Thomas E Woods Jr.

[winoblue1]

I am currently reading "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods Jr. and read the back that has a list of his books. I noticed that "The Great Facade" was not listed, a book he coauthored about the problems of Vatican II.

Any idea why he has disassociated himself from this book? I heard that he doesn't want to be associated with the traditional movement any more...

Anyone have any information to enlighten me?

[Heinrich]

Who co wrote that with him? Michael Davies? I can't recall. But I do recall some detailed verbal sparring between Dr. Woods and a Remnant writer a while back. I have also noticed that the eds. at Remnant are ramping up the scourging of liberal economics, which Dr. Woods supports and promotes. If Dr. Woods has distanced himself from the Traditional movement that would be an unfortunate double wammy as he has not been much of a presence lately in the League of the South. For the record I am an economic conservative and League of the South supporter. (I don't want to turn this into a distributionist or secession thread, promise)

[StrictCatholicGirl]

"Vatican II: The Great Facade" was co-written with Christopher Ferrara. On Woods' official website, there is a page of his best sellers available for sale. Most are political in nature, with the exception of: "Sacred Then/Sacred Now - The Return of the Old Latin Mass" and "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." The Great Facade is not listed. Perhaps he has not distanced himself from traditional Catholicism, as much as he's distanced himself from Ferrara and the Remnant.

- Lisa

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Another clue might be that EWTN has been featuring Woods' series on "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization." Remember that Ferrara wrote a book called "EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong."

That might explain it.

- Lisa

[Gerard]

I've heard the fallout over the Great Facade had to do with Woods' regrets over the treatment given to Cardinal Ratzinger.  If I recall, there was an ambiguous phrase of then-Card. R's that made a lot of people believe that the Cardinal was denying the Resurrection of the Body to some extent.   Woods and Ferrara took him to task severely on that issue.  I believe Woods regretted that after a sufficient explanation in context showed a more nuanced position of the Cardinal. 

The other fallout with Ferrara was over economics applied to Catholic morality.  They've kept alot of that out of the public over the years.

A third reason was simply that Dr. Woods has a young family to take care of.  His specialty is in U.S. History and he wanted to focus on that in order to take care of his responsibilities. 
Books and especially Traditional Catholic books are not lucrative financially so they can only be done after he's attended to the primary matters of his state of life.

I miss the days of the Remnant when Woods, Ferrara, Michael Davies and Atila Sinke Guimareas would all be in the same issue.   Woods and Ferrara had their split, Guimareas and Davies had a battle before Davies passed away, and Guimareas stopped contributing when there was a fallout over the Iraq War, Guimareas in favor of it, the rest not. 

[AxxeArp]

Mr Woods co-wrote the book with Mr Chris Ferrara. I think Mr. Woods is distancing himself from Chris Ferrara because Chris Ferrar is a loose-cannon nut job. If you doubt my claims, read his inflammatory garbage in the Remnant.

[James02]

Here it is in detail:  http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8225

Note Tom is posting as TomW.  First two pages are about it, after that you get a food fight.  Tom's final post is at 10:38, July 4.

I've heard the fallout over the Great Facade had to do with Woods' regrets over the treatment given to Cardinal Ratzinger.  If I recall, there was an ambiguous phrase of then-Card. R's that made a lot of people believe that the Cardinal was denying the Resurrection of the Body to some extent.   Woods and Ferrara took him to task severely on that issue.  I believe Woods regretted that after a sufficient explanation in context showed a more nuanced position of the Cardinal.

Actually, reading the post from Angel Queen, Woods got waylaid during an interview and distanced himself.  After being asked at A.Q. to provide the exact "attacks" on Ratzinger, he backed off and did not denounce the Great Facade.  There is nothing in TGF that "took him (Ratsinger) to task severely".

A third reason was simply that Dr. Woods has a young family to take care of.  His specialty is in U.S. History and he wanted to focus on that in order to take care of his responsibilities.
Books and especially Traditional Catholic books are not lucrative financially so they can only be done after he's attended to the primary matters of his state of life.

I believe that is correct.  He would be attacked if his past (current?) views were widely known, and it would impact his business.  Last I heard, he is still a Trad going to the TLM in Atlanta.

[Gerard]

Mr Woods co-wrote the book with Mr Chris Ferrara. I think Mr. Woods is distancing himself from Chris Ferrara because Chris Ferrar is a loose-cannon nut job. If you doubt my claims, read his inflammatory garbage in the Remnant.

[Gerard]

I've heard the fallout over the Great Facade had to do with Woods' regrets over the treatment given to Cardinal Ratzinger.  If I recall, there was an ambiguous phrase of then-Card. R's that made a lot of people believe that the Cardinal was denying the Resurrection of the Body to some extent.   Woods and Ferrara took him to task severely on that issue.  I believe Woods regretted that after a sufficient explanation in context showed a more nuanced position of the Cardinal.

