Dialogue on the Propriety of the Term Radtrad (vs. Jeffrey Stuart)

This amiable, constructive exchange (albeit with no clear resolution) occurred in the combox for my related paper, Origins and Ongoing Evolution of the Term, Radtrad. Jeffrey Stuart's words will be in blue. I thank you for his articulate, charitable presentation of his view. I remain unpersuaded, but I always appreciate someone who cogently presents their viewpoint.

* * * * *
A lot of energy directed to labeling and categorizing Catholics that I don't think provides much value added. Whether calling people "neo-Catholic" or "RadTrad," I deplore both terms and think both sides should just stop. It's akin to High School tribalism. 

Meanwhile, as an apologist I have to have some sort of way to distinguish between mainstream "traditionalists" who simply prefer the Tridentine Mass, and those I call radtrads.

What do you suggest? If I make no differentiation, I catch hell for supposedly lumping every sort of "traditionalist" together, as if I consider all of them extreme fringe wackos (which I do not at all).

I can't win for losing. If I seek to be charitable by drawing this distinction, I get misery. But if I just use the term "traditionalist," then I can't even make the critiques I make of excesses and errors, because people will think I'm bigoted and attacking the whole movement across its entire spectrum.

Also, St. Paul vociferously and repeatedly condemned sectarianism and folks who were causing division.

There is a place to do so. One function of the apologist is to warn people of certain errors, in order to try to prevent them from falling into it. We try to protect the flock from them.

Thanks for your reply.

Rightly or wrong, I think I sense a bit of frustration as you write, “I can't win for losing.” I think in a nutshell, that is my point. You are correct in saying that. There is nothing to win here, only potential for loss in communication. So why is that?

While I’m not going to say I am the only one in the World who has had this experience, I have at times been called both a “neo-Catholic” and “RadTrad in my lifetime. Now I am the same person in both instances. So to me, when someone uses those terms it really says more about that person than the individual they are attempting to label. It’s a “I’m not you” sort of statement depending on whatever they see “you” as being.

Also, no matter how much effort you put towards trying to define such terms, everyone uses them differently and the distinction can be so fuzzy that the collateral damage is very real as you end up offending people that you didn’t mean to offend. So then, you have to take time explaining what you meant in using the label which often, in my opinion, makes matters on worse. Think of an individual who uses the word n****r and tries to explain how he really only means a certain segment of black people. It’s a no-win situation. You only dig a deeper hole in the sand.

Further, because it is a fuzzy term and because it is often seen in an “us vs them” manner, it compels people to take sides. So, someone uses the term “RadTrad” to discuss a viewpoint he doesn’t like. Listener hears this message, reflects on the fact that the person being called “RadTrad” has very similar views, and therefore concludes that given this debate, he sides with the “RadTrad.” Net result is further polarization.

Communication can be difficult even when we try to be exacting. But ultimately, you have to reflect on whether it is working even if you think you have done everything possible to be clear and make distinctions. As an apologist, I think you would agree with me that some methods of explaining certain Catholic teachings resonate with a protestant audience more than others. Yes? While we might agree that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix and we can back it up with all manner of justification, it’s probably not the most effective means of entering into a discussion with a fundamentalist. Same applies here. And if you have to take extra time to constantly explain this term, then I would say communication isn’t happening and a different approach is warranted. For instance, look at all of the effort you have to take to affirm that you have no beef with so-called “traditionalists.” I don’t think that is where your time as an apologist is best used.

My suggestion? Don’t use the terms at all and stick with words that have distinct meaning. If the person is a sedevacantist, then call him that. If the person is heterodox in thought, then use that term. If the person is just being a rude jerk, then that use that term. Label the behavior and apply it to individuals who demonstrate it openly.

To close, I appreciate the work you have done over the years and even have some of your books on my shelf. I wish you all the best and God’s continued blessings.


I appreciate very much your calm, reasoned, charitable approach and the time you've taken to explain it.

