Christopher Ferrara pro Gerry Matatics - Karl Keating's Character Assassination

Someone forwarded me a copy of “Karl Keating’s E-Letter” of January 13, 2004, entitled “Fr. Feeney and the Jews.” (Keating is the founder of "Catholic Answers," an apologetics organization Keating has made the sounding board for his pronouncements against "extreme traditionalists.") An “e-letter,” for those who may not know, is a kind of electronic epistle written by people who evidently consider their thoughts of the day so important as to warrant immediate promulgation over the Internet to a list of people who actually sign up to receive this sort of thing on a regular basis. The neo-Catholic/neo-con Deal Hudson likewise favors his fans with e-letters, on the assumption that they hunger for something more than the Master’s regularly published articles.

Keating’s thought of the day on January 13 was that Fr. Leonard Feeney was “anti-Semitic.” Keating is clever enough not to put it quite that way. Rather, like all good demagogues, he presents his accusation in the form of a question. After allowing that “One must acknowledge that, more often than not, the term ‘anti-Semite’ is bandied about carelessly and is applied to people who do not deserve the title,” Keating writes: “But sometimes the term is used aptly. What about in Feeney's case?” Of course, we know the answer without even reading the rest of the letter. But it is amusing to examine the “case” Keating builds for the anti-Semitism of Fr. Feeney and “Feeneyites” in general. It is a case that would fail to persuade a drunken municipal court judge on the take, but then those who accuse others of anti-Semitism have never been very big on proving the charge. Here is Keating’s case. See if you can follow it:

Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) was known to the public mainly as a writer of better-than-average poetry and of popular books such as ‘Fish on Friday.’ From the late 1940s until his death he was known instead for his rigorist interpretation of the maxim "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (‘no salvation outside the Church’). Adherents to his interpretation became known as ‘Feeneyites.’ Nothing here about “Fr. Feeney and the Jews.”

Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience. He was reconciled to the Church before his death, and the excommunication was lifted. Still nothing about Fr. Feeney and the Jews.

Feeney founded and headed the Saint Benedict Center… After his death his followers split into no fewer than eight factions, the chief of which, still using the name Saint Benedict Center, is located in Richmond, New Hampshire.

The web site for that group includes an essay attacking Msgr. Ronald Knox (1888-1957)… I had seen the essay a long time ago, but it came to my attention again recently when Traditionalist writers Hugh Owen and Robert Bennett used it to argue, indirectly, for the young-earth theory… They were writing against an article that had appeared in ‘The New Oxford Review.’ That article had used a translation by Knox of Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical ‘Humani Generis,’ and the Traditionalists didn’t like the translation. This meant they didn’t like Knox. To justify their dislike further, they cited the Saint Benedict Center essay attacking Knox….The essay… is reprinted from the July 1958 issue of ‘The Point’ a publication that is not otherwise identified. So far, Keating has proven that Fr. Feeney founded the Saint Benedict Center, which split into factions after his death, one of which factions now has a website that published an article from “The Point” contra Fr. Knox, which article was used by two traditionalist writers in their own article contra The New Oxford Review. Still nothing about Fr. Feeney and the Jews, and we are more than a third of the way through Keating’s “e-letter.”

“The Point” was a publication of the Saint Benedict Center… Before I discuss what is found in that publication, let me back up half a century. A friend of mine who lives in Boston was a teenager when Feeney and his companions used to go to Boston Common to speak… The talks quickly achieved notoriety, not so much because they pushed the Feeneyite take on salvation but because of the unrelenting Jew-baiting that came from the platform. My friend remembers the Feeneyite speakers regularly using terms such as “kike”… Keating appears to be meandering toward the point of his e-letter—Fr. Feeney and the Jews, remember?—but thus far can tell us only that an anonymous friend of his recalls that 50 years ago some anonymous “Feeneyite” speakers on Boston Commons regularly used such terms as “kike.” Keating’s anonymous friend does not say that these speakers included Fr. Feeney himself or indeed any authorized representative of the St. Benedict Center. So, we still have encountered nothing about “Fr. Feeney and the Jews.”

