd and may make some unthinking people conclude that it means that God ceased to exist—which, of course, was not the case. (If you were sure this answer could not be right, dont fret; you’re in good company. Most people miss this question because the correct answer “just doesn’t sound right.”)
d. Wrong, first because natures don’t die, persons do, and second because the answer suggests Jesus couldn’t keep the universe going, as though he ceased to be God between the time of his death and his Resurrection.
e. Wrong, because 15.c. is correct.
Okay. He’s not wrong here. Jesus Christ, who was God, did die on the Cross. Put that way, most Catholics would recognize that as a true statement. But Keating tries to confuse them by exploiting their uncertainties about two things, namely 1) what happens to a person at death, and 2) how the human and the divine could be combined in the single Person of Jesus Christ. Even the first issue alone is sufficiently confusing to make for a puzzling question. Try this one:
While walking home on a rainy day, Clara is hit by lightening, and then run over by a bus. What most likely happens to her?
a. Her corporeal component dies.
b. The person of Clara, but not her soul, dies.
c. Clara herself dies.
e. None of the above.
This raises tricky questions about soul and body, about personal identity, and about what happens at death. Part of the trick is to make clear that when we say that a person dies, we simply mean that they die corporeally, though the soul itself will never be destroyed (nor, for that matter, will the body. They will eventually be reunited, because both soul and body are part of the person.) When people read that “God died on the cross” in the context of this quiz, they probably have visions of a Nietzschean-type death of God, which is spiritual in character and not physical. They’d feel better if it were clear that in this case we are talking about only one Person of the Godhead, and He only died corporeally.
But I don’t really mind so much if Keating is looking to trap people in the question. What’s bad about it is is that he raises some complicated worries and then never really satisfies them. If you’re going to traverse this territory, you need to follow up by explaining, first, what death is, and second, how Christ was fully God and fully man such that his natures could not be separated. Not only does Keating not do this, he even further confuses the reader by mentioning that Christ was commonly called the Son of God, as though common linguistic usage had something to do with it. A person might leave this website with any number of misunderstandings or mistakes. This is terrible, terrible apologetics.
Not every question was objectionable, of course. There were questions about where real priests can be found (with the Catholics and Orthodox, but NOT the Protestants), whether artificial contraception is ever okay (no), and whether a parish council has any authority over the parish priest (again, no.) Those questions were fine. But those ones on their own wouldn’t have made this The World’s Toughest Catholic Quiz. Obviously clarity and accuracy have been sacrificed here in the interests of letting Keating feel all swell about being a Professional Apologist, a real Answer Man among stuttering, ignorant children. (He makes a special point of noting that even priests miss many of the questions. Oh, my!) As I say, I have basically no other experience with his work one way or another, so I really don’t know if this is an aberration, or just par for the Karl Keating course. I find it rather discouraging, though, that such a document has apparently been passed around for a good 15 years now. Time to bury that one, I say.
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,
What?? Do you believe in consubstantiation? The Blessed Sacrament can only be called ‘bread’ in a manner of speaking. The bread of angels is like a rubber duck - it’s not a real duck. The substance - the reality - of bread has disappeared. It can’t be two different things at once.
I must agree with Keating on the lay sisters bit. With Joseph, I don’t care much for your wording on the transubstantiation question.
Keating is also technically right on the confession issue:
In the 1983 code:
Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.
Which pretty clearly supports Keating’s interpretation.
In the 1917 code:
Can. 906 All Catholics of either sex who have reached the years of discretion, that is the age of reason, are obliged to confess all their sins accurately at least once a year.
Fr. Peter Scott SSPX, for one, suggests this amounts to the same thing, that only the confession of mortal sins is required yearly.
