This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Twitter @ressourcement Twitter @ltdan4123
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
IHS Press, Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections, Etc.: A Chronicle of Disturbing Patterns
I applaud Christopher Blosser for this post. It has taken a lot of research and effort to publish a post such as this. We had been talking about this topic since it was first brought to your attention. Continue to keep us updated on what you discover. I think its very fair and reasonable to say that neither you, Stephen Hand of TCRnews.com, or myself are racist or "anti-semites." In fact, I doubt anyone is that is commenting on this post. This is a very important important point to make before I proceed with some further comments.
To begin with, I agree with Chris Sullivan.
Secondly, let's review some basics of Moral Theology and/or Ethics. It's very important to do so when dealing with this topic. None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic. No racism or anti-semitism is expressed by any of these authors or in any of these books. You have presented no evidence that any (ANY) profits or proceeds from the publication or sales of these books go to support racist or anti-semitic activities. There is no evil that you have proven and I'm from the "Show-Me" state. Prove to me, and to the other reading this post, that any evil is occurring here.
Therefore, therefore, it's perfectly ethical and moral to purchase any of these books. It's also perfectly ethical or moral for a person to promote any of these books. Anybody who desires can and should purchase and read Neo-Conned (Vol 1 or 2) or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism because it is sufficiently remote from evil (and you haven't even proven there is evil). I encourage them to do so.
Now a person can make a personal decision to not support this press by advertising their books or buying them for a variety of reasons, which you have done. That's fine, but you cannot impose that on anyone else. This is Moral Theology 101 my friend.
What I think we can all agree with is that Deacon Keith Fournier, Stantley Hauerwas, Amintore Fanfani, G.K. Chesterton, & Hillaire Belloc are not anti-semites. Neither is PJB for that matter.
Show me what Justin Raimondo or Maurizio Blondet wrote specifically in these books that was anti-semitic. Even if you can prove this, which I highly doubt you can, this in no way implicates Fournier, Hauerwas, etc.
And the bottomline it's still moral and ethical to buy and read any of these books.
One must ask the following question when facing a moral or ethical problem. What act has occurred or is occurring? The act we are referring to in our case is the advertising, buying and reading of IHS Press books. Two books are specifically mentioned, Neo-Conned (Vol I-II) and Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. I would argue that buying and reading these two books is a good act, at the very minimum a neutral act, not an evil one. It is good b/c reading them informs the intellect. Unless one can prove that anti-semitism is explicit throughout these works, you cannot claim this is an evil act. Therefore it is moral and ethical as a faithful Catholic to advertise, read and buy these books.
Let us add another consideration. What if we advertise and buy these books through a secondary source. In other words, we advertise and buy them through Amazon. IHS Press receives only the wholesale price of the books. Can you prove that this income is being used for immoral purposes? No, you cannot. You must be able to prove evil, which you cannot and this is essential in this case. Even if you could, one is sufficiently remote from the evil that it is permissible to advertise, buy and read these books.
As expected there is a considerable amount of reaction and discussion going on over at Against The Grain, so I'll simply post my initial response to David -- you can refer to the original post for subsequent discussion:
None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic. No racism or anti-semitism is expressed by any of these authors or in any of these books.
I would not infer that the Catholic authors put forth by IHS Press in general -- G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc. -- are in any way racist/anti-semitic.
At the same time, I am not prepared to make a general absolution regarding the members of the SSPX published under IHS Press' 'Traditionalist' imprint (Richard Williamson, for example, has a documented history of anti-semitism); nor the contributors to the Neo-Conned series, insofar as I have not undertaken a study or critique of each author -- the subject of which is tangential to the purpose of this post. While there are contributors to the series that have raised concerns about their perspectives on the Jews (E. Michael Jones, Joseph Sobran), as I recognized "there were also good Catholics who supported this project, either by contributing their work or lending their voice in endorsement. Would they have done so as readily had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations of its publishers?"
You have presented no evidence that any (ANY) profits or proceeds from the publication or sales of these books go to support racist or anti-semitic activities. There is no evil that you have proven and I'm from the "Show-Me" state. Prove to me, and to the other reading this post, that any evil is occurring here.
Mr. Sharpe and Derek Holland are not likely going to volunteer their financial records to Matt Anger, myself, or anybody else who have noted their past involvement in questioanble projects.
It does remain the case, however, that the publishers of IHS have a history of involvement in ideological movements and/or the propogation of ideas that would warrant the concern of mainstream Catholics. As Matt Anger demonstrates, Legion of St. Louis was still in operation past the time IHS Press was founded, and there was literature sold by the LSL that should be of concern to any faithful Catholic.
Honestly, had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis but had repudiated the opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press the benefit of the doubt. But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, utter lack of concern for Derek Holland and the activities of the LSL prompted the investigation and the post.
