Well-Intentioned but Weak
James R. White is better known to Catholics as the anti-Catholic author of The Roman Catholic Controversy, Mary: Another Redeemer? and The Fatal Flaw. As director of the Fundamentalist apologetics apostolate Alpha & Omega Ministries, White has publicly opposed Catholicism for over a decade. But White has wider interests than opposition to Catholicism. He has also defended his understanding of Christianity against the claims of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and King James Onlyites. In his most recent book, The Same Sex Controversy, written with Jeffrey D. Niell, White turns his attention to “defending and clarifying the Bible’s message about homosexuality.”
Had White and his co-author limited their consideration to their subtitle’s thesis, I’d have given their efforts a higher grade. Their examination of the biblical evidence in the Old and New Testaments is good. I appreciated their exegesis of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (p. 27–52 [Gen. 19:1–29]) and their defense of the traditional understanding of this passage against revisionist claims.
Unfortunately, the authors work from a premise of sola scriptura (the Bible alone), and this undermines their work. White and Niell claim that “the same-sex controversy is, at its core, a controversy over the authority and interpretation of the Bible” (p. 15). On the contrary, the Bible is merely a weapon employed by homosexual activists trying to overthrow traditional Christian morality.
In fact, the Protestant premise of sola scriptura is helpful to such activists. If they can demonstrate that homosexuality—or at least some of its forms—cannot be rejected on the basis of the plain words of Scripture alone, those who approach moral strictures from the premise of sola scriptura will find it difficult to uphold the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of the biblical texts.
Indeed, White and Niell do not limit their rejection of the revisionists’ claims to appealing to Scripture alone. They call on the Fathers of the Church to support their exegesis of the texts. Although this is a perfectly acceptable methodology for defending Christian doctrine and morals, it implicitly proves the inherent weakness of sola scriptura.
The conclusion of The Same Sex Controversy “is written as an appeal, by two ordained ministers, to people struggling with homosexual practices and desires” (p. 199). While their intention to reach out to homosexuals is commendable, White’s and Niell’s appeal is practically worthless. It confuses temptations to homosexual activity with the commission of homosexual acts and declares both to be sinful (p. 200; cf. note 1, p. 24). And, surprisingly, the authors do not point homosexuals who may be looking for help to the Protestant ministries that exist to help homosexuals out of that lifestyle. (Such Protestant ministries do exist, as do Catholic ministries.) Their advice harkens back to the anti-drug campaign of the 1980s, “Just Say No.” While just saying no is possible, without practical support the advice rings hollow.
The Same Sex Controversy is helpful for those apologists seeking to defend the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of Scripture. However, one must also seek out references that present a fuller defense of the Christian understanding of the human person and of sexuality as a gift from God. (As one possibility, I would recommend Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West.)
Unfortunately, despite its authors’ hopes, this is not a book to give to anyone struggling with homosexual temptations and the homosexual lifestyle. If you know someone carrying this cross, direct him or her to the Catholic apostolate, Courage (www.couragerc.net) .
— Michelle Arnold
The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality
By By James R. White and Jeffrey D. Niell
Bethany House
254pages
$12.99
ISBN: 0-764-225-243
Noisy-Gong Rhetoric
If there is any book that illustrates how far apart faithful Catholics and certain traditionalists have grown, it is The Great Façade. Consider its major premise: If you want to know what is wrong with the Church today, if you want to see what enabled all the deconstructionist abuses, look no further than the people reading this magazine. It is you and me.
According to authors Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., we are not so much Catholics as neo-Catholics. Neo-Catholics are those who contentedly accept the damage done to the Church since Vatican II. Supposedly, we follow our bishops docilely down the primrose path like sheep being led to slaughter. “The Pope is still the Pope, and yet this is the worst crisis the Church has ever endured, in part because the conciliar popes, helped along by the blind ‘obedience’ of the neo-Catholics, have refused to acknowledge that there is a crisis, but instead persist in the very novelties that have engendered it” (p. 58–59).