For Joseph Shaw — Of course I don’t believe in consubstantiation, but that’s not the question here. I agree that in essence, the consecrated Host is entirely the Body of Christ, not Christ’s body somehow mixed together with bread of the ordinary sort. But when a thing changes in essence but not in form or accidents, do we say that the thing is gone? Well, it never really happens except in this one case, so it’s hard to say; it’s really kind of a mystery. But I have sometimes heard it explained by analogy to the Incarnation; as the Word of God became flesh for us, so the Word of God becomes bread and wine for us in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Mass. In which case it would seem right to say that He is still bread after the consecration. (That description is also lacking, I suppose, in that it doesn’t make clear that the Host is in essence flesh. But anyway.) You assert that the Host “cannot be two things at once,” but the obvious reply is: what counts as being two things? We notoriously have difficulties grasping that question. Christ was both God and a man at the same time, and yet, in a way we don’t really understand, this was not two things blended into one, but rather one single Person, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the writings of the saints, I think you could find support for both ways of speaking. In his devotional works, St. Thomas tends to downplay the “bread and wine” aspect of the Sacrament, talking about them as “mere shadows” under which the Body and Blood “hide”; these emphases almost do make it sound like a kind of mirage. On the other hand, when St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament, he invariably talks about those who eat the bread. Even when it’s clear from the context that he’s talking about what happens after the Consecration (i.e. when he’s discussing worthy reception of the Sacrament) he just says bread — no qualifiers or scare quotes. And presumably we can take it that St. Paul wasn’t a heretic.
At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s very important to answer the question: “Is the Body of Christ, under the species of bread, real bread?” It’s part of the mystery, and nothing really hangs on our answering that question… which is why Keating shouldn’t be asking it on quizzes that are given with apologetic purpose.
And now for you, Iacobe: you say that you agree with Keating about lay sisters. So tell me where you get that from! Every source I could find contrasts the laity to the ordained and the professed religious. And that really makes the most sense, because normally you use the term “laity” when discussing spiritual or practical advice for people who are living “normal” lives — raising families, holding secular jobs, etc. Most of that advice wouldn’t apply to professed religious. I assume he must have gotten the idea somewhere, though, so since you agree with him, could you tell me where?
In this case, it’s mainly just annoying, because he asks it in a question that is at best ambiguous, and then informs the reader in his answer that the vows taken by religious are different from the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Well, obviously. I expect everybody knows that. The only real question here concerns the definition of ‘laity’, and he doesn’t explain where he got his from at all.
Concerning confession: I found the 1983 Code that you quoted, actually. I don’t know that it clearly supports Keating’s interpretation — it seems not to really address the question of what you should do if you have no grave sins. The code does seem to have been modified from 1917 to focus more on the “grave” sins, but I suspect this was done, not with the intention of letting non-mortal sinners off the hook entirely, but rather with the intention of making clear that it isn’t absolutely necessary to tally every single venial sin before making your annual confession. So I’m not sure what the verdict would be for merely venial sinners (though I have to think that a person that virtuous would just want to confess anyway.) But what really galled me was the straightforward statement: “This is not one of the six precepts of the Church” when it clearly is. At best, it’s one of the six precepts, but has a little loophole that the nearly-perfect may exploit. A lot of the precepts have loopholes; for example, there are certain circumstances that excuse a person from fulfilling his Mass obligation. That doesn’t stop the Mass requirement from being a precept of the Church.
Here are some questions I have regarding your cricitisms, Clara. First, Iacobus is right: annual Confession applies as a law only if the person commits mortal sins. A person who commits only venial ones is not required to confess, apparently ever.
Despite Vatican II, there is confusion about what a “religious” is. In some circumstances, “lay” means “unordained.” For instance, many monks and friars and mendicants have been called “lay brothers” even though they are fully consecrated religious. Why? Simply to designate that while they are religious, they are not ordained. That works for men, for whom a separate designation “religious-but-not-a-priest” is necessary. But no nun is ever ordained, so “lay sister” is redundant in the sense that “lay brother” is not. There are just different definitions for “laity” floating around I guess, both negative in part. Definition #1 means “not ordained” and the def. #2 means “neither ordained nor religious.” Keating is using the def. #1. Notice that Lumen Gentium says only that “laity” is *here* understood mean the def. #2 — it does not deny that there by an alternative definition valid in another context. Maybe because Lumen Gentium was proposing a *positive* role in secular society, one which does not apply to non-ordained religious (who are laity by definition #1)?