[NOTE: It is my understanding that Matt Anger had attempted to confront him on these issues up until 2001, when he was still a member of the SSPX, to no avail -- in Matt's words: "when I commended him on his interest in Catholic social issues while voicing my concern over his neo-fascist links. Yet he waited firve years (in February 2006) to take down the Legion website—even then, it is not clear that the Legion has actually ceased to operate. In other words, while he claimed to be devoting himself to bringing 'back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church,' he stubbornly adhered to these disturbing views."
Therefore, therefore, it's perfectly ethical and moral to purchase any of these books. It's also perfectly ethical or moral for a person to promote any of these books. Anybody who desires can and should purchase and read Neo-Conned (Vol 1 or 2) or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism because it is sufficiently remote from evil (and you haven't even proven there is evil). I encourage them to do so. Now a person can make a personal decision to not support this press by advertising their books or buying them for a variety of reasons, which you have done. That's fine, but you cannot impose that on anyone else. This is Moral Theology 101 my friend.
In my opinion, Anger's investigation of "Third Positionist neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles" brings to light issues that merit greater attention. I think questions should be asked about Sharpe's connection to the Legion of St. Louise
That's not an "imposition" but a judgement on my part, and you are certainly free to give consideration to this investigation and determine how best to proceed.
[For further discussion of this post, click here].
If one personally chooses not to promote IHS Press books, this is perfectly fine. BUT it is also perfectly fine and morally permissible to promote their books as well unless of course some new evidence is presented that shows an evil (therefore immoral) act is occurring. This must be made clear.
Recommending books of IHS Press is a matter of prudence. Good Catholics can agree to disagree on this matter.
What you cannot claim is that it is immoral or unethical to advertise, buy or read Neo-Conned (Vol I-II) or Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. There is zero credible or known evidence that any of the profits of IHS Press is going to any, any anti-semitic activities. No evil therefore immoral act is occurring here. If there is evidence of evil, show me. We must be very precise in this matter.
Even if you find evidence and prove it to be authentic (which hasn't happened) that the owners/editors of the press were using a portion of the profits for anti-semitic activities, you and I could still purchase and read their books and it would not be a sin b/c one is sufficiently remote from this evil.
[Conversation continues on my blog, but so as not to lend the impression that David's engaging in a monologue, here's my responses:
[David] If you personally choose not to promote IHS Press books, this is perfectly fine. BUT it is also perfectly fine and morally permissible to promote their books as well unless of course some new evidence is presented that shows an evil (therefore immoral) act is occurring. This must be made clear to everyone.
Of course, there may also be a distinction between the general purchase books from a secular bookseller and the direct promotion of a controversial publisher who purports to be mainstream Catholic but isn't -- but Jimmy could probably weigh in on this issue if one invited him. And if he happened to weigh in your favor, so much the better.
For my part, having investigated, challenged and confirmed Sharpe's opinion on a number of issues, as well as his lack of concern for his partner's involvement with the the International Third Position and British fascism; Sharpe's own connection to the Legion of St. Louis, and IHS Press' presentation of themselves as a Catholic publisher while concealing ties to the Society of St. Pius X, there is simply too much for me to ignore or personally tolerate, and I can't in good conscience promote them on my website. (If somebody recommended a book published by the Society of St. Pius X, I likely wouldn't promote Angelus Press for similar reasons).
My judgement regarding IHS Press is not to be understood as a judgement on the traditional Catholic authors they publish, however. I think Chesterton, Belloc, Fanfani are worth reading and including in our ongoing discussion of the Church and the liberal tradition.
(Incidentally, I happened to pick up a used 1950 hardcover of Fanfani for $9.00, thanks to the wonders of modern capitalism and bookfinder.com).
[David]: . . . that the owners/editors of the press were using a portion of the profits for anti-semitic activities.
It may very well be the case that they did not, and probably kept the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press completely distinct so as to avoid any connection (keeping the LSL's website running for five years after the founding of IHS Press was a considerable gaff, however).
In any case, I'd say the connections traced in this post warrant concern in and of themselves ("neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles") -- even apart from the separate issue of whether sales from IHS press were directly supporting the LSL.
Considering we are now in Lent, it's important to consider what the Church teaches in regards to the act of sinning, both formally and materially. There are kinds of acts that, if done freely and knowingly, would be formally sinful. Three conditions have to be met:
1. The act itself must be evil, rather than good or neutral. 2. The agent must intend the act rather than being forced to do it (explicitly or more subtly). 3. The agent must know that the act is evil.
In this case, no "act itself" of evil has been proven. Christopher does not claim that Amintore Fanfani, Keith Fournier, William T. Cavanaugh, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc (and others) are anti-semitic. Nor he is claiming that they were aware of any of this information before contributing to these books. Heck, many of them were dead before these books were published. He does not claim any of these men sinned, either formally or materially. Most importantly, he has failed to show any anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press or proven that the profits of those books are going to immoral acts. Again, no "act itself" of evil has been proven or shown.
