Well done, First Things

Well done, First Things January 8, 2015

Rusty Reno delivers a richly deserved spanking to Maureen Mullarkey for her contemptible screed against Pope Francis.

Meanwhile, I am informed that somebody or other is demanding I be punished in some way or other for my criticism of Mullarkey. Apparently another petition or something is trying to get some steam to Stop Shea. Don’t know who is behind it. Don’t care. It’s all been done before. It turns out that not that many people especially care what I think, which is, you know, sane.

However, what I get on my knees and thank God for is that even my craziest and bitterest enemies, being marinated in a Christian and American tradition of free speech, are not calling for me to be murdered, my house firebombed, and my family beheaded, as so routinely occurs in the House of Submission. The idea is laughable. That is one of the great gifts of our Christian civilization of free speech. As is my ability to say to the people who hate my living guts, “Knock yourself out. If you’d like, send me a link to your petition and I’ll plug it for you on the blog. I must be stopped!”


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • BHG

    Well said! 🙂

  • entonces_99

    Interesting. Reno starts by detailing the many ways in which he disagrees with Mullarkey. He then escalates a bit by characterizing her tone as “dismissive” and “cutting,” and says he doesn’t like it. He continues by characterizing her “criticisms and caricatures of Pope Francis” as “overdrawn and ill-tempered.” But he never abuses her, say, by calling her work “contemptible” or characterizing it as a “screed.” In fact, he cautions us against “overreact[ing] to Maureen’s overreaction.” He concludes with an exhortation for everyone to be civil and charitable, and I can’t avoid the conclusion that he means that to apply both to critics of Pope Francis and to critics of Maureen Mullarkey.

    • Joseph

      That’s because he *officially* represents ‘First Things’. Of course he’s going to be more temperate… he has to be. Still, Mullarkey’s piece was an assorted dish of verbal vomit and verbal diarrhea. I think he says that without actually saying it.

      • Tom Beigel

        ” an assorted dish of verbal vomit and verbal diarrhea. ” You mean a bit like your comment?

      • Arnold I. Reeves

        I imagine that these days around the First Things office, there is often heard the sentiment “You say I’m an ‘assorted dish of verbal vomit and verbal diarrhea’ like it’s a bad thing…”

        Face it, peoples. Whatever First Things might have managed in the past, it is now a magazine which, as its website reveals, praised Allan Bloom to the skies eight years back without condescending to mention the fact that Bloom was an AIDS-infected homosexual.

        This is a bunch of geniuses which went ahead and published anonymous b*tch sessions after the entire Rolling Stone saga proclaimed for all time the madness and journalistic illegitimacy of relying on anonymous sources as such:

        http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/12/who-am-i-to-judge

        Would Reno have distanced himself from Malarkey, or whatever that two-bit Maria Monk’s name is, if he wasn’t afraid for his job? I only asked.

    • Benjamin2.0

      Being charitable to our enemies doesn’t mean we don’t call a screed a screed. If something someone writes actually is contemptible, there’s no reason not to call it contemptible. Such isn’t overreaction so much as accurate portrayal of fact in words. To overreact properly, one would have to speak of this Mullarkey the way she speaks about the pope.

      My mind weeps continually for the plight of those enslaved to the all-dominating euphemism ideology.

      • entonces_99

        Actually, there *is* a reason not to call something contemptible, even if you believe with all your heart and soul that it is contemptible. And that’s that calling something contemptible is just name-calling, not argument. If you are trying to persuade someone that your position is the correct one, it will be singularly unsuccessful about bringing about that effect. For Mr. Shea to call Mullarkey’s article “contemptible” doesn’t demonstrate that the article is in fact contemptible; all it demonstrates is that Mr. Shea is contemptuous.

  • Andy

    I hope I never turn into a person who actually cares about fights between bloggers.

    • Joseph

      This has become the only blog I visit anymore. Hahaha. All I need to know about blog fights I can get right here… no need to shop around.

  • Joe

    Wow! 36 more supporters and you’re in trouble!

  • Yes, and check the counter-reaction to concur with Mullarkey in the Comments… Who are these heathens, why are they so comfortable in such heresies? Just because Francis “rubs elbows” with socialists and anarchists, he is considered a traitor? They assume that any socialist must be anti-Christian and anti-life, what a limited, FoxNews-driven mindset! Idiots!!

    As I try to point out at First Things (but it is usually blocked), the unwashed OWS crowd is inadvertently doing a lot more of Christ’s work, than most self-professed US Catholics.