I have not seen printed copies of "The Point," but the brevity of its text leads me to conclude it was not printed in regular magazine format… Here are the main titles from the issues for 1957: January: "Jewish Invasion of Our Country--Our Culture Under Siege"

February: "When Everyone Was Catholic--The Courage of the Faith (Regarding the Jews) in the Thirteenth Century"

July: "The Judaising of Christians by Jews--Tactics of the Church's Leading Enemies"

August: "A Sure Defense Against the Jews--What Our Catholic Bishops Can Do for Us"

October: "The Jewish Lie About Brotherhood—the Catholic Answer—Israeli Brotherhood"

Finally we get to the point of Keating’s e-letter. The point, apparently, is “The Point”—or more precisely, the titles of certain articles in “The Point,” whose authors are unknown. From these titles Keating concludes that Fr. Feeney and his followers “were preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession. They blamed Jews for all sorts of ills: religious, political, social, and cultural. (They do not seem to have blamed them for the Johnstown Flood.).”

Well, reciting a string of titles will hardly do. After all, one of Keating’s favorite Catholic apologists (whom he lauded in his book Controversies) is Hilaire Belloc, who wrote an entire book with the provocative title The Jews. The book was devoted to what Belloc called “the Jewish question”—namely, the question of the malign influence of liberal Jews within Christian social order, and the need for a frank discussion of this for the good of Jew and Gentile alike. As Remnant subscriber and supporter Rabbi Mayer Schiller has observed: “There is little doubt that the effect of the vast majority of organizational Jewish political activism has been to weaken the religious, moral and cultural fabric of this nation. As a people, we would be wise to acknowledge this and seek to join forces with those Jews and Christians who are working to reverse these trends.”

Does Belloc’s choice of the title The Jews, standing alone, demonstrate that Belloc was “preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession?” If one were interested in a fair inquiry into whether Belloc was an “anti-Semite,” one would have to read the book for hard evidence in support of the charge. Well, then, what about the content of the articles from “The Point”? Do they actually state something that could provide proof that any of the unknown authors, let alone Father Leonard Feeney, was an “anti-Semite”?

Here, not surprisingly, Keating is forced to admit defeat: “So far as I can tell, nowhere in ‘The Point’ [my emphasis] is there an explicit statement that its writers hate Jews or wish them ill or think them mentally or biologically ‘inferior.’” That is, having reviewed all the issues of “The Point” with those provocative titles, Keating cannot provide a single quotation demonstrating that any of the authors of those articles—much less Fr. Feeney himself—hated Jews, wished them ill, or thought them inferior.

Well, does this not mean that Fr. Feeney can be exonerated of the charge of anti-Semitism? It would, if Mr. Keating were conducting a fair inquiry. Keating, however, is not about to let Fr. Feeney off the hook—as if we didn’t know.

“But,” wonders Mr. Keating, “does it take such attitudes to constitute anti-Semitism? I don't think so. Webster's defines anti-Semitism as ‘hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.’ Certainly ‘The Point’ is packed with hostility--and unrelenting hostility at that. (I invite you to read the articles for yourself.)”

But wait just a moment! Only a few lines earlier, Keating advises his readers that he had read the articles in question and could find nowhere in them “an explicit statement that its writers hate Jews or wish them ill or think them mentally or biologically ‘inferior.’” And, quite tellingly, Keating offers not even a soupcon of what the articles actually did say. Yet Keating indicts the unknown authors for “hostility” toward the Jews, which he equates with “anti-Semitism.” (Notice that we have still not seen anything about Father Feeney and the Jews.)

Now, if our unknown authors cannot be shown to hate the Jews, or wish them ill, or view them as inferior, in what would this vague “hostility” toward the Jews consist? There can be only one answer: it consists precisely in what Belloc discussed throughout his book The Jews—the baneful effects of organized Jewish influence in society, i.e., “the Jewish question.” Here are just some of the things one of Mr. Keating’s favorite apologists said in The Jews, written only 20 years before the articles in “The Point”:

The Bolshevist Jews, though they reign by terror, reign also by popular instincts and indignations which are very strong….

