Malcolm in the middle

There’s an interesting article this week in That Magazine We Don’t Mention. No, it’s not Bobbie Mickens’ bizarre view that local bishops can issue translations of the Missale Romanum under their own steam, assuming they can tear themselves away from Cowboy Masses and now World Cup Masses. No, it’s not Christa Pongratz throwing a strop over the appointment of the new Bishop of Eisenstadt. I’m not even referring to some spectacular lionising of Kevin Dowling, who seems like he’s positively trying to secure an invitation to the Palazzo Sant’Uffizio.

What has caught my eye is a little piece on the Anglican Ordinariate, which would really leap off the page if given the properly irreverent treatment.

First, some background. To properly appreciate this, you need to know that the Magic Circle don’t like the Ordinariate. They don’t like the Ordinariate in the first instance because they were comfortable with the old ecumenical process via ARCIC, which is a nice excuse for Catholic and Anglican hierarchs to have pleasant cups of tea with no actual end in sight. On the other hand, with the retirement of Walter Kasper as Christian Unity czar, there is nobody left in the upper echelons of the Roman Curia who thinks corporate reunion with Canterbury is a viable proposition. The most important ecumenical process now is with the Eastern Orthodox; there are very interesting things going on in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod; and, of course, there are the Anglo-Catholics.

Secondarily, the Magic Circle don’t like the Ordinariate because the CDF is running it, and their collective nose is out of joint because Grand Inquisitor Levada announced the initiative before they had a chance to sabotage it. (And, not coincidentally, shortly after Cardinal Cormac’s retirement.) The CDF is taking the lead officially because it’s an international initiative – the request for an ordinariate came initially from the breakaway Traditional Anglican Communion, whose main strength is in North America – and unofficially to stop Eccleston Square playing silly buggers with a project close to B16’s heart. So there is, to put this very politely, a question mark over the BCEW’s commitment to the project.

Now then. As you may know, there was recently this meeting of 55 Anglo-Catholic clergy to discuss the Ordinariate. And the Catholic hierarchy was represented at this meeting by Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham. At the time, I remarked with tongue in cheek that this was proof of how positive Eccleston Square was about the Ordinariate, because surely the opportunity of spending more time with +Malcy would be the clincher for those wavering Anglo-Catholics. And lo, my predictive powers were not too bad.

The gist of the thing is that some wiseacre asked whether, under the Ordinariate, married men could be ordained. Malcy’s short answer was no. Well, he said, married Anglican priests could be ordained as Catholic, and this might be stretched to married ordinands. But married laymen becoming Ordinariate priests, absolutely not. No way, Pedro. Married priests in the Ordinariate would be a stopgap measure and would naturally die out.

At this point, Anglo-Catholic Bishop Keith Newton of Richborough made a most unhelpful intervention. Check this out:

This was, however, challenged by Bishop Newton, who after the meeting questioned whether Bishop McMahon had the authority to pronounce on the issue. The Bishop of Richborough said: “I want to hear what the CDF has to say; they are in charge of the ordinariate, not Bishop McMahon.”

Ouch! And it only got worse, as +Keith was inconsiderate enough to actually quote what Anglicanorum coetibus had to say on the matter:

§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

That seems fairly straightforward to me. Celibacy will be the norm for entrants to the priesthood, but exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis contingent on the approval of the Holy See. So married laymen may be admitted as candidates if the Ordinary can make a strong enough case for the individual concerned; what we’re not sure about is just how liberally the CDF would interpret that in the future. So, Keith was right and Malcolm was wrong. QED.

I do like, though, this bit at the end:

Bishop McMahon replied that while [Newton’s] reading was “correct”, he stood by his earlier answer.

At which point you slap your forehead. This is the sort of thing that could lead poorly informed observers to draw the erroneous conclusion that the Bishops’ Conference is not very keen on the Ordinariate. Malcolm had better start pulling his socks.


  1. July 20, 2010 at 2:36 am

    “there are very interesting things going on in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod”

    ??? This is the same LCMS which are young-earth creationists and hold to “Pope Is Antichrist” doctrine, right?

    • weserei said,

      July 20, 2010 at 5:10 am

      Wikipedia says they do indeed have a resolution on the books to the effect that “the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3–12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” The gap between official documents and the stated beliefs even of bishops can be quite large, though–see the history of the 39 Articles, for instance.

    • Bill said,

      July 20, 2010 at 8:51 pm

      Actually, Missouri Synod has some representatives who are still doubtful about this whole “Copernicanism” thing.

  2. yourcousin said,

    July 20, 2010 at 2:54 am

    Christ on a cross SS! Lets just rename the blog the Catholic Register (local Catholic paper in my neck of the woods) and be done with. Where do I place an announcement for my son’s baptism?

  3. ejh said,

    July 20, 2010 at 4:07 am

    “A waste of talent, and electricity”

    • July 20, 2010 at 5:49 am

      That was of course John Peel’s assessment of Emerson, Lake and Palmer. (He was certainly right after the first four albums.) On the other hand, the actually existing British and Irish far left are a very depressing subject at the moment and I can’t blame our host for not being enthused.

  4. marcpuck said,

    July 20, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Mons McMahon may have stood by his response because of the final clause in

  5. marcpuck said,

    July 20, 2010 at 4:32 am

    [Mea culpa.] In number 2 as quoted, “according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See”– I suspect that those aren’t going to be broadly drawn up to allow the ordination of many married men.

  6. July 20, 2010 at 4:40 am

    […] Splintered Sunrise, prompted by an article in The Tablet, has done an admirable job putting the event — a […]

  7. magistra said,

    July 20, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Do the enthusiasts for the Ordinariate really realise what they’re getting in the Anglo-Catholics? They’re getting a movement that for more than 150 years has worked on the principle that you can just ignore what your own church hierarchy and official doctrine says if it doesn’t fit in with your own theological views. I’m really not sure that their ideas about church authority are going to sit easily with B16’s. (The Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England also has a lot of gay men in it, which is potentially tricky once you get away from the Anglican tradition of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’).

  8. Ken MacLeod said,

    July 20, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I have to say that reading recent posts and comments on this site, as well as some of the material so helpfully linked to, has changed my mind about two things.

    On mature reflection I had come to think that the RC Church might perhaps be a less appalling institution than my youthful reading in the literature of militant Protestantism and (subsequently) the literature of militant Rationalism had led me to believe. I have now come to think that this slightly more accommodating view was quite mistaken.

    Secondly: over the years I’ve sometimes made superficially amusing analogies between Marxism and Christianity, in which the writings of Marx, Engels, and their anointed (see what I mean?) acknowledged or contested successors feature as scripture, their theories as dogma, and the disputes over their interpretation as scholasticism and theology; the ‘official’ Communist Movement as the Roman Catholic Church and the various splits and splinters – from the Communist Party of China to the latest Trotskyist or Maoist or Hoxhaist groupuscule – as the equivalent of schisms, sects, and heresies. I now see that this analogy is at best a travesty of the truth.

    • Phil said,

      July 20, 2010 at 10:27 am

      Is that a polite way of saying “Screw you guys, I’m going home”? Because $DEITY knows I wouldn’t blame you.

      • ejh said,

        July 20, 2010 at 11:16 am

        He’d be headed the same way I’m headed.

      • July 20, 2010 at 11:09 pm

        I’m sure our host is feeling absolutely terrible at the prospect of losing you, and is quickly preparing a 5-post analysis of Kieran Allen’s latest speeches to keep you on board.

    • magistra said,

      July 20, 2010 at 10:51 pm

      Speaking as one who was raised if not in militant Protestantism, at least in low church C of E anti-Catholicism, what I’m finding intriguing is the revelation of the sheer ineffectiveness of the Catholic authorities. All my assumptions about the authoritarian suppression of dissent and top-down control and it turns out that the Vatican apparently can’t organise a Mass in a brewery, and that the Pope has no more control over his bishops than Rowan Williams has over his. Maybe someone should point out to the anti-church liberals that Catholicism is just a papal tiger?

  9. Conchúr said,

    July 20, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Actually the main strength (in terms of numbers) of the TAC is in India and Africa. The North American constituents are just far more represented in the blogosphere and media, new and old.

