Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

Mr. X

The New Triumph is a tabloid-style monthly that began publication in May. Its editor is journalist Gary Potter, who was one of the founders of L. Brent Bozell’s Triumph magazine, which was published from 1966 to 1976. Potter hopes his magazine will become the leading publication of the Traditionalist movement. He has adopted a policy of “no enemy on the right,” except that sedevacantism may not be advocated in his pages. The magazine is otherwise open to writers who are “conservative” or “Traditionalist.” 

The second issue of The New Triumph included a long letter-to-the-editor denouncing — me. My attitude was Queen Victoria’s: “We are not amused.” I telephoned Potter, whom I have known for some years, and he invited me to reply. I sent him the following letter:

The June issue of The New Triumph carried a letter from John Zmirak. It was in part an attack upon me and people associated with me and in part a pastiche of theological confusions. I’d like to reply at length to the personal charges and briefly to a couple of the theological errors.

Zmirak says he “has it on good authority that. . . Catholic writers are being threatened. One prominent apologist whom I know personally has been harassed with phone calls and letters from Mr. Keating, one of which demanded that he explain his privately held views on a number of doctrinal points, detail each source of personal income, give the names and phone numbers of each editor at each Catholic or secular publication in which his articles appear, and sign an affirmation to Mr. Keating that he holds the position Mr. Keating considers orthodox — or risk denunciation by Keating, either in This Rock or The Wanderer. The writer, who had originally agreed to be responsive to a modest request for information by This Rock, has now declined to cooperate with Mr. Keating’s inquiry and has referred the matter to his attorney, who is considering civil charges of libel, conspiracy, and slander.” 

There is so much falsehood here that an explanation must be protracted. Please bear with me. Here’s what really happened.

Late last year I was asked by an editor at Catholic Twin Circle to participate in an end-of-year symposium in which the dozen or so contributors would write a few paragraphs on (a) what they thought was the most important Catholic event of 1994 and (b) what they predicted would be the most important Catholic event of 1995.

Seeking a little originality, I predicted that the most important ignored Catholic event of 1995 would be the rapid growth of the Traditionalist movement. To demonstrate that the growth would be mainly among younger Catholics, I named three prominent personalities: the actor Mel Gibson, the speaker Gerry Matatics, and the writer Mr. X.

Of course, I didn’t actually put “Mr. X.” I gave the man’s name. Gary Potter has asked me not to identify Mr. X in this letter because Mr. X is associated with TNT. Fair enough. I will be revealing his name in an upcoming article in This Rock anyway, so I don’t mind using a pseudonym here. Mr. X himself likes pseudonyms and now finds himself in trouble for using one.

In the manuscript I submitted to Catholic Twin Circle I identified Mr. X as the author of Desire and Deception, a strongly Feeneyite (and strongly anti-Thomist) book. I had forgotten that Mr. X occasionally writes for Catholic Twin Circle. As a courtesy the editors (who, up to that point, did not know he was a Feeneyite), telephoned Mr. X and read him the sentence in which he was mentioned. He went through the roof, swearing that he hadn’t written Desire and Deception. He said the author was “Thomas A. Hutchinson.” That is the name on the cover, but it is a pseudonym. Mr. X is the real author. Not wanting to be identified publicly as a Feeneyite, for fear of losing his freelance writing assignments, he chose as a pseudonym the name of the last royalist governor of Massachusetts, who served from 1771-1774 and who opposed American independence. This selection seems apt, since Mr. X styles himself a modern-day royalist.

When the editors called me to say they felt obligated to drop Mr. X’s name from the article in light of his strong protest, I was dismayed-for two reasons. First, Mr. X’s denial of authorship made me look like an erring reporter and temporarily soured my relationship with Catholic Twin Circle. Second, Mr. X, whom the public considers a valiant Catholic, lied vigorously when it appeared his connection with the book would be made public.

Wanting to find out what was going on, I telephoned Mr. X. He denied authorship, even after I gave multiple reasons why I knew the book was his. His defense escalated into a series of ever more improbable statements, such as that he edited the manuscript of Desire and Deception but never inquired who the author was, even though he knew “Thomas A. Hutchinson” was a pseudonym. (Mr. X is treasurer of the company that publishes Desire and Deception and is responsible for signing “Hutchinson’s” royalty checks. Is it likely he pays no attention to the name on the checks?) 

Mr. X and I had about three conversations. They were short and never “harassing.” But I was insistent and let Mr. X know I wasn’t buying his story. At one point the real man started to come through, and I felt sorry for him. He said I had to understand that he made his living as a freelance writer and-but then the sentence broke off. The implication was clear. If his Feeneyite positions became known, he feared, he would lose writing assignments.

I was hoping for a little manly honesty from Mr. X, something like: “Yes, Karl, I did write the book, but I don’t want that to become known. I wrote it to supplement my income, which, as a freelancer, is often precarious. But I know that some of my editors might not want my articles if they learned I’m a Feeneyite. So go ahead and criticize the thesis of my book if you think it’s wrongheaded-but please leave my name out of it. I’m sorry I lied to the folks at Catholic Twin Circle. I admit I had been playing both sides of the street, got caught, was scared, and acted foolishly. I hope you understand.” 

And I would have understood and would have given thought to keeping the identity of “Thomas A. Hutchinson” secret. But Mr. X didn’t say anything like this. He said, “Talk to my attorney.” So I did. His attorney, Matthew Hale, said Mr. X refused to talk with me further and requested that I not call him. I acquiesced. Later, when it became clear that Mr. X would be written up in This Rock anyway, Hale called back to say that Mr. X would agree to answer any written questions I might send.

Contrary to what Zmirak alleges, I did not ask Mr. X to “detail each source of personal income,” although I did ask him to list the publications he wrote for. Also contrary to Zmirak, I did not ask Mr. X to “sign an affirmation to Mr. Keating that he holds the position Mr. Keating considers orthodox.” Mr. X wasn’t asked to sign anything at all.

The last two questions submitted to him referred to the teaching on salvation given in Lumen Gentium and The Catechism of the Catholic Church and asked whether he thought this teaching to be “correct.” This is the teaching that Zmirak describes as “the position Mr. Keating considers orthodox,” as though it is a position of my own fashioning and not the magisterium’s teaching.

Zmirak next says that Mr. X, after declining to answer the questions, “referred the matter to his attorney.” But it was at the request of Mr. X’s attorney that I sent the questions to Mr. X in the first place! Zmirak tries to make it appear that I forced the questions on Mr. X, when in fact Mr. X specifically asked for them through his attorney.

Zmirak concludes this section of his letter by saying the attorney “is considering civil charges of libel, conspiracy, and slander,” hoping that TNT’s readers will think that the very threat of such charges is sufficient proof of them.

In looking over notes I took during conversations with Hale, I see that he indeed said This Rock “needed to be careful” lest its editors be sued for “slander.” I corrected him, noting that slander concerns oral defamation only; the term he should have used was libel. He didn’t seem to appreciate the difference. Testing him further, I mentioned New York Times v. Sullivan. He didn’t seem to know about it, yet it is the pivotal Supreme Court case dealing with defamation of public figures (and Mr. X, as a journalist and author, is a public figure).

In the next section Zmirak refers to “anonymous phone calls to editors,” but does not explicitly state who supposedly made such calls. From the context of his remark, though, he seems to refer to me. This allegation first came to my attention when Mr. X’s attorney mentioned it in a phone call. He alleged I had called Catholic Twin Circle and left on its answering machine a message that Mr. X was a Feeneyite.

I laughed and said to Hale, “Look, give me a little credit. You say you’ve listened to tapes of my seminars. If so, you know I have a distinctive voice. The people on the staff of Catholic Twin Circleknow my voice. Some of them have attended my seminars, and I’ve spoken on the phone with others. If I left an ‘anonymous’ message on their answering machine, they’d know in an instant who made the call. Do you really think I’d try such a thing?” 

I don’t know what discourages me more-that Zmirak thinks I would stoop to making such calls or that he thinks I’m stupid enough to imagine I could get away with making them.

He then expostulates on the Lefebvre affair and accuses me of dishonesty for thinking that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated went into schism. He says, “The papal letter to which Keating alludes, which describes the tendency of the Lefebvrite bishops as ‘schismatic,’ is not a formal declaration that a schism exists, nor a papal decision of any kind, but rather a metaphorical expression which conveys the pope’s opinion about the internal motivation of several individuals. For Keating to seize upon this as an official statement that the five bishops of the Pius X Society. . . are guilty of schism is simply dishonest.” 

In this matter I am not accusing Zmirak of dishonesty-only of incompetence. The “papal letter” to which he refers is, of course, Ecclesia Dei. In it the Pope says of the consecrations that “such disobedience -which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy-constitutes a schismatic act (d. Code of Canon Law can. 751). In performing such an act [Lefebvre and the ordinands] have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication.” This passage Zmirak considers merely “a metaphorical expression.” Wrong.It’s a statement of fact.

Canon 1364 says a schismatic incurs automatic excommunication, which is why canon 1382 provides that “Both the bishop who, without pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” The Pope notes that such an illicit consecration is itself “a schismatic act.” 

That is the Pope’s judgment on the matter, and he expressed his judgment in Ecclesia Dei. Others may differ, but, as canon 1404 provides, “The First See is judged by no one.” The essence of schism is “refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (can. 751). Such refusal can be shown through words or through deeds, with the Pope being the supreme judge of when schism is manifested. Lefebvre and the others performed an act that produced schism and therefore excommunication.

In his last paragraph, Zmirak sa ys, “Finally, for the benefit of your own soul, let me suggest you do not employ fair means and foul to destroy the financial livelihoods of men with whom you disagree.” He offers no details. He does not suggest why I and the others he excoriates should want to impoverish men with whom we happen to disagree. What are these “fair means and foul” he refers to? He doesn’t say. He brings up a sensationalistic charge-and then drops it.

Let me at least say this. When the story about Mr. X is played out, when his theological views are made known, when his mendacity becomes manifest to his editors and readers, he probably will lose writing assignments and certainly will lose the regard of one-time admirers. His income from freelance writing will decline.

When that occurs, it will be his own fault, the consequence of his disregard of the Eighth Commandment.For public consumption, and perhaps out of a theatrical spirit, he has wanted to style himself simultaneously as not a Feeneyite (for most publications) and as a Feeneyite (to promote his book), but such a subterfuge could not last indefinitely.

Something similar will happen to Gerry Matatics, who, asserts Zmirak, is targeted by people engaged in “a centrally coordinated attempt to ‘purge’ the Catholic Right of ‘deviationist’ elements.” Zmirak believes that negative comments about Matatics are fueled by professional jealousy, not by concern for doctrinal and ethical integrity. There is a conspiracy to ruin Matatics financially, thinks Zmirak. Well, that’s one opinion, but not a sensible one.

A few months ago Matatics agreed to teach for Daniel Dolan, who, as a priest, was expelled by Archbishop Lefebvre from the Society of St. Pius X for sedevacantist rabble-rousing and who now, as a rogue bishop, is establishing a seminary designed to churn out priests who will proclaim that John Paul II is a false pope and bishops in union with him are false shepherds. Matatics’s appointment to the seminary staff was announced formally in a brochure distributed by Dolan to his supporters. Matatics told me in a recent interview that he no longer plans to teach at the new seminary, but he has not forthrightly rejected sedevacantism or the fringe groups that endorse the theory, saying instead that he finds Dolan’s arguments in favor of sedevacantism “inconclusive.” 

On this issue and others many will perceive Matatics as straddling a fence, and it is likely that some prospective sponsors of his lectures will refrain from issuing him invitations until he indisputably abjures any connection, organizationally or theologically, with such people as the sedevacantists. Will his income decline? Perhaps so-but if it does, it will be because of the positions he has taken and the associations he has made, not because there is a conspiracy against him.

The remainder of Zmirak’s letter is not a personal attack on me or my colleagues. There is no need to reply to most of his observations on the state of the Church, some of which are correct, but a few require comment because they are liable to influence innocent readers.

He says that “Vatican II was convoked, conducted, and concluded as a pastoral council.” Nowhere in the Council documents is the Council claimed to be purely pastoral. After all, two of its chief documents are The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, which may be contrasted to The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World.(The other thirteen documents include one more “constitution,” nine “decrees,” and three “declarations.”) That Vatican II was purely pastoral, not doctrinal, can be held in good conscience only by someone who hasn’t read its documents. Curiously, the “pastoral only” idea is favored both by some Traditionalists and by most Modernists-and both groups are wrong.

Zmirak asserts that where Vatican II “reinforces traditional doctrine that was previously offered at a higher level of authority-in such papal encyclicals as Pascendi, Mirari Vos, and Humanum Genus-its reassertion of Catholic truth should be welcomed. Where it dilutes or contradicts previous, more authoritative teaching, it should be criticized and contradicted.”

He has it backwards. Papally-approved documents of ecumenical councils have a higher authority than do encyclicals. The three encyclicals Zmirak lists are not infallible documents, never were claimed to be by the popes who composed them, and have not been considered to be infallible by most orthodox theologians.This is not to deny their real authority or accuracy, of course, but, as Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis, “such teachings belong to the ordinary magisterium,” not to the extraordinary.

There are other errors, theological and logical, in Zmirak’s letter, but I have no desire to prolong an unpleasant task. My defense and rebuttal will have to end here. I just want to say I carry no brief against Zmirak, who came to my attention only recently. I had not heard of him until I read a recent short story of his. The story was well constructed and deserves praise. His skill with fiction is manifest. It’s too bad that even his non-fiction writing ends up largely as fiction.

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us