[I]n 1917 a socialist revolution was accomplished suddenly at one blow, in one great state [and] its agents were seen to be a close corporation of Jews with only a few non-Jewish hangers-on (each of these controlled by the Jews through one influence or another)…

Specially Jewish institutions, such as Freemasonry (which the Jews had inaugurated as a sort of bridge between themselves and their hosts in the seventeenth century) were particularly strong in Britain…

It is true that international finance is not as much a Jewish monopoly as it was; but it was still mainly in Jewish hands.

And it is this which explains the half alliance which you find throughout the world between Jewish financiers on the one hand and the Jewish control of the Russian revolution on the other.

One small but significant factor… was the rise of the monopoly of international Jewish news agents, among which Reuters was prominent, and the presence of Jews as international correspondents of the great newspapers, the most prominent example being Opper, a Bohemian Jew, who concealed his origin under the false name “de Blowitz,” and for years acted as Paris correspondent of The Times…

Moreover, the date of French defeat was also the date on which was overthrown the temporal power of the Papacy. In this also the Jews had played their part…. Within a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor who supported with all his might the dechristianizing of the city and especially its educational system.

Are there are any such statements in the articles from “The Point” that Keating professes to find so troubling? If so, how can “The Point” be accused of anti-Semitism by the same Mr. Keating who lauds Hillaire Belloc as a great Catholic of his time? If not, how can “The Point” be accused of anti-Semitism based on less “evidence” for the charge than one would find in The Jews? Even more puzzling is Keating’s admission that “Columnists Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran come to mind, as two examples of prominent figures who unjustly have been accused of anti-Semitism.” But it is none other than Joe Sobran who has written courageously of “Jewish power” and “fear of the Jews” in present-day America—thereby forfeiting his career as a syndicated columnist. How is it that Joe Sobran, writing against Jewish influence today, gets a pass from Mr. Keating, while a priest who died in the 1970s is put in the dock for anti-Semitism—and without Keating having quoted a single word from the speeches or articles of the late Fr. Feeney in support of the charge.

Having told us exactly nothing about “Fr. Feeney and the Jews,” Keating concludes his “e-letter” with another accusation in the form of a question: “What about the Saint Benedict Center's current stance on Jews? … Have they renounced the anti-Semitism that was the chief note of ‘The Point’ and therefore of the Saint Benedict Center in the 1950s?… Not that I can determine.”

Notice how Keating jumps to the conclusion that the chief note of “The Point” was anti-Semitism, when he has failed to demonstrate any note of anti-Semitism in the articles he cites, but on the contrary concedes the articles contain no statements of hatred or ill will toward the Jews. Simply amazing. Keating thus suggests that the present-day St. Benedict Center is “anti-Semitic” merely because it has not renounced 50-year-old magazine articles he never proved to be anti-Semitic in the first place! And then he asks: “Have they [the St. Benedict Center] renounced the anti-Semitism that appears at the website of the other Feeneyite offshoot (frfeeney.org)?” As Mr. Keating himself discloses, however, “the website is sponsored by some other organization (one that does not otherwise identify itself).” For all Keating knows, there isn’t another organization at all, but only a lone individual who paid $50 for the domain name frfeeney.org. So, according to Keating, the present-day St. Benedict Center is suspect of “anti-Semitism” for failing to renounce someone else’s website.

Come on now, Mr. Keating, what are you really up to here? Well, of course it’s just another day at the Office of Postconciliar Correctness—Catholic Answers Division. One might think Keating would have better things to do than falsely accusing a long-dead priest (and his present-day followers) of a non-existent crime against their fellow men. But actually, he doesn’t. This kind of character assassination, which we have seen time and again from Mr. Keating, is an important part of his function as a lay enforcer of post-conciliar correctness.

Fr. Feeney, you see, was a fiercely militant priest who made many converts the traditional Catholic way: by preaching the prospect of eternal damnation for those outside the Church. Fr. Feeney saw clearly the fast-approaching malaise of the Church, resulting largely from a sudden erosion of the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Fr. Feeney is therefore held in high regard by not a few traditionalists, even those (such as this writer) who believe his interpretation of the extra ecclesiam dogma was erroneous—an interpretation which, nevertheless, his current followers are permitted to hold, per the Juridical Vicar of the Diocese of Worchester, MA, on advice from the Vatican. (Keating somehow always fails to mention this, even though I have repeatedly informed him of the Vicar’s letter.)

And this is why a dead priest is posthumously subjected to Keating’s despicable suggestion of anti-Semitism, while Keating’s favorite dead apologist (or a Catholic columnist not perceived as a traditionalist) is immune from the charge. As I have said before, it’s all about bashing traditionalists, just one more time. For Roman Catholic traditionalism represents a persistent living link to the preconciliar past Keating and his fellow entrepreneurs of postconciliar correctness, all of them so heavily invested in the current decrepit regime of novelty, would like us all to forget.

The last words of Keating’s e-letter are: “Until next time.” Yes, Mr. Keating. Until next time.

Since Keating conspicuously failed to provide any quotations from the “anti-Semitic” articles in “The Point,” I surmised that the articles were probably full of “anti-Semitic” statements by “anti-Semitic” Popes and prelates, expressing the Church’s perennial opposition to Jewish influence within Catholic social order. Sure enough, that is precisely what the articles contained in abundance.

I sent the following quotation to Keating by way of example. It appears in an article from “The Point” entitled “A Sure Defence Against the Jews,” which quotes a book by the Brazilian Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez entitled “Is Masonry the Instrument of Judaism – The Most Important Question of the Day.” The Cardinal wrote as follows:

Since my youth, there have resounded together in my ears the names of Masonry and Judaism, of Masons and Hebrews in the attacks upon the Catholic Church. Was it simple coincidence or is it in reality an effective union, and perhaps dependence, between these two entities....There is no doubt that Masonic activity against the Catholic Church is no more than the continuation of the war against Christ practiced by Judaism for the last 1900 years...Read the Gospel and you will see, in Jewish espionage, in their captious questions, in their hypocritical attacks, clothed with the veil of pretended piety of the Pharisees; in their efforts to make Him hated before the people, Christ, Who was their greatest Glory and their wonderful Benefactor; in the use of gold to corrupt an Apostle; in the formation of public opinion against Christ; in the preference for Barabbas; in the fury and false accusations with which they tried to bury the memory of Christ in shame; in the constant opposition, many times bloody, against the preaching of the Apostles, etc.; – in all this you will see the same things that Masonry practices today, at times in very subtle form and at other times in more violent form. Judaism was anti-Christianism; and Masonry, in the service of the same Judaism, is still anti-Christianism. Harsh words, to be sure, but words no different from what the Popes themselves have said in so many pronouncements against Jewish influence in society.

What Keating was really demagoguing about, therefore, was not the “anti-Semitism” of Fr. Feeney, but the “anti-Semitism” of the Catholic Church before the “springtime of Vatican II.” Of course, it was not “anti-Semitism” at all, but rather the Church’s legitimate opposition to Jewish influence, in order to counter Jewish opposition to Catholic influence. And this attitude of the Church never once lost sight of the inherent rights and dignity of the Jews as God’s creatures, and His once chosen people.

In my email to Keating I said “No wonder you failed to discuss the articles in any detail.” I have had no reply. Keating never speaks of the Christophobia or anti-Catholicism of the Jews, as did pope after pope, cardinal after cardinal, and bishop after bishop before the Council. Keating has absolutely nothing to say about the 2000-year-old Jewish legacy of virulent opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, for Keating is the very model of postconciliar correctness. Instead, he dishonestly ascribes “anti-Semitism” to a long-dead priest whose little magazine was guilty of nothing more than reflecting the statements of the great Popes and Churchmen people like Mr. Keating would like us all to forget—along with rest of the preconciliar past.

Of course, the fact that the Catholic Answers' "Fact Sheet" (PR piece) was written in September 1999 add absolutely nothing to the post written above by Christopher Ferrara. It does not even address the topic, nor why Karl Keating felt impelled to publicly confront Gerry Matatics at his lecture in San Diego, nor defame a dead priest, his organization, etc. etc.

Like I said though, it is a nice PR piece written in 1999.

"Yes. Mr. Matatics at times has been highly critical of both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the revised rite of the Mass."

"In “The Arsenal,” a catalogue he released shortly before the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared in English, Mr. Matatics slammed the new catechism with an unfavorable comparison to the Roman Catechism (also called the Catechism of St. Pius V), which “The Arsenal” described as “the best full-size catechism available today, far superior to the Universal Catechism [i.e., the Catechism of the Catholic Church] which is already sparking so much controversy.”"

The above quotes. taken from the Keating's 1995 "Fact Sheet" re Matatics, that sandyeggo posted, portrays the same ludicrous attempt at character assasination Keating employed against Fr. Feeney - and more importantly, Keating's ABSOLUTE HATRED of the Roman Catholic Church as it existed prior to Vatican II. This is the most important point that Chris Ferrara made in his article.

The Catechism that drew Keating's ire - and which he attacked with his usual duplicitous inuendo without letting the reader know its true import - is THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT!!!

If one wishes to purchase this evil, evil wretched tome, condemned by the Grand Inquisitor of the New World Order and universal apologist for Koran-Kissers everywhere, Karl Keating, that Catechism that has thankfully been burned by the kinder gentler "enlightenment" of Vatican2 & JP2, - reprints of the ROMAN CATECHISM, THE CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, whose primary author was SAINT CHARLES BORROMEO and which was promulgated by order of the truly great POPE SAINT PIUS V, are available for purchase from TAN Books:

CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

I've never purchased anything by Karl Keating and I never will. On the other hand, I recently acquired a few Gerry Matatics tapes which I was listening to last night. The man is good, really good. I can understand why Karl Keating is insanely jealous of him.

Let's compare and contrast the two. Gerry Matatics is a world renowned convert. He teaches at seminaries. He wins every debate in which he participates. He speaks to packed auditoriums of hard core anti-Catholic fundamentalists and gets conversions on the spot. One young male convert will be entering the traditional priesthood.

Then, there's old Karl. He lures Matatics to CA under false job pretenses. When Gerry leaves he launches a campaign to destroy him which has lasted over a decade. Keating proceeds to sabotage countless job opportunities for a man who has nine children to feed and clothe. Keating causes many of Gerry's speaking engagements to be rescinded, occasions where people convert to Catholicism on the spot.

Now who is doing God's work and who is doing the work of, uh, another?

Gerry has put up with Keating's malice for long enough. I hope Ferrara uses his legal abilities to help Gerry put an end to this once and for all.

Mr. Matatics aslo promotes the Baltimore Catechism.

BALTIMORE CATECHISM.

323 Q. Who are they who do not believe all that God has taught?

A. They who do not believe all that God has taught are the heretics and infidels.

There are many kinds of unbelievers: atheists, deists, infidels, heretics, apostates, and schismatics. An atheist is one who denies the existence of God, saying there is no God. A deist is one who says he believes God exists, but denies that God ever revealed any religion. These are also called freethinkers. An infidel properly means one who has never been baptized--one who is not of the number of the faithful; that is, those believing in Christ. Sometimes atheists are called infidels. Heretics are those who were baptized and who claim to be Christians, but do not believe all the truths that Our Lord has taught. They accept only a portion of the doctrine of Christ and reject the remainder, and hence they become rebellious children of the Church. They belong to the true Church by being baptized, but do not submit to its teaching and are therefore outcast children, disinherited till they return to the true faith. A schismatic is one who believes everything the Church teaches, but will not submit to the authority of its head--the Holy Father. Such persons do not long remain only schismatics; for once they rise up against the authority of the Church, they soon reject some of its doctrines and thus become heretics; and indeed, since Vatican Council I, all schismatics are heretics.

Have a nice day.

Ferrara / Belloc / Feeney / Matatics bumpus ad summum

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.