Announcing And Rightly So—Selected Letters and Articles of Neil McCaffrey

The name of Neil McCaffrey (1925–1994) will be familiar to those who have followed the fortunes and trials of the conservative movement in the United States, as well as to long-time readers of Rorate Caeli, which has featured a number of his outstanding occasional writings: his ever-relevant “Memorandum on Papal Cheerleaders” from February 1976; his incisive essay “Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope Paul VI, and Catholic Tradition” from 1977; a couple of his personal letters (1, 2) on the meaning of true charity and how it coexists with right judgment; and a letter exchange with Msgr. Eugene Clark on the superiority and insuppressibility of the old Mass.

Born in Rye, NY and a lifetime resident of Pelham, Neil McCaffrey was the founder of Conservative Book Club and Arlington House Publishers, which he ran for decades, and a respected behind-the-scenes political organizer who knew everyone, collaborating especially with William F. Buckley, Jr., and others at National Review. Neil was also a knowledgeable enthusiast of old films and the music of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, an enthusiasm reflected in his founding of the Nostalgia Book Club in 1968 and his leading of the Movie Entertainment Book Club from 1978. Above all, Neil was a faithful and well-educated Catholic who saw what was happening to the Church because of the Vatican II revolution, and who spoke with unusual eloquence in defense of the orthodox Faith.

A letter on charity from conservative publisher Neil McCaffrey, February 1977

(Rorate thanks Roger McCaffrey for permission to publish this letter written to him in 1977 by his father Neil, a noted conservative publisher and political commentator, who for many years ran the Conservative Book Club and assisted with PR for National Review. Needless to say, the content of the letter is astonishingly timely, as we shiver our way through a second postconciliar winter.)

February 23, 1977

Dear Roger,

The problem of true charity is—the problem. Some random thoughts.

There can be no charity without justice, in this sense: charity may go beyond justice, but never at the expense of justice.

Von Hildebrand makes a useful distinction between injuries done to me and injuries done to God; the latter either directly or indirectly [because] to others. I cannot forgive an injury done to God, or to another.

We owe charity to our leaders in the Church, yes. But this does not extend to forgiving what in fact we cannot forgive, their offenses against God and the souls in their care. We should pray that they acquit themselves of these sins, but we do them no charity by pretending that their sins are virtues. Indeed, we do them the gravest disservice with such lies; and a worse disservice to those they harm.

Thoughts on "Who am I to judge?" from Neil McCaffrey (December 1977)

(Of course, the title of this post is deliberately anachronistic, but it is remarkable how similar the problems of today are to those of 1977. This memorandum by noted conservative publisher Neil McCaffrey strikes right at a central issue of our own day. He sent it to a number of his closest friends.)

December 12, 1977

Memo to: All Concerned

From: Neil McCaffrey

I am trying to work out some ideas about charity. If you have any comments on what follows, whether agreeing or disagreeing, I’d be grateful for them.

False charity, it seems to me, is pandemic, and encouraged in the highest places. But if current excesses are travesties of travesties, the travesties were always there. Which is why modern Catholics, even the orthodox fragment, are helpless when confronted with this solvent of all

standards.

Rorate Exclusive: Letter Exchange between Msgr. Eugene Clark and Neil McCaffrey in 1977 on the Old Mass

[Rorate thanks Roger McCaffrey for sharing with us these letters from his father's archives from January 1977 and for providing the following introduction.]

The letters below are part of an epistolary exchange between Neil McCaffrey, Jr. and one of his oldest friends from minor-seminary days in New York, Msgr. Eugene Clark, both protégés of Msgr. Florence Cohalan, noted New York archdiocesan historian and pastor. Both men rather quickly succeeded in their chosen paths, Neil as an executive at Doubleday and Macmillan publishers before founding his own companies; Gene Clark as secretary to Cardinal Spellman and then communications director and aide de camp for Cardinal Cooke. Vatican II liturgical changes were embraced by neither man at first, but Clark eventually took up the party line, and the two old friends quarreled, eventually committing their thoughts to a letter exchange that had several back-and-forths, of which we publish below a pair. The reference to The Wanderer was to the way that newspaper leveled criticism at traditional Mass partisans like Michael Davies while not, McCaffrey complained, giving equal time for responses. The full exchange between Neil and Msgr. Clark will be published in the next print edition of The Traditionalist magazine, in Spring 2017. For the current edition of The Traditionalist, visit BooksForCatholics.com. -- Roger McCaffrey

January 19, 1977

Dear Neil:

Back to the question of Pope Pius V and the Tridentine Mass.

Another Blockbuster Article from Neil McCaffrey in 1977 -- Just Substitute "Francis" for "Paul VI"

With all the commentary on the current Synod (as well as the always-effervescent discussions of the SSPX), we can sometimes forget how deep are the roots of our present crisis. We've been here before; we are seeing the working-out of that which was long in place. 

This article was originally written in 1977, prior to the suspension of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The author of this piece was neither a member of the SSPX nor a partisan. But he did know the Church inside-out, and knew something of Catholic history and politics. If the reader subtitutes "Francis" for "Paul VI," he will see the eerie parallels on every level.

Rorate Caeli thanks Roger McCaffrey of Roman Catholic Books for allowing us to publish this daring and perceptive essay, which will also appear in the next print issue of The Traditionalist, due out in November. (Any inquiries regarding the magazine may be directed to [email protected].)

Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope Paul VI, and Catholic Tradition

by Neil McCaffrey

Rorate Exclusive: A Memorandum by Publisher Neil McCaffrey on “Papal Cheerleaders,” from February 1976 — How History Repeats Itself Today

Rorate is pleased to publish, for the first time, a memorandum that was written by the late traditional Catholic publisher Neil McCaffrey in February 1976. Addressed to Fr. Edward J. Berbusse, S.J. (first chaplain of Christendom College), Fr. Robert Bradley, S.J., Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., Dr. & Mrs. Dietrich von Hildebrand, and Dr. & Mrs. William A. Marra, this memo reduces to shreds the "papolatry" that has become such a characteristic feature of neo-Catholicism. Though written almost 40 years ago, it is perhaps more pertinent today than ever. (Published with permission of Roger A. McCaffrey.)

                       February 25, 1976

Memo to:

       Fr. Berbusse

       Fr. Bradley

       Fr. Miceli

       Dr. and Mrs. von Hildebrand

       Dr. and Mrs. Marra

From:

       Neil McCaffrey

Bill asked us to contribute a memo about our discussion. I’d like to offer mine on the subject on which we seemed to show the least consensus, criticism of the papacy.

1. Scripture makes no bones about the weaknesses of the Apostles and especially of Peter; which in any case were well known to the early Christians, whose faith survived the knowledge. Catholic history, from the age of the Fathers on down, provides us with the model. It was only in the 19th century that some Catholics found it necessary to refine the policies of the Holy Spirit.

2. The papacy is given primacy from the earliest years, yet there is little evidence of papolatry until we get to the last century. The papolaters of our day would have been regarded with astonishment by the Fathers, by Dante, by St. Catherine, by Bellarmine, by Suarez, by just about anyone you can name.

3. We can see papolatry in perspective when we put it beside its kin; and we can do that with a flying visit to Moscow or Peking. There too we are allowed to criticize underlings. Pravda does it every day. But the Leader, never.