Actually, reading the post from Angel Queen, Woods got waylaid during an interview and distanced himself.  After being asked at A.Q. to provide the exact "attacks" on Ratzinger, he backed off and did not denounce the Great Facade.  There is nothing in TGF that "took him (Ratsinger) to task severely".

I remember reading the book and know that they took then-Cardinal Ratzinger heavily to task.   

Woods apparently had regrets that they were too heavy handed.  In his own words from the AQ thread (which I remember well) 

"2. On TGF: there is a whole section discussing Ratzinger's writings; it is insinuated, for example, that Ratzinger has called into question the resurrection of the body. This is, in my opinion, not a sustainable claim. I do not see why I should not be allowed to say so, or that saying so is akin to dropping my secret Masonic membership card on the floor. "


And someone else posted a relevant section from the book. 

"(page 270): "...or will he finally ascend to the ultimate convergence of all things at Teilhard's Omega Point, the terminus of evolutionary "complexification" at which the "arbitrary" distinction between matter and spirit will no longer be seen? It should not be surprising at this point that Cardinal Ratzinger (when he was Father Ratzinger) dabbled in this very notion: In his Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger, after several favorable references to Teilhard's "thought," speculates: "If the cosmos is history and if matter represents a moment in the history of spirit, then there is no such thing as an eternal, neutral combination of matter and spirit but a final 'complexity' in which the world finds its omega and unity." Thus Ratzinger openly declares: "Paul [St. Paul] teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but of persons..."

It's perfectly reasonable that Woods could regret that emotionally laced "lashing" that is given to Card. Ratzinger.  Especially if there was a contextual element to the quotes that moved it from heretical to acceptable but imprudent. 

[James02]

Point out the "lashing" part, I seem to miss that. 

What happened was that Woods got caught off guard during an interview about a book that had nothing to do with the Catholic Faith.  So he spoke hastily.  At A.Q., he backed away from saying that TGF "attacks" Ratzinger, and ends by saying he wished the book had been friendlier to Ratzinger, a big difference. 

I think Woods was highly motivated to "distance" himself from TGF, and told an untruth.  His motivation is that commies would paint him as one of those anti-semite, gay bashing Traditionalists.  Also, the neo-Catholic crowd would pick up on his (correct) criticisms of JPII, and he would lose his invites to EWTN.   I give him credit for later correcting himself.  I don't think he has given any statements about this incident since.

[Gerard]

Point out the "lashing" part, I seem to miss that. 

It's the rhetorical questioning of Card. Ratzinger combined with the quotations around the terms employed by Tielhard. There is a "snarkiness" to them.    And I believe there was a problem understanding the "not the resurrection of the bodies" quote of Ratzinger. as a denial of the Resurrection of the Body.  If I recall, later it was demonstrated  to Dr. Woods that Ratzinger was pointing out that the Resurrection of the Body is not into a body with a fallen nature but one that has been restored in it's nature.   

As far as motivation goes,  a friend of mine attends St. Michael's SSPX chapel in New York.   Dr. Woods used to attend there frequently.  At the time of his first appearances on EWTN,  Dr. Woods told her that more than one person at EWTN privately thanked him for the Great Facade and said they agreed with the books arguments. 

There have been a good number of people that have gone through EWTN and have either great sympathy for traditional Catholicism or are actually trads.

[DJR]

Last I heard, he is still a Trad going to the TLM in Atlanta.

That is correct.  Tom assists at Mass at Saint Francis de Sales (a personal parish that uses the rites of 1962 exclusively, staffed by priests of the FSSP) in metro Atlanta whenever possible.  He and his wife and several small children drive for hours to get there, as he lives in the next state.

[Observer]

Interesting argument that Dr. Woods is taking his responsiblities as a father and spouse seriously enough that he is leery of the some the Ferrara/Remnant scene. Clearly didn't stop another Doctor from reducing himself and his wife and child into penury and near homlessness as the wandering troubadour of SedeVacantism and modern -day Donatism. 

[winoblue1]

Well the opinions expressed here seem to suggest that he is distancing himself from the book because he is more concerned about being part of the 'traditionalist' establishment and also, since Cardinal Ratzinger is now our Holy Father, his negative comments would cause him to be criticized by mainstream church people.

One wonders that if Cardinal Ratzinger was not pope, if he would have done the same thing?

I don't like this at all... but I guess its a small price to pay to earn your living and it is not my job to judge.

Though I STRONGLY disagree that Christopher Ferrara is a NUT JOB, as someone mentioned. I think he is extremely intelligent and a great writer. His books and articles are excellent, informative and entertaining. The traditional movement is blessed to have him on their side.