The Catholic Butter Battle
I feel like a kid watching a water-balloon fight. I’m tired of it. Here I go. And I’m not joking. I am being very, very serious.
Time to throw some rocks into this water-balloon fight.
In case you’re unfamiliar with Dr. Seuss’ seminal text, The Butter Battle Book, here is a quick re-cap: The Yooks and the Zooks are at war over which side to butter one’s toast: Up or down?
While the book is something of a political commentary on the Cold War—that was supposedly banned from certain libraries for some time—it also shows two sides as mirror images of each other in their discourse of martial reciprocity. In that respect, it is not hard to see how it can be read as a description of the current, raging, Catholic butter battle between the butter-side-righters and the butter-side-lefters.
The difference here is that the Yooks and Zooks had their fictional existence at stake. The cliffhanger ending has them facing mutual destruction.
Clearly, this non-fiction, Catholic blog version is not this serious. My sense of the whole affair is this:
I was at first very intrigued by Catholic Fascist and thought about writing there. My intellectual hero, William James, often wrote anonymously (under the pseudonym, ignoramus). I thought that I would too.
But I had no time. I still have very little, at least less than I am used to. As my scarcity of time took me to the sidelines, I watched things develop. Today, I viewed a slightly funny video about Vox-Nova posted at The America Catholic.
As these Catholic butter battles progress, I am beginning to find the whole thing pretty silly. Sadly, its not silly enough to sustain itself—the humor and satire is second or third—and, in some cases, fourth—rate.
(If you want to see first-class satire, (re)read Minion’s epic The Good Pope and the Bad Advisers — a Fable by George Weigel.)
Like the mindless faithful who find FOX NEWS or MSNBC regularly intriguing, the humor is (falsely) amplified by those who already share sympathies for the message, on the one hand, or it is rejected as unfunny and offensive by those who, again, already felt that way in the first place, on the other.
Like it or not—and despite the fact that this is not completely fair or true—this blog has become a partisan by its perception, even while its work as a whole is clearly not partisan. Even as we protest against liberalism time and time again, I am cannot deny that we are the token “liberal blog.”
A token. That hurts. But its true. That’s really all these sites are, for the most part.
Furthermore, all of this silliness exacerbates the serious problem that the Catholic church in the United States is beset by: indifference because those who “care”—all of us here reading and writing with guilty pleasure, in other words— are stupefyingly childish and unserious.
For instance, the butter-side-righters like to call the butter-side-lefters “sissies.” This is mostly true, in fact, many butter-side-lefters take this a compliment and a sign of piety.
At the same time, some of the toughest talking butter-side-righters out there are hardly kicking ass for Jesus or Life or whatever. In other words, if Joe Hargrave and friends are really so pissed off at how soft we have become, then, they had better be hard in the converse sense that they mean soft; they should be the opposite of a “sissy” as they whale away at their keyboard, like I am.
I have a buddy from undergrad who I think is outright crazy a lot of the time, but he goes to Washington and storms in on judicial hearings and makes security forcibly remove him. He also is a tough rugby player and a very good wrestler. He doesn’t blog though. He wouldn’t fare well here, for better and worse reasons.
(By the way: I would welcome anyone on either side to a stop bye for a rugby or wrestling match with a debate to follow, formal-like or over beer and cigarettes. I’m game for both. I would enjoy it and likely become good friends with whoever showed up. Now, my fellow butter-side-lefters might be choking on indignation considering the patriarchal implications of inviting physical confrontation. So be it. Such a reading would be simplistic and paranoid to begin with. Plus, tell me: How many women are throwing water balloons? If anything, this points to the genius of women!)
My point is this: The Catholic butter battle is not only a parody of blogs of little consequence. It is also parody of the parody that passes as discourse in an impoverished, alienated, and overstimulated anti-culture that we live in.
What are the alternatives? Probably, to do something I have put off for too long: Go on retreat.
Consequently, I will be taking some time off from Vox-Nova and the blogosphere in general, at least until this butter battle settles down.
As I have time and motivation, and as my colleagues here are willing to put up with me, I will submit some essays and information on related publications from time to time.
Maybe this is too dramatic. Maybe the joke’s on me. Maybe everyone knows that this is silly and stupid and I am the fool who took it to be authentic.
If that is the case, then, I’ll be the fool.
Peace and good.
Sam
Comments are closed.
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you flog one another online.” John 13, revised version :D
I came across this little gem in a Buddhist talk:
There’s a story about two monks in a Catholic monastery – one of them noticed the other one smoking during evening prayers and said, “Why are you smoking? When I asked for permission to smoke while I was praying, I was told, ‘No. When you pray, you should only pray.’” To which the other man responded, “Well, I asked if it was alright to pray while I was smoking.”
Sam,
“Even as we protest against liberalism time and time again, I am cannot deny that we are the token “liberal blog.””
Liberalism, like conservatism, means a lot of things these days. They’re words to describe very broad ideologies held by very broad parties.
I’m under no illusions, if it makes you feel any better, as to the near unanimous contempt held here for classical liberalism. I’d call some of you Social/Christian Democrats.