  10. Chris Williams said,

    July 20, 2010 at 11:58 am

    I dunno, I’m still finding this entertaining. Once I’ve been exposed to all the positions, though, I expect the novelty to wear off.

  11. Ben said,

    July 20, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    Excuse me, but my English is not very good. I found in this interesting blog (and in many other very beautiful anglophone blogs such as the Damian Thompson’s one), this expression “Magic Circle”. I understand that this is a mocking expression to designate our beloved brothers of the Free Masonry or something like that…
    Could be someone be so kind to explain me (anD to the other foreign ignorants) what or who is the “Magic Circle”?
    Excuse me again and “molte grazie!”

    • Tiggy said,

      July 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm

      Most of the Bishops of England and Wales! Probably Scotland and Ireland too.

      • Ben said,

        July 22, 2010 at 9:34 pm

        Many thanks! Now I understand. So, the Magic Circle is the Bishops’ Conference. Without your explanation I never would understand this…

  12. Phil said,

    July 20, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    I think what I find particularly depressing about this latest outing is that, while the people being cheered on and the people getting a kicking are the same, anything resembling an agenda seems to have shifted by approx. 180 degrees. What (for those who care about these things, which doesn’t include me) do the teachings of the Church of Rome over the last two millennia say about ordaining married men? Which way (ditto) does the Tradition point with regard to this one? Turning into a conservative Catholic blog would be quite bad (and weird) enough, but turning into a Benedict XVI fan-blog…!

  13. CharlieMcMenamin said,

    July 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Can I put in a small plea for hearing a bit more about ‘the heart of a heartless world’ and an awful lot less about the precise differences in chemical composition of the different brands of the ‘opium of the people’ .

    Religion is interesting – or should potentially be interesting to leftists – because of how it works psychologically and sociologically, not because of its internal theology.

    Anthony Trollope got away with those church-y novels because he made the folk live out their slippery pole climbing in the context of their theology, not because anyone gives a toss about the precise doctrinal content of mid C19th Anglicanism.

  14. Policraticus said,

    July 20, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    for the best piece to date on the law of celibacy in the Latin Church go no further than

    It would be most helpful to see how the CDF intends to apply the terms of the Apostolic Constitution on ‘case by case’ basis re the ordination of married men. Why? because perhaps it could also be argued that Catholic clergy who left and got married [with due process and subsequent dispensation from the vow of celibacy] but who are in good standing and have proved their worth as committed husbands and fathers might well merit equal attention of the CDF ‘on a case by case’ basis for being allowed to return to the active sacramental ministry. why? well it would be good to have such men grounded in [dare I say it] real life domesticity and keeping hearth and home together being able to preach and teach the Faith every sunday and it would certainly enable us to rely less on the rather homophilic constituency within the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Anglican Communion who will be admitted via the terms of the Ordinariate to boost dwindling vocations albeit for a limited period only.

    • Conchúr said,

      July 20, 2010 at 7:43 pm

      Ordaining married men is one thing. Allowing those who left the priesthood to marry, to return to ministry is quite another. The Church, East and West, does not and realistically never will allow already ordained men to marry. The only exception I have ever come across is a very rare episcopal dispensation in the East that will give a widower priest with very young children permission to re-marry. It is understood as being granted in terms of oeconomia – a concession to human frailties in very exceptional circumstances. It is not normative and recognised as neither appropriate nor desirable in normal circumstances. And when I say it is rare I’m not kidding, I have only ever heard of this dispensation being given once, apocryphally, in the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

