Catholic Blogs & Charity – UPDATED

My Tuesday Column is up; today I pick up on the discussions begun yesterday, at Deacon’s Bench, America Magazine, Inside Catholic and elsewhere over Rachel Zoll’s AP piece on the “purge” mentality exhibited on some (in my view extreme) Catholic blogs.

Having blogged about religion and politics for nearly 6 years, I acknowledge that one can occasionally “write mad” and deliver a bit more zing than one has meant to, although I personally have never gone after other bloggers pronouncing who should “stay” and who should “go,” which is what the gist of my piece is about. Determining the state of someone else’s soul is none of my business, and I’m not interested in going there.

Yes, there are extreme Catholic bloggers, “progressive” and “conservative,” who tread recklessly upon their fellow Catholics, and whose motto should read ego usus a blog quod ego sum fortis utor is. Yes, there are a handful of extreme Catholic bloggers to whom Jesus might say, “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy. . .’.”

And, because they are extreme types, they will each assume that that line is meant for the “others”—the ones against whom they burnish the swords of righteousness; the ones they lampoon, often, unto snotty incoherence.

In fact, the line is meant for every one of us writing in the Catholic blogosphere, for no one manages perfect charity all the time. I am too cognizant of my own failings to believe I have any business drumming anyone else out of the church and I would venture that most Catholic bloggers, either “progressive” or “conservative,” feel similarly.

We add to the broken body of Christ when we try to judge who is the “better sort” of Catholic, or who is doing damage to that body. We all do impressive jobs of bringing “scandal” to the church by our very passionate need to see things “made right” (as we see it) and by the ways in which we indict each other’s imperfections.

I’ve never called anyone a “heretic” and I don’t like seeing others do it. I don’t like seeing people referred to as “Taliban Catholics” either. It seems to me there is a basic measure of human respect we Catholic bloggers should be able to manage between ourselves, for the sake of heaven. And yes, I accuse myself, first.

My clumsy thoughts are here.

Now THIS is anti-Catholicism at its best! Or, given the update, just a really dumb ad. Then again, it was dumb before, too.

Lisa Graas notes that people still believe what they read in the newspapers, and she has a good roundup of Catholic sites.

Insight Scoop has more thoughts on the AP piece

On a somewhat related note: Danielle Bean, writing over that the WaPo (I do believe she is the hardest-working mom-blogger on the ‘net) looks at “sanity” and faith. I frankly don’t understand how someone can look at the Catholic church’s commitment to knowledge in her universities, her commitment to science (Vatican observatory began in the early 20th century) and suggest that faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

The other side of that: Kathryn Jean Lopez
with a fine piece on the faith of Stephen Colbert, which you’ll really want to read.

Chilean Miners: The “Catholic faith was everywhere…”

More: On Being the Adult in the Room

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Anchoress | A First Things Blog --

  • JCD

    Real Catholic TV and AMP are excellent. The blogosphere needs more truth speakers like these two, not the middle of the road, people pleasers. I think the anchoress has missed the point.

  • Mary Ann

    How do you judge a blog to be too progressive or too conservative? Simple, either they profess authentic Catholic teaching or they do not. There is no left or right regarding the Church just AUTHENTIC teaching . People need to understand we have an obligation, it is a spiritual work of mercy to admonish the sinner, while we acknowledge we are sinners ourselves. We need to recognize evil, challenge it and admonish it. Identifying sin and rectifying it is the means in which we mitigate the action to make the Lord present and recognized in a broken world. I believe we are fooling ourselves if we think we can not or should not recognize the many egregious offenses being committed within our Church today. That is not judgment it is fact. We need to shine the light upon improper or heretical teaching, challenge our Bishops to speak out for what the Church teaches even if it is not popular in the pews. Speak out on the evil of abortion, speak of contraception and the harm it causes to the person and to the family. We need to tell the homosexual your lifestyle is sinful and teach them how to pick up their Cross and carry it. We need to demand the Mass be celebrated according to the G.I.R.M. and insist upon the Catechism of the Catholic Church be taught in our parishes and our schools. I applaud all blogs who uncover the wrongs in our Church and do so in a honest and charitable way. I believe if we had this kind of exposure to the truth after Vatican II, many of us would have been insistent on the proper interpretation of the documents. We would have avoided forty years of wandering in the dessert and the loss of an entire generation. Instead we buried our heads in the sand as to not to be judgmental unfortunately the Church now reaps what we sowed.