” if Joe Hargrave and friends are really so pissed off at how soft we have become, then, they had better be hard in the converse sense that they mean soft; they should be the opposite of a “sissy” as they whale away at their keyboard”
I think you misread me, sir.
There is a lot I could say about this, but frankly I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about you all being “soft”, nor have I called you “sissies.” So I’m certainly not “pissed off” about it.
I’m sure you’re very “hard” in your own beliefs.
“I will be taking some time off from Vox-Nova and the blogosphere in general, at least until this butter battle settles down.”
You may never come back, then, because it will never end.
Joe: You, like Vox-Nova, don’t exist. You too have become a token, a placeholder. Your avatar shield is an apt description of the “Joe Hargrave” (and friends) I wrote about.
Sam, you’re one of the most thought-provoking writers on the Catholic blogs. I can understand how the sniping could dishearten you, and I wouldn’t begrudge anyone a little peace and quiet, but I hope you return to the internet invigorated. By the way, the vast majority of the Church Militant is oblivious to these tempests in the blogging teapot. So don’t let it get you down too much.
Unfortunately, there is enough truth in both The Catholic Fascist and the video from American Catholic to make them both funny and achingly poignant. Fact is, the two sides have indeed become parodies of each other, “doubles” to invoke the Girardian phrase. There is enough soft, sloppy theology at American Catholic to make Matthew Fox look like a Thomist. And at Vox Nova (or thereabouts) there are some personalities so fascistic it would make Mussolini blush. And yet a thoughtful person like you is the one who feels compelled to “go on retreat.”
My advice: Don’t retreat. Stay and speak your mind. Your obligation isn’t to either of these silly camps. It is to the truth.
I was at first very intrigued by Catholic Fascist and thought about writing there. My intellectual hero, William James, often wrote anonymously (under the pseudonym, ignoramus). I thought that I would too.
Forgive me, but this seems at odd with the line we’ve been hearing (not from you) than VN had nothing to do with CF. If you had an opportunity to blog there, I’m guessing a good chunk if not all VN contributors were at least asked to blog.
Micheal: Who cares?
This thread is not going to become another phase of the Butter Battle hand-wringing over who is responsible for CF.
Take that mystery to a thread that takes that stuff seriously.
Sorry to be so brusque about it, but I’m tired of it and would hate to contribute to the pettiness of it all — maybe I’m fooling myself, but that’s my intention.
Peace.
Sorry, Sam. Didn’t see your comment before I responded to Michael.
[Thanks, John Henry. NOTE: John Henry's previous comment was a reply to Michael that has been deleted for the obvious reasons that he kindly acknowledges here. ~Sam]
Well, in any case, I suppose my avatar ought to be honored to have been mentioned by name. I’m not sure the real me is.
samrocha:
I think you may have entered that debate more than you wish, but it’s your thread and I’ll gladly back off the point, since I like you think the debate is rather silly and only made my point b/c it struck me as different from what was there before.
I will say on the topic of your post that I think you over-simplify the debate between TAC and VN to a butter-battle. I think there are significant differences between the two on how Catholics ought to approach the US-differences that have solid theological concerns on both sides. If either one started addressed those core issues (and as a TAC blogger, I regret that I have not done so), there could be an actual debate. As it is, the core issues are not addressed and that coupled with uncharitable treatment on both sides has resulted in parody.
Now, I think the parodies have been fairly tame (though I think satire is a mode that ought to be used sparingly). But if you would want to encourage civil debate between the two (as it is clear that these two will continue to disagree), do have any suggestions for conducting those disagreements in a charitable way?
“I think there are significant differences between the two on how Catholics ought to approach the US-differences that have solid theological concerns on both sides. If either one started addressed those core issues (and as a TAC blogger, I regret that I have not done so), there could be an actual debate.”
HAH!
I will say on the topic of your post that I think you over-simplify the debate between TAC and VN to a butter-battle. I think there are significant differences between the two on how Catholics ought to approach the US-differences that have solid theological concerns on both sides. If either one started addressed those core issues (and as a TAC blogger, I regret that I have not done so), there could be an actual debate. As it is, the core issues are not addressed and that coupled with uncharitable treatment on both sides has resulted in parody.
This is really really inaccurate. Granted, you are right that The American Catholic largely does not address “core theological issues” as there are very few bloggers there with any kind of grasp of the theological issues. A few of them try, and sometimes this results in interesting but usually distorted discussions of, for example, liberation theology. Usually those discussions scratch the surface at getting at some theological issues but do not get past the caricatures that will inevitably result when one takes Joseph Ratzinger as one’s primary guide. Aside from the recognition of these few attempts at theological discussion, though, the idea that core theological issues are largely avoided, especially by the past and present writers at Vox Nova, is simply laughable and easily refuted from a casual browsing of the site’s archives.
Michael: Thank you for being so decent. Your critique and question are very serious.
I don’t want to push off to hard from your criticism because, in a very significant way, you’re exactly right.
My point here is a bit different. It is not so much about the content, but, instead on the representation via discourse. That is why I call Vox-Nova a token liberal blog. In a real sense this is not true, but in its representation across dialogue, it is.
But your final question raises a new—and I suspect better—direction.
I, for one, would welcome a vigorous debate over a specific theme or issue. The problem is that I am not sure that blogging enables that, or if it is even intended to do that sort of thing.
Maybe it is time to come to the table empty handed and try to empathize first and then reject what seems outrageous and debate over it. I once wrote a post on that, but it got no play.
Or maybe, we should just try and be essayists writing on subjects that add beauty to the often ugly world of blogging.
I don’t know, but thanks for asking. In the end, I think people come to these things for a commentary on the daily news form their own person point of view or the point of view they personally dislike the most.
Sam,
Echoing Michael D somewhat: While I’ve at times found your posts a bit opaque to me, I don’t really see you as part of the problem here, if the problem that concerns you is people getting spun up about their differences.
That said, one of the reasons the Butter Battle Book always annoyed me is because it was clearly written in the context of the Cold War and made the implicit judgement that there was no substantive difference between the two sides involved. In my experience, even in situations where the amount of conflict and animus being expressed over a difference is excessive, it is seldom the case that the two sides are in fact identical.
In this case, it seems to me that there are, generally speaking, real and important differences that exist between many of the contributors at TAC and VN, though obviously the situation is complicated by the variety of views on both sides. (For instance, when people attack TAC for being “fascist”, they’re often not thinking of the views typically expressed by Tim Shipe or Eric Brown.) And while sinking large numbers of hours into humorously mischaracterizing each other may not be the response to those differences that some would prefer, it’s perhaps an understandable response in certain cases or from certain types of personalities.
At the end of the day, while I think some of these exercises may be a rather excessive waste of time (and show an unhealthy degree of obsession) we’re not in the end talking about a “war” here in which anyone is being hurt — at least not that I’m aware of. And so while not all of it may be my style, I’m not sure how much can be achieved by waving my virtual arms and saying, “Will you all stop it so we can sit around and having serious conversation?!?!”
After all, everyone needs a laugh once in a while, though we prefer those that are at the expense of others rather than ourselves. And having run my own blog for a number of years (and continued to do so simultaneously with group-blogging) I can say with empirical certainty that the number of people interested in reading only my own style of discourse is much smaller than the number of people interested in following these larger, more circus-like blogs.
“I, for one, would welcome a vigorous debate over a specific theme or issue. The problem is that I am not sure that blogging enables that, or if it is even intended to do that sort of thing.
I’m game. Name your theme or issue.
“Maybe it is time to come to the table empty handed and try to empathize first and then reject what seems outrageous and debate over it. I once wrote a post on that, but it got no play.”
We can do that as well.
Whatever you like.
To a certain extent, I think you’re taking this too seriously, Sam: It’s doubtful any of the cross-fire is really aimed at you. You and Kyle and Brett and Nathan all do a fine job. My advice would be to ignore the tedious whose-kettle-or-pot-is-blacker contests; they are just another way people with too much time on their hands waste time on the internet.
It’s also important to note that traffic numbers have very little relation to quality of content; there are two ways to generate traffic on blogs: 1) Get someone with more traffic than you to link to you; 2)Make controversial (and/or hyper-partisan) arguments that generate lots of discussion. If your posts don’t generate a lot of discussion, it’s often because people agree with them – and that’s certainly not a bad thing. It means you’re probably writing well-reasoned posts – which I think you usually do.
As to finding common ground and all that. I think the fundamental problems are the following:
1) Many principles of Catholic thought are articulated at a fairly high level of abstraction, and often involve balancing a number of competing claims (see, for instance, Caritas in Veritate)
2) These claims can be hashed out in a wide variety of different ways that range from legitimate, to somewhat sketchy, to completely ridiculous.
3) The architecture of blogs – particularly comment sections – does not lend itself well to nuance, and so nearly all the arguments made are overly simplistic by necessity.
4) This makes it extremely easy to misinterpret and or caricature the necessarily simplistic assertions people make.
It could be that the reasons above are excellent reasons not to have Catholic blogs at all – and at times, that seems preferable to the tediousness and tendentiousness of all this – but I, personally, have learned a fair amount while blogging about different topics and have received some valuable insights from various conversations and posts. As with most things in life, finding what’s valuable requires some filtering – and one of the first things to filter out if they bother you, is the type of tendentiousness on display at CF or that parody video.
Why thank you John Henry.
Henry, relax. We have disagreements, as you know, that prevent me from praising your blogging without reservation. Everyone has valuable things to share, and you are no exception. I don’t dislike you – or anyone else here for that matter.
Relax?
Get the log out of your eye.
Sam,
I, too, was struck by your statement that you thought about blogging over there. I wouldn’t even know to talk to about blogging over there. Who do you talk to about blogging over there anyway?
best,
Austin
PS Rocco lives.
Austin go to Tito and ask him. I’m sure he will welcome you.
I’m working on it. ;-)
Austin: I hate to sound this way, but given the way blogging works, you can very easily ask them at the blog itself, in comments or otherwise. Be forewarned, that this is not the subject of this thread, as I have said already. Best to you too!