The problem still remains of how to identify a clear and troublesome category of folks. We need to have a name for them. We can't use a 17-word sentence every time they are referenced. Language doesn't work that way.

As I explained, in using "radtrad" I seek to be charitable to the mainstream of "traditionalists." It's actually an ecumenical effort at bottom.

My web page devoted to these issues is entitled, "Catholic 'Traditionalism' and its Extremist 'Radtrad' Fringe". That makes the distinction quite clear (and was designed to do so).

My recent book is called, Mass Movements: The Extreme Wing of "Traditionalism," the New Mass, and Ecumenism . You'll be happy to hear that I was persuaded to remove "radtrad" from the subtitle.

We can come up with any number of alternate terms: the people involved will be offended whatever we do. "Ultratraditionalist" has been used; I used to use "quasi-schismatic." People use a variety of epithets that are simply insults ("wackos," etc.)

You suggest "rude jerk." Like that will go over very well? :-) But "rude jerk" does not identify the essential problem; it's not primarily a matter of behavior (apologetics analysis in general is about belief, not behavior), but rather, of the "us vs. them," legalistic, exclusivistic, Pharisaical views being espoused.

My job as an apologist is to critique and refute error and to try to prevent people from being 1) harmed by it, and 2) falling into it themselves.

It's easy for the non-apologist to say, "well, don't use this term because it's mean and causes problems." I'm happy to discuss whether my chosen term is inadequate or uncharitable, and whether it should be discarded, but I need an alternative, because we still have the practical issue of identification for a distinct group.

I think I mentioned in the paper above that I have gone through almost identically the same dispute concerning "anti-Catholic," which has a long, indisputable, perfectly legitimate use among scholars.

People don't like being labeled that. But there is such a group. I am far more offended by the belief-system and lies of those who are correctly called that. They oppose Catholicism. I oppose abortion and have no problem with "anti-abortionist," so why should an anti-Catholic object to a simple description of what is so plainly their beef?

It's the same here: the beliefs that radtrads espouse and how they view orthodox Catholics are infinitely more uncharitable and offensive and outrageous than a mere shorthand term for "radical traditionalist," that uses the chosen self-description and simply adds a pointed but not inherently insulting indication of how far along on the spectrum a person is.

I still think it is perfectly justified, until I am persuaded that an alternate term (besides "rude jerk") is more appropriate and sensible. If I am, I'll revise my book and go through my entire blog and replace "radtrad" with the new alternate term. I've modified or removed papers many times before when it was warranted (for one of several reasons). It's nothing new with me at all.

But I guarantee as sure as I'm sitting here that I'll catch hell no matter what term is used. I could call them anything whatsoever and it won't matter, because they reserve the right to use their offensive terms of orthodox Catholics, while we are supposed to have no "right" at all to identify them.

They're simply "traditionalists," according to their self-description, but the whole point is that they are not just that (and it insults the mainstream "traditionalists" to contend that they are), and so have to be identified more specifically.

Thanks again for your time.

There is nothing to win here, only potential for loss in communication. So why is that?

I would say that it is because too many people are being irrational and uncharitable in defining and using descriptive terms, whereas I am painstakingly expending effort to very carefully define terms and to be as charitable as I can in doing so.

I don't deny that "radtrad" has a certain pointedness and semi-humorous, tweaking "bite," but not nearly as much as Jesus' "vipers" or "whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones" or calling Herod a "fox" (or St. Paul describing some people, "whose god is their belly"). I think it is fully justified and as charitable as it can be under the miserable circumstances.

Definition of terms is absolutely crucial for rational discourse to take place. We have to know exactly who we are talking about, so there is not further confusion.

The only way to do that is to use terms consistently and to define them with great care. I do so at the beginning of my book and at the top of my "traditionalist" web page, so that there can be no confusion as to my use. I've even done a paper about its etymology.

But people will still be offended no matter what, because that is what happens when you disagree with folks. I've gone through this same dispute over the term "anti-Catholic." It goes with the territory in apologetics, along with being personally attacked ourselves because we dare to say that "a is right and b is wrong." People don't like that. It's human nature.