Concerning, the “bread” question, Joseph Shaw is right. “Is it really bread? Well… yes and no, but I think more yes than no. In the consecration, Christ becomes bread for us.” Thomistically speaking, “bread” is a substance/essence, as is wine. The essences of bread and wine are truly, really, actually absent, not because thye has been destroyed, but because they have been converted into something else. There is an element of “mirage” here — what looks like bread and wine is substantially human flesh and blood. We call this the “veil” of the Eucharistic species, in which Christ hides His Real Presence. Perhaps the “rubber duck” analogy is not best. How does Christ “become bread”? Not in His essence, for then He could not be present in the sacrament, but only accidentally, by assuming its accidents and making Himself edible and drinkable, which is not normally the case with the accidents of His real substance. But I do not think you can say that something is present “accidentally” when the substance has been changed into something else. Christ is the only One present, with accidents not proper to Him. I don’t think there are any analogous operations anywhere else in existence. And I don’t think that one can say that the Eucharist is bread or wine in anything but the accidents. “Is it really bread?” No. That would be consubstantiation.
You’re right, Keating botched Modalism. C is Modalism plain and simple, A is just ambiguous. There is one God, and the three Persons do reveal themselves in distinct roles.
Corporeal death . . . hmmm. The body is *destroyed* at death, whereas the soul is not. Yet the soul very definitely experiences death. Judgment, Purgatory, Heaven, Hell, etc. The separated soul “dies,” but that means it is separated from the body and assumes a different mode of being. Hence, Christ experienced Limbo, which is more than experiencing just “corporeal disintegration. I’m not faulting your definition. I’m actually agreeing with you, Keating needs to explain what death really entails. Why does a person die and not a nature? What affects does death have on the different components of human nature? Etc.
“But I don’t really mind so much if Keating is looking to trap people in the question. What’s bad about it is is that he raises some complicated worries and then never really satisfies them. If you’re going to traverse this territory, you need to follow up by explaining, first, what death is, and second, how Christ was fully God and fully man such that his natures could not be separated. Not only does Keating not do this, he even further confuses the reader by mentioning that Christ was commonly called the Son of God, as though common linguistic usage had something to do with it. A person might leave this website with any number of misunderstandings or mistakes. This is terrible, terrible apologetics.”
Yes.
Joseph Shaw,
Consubstantiation aside, it was still a misleading question, markedly neglecting the use of proper terms. In fact, the following passage from Michael Davies’ Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II reveals the Church’s historical vigilance against imprecision of that kind:
The contrast between the traditional precision of the Church and the CSL can be made clear with just one example. Compared to the wording of the CSL, the following would seem to be an extremely comprehensive definition of Christ’s Eucharistic presence: “Christ is, after the Consecration, truly, really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, and the whole substance of bread and wine has then ceased to exist, only the appearances remaining.” Readers will be surprised to learn that this definition was condemned by the Church as “pernicious, derogatory to the expounding of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics (perniciosa, derogans expositioni veritatis catholicae circa dogma transsubstantiationis, ravens haereticis).” This definition was, in fact, the definition put forward by the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia; it was condemned by Pope Pius VI specifically for its calculated omission of the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the term “transubstantiation,” which had been used by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) in defining the manner of Christ’s Eucharistic presence and in the solemn profession of faith subscribed to by the Fathers of that Council (”quam velut articulum fidei Tridentinum Concilium definivit [v. n. 877, 884], et quae in solemni fidei professione continetur [v. n. 997]“). [H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum (31" edition). No. 1529.] The failure to utilize the word “transubstantiation” was condemned by Pope Pius VI “inasmuch as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, mention is omitted of an article relating to the faith, and also of a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresy, and because it tends to result in its being forgotten, as if it were merely a scholastic question.” [Ibid.]”
The rest of the passage is available here.
Wow. I am so awed by Raindear’s passage that I think I may avoid ever getting into this subject again, unless the conversation can be carried on entirely in quotations.
But I will only add this: Keating could easily have cleared up any possible ambiguities by phrasing the answer this way:
“Jesus is present, and the bread and wine are not present in either substance or essence, after the consecration.”
Problem solved.
“This Rock (which is, I guess, a Catholic magazine of some kind?)”
