Simcha Fisher is Magnificent

Simcha Fisher is Magnificent March 21, 2013

So, over at National Review, rich jailbird neocon [“salvation-through-consumerist-hedonism heretic” inserted here since the exquisite sensitivities of some readers require it] Conrad Black is busy telling the Pope to get on board with the rich neocon heretic view that babies are a nuisance and the Church should get over that whole thing with the Pill so as to be better positioned to support the contracepting and child-murdering West should it launch more wars on the Islamosphere.  The man is, like all neocon salvation-through-consumerist-hedonism heretics, full of himself and his utopian certainty that he knows what’s best for the Church and everybody else.  All to be expected from the End to Evil crowd who have been selectively reading the Church’s teaching ever since Garry “Why Priests?: A Failed Tradition” Wills said “Mater, Si! Magistra, No!” and kicked off the pretense of the “Faithful Conservative Dissenter” that immediately bore fruit in the birth of the “Faithful Progressive Dissenter” such as, oh, Garry Wills.

So: rich neocon salvation-through-militaristic-consumerist-hedonism heretic subverts Church.  Dog bites man.  Nothing new.  But here’s the thing: this particular rich neocon salvation-through-consumerist-hedonism heretic is supposed to be a publisher.  You know, somebody who uses language for a living.  Somebody who is supposed to be able to write.  And yet, in his struggle to Keep the Faith and Change the Church[TM] the guy commits this paragraph–and the editors at NRO let him get away with it:

The sex-abuse crisis has been a horrible and shaming problem, but Catholicism’s enemies have amplified and exploited it to incite the inference that most of the Roman clergy are deviates compounding superstition with perversion. The most frequent and wishful version of these events is as a mighty coruscation before the great Christian scam expires in a Wagnerian inferno, an inadvertent Waco. It took the most antagonistic pundits, in their uncomprehending skepticism of the viability of what they regard as a medieval flimflam factory anyway, only one day to assimilate the election of a man none of them had mentioned, in their omniscience, as a contender, before pronouncing his papacy dead on arrival at the Sistine Chapel.

And all the people cried, “Huh?”  Seriously, could anybody follow that?  Simcha Fisher responds with deadly comedic force:

Coruscation?  Uncomprehending skepticism of the viability of what they regard as a medieval flimflam factory?  I’m sorry, has someone checked in on this guy lately?  I think he’s having a stroke.

If anybody has the strength to wade through both pages of this masturbatory mess, please let me know what it’s about.  Furthermore, circumstantial evidentiary horticulture would presume,  one would cogitate, an obstreperous de-regimentation of, if you will, unregurgitated foofaraw, if you know what I mean.

On the bright side, apart from people who already agree with the rich, illiterate, neocon salvation-through-consumerist-hedonism heretic I can’t see anybody being persuaded by this piece since I can’t see anybody being able to understand this pretentious syntactic linguini.  He makes George Bush sound like Shakespeare.

Seriously, even the single most coherent sentence in the piece is an incoherent mess: “I do not underestimate, and am not qualified to discuss, the theological arguments involved.”

Dude: You obviously do underestimate the theological arguments involved or you would not have written this sloppy mess.  And you yourself acknowledge that when you say you are not qualified to discuss those arguments.  Since the Church’s entire argument on this matter is theological, you have just acknowledged that you are not qualified to write this stupid, stupid piece.  Or rather, you are only qualified to write this stupid, stupid piece.  You are not qualified to actually instruct the Church on what she should be teaching.

Update: NRO publishes this rebuttal by KLo.  Bully for them.  They remain a journal where orthodoxy is optional.  But as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was fond of pointing out, “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

Browse Our Archives