I'm not saying that you are being unreasonable. We're actually discussing the matter rationally and calmly, which is extremely refreshing to see. I'm just saying that you don't seem to realize that some concrete identifying term is needed, and "rude jerk" just doesn't cut it.

Another thought occurred to me. For a radtrad to say that he is simply a "traditionalist" insults the vast majority of legitimate "traditionalists" in much the same way as a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Unitarian calling themselves "Christians" is an insult to ones who truly are Christians (who accept the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, etc.). And these groups always reject our classification of them as "heresies" or "heretical sects" or "cults."

It's the very co-opting of the term to describe the narrow, objectionable group, that is completely unacceptable.

"Traditionalist" has its own difficulties that I have written about ("traditionalists" aren't the only ones who care about and hold to "tradition"), but for now it is a term widely in use, and I am willing to bow to it, as long as I can put quotation marks around it as a mild protest: as I always do. I bow to it because the group calls itself that, and at some point, that becomes normative, inasmuch as language can be.

But the radtrad calls himself the same thing, while being radically different. Again, we have a problem of insufficient differentiation, and so we use radtrad to indicate a "traditionalist" who is "radical" and far right: almost to the point of schism, and certainly already divisive in precisely the sense that St. Paul so often vehemently condemned.

I’m actually maintaining that you don’t need to generalize the group at all and when you do, even when trying to be very specific, you don’t gain anything. In fact, you only lose. I suppose you could see my points as those of a “non-apologist” with an implication that there are aspects of your craft that I don’t understand. That’s fine. But in return, I could point out that I have experience in strategic communications and deal with issues like this in my current employment as a matter of course.
Clearly, your intent is a good one. I can see that. But measuring the effectiveness of communication is more than just what you actually say. You have to look at how it is received as well. And if your goal is to communicate effectively, you have to take into account that reception even though you don’t directly control it. It might me that a change in tact is in order so that you get through to the recipient in a way that works for them.

Using pejoratives to label groups of people only serves to causes more division. This is almost a guarantee. It’s a vicious cycle. And I would say we have seen that play out in spades in the Catholic blogosphere and I don’t see much value added. Instead, I see division amongst the Body of Christ. In fact, I had a well-known member of the clergy comment to me last week that “the Catholic blogosphere is absolutely toxic and it’s from all sides.”

Now let me clarify what I am proposing because I don’t think my point was clear enough. I say, do not label groups of people. Don’t call them neo-Catholics, progressive Catholics, Peace & Social Justice Catholics, Traditional Catholics, RadTrads, etc. It’s counterproductive for all of the reasons I stated before. Instead, label specific beliefs or specific individuals on their behavior.

So I’m not suggesting you exchange “RadTrad” for “rude jerks” in talking about a group of people. I’m saying that if an individual is a rude jerk, then simply call him a rude jerk. If someone espouses a view that there is no valid Pope, then point out the errors of Sedevacantism. Keep it specific and keep it focuses on bad thoughts and bad behavior of individuals. That’s where you energy would be most productive, not defining particular so-called sub-cultures within the Universal Church.

God bless.

This still doesn't solve my problem of identifying a tangible error of a certain number of people. There has to be a label in order for folks to know what I'm talking about in the first place.

It is also relevant to point out that I didn't start this whole ball in motion. I'm dealing with the existing state of affairs as an apologist. I didn't set out to classify people as "traditionalists." They have done that themselves, and I have registered my principled disagreement with it (on much the same grounds as you are using now: that it is a useless, unnecessary qualifier to "Catholic").

But there are different types of "traditionalists" -- just as there are wildly different types of Catholics (orthodox / obedient / magisterial and nominal and cultural and modernist / dissident / liberal).

This is reality. I didn't make it what it is by my labeling. It is what it is.