P.S. – Rocco has been telling me this basic fact about blogging for some time now.
CFAM is a big participant in the “butter battle” Sam.
Austin (and apologies to sam, but I thought this might be helpful to Austin),I am not sure if you are serious, but, if you are, just visit our “Contributors” tab and e-mail one of us. And, of course, the same is true for you Sam.
As I’ve said many times before, getting into nasty back and forths with other bloggers -each trying to to outdo the other with pointed rhetorical jabs – is pointless and self defeating, and one doesn’t feel good about oneself afterwards. This is why I’ve tried to pull back from commenting on some of the nastier places – and lest anybody here thinks I am talking about them, let me say upfront that I would much prefer to meet the TAC crowd and fellow travelers in person than sactimonious-acrimonious types like Shea!
All that said, I remain committed to what I see as the important mission of Vox Nova – to stand up to the dominant right-wing liberalism of American Catholicism (it calls itself conservative, but really isn’t). I think VN has been doing this quite well lately, but this is largely ignored. How many people read Henry’s theological posts? I learn a lot from them, but they require some work to get through. Myself, I’ve been writing more and more against American laissez-faire liberalism and its theological roots – and I’m quite happy with some of the output – but this doesn’t get much notice on the other side.
There has been some good debate (on occasion!), but we are nearly always stymied by fundamentally different worldviews. Not surprisingly, I think mine is closer to both historical Christianity and to global Catholicism today.
In the end, we must keep doing what we are doing. Somebody on TAC once wrote that they have more readers than us. I have no way of knowing this, but who really cares? If we wanted to boost our readership, I know how to do it (hint – not by thoughtful theological posts!). But I would rather remain part of a “creative minority” than to assimilate into the Protestantized Catholicism that seems to so deeply influence our friends on the other side of the debate.
And by the way, I don’t mind parody directed at me, as long as it’s good! After all, I see Calvinists under every bush, don’t I? :)
Dearest Henry-who-needs-a-hug-bad,
C-FAM works on social policy at the UN and other international institutions. We do not get involved in these illuminating Vox-Nova debates. As a giggle I do, but that is in my private capacity. If anyone wants to know about C-FAM, you can check us out at http://www.c-fam.org...
Best to all and especially to brave Henry,
Austin
Austin Ruse pretends to be above the discussions at Vox Nova. A casual glance at the archives will disprove that claim as well.
If anyone looks at CFAM, one will see it has a… blog….and in that blog… well… nuff said.
I love the cheap shots Michael takes at me, long after our conversation has ended.
What a classy guy!
I love the cheap shots Michael takes at me, long after our conversation has ended. What a classy guy!
Zach, actually I had your co-blogger Christopher in mind. I would have completely forgotten about our conversation about LT had you not reminded me about it.
Minion
I see Calvinists under every bush, don’t I?
I love it. Self-effacement with a subtle (presumably intended) shot at our former President. Almost chocked on my Coke in the Law Library when I read that. Bravo, Minion, bravo.
This is why I’ve tried to pull back from commenting on some of the nastier places – and lest anybody here thinks I am talking about them, let me say upfront that I would much prefer to meet the TAC crowd and fellow travelers in person than sactimonious-acrimonious types like Shea!
Perhaps our mutual annoyance at the way Shea characterizes our blogs can be a starting point of empathy that Sam referred to? ;)
Michael I.
Aside from the recognition of these few attempts at theological discussion, though, the idea that core theological issues are largely avoided, especially by the past and present writers at Vox Nova, is simply laughable and easily refuted from a casual browsing of the site’s archives.
I only meant those core issues of dispute between the two blogs in regards to the way to approach the American state. There have been posts that have skirted the issue though. However, I claim no expertise on the subject of VN’s post history so if you know of some posts off the top of your head that do address that issue I would love to read them.
I did not mean to imply that Vn has never done core theological posts, which as you said is simply not true.
I only meant those core issues of dispute between the two blogs in regards to the way to approach the American state. There have been posts that have skirted the issue though.
I still disagree. I think both in blog posts and in the comment boxes VN contributors have been pretty clear about the theological grounding of the positions they take.
By way of outside humor….it’s kind of like watching a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.
But, then again the issue is less symptomatic of the Catholic Blogosphere and more a sign of our culture. Every denomination is going through this self=flagellation. The question I bring is this: Is this a part of the universal vision of the Church? I mean, what would Peter and Paul do to each other with digital media rather than a stylus and papyrus!
If a ‘professional’ Catholic like Shea is annoyed with you guys you must be doing something right – you guys cut into his revenue -watch out that one man show will put up quite the show and dance.
In some ways it is rather amusing to see the catholic right wing get sucked up in money matters – Fr. Z begs for money for the birds to finance his true passions besides the priestly duties. Good for him – he is good at what he does. He will be the first iBishop if he keeps it up. Twittering to the flock.
You guys at Vox Nova give eloquent voice to a rather large group within the catholic church – do not despair – use humor – satire – whatever it takes – Catholics have been traditionally the not so stuffed up ones when we really get down to it.