It is in this central premise— “We are right and hold to the true Catholic faith while you folks, progressives and liberals (cf., p. 17) masking yourselves as orthodox, are mere pretenders” —that we see how the book is a masterpiece of half-arguments, mischaracterizations, inability to make distinctions, and non-arguments. These are well-done, frankly, and the uninformed reader will think there is enough truth in here to find the work convincing. But examined closely, and the arguments fall apart.
Though many instances of this could be given, one example suffices to illustrate the point:
“We have a magisterium, the neo-Catholic says, that provides Catholics with a unique source of stability and constancy. Agreed. But with what precisely is the magisterium concerned? To this question . . . neo-Catholics are [unwilling] to offer a clear answer. Since the neo-Catholic will brook no criticism of any major ecclesial fad that has the support of the Vatican, the neo-Catholic version of the magisterium seems a quite expansive thing indeed” (p. 152).
What can be said about something so absurd? Who is brooking no criticism? Have the authors never read Crisis, Catholic World Report, First Things, or This Rock? Read Jimmy Akin’s writings, or those of Karl Keating. Talk with Tim Staples. Go online and delve into the blogs of average pew-sitting Catholics who have never seen the Old Mass and who probably don’t know it is still celebrated. There is plenty of criticism for the absurdities witnessed within the Church over the past forty years.
The main difference between faithful Catholics and this stripe of traditionalist is filial piety, of which readers will not find a shred on these pages. Nor will they find any attempt to see Vatican II’s teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, or the Mass in the light of Tradition. Rather, The Great Façade is frequently mocking of the Pope and contemptuously dismissive of cardinals and other heirarchical clerics—not to mention of everything that has happened in the Church since 1963. To the authors, it is all a divorce from Tradition and no evidence is given to indicate otherwise, even as a counter-argument.
For instance, while discussing Pius VI’s condemnation of the vernacular in the Mass, they omit that Trent saw no problem with this but thought the time was not advantageous for such a change. They say that the concept of ecumenism was unknown in the Church before Vatican II; but what about the Council of Florence, which brought about the temporary reunification of the East and West?
The authors routinely confuse Sacred Tradition and tradition (i.e., custom). They also ignore that many of the issues they discuss touch on discipline, which can change, as opposed to faith and morals, which cannot. Someone is not a bad or even poorly formed Catholic because they don’t like Latin in the Mass. They certainly are not responsible for all that is wrong in the Church today.
More disturbing than the myriad mischaracterizations and distortions is the authors’ lack of charity displayed on seemingly every page. With the exception of paying lip service to someone’s probable holiness, they have not a kind word for those with whom they disagree. Indeed, it is the snide tones in which they paint their arguments that makes this book particularly difficult to read. “That theological ‘surprises’ are alien to the perennial Catholic magisterium poses no difficulty for the neo-Catholic mentality” (p. 71), they write at one point, and at another, “We will nevertheless undertake a further demonstration of what is obvious to everyone but neo-Catholics” (p. 165). This sort of insult is common.
The book also accuses those it ridicules of doing nothing in the face of the crisis. But how do they know? When prominent American Catholics meet with Roman prelates, how do the authors know nothing is said or done? How do they know whether many of us write our bishops, withhold donations, and even attend different parishes because of liturgical problems?
In fairness, the authors make many excellent points upon which faithful, orthodox Catholics of all stripes can agree. And this book is frequently educational, exposing the reader to little-known magisterial pronouncements and papal directives of years gone by. Had it been written more carefully, the book could have done much good in bringing two potential allies together.
But when the reader is confronted constantly with distortions and poor arguments, it is hard to take this work seriously. It is especially difficult because it is not written to lovingly convert but to tendentiously condemn and castigate. Those already convinced of the authors’ arguments will delight in this sort of noisy-gong rhetoric (cf., 1 Cor. 13:1), but no one else will be persuaded.
— Brian O’Neel
The Great Façade
By Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Remnant Press
422 pages
$21.95
ISBN: 1-890-740-101