Steve Skojec (Oct 21): I’m super duper looking forward to watching Catholic theologians and apologists making excuses for this over the next week. It’s going to be yet another strong showing for the Technical Justification Squad.
Steven O’Reilly (Oct 21): I am sure the folks at “Where Peter Is?” are busy typing up their articles on this.
Blue Collar Uniate (Oct 21): Can’t forget to include Dave Armstrong. He might beat them to the punch and have published book before noon.*Steven O’Reilly (Oct 21): Yes… He’ll write an article about the “rad trads”, “reactionaries”, etc…and whatever crazy labels he has, used to avoid the real arguments. DA is in denial. But…I see him red pilling before the WPI folks, or Walford, etc., who are the Francis bitter enders.Steve Skojec (Oct 21): Super@DaveArmstrong58 is well into “intentionally stupid” territory at this point. I can’t imagine it’s helping to sell his books, but that’s none of my business.
Steven O’Reilly (Oct 21): I have no doubt a day of reckoning for the Francis years will come. A future pope will anathematize him in my humble opinion. When that day comes, “apologists” such as Dave, and WPI will be seen for what they were. Francis toadies.
Now — agree or disagree — all of these are substantive, vigorously argued papers on the topics. But it’ll be a cold day in hell before Skojec, O’Reilly, or Kwasniewski himself ever seriously address the arguments therein. Only Timothy Flanders so far has done so (to his eternal credit). Only he shows any interest in dialoguing with a critic of these ideas. Yet I’m the one ludicrously accused of trying to “avoid the real arguments” and of being “in denial” and being “intentionally stupid.” Dr. Kwasniewski sent an insult my way almost exactly a year ago:
Those who broach such issues are not engaged in a serious way, but are written off as “radical Catholic reactionaries” whom everyone should be strong-armed — or Armstronged? — to avoid like the plague. I suppose that’s one way to deal with uncomfortable truths, but it’s not recommended for those seeking the real causes of today’s crisis.
I replied, in my post four days ago, with no less than eleven examples of reactionaries and reactionary sites (that invariably ban me) utterly ignoring my arguments; well, twelve including Kwasniewski, who now refuses to defend his views, too. It’s pure, unmixed hypocrisy. I’m clearly perceived as a big critic of their movement: — the big boogeyman — , or else they wouldn’t drop my name and lob the insults so often. They know it. Hence, they mention the excellent site Where Peter Is (stalwart defenders of the Holy Father) in their insults above, but when they want to note one person who opposes them, it’s my name, for some reason, that so often comes up.
But they want no part of any serious reply to my critiques. It’s not in their interest. It’s not in the plan. Any criticism has to be utterly ignored (Democrat-style and anti-Catholic Protestant-style) as un-“serious”. To address them in effect grants to them an ordinary respectability, and reactionaries will avoid that like the plague, because then they would have the intellectual burden of having to defend their dubious and indefensible views. See how it works?
I say, put up or shut up. But at least — if nothing else — we can enjoy the entertainment of the high comedy of the above schtick, while these folks continue to run from, mock, and utterly ignore any substantive and/or comprehensive arguments against their quasi-schismatic positions.
*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In