      • Policraticus said,

        July 21, 2010 at 11:29 am

        Thank you Conchur for that most illuminating fact concerning the rare dispensation exercised in the Eastern Rite concerning married priests. I totally agree of course with the principle that celibacy is here to stay and that even in the instance of this ‘rare’ dispensation in the Eastern Chruch, the dispensing of celibacy whilst a priest continues licitly to be an active sacramental priest is ‘not normative and recognised as neither appropriate nor desirable in normal circumstances.’ All of that seems perfectly sound to me. However, the Vatican Curia Romana prides itself on pragmatism and certainly in terms of its ability to help local churches maintain its presence in adverse politcal conditions, it would advocate a line of pastoral policy for bishops to exrecise what it calls ‘a realism of hope.’ [Lombardi] So in that vein, given the ever-increasing shortage of priests in the West and in large swathes of the European continent, would it not be a prudent exercise of this ‘realism of hope’ [i.e. allowing certain things to happen with a view to greater gains in the long term] to apply the principles of Canon Law on indults concerning a ‘case by case’ review of the suitability and appropriateness of allowing dispensed married clergy to [on occasion and perhaps where necessary other than in danger of death] to administer the Sacraments for the benefit of the Faithful? Given the principles below I don’t see why that couldn’t be possible ‘on a case by case’ and diocese by diocese basis, subject to rigorous scrutiny of the ‘good standing’ of each man’s character and on the basis of it being for a limited period only for the good of the local church and without posing any risk of dminishing the normative and much needed growth of the charism of celibacy.

        An indult is, in short, an administrative act by a legislator. According to the Canon Law Society of America’s Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, it:

        “Designates a special favor given for a determinate period of time; it is distinguished from a privilege which is a special favor granted in perpetuity. Both indult and privilege comprise a positive and objective juridic norm. It is necessary to remark that the term ‘indult’ is applied also to the document granting the concession of the favor, as in the indult of a marriage dispensation” (comment to Canon 93).

        Earlier, commenting on Canon 35 (on administrative acts) the authors underline a certain inconsistency in the code. Canon 35 does not mention indults among these acts, but 10 canons refer to them, mostly regarding abandoning of consecrated life. Perhaps the only canons mentioning a liturgy-related indult are 1015 and 1021, both of which refer to the need for an apostolic indult to allow a bishop to ordain a man from a rite different from the bishop’s.

        From a liturgical perspective then, an indult could be defined as: a special (and often temporary) favor granted to a physical or moral person by the Apostolic See (or the local ordinary) which confers faculties contrary to or beyond the prescriptions of the law. As J.P. Lang points out in his “Dictionary of the Liturgy”: “An indult does not affect the law in any way but simply authorizes the person in question to act contrary to it because of special circumstances.”

        On a case by case basis I don’t see why this canonical principle couldn’t [admittedly on very rare occasions] be applied to a local bishop asking permission of the Holy See to lift [temporarily] the rescript on a dispensed married priest in administering the Sacraments in extraordinary circumstances of pastoral need and with a firm understanding of its temporary nature. And let’s not forget the dispensation granted to clergy [who under the former Communist regime in Czechoslavakia married] which even included bishops who were married but who were allowed to continue their public ministry so long as they agreed to a life of continence.

      • Conchúr said,

        July 21, 2010 at 11:55 am


        I should have clarified. The dispensation to which I referred was among the Orthodox. I am not aware of a similar dispensation existing among the Eastern Catholic Churches.

      • William Tighe said,

        July 22, 2010 at 4:48 pm

        There was also the case of Fr. Joseph Allen of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America who, when his wife died around 1985, was given leave by Metropolitan Philip of that jurisdiction to marry one his late wife’s close friends, a divorcee(!), and to continue in the priesthood. The uproar and strife that resulted from that permission within and especially between various North American Orthodox jurisdictions makes it highly unlikely that such premissions will be forthcoming in the future.

  15. dr phibes said,

    July 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    While I can appreciate that there are those who are uninterested in internal Catholic machinations I am getting rather tired of their need to inform us of this fact every fucking time there is a posting on these questions. Can’t you just ignore it and come back when the discussion is something you deem to be more important, like far left minutiae?

    • Mark P said,

      July 21, 2010 at 4:08 pm

      By and large, long term readers aren’t objecting to coverage of Catholic internal machination so much as to the overwhelming preponderance of such coverage along with the particular tone of it.

      For some of them I suspect that it’s a little like finding that four years after you started buying a newspaper regularly it suddenly and without warning was taken over by a Scientologist businessman and started filling every page with apologias for dianetics.

      • July 22, 2010 at 10:39 pm

        I have my issues with the Catholic Church, but comparing them to the Clams is a low blow.

        I really think the parallels between Catholic skulduggery and the small-group lunacy of the Trotskyist left is something that many on both sides desperately need to learn and understand. (I can’t wait until our host puts out something pro-queer or pro-abortion to blow the heads off the new fan base.)

