Catholic Tan Books

[dUSt]

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

is it possible this timothy fellow didn't see the racist tweet?

Personally, the guy really irks me but I shouldn't let that alone not let me give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is an ugly ethno-nationalist strand in traditionalist circles. Anyone who denies that is dishonest, anyone who finds that even somewhat agreeable probably missed an important chunk in the gospel.

Well, I called them out two days ago... crickets.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, dUSt said:

Well, I called them out two days ago... crickets.

Respect for calling him out. I wouldn't of replied because of 

◄ Matthew 7:6 ►

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

Although I did write Tan on Instagram through DM. They replied saying they had no idea what I was talking about. They don't publish anything like that ect. I then sent them pictures and they didn't respond.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Guest

[Kateri89]

On 5/12/2020 at 11:07 PM, Ice_nine said:There is an ugly ethno-nationalist strand in traditionalist circles. Anyone who denies that is dishonest, anyone who finds that even somewhat agreeable probably missed an important chunk in the gospel.

I’ve noticed that too.  It’s sickening and incredibly frustrating that they call themselves Catholic and can’t see the hypocrisy and evil in that way of thinking. We all know Catholic means universal, not just white conservatives.

[Aloysius]

the rising ethno-nationalist-racist strands that are forming in trad circles is indeed disturbing (part of the overall polarization of politics and alt-right ideology that has been spreading of late).  I think it is explicable by the nature of the traditionalist movement being at the fringe of the church and society, and hence it becomes a magnet for other people with fringe ideologies.  many of those are wacky and harmless--if you want to encounter a monarcho-minarchist with agraro-distributist mixed with anarcho-capitalist economic opinions, go to your local latin mass and find some guy wearing a weird cape and acting like a medieval knight and you might find such a person.  it is a magnet for a lot of contrarianism, just due to its position in the church and society.  I think most traditionalists are just normal ppl who love tradition and the church, but it attracts all kinds of loud and visible eccentrics also... and in the same way it seems to be attracting some harmful and hateful ideologies that are absolutely repugnant to any true Christian.  we must certainly work to convert their hearts to Our Lord.

Personally I don't think this should be used as an argument against the various other things many trads believe, however.  Even those things trads sometimes argue for that I disagree with--I want to see people arguing for those things who are not racist.  I don't want to just suggest that anyone who argues those things is associated with racists and therefore be stronger in an argument against trads.  the former strategy--separating out any tinge of racism and purging it from any Catholic circle whether it's trad or not, uniting Catholics of all liturgical positions (and disagreements on some doctrinal matters, even) against racism, I think is what we need to encourage.  the latter strategy--trying to defeat traditionalism by pointing out the racists who have begun to increasingly plague it (not saying anyone here is doing that, just that it's a temptation for any human being caught up in arguments to bunch together everything bad about an opposing side and try to 'win', as it were) in the end I think is a self-defeating strategy.  it reinforces the battle lines and digs people in, and probably in the end would strengthen the racists.

anyway, the n-word tweet and the passage from tan books are both very disturbing.  I wish I could give the benefit of the doubt to tan books and say they published some historical work and failed to vet it, but it definitely needs to be addressed even if that was all they did.  the n-word tweet is unacceptable for anyone claiming to be Catholic.  if the person's defense is that it was just an attempt at humor, they need to pick themselves up an old-school examination of conscience relating to the fifth commandment (if they're so trad) and read up on what kinds of ways words against others even done in humor are still sins that ought to be confessed.  (and if it was motivated by actual hate in their heart, then God help them)

___

btw, I would like to point out there is another issue in contemporary polarization of politics, and that is the broad brush stroking accusations of racism against all of one's opponents.  just supporting trump or being against immigration (whether they're right or wrong to take those positions) does not make one a racist.  one of the side effects of the overuse of the racism accusation is that many people have been inoculated against it in a kind of boy who cried wolf fashion, which makes it more difficult to actually call out actual alt-right people.  when everyone from Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan to Ben Shapiro is being accused of being alt-right racists, there's a real problem actually getting people to listen when actual ethno-nationalist racists need to be called out.  not sure how that relates here, but it is something to caution against because if the goal is to root out racism from any and all Catholic circles, we need to be very careful to avoid tactics like those of contemporary 'cancel-culture' that seem to actually fuel rising animosity and hatred, IMO.

-----

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

anyway, the n-word tweet and the passage from tan books are both very disturbing.  I wish I could give the benefit of the doubt to tan books and say they published some historical work and failed to vet it, but it definitely needs to be addressed even if that was all they did. 

Your post was great. I don't want to give off the impression I'm always trying to argue or debate you. Your post was full of wisdom like always. That's why your Phatmass tag is Church Scholar. Although I do want to point out the book was edited in many places. That has been confirmed. So it's impossible the section was overlooked by mistake. It was left intentionally. 

 

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

when everyone from Jordan Peterson to Joe Rogan to Ben Shapiro is being accused of being alt-right racists, there's a real problem actually getting people to listen

I literally just found out a couple days ago how often Rogan has used the n word with the 'er' throughput the years on air. I was shocked because I wasn't aware. Last couple years I've been a big fan. I started off hating Rogan years ago because of how anti-Catholic he was and anti-God. Then after all the DMT and his trips to different dimensions (or whatever is happening) he softened up on the militant atheist stuff. Became agnostic  Although he was still Anti-Catholic but he also let up on that a bit also. Anyways after learning about his use of the N word and viewing all the tweets from Tim Pool and Candace Owens the last few days (guest on Rogan) on the Georgia murder of Ahmaud Arbery I'm back to not listening to him. I doubt he's a full blown racist but I jdon't care to even tune in anymore.

It's the same thing with a guy like Alex Jones. Alex is entertaining as hell. Cracks me up. But I just can't with people who use the n word or like Alex will do everything possible to justify the murder of Ahmaud Arbery to cater to his  conservative audience and sell vitamins during Info War breaks.

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

if the goal is to root out racism from any and all Catholic circles, we need to be very careful to avoid tactics like those of contemporary 'cancel-culture' that seem to actually fuel rising animosity and hatred, IMO.

I don't even know if that's the goal. It should be but honestly I'm more interested in just shouting from the rooftops that it's 2020 and a popular Catholic book company is still printing this white supremacy. And they identify as traditionalist and market themselves that way. And none of their readers called them out when they read it. A black woman did when she came across it with her kids. My goal is to let people know that in 2020 these white supremacists are passing this on as authentic Catholic teaching and if you're sucked into that cult you should run and get out. It's evil. 

11 minutes ago, Delivery said:

and if you're sucked into that cult you should run and get out. It's evil. 

And when I say 'that cult' I mean groups passing themselves off as Catholic yet pushing white supremacy. Not necessarily the whole traditionalist movement. I'm not the judge at the end of the day. God is. Let the chips fall where they fall and He can decide.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Guest

[Aloysius]

 

31 minutes ago, Delivery said:

Your post was great. I don't want to give off the impression I'm always trying to argue or debate you. Your post was full of wisdom like always. That's why your Phatmass tag is Church Scholar. Although I do want to point out the book was edited in many places. That has been confirmed. So it's impossible the section was overlooked by mistake. It was left intentionally.

thanks man!  no worries, feel free to argue with me as much as you like, that's what I miss about the old days of phatmass anyway, that there was always some kind of lively or contentious discussion and you'd feel that need to respond again and again

I do wonder how many readers of tan books ever came across that part, or fully took in its meaning.  I have many reference books that I've certainly never read every detail within.  I do agree with you that it should be pointed out and addressed, and I'm not trying to make any excuses for them not editing that part out--they definitely ought to address this issue, they should not be publishing something that is spreading that vile misinterpretation of scripture (unless it is presented as an historical work to read about how people once interpreted it that way, but as I see this is intended as a Bible study so yeah, shouldn't be in there)

Not to get too far into the weeds here, but I'd say there are two issues with the n-word.  The first is that we have a general social taboo against non-black people saying the word at all in any context no matter what.  And then secondly (and more importantly) we have the moral issue that it should never be used to address someone or a group of people because it expresses hatred and denigrates the dignity not just the humanity of the people it addresses, but the dignity of the person who says it and of all humanity.  The former I think is a matter of debate and I expect Rogan's use of the word probably falls into breaching that level of the social taboo, while the latter is the moral issue.  I personally generally never break the taboo (although I would probably consider doing so if I were reading aloud Tom Sawyer or a rap lyric, or if I were in a discussion and wanted to quote someone who had said it and really get across how vile the thing they had said was, or perhaps if I were an actor doing a period piece) because I know people have strong feelings about it no matter what context it's mentioned in, but I think there's a discussion that can be had about it.

I have known quite a few people who disagree with the first position and insist on being able to just say the word if they are not actually calling anybody the word, or if they are reading a quote--basically as long as they are not actually calling a black person specifically or black people in general by that word, but actually just talking about the word itself or talking about someone else who said the word.  I think it was George Carlin who had a great point on that--when someone says "the n-word", the person hearing them say that is actually saying that word within their own head, so how is that any better that you didn't say it out loud?  but we have to be able to talk about it.  So if you're going to talk about the word I think it should be ok to say the word, it actually is a bit counter-productive to make it totally unsayable like Voldemort or something.  in a way that social taboo perpetuates the power of the word, that's an argument that whether you agree or not, you have to acknowledge that people who make it are not necessarily demonstrating themselves to be hateful.  The context of the tweet you quoted is NOT doing that, it's using the word to describe black people in a derogatory way and is definitely unacceptable.  I've never seen Joe Rogan use it in that context, and to me that's what matters.  But of course we all draw our lines somewhere... I just think drawing the line too loosely actually weakens the ability to combat the real vile hateful racist stuff.

This was something that even some alt-right racists explicitly strategized about.  They wanted to spread around edgy jokes that were not hateful on their own, get the media to freak out and condemn the quotes as racist, and thereby be able to further radicalize people who were not racists but thought the jokes were funny, gradually turning those people into a group who would have as their gut reaction to anything being called racist "oh, must just be an overreaction again".  the devolution of the "pepe the frog" meme is a great example of how that process worked and how groups like the ADL fell for it hook, line, and sinker.  anyway, just a word of caution about where to draw the line, and what degrees of outrage to be had.  I am with you on this quote from the Tan Books and that tweet.  And I feel that there are groups of people whose gut reaction now is to assume that's an overreaction because they listened to Jordan Peterson once and liked what he had to say, only to then hear someone else scream that what he had said was alt-right or racist, so now they distrust anyone calling anything alt-right and racist.  it's a dangerous cycle.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I do wonder how many readers of tan books ever came across that part, or fully took in its meaning.  I have many reference books that I've certainly never read every detail within.  I do agree with you that it should be pointed out and addressed, and I'm not trying to make any excuses for them not editing that part out

Not sure. Although any adult who DID read it should of been thinking w t f....... The book was published in 2004. There's no way a Catholic could read it and brush it off in 2004. Unless the people who read it AGREED with it. Or just didn't really care. But forget the readers. Let's talk about TAN. How can you put this out? In 2004? It's pretty sick. And when I'm looking at all the graphics and images for TAN it's all pale white people. Everyone is always pale white. Its obvious what's going on. And this also shows how very few Black American Catholics there are. And even less in the trad sector. So it has been easy to get away with it for TAN. 1.) there are hardly any black people. 2.) a majority of the white people reading it aren't bothered by it. Or flat out agree.

 

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

The former I think is a matter of debate and I expect Rogan's use of the word probably falls into breaching that level of the social taboo,

I guess. I'm definitely not comfortable hearing him use it in the context he was using it. The one clip he's laughing and telling the guest to just say it. And finally gets him to say it. He has the freedom of speech to do that. But I don't support it. There's too much hate and pain associated with the word and its use. And if you're going to use it like that start saying it in front of black guests. I notice lately he doesn't get many on but don't just say the n word in front of white guests. And both forms are off limits (imo) but he's saying it with the (er) And would literally end up in a E.R. if he said it in front of the wrong black person.

 

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I personally generally never break the taboo (although I would probably consider doing so if I were reading aloud a rap lyric,

In a rap lyric it's going to be with the (a) at the end. Obviously a bunch of white people rap along saying it. I'm not here to tell people what they can and cant say. And the hate associated with the word used with an (a) compared to the (er) is obvious to anyone that knows hip-hop and the culture. I'm not accusing people of racism who are rapping along to Tupac or Biggie. Although if you rap along in front of the wrong person it could end up bad really quickly.

 

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

I think it was George Carlin who had a great point on that--when someone says "the n-word", the person hearing them say that is actually saying that word within their own head, so how is that any better that you didn't say it out loud?

I think I get what he's saying. That would be like if there was a abbreviated letter going around that = "Jesus is a (insert something really sacreligious and blasphemous) Jesus is a *************** wouldn't be something you would want to repeat even though you heard it in your head when the abbreviated letter was used. You would use the abbreviated letter if you had to and not the Jesus is a ********* because It sounds evil and is evil. There's no reason to say it. You probably could say it to have a serious discussion. But even then you would have reservations on saying it and most likely use the abbreviated letter to have the discussion. Even though you heard the full version in your head when the abbreviated letter was used

 

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

in a way that social taboo perpetuates the power of the word, that's an argument that whether you agree or not, you have to acknowledge that people who make it are not necessarily demonstrating themselves to be hateful. 

Maybe in a future time when our ugly past is completely behind us the word could be used without hurting or angering. A future time when Catholic book companies were not printing literature that equates the black race to the bottom of the barrel and evil. But once we reach that time who would want to use the word anyways. It has represented nothing but hate and contempt. I don't get peoples desire to want to be able to verbalize it. I challenge these people  to find black people who are okay and comfortable with them doing it.

 

2 hours ago, Aloysius said:

  I am with you on this quote from the Tan Books and that tweet.  And I feel that there are groups of people whose gut reaction now is to assume that's an overreaction because they listened to Jordan Peterson once and liked what he had to say, only to then hear someone else scream that what he had said was alt-right or racist, so now they distrust anyone calling anything alt-right and racist.  it's a dangerous cycle.

People who think it's an overreaction are blinded. Either out of ignorance or willfully. And if it's out of ignorance God help them. How anyone could claim to love God yet hold those views about an entire race of people doesn't add up. The only way it could make sense is if God isn't real or Catholicism/Christianity is just a bulls*** religion. Used for political power and control.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Delivery said:

And if it's out of ignorance God help them.

Meant to say if it's willfully God help them. Although God help them if it's out of ignorance as well. We all need God's help.

[Aloysius]

Well, my point was that when people over-use accusations of racism, it becomes like the boy who cried wolf and many people end up tuning out the cries when real racism emerges.  People develop gut level responses to things, they don't have time to look into the nuance of every issue.  So when kids who were fans of Pewdiepie on youtube, for instance, then saw the Wallstreet journal shouting about him being racist, but they knew better and knew that it was taking him completely out of context, they were conditioned to start treating every instance of media accusing anyone of racism as probably being an over-reaction where someone was probably being taken out of context.  Then they let their guard down and actually become vulnerable to possibly ending up radicalized when faced with the actual wolves.

Anyway, I think this is something that has damaged our society's ability to confront true racism.

To end this post on a positive note, here's one of my favorite country songs which has a great first verse:

 

[Guest]

On 5/16/2020 at 4:01 AM, Aloysius said:

Well, my point was that when people over-use accusations of racism, it becomes like the boy who cried wolf and many people end up tuning out the cries when real racism emerges.  People develop gut level responses to things, they don't have time to look into the nuance of every issue. 

Probably so. Personally I'm not going around making racist accusations all the time. A fault of mine is I'm not as sensitive of racism that happens to other minorities besides blacks. The racism black people have endured has always stuck out to me. Probably because I've had black friends my entire life and I've been in love with hip-hop since 5th or 6th grade. I still remember being in 1st grade and my black friend on the bus being repeatedly called the n word. No I don't think I should type the word out despite George Carlson saying it's okay (rip). I didn't understand it then but looking back it's crazy. That there was already hate for this 7 year old at that young of an age because he was black. The only black kid in our class.

Anyways my point is the racism in the Catholic book is blatant. It's not trivial. Catholics love to throw the word 'scandalized' around. Well this scandalizes me. To the point it makes me want to join a non denominational church that actually has more than one black person at the service each week and doesn't print books like the one being discussed. This shouldn't even be a discussion. Like how does this even happen? lol How does a Catholic book company put this out as a Bible study? It's literally some KKK ish.

Another example of racism I'm quick to call out is Trumps. His has been blatantly obvious to me. I'm not saying everyone who voted for him is a racist. Some of my family did. They're not racists. But there's no doubt Trump has stoked racial division in a very toxic way. Chris Wallace at Fox news called him out when it got bad. And it has got bad several times during his election and presidency. But I definitely don't go around yelling racist at everything. I know you're not accusing me of that but it needs to be said. 

On 5/16/2020 at 4:01 AM, Aloysius said:

Then they let their guard down and actually become vulnerable to possibly ending up radicalized when faced with the actual wolves.

Anyway, I think this is something that has damaged our society's ability to confront true racism.

Definitely agree. 

 

On 5/16/2020 at 4:01 AM, Aloysius said:

Anyway, to end on a positive note, here's one of my favorite country songs which has a great first verse:

I love this song. I've always liked country music. This is my new favorite country song.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

So when kids who were fans of Pewdiepie on youtube, for instance, then saw the Wallstreet journal shouting about him being racist, but they knew better and knew that it was taking him completely out of context

Never heard of Pewdiepie. Found this quote when I did a quick search: 

"Indeed, PewDiePie’s work has been gleefully praised by prominent white supremacists such as Andrew Anglin, editor of the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi news blog. On 22 January, the Daily Stormer changed its motto to “The world’s #1 PewDiePie fansite”, and Anglin wrote a blogpost congratulating Kjellberg for “making the masses comfortable with our ideas”.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Guest

[Aloysius]

oh I'm not saying your concern here is trivial.  I was saying that one reason the condemnation of it might not catch on with some people is not because large amounts of people are racists, but because lots of people have been conditioned by so many trivial things being misrepresented that they are complacent when something serious like this needs to be addressed. 

anyway, somewhere earlier on the thread I saw someone said they sent in a complaint to Tan.  I really hope to see some response, which ought to be a disavowal of that interpretation and a promise to edit future publications (if nothing else by adding in a footnote stating this was an historical opinion but is contrary to the teachings of the Church).  if they are standing by this interpretation of scripture, then someone should also complain to the bishop of the diocese in which their publishing company is centered, should they not?  at the very least the bishop do the symbolic gesture of ordering them not to use the name "Catholic" anymore (which of course has no legal weight)

1 minute ago, Delivery said:

Never heard of Pewdiepie. Found this quote when I did a quick search: 

"Indeed, PewDiePie’s work has been gleefully praised by prominent white supremacists such as Andrew Anglin, editor of the Daily Stormer, an American neo-Nazi news blog. On 22 January, the Daily Stormer changed its motto to “The world’s #1 PewDiePie fansite”, and Anglin wrote a blogpost congratulating Kjellberg for “making the masses comfortable with our ideas”.

this is part of the strategy I mentioned earlier--racists have egged people on to condemn people making harmless jokes, thereby making fans of those people more likely to be driven into racist ideologies.  the dailystormer people are baiting people to condemn pewdiepie in order to make his fans less likely to take any condemnation of racism seriously and drive them into their arms.

pewdiepie's certainly not perfect, and he's made edgy jokes and serious mistakes from what I've seen, but I definitely don't think he's a racist and the whole cycle of condemning him is precisely that vicious cycle that is actually weakening society's ability to fight true racists like those at the dailystormer.

[Guest]

Tim is on Twitter calling the lynching of George Floyd an "alleged crime". This is who Tan publishes and Trent Horn does podcasts with.

Also can a Mediator of Meh move this back to open mic? There's not a debate going on anylonger. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Guest

[little2add]

"haters going to hate”

 

 

[Seven77]

Did anyone get a response from TAN?  I never got a reply after sending an email A while ago about this… Did anyone hear anything after writing?

Edited June 3, 2020 by Seven77

[Ash Wednesday]

I know the boards are slow and mediators of meh even moreso, but please refrain from personal attacks and trying to circumvent the philters that block out profanities by doing things like spacing between the letters. 

T h a n k  y o u.

[Credo in Deum]

Interesting subject.  I don’t have this book but I have others from TAN and I have never seen any racist remarks in them.  Is this the only book by TAN such remarks have been found? 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Some more interesting bits of info.   I was able to find the entire book online for free.  Thais is usually the case with older books since they become public domaine

https://archive.org/details/apracticalcommen00knecuoft

The book itself is MASSIVE so the idea that the troublesome remarks could have been overlooked by mistake is entirely possible. 
 

In regards to the authors remarks the timing is interesting . I kept noticing the reviews in the beginning were written in 1894.  The Archbishop himself was from Friedberg but was born and died Germany.  Around 1896 Rwanda had just begun being colonized by the Germans so I’m sure the events of his time and what he heard about, tribal violence, lead him to his conclusion regarding African people as being cursed, governed by tyrants, barbarous, and difficult to convert.

 

 

 

 

[cutenickname]

On 2/15/2020 at 11:58 AM, dUSt said:

Don’t trust whitey. 

dUSt is being funny, but if larger numbers of black and brown people had taken this exact attitude over the course of human history...

[little2add]

funny too,  that if a a white person said the same thing about blacks he or she would be ostracized and condemned as a racist.