One of the best ways to explain discernment of a moral or ethical problem/dilemma is to give some analogies, which I would like to do in this case. They are not perfect analogies, but I hope some will find them helpful in this discernment process. You be the judge. Most of us on this blog is either using a IBM compatible computer or Mac. Do the proceeds or profits of Microsoft (Bill Gates) or Apple go to immoral acts, i.e. funding of abortion, etc. Yes they do, but does that mean you and I are sinning b/c we "support" Microsoft or Apple. No. Why b/c we are sufficiently remote for the evil. We are not directly committing the act of abortion (either as the doctor or patient) nor are we indirectly aiding this process by taking the person to the clinic for this murder to occur. Let's consider another analogy. Whole Foods Grocery provides some great soy/rice products. Whole Foods is known to donate a small portion of their profits to Planned Parenthood. Are we sinning if we choose to buy Rice milk? No. Why, b/c the act we are committing (buying the rice-milk) is a good act in itself. A family member might require it. Once again, we are sufficiently remote from the evil that is occurring (donations to Planned Parenthood). Now of course, if you can find another source of computer soft-ware or rice-milk and choose to shop or purchase from them, that's OK. It's a matter of prudence. Apply the two above analogies to our case of IHS Press and things should be a little more clear if it was fuzzy to you.
Christopher does not claim that Amintore Fanfani, Keith Fournier, William T. Cavanaugh, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc (and others) are anti-semitic. Nor he is claiming that they were aware of any of this information before contributing to these books. Heck, many of them were dead before these books were published. He does not claim any of these men sinned, either formally or materially. Most importantly, he has failed to show any anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press or proven that the profits of those books are going to immoral acts. Again, no "act itself" of evil has been proven or shown.
David, if you believe my intent on posting was to demonstrate something wrong with the traditional Catholic authors published by IHS Press itself (Chesterton, Belloc, Fanfani, etc.), you are soundly mistaken -- especially after I've clearly said this was not my intent and that I approved of said authors (the former two, at least; I haven't read Fanfani).
I could bother reiterating what I said in my previous comments and our correspondence on my own blog, but honestly what's the point?
Let's beat this dead horse into the ground a little deeper.
Christopher recognizes (and/or can find) no evil or immoral acts (i.e. anti-semitism) conducted directly by IHP Press nor have you been able to show any anti-semitism directly in their books. Christopher admits this is a "prudential" matter that good Catholics can agree to disagree upon. It is not a moral matter, because you have failed to show any evil or immoral act(s) occurring. Good Catholics can advertise, buy, and read IHS Press books and they are not sinning. For that matter, good Catholics can still continue to write for or contribute to books of this press.
Personally I would be very careful about publicly attacking a business (including the editors and authors) unless you have real facts that can be proven in court. One could be opening yourself up to a lawsuit of libel or slander.
Let's beat this dead horse into the ground a little deeper.
If frequent repitition will increase the hope of getting a point across, then yes -- by all means.
You recognize (and/or can find) no evil or immoral acts (i.e. anti-semitism) conducted directly by IHP Press nor have you been able to show any anti-semitism directly in their books. You admit this is a "prudential" matter that good Catholics can agree to disagree upon. It is not a moral matter, because you have failed to show any evil or immoral act(s) occurring. Good Catholics can advertise, buy, and read IHS Press books and they are not sinning. For that matter, good Catholics can still continue to write for or contribute to books of this press.
Personally I would be very careful about publicly attacking a business (including the editors and authors) unless you have real facts that can be proven in court. You are opening yourself up to a lawsuit of libel or slander. You really are my friend.
David,
Here are the facts as Matt Anger has presented them:
1) John Sharpe is the founder of both IHS Press and the 'Legion of St. Louis' (we know the latter by his previous title of editor of the Legion of St. Louis on several websites ("Thou Shall Not Kill Sept. 17, 2001 and The Mainstream Media Reaction to the Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings? Sept. 19, 2001); an article in the Seattle Catholic; an exchange between Matt Anger and Sharpe in the Seattle Catholic in which he responds to "hidden criticism of my organization, the Legion of St. Louis"; and the "founding email" of the LSL provided on The Lef Loch Report. Matt Anger has prior knowledge of John Sharpe as founder.
2) We know that the Legion of St. Louis sells books of a controversial, anti-semitic nature -- Henry Ford's The International Jew; Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism; A. K. Chesterton's The New Unhappy Lords, titles which are widely touted by conspiracy theorists, Holocaust revisionists and white nationalists. Suffice to say that these books are sold by a Catholic organization of any stripe ("traditionalist" or no) would merit the concern of any Catholic.
3) We know that Derek Holland is co-founder of IHS Press; that Sharpe has had prior relationship with both Derek Holland and Bishop Williamson of the SSPX (The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson (Fringe Watch January 25, 2006) -- that Bishop Williamson's fraternization with Holland and Sharpe and refusal to distance himself from neo-fascist ideology was/is a source of controversy within the SSPX.
