Trom Traditionalists to Neo-Caths: why Catholics prefers pagans

Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)

New York (RAP) August 17, 2014 - Today we have the honor of interviewing Dr. Trevor Rich, Professor of Religious Studies at Catholic University of Auckland, New Zealand, who is here in New York for a religious studies conference. Dr. Rich is a specialist in the Neo-Catholic Studies program at CUA.

Robert Allen: Welcome. Professor, would you please tell us about Neo-Catholic Studies. First of all, what does it mean?

Trevor Rich: Thank you. It's good to be here. Neo-Catholic Studies is a relatively new discipline in the field of Religious Studies. It's principal focus is on a new set of attitudes and new kind of thinking among Catholic conservatives that emerged following the Second Vatican Council.

Robert Allen: "New kind of thinking"? Does this mean that these Catholics would be regarded as deviating from what has gone by the name "Catholic" traditionally? Would they be regarded as "heretics"?

Trevor Rich: Yes, and no. Yes, their thinking would be regarded as novel by the Catholics of, say, the 1920s, but, no, they cannot be called "heretics" insofar as they continue to defer to the authority of the pope and bishops.

Robert Allen: Can you give us an example of the way in which "Neo-Catholics" are novel in their thinking?

Trevor Rich: Certainly. Although they are widely regarded as the "conservatives" in many respects, over the past 60 years they have played the role of enablers for the progressives. They don't realize this, of course. But it's true. They were the fan club of Pope Paul VI when he introduced the new Mass. Get rid of the traditional Latin liturgy? Sure! Replace Gregorian chant with contemporary guitar songs? No problem! Tear down those old sanctuaries? Pull down the old statues? Take out those traditional altars, communion rails, and confession boxes? Why not? Communion in the hand? Altar girls? Lay Eucharistic ministers? Why didn't we think of that before? Sure, why not!

Robert Allen: Why do you think they went along with all these changes so readily?

Trevor Rich: It's an odd thing, really. It's as if they had some sort of contemporary version of the ultramontanist tendency.

Robert Allen: You mean, they follow the pope in lock step, defend him to the end?

Trevor Rich: In a way, yes. Even when the pope is caving in to the demands of progressives, like altar girls and communion in the hand.

Robert Allen: What about Catholic traditionalists?

Trevor Rich: Traditionalist Catholics had, and still have, a similar sort of die-hard adherence to the hard-line drawn by the Church before Vatican II between Catholics, on the one side, and Protestants, on the other. Traditional Catholics wouldn't, and still don't, readily fraternize with Protestants except for the sake of trying to convert them.

Robert Allen: It's odd, though, isn't it, that St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the Church celebrated as a "Doctor of the Church" had no problem drawing from even pagan Greek sources, like Aristotle, and using their concepts to clarify Catholic dogma?

Trevor Rich: Precisely. Traditional Catholics preferred Greek pagans to Protestants, you could say. I suppose they thought the Greek pagans were "innocent" in a way, while Protestants, even though they were Christians, were contaminated by an overt rejection of Catholicism, so that the intellectual contributions of the Greek pagans were not suspect in the way that those of Protestants are.

Robert Allen: And you're suggesting there's a parallel with contemporary Neo-Catholics here?

Trevor Rich: Absolutely. You can see it in the Neo-Catholic abhorrence of Catholic traditionalists, especially groups like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, also known as the SSPX, to the point that they would prefer modern pagans.

Robert Allen: Neo-Catholics would prefer the company of modern pagans to that of traditionalist Catholics?

Trevor Rich: Yes, indeed. An example comes to mind from the lay apologetics apostolate, Catholic Answers. A Catholic grandmother was concerned about the Common Core curriculum adopted by her grandchildren's Catholic school. The Common Core curriculum includes many elements at odds with Catholic teaching. Basically the Obama administration's vision for what education should be.

Robert Allen: Politically correct ideas about same-sex relations, contraception, abortion, that sort of thing?

Trevor Rich: Exactly. The grandmother went to see the bishop and it was clear he had no intention of stopping the Common Core curriculum. So she wrote to Catholic Answers ...

Robert Allen: The "lay apologetics apostolate," as you put it ...

Trevor Rich: Yes, and she asked them whether it wouldn't be preferable to sent them to a school run by the SSPX where they would get a "solid," traditional Catholic education.