I find this very, very humorous. You mentioned that since you’ve never been a Novus Ordo Catholic, you were unaware of Karl Keating. Basically, many conservative Novus Ordinarians (strong overlap with the EWTN crowd) proclaimed Karl THE American Catholic apologist during the 1990s. Much of his research was good and valid. Unfortunately, a sizeable portion of his output (not just his, but also that of other writers in This Rock) was notably flawed — stuff like this quiz. Karl also occasionally took a swing at traditionalist Catholics from time to time, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill.
Vin Lewis of All Roads Ministry, another Catholic apologist, gave Karl his due, praising the good stuff but also savaging the sloppy features like this quiz. While I’ve never been a reader of This Rock, Vin says that the quality of the articles has seriously improved over time. For instance, recently Keating published an article by Fr. Harrison which took Pope John Paul II to task on matters that merited it. Back in 1993, such a thing never would have happened. He also praised the Motu Proprio.
There, I fixed it for you. I have no idea why that name thing happens, but on my computer at least I can fix it just by going into “edit” — but I seem to recall you had trouble doing that for some reason. Anyway.
Thanks for the background info. I learned a little about Novus Catholics by being a student at Notre Dame, but yeah, I tend to find that I missed a lot. And yeah, this was my first encounter with either Keating or This Rock.
“I knew that he was some kind of Novus Catholic apologist”
That was probably (exclusively) true until a year or so ago. But apparently he’s now become something of a TLM apologist. (How good that is for “our side” remains to be seen.)
I’ve recently followed links to a couple of his post Summorum Pontificum e-letters that seemed unexpectedly pro-TLM. I’d provide some these for you to check, except that I’m unwilling to suffer the ignominy of registering at his forum in order to recover them.
But I do recall he’s got a big bucks campaign going to put copies of his tract in support of the motu proprio in every parish in the country.
Just thirding or fourthing the objection to the “really bread” locution. Not really bread. As soon as you say “really” it is consubstantiation. And see ST III 77.1 ad 1 for the ‘mirage’ position.
I’m not JJ! I’m anonymous. Who is JJ? And why is he being welcomed back? (sigh)
I said I didn’t want to get too far into this, and honestly I don’t think any important theological point turns on it anyway; we’ve agreed on the more precise metaphysical points already, so why get worked up over imprecise ones? I’ve already said that I don’t believe in consubstantiation.
However, I do have to note that, in addition to St. Paul’s using the plain old term “bread” to refer to the consecrated Body of Christ, there is also the first line of the most famous of all Latin Mass Communion hymns:
Panis Angelicus fit panis hominum. (The Angelic Bread became human bread.)
If it’s heretical to call the consecrated Host bread, then Panis Angelicus would seem to be a heretical hymn.
I’m against both lightning and buses.
Wasn’t Karl Keating the same person who attacked the Cornell Catholic Community for liturgical abuses some time ago after he got a copy of one of their newsletters? Also,
here is a link to some sort of letter he wrote about how “liberal” Catholics are attacking the Tridentine Mass. It’s ultimately asking for money, but he says some interesting stuff. And you don’t have to be a member of the forums to see it.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=188772
“Karl also saw it as part of his duty to lash out at traditionalist Catholics from time to time”
Could you provide some evidence for that?
He’s written critical articles like this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9507fea1.asp
But that’s not “lashing out”.
He has criticized people like Gerry Matatics… and appears to have been right. Gerry Matatics now admits to being a sedevacantist. (http://www.gerrymatatics.org/whythefactsversion1.html)
I remember his book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on ‘Romanism’ by ‘Bible Christians’” as excellent and the Catholic Answers ministry was a major cause behind my conversion.
I think criticizing Keating probably isn’t the most useful way to spend our time.
He attacked Vin Lewis. See: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9111fea1.asp
NOTE: I have been informed that Karl apologized for mentioning Vin’s girlfriend, which was the primary reason I linked to this article.
See this article about his less-than-accurate account of Fr. Feeney: http://www.catholicism.org/reply-keating.html
Or call Vin Lewis and ask about Keating. His phone number is (845) 226-4172. His email is vin@tocci.org. Vin is not bigoted — he has praised the book you mentioned, “Catholicism and Fundamentalism.” He also says that the quality of “This Rock” has vastly improved with time. But he does have substantive criticisms of Keating, and can tell you about past confrontations.
NOTE: Vin comments below.
Oh please people.
I haven’t read this blog in a long time, but just perusing through some of the entries has irritated me quite a bit. I consider myself a “traditional Catholic” and prefer the TLM to the NO any day, but sometimes those who call themselves traditional Catholics do more to drive people away from the Church than to draw them in. This includes attacking people who were/are on “our side”(EWTN, JPII, Fr. Fessio, or anyone that doesn’t ascribe to the Marcel LeFebvre line) while lauding those whose sole calling in life seems to be to be to oppose and disobey the Pope.
For example, there’s this site’s obsession with the SSPX. I’ll say it right now: there’s no excuse to go to one of their masses, especially with legitimate TLMs becoming more and more widespread. There, I said it! Unleash the attack dogs!
I strongly object to this demarcation between those benighted “Novus Ordo Catholics” and the Enlightened Spiritually Superior Tridentine Mass Catholics. It smacks of arrogance and, dare I say, a bit of a gnostic streak. This makes all traditional Catholics look like bitter malcontents–is that what Christ would want of us? There is only Catholic; and I do believe that love of God and charity towards neighbor are more important that being fluent in Latin and able to quote nineteenth-century encyclicals from memory. That seems to be one thing that “traditional” Catholics forget sometimes. I think St. Paul might have written something about that…
And valuing the word of Fr. Feeney over Karl Keating? Give me a break! Catholic Answers’ apologetic material, whatever its flaws, at least has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur; Fr. Feeney, on the other hand, was obsessed with conspiracy theories and eventually excommunicated for his embarassing tirades. ‘Nuff said.
I personally have found Keating and his apostolate to be very helpful in explaining Catholic doctrine to Protestants, lapsed Catholics, and unbelievers. Denouncing him as a “lousy apologist”/”Novus Catholic” seems a tad unwarranted to me. And I would also venture to say that Keating and CA have likely gained more converts to the Church than the Cornell Society for a Good Time ever has, or ever will if they keep up their more-Catholic-than-the-Pope attitude.
I’m ready for the onslaught of personal attacks, and forgive you in advance. As someone once said, there “ain’t no hate like Christian hate.”
Cecaelia,
The only onslaught you’re likely to get is from Tobias Petrus, who is devoted to the work of Fr. Feeney and can speak authoritatively about his work. I cannot, so I will say nothing about it except that, as I understand it, such tensions as Fr. Feeney had with the Church were eventually worked out, and he went to his grave reconciled to Rome.
As far as Karl Keating goes, I made it very clear that I did not write this post as part of a larger anti-Keating campaign; I declared openly that I hardly knew anything about the man. I just ran across this particular example of his work (a fairly influential one it would seem — if you google it you’ll find multiple links) and thought it appallingly bad apologetics, so I took pains to show why. I don’t apologize for that; bad work deserves to be denounced for what it is, particularly if it’s leading people into error, as this quiz very likely has done. But if Keating has done some other, better work, such as explaining and praising the MP, then power to him. I’m not one for shunning would-be allies in that effort. And in fact, I think that has been the general consensus on this thread as a whole. Keating’s work as a whole doesn’t seem to be highly respected (and note, being roughly on the “right side” does not make a person a good apologist), but as much of it as is good has been praised.
As far as our “obsession with the SSPX” goes, I frankly don’t know what you’re talking about. Last month we had a thread about Angelus press, in which we wondered why they were asking for money when their book sales were by their own accounts so good. Before that, the last SSPX-related post I can remember was mine from last July concerning Fellay’s response to the MP… and that was pretty explicitly critical of the organization. I’m not aware of any lauding, and I’m pretty on top of what goes on here.
As far as your complaints about the use of the term “Novus Ordo Catholic,” I’ve got to say that’s one of the sillier ones that I’ve seen for awhile. They call us Latin Mass Catholics, so why shouldn’t there be a name for them too? There’s nothing inherently derogatory about the label — it’s just the official name of the Mass they prefer. I suppose it is rather amusing that we label them with the Latin name of their preferred Mass, while they call us with the English name of ours. But you can’t possibly carry on an intelligent conversation if you refuse to generate terms for distinctions that do in fact exist. Everyone here understands that this classification refers only to a difference of liturgical preference, and that there aren’t two Churches or two different sects or anything like that. We are not schismatics here and we certainly acknowledge that the Novus Ordo is a valid form of the Mass.
So please behave yourself. You’re looking like a bitter malcontent.
A bitter malcontent, indeed!
I was really saddened by your post, Cecaelia; and it hurt my feelings. Striving to be fluent in Latin and to quote from 19th century encyclicals at will have been the twin aspirations of my life for the past five years.
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur? Do those really float your boat? Such a comment is so out of touch with the present day reality of the Church and her politics that I can hardly take any of your other concerns seriously.
But to show that I am not filled with Christian hate…
As to this Fr. Feeney, I’ve never heard of the guy, but I do know that the false ecumenism of EWTN, John Paul, and of just about any other organization that Cecaecilia is likely to like - an ecumenism not only false, but which continues to veer towards universalism - this false ecumenism is in manifest contradiction of the dogmatic teaching of the Church: extra eccleisam nulla salus. Please no more tirades, Cecaecilia, until you’ve read Mortalium animos. And, hey, it’s not even from the 19th century! (I hope that will recommend it to you.)
Factual clarification: it’s not “Marcel Lefebvre”. It’s: “the Archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre.”
I was alerted of this by a friend. Let me pontificate on the subject of Karl. Karl has done much good. He has done a lot of bad stuff too. His major fault is a failure to see the entire issue as one of religion. He sees it as one of psychology. He does not see the moral defects of the non-Catholic, or he refuses to comment on them. In either case this is a massive and fatal defect. He also has a tendency to attempt to be too “precise” (i.e. cute) in his works, so that a lack of clarity often follows. Let me bring up a key point. Why have this quiz at all? What has this to do with apologetics, evangelism, etc? I emphasize the goals of bringing people into the Church by helping others do it, the right way. Let me also say that to bring a person into “the church” in the wrong way, does not bring him into Her at all. All he becomes is a Mass going Prot. Most people in most Catholic Churches are this kind of Protestant. And, always keep in mind, that in this field I am THE expert. Feel free to quote me, and to call me, if you wish (845-226-4172). I prefer phone calls to emails.
God bless to all.
THE expert, huh, Mr. Lewis?
I was helped in my journey into the Church by Mr. Keating; I’ve known many who have been. The only person I know who quotes you is Mr. Petrus, and it is on the subjects upon which he relies on you where I tend to disagree with him.
Humility is still a Christian virtue, is it not?
Advice:
http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/humility.htm
Not to give a carte blanche to Karl Keating, mind, who does a lot of silly things.
In order to know that Vin has been proud, you would need to prove that he is not “THE expert.” Of course, I doubt most people will bother to do so. He has offered his phone number — if you wish to fault his expertise, go ahead. If you could do it, I would be thankful, even if he would not be. I have a copy of a debate between Karl and Vin, which would show forth their relative claims to expertise.
Most fields have an expert. There is probably some guy who is acknowledged, publicly or not, as the number one expert. He has a certain right to speak authoritatively on his field. As such, from time to time, he is obliged to weigh in and state his credentials. When someone is the most accomplished ballistics expert in the state and is called in to testify in a trial, that person cannot engage in false modesty in front of the judge and jury. He must be forthright in claiming the title “ipse,” as in “ipse dixit.” Vin comes from a law enforcement background and frequently had to state his credentials in court. Apologetics has to do with the defense of a disputed claim, as in forensics, so it’s not surprising that there would be some “star witnesses.” The claim to be “the star witness” cannot in and of itself be tantamount to pride. It is proud only when false, or when insisted upon unnecessarily. To allege that someone is proud to make such a claim, you have to attack his credentials — I really can’t see anyway around it. The alternative is to say, “At present, you have not demonstrated your expertise to me, so in all humility I have to say that right now I cannot determine the merit of your claim to be THE expert. I do tend to disagree with your positions as relayed to me by a second-party, Mr. Petrus, [hearsay] and your opponent Karl Keating has helped me out immensely. Karl is better-acknowledged than you, certainly. So I am inclined to doubt your claim based on what evidence I do possess.” As for the inference about pride, I humbly disagree.
I looked at the prayer, which I will start saying immediately (really, I need that prayer, esp. before Confession). If Vin says stuff like what he said above with the object of being praised or preferred to others, it doesn’t work, and I assume he’d have learned by now how to get praise and preference by other means. Rather than anyone actually investigating his claim (”don’t hide your lamp under a basket”), most dismiss him, which results in him suffering rebukes. Actually, making that claim insures that he gets rebuked and rejected, pretty much immediately, by most people. (Heck, you can call him at home and rebuke him if you want.) And the prayer says we should aim for that.
Additionally, often in such matters there is a tendency to confuse a particular gift or talent with sanctifying grace. Vin didn’t claim to be a saint, he claimed to be the expert in a particular field of inquiry. I doubt anyone confuses those things in the abstract, but in practical affairs there is often confusion.
I was a little taken aback myself, to tell the truth… actually, “extremely amused” would be more accurate. I’ve never seen anyone come in gunning like that, with even the “always keep in mind” as a preface, as though it’s something your mother should have taught you along with advice about wearing clean underwear and washing behind your ears. Classic.
But, as a matter of clarification, what was the field of enquiry in which Vin Lewis is claiming to be THE expert? Is it the faith in general, or Protestants who think they’re Catholics, or the apologetics of Karl Keating? It wasn’t clear to me from his post… though I guess I could always call him and ask.
I’ve never read any of Vin Lewis’ writings, so I can’t render an informed opinion about him, but as one possible piece of evidence in Ambrosius’ case… is he being funny in naming his personal blog “Smarter Than Thou!”?
I have realized that I spoke out of turn above on more than a few occasions. I have toned down my criticisms of Keating, which were not justifiable insofar as there was no real reason to bring them up. Clara’s critique speaks for itself, and Vin Lewis speaks for himself. No need for me to engage in second-hand detraction; indeed, it is necessary that I *not* do that. I apologize to Mr. Keating should he read this, and to anyone who was scandalized by what I wrote. If you’re still scandalized (which is different from merely disagreeing with me), please let me know and I’ll edit out more.
“Onslaught”:
“but sometomes those who call themselves traditional Catholics do more to drive people away from the Church than to draw them in.”
True, sometimes that is the case.
“I strongly object to this demarcation between those benighted “Novus Ordo Catholics” and the Enlightened Spiritually Superior Tridentine Mass Catholics. It smacks of arrogance and, dare I say, a bit of a gnostic streak. This makes all traditional Catholics look like bitter malcontents–is that what Christ would want of us? There is only Catholic; and I do believe that love of God and charity towards neighbor are more important that being fluent in Latin and able to quote nineteenth-century encyclicals from memory. That seems to be one thing that “traditional” Catholics forget sometimes. I think St. Paul might have written something about that…”
In an earlier version of this blog, I said something very critical about Karl Keating, involving the words “pretty lousy.” I am “a pretty lousy” traditionalist, as I have attended a Novus Ordo on Sundays for going on a month straight now. I apologize for giving uppity and hypocritical appearances to the contrary. It is dangerous to use “Novus Ordinarian” as an easy catch-all, it is true, but Clara is right that some terms are just necessary at times.
Yes, there is a “gnostic streak” that can take over traditionalists. I have been subject to the temptation myself, forgetting the higher things of the law. Just as everyone has a guardian angel, everyone seems to have some demon there to tempt them, and traditionalists are not exempt, nor is this surprising or noteworthy in the least.
“And valuing the word of Fr. Feeney over Karl Keating? Give me a break! Catholic Answers’ apologetic material, whatever its flaws, at least has a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur; Fr. Feeney, on the other hand, was obsessed with conspiracy theories and eventually excommunicated for his embarassing tirades. ‘Nuff said.”
I am sorry this is a sore point for you, Cecaelia. I am not sure you understood the nature of the article I linked to, which I do hope you looked at. It was not a matter of “valuing the word” of one man vs. the other. It was not a “believe Keating vs. believe Feeney” type of debate, when both are talking about some third, impersonal topic. It was more a matter of “Keating says Feeney says X” when Feeney said Y. Imprimaturs, Nihil Obstats, and the purported excommunication were not the primary points. Sorry.