Michael,
I freely admitted above and freely admit here that I have sullied myself in these pages. I do not pretend to be above this silliness. My organization is, however, not above it, but certainly not in it. We work on international social policy, how the UN and ohter international institutions effect life and family matters.
Silly Henry,
So, having a blog means exactly what? That C-FAM is involved in the silly intra-Catholic arguments? If anyone wants to read the blog, www-un-blog.org , you can see it is about international social policy. Perhaps i am wrong but i don’t think you will find anytning there that resembles the mess that is Vox-Nova.
The blog on CFAM reads exactly like the mess which is the Catholic blogosphere; your constant “left this, left that” while ignoring reality indicates quite clearly what is going on.
By the way, i actually do not think that fighting the left in the Church is silly. The left has profoundly harmed the Church and only now is She climbing back out of the trough the left placed Her in. The happy fact is that the left is dying. Yesterday at Mass there was an aging priest who was one of those guys who thinks he can riff whatever rubrics he wants. I was unhappy but also content to know that the days of his type are numbered. His kind, however, are a part of your world, not mine, and certainly not the Church going forward. So, fighting this nonsense is important.
By the way, the fact that you have only a few hundred readers a week shows that Vox Nova has no traction and is further proof that the left is dying.
Austin: The left has been around as long as the right has—neither one of them is going to die anytime soon.
Vox-Nova readership numbers are not huge, but they are in the thousands per week, not hundreds. Yesterday VN had something like 1,650 views.
I missed you in D.C. this past time I was there, sorry; I was in and out, barely had time to see Roc and over a quick beer and soccer. I’ll be sure to give you a ring next time so we can do lunch or something.
The way I see it, the animosity between the two blogs is due to rather navel-gazing reflections on politics. If there are two things that make Catholics go the most crazy on the Internet, it is politics and liturgy (in that order). That is because everyone has opinions, but no one seems particularly informed about them. I have to admit, I don’t have very strong opinions on health care, the pro-life movement, etc. just because, I admit, I haven’t studied the issues, and don’t feel compelled to do so. I have better things to do with my time than believe that I can change things that are essentially out of my hands. That I suppose is what liturgical and political conversations have that are so intoxicating: there is an illusion of participation, but in the end the outcome will not be determined strictly by what you want or don’t want, so it feels good to gripe about it.
But then again, to get obsessed with how the Church wants us to run our society is just the old ultramontanism carried on by other means. There is no reason to believe that the Church could dictate economic or social policy. At most, it can serve as a “prophetic witness” to what is right and wrong, but what if the Church threw a revolution and nobody came? Maybe what would be best is for both sites to untie themselves from Cross and flag and cease to pretend that the other side is somehow in violation of essential Catholic principles. Both are trying to sprinkle a little holy water on values that grew up outside the institutional Church. That’s all fine and dandy, but I would put away the virtual bell, book, and candle, because I don’t see any bishops here, or anyone else who has any authority to judge the “catholicity” of the other side, no matter how seemingly absurd their position is.
John Henry is certainly right about generating traffic. I think the most traffic I ever got was a post about homosexuality where the discussion was absolutely toxic. The traffic didn’t indicate that I had written a good post (though I hope I did), but that people were constantly checking back to see if their most recent comment had been responded to so that they could sally forth again. I had to shut the stupid thing down when it became downright obscene.
I also agree with many of his observations about why blogging is such a problematic forum. Sometimes I despair of it, but I think that it is actually making me a better writer and sometimes, when all the stars align, there is actually productive discussion.
I am even learning how to present my ideas so that flare-ups are less likely, but without compromising my beliefs. If avoiding flare-ups (i.e., promoting unity) was actually a goal of most Catholic blogs, the atmosphere might improve. It is not, however, very compatible with chasing “hits.”
Don’t worry Sam. You are leaven out here. Peace and a happy return.
Henry, babe…as per usual, you dont knwo what you are talking about. You shoot and then aim.
Our “constant left-this and right-that”? I just did a search going back to June and there are exactly three references on our blog to the political “left”. Perhaps there are more but constant?
Actually, on our blog and in our work we try, not always successfully, to stay away from left and right, precisely because we work internationally and internationally this is not always a left-right issue. Much of the left in Latin America, for instance, is actually pro-life (unlike here, sigh). It was the Sandanistas who made abortion for reason illegal in Nicaragua.
When referring to our adversaries on abortion, we tend to use the word “radical”. You would consider baby-killing radical wouldn’t you, Henry?
I took the point of Sam’s butter battle post to be the intra-Catholic food fight that goes on here. And your charge that C-FAM’s UN Blog (www.un-blog.org) is part of this butter battle falls flat, too.
Austin
Actually, I know quite well what I am talking about. I consistently see your left/right paradigm is exactly the constructed butter battle being discussed here. It is the issue. The problem with Sam’s post here is that Vox Nova is not a “liberal” or “leftist” blog. In the US political spectrum, some elements will be liked by “liberals” but others will not. As long as you focus on this battle, you ignore Catholicism which is neither left nor right.