4) We know that the Legion of St. Louis was in existence well after the founding of IHS Press (an August 25, 2002 edition of the LSL's newsletter, for instance, reviews a book by IHS Press). Matt Anger explains in one post that back in 2001, up until 9/11, he had attempted to reason with Sharpe regarding the views he was propogating:
[Matt Anger:] For my part, I would have been satisfied had Mr. Sharpe dismantled the Legion of St. Louis (see earlier post) back in 2001, when I commended him on his interest in Catholic social issues while voicing my concern over his neo-fascist links. Yet he waited five years to take down the Legion website—even then, it is not clear that the Legion has actually ceased to operate. In other words, while he claimed to be devoting himself to bringing "back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church," he stubbornly adhered to these disturbing views.
5) We know that Derek Holland has a long history of disturbing political involvement with neo-fascist movements, and that this activity continued beyond the founding of IHS Press (ex. in February 2002 he was guest speaker at the racial nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden).
6) We know that "The [International Third Position] has long been involved in a scheme of Marxist style "entryism" – with the aim of co-opting groups which profess non-mainstream views (not extremist per se) in the hopes of bringing them under their neo-fascist umbrella." This was proven by the investigation of Italian fascist Robertio Fiore (and associate of Holland) for having set up dummy Catholic charities in the 90's to fund nationalist communes in Spain. [For more on the investigation into the 'St. George Educational Trust,' see "Two 'Catholic' charities linked to Nazis, says report", by Paul Kelso The Guardian Sept. 18, 2000, and "Charities told to sever link to far-right nationalists", The Guardian May 21, 2001].
Suffice to say that when Sharpe declared that "IHS does not scrutinize the activities of its staff provided those don't violate either the moral or the civil law and . . . therefore [Mr Holland's background] is of no concern to IHS Press" -- we found this to be of some concern, in addition to his commendation of Michael Hoffman's II's book on the Jews.
What do we conclude from this?
- NOT that sales from IHS Press directly contribute to the Legion of St. Louis. Of course that cannot be proven and as I previously recognized, it is not likely that John Sharpe would disclose his financial records to anybody who asked, especially if they are confronting him on his history and that of his partner.
- We can conclude, however, that 1) the ideological connections and past history of both Sharpe and Holland remain a matter of of great concern ("The problem with Sharpe's activities is not just a question of overlapping ideas, but of overlapping resources"); 2) they should be confronted over them; and that there is the question of whether those good Catholics who supported the Neoconned series or other publishing projects by Sharpe would have done so as readily, had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations and viewpoints of its publishers.
If I may make a request to David, seing as to how I've been flitting between ressourcement.blogspot.com and Against the Grain for the past hour -- in light of the fact that our correspondence on this issue started on my blog, might it be possible to confine further commentary to that particular post and the ongoing Haloscan discussion?
I find it much easier if I only have to keep track of a single discussion, and not have to duplicate postings to ensure that I've responded to you at both venues.
First, I think that you (Mr. Jones) have done a good job of keeping things in perspective with regard to sin. Obviously, there is no sin in promoting IHS Press or Neo-Conned. Second, I believe that IHS Press is a 501c3 corp. and therefore their financial records would be available to anyone who asked and was willing to pay a reasonable fee (to cover the costs of duplication etc). This would not be true if they incorporated as a "church." For example Ignatius Press did this, and therefore refuse to make public any of their financial records.
Finally, my problem with this whole IHS Press thing is the motivation of the people behind the campaign. One of the main movers in this campaign posted on a distributism form I am on. I emailed with him, and it was clear that he was trying to not only go after the Press but the authors they publish. He felt GKC and Belloc and McNabb were basically communists/socialists and that they would be condemned by the Church in the future (he was also a member of the SSPX). It is obvious that Mr. Blosser is not going after them for this reason (he recommend Fanfani) but what are the motives of Mr. Anger? Is Mr. Anger just shooting the messenger because his economic beliefs are not supported by the Church? Also, I know he writes for the Remnant and the Seattle Catholic. Therefore, isn't Mr. Blosser concerned with promoting him? What if someone starts reading his other pieces on traditionalism and join the SSPX?
18 comments:
The silence is deafening from the IHS Press camp.....I think that Mr Sharpe and his anti semitic/fascist thugs have been found out.
I applaud Christopher Blosser for this post. It has taken a lot of research and effort to publish a post such as this. We had been talking about this topic since it was first brought to your attention. Continue to keep us updated on what you discover. I think its very fair and reasonable to say that neither you, Stephen Hand of TCRnews.com, or myself are racist or "anti-semites." In fact, I doubt anyone is that is commenting on this post. This is a very important important point to make before I proceed with some further comments.
To begin with, I agree with Chris Sullivan.
Secondly, let's review some basics of Moral Theology and/or Ethics. It's very important to do so when dealing with this topic. None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic. No racism or anti-semitism is expressed by any of these authors or in any of these books. You have presented no evidence that any (ANY) profits or proceeds from the publication or sales of these books go to support racist or anti-semitic activities. There is no evil that you have proven and I'm from the "Show-Me" state. Prove to me, and to the other reading this post, that any evil is occurring here.
Therefore, therefore, it's perfectly ethical and moral to purchase any of these books. It's also perfectly ethical or moral for a person to promote any of these books. Anybody who desires can and should purchase and read Neo-Conned (Vol 1 or 2) or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism because it is sufficiently remote from evil (and you haven't even proven there is evil). I encourage them to do so.
Now a person can make a personal decision to not support this press by advertising their books or buying them for a variety of reasons, which you have done. That's fine, but you cannot impose that on anyone else. This is Moral Theology 101 my friend.
What I think we can all agree with is that Deacon Keith Fournier, Stantley Hauerwas, Amintore Fanfani, G.K. Chesterton, & Hillaire Belloc are not anti-semites. Neither is PJB for that matter.
Show me what Justin Raimondo or Maurizio Blondet wrote specifically in these books that was anti-semitic. Even if you can prove this, which I highly doubt you can, this in no way implicates Fournier, Hauerwas, etc.
And the bottomline it's still moral and ethical to buy and read any of these books.
One must ask the following question when facing a moral or ethical problem. What act has occurred or is occurring? The act we are referring to in our case is the advertising, buying and reading of IHS Press books. Two books are specifically mentioned, Neo-Conned (Vol I-II) and Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. I would argue that buying and reading these two books is a good act, at the very minimum a neutral act, not an evil one. It is good b/c reading them informs the intellect. Unless one can prove that anti-semitism is explicit throughout these works, you cannot claim this is an evil act. Therefore it is moral and ethical as a faithful Catholic to advertise, read and buy these books.
Let us add another consideration. What if we advertise and buy these books through a secondary source. In other words, we advertise and buy them through Amazon. IHS Press receives only the wholesale price of the books. Can you prove that this income is being used for immoral purposes? No, you cannot. You must be able to prove evil, which you cannot and this is essential in this case. Even if you could, one is sufficiently remote from the evil that it is permissible to advertise, buy and read these books.
Deacon Fournier (Keith),
I totally agree with you.
If you or Dr. Hubert find error in anything I write, I ask both of you for fraternal correction.
As expected there is a considerable amount of reaction and discussion going on over at Against The Grain, so I'll simply post my initial response to David -- you can refer to the original post for subsequent discussion:
None of the authors or contributors (which include Amintore Fanfani, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc.) to the above mentioned books (2 vols of Neo-Conned or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism) were or are racist/anti-semitic. No racism or anti-semitism is expressed by any of these authors or in any of these books.
I would not infer that the Catholic authors put forth by IHS Press in general -- G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, etc. -- are in any way racist/anti-semitic.
At the same time, I am not prepared to make a general absolution regarding the members of the SSPX published under IHS Press' 'Traditionalist' imprint (Richard Williamson, for example, has a documented history of anti-semitism); nor the contributors to the Neo-Conned series, insofar as I have not undertaken a study or critique of each author -- the subject of which is tangential to the purpose of this post. While there are contributors to the series that have raised concerns about their perspectives on the Jews (E. Michael Jones, Joseph Sobran), as I recognized "there were also good Catholics who supported this project, either by contributing their work or lending their voice in endorsement. Would they have done so as readily had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations of its publishers?"
You have presented no evidence that any (ANY) profits or proceeds from the publication or sales of these books go to support racist or anti-semitic activities. There is no evil that you have proven and I'm from the "Show-Me" state. Prove to me, and to the other reading this post, that any evil is occurring here.
Mr. Sharpe and Derek Holland are not likely going to volunteer their financial records to Matt Anger, myself, or anybody else who have noted their past involvement in questioanble projects.
It does remain the case, however, that the publishers of IHS have a history of involvement in ideological movements and/or the propogation of ideas that would warrant the concern of mainstream Catholics. As Matt Anger demonstrates, Legion of St. Louis was still in operation past the time IHS Press was founded, and there was literature sold by the LSL that should be of concern to any faithful Catholic.
Honestly, had Sharpe expressed the slightest bit of concern over Michael Hoffman II's writing and views on Judaism, or Derek Holland's ideological history as a Third Positionist; or admitted that he was indeed the founder of Legion of St. Louis but had repudiated the opinions he was disseminating at the time as editor, I would have been inclined to let the matter rest and give IHS Press the benefit of the doubt. But the fact that he immediately went on the defensive in his support for Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism, utter lack of concern for Derek Holland and the activities of the LSL prompted the investigation and the post.
[NOTE: It is my understanding that Matt Anger had attempted to confront him on these issues up until 2001, when he was still a member of the SSPX, to no avail -- in Matt's words: "when I commended him on his interest in Catholic social issues while voicing my concern over his neo-fascist links. Yet he waited firve years (in February 2006) to take down the Legion website—even then, it is not clear that the Legion has actually ceased to operate. In other words, while he claimed to be devoting himself to bringing 'back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church,' he stubbornly adhered to these disturbing views."
Therefore, therefore, it's perfectly ethical and moral to purchase any of these books. It's also perfectly ethical or moral for a person to promote any of these books. Anybody who desires can and should purchase and read Neo-Conned (Vol 1 or 2) or Catholicism, Protestantism and Capitalism because it is sufficiently remote from evil (and you haven't even proven there is evil). I encourage them to do so. Now a person can make a personal decision to not support this press by advertising their books or buying them for a variety of reasons, which you have done. That's fine, but you cannot impose that on anyone else. This is Moral Theology 101 my friend.
In my opinion, Anger's investigation of "Third Positionist neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles" brings to light issues that merit greater attention. I think questions should be asked about Sharpe's connection to the Legion of St. Louise
That's not an "imposition" but a judgement on my part, and you are certainly free to give consideration to this investigation and determine how best to proceed.
[For further discussion of this post, click here].
Thanks Christopher. Yes, of course, one must go to your blog to get the whole picture on this topic!
If one personally chooses not to promote IHS Press books, this is perfectly fine. BUT it is also perfectly fine and morally permissible to promote their books as well unless of course some new evidence is presented that shows an evil (therefore immoral) act is occurring. This must be made clear.
Recommending books of IHS Press is a matter of prudence. Good Catholics can agree to disagree on this matter.
What you cannot claim is that it is immoral or unethical to advertise, buy or read Neo-Conned (Vol I-II) or Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. There is zero credible or known evidence that any of the profits of IHS Press is going to any, any anti-semitic activities. No evil therefore immoral act is occurring here. If there is evidence of evil, show me. We must be very precise in this matter.
Even if you find evidence and prove it to be authentic (which hasn't happened) that the owners/editors of the press were using a portion of the profits for anti-semitic activities, you and I could still purchase and read their books and it would not be a sin b/c one is sufficiently remote from this evil.
I wonder if the Hand is concerned about Neo Conned
[Conversation continues on my blog, but so as not to lend the impression that David's engaging in a monologue, here's my responses:
[David] If you personally choose not to promote IHS Press books, this is perfectly fine. BUT it is also perfectly fine and morally permissible to promote their books as well unless of course some new evidence is presented that shows an evil (therefore immoral) act is occurring. This must be made clear to everyone.
David, one of the best people I can think of to offer his judgement on this question is Jimmy Akin -- he addressed a moral issue similar to this one a while back: on using Amazon.com [or another secular bookseller] as an Affiliate.
Of course, there may also be a distinction between the general purchase books from a secular bookseller and the direct promotion of a controversial publisher who purports to be mainstream Catholic but isn't -- but Jimmy could probably weigh in on this issue if one invited him. And if he happened to weigh in your favor, so much the better.
For my part, having investigated, challenged and confirmed Sharpe's opinion on a number of issues, as well as his lack of concern for his partner's involvement with the the International Third Position and British fascism; Sharpe's own connection to the Legion of St. Louis, and IHS Press' presentation of themselves as a Catholic publisher while concealing ties to the Society of St. Pius X, there is simply too much for me to ignore or personally tolerate, and I can't in good conscience promote them on my website. (If somebody recommended a book published by the Society of St. Pius X, I likely wouldn't promote Angelus Press for similar reasons).
My judgement regarding IHS Press is not to be understood as a judgement on the traditional Catholic authors they publish, however. I think Chesterton, Belloc, Fanfani are worth reading and including in our ongoing discussion of the Church and the liberal tradition.
(Incidentally, I happened to pick up a used 1950 hardcover of Fanfani for $9.00, thanks to the wonders of modern capitalism and bookfinder.com).
[David]: . . . that the owners/editors of the press were using a portion of the profits for anti-semitic activities.
It may very well be the case that they did not, and probably kept the Legion of St. Louis and IHS Press completely distinct so as to avoid any connection (keeping the LSL's website running for five years after the founding of IHS Press was a considerable gaff, however).
In any case, I'd say the connections traced in this post warrant concern in and of themselves ("neo-fascist infiltration of conservative/traditional Catholic circles") -- even apart from the separate issue of whether sales from IHS press were directly supporting the LSL.
Considering we are now in Lent, it's important to consider what the Church teaches in regards to the act of sinning, both formally and materially. There are kinds of acts that, if done freely and knowingly, would be formally sinful. Three conditions have to be met:
1. The act itself must be evil, rather than good or neutral.
2. The agent must intend the act rather than being forced to do it (explicitly or more subtly).
3. The agent must know that the act is evil.
In this case, no "act itself" of evil has been proven. Christopher does not claim that Amintore Fanfani, Keith Fournier, William T. Cavanaugh, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc (and others) are anti-semitic. Nor he is claiming that they were aware of any of this information before contributing to these books. Heck, many of them were dead before these books were published. He does not claim any of these men sinned, either formally or materially. Most importantly, he has failed to show any anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press or proven that the profits of those books are going to immoral acts. Again, no "act itself" of evil has been proven or shown.
One of the best ways to explain discernment of a moral or ethical problem/dilemma is to give some analogies, which I would like to do in this case. They are not perfect analogies, but I hope some will find them helpful in this discernment process. You be the judge. Most of us on this blog is either using a IBM compatible computer or Mac. Do the proceeds or profits of Microsoft (Bill Gates) or Apple go to immoral acts, i.e. funding of abortion, etc. Yes they do, but does that mean you and I are sinning b/c we "support" Microsoft or Apple. No. Why b/c we are sufficiently remote for the evil. We are not directly committing the act of abortion (either as the doctor or patient) nor are we indirectly aiding this process by taking the person to the clinic for this murder to occur. Let's consider another analogy. Whole Foods Grocery provides some great soy/rice products. Whole Foods is known to donate a small portion of their profits to Planned Parenthood. Are we sinning if we choose to buy Rice milk? No. Why, b/c the act we are committing (buying the rice-milk) is a good act in itself. A family member might require it. Once again, we are sufficiently remote from the evil that is occurring (donations to Planned Parenthood). Now of course, if you can find another source of computer soft-ware or rice-milk and choose to shop or purchase from them, that's OK. It's a matter of prudence. Apply the two above analogies to our case of IHS Press and things should be a little more clear if it was fuzzy to you.
Christopher does not claim that Amintore Fanfani, Keith Fournier, William T. Cavanaugh, Stanley Hauerwas, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc (and others) are anti-semitic. Nor he is claiming that they were aware of any of this information before contributing to these books. Heck, many of them were dead before these books were published. He does not claim any of these men sinned, either formally or materially. Most importantly, he has failed to show any anti-semitism in the books of IHS Press or proven that the profits of those books are going to immoral acts. Again, no "act itself" of evil has been proven or shown.
David, if you believe my intent on posting was to demonstrate something wrong with the traditional Catholic authors published by IHS Press itself (Chesterton, Belloc, Fanfani, etc.), you are soundly mistaken -- especially after I've clearly said this was not my intent and that I approved of said authors (the former two, at least; I haven't read Fanfani).
I could bother reiterating what I said in my previous comments and our correspondence on my own blog, but honestly what's the point?
Let's beat this dead horse into the ground a little deeper.
Christopher recognizes (and/or can find) no evil or immoral acts (i.e. anti-semitism) conducted directly by IHP Press nor have you been able to show any anti-semitism directly in their books. Christopher admits this is a "prudential" matter that good Catholics can agree to disagree upon. It is not a moral matter, because you have failed to show any evil or immoral act(s) occurring. Good Catholics can advertise, buy, and read IHS Press books and they are not sinning. For that matter, good Catholics can still continue to write for or contribute to books of this press.
Personally I would be very careful about publicly attacking a business (including the editors and authors) unless you have real facts that can be proven in court. One could be opening yourself up to a lawsuit of libel or slander.
Let's beat this dead horse into the ground a little deeper.
If frequent repitition will increase the hope of getting a point across, then yes -- by all means.
You recognize (and/or can find) no evil or immoral acts (i.e. anti-semitism) conducted directly by IHP Press nor have you been able to show any anti-semitism directly in their books. You admit this is a "prudential" matter that good Catholics can agree to disagree upon. It is not a moral matter, because you have failed to show any evil or immoral act(s) occurring. Good Catholics can advertise, buy, and read IHS Press books and they are not sinning. For that matter, good Catholics can still continue to write for or contribute to books of this press.
Personally I would be very careful about publicly attacking a business (including the editors and authors) unless you have real facts that can be proven in court. You are opening yourself up to a lawsuit of libel or slander. You really are my friend.
David,
Here are the facts as Matt Anger has presented them:
1) John Sharpe is the founder of both IHS Press and the 'Legion of St. Louis' (we know the latter by his previous title of editor of the Legion of St. Louis on several websites ("Thou Shall Not Kill Sept. 17, 2001 and The Mainstream Media Reaction to the Attacks: Who's Pulling the Strings? Sept. 19, 2001); an article in the Seattle Catholic; an exchange between Matt Anger and Sharpe in the Seattle Catholic in which he responds to "hidden criticism of my organization, the Legion of St. Louis"; and the "founding email" of the LSL provided on The Lef Loch Report. Matt Anger has prior knowledge of John Sharpe as founder.
2) We know that the Legion of St. Louis sells books of a controversial, anti-semitic nature -- Henry Ford's The International Jew; Michael Hoffman II's Strange Gods of Judaism; A. K. Chesterton's The New Unhappy Lords, titles which are widely touted by conspiracy theorists, Holocaust revisionists and white nationalists. Suffice to say that these books are sold by a Catholic organization of any stripe ("traditionalist" or no) would merit the concern of any Catholic.
3) We know that Derek Holland is co-founder of IHS Press; that Sharpe has had prior relationship with both Derek Holland and Bishop Williamson of the SSPX (The Politics of Bishop Richard Williamson (Fringe Watch January 25, 2006) -- that Bishop Williamson's fraternization with Holland and Sharpe and refusal to distance himself from neo-fascist ideology was/is a source of controversy within the SSPX.
4) We know that the Legion of St. Louis was in existence well after the founding of IHS Press (an August 25, 2002 edition of the LSL's newsletter, for instance, reviews a book by IHS Press). Matt Anger explains in one post that back in 2001, up until 9/11, he had attempted to reason with Sharpe regarding the views he was propogating:
[Matt Anger:] For my part, I would have been satisfied had Mr. Sharpe dismantled the Legion of St. Louis (see earlier post) back in 2001, when I commended him on his interest in Catholic social issues while voicing my concern over his neo-fascist links. Yet he waited five years to take down the Legion website—even then, it is not clear that the Legion has actually ceased to operate. In other words, while he claimed to be devoting himself to bringing "back into print the classics of last century on the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church," he stubbornly adhered to these disturbing views.
5) We know that Derek Holland has a long history of disturbing political involvement with neo-fascist movements, and that this activity continued beyond the founding of IHS Press (ex. in February 2002 he was guest speaker at the racial nationalist Nationaldemokratisk Ungdom (NDU) in Sweden).
6) We know that "The [International Third Position] has long been involved in a scheme of Marxist style "entryism" – with the aim of co-opting groups which profess non-mainstream views (not extremist per se) in the hopes of bringing them under their neo-fascist umbrella." This was proven by the investigation of Italian fascist Robertio Fiore (and associate of Holland) for having set up dummy Catholic charities in the 90's to fund nationalist communes in Spain. [For more on the investigation into the 'St. George Educational Trust,' see "Two 'Catholic' charities linked to Nazis, says report", by Paul Kelso The Guardian Sept. 18, 2000, and "Charities told to sever link to far-right nationalists", The Guardian May 21, 2001].
Suffice to say that when Sharpe declared that "IHS does not scrutinize the activities of its staff provided those don't violate either the moral or the civil law and . . . therefore [Mr Holland's background] is of no concern to IHS Press" -- we found this to be of some concern, in addition to his commendation of Michael Hoffman's II's book on the Jews.
What do we conclude from this?
- NOT that sales from IHS Press directly contribute to the Legion of St. Louis. Of course that cannot be proven and as I previously recognized, it is not likely that John Sharpe would disclose his financial records to anybody who asked, especially if they are confronting him on his history and that of his partner.
- We can conclude, however, that 1) the ideological connections and past history of both Sharpe and Holland remain a matter of of great concern ("The problem with Sharpe's activities is not just a question of overlapping ideas, but of overlapping resources"); 2) they should be confronted over them; and that there is the question of whether those good Catholics who supported the Neoconned series or other publishing projects by Sharpe would have done so as readily, had they been fully aware of the ideological affiliations and viewpoints of its publishers.
If I may make a request to David, seing as to how I've been flitting between ressourcement.blogspot.com and Against the Grain for the past hour -- in light of the fact that our correspondence on this issue started on my blog, might it be possible to confine further commentary to that particular post and the ongoing Haloscan discussion?
I find it much easier if I only have to keep track of a single discussion, and not have to duplicate postings to ensure that I've responded to you at both venues.
First, I think that you (Mr. Jones) have done a good job of keeping things in perspective with regard to sin. Obviously, there is no sin in promoting IHS Press or Neo-Conned. Second, I believe that IHS Press is a 501c3 corp. and therefore their financial records would be available to anyone who asked and was willing to pay a reasonable fee (to cover the costs of duplication etc). This would not be true if they incorporated as a "church." For example Ignatius Press did this, and therefore refuse to make public any of their financial records.
Finally, my problem with this whole IHS Press thing is the motivation of the people behind the campaign. One of the main movers in this campaign posted on a distributism form I am on. I emailed with him, and it was clear that he was trying to not only go after the Press but the authors they publish. He felt GKC and Belloc and McNabb were basically communists/socialists and that they would be condemned by the Church in the future (he was also a member of the SSPX). It is obvious that Mr. Blosser is not going after them for this reason (he recommend Fanfani) but what are the motives of Mr. Anger? Is Mr. Anger just shooting the messenger because his economic beliefs are not supported by the Church? Also, I know he writes for the Remnant and the Seattle Catholic. Therefore, isn't Mr. Blosser concerned with promoting him? What if someone starts reading his other pieces on traditionalism and join the SSPX?
Post a Comment