  16. Phil said,

    July 20, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    And besides, couldn’t you find a more flattering photo of the poor man? I’m sure he only put on that straitjacket in the first place as a fund-raising stunt.

  17. Sue Sims said,

    July 20, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Yes, it would be very considerate of you if you would leave off your witty and knowledgeable analysis of British Catholic affairs and return to blogging about Trots and Irish politics. That way, I’d have more time to deal with really interesting things like, er, marking Year 10 coursework and sorting laundry.

    You may be losing your long-time followers, particularly those who would like to analyse something called ‘religion’ from a position of cynical superiority, not to mention those who think that Thomas Aquinas wrote the ‘Summa FlyingSpaghettiMonsterogia’, but there are a lot of us Catholics out there who are now circling your blog like hungry mosquitoes. (Not, I realise, a particularly appropriate simile, but hey, marking coursework takes its toll.)

  18. Woody Jones said,

    July 20, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    Well, why not take a deep breath and sit back to look at the things with a slightly longer view? For one thing, I understand that the same process that AC no. 2 states is now in place for the Byzantine Catholic Church here in the US, and I understand (but am always subject to correction) that Rome may in fact have very quietly granted approval in one or two cases. The approvals may come even faster if a certain Austrian count were to become Pope some day, after, of course, a very long reign for Pope Benedict, whom one truly loves. Finally, if this is a pressing current issue for some, rather than immediately refocusing on another route out of communion with Peter, why not look at the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, or the Melkite Catholic Church? I noticed that there is a Melkite parish in Manchester, New Hampshire whose priest, a married former fireman and longtime deacon, went back to the old country for a few months and returned ordained as a priest, now much beloved there, evidently. Similarly, you will recall the father of Theresa Benedicta McCarthy, whose cure was the occasion of the canonization of Edith Stein (St. Theresa Benedicta in Carmel), is a Melkite priest (one presumes of the Lebanese branch of the McCarthys).

    As John Allen once remarked, he knew he had been in Rome too long when he told his interlocutor that he approved of a certain rule (against alcohol on the day of a papal mass in Poland) so long as there was a way around it.

  19. shane said,

    July 21, 2010 at 12:27 am

    When the English Catholic hierarchy was restored in 1850, Pius IX asked them if they would like to go back to the Sarum Rite or opt to continue the Tridentine Missal. They determined to retain the latter, to show their continued loyalty and devotion to the Holy See. If these Anglicans want to enter into communion with the Catholic Church, while retaining a distinctly English liturgical patrimony, what better way to do this than by just adopting the Sarum Rite? It tends to get forgotten nowadays but St Pius V’s Quo Primum, which promulgated the Tridentine Missal, expressely sanctioned the continued use of rites which had been followed for more than 200 years in the Latin Church. Even the SP-hating Cardinal O’Brien celebrated this rite a few years back, in the knowledge that it has never been abrogated and is still perfectly legal.

    Sadly the liturgy of many of these Anglo-Catholics will be very similar to the Novus Ordo; too many high-church Protestants, in the habit of imitating our beautiful preconciliar liturgy (and why wouldn’t they?), followed us blindly into the Bugnini shipwreck.

  20. July 21, 2010 at 2:46 am

    If I am the only one who appreciates both the “LOLZ SWP” and “LOLZ Catholic Voices” equally, then so be it.

    • weserei said,

      July 21, 2010 at 4:16 am

      There’s also me.

      • magistra said,

        July 21, 2010 at 2:03 pm

        I read the posts on Catholicism as I read those on Northern Irish politics – as accessible views by someone knowledgeable about a topic I otherwise know very little about. And also thanks to Sussex Catholic for helpful comments – even though I don’t agree with many of your church’s views, it’s useful to have the arguments behind them explained.

        On the other hand, when you’re getting comments from supporters of Holocaust deniers (Richard Williamson) and from people who complain about the good press given to ‘homosexuals, blacks and Jews’, both of which appeared in response to the last post down, I’m starting to get uneasy about the company I’m keeping. Splinty shows that a longing for traditional Catholicism doesn’t necessarily go with being a fascist, or even a rabid right-winger, but such attitudes do seem to be worryingly common among the enthusiasts for old-style liturgy.