And Austin, the proof of my point, and the proof that you are not thinking as a Catholic (and hardly demonstrate the ability to think, but only to make talking points which are absurd) is when you called GW Bush a CATHOLIC President, or when you indicate him as having ANY credibility on the issue of life. As long as you award such honors to someone like Bush, your idolatry will keep you in the butter battle front and center.
What I would love to see a blog like Vox Nova do is have some kind of independent reviewer who evaluated comments according to objective standards (to the extent that’s possible) — something roughly along the lines of politifact.com, only with attention not only to verifiable facts, but rhetorical techniques, logical fallacies, civility, and so on. Of course, it would be a lot of work, but it would nudge people to a higher standard than simply reviewing their messages and deleting the ones that are downright unacceptable.
Austin -
so you are looking forward to ‘the left’ dying –
I hope you have a backup plan. As Sam said neither side will go anywhere anytime soon.
But of course you are less refering to the left as in political terms and more in a intra church sense.
You know, it might well be that in the short term you get a bit of what you sooo deeply claim to desire.
Indeed important forces within the church clearly are steering back towards pre Vatican II days – you guys are fooling yourself in my view if you think that the type of dream church you soo deeply desire will have any good long term perspective.
Seems to me the church you so much desire was found lacking 60 years ago. I do not think that your guys game plan is as strong as you think.
the left has profoundly harmed the church
When we moved the Church to end racial segregation in Catholic parishes, schools and hospitals? When we followed Father John Courtney Murray on issues of religious tolerance? When we established labor schools?
His kind, however, are a part of your world, not mine, and certainly not the Church going forward. So, fighting this nonsense is important.
This sounds awfully close to separatist Catholicism. Some, like St Augustine, call that Donatism.
Also, your celebratory tone when speaking of aging “lefty” priests who are supposedly dying out is disgusting and cruel. The related claim is also, happily, false.
I have found that reading various Catholic blogs and their comment boxes have greatly improved how I articulate my questions and my observations about the faith as well as helped me learn and get help with where to learn more about the faith.
My comments are usually poor expressions of what I’m trying to get at. My hope is to get better.
Grega,
I would deeply regret taking the Church back to pre-Vatican II. Vatican II was the great gift of the Holy Spirit to the church in our time.
Dear Dear Henry,
I will keep repeating this until it gets through your ideological skull. I freely admit i have engaged in these left-right intra-Catholic on this blog and elsewhere, but your charge is that this also occurs on C-FAM’s UN Blog. This is jsut not so and no amount of your repeating the charge will make it so.
About your so-called proof of your charge, that i called George Bush a Catholic at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. True enough. That was not on the UN Blog at the C-FAM website which is what you charged. I would appreciate your admitting you are wrong, but i wont’ hold my breath.
Austin,
That you are capable of saying such about Bush indicates an active dishonesty or ignorance of the kind which overlaps with what CFAM itself does. When you harassed me, I looked up CFAM and read some of the blog posts. What I saw was coming not from a Catholic sentiment, but from a biased, and quite radical, sentiment. You play games there as elsewhere — as does CFAM itself. What I read was quite in line with the ideological wargame, and the mentality of political adherence as indicative of Catholicism (again only way you can ever begin to call GW Bush ‘Catholic’). What is interesting is how someone who talks about “working with the UN” is fundamentally opposed to the UN and your work is to counter the idea of the UN, despite official Vatican statements (it was not “here is where UN is a problem” but the typical nationalistic claptrap which runs counter to Catholic thought). The problem is you are so enclosed to your view you have no real ability to judge anything (as can be seen from your constant stock statements which say nothing). Austin, I would call you second-rate save that would give those who are second rate an insult. Usually those who are second-rate have some intellectual acumen.
BTW, your “dear Henry” and “Henry babe,” and your desire to give me hugs, could all be seen in a light you might not like.
Kurt
When did you have so much power worldwide to do anything with the liturgy?
Kurt,
When you ruined the liturgy and watered down the faith and drove millions of Catholics out of the Church.
Michael,
Yes, Michael, faithful Catholics celebrate that a certain brand of Priest is now fading from the scene, particularly but not exclusively those who play footsie with the Mass. I won’t back off of that even one inch.
Well, I have tried three times now to rebut the ridiculous things Henry has said and three times they have not appeared. Typical. This is the Vox Nova way. One of the bloggers gets to impune the sexuality of a commenter and the commenter has no recourse. A Vox Nova blogger gets to make all sorts of wild charges but the target does not get to respond. this even though the Vox Nova blogger offers no proof of his assertions. Yes, this, folks is Vox Nova. Ain’t your moms proud!
In case i am now allowed to respond…
First, Henry, the comment about Bush was a joke. I do not step away from it but it was a joke. The joke goes like this, “George Bush was the second Catholic president and the first was Ronald Reagan.” We political conservatives think this is funny but we know, Henry, that neither Reagan or Bush are actually Catholic. So sorry this was unclear to you.
Second, you say C-FAM’s blog is a part of the Catholic Butter Wars or whatever Sam describes. I say show me where. You say, the blog is constantly about left this and right that. I point out that this just ain’t so, that we mention political “left” only 3 times in the past 3 months. And then you say we are “fundamentally opposed to the UN.” As with all your other charges, Henry, i ask you to show me. Show me once on our entire website where we call for the UN to be closed or the US to leave or whatever it is you think we believe. Show me, Henry, just one thing that even comes close to this charge.