So in this issue there remains a definite need to classify and identify a far-right element of "traditionalism" that gives the entire movement a bad name. Someone suggested that "ultra-traditionalist" was preferable. I replied that it means the same thing (ultra = radical) and so would not resolve the "problem."

I appreciate your point about how things are received, but that can't be the final (or only) determinant, because, as I've noted, people are offended no matter what name they are given, if they know it is a "critical" classification, implying disapproval of what they believe. This is why the racist virtually never agrees that he is one or should be called that.

Do we stop using the terms "racist" or "bigot" or "prejudiced person" because of this? No! The political liberal wants to run from that term, even when it is clear that it is applicable and descriptive. Pro-abortion people want to play games with words and use "pro-choice" so they can cover up what it is they advocate (abortion on demand). Even many Protestants don't want to use that word of themselves and want to call themselves "Christians": as if that is helpful to identify what they believe. That problem will never be solved (of people not liking their title given to them by someone else).

Again, you say that I shouldn't use any term at all, but it's not possible to do that as an apologist who is identifying an error and critiquing it. Its absolutely necessary to have some identifying term, as one can't write a long sentence every time someone in the group is referenced.

If I can't use a name for the phenomenon I am critiquing, then I can't critique it at all, pure and simple. And I think it should be critiqued and refuted, as it is a dangerous, spiritually deadly movement, drawing people in every day.

You said, “This still doesn't solve my problem of identifying a tangible error of a certain number of people.” If you have identified a “tangible error,” then address it. Stay away from generalizing whole swaths of people as being associated with that error. Your generalizing only serves to create collateral damage and takes you “off message.”

You ask, “do we stop using the terms "racist" or "bigot" or "prejudiced person" because of this?” Question is, does applying a term like that to a whole group of people achieve our ends? Racism is wrong. We clearly agree on that and when such behavior is encountered, we should condemn it in individuals. But when people say things like “all of those racist southerners” then you start to offend people that you didn’t want to offend. Again, now you are reacting to collateral damage and “off message.” Wasted time and energy. Instead, stay focuses on bad ideas and individuals.

You remark that the “problem will never be solved (of people not liking their title given to them by someone else).” I see two courses of action out of this. Either avoid the problem or carry on as you suggest. If the latter, then I don’t know why others on the Catholic blogosphere get offended when some other group classifies them as a “Neo-Catholic.” All of the reasons that you present here in terms of needing to be accurate in classification and such can be used by those who employ such terminology. Both sides will claim the mantle of ultimately being “Catholic” and this amounts to “it depends on where you sit” as to which terms you apply. Not very unifying for the Body of Christ.

Ultimately, this labeling from both sides will continue to be destructive and bear no good fruit. It will further harden rhetoric and entrench people into increasingly polarized tribes. Unless some people of good will attempt to break the cycle by simply not participating.

As for me, while almost exclusively attend a FSSP parish, I eschew all manner of modifiers to my being Catholic and that includes the word “traditional.” I didn’t convert to the Universal Church only to fall back into loose “denominations” within the Church. That’s my perspective.

I appreciate the discussion here and leave you the last word on this point.

God bless.

I would also note that mainstream "traditionalists" themselves draw the same distinctions I do, but simply use different terms. I mentioned one "traditionalist" with whom I clashed recently. She used the term, "wacko."

Here is what Dr. Taylor Marshall, a "traditionalist" and friend of mine, stated, referring to some radtrads who immediately bashed Pope Francis:

Way to go, trads! We have been working so hard under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI to demonstrate that we are not an inbred subculture of angry, hateful, quasi-schismatic, Jansenistic, holier-than-the-Pope Catholics. Everyone thinks that we who attend the 1962 liturgy are judgmental, Pharisaical, and rude (click here for details). And guess what. You just amplified that terrible reputation one hundredfold.

("Traditionalists and Pope Francis: Can We Take a Deep Breath and Please Calm Down?," 14 March 2013)

In another related article he makes many similar comments:

. . . like all stereotypes, the traddy stereotype is greatly exaggerated but based on reality.