    [Missing in all of that is simple kindness which - as we see in the gospel, over and over again - Christ calls us to. It is not enough to be "right." One must also be charitable and kind and humble in all of that "rightness." Otherwise one runs the risk of being like the Pharisee in last week's gospel reading, "look at how well I do it all, God...not like those other guys...don't you just LOVE me, God?" I haven't missed the point. I simply believe that without a willingness to treat each other with respect (and without foregoing the temptation to decide on the state of someone else's soul or whether or not they "belong" in the church or are "real" Catholics) "rightness" can be every bit as destructive as is the rigidity of political correctness. -admin]

  • JCD

    The Grace of Contrition and the reign of Mary: link
    And, Why So Many People Go To Hell: lnk

  • kt

    Thank God, Christ was not “charitable and kind and humble” 24-7. In fact, He was much more plain-spoken than many would have liked. (Was Christ being “charitable and kind and humble” when he overturned tables in the temple?)

    In any case, I never rely on the New York Times to define the propriety of a response when it comes to church issues.

    [People love to trot out Christ overturning the tables in the Temple in order to justify themselves. But in three years of public ministry, he did that once, and (if you want to get technical about it) it was his objection to what those in charge of the temple had sanctioned. If you want to use that incident to justify your anger, plenty on the "progressive" side will use it, too, and just as conveniently. Perhaps better to focus on all the ways that Christ engaged those with whom he disagreed, which he did cleverly, humorously, and umm...kindly and even humbly. And this piece was not by the NY Times. It was by a writer for the AP, simply carried by the Times, the WaPo and others.-admin]

  • Dynan

    Cultivate faith and hope and justice and prudence and fortitude and charity and temperance. Eschew pride and envy and greed and sloth and lust and anger and gluttony.

    Let your soul drive your thoughts! Praise God and serve your fellows! Life is short! Pray hard!

  • kt

    Come on Anchoress, you can do better than that. I mentioned the overturning of tables, but (as you well know) my primary point was and remains that Christ was “in your face” with church authorities, among others. Surely you don’t consider it “kind and humble” to call people vipers and whited sepulchres. blind guides.

    [Regretfully I haven't the time or the head to get into long debates with anyone today. I've never said anger is not sometimes justified. But I have asked if Christ made a habit of giving in to it -admin]

  • kt

    “It was by a writer for the AP, simply carried by the Times, the WaPo and others.”

    Nor do I rely on the AP for guidance on catholic matters.

    [welcome to the club. I was merely correcting the record. -admin]

  • Mary Ann

    In all due respect, I believe you might have passed over the following statement in my post: ” I applaud all blogs who uncover the wrongs in our Church and do so in a honest and CHARITABLE way. ” I do agree we must always be kind and charitable when we point out error. However we must not remain silent or condone error under the guise of charity. Our Lord himself on several occasion throughout scripture admonishes the Pharisees and even overturns the tables of the money changers in the temple. Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And he said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of thieves.” (Matthew 21) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. (Matthew 23)

    Throughout scripture and especially in Acts you see Paul stern admonishment of the people. I don’t believe for one minute anyone is setting themselves above another nor do they believe they themselves are free of sin. I guess you can say these courageous bloggers want the fullness of our faith to be taught and proclaimed especially by our Bishops and Priests. After all it is for our sins that Jesus died and the high price he paid was for the salvation of souls. Many I believe have taken upon themselves the task to enlighten people of the truth. I don’t find these blogs offensive especially Catholic TV. On the contrary, I find them to be informative, honest, compassionate and educational. May the Lord bless all those who teach and protect the (authentic)Catholic faith.

    [I do not know why your stuff keeps ending up in the spam filter (along with DryValleys, who ends up there more often than not, poor guy) but if you do not see your comment right away, please do not keep entering it. It's possible that you're ending up in the spam filter b/c it sees multiple comments and believes you are spam. Just comment once and be patient - I'll pull you out of moderation and the spam filter will learn you are not spam! best, -admin]

  • charles

    Anchoress: You need to check the link again. Whether you buy it or not, the writer accepts the “explanation” that the ad was named at a particular minister (who, of course, never wears a Roman collar).

