Posted on 08/24/2004 8:27:50 AM PDT by salva veritate
Was no one concerned about this man’s obvious baggage and the potential for future scandal arising from his manifestly shaky grasp on commitment to women, which he himself confesses in his own published memoirs? Apparently not. Hudson’s magnetic personality and his star value as a Washington insider were enough to insure his rise to the top of the neo-Catholic establishment. In fact, EWTN is already laboring to keep its star aloft, despite the breaking scandal. On The World Over Arroyo covered up the incident at Fordham by characterizing it as “mistakes” that were “resolved in an upright manner.” Even in today’s utterly debauched society the careers of mere politicians are justly ended by such “mistakes,” as we recently saw in the case of Jack Ryan, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Illinois. The neo-Catholic establishment, however, will not even adhere to the moral standards of secular politics when it comes to celebrity spokesmen who purport to give us “the Eternal Word” of God. Yet while EWTN minimizes public adultery and sexual predation of teenage girls as “mistakes,” it systematically shuns traditionalists and loudly deplores the “schism” of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and other faithful Catholic refugees from the Novus Ordo regime of novelty. Simply amazing.
(Excerpt) Read more at ourworld.compuserve.com ...
If Hudson's past sins mean he can no longer "pronounce credibly on moral issues of the day", would Mr. Ferrara apply the same standards to St. Paul, persecutor of Christians? Perhaps we should toss his epistles, since they wouldn't be credible.
For you have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion: how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God and wasted it. (Gal 1:13)
And casting him forth without the city. they stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not his sin to their charge: And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 7:57-59)
Yes, if St. Paul didn't have his experience on the road to Damascus. And a most notable contrast to Hudson et al, St. Paul did not go out and begin preaching immediately. He spent several years in the desert and several more learning from the Christian community before he ever thought to begin a ministry.
The problem with Hudson is that unlike St. Paul he seems to have never really converted, and he certainly hasn't spent any time in the desert. Unlike St. Paul, this guy is a world-class hypocrite.
-- He wrote an entire autobiography about himself but seems to have had a memory lapse when it came to losing his tenure at Fordham after having sex with an 18-year student who he first got totally blotto.Most of all, Hudson is just clueless about virtually everything. Here is a guy who ought to take the advice of Tom Sawyer, "If I was as ignorant as you, I'd shut up so that everyone wouldn't find out." Instead he has never seen a media outlet he didn't like.-- He's on his third wife, and it's not clear exactly when the first 2 happened, and how he managed to get annulments twice, and just what were all these "mistakes" that led to the collapse of his first 2 marriages, and how they constituted grounds for an annulment.
-- His behavior is all part of a pattern of self-promotion combined with lack of introspection and lack of a real spiritual life. But he's going to appear on TV to tell others how to be Catholic. The chutzpah is astounding!
-- There wasn't any period of repentance. Hudson had already become editor of Crisis magazine while he was still negotiating the financial settlement with the girl he had sexually abused.
Here are some excerpts from a review by Dale Vree of Hudson's autobiography which gives you some idea of just how confused his thinking is. This book review probably should be posted as a separate thread:
On Deal Hudson--in his own wordsPerhaps Hudson's autobiography made no sense because a)The guy is seriously confused and b)He left out enormous chunks of his life that would have explained quite a bit, all the parts that weren't complimentary to himself, except for vague references to "past mistakes."I admit I was tantalized by the prospect of finding out more about who this Deal Hudson really is. So I read the book with an eye for finding out about Deal Hudson, the man. In this regard, I didn’t learn much other than that he regards himself as "handsome" and "likes sex," both asserted in 1980, before he became a Catholic and before he got married. While he defends literature and movies that are sexually explicit, the only thing he says about himself is: "I tried to create an artificial intensity in my relationships. No doubt this led to unfortunate and destructive behavior on my part."
Well, these are slim pickins. Since this won’t suffice for a review, I’m gonna have to discuss Hudson’s ideas.
Hudson also allows (one page later) that "The moral meaning of beauty is intrinsically ambiguous: which is to say, beauty can lead us to heaven or hell," and "Satan uses beauty to seduce us away from God." Still, on the same page, he insists that "Any experience of beauty opens a wound that can be healed only by contact with a greater beauty, a greater good" (italics added). I would add: or a greater evil. Just ask a drug addict or a sex addict what led him to his addiction: It was his initial experiences with what he thought was beauty. Then, two pages later, Hudson asserts that "beauty will save the world." But if Satan is beautiful and seduces us with beauty, we could just as easily say that beauty will damn the world.
"Of all the novelists I read on my way into the Church," says Hudson, "none touched me more deeply that Julian Green." Yet Hudson says that Green’s "novels are in no way written to express a Catholic message." Go figure.