Judgmentalism is a problem for any Catholic who is serious about his faith. Whenever we try hard to enter the narrow gate, we occasionally pause and pity all the souls taking the other path. Pity often gives way to resentment, especially when they're having so much fun on the other path. Is there an inordinate amount of judgmentalism or Pharisaism in Latin Mass circles? Yes, it's certainly there. However, I don't think that Latin Masses cause judgmentalism.

To summarize, most of the stereotypes are not fully accurate but do in fact touch on elements, good or bad, in communities attached to the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Mass.

("My Initial Doubts about the Latin Mass," 8 January 2013)

In other words, these elements are really there, in a small, fringe element of the "traditionalist" movement. Taylor doesn't settle on a distinct title for them. I do: I call those who exhibit these tendencies "radtrads": precisely to distinguish them from sensible, cogent folks like Taylor Marshall.

The main disagreement seems to be over how prevalent radtrads are. We're told they are a very small minority. That's fine. Maybe they are. But it's still a dangerous error to be confronted, and these folks are very vocal on the Internet and spreading poison rapidly, regardless of how small they may be.

Exhibit #2 in my latest argument is "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney. He recognizes that there is a sub-group that I call "radtrads" ("those who thrive on urine and vinegar" -- a delightful description promptly adopted by Mark Shea) but that they are so tiny that they can scarcely be found at all among "traditionalists." Again, the disagreement is about quantity: not over whether the group exists or not. He writes:

Nobody (or at least precious few people) say that you can't have reverence and a love for the liturgy unless you are 100% Extraordinary Form all the time.

Caricaturing the critique (just as he distorted my own views in a recent fracas, claiming that I think those who like the TLM are my "enemies"), Kevin opines:

"But, but, but, buuuut Kevin! Some mean people on the Internet in comboxes believe that if you aren't a traditionalist, you are a second class Catholic. These .05% of traditionalists are a blight upon the entire movement, and until they are eradicated, nobody should ever listen to anything a traditionalist has to say!" Again, enough with the concern trolling. Internet comboxes are never the place for sanity and rational discourse. Putting them on a Catholic website isn't going to change things. Blame concupiscence. Anyone who actually spends real time amongst traditionalists in our parishes, at their events, or even at dinner & drinks realizes the Internet minority is a nasty yet irrelevant crowd that most traditionalists aren't even aware of.

("Concern Trolling Traditionalists," 20 March 2013)

On a humorous note, I can't help but point out that he says, " Internet comboxes are never the place for sanity and rational discourse," yet he has them on his own website, and he freely participates in the combox of, e.g., Mark Shea's blog, and in those of others on Facebook (one of which he stopped by recently to claim that I was scared stiff of debate: especially with him. I'm trembling in my boots . . .). Apparently, then, he makes a tacit exception of his own remarks, which are unfailingly rational and sane, as opposed to the generality of the bulk of the comments of others.

So Kevin thinks they are a teensy-weensy dinky fringe group, but he doesn't deny that they exist. He's obviously trying very hard to distance himself from them and to give the "traditionalist" movement far better PR and a more positive "face."

I hope they are very tiny. But they exist and can be identified as radtrads. I know they exist because I've been dealing with them for 16 years. I've dealt with folks like Mario Derksen and Gerry Matatics, who are now sedevacantists. Regardless of their actual size, they are vocal and cause considerable damage to the faith of many. They exist, and I give them a name: radtrads. If someone can come up with a better name, I'm all for it.

But I'm right alongside Kevin and Taylor in opposing what these radtrads stand for. Kevin wants no association with them (they clearly embarrass him and he seeks to marginalize them as any sort of representatives of his own movement); I don't want to associate mainstream "traditionalists" with radtrads in my analyses.

Because of that, I must have some term to differentiate the two. The distinction has to be made. I can't just refuse to use any labels, because some might misuse labels. That holds true for anything whatever, as any good or true thing can be distorted and abused.

We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


* * * * *