Hilary White and Reactionary Language and “Reasoning”

Pope Benedict XVI waves as he leads an audience with Neocatechumenal Way faithful in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican...Pope Benedict XVI waves as he leads an audience with Neocatechumenal Way faithful in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican January 10, 2009. REUTERS/Alessia Pierdomenico (VATICAN)

“Papologist” Dave Armstrong. Hey, if every radical Catholic reactionary can be their own pope, why not me, too?

* * * * *

Readers who follow this blog will recall two recent articles of mine [one / two] about radical Catholic reactionary Hilary White, who writes for The Remnant, and formerly for Lifesite News. We actually got along well (on a personal level) in our interactions here, but she certainly gave no quarter to my viewpoints in opposition to reactionaryism. In her view, I am a “Novusordoist” (apparently her own coined term; a bit like the popular reactionary epithet, “Neo-Catholic”) and now I am part of the group that she describes by the term, “papologist” as well (not one who studies papas, but rather, one who habitually defends the supposedly indefensible: Pope Francis). Hence her recent article that mentioned my name, among other fellow “Novusordoists”:

I think we’ve all had pretty much enough of the quislings and Vichys and their desperation, don’t you?

New What’s Up With Francis-Church policy:

Rejected posts and comments correcting the stupid crap of the papologists – the Akins, the Armstrongs (sorry Dave, I know we’re pals now), the Sheas, the Coffins, the Zeds – may come here and get an airing. Consider me a haven. A safe space, as the kids call it now. If you responded to something idiotic, dangerous, wrong, insane, contradictory, heretical or just plain stupid and got deleted, blocked or otherwise cast out, send me the comment in one of our WUWFC commboxes, together with the thing you’re responding to, and perhaps a link, and we’ll see about making it a post of its own.

Maybe at the end of the month, your own personal contribution to the Great Papologist Brushoff will be included as an official square in a new WUWFC papologist-excuse bingo card!

(Bring me your rejected, your outcast, your deleted and blocked…, What’s Up With Francis-Church?, 2-19-16; tagged on her site by “Oh what the hell … we’re effed anyway”)

Ten days earlier in another article, Hilary expanded upon her notion of “papologists” (the ones currently at the receiving end of a vehement, full, mocking assault by the reactionaries):

At the beginning of this speech she [Mother Angelica] recites the creed of the American Novusordoist conservatives: Vatican II was wonderful, but those wicked “liberals” highjacked it for their own evil purposes. It is a position that tried to create the compromise space that many American Catholics have tried to live in ever since.

It was this reasonable, nice, friendly, ecumenical position that made it possible for the Catholic leaders of the original pro-life movement of the 70s and 80s to draw in the conservative Protestants; all on the mutual unspoken agreement that we would set aside and never mention the irreconcilable breach between us. It is this false position, this “conservative” middle ground, founded on the new pseudo-doctrine of papal positivism that is now being closed with a resounding clang by the current regime. The old nostrum, the central conservative Novusordoist error of papal positivism: “I’m with the pope and whatever the pope says goes,” is being shown to be a false turn now.

. . . There are “liberals” of the Mahoney/Danneels/Bernardin ilk; the whole spectrum of Traditionalists from the SSPX to the Remnant followers (sedes are in a class of their own); and the conservatives, represented by the George Weigel/First Things/EWTN variety. Among these last have fallen the little group of what we have come to call Papal Apologists – the self-appointed priesthood who have tasked themselves with interpreting and explaining away Pope Francis’ every incomprehensible Pythian utterance.

But this third group, the ones who offered such a pleasing compromise, are the ones who are currently suffering the most. They are the ones who, having adopted the Conservative Novusordoist Creed recited by Mother Angelica at the start of that speech, are now thrown into confusion, frantically denying what is unfolding before their eyes because it fails to fit into their parameters.