    [When I had posted it, Grant had not updated his post. It's still a stupid ad! :-) -admin]

  • Roz Smith

    I love the second update to Grant’s post. The targeted candidate, a lay preacher at a non denominational church, says all the publicity is actually helping him.

    Is that a verra small, wee sound indeed, I hear from above?

  • jeff

    One might argue that the ‘spirit of Vatican ii’ hasn’t really been kind to the Church. The mass exodus from the Church since that time speaks for itself. There are religious orders out there for whom any expression, weak or strong, of true catholic faith or morals leads to name-calling like ‘taliban.’ But their numbers are sadly dwindling. There is nothing wrong with spirited debate and this blog is a good example of that.

  • davecatbone

    Those in the Church who believe in the Progressive philosophy are caught in the web of deceit. Progressive philosophy puts man’s intellect upon the highest throne, giving him the right to decide what’s best for others, supposedly not as smart as he, redistributing income and granting “rights” that he believes come from government.

    Catholics believe our freedom comes from Our Lord, and no government has the right to take it away. The Progressivism practiced in America is a slow incrementally paced Marxism, and at it’s root, is evil.

    We must have the faith and strength to stand up against political correctness, and the influence of Marxists in the Church as well as the other places in our society it resides and flourishes. Acedemia, Journalism and the Unions all are acting in concert now (see 10.2.10) openly challenging our faith.

  • Victor

    >>[I do not know why your stuff keeps ending up in the spam filter (along with DryValleys, who ends up there more often than not, poor guy) but if you do not see your comment right away, please do not keep entering it. It's possible that you're ending up in the spam filter b/c it sees multiple comments and believes you are spam. Just comment once and be patient - I'll pull you out of moderation and the spam filter will learn you are not spam! best, -admin]<<

    Hey Joe, As The Anchoress said in so many words above, no body is perfect, so can you please check your spam to see if my name is in there by mistake? :)


  • cathyf

    The term “Taliban Catholic” is not quite accurate. The more accurate term would be “Takfiri Catholic.”

    In mainstream Islam, it is considered a violation of Islamic law to question whether another Muslim is truly Muslim. If a person says that he/she is Muslim, and professes the Shahada, then he/she should be considered Muslim. Declaring a Muslim apostate is reserved to the ulema, a small group of religious authorities, and is allowed only after a complex formal process with very strict protections for the accused.

    The 20th-century movements that produced Islamic terrorists are known as “takfiri”, because they say that they have the authority to declare other Muslims “takfir” (apostates, excommunicated) and are then justified in killing them. And more specifically, they claim the right to label groups of other Muslims as “not real Muslim” without an individual juridical process for each person. This is what allows you to set off a bomb in a crowded market, for example.

    The notion that there is a religion out there where it is shameful and scandalous to question another person’s faith… Wow. Almost enough to make me want to sign up!

  • Pingback: Catholic News Headlines October 26, 2010 « Catholic News

  • jeff

    All this let’s be nice discussion started in response to a speech now cardinal burke gave in which he dared to assert that you cannot be catholic and support legalized abortion. Now all the long knives come out about ‘taliban’ catholicism and ‘conservatives’ ‘foamimg at the mouth.’ Mostly by people who want to see the church change her teachings in a variety of ways. It is very typical.

  • Theophilus

    Quick question – are the bloggers referred to in the AP article arguing that the subjects of their blogs should be rooted out of the Church altogether or are they arguing that they should be rooted out of positions of authority in the Church? There is a huge difference.

    The former is unquestionably uncharitable; but not doing the latter is also uncharitable. It’s uncharitable to those Catholics who are led astray from authentic Catholicism because of errant teaching from people in positions of authority.

  • BC


    For many years now, there has been a possey of Catholics who discourage parents from creating a process where we tend to our own children and families when Catholics in positions of authority are scandalizing them.

    A generation has passed and the world is what it is now.

    This new apostolate of Catholics does not care who labels us for tending to our own children, families, friends.

    If Lizzie and Margaret Cabannis and others are going to step forward and join Joan Chittister and Bishop Gumbleton by characterizing what we are doing by associating us with trecherous murders, uncharitable, uncivilized, so be it.
    Let it be done to us according to His Word.

    We will do it anyway because we are finished with having our own children led into the abyss.