      • Mark P said,

        July 21, 2010 at 2:45 pm

        Broadly speaking, although I’m more interested in the vagaries of Irish politics and in analyses of political sects than I am in the internal logic of Roman Catholicism, I still find the latter subject fairly interesting.

        My lack of enthusiasm for this blog’s Roman turn is due less to any inherent dullness of the subject and more to:

        A) The unremitting, near-monomaniacal, fixation on one particular subject. There has been some Catholic gossip and coverage here sporadically for a long time, but the more recent seemingly-endless barrage of it risks boring the pants off even those with a passing interest in the topic.

        B) The fact that the much more interesting issue of the social and political role of religious, as opposed to its internal logic, its gossip, and the state of its PR apparatus, is rarely tackled. It’s useful to look at a religion (or any other ideology) in its own terms, but it’s seriously misleading to only look at it in those terms.

        C) The nakedly “partisan” line our dear author has taken in the debates and politics within Roman Catholicism, essentially lining up with its most reactionary wing and pouring scorn on the less obnoxious factions. I do however look forward to this blog’s commentary on liberation theology, a wing of Catholicism which it has mostly avoided, presumably because it would bring the religious and political themes of the blog into some uncomfortable juxtapositions.

        D) The filling up of the comments section here with mad, obscurantist, right wing to the point of demi-fascist, scum, crawling up like cockroaches from internet sewers like the comments section of Damian Thompson’s blog and, well, just about every other “Traditionalist” Catholic blog.

  21. Ken MacLeod said,

    July 21, 2010 at 10:41 am

    My comment above wasn’t in any way suggesting that Brother Splintered is losing my attention. Not at all. Keep ’em coming.

  22. policraticus said,

    July 22, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Perhaps Mark P since you obviously have such a handle on tolerance we should all measure your attitude against that of Joseph Ratzinger who prior to his election as pontiff said;
    ” To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of “doctrine,” seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the “I” and its whims as the ultimate measure.”

    • Mark P said,

      July 22, 2010 at 8:33 am

      Did I claim to have a handle on tolerance somewhere?

      • Policraticus said,

        July 22, 2010 at 2:18 pm

        doesn’t your paragraph D above manifest your levels of ‘tolerance’ to opinions, indeed firmly held beliefs that are not of your hue?

      • Mark P said,

        July 22, 2010 at 6:42 pm

        As I’ve already said, I never claimed to be tolerant. I am not a liberal and there is absolutely no obligation on me to respect the beliefs of howling reactionaries.

        The comments sections of most Traditionalist Catholic blogs are sewers of racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious bigotry, anti-semitism, bring-back-the-birchery, obscurantism and good old fashioned right wing mania. I make no bones about finding such a milieu deeply unpleasant or about my lack of respect for those who find it more congenial.

  23. Heavens to Betsy said,

    July 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    Nigel Irritable is living up to his name.

    Take a chill pill, comrade, sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. Wheeeee!

  24. Sadie Vacantist said,

    July 23, 2010 at 10:32 am

    “The comments sections of most Traditionalist Catholic blogs are sewers of racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious bigotry, anti-Semitism, bring-back-the-birchery, obscurantism and good old fashioned right wing mania.”

    “The comments sections of most Traditionalist Catholic blogs are sewers of racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious bigotry, anti-Semitism, bring-back-the-birchery, obscurantism and good old fashioned right wing mania.”

    As ad hominems go, your extensive list is close to being definitive. It’s a wonder anyone would dare open their mouths at all in your presence let alone offend your sensibilities by blogging.

    At a Tea Party movement in the USA recently a banner simply read: “You’re gonna says it’s racist whatever I put”. Well, if a TPM administration is ever elected in the USA , like-minded Europeans may derive some quiet satisfaction from this fact. By the same token, such an administration would pull American troops out of Europe. Then the Europeans will be free to re-open concentration camps for crimes of racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious bigotry, anti-Semitism etc. and Heaven on Earth will once again be re-established.

    • Mark P said,

      July 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      Were you trying to make some kind of point?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: