Folks, Mr. Mark Potok sent me this message in reaction to my blogpost, which I now want to share with you:
Pedro,
Thanks for the heads up. I have a couple of responses to your response. First, I'm somewhat mystified as to how my editorial got posted to various traditionalist blogs without the bloggers noticing at all that in fact this was just the lead-in to a huge package of news stories about the radical traditionalists. There are, in addition to the editorial, about six highly detailed stories, including one that includes detailed profiles of 12 major radical traditionalist groups. People are taking the editorial as the whole story, and that's not remotely true. I'm amazed at this, but there it is -- there's another 20,000 words or so on this, completely unnoticed.
Here's the url that will get you to the whole package. Three of the sidebars are right next to the main; the fourth, "The Dirty Dozen," is listed in the right navigation bar:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/i...cle.jsp? aid=719
My second point, re your criticism of us for not drawing a sufficient distinction between radical traditionalists and traditionalist, I refer you to the follow paragraph in our main story:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/i...le.jsp? pid=1292
"Vatican II did not ban these time-honored celebrations, and many Catholics who call themselves "traditionalists" continue to worship in this manner in churches that remain an official part of the Holy See (these churches are awarded an "indult" that allows them to continue celebrating the Latin Mass). The vast majority of those who practice Catholicism in this older form are unrelated to the radical traditionalist Catholics who gathered in Philadelphia. Indeed, the groups that gave presentations at the CFN conference preach a theology specifically rejected by the Vatican, and many have been declared schismatic, or officially separated from the church."
I appreciate your comments, your interest, and your courtesy in letting me know what you'd written. I'd be curious to know what you think about the whole report, as opposed to my summarizing editorial up front. Perhaps you could even post it to the traditionalist sites that also, apparently, have mistaken the editorial for the entire package of stories.
Very sincerely,
Mark Potok
Director, Intelligence Project
Editor, Intelligence Report
SPLC
Mr. Potok...if you're reading this, thanks for the clarification. I will read your stories, and am glad you distinguished between CFN and other traditional groups.
For what it's worth, I'm a self-professed traditionalist. I've been to SSPX Masses, and have been a CFN conference in Philly. But I've no patience for anti-Semitism, and I am losing any patience I once had with both those groups because of it.
Well, I did notice that this editorial was a portal into a much larger story and commented as much above. It is also worth noting that Mr. Potok makes the distinction that he is referring to a small group of catholics, while noting the majority do not share these views.