Robert Allen: From what I've heard, in most diocesan Catholic schools, students don't even learn how to pray the Rosary, is that correct?

Trevor Rich: Sad to say, yes. And someone named Michelle Arnold at Catholic Answers wrote a response dated July 1, 2014, which was since deleted from the Internet, in which she told this grandmother that her children be in a far better environment in the diocesan Catholic school, even with the Common Core curriculum, than in the school run by the traditionalist SSPX, because they would at least be in communion with the Church in the diocesan school.

Robert Allen: I see. She said that the grandmother ought to prefer the Common Core curriculum of the diocesan school to the traditionalist Catholic curriculum of the SSPX.

Trevor Rich: Yes.

Robert Allen: So you're saying, in effect, that contemporary Neo-Catholics prefer the contemporary "paganism," as it were, being imposed by the Department of Education under the Obama administration to the traditional Catholicism of the SSPX that has been declared off-limits by Rome.

Trevor Rich: Something like that. The Society [SSPX] has been seeking to regularize its relationship with Rome over the years, but has been increasingly troubled by what looks from their vantage point like a Church in progressive stages of collapse and de facto apostasy.

Robert Allen: But you're saying that the content of their education [that of the SSPX] would be far more Catholic than what the children would receive in the diocesan school with the Common Core curriculum.

Trevor Rich: Without question.

Robert Allen: Well, can you tell us, Professor, what would be your assessment of these tendencies you've observed both among Catholic traditionalists and Neo-Catholics? Why, may we ask, do Catholics prefer pagans?

Trevor Rich: Each group "prefers pagans," to borrow your expression, for different reasons. Traditionalists prefer classical pagans to Protestants because they wish to preserve the classic Aristotelian-Thomist synthesis that has been such a historical bulwark in articulating and safe-guarding Catholic tradition. Neo-Catholics prefer the paganism of anti-Catholic modernity to the Catholicism of traditionalists that has been declared off limits by their bishops.

Robert Allen: What do Neo-Catholics think of Protestants?

Trevor Rich: The irony is that Neo-Catholics embrace Protestants as fellow-Christians. They wouldn't dream calling them "heretics." I would imagine that nearly any "conservative" Catholic today, Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, etc., would answer the question posed by that grandmother pretty much like Michelle Arnold did.

Robert Allen: They would have more of a problem with the grandchildren being sent to a traditionalist Catholic school administered by the SSPX than an essentially "paganized" Catholic school?

Trevor Rich: Right. In fact, the irony runs even deeper. I don't imagine these Neo-Catholics would have any serious problem with those grandchildren being sent to a Methodist or Lutheran school, at least as long as there weren't a better option available, but try proposing the idea of sending them to a traditional Catholic school administered by the SSPX. Their heads would spin. Think about this in relation to how a traditional Catholic would react. Pretty amazing.

Robert Allen: Very interesting indeed. Thank you Professor for your very engaging and illuminating discussion of these issues. I hope we can look forward to the pleasure of seeing you again.

Trevor Rich: Thank you. My pleasure.

Vatican hires lay apologist Dave Armstrong to help Pope Francis explain himself

Dave Armstrong may not be a prodigious self-absorbed promethian neo-pelagian (to borrow Pope Francis' expression), but he is most certainly a prodigious writer. Just to browse his website and list of publications is almost dizzying.

One of the gems you will find among his publications is a title called Pope Francis Explained: A Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition.

This must be the title that caught the eye of Pope Francis (or one of his Vatican associates), when Armstrong was recently contacted by the Vatican for the express (alleged) purpose of helping the Holy Father present himself in public and manage the problem of media spin.

"It's absolutely astonishing," stated an anonymous Vatican spokesperson, "but this American lay apologist seems to understand the mind of Pope Francis better than the Holy Father does himself."

There's no question the See of St. Peter could use a little help these days, since there are so many conflicting media markets to consider, from the readers of L'Osservatore Romano, ZENIT, Our Sunday Visitor, and National Catholic Reporter, to The Advocate (LGBT) and The Huffington Post.

"It's hard keeping everybody happy," stated the Vatican spokesperson. "We need someone who knows the mind of the Holy Father and can bring clarity to our message."

There was some mention of Armstrong teaming up with another American lay apologist, Mark Shea, who has previously been contacted by the Vatican for similar purposes, although it was not immediately clear what sort of collaboration might be involved.