Hudson quotes a letter written by the homosexual Green: "Drag a writer away from his sin and he no longer writes…. Is sin necessary to his works? Who would dare say such a thing? But remove sin and you remove the works." Hudson comments: "Green is absolutely correct: avoid the sin and you kill the creative imagination of the artist." And Hudson marshals Jacques Maritain for his purposes: "He [Maritain] defended the freedom of the artist from…the demand of moralists to avoid the depictions of sin. The habit of the fine artist, he argued, is ordered to the making of beautiful things…." Again you notice how Hudson links sin with beauty.
Beauty led Hudson away from the Southern Baptists and to Catholicism. But he links beauty to sin and regards beauty as a child of sin (and sin is of course the child of Satan). Hudson wants Christians to appreciate beauty. But with this sales pitch, any good Christian would want to flee beauty. Hudson’s argument is self-defeating and self-refuting, and that’s a real pity.
Now, you may think that I’ve "torched" this book because of the tensions between Crisis (of which Hudson is the Publisher) and the New Oxford Review (of which I am the Editor), deriving in its origins from Crisis’s attack on Michael S. Rose’s book Goodbye, Good Men. Let me assure you that this is not the case, even though I realize that people will believe whatever they want to.
If anything, I have downplayed my criticisms. But not to downplay things, I must say that this is one of the most irrational and contradictory books from a reputable publisher I have read in my entire life. When all is said and done, the book simply makes no sense. Other orthodox Catholic reviewers would probably not want to say this, given that Hudson is such an influential man in our circles. But because of the tensions between Crisis and the NOR, I can say that, for I have nothing to lose.
I agree. Christopher Ferrara has begun playing loose with the facts and venturing into areas beyond his level of expertise. He is an attorney, not a Biblical scholar or theologian. The entire article is flawed and not worth the time of day. The conclusions he draws about Hahn's "novelties" are not as cut and dried as he makes them.
Perhaps Chris should spend more time doing law and less time speaking on theological matters he doesn't understand.
More are starting to express similar sentiments: http://restorethechurch.blogspot.com/
Ferrara is similar to anti-traditionalist writers such as Dave Armstrong, Stephen Hand and I Shawn McElhinney who show more interest in degrading and humiliating their opponents than persuading others through the veracity of their arguments.
"As right as Chris Ferrara is about many things, his propensity for overstepping his areas of competence (by addressing matters of theology, among other things) and tendency to shoot from the hip make him somewhat of a liability for traditionalists, in my opinion."
Amen. I used to be a big fan, but he needs to get a spiritual director if there were any available.
Now you are engaging in detraction in a supposed attempt to argue against committing detraction. Before you start making claims of "playing loose with the facts" you at a minimum need to have some evidence to support your claims. What "facts" are you referring to?
St. Augustine would fair even worse.
These are some significant philosophical errors. I had always been taught that Satan makes what is ugly appear beautiful to seduce the human mind and body which naturally chases after true beauty, it being a reflection of Beauty Himself. Reflected beauty itself cannot lead to sin anymore than goodness, mercy, or truth.
Green is absolutely correct: avoid the sin and you kill the creative imagination of the artist
This is a stunning condemnation of all artistic endeavor without intending to be so.
This isn't certain, of course, but Gal 1:16-17 gives the impression to me that he preached in Arabia, and St. John Chrysostom seems to agree with this when he states in his commentary on the passage "this blessed man, fervent in spirit, straightway undertook to teach wild barbarians".
I don't think he can really be faulted for leaving the account of this out of his autobiography - it would be scandalous and bring little benefit. I think it would be best to presume the validity of the Decrees of Nullity that he secured, unless there was evidence to the contrary. Anyway, I don't really want to get into a point-for-point defense of Mr. Hudson, but he has said he repented and confessed this sin long ago. We don't know what penance he has done privately.
I've been trying to point out this problem with Ferrara for sometime here to little avail.
Thanks for that link. The blog to which you referred engaged in a much worse smear job of a fellow traditional Catholic than the one they pretend to defend. Their so-called defense of Hudson consists of the fact that the article was published in the National Catholic Reporter, and we all know that they are liberal. How does that change any of the facts, and why is that a basis for making all sorts of personal attacks against Chris Ferrara?
But I am grateful to you and to the blog for sorting out some of the confusing facts regarding Hudson's marriage history. It seemed to me that at least one of Hudson's annulled marriages must have occurred after his conversion, but I couldn't be certain from previous information. The blog clarified that point:
Well let us not forget one of those marriages was annuled since it was a marriage as a Protestant. As Mr. Ferrara knows, divorce in Protestantism is not uncommon. When one coverts, a shifting in paradigms normally occurs. As far as the other one, a lack of trust on all sides was clearly there, hence one could make the case there might've been no bond of marriage to begin with. That is for the Church to decide. Is an anullment immoral?According to Kevin Tierney then, Hudson was married as a protestant, got divorced, got the marriage annulled, got married as a Catholic, got divorced, got the marriage annulled, then get married for a third time.
