Copyright Steve Skojec, 2010
For most of human history, there have been gatekeepers through whom one had to pass to acquire knowledge. Widespread literacy being only a recent development, these individuals and the information they possessed came at a premium, and endowed these elect individuals with power, status and influence.
Some things have changed, but some things have stayed the same. As I watch new media platforms unfold, I can see that the landscape is under rapid development. I can remember a time when there were only three television channels — ABC, NBC, CBS. Then came cable news and the rise of CNN. Now, networks like The Blaze are changing the paradigm again.
But gatekeepers persist. I’ve had my own run-ins.
Trouble at The Troubadour
When I was a senior at Steubenville (back in 2001) I had a column in The Troubadour, which was the college newspaper.
It was not so different in tone and scope from this blog, although my writing is better now. I had a lot of leeway in my column, either because I was good or because my editor was very kind. I wrote what I wanted, and I almost never had to make changes. It was my first paid writing gig.
In one of my final columns, shortly before graduation, I wrote about a topic which had come to weigh on me increasingly over my time there: the way our liturgy reflects our belief.
Now, I’ve always cared about appropriate, reverent worship. I remember being in second grade, doing prep for my first communion, and seething at the polyester-clad nun who brought a boom box into the sanctuary so she could inflict us with the mandatory duty of singing “City of God.” I was little, so of course I didn’t know what it was about that song, but I hated it. Within a year or two, I would sometimes get up earlier than the rest of my family and walk the three blocks to our parish by myself, just so I could go to the 7AM Mass. The priest who celebrated at that hour actually preached about hell and sin, and there was no sappy music. (I’m pretty sure I did this at least in part because I got to go home and watch cartoons without anyone bothering me while the rest of the family went to the 8:30 Mass, but it still left an impression on me.)
I was of course taught to receive communion on the hand and to sing awful songs was generally inundated for much of my life with many of the most commonplace abuses — if thankfully not the most egregious ones — that were part and parcel with the post-conciliar liturgical free-for-all that was the Missal of Paul VI. Over time, I had this creeping sensibility that this wasn’t how things were supposed to be. At some point along the way I started receiving on the tongue. Don’t even remember making the change, although I now look back and have a hard time remembering doing it any other way. I gravitated toward masses with incense, latin, and chant. I craved architecture that reflected the divine mysteries celebrated within. When I found a parish that allowed us to receive communion on our knees, I was in heaven.
I was not a traditionalist yet. In fact, my first exposures to the Traditional Latin Mass left me very disinterested. But in every other way, I was moving in that direction.
Which made Steubenville masses an absolute shock to the system.
I’m not going to take the space to make a list of criticisms here. Suffice it to say, going to Steubenville had a lot to do with my subsequent traditionalism. So as I neared the end of my time there, I had to get a few things off my chest:
The Eucharistic Christ is unquestionably the cornerstone of the Catholic faith. It is this presence around which all other Christic presences revolve. It is our redemption through this sacrament that, as an old eucharistic prayer says, Christ “took upon himself our human nature and endured a bitter death.” This sacrament is free to us, undeserved. It is the physical, palpable communion with the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ our God and redeemer. He is that stone the builders rejected that became the cornerstone – but he is being rejected again. Not simply by secularism or atheistic humanism, but by Christians who are placing our humanity above his divinity, shoving him further from the altar as we become more visible there.
Yeah. I have certain thematic consistencies.
My critique focused on several elements: the way in which contemporary overemphasized preaching and de-emphasized the Consecration; the superfluous and distracting involvement of the laity in the functions of the altar; the replacement of sacred music with banal, pop music; and the failure of modern Church architecture to emphasize what is sacred and sacramental.
All of these criticisms targeted things I had seen done in Steubenville, but they were applicable to the larger Church as well. I was tired of feeling like I was at a concert or a pep rally instead of Mass. I was disturbed that I had to search for the tabernacle but had to stare at music ministers. I had grown weary of priests filling the role of entertainer or motivational speaker rather than Alter Christus. (If you’re so inclined, you can read the whole thing here.)
I thought I had made my case fairly well. It was a real discussion starter. People were talking about it in the cafeteria and the dorms. Students I didn’t know approached me to tell me they really appreciated it. Little did I know, however, that it was upsetting the powers that be. They didn’t mind a little innocuous freedom of speech, but I had taken the university newspaper away from the approved message.
So when the April 27, 2001 issue of The Troubadour — the final issue of the year — was published, it contained a response from the university chaplain, Fr. Dominic Sciotto, TOR, and he took me to task:
I must say that I was shocked, not only by the confused and mistaken theology expressed, but mostly by the judgmental dogmatism of the author. He stated many things well, but then abrogated them by carrying them to erroneous con-clusions. Above all, it was a very subjective article, devoid of sound specifics and filled with generalities and purely personal opinions. When he does rarely quote from some document, it is done in a cafeteria style of pick and choose.
The assessments of my “mistaken theology” went on in no small detail. What was most noticeable, however, were the phrases he used to refer to my thinking: “confusing statements”, “exaggeration and inaccuracy”, “subjective, misguided and judgmental”, “deserves complete condemnation”, “wild, unspecified and vague accusations”, “misleading statement”, “irresponsible, vague, and general statements”, “so ludicrous as not even to merit a response”, “cavalier, careless and judgmental”.
There’s a line like that in almost every paragraph.
And of course, I was reminded that “the church is not a museum”, that he was “always most happy when” he could “reasonably discuss some Liturgical question with a student who is genuinely interested in learning more about the Liturgical life of the church” and that “The only reason that I am responding to this article is so that our student readers may not be confused or misled by it.”
So you see, the theology I learned at Franciscan University which helped lead me to the conclusions in my article was apparently rotten.
You know what else was rotten? That this response from the chaplain was published in the last issue of The Troubadour, and I was given no chance to respond. I wasn’t even given the courtesy of knowing that the attack would be published. As I headed toward graduation, I had a sick feeling in my stomach. A feeling of betrayal.
The message was clear: I was just some upstart punk theology student who had gotten too big for my britches. He was the gatekeeper of liturgical for the university.
And then, someone informed me that my article was hanging on the bulletin board outside the door of one of the professors, right smack in the faculty wing. I went to visit him. He was a professor of languages and history, if I recall correctly, and I had never taken a class with him. I knocked on his door, and when he called me inside, I thanked him for what he had done.
“You know what?” He asked me. “This is something that many of the faculty have been wanting to say for years. But we feel like we can’t. You said it. I’m done hiding it. I don’t care anymore. I’m going Byzantine.”
My smile must have been huge. But I’d hardly say I won that battle.
Rubbish in the New York Times
Years later, in 2006, when I was working in PR for General Motors, I watched a similar saga unfold in our conference room as visiting GM executives tried to get a letter to the editor (rebutting a hack piece by Thomas Friedman) published in the New York Times. At the time, GM was the world’s largest automaker by sales, bringing in over $200 billion in annual revenues, making them one of the top three biggest companies in the world. They were generating over 60,000 media impressions a year, and had an advertising budget north of $3 billion annually.
In other words, this was a company that should have had more than enough clout to get a letter to the editor published.