I’ve been noting for over fifteen years now that the defining characteristics of the radical Catholic reactionary are ubiquitous antipathy towards and bashing of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass, and the current pope. The “papologists” are the most despised among the ones that Hilary calls “Novusordoists”: as these hostile words from a post, dated 2-24-16, attest:

Steve [Skojec] writes that the people who are still desperately trying to spin Francis and his pontificate as “fine, just fine,” are not our friends. They are, in fact, the mortal enemies of our souls and the souls of everyone we love. . . . This isn’t kid’s stuff, folks. This is the pope, the Vicar of Christ, lying about/misrepresenting the moral law, the teaching of Christ Himself, and leading millions – billions – into mortal sin and everlasting perdition. This is why we’re moving forward. And why it’s no more Mrs. Nicetrad.

Lest anyone think that Hilary’s antipathy is only towards Pope Francis, here she proves that she denies the orthodoxy also of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II (from 2-21-16):

[T]his is where we are in the Church these days nearly 50 years after Humanae Vitae and after over 35 years of “conservative” and “orthodox” popes.

But getting back to the first post: it seems as if those whom I blacklisted or deleted in my comboxes have found a place (a reactionary psychiatric couch, if you will) where they can air their grievances, laying their exasperated heads on the compassionate bosom of Mama Hilary, pouring out their trenchant analyses: stuff like how much [tons of filthy lucre!] money I supposedly make, due to the pay-per-hit policies at Patheos [94 cents an hour, average, folks], how “no one” ever reads my writings, and how, if I dare to note that I have nine book royalty contracts, plus article contracts, and somehow make a perfectly adequate  living as a writer that no one reads, I am filled with “pride” etc. All of that silliness was part of the combox aforementioned. It’s an Ellis Island / Statue of Liberty-like “haven” and “safe space” for these  huddled [old] masses of poor, pitiful, put-upon reactionary trollers and would-be preachers.

Hilary knows that she was given full access to reply to my articles about her on my site. I even collected our exchanges and made a second post so that her words would get even more exposure on my site than they already received. That will hold true for this post as well. C’mon over, Hilary. I won’t delete you [she has already shown up in the combox below].

I am happy to suspend my own completely rational and self-consistent [linked at the top of my blog] Discussion Policy regarding reactionaries [non-allowance of pope-bashing, Vatican II-bashing, Novus Ordo-bashing, trollers, and insulters] in order to give Hilary free speech on my blog, to respond to my critiques of her. But rest assured that I would delete folks like your friend Jack (see below), because I actually promote Catholic standards of discourse in my venue, and moderate accordingly.

The funniest thing of all is the sort of comment she allows on her site.  Here is an example that is an absolute classic; one for the ages. I could write 101 papers about how reactionaries are so often angry, anal-retentive, filled with irrational, misguided angst, etc.: that this is part and parcel of the conspiratorial, pharisaical, condescending mentality, and I could never hope to convey what this one guy (“Jack”) does in his ranting, raving rage, in reply to someone else, not me [I’ve bleeped out profanities, but if even that offends you, don’t read the following indented citation]:

[S]top waving your freaking finger and scolding. So Catholics questioning this pope are the ones that are causing more scandal and “tipping shakey Catholics over the edge”? Are you f***ing insane? We’re told not to worry about what the pope says on an airplane, but a comment in a combox is going to drive people from the Church? And stop with the “prayerfully understand” crap, too. You don’t try to “prayerfully understand” evil. You condemn it, loudly, and from the rooftops. Take your faggoty “rush to judgement” s*** somewhere else you f***ing coward. I’m sick of gay priests, fag-hiding bishops, and heretic popes, and most of all, flying monkeys like you who try to defend them. Enough! I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.

That’s the reactionary spirit, folks: summed up very nicely! We have the “spirit of ’76” and “spirit of America” (a great old Beach Boys song); even “teen spirit” (like the famous Nirvana song), and, indeed, The Holy Spirit: God Himself. This nonsense shows you in a nutshell what you need to know about radical Catholic reactionaries. Now, Hilary, being infinitely more sophisticated than this crude and brutish loudmouth, uses humor and wit to express her anger and contempt, but rest assured that the latter is there: dripping through every patronizing observation about the Church and faithful Catholics who aren’t reactionaries (us despised “papologists” being targeted with particular ire). This guy’s “not going to take it anymore.” You know the type . . . I just thought some of my readers might be interested in the undiluted Real Thing. He “let it all hang out” in a sort of “spiritual debauchery”: for lack of a more descriptive term. What he said, in any event, speaks loudly and clearly.  I’m just trying to deal with my own head-shaking amazement at it, by describing it.