You also seem to question my sexuality since i have called you Dear and Babe. I have no response to that, Henry, nothingn that will past muster to whomever is monitoring comments on this thread. it is funny though!
Lastly, you say you checked my blog at the time I called you at home and you took such offense. Henry, the blog did not exist then.
At the of the day, Henry, you are making a lot of charges against me and my staff. You ought to at least try to back them up adn if you can’t then you should man-up and admit it.
Austin Ruse – You used the word dying with a celebratory tone. There is no mistaking what you meant. You are no Catholic leader. You are a farce.
Austin – I was excited to read that we share a deep appreciation for the Holy Spirits Gifts to our Church.
After your C-FAM website was mentioned the third time I finally bothered to look it up – I was surprised by what I found – clearly you have, shall we say a professional interest to push for the ‘prosperous’ mixture of your political views, your personalized set of morals and your idea of the American catholic church. Yes I can see why you might have a professional ‘love’ for Vatican II and official catholic social teachings and the churches support of international organizations like the UN since the hate that those words invoke in a good number of your contributors and clients is rather GREAT for business.
In case you have not noticed, you are in direct competion with the catholic church for donations.
No wonder you really do not bother to consider the worldwide reach of this church -a church made up mostly by rather poor folks living in societies that do not have the luxury to afford professional polito-religious lobbyist like yourself.
But hey, more power to you that you found a way to finance your pontification over a flock of believers – no wonder that you love the “joke” of calling Ronald Reagan and George Bush the first and second catholic president – you have taken the evangelical polito religious playbook and made it part of your business model – not particular creative, perhaps lucrative – whatever works to feed the kids.
It is one thing to celebrate the conversion of those with whom one disagrees. It is another entirely to celebrate their deaths. If they are indeed as damnable as Mr. Ruse implies, death is the last thing any Christian would wish on them.
It is pretty rich to tell one’s interlocutor to man up and admit something while, in the same conversation, rephrasing death as “fading out” and refusing to budge an inch.
And, as far as I can tell, when the left dies, the right goes with it. Thanks be to God.
For the record, Austin’s attempt to harass me at home took place in January of this year.
http://www.c-fam.org/blog/pid.27/default.asp
Published: 12/4/09 03:33 PM – By Austin Ruse
Welcome to the UN Blog
OOPS. Austin, people have now seen what I have said as well. Enough is enough. Your unethical behavior says enough to me. Once people read what happened after that day, one will see some things all Catholics agree with, but many things which runs counter to the Church, such as the disgusting attack of Copenhagen (read Pope Benedict on it and see the difference). It is easy for anyone to follow and see your ideology at CFAM and it is a “culture” (er, butter) war site.
Michael,
Here is what i said:
“The happy fact is that the left is dying.”
This does not refer to specific individuals nor to the priest i then commented on. About him I said this:
“I was unhappy [with his adlibing the liturgy] but also content to know that the days of his type are numbered.”
Note I said, “his type.”
So, having established what i said i will say it again. It is a celebratory thing that the left is dying. The left has done almost irreparable harm to the Church and to souls. It is good it is fading away.
Am I a Catholic leaders? No. I shudder at the thought. I am a layman working in the public square to live out my baptismal promises.
Dear Henry,
This is what manning-up looks like. Watch and learn.
“It looks like i was wrong about the time line of our little contretemps earlier this year, one that causes you severe pain to this day. Perhaps you did get a look at our blog after that.”
Your turn.
Now, where is the proof of all your charges about my work and my blog, that we are part of the butter battle? Is it that we pointed out that population control was a part of the UN’s Copenhagen conference? You call is “disgusting” that we have the temerity to criticize a UN conference? Good golly, old fellow. The substance of the post was a take-out from a British newspaper and it happened to be true. Have you never heard of the population reduction agenda connected to environmentalism? And you call this a disgusting attack and then imply that we are bad Cathoilcs and going after Benedict? The leaps here are Ballanchine-like.
So, this the sum and substance of your charges against us that my blog is a part of the butter battle, that we criticized a UN conference? You shuold be able to do better than that in making your case aginst my blog Henry.
Batter up!
Grega,
It is truly hard to parse your meaning. I will try.
I think the heart of your concern is that we ask for and take donations for our work? Guilty! the underlying assumption is that, my staff and I, are in this for the money? Yes, we are all getting rich! My research director was a professor at the Naval War College. I have four attorneys on staff including one who just came to us from a Federal Judgeship. I came from magazine publishing in New York. Yes, were are ALL in it for the money! Wahoo, we’re getting rich!
I think you are also wondering if we are out of step with the Church in opposing certain UN social policies? The fact is that we work very closely with various Vatican dicasteries in our work. One of my employees served on the Holy See delegation to the UN conference on disabilities. Moreover, the Church holds the same dim view of certain UN documents and treaties that we do. We, the Vatican and C-FAM, hold the same view that there is value in international institutions (we at C-FAM base this on the concept of subsidiarity) but that said institutions should not do harm and should stick close to their founding vision.
I think that is all i can parse…but would be happy to respond further….
Just for the record, my “attempt to harass” Henry was a single phone call to his apartment. I called him because i could not figure out why he stopped putting up my comments on a particular thread about George Bush and stem cells.
Henry will tell you this was an uninvited phone call and therefore harassing. All i can say about that is Henry is a sensitive soul.
In the meantime i have met and had a good time on a couple of occasions with Mr. Minion which was what i was trying to accomplish with Henry. I think it is always helpful for adversaries to meet face to face. Since that time Mr. Minion and I, for instance, have had nary a cross word. Dialogue does work among the good-hearted and I am told by Minion and others who know him that Henry is that.
I must say it is really fitting that Mr. Ruse has reemerged in the combox of this very post.
At the risk of interrupting the back-and-forth between Austin Ruse and some Vox-Nova authors, I thought that one issue which VN and TAC might profitably discuss would be the very different reception of Niehbur and Courtney Murray by, on the one hand, someone like Richard John Neuhaus, and, on the other hand, by someone like Michael Baxter and/or David Schindler. As a casual reader and sometime commentator on both blogs, it strikes me that their deepest disagreements boil down to something like this difference. I would like a post examining Neuhaus’s past criticism, and then partial retraction of that criticism, directed toward Baxter, or a post examining Baxter’s criticism of Neuhaus’ (and others’) project. See Baxter’s charitable, but quite critical, review of Neuhaus’ last book on this: http://ncronline.org/news/people/neuhaus-first-and-last-things
Not that anyone cares, but, from my perspective as a casual reader of both blogs, it does seem to me that TAC at times veers towards nationalist idolatry, and that VN at times veers towards sanctimonious posturing. But I would like very much to see the blogs engage eachother more productively
WJ – That is an interesting way of framing the disagreements the two blogs have. VN has certainly had its Schindler-ites in the past. I have expressed views that are certainly along the lines of Baxter, but not Schindler, as I can’t follow his Balthasarian gender nuttery. I think the debates symbolized by these figures are certainly taking place on these blogs. Although there is much to be said for thinking outside of that box as they are all very u.s.-centric thinkers, with maybe Baxter as a bit of an exception. If anything I have argued against being so focused on u.s. issues and concepts, especially through engagement with liberation theologies and movements. Such movements do not fit into the framework of the Neuhaus-vs-Baxter tension.
Michael,
You poor sap; Sam is leaving your blog, not mine.
But I would like very much to see the blogs engage eachother more productively
It seems to me the only way it would work is with a PBS NewsHour-style discussion, with a neutral third party questioning one blog, then formulating questions based on the responses and asking them of the second blog, and then formulating questions based on the responses from the second blog to go back and ask more questions of the first blog. If the two blogs talk directly to each other, it will just be more of the same.
Michael,
Fair enough. I too am wary of adopting a u.s.centric myopic vision of catholicism. I guess my point was that, properly understood, Baxter and (somewhat differently, you’re right) Schindler and (again somewhat differently) MacIntyre all provide arguments about why it is so dangerous for American Catholics too closely to identify with the contingent nation-state in which they live, whereas people like Neuhaus and (less intelligently) Weigel and (more intelligently) Murray and the middle Maritain seem to think that these other folk are too theologically pessimistic about America. The less closely one undertands one’s catholicism to relate to one’s national identity, the less likely one is to be myopic; contrariwise, the more closely one sees one’s catholicism as invested in, or as in support of, a particular vision of ordered liberty, the more likely one is to be ‘patriotic’ in a certain sense.
I think these debates are, as you note, always going on, but not at a properly explicit theological level. One’s positions here are revealed rather in what one has to say about other things.
Sam,
But Michael is right….this awful thread is the perfect coda to your leaving….makes your point in spades, eh?
It seems to me the only way it would work is with a PBS NewsHour-style discussion, with a neutral third party questioning one blog, then formulating questions based on the responses and asking them of the second blog, and then formulating questions based on the responses from the second blog to go back and ask more questions of the first blog. If the two blogs talk directly to each other, it will just be more of the same.
Well, it’s just silly to talk about the blogs this way to begin with, in my opinion. Sam is different from Kyle who is different from Nathan who is different from Henry who is different from MM. Blackadder is different from Darwin whose different from Michael Denton whose different from Don whose different from Joe. These are individuals, with their own strengths and blind spots. There’s not really a universal consensus at TAC about that much – other than that Michael Iafrate acts like a jerk – and I certainly wouldn’t lump Michael in with any of the current contributors here.
Individuals have conversations; blogs don’t. That this particular set of conversations may be between mismatched individuals doesn’t really say all that much about the blogs in general. Does Don strike me as too much enamored with the right? Sure. Does MM strike me as too much enamored with the left? Sure. Does that mean either is wrong all the time? Of course not. Does CF express a particular critique with some merit? Sure, however strained the humor may be. Does the video also hit on some legitimate critiques? Sure, however clumsily and didactically. But conversations can still happen apart from all that nonsense.