But the Times wouldn’t have it. They didn’t like what GM executives had to say about the work of one of their star columnists. GM used the word “rubbish” in describing some of Friedman’s outlandish criticisms. The Times editors wanted the language toned down and sanitized. Ray Wert at the popular automotive blog Jalopnik described the dust up as follows:
Steven Harris, GM’s VP of Communications came right back with a scathing post on their corporate FastLane Blog asking for Friedman to be “intellectually honest” in his claims — and basically asked Friedman to take his own head and shove it straight into GM’s Warren Tech Center to see the progress GM’s made on flex-fuel vehicles. In addition to Harris, GM must have called for all hands on deck — because there was a second salvo fired from the RenCen in the form of Brian Akre from GM Corporate Communications. Brian was hard at work trying to write the perfect letter to the editor to the New York Times — unfortunately, the “perfect letter” included foul language like “rubbish” — words which just wouldn’t pass muster with the conserva-nazis at the Times. Akre pointed out on GM’s other corporate blog, FYI, the seperate and totally unequal treatment his wording was receiving in comparison to what Friedman was allowed to use. Apparently if you’re a columnist you can use such language as “crack dealer” — not to mention “whore of Babylon”, “slut-ho-bag”, and “scruffy-looking nerf-herder” when describing GM.
Akre shared his bemusement and frustration on GM’s (now-defunct) FYI blog:
You’d think it would be relatively easy to get a letter from a GM vice president published in the Times after GM’s reputation was so unfairly questioned. Just a matter of simple journalistic fairness, right? You’d also think that the newspaper’s editing of letters would be minimal — to fix grammar, remove any profane language, that sort of thing. Not so. Even for me, who worked for nearly 20 years as a reporter and editor, this was an enlightening experience.
[…]
The Times suggested “rubbish” be changed first to, “We beg to differ.” We objected. The Times then suggested it be changed to, “Not so.” We stood our ground. In the end, the Times refused to let us call the column “rubbish.” Why? “It’s not the tone we use in Letters,” wrote Mary Drohan, a letters editor.
At the time, corporate blogs were a very new thing. GM was pioneer in corporate social media. And they didn’t need to go through the Times to get the word out. The gatekeepers were guarding gates in a now wide-open field. GM published the letter the way they wanted to write it and garnered massive response. To this day, GM’s innovative response is a case study in effective corporate communication.
Social Media is Changing Everything, Isn’t It?
Fast forward to the present. Blogs are now everywhere. Major media outlets are competing with upstarts for market share. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Pinterest — the list of social media networks that allow for the sharing of information are everywhere. They’ve been used in revolutions, to report on news that nobody else will cover, and to break stories through citizen journalism faster than any reporter can reach the scene.
But there’s too much information. People are overwhelmed. I know I am. So what do we do?
After all this time we’ve spent wrestling the control of information out of the hands of a few, we now self-select gatekeepers to tell us what we need to know.
Sometimes this works out. If we find good sources of information, voices we can trust, they can help us to filter the fire hose of information we’re trying to drink out of every day. The danger, of course, is that we become too dependent on them to tell us what we want to hear, and they become too dependent on us liking what they have to say.
This co-dependency damages the relationship between gatekeeper and consumer. It creates an echo chamber. A feedback loop. They have to keep us clicking so they can make a buck (which I have no problem with) and we only keep clicking if what they say fits our worldview.
When we trust gatekeepers to do our thinking for us, we are effectively putting on blinders and shutting out any information that we find challenging. We’re self-selecting comfort over truth. We begin to lose the instinct to do our homework, think for ourselves, and make sure we’re on the right path. Basically, we all — gatekeepers and consumers alike — become lazy and uninquisitive.
Inevitably, a disruptive force comes along and starts making trouble. Starts challenging assumptions. Starts throwing chum in the water. And that threatens the status quo, which makes just about everyone in the gatekeeper/consumer continuum get ants in their pants.
And this, my friends, is when gatekeepers ATTACK! (Cue dramatic music!)
This is what we saw happen over the past few days, and in a lesser way, the past year. The big-name writers in the Catholic online media world have been challenged in a way that makes them incredibly uncomfortable. A few upstarts with opinions of their own have been making waves and finding resonance with ideas that shake the status quo in Catholic thinking to its foundations. The comfy, cozy, orthodox Catholic bubble where everyone was on the same team and all The Bad was on the outside is suddenly full of dangerous ideas that are really flipping hard to process or explain. Uncertainty and doubt are becoming a daily struggle. And the clarity of, “Hey, the pope’s in charge and everything is fine!” isn’t convincing people any more. Well, some people. But lots of people are waking up and asking questions.
This is bad for a business model that says…
Back to our Regularly Scheduled Brawl, Already in Progress
Maybe this partially explains why, when I pushed back on those individuals who tried to take down a Catholic journalist for writing a factual report about questionable papal activity simply because she has some unconventional opinions on the papacy, I was savagely attacked. Why I was accused by one Mark Shea of being a “documented hysteric” and why a certain Catholic blogger with a rather large following has been telling those who will listen that I “literally said” that I pray for Pope Francis’s death.
For the record, I do NOT pray for the pope’s death, and this blogger has never prayed with me or so much as met me in person. But that doesn’t stop him. When I confronted him about this falsehood on Facebook, he labeled my response a “festival of crazy” and then blocked me.
He also said to a commenter just this weekend, “[Y]ou continue to be angry at me no matter what I do or say. So, God bless you. It’s what Jesus says to do for people who treat me like an enemy.” went on to write a post addressed by name to myself and several others which said:
The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace.
I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
When I tried to comment to point out that I was being labeled an enemy when in fact I was the one being calumniated, all the comments were deleted and the comment thread was closed. (No, I will not link to it. Mo’ pageviews, mo’ problems.)
Similarly, a blog post was written by Elizabeth Scalia, the Catholic gatekeeper-in-chief at Patheos, dismissively dealing with the concerns of those who had been attacked and treating the whole situation as just a bunch of kids fighting. She evidently doesn’t see anything wrong with the behavior of two of her writers. They apparently are, in her estimation, doing a fantastic job representing Patheos, and they have nothing to apologize for. Their only fault is that “they just don’t know how to ignore a provocation”.
Scalia had this to say about the complaints she’s receiving concerning two of her headliners:
As to the emails and notes I’ve received calling for the heads of Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher for their deep crime of having an opinion and posting it to Facebook (heavens! No one does that!), I’m afraid there will be no guillotine hauled out, today.
But then, Shea is Irish, so I do sympathize. And Simcha, of course, wears the pants. They are both smart, faithful, passionate Catholics, and talented writers with strong perspectives and something to say. That shouldn’t scare anyone. It is good that they exist.
When I tried to comment about the reckless way in which my reputation was being attacked on the blog post of the person responsible for giving this writer a platform, my comment got lost in the moderation queue for over 24-hours. When I emailed the person in charge, my email never reached her. When I finally tweeted her (after seeing her retweeting more posts from her perspective, including one lampooning me yet again) she finally found my comment and released it, then closed the comments — but not until providing a snarky repsonse about how I was harassing her while she was sick:
I’m absolutely not interested in people running to me saying “mommy, mommy look who is being mean on facebook”. I’m going back to bed with my inhaler now, and thank you for your good wishes. Truly, your charity in tugging at me — apparently in email too? — when I am trying to prevent a return to the hospital is impressive. Why not try offering up some of your anger and angst, for a while? And pray about what God might be up to with this pope (and the resignation of the last) rather than indulging in this fantasy that the church is ending because of one pope. Which is exactly what the devil wants you to believe, contra Christ’s own words.
Had she seen my email, of course, she would have known that I wrote:
Elizabeth,
I know you have been feeling very unwell. I pray that you will soon return to health.I’m curious if this is the reason why the comment I left yesterday morning on this post never left the moderation queue even though some others did.What Mark Shea is attempting to do to my reputation is serious. We disagree. We can even disagree vehemently. But to attempt to paint one’s ideological opponent in the worst possible light, throwing out charges such as that I am “praying for the pope’s death”, is unbelievably irresponsible. I think it’s also manifestly sinful.I understand that things can and do happen to eat comments, but I have faced a certain (and very strong) hostility from several Patheos writers, which makes me suspicious. Contrary to what they may believe, I’m not a blood-sucking monster who spews hate and bile on all those with whom I don’t see eye to eye. I’m also Irish. I also have a temper. But I do believe in civil discourse.
I’d very much like to know if my comment is going to appear, and if not, why not.
Thanks,Steve
@SteveSkojec They were not writing on Patheos, they were writing on FB. I have spoken to my writers. Deal with them, please. I. Am. Unwell.
— Elizabeth Scalia (@TheAnchoress) June 2, 2014
So apparently, if Patheos writers engage in uncivil behavior outside of Patheos, there’s nothing Patheos can do. But if a LifeSiteNews writer expresses her opinion of the pope outside of LifeSiteNews, she should be disallowed from covering the pope.
This is the logic of gatekeepers. Attack and discredit the messenger. Ridicule opponents. Protect the status quo. Shut down opposition. Close comment threads when challenged. Completely ignore the rampant hypocrisy. It’s just about textbook Saul Alinksy.
There’s an old saying: “If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that barks the loudest is the one that got hit.”
The Patheos crowd is barking loudly. And they still have enough influence to cause concern.
I backed off of our Twitter exchange because Miss Scalia was complaining of her serious lung ailment, and how she simply couldn’t continue. Oddly, she found the strength to write this today, taking another crack at one of the concerns papal critics share — the question of how there can be two popes in Rome.
I’m not saying she’s lying about her illness. I believe her. But actions speak louder than words. I can’t help getting the feeling that the only truth to people like Scalia, Shea, Fisher, and company is the convenient kind. Too sick to debate, not too sick to bait.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we need new Catholic gatekeepers. The current crop have done their part, and for a time, they probably did it well. But in my opinion, they’ve lost their way. Maybe it isn’t intentional on their part, but they are serving an agenda, not the truth. I’m not electing myself as a replacement. You should go where you want to go. Do your homework. Read what makes sense. Question everything, including me.
That said, I have to thank those of you who have been like that professor at Steubenville who hung my column up and said, “This is something that many of the faculty have been wanting to say for years. But we feel like we can’t. You said it. I’m done hiding it. I don’t care anymore. ” That makes it worth doing. But I’m just one guy.
We need a strong Catholic media. I’d love to have the Catholics who care about doing what’s right all be on the same team, since we’re supposedly all working toward the same goal. I am frustrated, but I don’t bear ill-will toward any of those bloggers who have come after me or my friends. I’d bury the hatchet in a heartbeat with Mark Shea if he decided we could work together, even if we disagree. But it appears that’s too much to hope for.
I’m ready to move beyond this infighting, but I wanted to set the record straight and offer some perspective on how we got here. From now on, I’d prefer to focus on what’s happening that we need to be aware of and ignore the distractions, as well as the people who create them. People who don’t care to follow the facts where they lead them do a fine job making themselves irrelevant without my help.
Onward and upward. Are you with me?
I’m with you.
Sweet.
Mr. Skojec. The Heresy Hunter calls Mr. Shea a Diva and until the fat man sings an aria about your hate, you can’t be considered a Catholic man in Full Communion with Tradition.
Seriously, to be derided by Shea, to be publicly lied about by Shea is to have earned your stripes.
Wear them with pride, sir.
I’m a short time reader of this blog. I will tell you that if I see the words “Scalia”, “Patheos” I tend to skip over them based on my past readings.
Candidly, I see no point in your making these types of posts. But, then again, I think I will take a time out from the comments sections, too.
I will share with you a piece of wisdom I got some time back from a not so well know USMC Gunnery Sergeant. Here you go.
“You can always tell an a$$hole…..You just can’t tell’em much – “
“Candidly, I see no point in your making these types of posts.”
Generally, me neither. Which is why I said that I want to move beyond it. But you know, I’ll be honest. I struggle to know just how much crap to take from someone hell bent on damaging my reputation at every turn and how much to ignore. Particularly after I’ve done nothing to them.
In the old days, you might take a guy like that outside. But this is the Internet. What do you do?
I get it. I think you’re reputation will survive. As said in the pejorative, at a certain point, responding to attacks like those will be useless.
The folks you care about about will understand. Those you don’t care about… well… won’t.
“In the old days, you might take a guy like that outside.”
True. And, sometimes not for just a beating. An armed society is a polite society.
Well, in any case, this should be the last post like this for the foreseeable future.
I wanted to leave a comment on this post but I died of old age before I could finish reading it.
Same thing happened to me before I could finish writing it.
Zombie Catholics! THAT’S what Pope Francis is planning!
I’ll have to see if the Lutherans got their cyborg ready.*
(*if that comment seemed familiar to you but you can’t place it, hint: think about a guy and 2 robots watching a movie…)
Trad Catholics: never state in a hundred words what could possibly be said in a thousand.
Keep up the Good Work, Steve.
Steve
Behind you all the way. Much to say here, I used to be avid readers of many of these folks….long story short…My father told me something his father told him, that is the old adage…”don’t listen to what they are saying…rather watch what they are doing”…that for all their proclaimed orthodoxy the gatekeepers claim..I have noticed after years of reading them that they save their best and most vicious pitches for those they deem to be on their “right”…I have always found this fascinating to observe…..nevermind the objectively observable destruction from the heterodox-left for the last sixty years…at best a tsk tsk and a sigh is given……..however if someone from…I guess the perceived “trad” community speaks up…..not a tool in the war chest is spared. Red herrings are their speciality…..the questions never are….”What are we going to do about the ongoing heretical Georgetown University and it’s charism of educating people out of their faith”…it’s…what are we going to do about ” Vooorriisss!!”…..it not, ” why does father Jenkins at Notre Dame not allow a promarriage group on campus but allows pro lgbt groups on?”…..rather the news is, quote “the latest reactionary charism of anti discernment trads who made a pro Sarah palin comment once on some obscure blog”…
How long do they expect people to observe this charade? Are they serious?
Well said, Al I noticed the same phenomenon.
I really have not noticed that. Shea is known for his vitriolic commentary on political topics. I seem to recall that Shea and Sandra Miesel have issues with people they call “RadTrads”, but in general I have not noticed in 20-odd years of consuming oecumenical media and a dozen years or more of consuming Catholic media that ‘conservative’ Catholic publicists pay much attention to the traditionalist strand at all. I’ve seen particular figures sliced up (Richard Williamson, Robert Sungenis, Solange Hertz), and Miesel was particularly exercised by the Society for Tradition, Family, and Property (a disconcerting group, to be sure). Does this really go much farther than Shea? It seems to me that traditionalist and ‘conservative’ commentators are in different orbits and hardly encounter each other. The only person I am aware of whose writing you can find in both sorts of publication is Janet E. Smith.
Art
Here is my spartan reply: I have.
My point is…its what they don’t report, analyze, obsess, editorialize, comment, or save their best writing for, that is actually worthy of excesses coverage. I dunno like this story perhaps: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/20/traditional-marriage-club-denied-official-recognition-by-university-notre-dame/
Group A Ignores & then obsesses on the Trads and gives lip-service occasionally to issues like this (I think its part of an Algorithm they have developed)…20% Fluff, 40% Good Catholic Spiritual Stuff, 30% The Trads! 10% Lip-service on the Heterodox to look “Balanced”. I’m not wounded by this mind you, I’m just observing it.
Group B: The mainstream Catholic Media doesn’t necessarily attack the Trads they just don’t report on the Heterodox destruction.
I am ready for sub-atomic particle fairy pin analysis on this thesis when you are.
http://news.yahoo.com/more-u-hispanics-leaving-catholic-church-survey-140241153.html
Chirp, Chirp, Chirp, Ribbit!
The fingerprints of the knives plunged into the backs of men’s reputations oft-times have Patheos Prints all over them.
Recall the raucousness at Rorate over whether or not Bishop Bergolio allowed/forbade access to the Trad Mass in his Diocese; he didn’t.
When the commentator relied upon by Rorate was proven to be right on the facts, what did the Patheos Posse do?
They changed the narrative.
They road-out in search of dirt on the man and then they dragged his name into the anti-semitic quicksand and abandoned him there.
Now, what the man did or did not believe about the Holocaust was immaterial as to the point Rorate was addressing – whether or not Bishop Bergolio allowed celebration of the Trad Mass.
But Patheos would have none of it. Facts, schmacks; he sucks on THE issue that matters to them.
Beware of the pernicious pathos posse; when they lose on the facts, they seek to kill the character of those they disagree with.
As for reading Patheos? Who cares about the Fluff written by those nutters?
You do those people over at Patheos a real honor by calling them “gatekeepers.” They never held a gate for me or, for that matter, did any other Catholic blogger. We have a catechism and enough writings of the Church Fathers for anything we need to know.
I gave up on Catholic blogging many years ago when I saw some of the stuff going on (not by you, btw.) If I had to find the perfect word to describe the Patheos writer it would be arrogant. Notice how Ms Scalia refers to the writers as “her writers.” That would classify as arrogant.
They prefer the argument of “moral superiority” to attack. When we spend considerable time trying to justify our actions, we have taken the bait. I suspect the attacks are timed to a slower hit counter. Over the years I’ve witnessed them doing it to many, many people.
I’m perfectly capable of reading and discerning without the need for a gatekeeper and so are you.
In any event, your reputation is rock solid with moi. In fact, being attacked by the mental midgets at Patheos makes you even more rock solid. 😉
I’ll say a prayer for you and Patrick since you’ve both expired during the writing/reading of this post. I expired during the writing of this comment.
To be fair, she refers to them as “her” writers because she is their editor.
No. I am being fair. I do some editing and I would never call someone I edited “my” writer.
Steve, I understand your frustration. It happens in other fields, and it isn’t always so public. I understand what you have written here, and I agree. Keep up the great research and writing. (Y)
Scalia’s plaintive cry “I.Am.Unwell.” [sic] was ludicrous. She has tweeted and blogged plenty the past couple of days. And she made similar protestations to me (“You’re making me tired”) when I pinned her on something a few years ago, (back when I still took her seriously). Protestations concerning health are clearly the woman’s MO, and it’s an incredibly lame cop out. Catholicism deserves far better from its “apologists”. These people are mediocre, they know it, and that is why they are so hell bent on protecting their turf.
and by the way? I’m beginning to find their utterly predictable pleas for Christian charity and wishes for the beneficence of “the LORD” chillingly passive-aggressive: the Patheticos blogger equivalent of the race card. Catholicism should not be used as an all-purpose escape hatch from responsibility for sociopathic behavior.
I can’t disagree with either of your comments.
That is very common what they do. I see it all over. I wonder if such manipulative tactics come natural to them or if they were trained in them.
good word, ‘manipulative’: it’s the exact same sort of behavior one gets from an emotional abuser or an addict. Very quick with the florid apologetics, that are all too soon belied by behavior. Even more poisonous is it that they use prayer and Christian tenets to paper over their abuse. I’m persuaded, however, that they are so mediocre that they are more dysfunctional than evil, although at some point the boundaries between those two become fuzzy.
As a blogger with a veritable and verified collection of disabling ailments (including one requiring TWO inhalers), I find Scalia’s begging off to be lame. You can’t simultaneously hide behind your owwies, and yet keep on blogging and twitting away all day– except to people you’ve written off. Beyond passive-aggressive: it’s sneaky and cowardly.
As noted above: *watch* what Scalia, Shea, Fisher and ilk DO– pull the full Alinsky on their fellow Christians, then dodge all reply, rebuke, correction, or evidence to the contrary. And engage in cognitive dissonance over V2 & popes, and blame the people asking about stuff as the real problem.
And I used to run a small blog-empire with a couple dozen first-class Anglican bloggers and authors. I never called them “mine”. Arrogant & self-satisfied is as arrogant and self-satisfied does. Christ is not being honoured or obeyed in such Lookatmeeeee ways & means.
Whew! So tired. You know, cuz puffers.
Lawrence Auster was dying of cancer and I don’t recall his writing (or responding to critics of his writing) slowing down. Suck it up, Scalia.
I’ve never been thrilled with the writers at Patheos. They’ve always come across as a little arrogant. I don’t like the tone they use towards other bloggers and then there’s the language. Catholic writers should control themselves and not swear. It’s such a basic, simple thing.
Anyway, I’m with you, buddy! Onward and upward.
I am sorry you are going through this Steve. Totally sucks. Its a good idea to set the record straight as we who sympathize with you are interested in your side of the story.
Shallow paid shills who gang up on whomever is the Victim of the Week bore me.
This scenario reminds me of that story of the feather pillow that demonstrates the insidious evil of gossip. Once the feathers are out of the pillow to scatter in the wind, it is impossible to gather them up.
Let these trials teach us not to gossip or risk our eternity on idle words. I know I still have lessons to learn in this area myself.
Keep up the great work !!! You are right on !!!
Steve, I’m with you. Your blog motivated me to start my own: http://stjohnstower.blogspot.com/ (please pardon the shameless self-promoting). I’m coming from a slightly different perspective, but I definitely share your objective.
What you’re suggesting reminds me of what Balthasar and Ratzinger attempted to do after “progressives” like Hans Kung hijacked V-2. Like them, we have to offer a dissenting view for the faithful. Failing that, the “Anchoress,” Winters, Fischer, Shea, and the whole merry band of Francis-worshipping gitchy-goofballs will recast the faith in an unfamiliar light, and thereby lead people to heterodoxy.
We’ll essentially be preaching from the internet equivalent of the caves of Ephesus and the Egyptian desert. But the Church Fathers held fast, once upon a time, and we need to follow their example.
Excelsior.
Hey man, shameless self-promotion is what makes the Internet go ’round.
Steve, despite this recent madness, you continue to be a voice of sanity in a crazy world.
Much of my Catholic education came from Patheos bloggers. I even own a Mark Shea book, and I used to read the Anchoress every day. I had a deep attraction to Tradition, however, and those bloggers always left me feeling a bit confused about my desire for Old Church. In one sentence they would applaud tradition and truth; in the next they would smack down a traditionalist with some flippant comment about their skirts, veils, vans full of homeschooled kids, scapulars, meatless Fridays, lack of Harry Potter books, etc. It was clear that they considered Traditionalists weird.