    We certainly hope and pray that by using the authority we were given in Baptism to trying to charitably correct error, the folks teaching error submit to the Church. If they don’t, then we most certainly “will” move forward to removing people from positions of teaching, sanctifying and governance positions in the Catholic Church. We will at the same time, ask the priests and bishops to do their job and pastorally guide that person back to truth. We hope and pray that person stays in the Catholic Church but if they don’t, so be it. The goal here is for our own children (families and friends) to stay in the Catholic Church.

    The process shall be created, come what may.

    [FYI - "Lizzie" is what my friends call me, or how I refer to myself when I am being derogatory. Now, you're probably being derogatory, too, and that's fine, but you don't really know me well enough for "Lizzie." My surname (or "Admin" or "Fathead") will do, thanks. You can even call me "Ma'am" because I'm not as averse to it as Barbara Boxer! :-) Your other post, btw, will not go up, as it slanders me. Slander--aside from being the definition of "uncharitable"--also gets you banned from this site (as does spamming or hijacking threads), so please try to avoid it.-admin]

  • charles

    update to the update:

    See this photo

    [Thanks for the heads up, I've been too busy to read today. Hmmm...I wonder how they'll explain that one. "No, no, we're really not trying to make an anti-Catholic statement, here...we just think it's a pretty picture!" -admin]

  • Nerina

    Regarding the political ad: the explanation doesn’t make a bit of difference. Images are powerful. Who or what will most people think of when they see that picture? That’s right. A Catholic priest, and subsequently, the Catholic church. I agree with Anchoress, it’s just a dumb ad.

  • BC

    “People love to trot out Christ overturning the tables in the Temple in order to justify themselves. But in three years of public ministry, he did that once, and (if you want to get technical about it) it was his objection to what those in charge of the temple had sanctioned. If you want to use that incident to justify your anger, plenty on the “progressive” side will use it, too, and just as conveniently. Perhaps better to focus on all the ways that Christ engaged those with whom he disagreed, which he did cleverly, humorously, and umm…kindly and even humbly.”

    Your characterization of this is absurd.

    If exercising the process put in place by the Holy See and Scripture is unChristian to you, take it up with the Holy See and St. Paul.

    We have been sending letters into Chanceries for 40 years without any results. It is time to go through the processes and when those processes fail to bring about a resolution, expose what is happening in the public square so that other children are not scandalized.

    We are, with every complaint, going through the process I described above. But at the end of the day, history has shown us – and we are still finding – that the only thing the Bishops respond to is when their deeds are made public or there is a journalist or attorney at their doorstep. Even when it is about our children being raped.

    Not a thing has changed.

    Furthermore, as a mother who is holding the Bishop accountable in her diocese, I find the picture you have put on this thread (which you ultimately are caricaturing us), in addition to caricaturing what we are doing “extremists” (and/or likening us to lecherous murderers)anything but kind and charitable.

    The punishments and internal terrorism of laity to those of us who are determined to stop our families from being spiritually abused is not going to prevail any longer.

  • BC

    I don’t read here and I did not know “Lizzie” was something intimate. I thought that you referred to yourself as.

    I see that you have taken down the process, which is that proscribed by the Holy See and Scripture so that you can go on mischaracterizing people. I’m goign to have the Boston people put those posts up and call you on the ‘slander”.

    Fathead is about right for you sister.

    [Your charity is overwhelming and so edifying. I have not characterized anyone. You are, in the safety of your anonymity publicly threatening to slander me by assigning an intention and motive to me that I can demonstrably counter simply by going through my archives. I hope you can afford it. You won't be posting here any further. -admin]

  • charles

    Sorry to bug you again, but here’s #3

    Look – they can say they’re not being anti-Catholic by using Catholic imagery to attack a Protestant (who is apparently a layperson), but then the conclusion is even worse: that they believe that appealing to anti-Catholic bigotry is a good strategy in Minnesota

  • charles

    last comment may have trapped by spam filter – short recap: 3rd image out there – suggests that Minn Dems think anti-Catholicism is a winner politically

  • Frannie


    I read the explanation BC posted that you took down. I was pleasantly surprised with her description of what these groups are doing. You are indeed implying that they are doing something uncharitable and her replies did not include anything that was slanderous to you.