This is the type of comment that Hilary thinks is fine and dandy for her venue. These are her cronies and buddies; comrades-in-arms. Any idiotic thing goes, and any language whatsoever. She stated in her post about commenting rules: “Bad Swears will be considered on a case by case basis.” Obviously, Jack-in-the-[com]box must have passed muster and Hilary considered him an extraordinary specimen, who is, you see, superior (and immune) to the normal considerations of civil discourse that the rest of us mere Novusordoists and non-elitists live by.

I guess the priests who celebrate Tridentine Masses all swear like sailors, huh? “Real macho Catholic men use gutter language.” Perhaps these priests do it in their homilies, as good examples to the flock? Alas, when I went to the Old Mass last Christmas, our priest didn’t swear in the pulpit. We must get him up to speed. He must be a very unspiritual person. To condemn the wicked “flying monkeys” et al, one must use pungent language. Time’s short! No place for [verbal] wimps! Besides, Jack the Ripper’s target was all of us wicked non-reactionaries, so anything truly goes.  That’s why Hilary thought his comments were altogether worthy for her venue. Very telling, isn’t it? All joking and tweaking aside, though, I’ve never seen a more striking or quintessential exhibition of the very worst aspects of the paranoid and hyper-judgmental reactionary mindset.

Speaking of ironies: everyone is up in arms about Donald Trump’s occasional vulgarities or swear words. I generally agree with their complaints. I don’t use this language at all on my site, don’t allow it in comments, and I think it’s stupid and unnecessary: especially in a presidential candidate. I read someone today (referring to Trump), saying that we live in a vulgar and increasingly crude age. But here we have this guy, who fancies himself as an example of a true-blue “traditionalist” [what reactionaries always call themselves] Catholic, an example to us peasants who don’t have the dimmest understanding of what a Catholic ought to be like, and how he ought to conduct himself as the salt of the earth and light of the world, and he talks like this???!!! A mere politician and billionaire real estate tycoon is expected to talk in PG terms, yet in the Catholic world and much higher spiritual realm: St. Augustine’s City of God, this is how we communicate with each other? Truly, it is a Strange New World. As Ebenezer Scrooge said, “I’ll retire to Bedlam.”

In other Hilary news, in a post dated 2-21-16, she expressed her high regard for the “papologists”: “I’ve been forgetting to include this guy in my daily prayers for the conversion of the professional papologists. There’s only so much willful stupidity one can take…” Well, yeah, I know. But hey, she’s praying for us “papologists.” Our friend, the inimitable “Jack” [the Ripper] chimed in here, too, in the combox [strong and offensive language warning again]:

Hilarious. They’ll “accompany”, “integrate into the life of the Church”, and “caress” (whatever the hell that entails) any unrepentant fag, dyke, transqueer, “divorced and remarried” (otherwise known as adulterer and whore), twisted, rebellious, dissident, heretical, schismatic, evil, child buggering freak they can find.

More quintessential, gold standard / blue ribbon reactionaryism for ya! Stop for a minute and try to imagine our Lord Jesus speaking in these terms. This guy sounds like those nuts that go to funerals and have the signs that say, “God hates ***s”. This is a real, live person in our own Catholic ranks [albeit in extreme, reactionary backwaters], and Hilary thinks his comments are great, and would never dream of deleting them!

"Patrick: where in scripture does it say that Mary accepted Jesus and received salvation? Scripture ..."

Sinless Mary: Dialogue w Old Testament ..."
"Patrick, if you read the post I was replying to, you would know I was ..."

Sinless Mary: Dialogue w Old Testament ..."
"I responded to Dave's grocery list of alternate readings of Romans 13:4 over at Ed ..."

Romans 13:4 & Capital Punishment (Contra ..."
"The early Church Fathers taught that Mary was the New Eve and the Ark of ..."

Sinless Mary: Dialogue w Old Testament ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment