|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 4, 2008 16:25:48 GMT
I just read the posted article from John Reilly's blog and find it an excellent summary of the infilitration by this fascist tendency into the SSPX. I am opposed to the SSPX - I believe, following the reasoning of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, that the society is in schism and that since the death of Archbishop LeFebvre in 1991 that this schism is effectively in its second generation and healing it would be remarkably difficult.
For all that there are many very sincere, good and dedicated adherents of the SSPX. Some of these have been scandalised by the sort of faith which SSPX clergy such as Bishop Richardson are trying to foist upon them. One example is the LeFloch Report mentioned in the cited article, which was closed down by the SSPX's US District.
However, the tendency advocated by Derek Holland (who was brought back to his Catholic roots, reportedly by Bishop Williamson whom he knew before Williamson's own reception into the Catholic Church) runs closely parallel to the neo-pagan movements which neo-fascists tend to prefer. I remember seeing a traditional Catholic contributor on the (appalling) Irish Nationalism message board gleefully talk about how much his position had in common with paganism - this is the type of thing that makes me think Bishop Williamson and his supporters have lost their Christian bearings.
Interesting that Hibernicus associates the Athlone chapel with this tendency within the SSPX (this is where Justin Barrett and others tend to go). I tried to reason why the SSPX would choose Athlone rather than Cork or Belfast as their second Irish home. The only reason I can see is that the 'back to the land' Luddite, distributist types among them have gravitated toward Athlone.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 16:39:18 GMT
When looking at Catholic Perspective today as I do from time to time I came across a post commenting on my first post on this thread. It protested that I got the name of the post author wrong (they have no blogger called Credo, I should have said CP) and that I had blamed them for a statement which was actually a quote from the author of the original post (they had reproduced it from another blogspot (the Distributist blogspot)). The passage in question is as follows {"he" in the quote refers to the ex-communist Douglas Hyde: His loss of faith in communism originated from his reading of the Weekly Review, originally with a view to searching out evidence of fascism and anti-semitism in leading Catholic figures. Note – the fact that this was the policy of marxists/ communists is highly significant. Since Hyde wrote, fifty years ago, smear campaigns have been used with increasing frequency and, sadly, effectiveness, to stifle honest debate by fuzzy innuendo and non-sequiturs. Here is a link to the full post for those who wish to check it out. catholic-perspective.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-believed-by-douglas-hyde.htmlCatholic Perspective asks me to apologise for my false statements. I hereby apologise for having got CP's name wrong and for mistaking a reproduced passage for a comment by the blogger who reproduced it. I would reiterate, however, that the passage itself appears to insinuate that all accusations of fascism and antisemitism against traditionalist Catholics must be fraudulent because some such accusations are fraudulent, and that Catholic Perspective by reproducing the passage without comment appears to be endorsing the fallacious argument which it disseminates. At the very least Catholic Perspective should be more careful to differentiate its own views from the views expressed in the statements which it reproduces (as, for example, I spell out the characteristics of the websites which I recommend in the "Irish Catholic blogspot" thread, thereby making it clear that their views are not necessarily all mine). I would also like to point out for the benefit of participants on this board, and of Catholic Perspective if it is paying a visit, that some neo-fascist and neo-nazi groups have called themselves distributists (the late John Tyndall of the British National Front and British National Party did so). This does not mean that all distributists are fascists any more than it means that all distributists are responsible for the hideous sexual debauchery practiced by Eric Gill and chronicled in Fiona McCarthy's biography of him; but it does mean that just because someone calls themselves a distributist that does not mean they should be trusted without further investigation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 16:46:16 GMT
BY the way, we should have a discussion sometime on distributism and on the question of whether Chesterton and Belloc were antisemites. My own views on the matter are as follows: (a) Distributism is appealling but I don't know how it would work. The more radical back to the land version would clearly require massive population reduction, and GKC's idealised version of the middle ages tends to gloss over such phenomena as serfdom and the power of robber barons. (b) Chesterton and Belloc were IMHO antisemitic to some extent, Belloc more so than Chesterton. There are too many stereotypical Jewish villains, praise of Zionism on the grounds that it gets Jews out of Britain and into a "normal" nation-state, lumping together Jews and Muslims as Asiatic aliens, suggestions that Jews should be forbidden to adopt English names and made to wear distinguishing garb &c to deny this (c) In Chesterton (I'm not so sure about Belloc) this coexists with many profound spiritual insights and much wit and eloquence. I owe a lot to Chesterton's writings and I wish I didn't have to make this criticism but I do. HE has very much to offer but we need to sift him carefully. Any responses?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2008 10:55:10 GMT
Gabriel's mindset is one which is doing a lot of damage, and which certain forms of Catholic devotionalism have historically encouraged. He believes that the supernatural order does not fulfil the natural order but destroys it, that the material world is inherently evil and the true believer should have nothing to do with it. He is essentially a Manichean Gnostic. His attitude that the righteous should have nothing to do with law or politics as these are usurpations of God's law leads to the complete abandonment of the temporal realm to the unrighteous. In future I will refer to him as Jibril, to show that I believe in his worldview about as much as I believe in the Koran,
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 8, 2008 12:05:18 GMT
Gabriel's mindset is one which is doing a lot of damage, and which certain forms of Catholic devotionalism have historically encouraged. He believes that the supernatural order does not fulfil the natural order but destroys it, that the material world is inherently evil and the true believer should have nothing to do with it. He is essentially a Manichean Gnostic. His attitude that the righteous should have nothing to do with law or politics as these are usurpations of God's law leads to the complete abandonment of the temporal realm to the unrighteous. In future I will refer to him as Jibril, to show that I believe in his worldview about as much as I believe in the Koran, And we have seen far too much of this viewpoint do far too much damage over the centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 8, 2008 12:14:51 GMT
BY the way, we should have a discussion sometime on distributism and on the question of whether Chesterton and Belloc were antisemites. My own views on the matter are as follows: (a) Distributism is appealling but I don't know how it would work. The more radical back to the land version would clearly require massive population reduction, and GKC's idealised version of the middle ages tends to gloss over such phenomena as serfdom and the power of robber barons. (b) Chesterton and Belloc were IMHO antisemitic to some extent, Belloc more so than Chesterton. There are too many stereotypical Jewish villains, praise of Zionism on the grounds that it gets Jews out of Britain and into a "normal" nation-state, lumping together Jews and Muslims as Asiatic aliens, suggestions that Jews should be forbidden to adopt English names and made to wear distinguishing garb &c to deny this (c) In Chesterton (I'm not so sure about Belloc) this coexists with many profound spiritual insights and much wit and eloquence. I owe a lot to Chesterton's writings and I wish I didn't have to make this criticism but I do. HE has very much to offer but we need to sift him carefully. Any responses? Speaking as another admirer of Chesterton, and to a certain degree of Belloc too, I concur. I would regard GKC as clever rather than profound and therefore has to be read carefully. I understand that GKC himself didn't believe that distributism would work. I think it is a little ironic that the movement gained currency in the anglophone world. Whereas continental Catholicism found it difficult to hold on to the industrialised working class and yearned for the bucolic middle ages (with serfdom, robber barons and other delights) - English-speaking Catholicism was much more successful at holding the working class until the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. And though Belloc was an antisemite (did he really write 'How odd of God to choose the Jews?), he could react sharply to antisemite nutcases - he referred to Nesta Webster as that mad Webster woman (or words to that effect). Fr Fahey had no such problems in believing Mrs Webster. Nor in encouraging the type of economics behind distributism. Hence his popularity on blog spots like catholic-perspective. BTW - I come from an agricultural background, but I haven't done any active farming in more than a decade. I would baulk at going 'back to the land' in any circumstances other than dire economic necessity. I don't know how urban dwellers of more that a generation or two's remove from the land could consider taking up farming just like that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2008 15:00:53 GMT
Chesterton can be very profound indeed, as well as superficial. The difficulty is to separate the two. I wouldn't say that Chesterton himself realised distributism wouldn't work; he knew the radical back to the land views of Gill and Fr. MacNabb couldn't work. He believed it might be possible to implement distributism in an industrialised society but he never worked out the details. His late novel THE RETURN OF DON QUIXOTE is actually quite a nice comment on the ways in which mediaevalism can be used or misused. A group of businessmen try to head off attacks on themselves by becoming backers of a neo-mediaeval movement set up by an eccentric antiquarian because they think this will uphold their rights as master manufacturers. The neo-mediaeval movement then condemns them because the ruthless tactics which they use to crush out their small competitors contravene mediaeval principles of economic justice. (The fact that I have a nasty suspicion that this is GKC's hope of how fascism - to which he was much more lenient than it deserved, cf his silly eulogies of Mussolini in THE RESURRECTION OF ROME - might develop, complicates things further.) Belloc and Chesterton's other cultural allegiances sometimes complicate things. I think Belloc attacked Webster because she was hostile to the French Revolution (which Belloc as a fin de siecle French nationalist who could see no evil in France, reacting against the dead end into which royalism had led much of French Catholicism, greatly admired) and the fact that Belloc and Chesterton condemned Nazi persecution of the Jews had I fear much to do with the fact that it was the Germans rather than the French who were doing it.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 17, 2008 15:43:08 GMT
If we can re-direct ourselves to a point, would it be a good summary to say:
A certain category of Catholic traditionalist has appeared which has the following hall marks:
1. A love for the traditonal Mass with other traditional disciplines and a corresponding disdain for the modern Mass;
2. A believe in economic theories such as distributism and a yearning to go back to the land. Perhaps even a Luddite appreciation of newer technologies;
3. A tendency to blame the world's political, social and economic problems on a conspiracy of Free Masons and Jews;
4. Set beliefs about what constitutes modesty and decorum in woman's dress;
5. Set beliefs about the place of woman in society;
6. A tendency to reject mainstream education for children;
7. Distrust for secular institutions, whether governmental, academic or media
This list is by no means exhaustive.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2008 17:20:16 GMT
Agreed, with the proviso that these opinions are treated by their adherents as a non-negotiable package; you either have to accept the whole lot, as defined by them, or you are not in their eyes a Catholic at all. Justin Barrett's wretched book THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD is the reductio ad absurdum of this mindset; it is a series of assertions by Justin, flung together without any logical strucure or reasoning process, and the reader is exhorted to accept everything he says because he says it without regard for logic or consistency. This is a paranoid mindset in which the mere existence of other people as entities independent of oneself is viewed as an existential threat - it exactly reproduces Plato's description of the mindset of a tyrant, and vindicates his view that while such peope call themselves free they are in fact the greatest slaves of all. There might be something to be said for some of the individual points in isolation and in moderate forms (not the anti-semitism, obviously). It's the package deal that is really deadly.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 29, 2008 11:50:40 GMT
In view of recent events in the Middle East I am going to start a separate thread on Israel-Palestine in the general forum, to which our atheist friends (and any other non-Catholic posters who happen along) can contribute. This will be a general discussion in which the issue of anti-semitism may be realised, but I hope we Catholic posters will also continue to discuss the issue here.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Dec 29, 2008 17:17:04 GMT
Calling the boycott of Jewish owned shops in Limerick a 'pogrom' debases the term and minimizes what happens in real pogroms.
Secondly, in Ireland Jews have contributed very much to Irish life. Some years ago, out of less than two thousand Jews in Ireland, there were three TDs, one in each of the major political parties, Ben Briscoe (FF), Alan Shatter (FG) and Mervyn Taylor (Lab).
It is not being anti-Jewish to condemn utterly the digraceful behaviour of Israel at present in Gaza.
Being Anti-Jew, anti-semitic and anti-zionist qre three different things.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 29, 2008 22:50:49 GMT
Dear Noelfiz, I think the term "pogrom" for what happened in Limerick is probably exaggerated as no-one was killed, but it was more than a simple boycott. It involved actual violence and threats of violence, as well as accusations of ritual murder. I think no-one on this thread would say Ireland as a whole is or was anti-semitic (Fr. Fahey and his disciples used to complain regularly that the Irish people were insufficiently alive to The Jewish Problem.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 29, 2008 23:25:59 GMT
At the same time, anti-semitism does exist and has existed in Ireland and ought to be addrssed. I do not think that condemning Israel's current excessive behaviour in Gaza is anti-semitic though it should be noted that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel, quotes the notoriously fabricated PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION in its charter, and regularly fires missiles at random into Israel. This does not justify the Israeli attacks which kill and injure many civilians, but it should be noted.
Lastly when you distinguish being "anti-Jew" and "anti-semitic" I take it that by the first you refer to hostility to Judaism as a religion, and by the second hostility to Jews as a people/race? Clarity is important.
|
|
|
Post by Noelfitz on Dec 30, 2008 13:31:59 GMT
Hibernicus,
anti-semitism is antagonism to Semitic people, be they Jews or Arabs.
It is difficult to know what being a Jew means. Some Jews are not religious, only Jewish by race. Really the definition of a Jew is one whose mother is a Jew, but this is often not satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 30, 2008 13:51:20 GMT
With all due respect, this is hairsplitting. "Semitic" does refer to Arabic as well as Jewish peoples, but in current usage it refers specifically to hostility to Jews. It is, by the way, the case that in anglo-American popular culture many classical anti-semitic images - the businessman who secretly funds revolutionary conspirators, the debauched Oriental who makes money off other people's labour without producing anything himself, have been transferred to Arabs - and this might be worth discussing - but there is a particular venom to the tradition of Jew-hatred which marks it out as something distinctive. Similarly, while there may be arguments at the edges of the definition about who is a Jew, it is generally pretty clear to know what is being talked about. It's important to be precise, but the search for precision should not be allowed to obscure the substantive issue.
|
|