    I have been reading here off and on for several months.

    I am sorry to say that I have been turned off by your

    [You are entitled to think what you will. BC's numerous posts including a slander of me that I wasn't going to allow on my own site. If you have read me for a while and believe that I am in any way shape or form condoning the spiritual abuse of children, then I'll have to live with that, but it is a willful misreading of me - admin]

  • Frannie

    Oops, sorry.

    I am sorry to say that I have been turned off by your animus.

    This is a hard thing for me to say and I know it is hard to hear.

    You are in the wrong and it is very dissappointing to see this is how you behave.

  • Frannie



    I am extremely dissappointed to see how you treat people.

    [I am imperfect, but I do my best to treat people well; that doesn't mean I have no boundaries. I don't let some anonymous figure I've never seen before come into my site and slander me. I am sorry you are disappointed, but we'll both just have to live with it.-admin]

  • Carol McKinley

    I don’t read anywhere that accuses you of condoning spiritual abuse but it is clear that you consider the people who want to remove people who spiritually abuse children (or adults for that matter) as ‘extremists’ who want to ‘purge’ people and you don’t ever want to say who gets to stay and who gets to go.

    The rational conclusion of your position is that you believe people who spiritually abuse children and adults should not be removed from their positions. You pick up the mischaracterization of what we are doing and you call it a ‘purge’.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Posting the consequences of your position is not slander.

  • Carol McKinley

    n.b. You are also wrong that people have to ‘live with’, which is more accurately described as ‘tolerate’ lay people who insist that anything but the status quo of leaving people in place who spiritually abuse Catholics is ‘extremist’, uncharitable or ‘taliban’.

    What the new breed of theological bloggers is saying and in fact doing, is when lay people, priests or bishops try to characterize a movement to remove people who spiritually abuse others as something uncharitable and sinister – we will lay out the dysfunction and consequences of children of your position.

    Call the lawyer or call a holy war upon us, we are done being intimidated by it.

    I apologize for being so forthright but I simply don’t know how to say it any other way.

  • Bender

    Wow, it is amazing that there should be so many popes commenting here, so many people who think themselves competent to judge the real Pope and the real bishops, who are not merely some diocesan administrators, but successors of the Apostles.

    These shepherds possess the charism of the Holy Spirit, which guides the Church. And what exactly possesses these people who audaciously think themselves above the Pope and bishops, who believe themselves to be another Jesus smashing up the marketplace?

    Please spare us your prideful hubris, whether it is in your misguided “defense” of tradition or in seeking to progressively make us into the Church of Do Your Own Thing. And if you cannot spare us that, at least try being less of a jerk about it, huh?

  • jeff

    Jerk. Prideful hubris. Little popes. All this name-calling in a post complaining of lack of charity. So unintentionally comic. I havent heard anyone here judging the pope or bishops, but does that mean the laity remains mute during somethink like the horrid homosexual abuse crisis we just went through? Please. I think someone once said odium theologicum is the worst kind of hatred and it is probably true. I think everyone should focus on the merits of arguments rather than judging motives or trying to ferret out where the ‘opposition’ lives and works.

  • Bender

    I havent heard anyone here judging the pope or bishops

    There are at least six posts (including yours) here that do exactly that. And then there are the attacks on the Pope and bishops in countless other blogs and postings.

    I am all for focusing on the merits of arguments, but an argument that says we need to hold the bishops accountable or demand that the bishops do this or that, etc., is not an argument of merit. It is arrogant self-popery.

    In short, what is needed is a little humility here.

  • Carol McKinley

    “In short, what is needed is a little humility here.”

    Could there be any more irony?

  • jeff

    You are confusing me with america magazine bender. I guess they are ‘guilty’ of the same on an almost daily basis. Maybe we should all just be mute and utter no opinions as we are just non-clerical rubes. Not going to happen.

  • jeff

    Please get your facts straight also. I have not ‘judged’ the pope or bishops. cardinal ratzinger himself stated that the period since vatican ii has been ‘remakably unfavorable’ for the church. Is that the pope judging the pope?:) This thread is probably spent at this point.

  • Doc

    Bender, how can a defense (why the scare quotes) of tradition be equated with an attempt to create the Church of Do Your Own Thing? Makes no sense to me.

  • Bender

    Two sides. Same coin.

  • Frannie

    There is a breed of women who prefer abusers remain in place and they slit the throats of people crying out for justice.

    Charity like this has no place in the Roman Catholic Church of the future.

  • Nora

    Two sides. Same coin. ~Bender

    I think this pretty much sums up the issue — seriously. Says it all in a nutshell, and I almost never agree with Bender, so…go figure. Chalk it up to the Vicoden.

    The extremists at either end of any issue always share more via their extremism than they have differences.

    At the end of the day, none of this dickering back and forth over who’s more Catholic than the other, or who’s the gold medalist in the Catholic Olympics, who needs to be ousted, or whatnot, serves God. None of it. Extremism is always, always, always driven by ego, and is always, always, always expressed under the guise of serving a higher good, or being for the good of “the people”.

    So, yeah, two sides. Same coin. Aptly put.

  • Frannie

    Yes, do chalk that opinion up to vicodin.

    Anyone smoking pot care to render an opinion?

  • Elizabeth Scalia

    Very lovely. Very charitable. Jesus must be so pleased. We say so much about ourselves by how we address others.

    I’m closing comments on this thread because I am sick of this repellent nastiness.

    On second though, no, I’ll leave the comments thread open. If people want to expose themselves in this way, who am I to stop them?

  • Nora

    That wasn’t passive-aggressive in the least…nope, not at all

    Whatever. We’re all awful in our own way. But, hey, how about those Giants last night?

    Frannie — give me a minute and I’ll get back to ya…;-)

  • Frannie

    Yes, let us all be sure to check in with Elizabeth Scalia to see who SHE labels nasty as our litmus test for Catholic “charity”.

    Let this stand as a testimony that the reign of intimidating Catholics from removing abusers and calling it charity has ended.

    As you sew, so shall you reap.

    [You mean, "sow" I think.

    Ma'am, I don't try to intimidate anyone. I'm not the one who sends emails to people saying, "I'm letting all my friends know about you, and we're going to get you." I'm not the one who is anonymously running around warning people of their imperfect Catholicism and their eventual reaping of the flames of hell. I am the one decrying the use of the term "Taliban Catholic" and the quick charges of "heresy," but maybe I need to reconsider that.

    But let me say this: I admit I am less than perfect, in all ways, often too quick with my mouth--I have admitted that many times, before. As I said in my piece, I accuse myself, and not anyone else. You know what the really sad part of this very strange back-and-forth has been? I can actually understand and sympathize with some of your frustrations, and can actually, to an extent, see your points. But you communicate them in a way that is so repellent that I am...well...repelled away from your cause, rather than drawn toward it.

    Christ said he was here to bring division between the mother an daughter, but he also said that it would go badly for any who drove people away from the gospel. As I wrote in my piece, we all of us fall under that indictment, whether it is because we are too lax or because we are too rigid--both laxity and rigidity are incredibly easy. Balance, however, is difficult. In the end, though, all I can say is I love my Lord, Jesus Christ and his mother, his Vicar and his church. I worship him imperfectly because I am a broken and imperfect human being and I beg his mercy and am ready for his judgment. His, or his Vicars and apostolic representatives. Not yours. And because I am a broken and imperfect person, I am not going to spend my time trying to figure out which other broken and imperfect people are the ones who need to be expunged from the church.

    It's funny, the other day, on a "progressive" site, I read a comment from someone saying that "the Holy Spirit has left the church." And I thought that was pretty awful, also stupid, wrong and a convenient stance for someone to take if they've got an agenda. But I see similar comments coming from the SuperCatholics (I don't really know what to call you. "Best Catholics?" "Only TRUE Catholics?") too. And I think it's pretty awful. God does not take away his gifts, and the Holy Spirit that has sustained this church through all of man's broken-ness and division before will sustain it still, forever. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. I believe that. Don't you?

    You are welcome here if your intent is to engage in respectful conversation with others. If you are here to tell us we're all going to hell and to engage in passive-aggressive bullying, I suspect you will not get much satisfaction. -admin]

  • Frannie

    What I find utterly facinating about you Elizabeth is that you cannot see that you are the passive aggressive nasty bully and slanderer. When somebody calls what you are doing to your attention, you compound the situation by calling righteousness and truth a repellant and venom comes out of your pores.

    What somebody needs to do is take your own viotrol and show you it.

    The difference between you and I , is that the spiritual abuse of our children is something you want tolerated and you bully people who are going to see to it that abusers are sent packing.

    Your breed has met its match you see. Bullies won’t stop bullying until they are face to face with their match. This is something we should have done years ago.

    Not another hour in Christendom will tick away letting your breed get away with what you have done to our religion. The consequences to our children has been too big of a price to pay. Christ’s tears are too much for us to bear.

    The gospel you preach is Elizabeth Scalia’s. Not the One left by Christ and his apostles.

    [Fascinating, indeed. -admin]

  • Bender

    Nora –

    As I commented over at Commonweal on this same issue: that is the great thing about the Church — we are a family, one people.

    We can all go round-and-round on various things, many of them silly political petty things, but we are family. And that is a good thing, it is a good thing to be able to embrace and be one with those you otherwise might disagree with. I’m happy to be with you on this.

  • Victor

    Well said Anchoress! Maybe some of that humility might rub off on me also.

    God Bless Peace

  • Nora

    Yikes! “your breed“…?? I mean, I was okay with passive-aggressive ’cause I used it first and because it was kind of passive aggressive to say you were gonna close comments and then say you weren’t because you wanted folks to go ahead and hang themselves with their own rope and all, but “breed”, oy!

    And now I can’t get Cher’s “Half Breed” out of my head. Which, when you think about it is kind of funny…

    Anyways…thank you, Bender, that was very gracious. You may be just the person to ask a completely off-topic question, too — can you recommend a good history of Catholicism in England? Not so much all the medieval stuff — mostly 18th C. through mid 19th C. Thanks!

  • Carol McKinley

    I have been very open with my struggle (and ultimate surrender) to the teachings of the Church on contraception and the discipline of celibacy.

    What I find most disturbing, is that our goals were twisted to imply we only want people in the pews who assent to the teachings of the Church. When in reality, our objectives are about getting people in teaching roles to either teach the interpretation of the Catholic faith and if they refuse, to replace them with somebody who does.

    It is either deliberately being twisted or egos with low self-esteem trolling the internet pounced on this opportunity to make other people look uncharitable to replenish their own vanity.

    We are a fight for the soul of our Church with those don’t see the Church as a provider of sound teaching for salvation, but a place to provide others with fuzzy feelings – ultimately to make them feel good about themselves. At the price of other people’s salvation.

    This mortal creation is a counterfeit church that we are not going to hand off to the next generation.

    All we care about at this point in time is gumming up and clamming up unsound teaching. This is the flare across the bow. Going forward, when priests and Bishops offer poison to souls, it will be publicly journaled in Boston (and other places).

    It is the most effective tool we have to silence dissent at this time. When dissent is silenced, our children can’t hear it and that is all we care about at this point in time in the history of the Church.

    Line up and take your places. Stay, go, throw barbs and insults at those of us doing it. Knock yourselves out.

    When we stand up to those barbs and insults and we keep on holding priests and bishops accountable for the souls they are accountable for, a hundred more will have the courage to do it with us. And so on and so forth.

    They wanted us to “Arise in Christ”, well congratulations. Here we are.

  • Bender

    our objectives are about getting people in teaching roles to either teach the interpretation of the Catholic faith and if they refuse . . .

    If your objective is teaching the faith, then teach the faith. You teach it, truth in charity. You and like minded people. No need to wait for “they,” no need to complain about what “they” are doing or not doing. Fulfill your own obligation of being a light of truth to the world, in charity, without worrying about the perceived shortcomings of others.

    When dissent is silenced, our children can’t hear it

    Believe me, they can hear others being silenced, they can see the contentious acts of uncharity being done. And they learn from it. They learn the wrong lessons.

    I suppose, however, that if we go along with what you say, then it would be necessary to silence you for your own continued obstinate dissent regarding the respect that is due to our bishops, for your continued pride in wrongly believing that you are in position to judge them or even competent to do so. Is that what you want? Is that what you really advocate, the forcible silencing of you, the shouting down of you, the use of any means necessary to stop you from voicing your scandalous continuing errors in the faith?

    No? I didn’t think so. That silencing of others is a two-way street. All it does is cause strife and anger and resentment. It does not advance truth. And it does not advance charity. In fact, it destroys both.