“I personally have found Keating and his apostolate to be very helpful in explaining Catholic doctrine to Protestants, lapsed Catholics, and unbelievers. Denouncing him as a “lousy apologist”/”Novus Catholic” seems a tad unwarranted to me. And I would also venture to say that Keating and CA have likely gained more converts to the Church than the Cornell Society for a Good Time ever has, or ever will if they keep up their more-Catholic-than-the-Pope attitude.”
First, I have edited the offensive comments. I am glad that Keating’s work has been of use to you (Vin Lewis’ has been of use to me, which amounts to a “tie”). Numbers of ostensible converts and quality of materials are, as counter-intuitive as it might seem, distinct matters. I have been told that St. Dominic made one convert from Albigensianism after years of preaching in France. St. James the Apostle made a handful of converts in Spain. Without *any* application to our Society, the “numbers” issue can be abused, as Keating would be the first to claim that he was not as good an evangelist or apologist as either St. Dominic or St. James. That is said in order to critique certain problems with the “relative numbers” analysis as a method of gauging who’s right or wrong on some particular matter.
As for our relative successes, I can speak only for myself, not the whole Society. No, I cannot claim to have attracted very many people into the Church. I do claim that some of Keating’s stuff is flawed. My ability to detect certain flaws in others’ works should not be confused with any ability to achieve the same successes they have. The first is easier than the second. You are perfectly right, and thanks for reminding me.
“I’m ready for the onslaught of personal attacks, and forgive you in advance. As someone once said, there “ain’t no hate like Christian hate.””
Sorry for my part in provoking this expectation.
Hi, Clara. “Extremely amused” is a good start. Yes, he comes in gunning like a true New Yorker.
He claims Catholic evangelism and apologetics (and, I guess, instruction) are his fields of expertise. Most of his stuff focuses on apologetics, though. One of the most important things I learned from him was the essential distinction between the three.
1.) Evangelism: attempting to induce a non-Catholic to become Catholic. This is playing offense.
*which is not the same as*
2.) Apologetics: refuting an objection to the Faith. This is playing defense. The other guy has to lob an objection first before you can engage in apologetics.
*which is not the same as*
3.) Instruction: teaching a *willing* prospective convert the truths of the Faith. Here both the teacher and pupil are playing on the same team.
Each action has a different goal. You can only do one at a time.
I’m not saying you can’t get this info. elsewhere. As a matter of fact, though, I had to come to the Ivy League to hear this demarcation from someone else. In classics, we distinguish between three genres in ancient philosophical and theological schools: 1) protreptic (grab the convert), 2) apologetics (refute objections), 3) catechesis (instruct the willing pupil).
TP,
If your field is the area of explaining to informed protestants why they should be Catholics, you _cannot_ be THE expert if you have not become widely known. Part of being THE expert in said field involves making your arguments available; you can’t claim to be THE expert on hockey goaltending but never play past your local team! Perhaps it could be true in an area of scholarship that THE expert could be unknown; but part of the definition of apologetics is a wide audience and success in convincing that audience. Mr. Lewis has no such audience, and hence — by the internal logic of the definition of apologetics considered as a field, which is part theology, part psychology, part marketing, and part rhetoric — he cannot be THE expert. He could conceivably be THE expert in the scholarly area of knowing the flaws in all Protestant arguments against Catholic doctrines, but this sort of expertise does not an apologist make.
Lastly, the offering of a phone number smells of bullying to me. It’s only anecdotal evidence to be sure, but in my experience people who claim to love argument, but only in person / on the phone, are people who have to rely on their ability to project authority to “win” arguments. If your arguments stand on their own, writing or talking should not be such a difference; but in talking it’s possible simply to snow the other person in with a forceful personality, loud voice, and various psychological and rhetorical tactics, leading to a victory from attrition rather than victory from actually convincing. Now, I’ve not proved that this actually applies to Mr. Vincent Lewis, but I’ve stated this because it’s the concern that immediately comes to mind when such a self-assured person presents himself to me as someone whom I should call to assess.
“If your field is the area of explaining to informed protestants why they should be Catholics”
How are you defining “informed”? What role does “being informed” have in this? I am putting Vin’s case aside entirely when I ask this.