But wait a second, Tierney implies that of course the first marriage could be annulled since he was a protestant. Since when has the Catholic Church ever taught that protestant marriages were not binding? Any time that 2 Christians make the commitment to marriage it is a binding sacramental marriage that can only be dissolved by the death of one or both partners.
Then the second annulment, there was "a lack of trust on all sides"? What does this mean, and how does it constitute grounds for annulment?
Then Tierney asks, "Is annulment immoral?" Yes of course it is! It is a grave scandal to the Catholic faithful. Even a legal separation must be avoided as causing grave scandal, even if one doesn't get an annulment or intend to remarry, although it can be permitted in grave circumstances.
But there is this unfortunate mindset among certain followers of the regime of novelty who believe that an annulment makes everything better, like it is some kind of blanket absolution. Of course it is not! In a best case scenario it is an admission that one entered into an invalid marriage, which is a grave crime. In a worst case scenario, it is a fraudulent piece of paper that is no more than a pretext to divorce and remarry under Catholic auspices.
Before the liberalization after Vatican II there were around 500 annulments each year in the US. Now there are about 50,000 per year. If for the sake of argument we assume that the 500 were all valid, that means that there are around 49,500 couples every year looking for a legal pretext to divorce and remarry.
If a liberal had the closet of skeletons Hudson has, then many here would be attacking without mercy. Mr. Hudson should take an early retirement from public life.
This I've never understood.
As with the music of Phil Collins, all of his writing seemed to have a perceptible track which sounded something like Peter's Pan's "I'm clever!" all-about-ME, WONDERFUL ME subtext.
According to what evidence -- according to his own Confessions! When Augustine wrote his autobiography he did it to accuse himself. Just like the French say in confession (when we say "Bless me father for I have sinned"), "J'me accuse" -- "I accuse myself." St. Augustine's Confessions was not a whitewash of his life. It didn't leave out the unpleasant bits.
And as far as Augustine coming off worse, he was neither married 3 times nor had sex with his students, as far as we know. Nor did he continue his sinful lifestyle for decades after his conversion.
Let's just look at his rhetoric, which goes over the line. Of course, I know that theologians always talk like this. Never use a reasonable tone or your readers will go to someone who offers more red-meat. If Luther had written like Melancthon, his movement would not have gone anywhere
We are badly in need of a Bellarmin, someone who can do justice to a Calvin but turn his blade.
That would be one criticism that someone could make, "Ferrara's rhetoric goes over the line," although even then one should point to some examples. But it is an entirely different matter to make the claim that he "plays fast and loose with the facts."
It's probably fair to say that Ferrara argues like a lawyer, not like a theologian. He only takes one side of an argument. Lawyers believe, "Let the other guy make his own argument. It's not my job to argue for him."
It's rather similar to the situation with intelligent design where scientists like Michael Behe and Dembski make the academic arguments, and the lawyer Phillip Johnson does the down-and-dirty work of attacking frauds like Stephen Jay Gould. Each has their role to play.
I came across this in Hahn's free on-line Bible study. I thought it weird, really weird. Hahn teaches that Adam failed to defend Eve.
After reading that and doing some independent research I resolved to search for a Bible study more in line with the perennial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Hahn's conversion is still not complete.
I still watch tons of EWTN but when Scott Hahn shows up I turn it off.
I just got around to following the link and reading the rest of the article at The Remnant. I had thought that this was only a news item, and that the excerpt represented most of it, when actually this is a full-length article. I'm glad that I read the whole thing, since it all of it is excellent.
Yes, one could say that Ferrara's rhetoric is polemical. But the points he makes are excellent. I agree with you that his critique of Scott Hahn (borrowed from NOR) is even more important than the critique of Deal Hudson.
Most important is his fundamental point that the entire neo-Catholic establishment is built upon the shifting sands of personal celebrity rather than the solid rock of traditional Catholic doctrine. At the top we have global celebrity JPII, and then locally we have smaller celebrities like Scott Hahn that dot the EWTN universe.
Even those who are not forever disgraced like Deal Hudson will all be dead before you know it, and then what will happen to their radical new theologies like the feminine nature of the Holy Ghost? They will evaporate like the dew, to be forgotten and never heard of again, except for the lingering effects on poor misguided Catholics who didn't realize they were swallowing heresy. The only permanent truth is the traditional Catholic faith which can never change.
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.