I was always taken aback by this because I thought that these voices were those of the most traditional, most faithful Catholics in BlogoLandia. I would look at my van full of homeschooled kids eating tuna sandwiches for Friday lunch with their scapulars on and having just prayed the noon Angelus and I would think, looks like I’m a freak. I didn’t know that I was a well-worn cliche in the minds of the neo-Cats. I never even knew what a neo-Cat was. I was just trying to be a Catholic and follow the same traditions, habits, and teachings that my grandmothers had followed.
Everything changed when Frances was elected. Everything. I just couldn’t read those blogs anymore. Frances was making sweeping changes every day, seemingly throwing Benadict under the bus with every comment he made. And those Patheos bloggers just kept saying, “oh, Frances didn’t really mean what he said. He doesn’t speak Italian so well, and the translation is very bad, and what he meant to say was…” That’s when I realized that those bloggers were not being honest. And what they were preaching was pretty much the same thing as any typical modernist.
Then I discovered that there were other great blogs out there (like this one) that simply wanted to be Catholic, and simply wanted to see the Church return to Her roots. It’s been a very painful year for many of us. But I know that I, for one, have learned more about the Church’s true teachings in this past year than in all the years I read Patheos (and pre-Patheos blogs) and that I have finally gotten over the insecurity I had to call myself a “Traditionalist.”
LaGallina, your misspelling of “Francis” as “Frances” probably says more about the man than you realize.
“I would look at my van full of homeschooled kids eating tuna sandwiches for Friday lunch with their scapulars on and having just prayed the noon Angelus”
Thank you. That picture just warms my heart!”
Well, I’m going to be the contrarian here. While this sort of thing can be annoying, obnoxious, hypocritical, intolerant, dishonest, unjust and ten other nasty things (even worse if you’re the explicit target of them), in the larger sense I don’t think it makes much difference. What do I mean by that? A few things:
1. Most people, even most “movers and shakers” in the Catholic world, do not read many of these blogs. Now, I suppose some of them might be influenced by these blogs at one remove, so to speak. But especially in that case, I can’t see how one’s uncensored rebuttal of some slander, even if it’s the most perfect, just and witty rebuttal in the history of the form would really change things. After all, it’s only going to be comment #149 out of 500. And after you make it, they’re just going to start at it again calling you a Holocaust denier who wants to stir up hate and impose Latin as this country’s official language, or whatever. That will drown out whatever you say, even if they let you say it.
2. Mark Shea is the “gatekeeper” to Mark Shea’s blog. If you think about it, that’s about the most pathetic title one could ever imagine. Ditto for the other Patheos bloggers. It’s miles away from the New York Times, circa 1989, 1999 or even 2009.
3. People that read these blogs are either tolerant and open-minded or they’re not. If they’re not, then again, whatever you say on their turf will not be appreciated or understood. You’ll still be the “angry trad.” NOTHING YOU SAY will change that for them. On the other hand, if they are fair-minded, then when Mark Shea says “Steve Skojec prays for the Pope’s death,” or whatever, even if you are denied representation on that venue, they’ll take the time to google “Steve Skojec” and (eventually) be exposed to an alternative set of data.
4. The best strategy for these guys would be to ignore you. Fortunately, they won’t. Either they just can’t resist, or the incentives of the internet marketplace make it difficult to form an “ignoring” cartel. A lot of people don’t really know there’s any traditionalist alternative to the current regime. Hard for us to understand, perhaps, but it’s true. Thus PR, even “bad” PR only helps.
Do not misunderstand. I’m not trying to be a Pollyanna or a “God will make it all right in the end” person (even though in the very very end, it’s true), or a “the magic of the internet will make it all right in the end” person. It’s a hard, tough fight. I’m don’t want to minimize the wrong of the lies told about you and others. In a smaller way, it’s been done to me and it really sucks. There’s nothing wrong (and everything right) about drawing attention to it. But I don’t think their intolerance and unfairness is the big thing.
The BIG thing is that eventually your blog or your Facebook page might be closed down on “hate speech” grounds, or whatever. Yeah, I think things are shaky enough now that I could see that happening. LifeSite news has long been under the real threat of this, through lawsuits and so on. Again, though, whether or not Patheos shuts your comments down is irrelevant in my view. Now if Shea, Scalia, Fischer and the others would squarely line up for the good guys, that would help. But I think that’s up to them, and I’m not sure how to influence it other than speaking the truth loudly and often in your own “keep”.
I hope you take this as encouragement. Your initial piece on the Pope, “It Doesn’t take a Rigorist” was seminal. The professional Neo-Catholic bloggers can’t touch it.
Thank You.
Thanks, Oakes. I always find your comments insightful and challenging (in the right sense of the word.)
My goal in writing is this was not because I think I will change the Fishers and Sheas of the world. It was severalfold:
– Refute the errors being spread about me
– Remind people how this kind of thing happens to bloggers who start out with good intentions
– Change the opinion of some of those who read these bloggers, or at least provide an alternative point of reference for those who have the good sense to Google me rather than believe the calumny
– Remind people like this that I will not be bullied and will not allow them to bully my friends. They aren’t the only ones with a platform.
It’s interesting that you mention the hate speech angle. Someone said to me yesterday (a non-Catholic at that) that they could see the kind of lies being spread about me (ie., I pray for the death of the pope) as the kind of thing which could get me investigated. I don’t know if we’re there yet, but who knows how far off we are from thoughtcrimes, whether or not we’re guilty of them.
On the other hand, if anyone has a lawsuit to file, it would be me. I have documented the slander, and those who think it’s a bright idea to continue spreading it might want to reconsider.
I don’t care if you call me an idiot. (At least half the time, it’s true.) But when you make specific and untrue charges targeted at diminishing my credibility and inciting anger toward me, you’ve stepped over the line.
Ultimately, I want to get back to unpacking this crisis and trying to understand what we can do, or at least what we should know. These internecine squabbles are a drain on time and energy and the goodwill of my readers, even if, as my children would say, “they started it!”
I disagree, I think these patheticos bloggers need visible pushback…and once they get it, do you see how they are utterly incapable of engagement? Any criticism whatsoever highlights their utter inability to debate (waah i’m sick!), which is anathema for a true catholic apologist. Patheticos are poseurs. Thanks to Mr. Skojec for posting stuff like this.
I threw away my Mark Shea books for one reason: he dismisses your observations with insult and disrespect. I’ve seen this type before. You make one step off the reservation and the sarcasm flame throwers are unleashed to intimidate anyone else from attempting independent thought, (“move along, nothing to see here”).
Mr. Skojec, I hope you don’t take it too personally. From an outsider’s perspective, it is easy to see what’s going on. You don’t have to explain yourself. The truth is clear on its own.
Holy Mother Church is in grave crisis and it is time for her defenders to step up. We need not wait for the Bishops, (cricket….cricket). The saints in heaven who came before us are watching intently. I act for them. I hope you also act for the unseen cloud of witnesses, and not the visible and vocal naysayers.
I don’t take it too seriously, but it does make me sad. I’ve seen the decency in him, too, and I wish it didn’t get lost in the histrionics and paranoia. We’re supposed to be playing for the same team.
Steve, I commend you for an excellent piece! I, too, have been a target of Mark Shea’s obsessive desire to destroy the reputations of those who disagree with him vehemently. The man is pure evil; he would be more at home in the USSR as a KGB operative or in Nazi Germany as a Gestapo operative.
What’s more important, however, is that you have hit the nail on the head with forceful torque when it comes to the Internet in general. Within 20 years, the First Amendment (as it pertains to speech) effectively will be a memory. That’s because we live in an age in which any disagreeable response on line can be deleted, and any person who writes such a response can be blocked. It doesn’t matter whether the parties involved are Catholic. People don’t have to contend with ideas or people they don’t like. They don’t have to have mistaken impressions corrected. The problem is that many young people have adopted this mindset. Those same young people will walk the halls of political and media power in pretty short order. God help us all!
As they say, the only thing George Orwell got wrong was the year.
Your story about the chaplain at Franciscan is disconcerting. I have often wondered if the clergy which serve us this liturgical potluck know precisely what they are doing and are self-consciously up to no good or if they are just being accommodating to the vulgarian caucus on the parish council. My old traditionalist priest told me ‘we’re trying, not yet’ when I asked him about plainchant in the main service – i.e. the parish council was a problem.
I don’t know, but it was a formative experience. My first taste of what was to come.
I’m thankful that no lasting damage seems to have been done to Hilary and hopefully, many eyes have been opened about the Patheos crowd. I’m also glad that you haven’t gotten a ton of comments about “two wrongs don’t make a right” as if you shouldn’t defend someone who’s been maligned. I hate when a bully attacks, a defender comes in and both get reprimanded.
Remember Father Corapi? That’s what tipped me off to the Pantheos crowd.
You know we’re with you.
The attack on Hilary had to be stopped. Going forward though, you’re right to ignore — as much as possible — the sniping and keep putting the truth out there. You never know who may be ready to hear what you say.
I’m a newcomer to this blog, having been brought here by Pewsitter. I like it and plan on being a regular visitor.
My daughter is also a Franciscan alum and, in fact, is now there in graduate school. I, too, was a bit troubled by some of the liturgical, uhh, “characteristics” there. She began there as a veil wearing, Latin speaking 17 year old. She came through four years there with all of that intact and, in fact, had grown very much in the Faith. All in all, the school was good for her. It seems they did a good job with you as well.
Keep up the good work
Thanks for stopping by, Jason!
“I.Am.Unwell”.
Finally, Scalia has written something I can agree with…
I think we live in a time when it is almost imperative to put on record the truth, if not for the present, for the future when the dust has settled and the history of this time and its people will be written.
The Patheos Catholic writers are often very talented, but perhaps not sure of the answer to this question: What is truth? Or, being sure of it, they turn from it in order to please their masters or for other base motives. Sometimes they remind me of the worst of high school…the popular clique who felt so secure in their superiority and entitlement that they acted without any true thought for the consequences.
I must have read Shea only once and when I realized he did not know the difference between a chanted Proper Introit (whether in Latin or English) and the hymn “Amazing Grace,” I realized he was an ignoramus, so I never went back to his site.
Scalia – I read a bit more often, until the Corapi fiasco. She claimed she has never heard of Fr. Corapi, not from the news, not from any source, not from EWTN, not from anybody. She didn’t know him nor cared he even existed, yet she went ahead and commented on his work. I knew then she was an intellectual snob. So goodbye.
But with you, Steve – I’m all the way. There’s even a blogger (can’t remember his name now) commenting on your piece about the possibility of having an antipope, who opines that those who don’t agree with the pope’s teachings judge him according to their OWN understanding of the faith. I wanted to tell him – not necessarily. A pope’s teachings can only be measured against the magisterium of the long line of popes before him.
But I don’t know how to negotiate the comment box’s “WordPress, Google, Twitter, Open ID” thingy, so I couldn’t defend you. Here at least in your blog, there are no such hurdles.
God bless you, Steve, and continue your apostolate. You’re a great blessing to us.
Unfortunately, Patheos has become a parody of itself. I get it — they’ve built a portal which requires name recognition in order to maintain its credibility and subsequent revenue stream. But it wasn’t long before thoughtful posts became self-congratulatory advertisements for other Patheos bloggers and book releases, further fueled by fawning combox flunkies who would pick up the Taser and take down skeptics in a heartbeat if they dared question the Original,Infallible Post.
Because we’re all too human, a few of the bloggers themselves (note: I said a FEW, not all) would become embroiled in the combox wars and begin picking up the Taser with less and less discretion. (The preferred method is public shaming and pile-on) After they turned on their commentators, a few went after other bloggers, such as Mr. Skojec and Michael Voris with feats of condescension heretofore unseen.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about so-and-so’s work that takes place outside the hallowed URLs of Patheos, turning on other Catholics with breathtaking amounts of hypocritical bilge water spewed in the name of whatever sticks in their craw that day is not a hallmark of professionalism. Taking to Facebook and turning it into a tag-teaming, farcical, unprovoked attack of verbal diarrhea on another writer is not a hallmark of professionalism. Apparently the “tent” is only big enough for their knee-jerk reactions. Which is very saddening to see. No one doubts their fidelity to the faith, but if these are the people working in the proverbial “field hospital”, I’ll pass on their brand of treatment.
Perhaps this was bound to happen. But I find it ironic that The Thing That Used To Be Patheos has become more reactionary than the reactionaries they claim to expose.
@tm30: incisive post. I am sure that’s not what you meant but I wanted to comment that I do not see Mr. Skojec and Mr. Voris in the ‘same camp’.
Correct, I was not implying that. Just naming some favorite targets.
I just now realized what not having a personal engagement account and not spending enough time on twitter deprives me of.
Interesting article Steve. I would love you hear your thoughts on Catholic internet aggregates – The Big Pulpit, New Advent, Pewsitter, Top Catholic Blogs, and a few ect.
I’m mostly familiar with Pewsitter. I think they’re doing a fantastic job linking to the stories that matter, even when they’re at smaller outlets.
I do not read Patheos and not about to start now! I rather liked Mr. Shea earlier in my reconversion and then I met him. And now his vitriol and attacks on others by name really leave me cold. I will never read him.
And, over the years, and learning what liturgical abuse is, I have begun more and more to long for the fullness of our beautiful traditions. I can attend a TLM sometimes and would prefer it if that were possible. I want to see reverence, holiness, and true Catholic teaching. I know those things are not so popular in places and the Vatican is not smiling on those who like all the traditional aspects of the Church, especially the liturgy. The persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate shows that quite well.
For the record, I did not find a thing wrong with Hilary’s reporting. It was a good, thoroughly researched article. I also support Life Site News and I am not just saying that because I’ve written for them in the past.
You don’t deserve to be lumped in with most of the other Patheos writers any more than Pat Archbold (may he rest in peace) deserves to be lumped in with the rest of the Register crowd.
Fr. Longnecker seems like he was speaking with uncommon clarity on some of the present issues, but his last attempt at satire — directly making fun of what I wrote here in defense of Hilary, I should add — was a real turnoff. Especially from a priest who a lot of people look up to and who seems to have a solid head for liturgy.
Every rule has its exceptions. I certainly don’t defend all the bloggers in the tradosphere. People are people, not categories. But sometimes mobs congregate where there is nothing to deter them.
Steve, I have *no* respect for Fr. Longenecker. He might not be Mark Shea or Simcha Fisher when it comes to the style of responding to opposing views but he doesn’t handle contrary opinions well, and he’s just as stubborn as they Shea and Fisher. His boilerplate defenses are just more amusing to read than theirs.
The problem with a lot of bloggers that they view themselves as too precious by half, as it were. They see themselves as budding Chestertons (Shea) or view blogs as their outlet for frustrated professional dreams (Fr. Longenecker).
I have to say, Crescat, I find your blog the least hive-mind-like on the Catholic portal on Patheos. There really is a very limited range of perspectives there, and when anything contentions comes up, they do tend to circle the wagons.
Uh my comment on your post “Can we please talk about the Pope…” never made it. It was about the Pope’s theology that I find strange and novel and wanted to see if someone could explain it:
“And Jesus, when he goes to heaven, carries there a gift for the Father. Have you thought about this? What is the gift that Jesus brings to the Father? His wounds,” the Pope told the crowds filling St. Peter’s Square on June 1.
“And when he goes to the Father, he says to the Father, ‘look, Father: this is the price of forgiveness you give. And when the Father sees Jesus’ scars, he always forgives us.”
Sorry @Crescat, it appears that comments with links go into moderation queue …
I, too, am new to your blog, Steve and keep up the great work! it’s amazing what you find out when you start digging. This is what happens when you stand up for Truth; it’s hard to do and people have no problem slinging everything they’ve got at you.
I’ve always admired Michael Voris’ videos; I find myself agreeing with 99% of all he says. I see what’s happening to our church and it disgusts me. I live in crowded NJ and there isn’t a Latin mass within 30 miles of me!
I’ve known about these “others” for some time now; as Catholics we are asked to live as our Lord would. “I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” With Mary’s help, that’s all we can do.
I feel sorry for you if the Novus Ordo has ever satisfied you.
I couldn’t agree more. Keep up the good work.
Steve! There is a reason I always went to St Pete’s for Mass in downtown Steubie. My first time there was the first time I heard the Agnus Dei sung at a Mass EVER in my life! Too bad I graduated a year before you. Would have loved to see that article in the Troub.
It becomes much easier to deal with useful idiots like Shea and Scalia when the following truth is fully absorbed: Unconsciously or not, they’re practitioners of a new religion. The novelties of this new religion include, but are far from limited to, a new council (one of a predominantly pastoral character, designed to place the Church in tune with the world rather than to convert the world), a new ecumenism (an ecumenism of convergence, jettisoning the old ecumenism of return), a new ecumenical worship service (fabricated by a Freemason in consultation with six Protestant ministers), a correspondingly new conception of the priesthood (the priest as mere presider), a new ecclesiology (democratized, rule from the bottom up), a new kind of incense (“the smoke of Satan having penetrated through some fissure in the sanctuary” as Pope Paul VI admitted), new pan-religious events (as at the scandals of Assisi, placing the Pope on the same level as voodoo con artists and affirming every kind of heathen and heretic in their errors), a new cult of youth (as shown at the ridiculous World Youth Days and the absurd YOUCAT), a new brand of papacy (the celebrity papacy, about winning the applause of the world and spreading the new gospel of universal salvation), a new code of canon law, new standards of canonization (low, loose, inclusive), a new catechism (fully in line with the new Spirit of the Council and its New Springtime, animated by a New Pentecost), yet another new kind of papacy (that of the militantly miserablist and hip Pope Francis the Groovy, he of the self-described “emancipated formation,” to be contrasted with the traditional formation of clerics of old). More could be mentioned.
WOW!!! If I could have hit that ‘like’ button a thousand times, I would have (I tried :))
Your comment deserves a post of its own….outstanding.
It becomes much easier to deal with those useful idiots known as NeoCatholics when the following truth is fully absorbed: Unconsciously or not, they’re practitioners of a new religion. The novelties of this new religion include, but are definitely not limited to, a new council (one of a predominantly pastoral character, designed to place the Church in tune with the world rather than to convert the world), a new ecumenism (an ecumenism of convergence, jettisoning the old ecumenism of return), a new ecumenical worship service (fabricated by a Freemason in consultation with six Protestant ministers), a correspondingly new conception of the priesthood (the priest as mere presider), a new ecclesiology (democratized, rule from the bottom up), a new kind of incense (“the smoke of Satan having penetrated through some fissure in the sanctuary” as Pope Paul VI admitted), new pan-religious events (as at the scandals of Assisi, placing the Pope on the same level as voodoo con artists and affirming every kind of heathen and heretic in their errors), a new cult of youth (as shown at the ridiculous World Youth Days and the absurd YOUCAT), a new brand of papacy (the celebrity papacy, about winning the applause of the world and spreading the new gospel of universal salvation), a new code of canon law, new standards of canonization (low, loose, inclusive), a new catechism (fully in line with the new Spirit of the Council and its New Springtime, animated by a New Pentecost), yet another new kind of papacy (that of the militantly miserablist and hip Pope Francis the Groovy, he of the self-described “emancipated formation,” to be contrasted with the traditional formation of clerics of old). More could be mentioned.
ok…Jackson, Alphonsus, whatever….GREAT comment.
Thanks Susan. It wish it were all false. It’s a crying shame, as if Shakespeare were directing the following lines directly at our age:
Age, thou art shamed.*
O shame, where is thy blush?**
-Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**
I’ve been contemplating the creation of a venn diagram that shows Catholicism on one side and novusordoism (for lack of a better term) on the other, and the narrow overlapping section in the middle.
I think it would be informative.
That would be interesting. I’ve seen charts like this, but not a Venn diagram.
Sorry for the duplicated comment by the way. When I thought my first comment didn’t go through, I then posted it again under this account.
No worries. A few comments got caught in the spam filter and I didn’t see them until a little while ago.
Here’s a start:
Catholicism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po5LZpGSN-k
Novusordoism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LySWnuC5dY
Mesage of Catholicism: Inside every religious is a heart set apart for God, a heart consecrated to offer Him the praise He is due.
Message of Novusordoism: Inside every religous is a scantily clad dancer who just wants to sing pops songs for the entertainment of the world.
Clear enough?
Thanks for those links Brian. I never watched the “nun” before as it seemed sacreligious to do so, but gave it a brief try in your comparitive suggestion.
Surely she is just dressed up and has not taken vows. Surely she is not a Sister. She is wearing the Cross of our Lord! I lasted precisely 1 minute 23 seconds.
We will pay a heavy price for blasphemy like this unless the Church, as a body, says ENOUGH, no more! Silence is consent.
WHERE ARE OUR SHEPHERDS!
P.S. I once had a chance to see Contmplatives in person as they moved from one cloister to a new cloister in a different State, (their order is growing). I met them with my Priest as they moved into their new cloister. One thing that I will always remember is the JOY that emenated out of the pores of their skin, and a light like I’d never seen in their eyes. I had never seen such a thing before. Pure joy as we will one day have in full in the presence of Glory. I noticed that same quality in the contemplative in the other video. This is what Christians stand for. We bring joy, true joy, to the world. Not the false smiles of degenerate fools prancing around a stage honoring the lord of the world.
May I comment that I do not see Mr. Skojec and Mr. Voris in the same camp. In summary, I wrote to Mr. Voris, and this was before Pope Francis, that he came across disrespectful to Bishops. Pope Francis is here and his lips are sealed …
For me it is a balance and always looking to the LORD: the 4th commandment and the respect of fathers (including the Pope) and respectfully disagreeing with them.
I suspect that the evil one has gotten to the papacy, the head, hence the seriousness of the crisis, and then has sprung all these very apparent subsequent snares.
read your comment – you are doing worse! If you saw Pius XI chomping on his cigar acting like a grouch you’d probably have snidely remarked about him too. Francis has been legitimately elected, there seems to be no debate about that. He’s our Pope and brings a lot to bear on the present time that is challenging and highly instructive. Are you scandalized by him? Imagine if Pope John-Paul I had had a longer tenure? I see Francis as fulfilling this same role as John-Pail I…practice charity, do good, pray and trust the Lord, seek peace, love your enemy, suffer persecution and pray for your persecutors. Francis is strong on the Beatitudes, even if shoddy about academics. He’s the horse before the cart.
The most damnable lie is the one that contains mostly truth with the really nasty lie mixed in but concealed by language or de-emphasis. The devil is the father of lies, and I imagine that the devil’s best ones don’t come across as lies at all. That’s why Eve took the bite. That’s why Jesus suffered in the wilderness as He considered the tempter’s offer, he suffered because he did NOT bite.
In the same way, who can argue against what you propose here: peace, love, doing good etc. Sounds nice. It has been the same way with Pope Francis. He uses the language of our faith, but with something very puzzling mixed in; almost always a caveat. That caveat seems to me the primary thing to consider as our language of faith is being turned, subtly but swiftly, away from Tradition.
One simple point as one example among many: The Eucharist for those living in grave sin. It is presented as an act of MERCY and LOVE. Who is against mercy and love? Well, uh, the devil. So the Princes of Holy Mother Church are going to gravely consider and discuss an issue that should be rejected in a moment by any faithful Christian. How? A topic anathema to our faith is packaged for consumption in the virtues Mercy and Love.
The choice presented to us is false, and it is this: If you love your adulterous neighbor you want them to receive Jesus, no matter what they have done or are doing. The TRUE path is this: if you love your neighbor you want him to REPENT and TURN so that he can TRULY (not falsely) receive Jesus.
By this does the first step of salvation …… REPENTANCE …… come tumbling down and in its wake does unlimited sin breach the walls of our Church entering into our Holy of Holies, the Tabernacle itself. By this we know the subtle power of the devil’s temptation of our first mother: “Did God really say ….?” “Hmmmm. Let’s consider and discuss that in committee.”
In the name of “love” falsely understood, our Faith is undermined and the Ark floating on troubled waters is breached. Against that subtle lie we Faithful must resist .
Mahalo @Brian Offer!
That this Pope cannot be bad even when we have had bad Popes is beyond me ….
@mortimerzilch it is you who (mis)reads my comment …
The Pope is Papa (father).
There is a difference between a son who says, ‘father please give us our daily bread as you ought’ (and children do know when they are not being fed (see @dymphnaw below) vs. ‘father, I hate you for not providing for us as you ought’.
The latter then is illustrative of the devil then ensnaring both the father and his son.
Judas Iscariot was the one “who dips into the dish with me”, that is, treats Jesus without reverence, without giving Jesus pride of place, without recognizing His divinity, but treating him as another one of the guys.
I, for one, am grateful for the Patheos controversy, because it has led me to your blog. This post is an excellent introduction to a new reader. Or this reader, in any case.
As a blogger myself, I’ve struggled to find the right tone over the past year, and subsequently blogged less and less. The reason, I think, is that my views have changed. They no longer conform to the “pope’s in charge and everything is fine!” orthodoxy, so I’ve adopted an unsatisfactory silence.
The Patheos fare, which once I loved — particularly The Anchoress — is no longer satisfying. The notable exception is The Crescat. Meanwhile, Fr Ray Blake’s posts are getting better and better. Always thoughtful, often provocative, but seldom polished and never comprehensive. The same could be said about Kat’s writing.
Maybe that’s the key to blogging. Sometimes, a blog post can resemble an essay. This very post is a case in point. But more usually, blogging lends itself to the embryonic thought, the work in progress, the conversation starter.
If I ever start blogging seriously again, it’ll be along the lines of your effort. God bless you, and your apostolate.
Father, thank you for your comment. It helped me a great deal. I hope you do start blogging again.
So true what you say about gatekeepers. Used to read Shea almost daily a few years back, but then he seemed to go off the rails. Haven’t been back; don’t intend to go back (life’s too short for such obviously biased journalism). Same with most of the Patheos bloggers.
I second your nomination as gatekeeper (along with a couple others – codg, Zippy, Louie V and Mundabor). If I ever come to the conclusion you’ve gone off the rails I promise to let you know.
Good. Keep me accountable.
Mundabor was predicting (‘prophesying’) something happening to the Pope as he was canonizing Pope John XIII and Pope John Paul II.
This and other place his credentials as gatekeeper on shaky ground.
I don’t want anymore gatekeepers. It’s time for lay people to grow up. Folks, read for yourself what Pope Francis said. It’s usually on the Vatican site and then check out the commentary. Read for yourself the encyclicals–the older ones before JPII are actually pretty plain spoken and easy to understand. Read church history and study the Faith yourself. Don’t settle for being spoon fed spiritual pap from Scalia,(whom I used to like years ago),Shea, Fisher and the others. You don’t need them to tell you what the Faith is. In 2000 years we have been blessed with thousands of powerful saints who left us their writing. Seek that out.
This is the best approach. Still, many people will be overwhelmed and not know where to look. Gatekeepers serve a role, even if it’s only to help narrow down the options and point you in the right direction when you’ve got other, more important things to do (like a raise a family) and don’t have the ability to play academic researcher all day.
Maybe they need a new term. We don’t need to go through their particular gate, but they do help us find the things we’re looking for.
@dymphnaw: A book that was helpful to me: Glimpses of the Church Fathers | Caire Russell | Scepter
I’m grateful for the venue, but I think it’s getting a bit Skojec-centric in here! Remember, they attack you, Steve, your friend At Lifesitenews, and the rest of us because of what we believe. They cannot argue reasonably against Traditional ecclesiology, liturgy, or catechetics. That’s why they slander with personal vitriol. So, in that way their attack against you, or anyone else, is not personal, but standard. We’ve all experienced it arguing against their NEW ORDER on their sites and blogs, that is, before cursing us and blocking our response. Their malfeasance has 125 year-old track record tracing back to the “Americanist” heresy condemned by Pope Leo XIII, thru St. Pius X valiant efforts to suppress the esoteric-modernist attack against The Faith in Catholic academe, and finally it’s full deceptive ascent in a “pastoral” council. These jokers have a record spanning five decades now. All they can do is shoot the messenger, put lipstick on a pig, a gold ring in it’s snout, and insist we all adore the Emperor and His New Clothes (Our Lord warns in Revelation 3:19 to go buy the right clothes, with the right heart, less you be found shameful in your nakedness.) I applaud fidelity among friends, but the battle here is far greater than a light Shakespearean melodrama about the importance of civil discourse. The real battle here is far more Epoch. Some mystics believe we are living in the Fifth Epic of the Church categorized by Our Lord’s words to The Church In Sardis. “You who have the reputation of being alive, but are dead. Awake and strengthen what remains and is at the point of death..” These are extraordinary times. Secular and Church history show us, that in times such as these, culminate either in a Ninevah-type repentance or a Sodom and Gomorrah-like destruction. The paramount goal, presently, is not to figuratively break bread with an estranged “separated brother”, but in helping Avenging Angels find those 10 souls necessary to save the City of Man from an angry, indignant City of God. SALVE REGINA MATER MISERICORDIA ORA PRO NOBIS!
“but I think it’s getting a bit Skojec-centric in here!”
The ever present temptation. Perhaps why some bloggers lost their way.
That’s why they are called ‘the Seven Deadly Sins’. Some have evidently been on display …
I mean, the blog *IS* eponymous. Just sayin’.
But there’s a reason why I’ve only dedicated two posts to this topic.
TL:DR I just did a search through the document to get to Shea. I guess you’ve found out that there’s a kind of collusion going on between various bloggers on the payroll of the USCCB/EWTN boondoggle who’ve been posing as conservative Catholics all these years.
Tancred, can you provide more info on this?