Prompted by recent correspondence, the Reader presents the following excerpt (originally slated for later publication) from a Cathinfo.com forum discussion:
I have read WHH, and my objections go far beyond the errors of style, fact, and language, which the blog has so well documented. I cringe with embarrassment when I read such amateurish argumentation like “And anyway, why should the priest say he goes ‘to the altar of God,’ if he goes to the chair of the president instead?” and such childish, awkward observations like “‘narrative-reactualization’—a neologism that sounds like it’s connected with restarting a dead car battery.” … WHH is really very superficial in its conclusions and very shallow from the standpoint of theological analysis. It never rises above the level of a beer-fueled college bull session…
The Reader Replies: As we have written, the objective of Pistrina Liturgica is to expose the overmany indisputable blunders of carelessness and ignorance in WHH, which void its claim to scholarship. We think those failings alone disqualify the book from consideration. Nevertheless, some readers have disagreed and counseled us to expand our analysis to cover the speculative content of the book.
The reason for not broadening the scope of our critique is apparent from the above message. Fr. Cekada’s trivial observations and preference for one-liner summations typical of insipid morning-TV programs make thoughtful criticism futile. All of us learned in our youth that disputing with smart alecks ends in frustration. They can’t treat matters seriously in the first place, even if the matters are important to them. Instead, they appeal to wisenheimer reductionism and popular catchphrases to give their unsupported conclusions a veneer of plausibility (which vanishes after a few seconds of thought).
It’s not that these feints resist critical review. To be sure, they expose Anthony Cekada to greater ridicule in the long run. The sleight of hand does, however, make the analytical task more tiresome because you must take the time to reconstruct what he would have said had he been capable of serious, academic discussion. Moreover, when you see so many of these wiseacre barbarities, common sense advises that it’s not worth the effort. They are so obviously out of place that only cultists would mistake them for the result of linear reasoning.
Truth to tell, at one time we actually did contemplate a series of posts about Father’s juvenile, sarcastic, and flippant conclusions/observations. In the end, though, we threw up our hands in disgust at remarks like “The fox was back in the chicken coop” (p. 73);“With pastoral liturgy, consumer is king” (p. 85); “—whatever that means” (p. 97); “You don’t get any more ecumenical than that” (p. 105); and “…the theological principles on which he bases his argument…are pure poison” (p. 172).
In the face of so ill woven an argumentative fabric, it was a fool’s errand to attempt to assess the durability of his overall thesis. After all, his failure as an expository writer is not a refutation of his position. As we suggested in the post of July 30, traditional Catholics of every persuasion should begin afresh with the Rorate Caeli blog and Fr. Carusi’s study. (Begin with the article’s conclusion to get a feel for this remarkable monograph: it pulls no punches but avoids special pleading.) Let sedevacantist and sedeplenist alike hope that Fr. Carusi continues his investigation at least through the 1970s. Our hunch is that each reader will be able to make up his own mind should this gifted churchman continue his analysis of the subsequent reforms (even though many might not embrace his final judgment on the orthodoxy of the Pauline rite).
In the meantime, ignore Fr. Cekada's transparent marketing campaign and shameless attempt to put himself on an equal footing with a scholar and theologian like Fr. Carusi.
No comments:
Post a Comment