:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Saturday, July 31, 2004 ::

A Possible Post of Interest For Lidless Eye Readers.

:: Shawn 7:19 PM [+] | ::

************************************

In light of recent controversies between parties which I will not name, it seems appropriate to direct readers of this weblog to a guest editorial posted to The Lidless Eye Inquisition back in December of 2003. What the editorialist notes in the vision he discusses -as well as my commentary antecedent to and subsequent to the editorial itself- are worth reflecting on in light of the aforementioned issue. That is all I will say on the matter at this time.

:: Shawn 1:41 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Kevin’s Calumny
 
In his Restore The Church blog post of 6/29/04, Kevin Tierney makes the following accusation against me:
 
Now those who remember the first blunder the Inquisition made was recruiting Greg Mockeridge to engage in a few vicious attack peices on me, in which later articles by him at least had 2 apologies a response for misrepresenting me. It was rather nasty. He then dishonestly slandered fellow Restore the Church team member Jacob Michael, accusing him of disobedience to God and violation of the commandments.
 
For starters, let me put this “2 apologies” business to bed once and for all. At first Kevin was calling them retractions. I have asked him repeatedly to show me those “retractions.” He said he was going to send them to me private e-mail. It has been at least three months with no e-mails providing those retractions forthcoming. Now I will ask Kevin to provide those “2 apologies.” Given Kevin’s track record of substantiating claims, don’t expect proof any time soon.
 
Now to the big one. He accuses me of “dishonestly” slandering his blogmate Jacob Michael. I didn't know there was any other kind of slander, but I digress. Sadly, this isn’t the only, nor the most egregious, error Kevin makes. Kevin’s charge of slander against me is itself a slanderous accusation. As Kevin correctly noted, I did accuse Jacob of “disobedience to God and violation of the commandments, “ two of them, to be exact, the Fourth and Eighth. Now what did Jacob do to elicit such an accusation on my part?  In a prayer on his website (which is still posted there BTW), he accuses the Holy Father of dereliction of duty regarding Our Lady of Fatima’s request to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, despite testimony from sole surviving seer Sr. Lucia stating that the Pope did in fact fulfill Our Lady’s request. I provided numerous statements from Sr. Lucia herself to that effect, including statements on her part given to Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Secretary Archbishop Tarcisco Bertone on November 17, 2001.
 
And since individual private revelations hold no authoritative status in the Church (no one is bound to believe in them and no one is bound to act out any of the messages given), the pope couldn't be derelict in his duties, even if he had not done as requested. {1}
 
Therefore, I pointed out, in light of the above stated facts, that Jacob has violated the Eighth Commandment against bearing false witness in that he has accused the pope of something he clearly is not guilty of and the Fourth Commandment to honor Father and Mother, because it extends to all of those in positions of authority over us.
 
On Monday, July 12th, I requested, via private e-mail, that Mr. Tierney either substantiate his claim against me or retract it. I gave him three days to do so, failing which, my request will be made public. So here it is: Kevin, it is time to man up and come correct. Since Jacob has clearly, by virtue of the above stated facts, done precisely what I have said he has done, there is no other honorable thing for you to do but retract your accusation of slander against me. Your failure to do so will only serve to illustrate that not only are you on the wrong side of the many issues regarding so-called “traditionalism,” but that you lack the intellectual honesty and sound character necessary to even begin to interact with these issues.
 
In Christ,
 
Greg Mockeridge
 
{1} So, Kevin how do you come up with this idea of my saying that Jacob is bound by private revelations, but the pope isn’t? I explicitly state that no one (save for maybe the seer believing with certainty in the authenticity of the revelation, as per Catholic moral doctrine requiring obedience to a certain conscience, even if it is subject to error.) is bound by such.

:: Greg Mockeridge 1:25 PM [+] | ::

************************************

"Not the Truth, Not the Whole Truth, And Anything But the Truth" Dept.

What does one say to someone who apparently has more interest in polemics than in the truth??? Sadly, that would seem to be the case with one Jacob Michael who in a recent posting to Kevin's site does precisely what I note above. The following is most of the text that I sent to Kevin privately when the issue of certain comments since deleted from this weblog were the subject of discussion. Some of it has been tweaked a bit to refine what was originally written in haste including one footnote added to the sequence and another changed completely from what was noted in the private email. Other parts have been deleted as per my note on the matter to Kevin. And to tie it together, a few minor segues have been written. Essentially it is about 75% of what was sent to Kevin yesterday.

I trust that my friend in noting to himself the certain points were selectively deleted out. All that will be noted here about them is that they could easily have been posted here if (i) I was lacking a true sense of fair play or (ii) I was truly interested in merely "going for the jugular" and veering from issues into personalities to do so. (Which I of course am not.)

In this post, the letter will be in purple font and any current comments on the subject matter in regular font. Without further ado, let us get to it.

I noticed after sending the other email out that Jacob quoted Fatima Crusader and mentioned Fr. Gruner{1} in a blog post to your group weblog today. I also noticed that he was very selective in stating what he claims are "the facts." In lauding the so-called "scholarly" work of one Christopher Ferrara "Esq", he of course speaks of the essay Pete wrote for The Wanderer to which I contributed. That is fine but apparently Jacob does not realize the kind of paring down that goes into print periodicals. He may have thought that essay was "feeble" but we cut a lot out in order to meet word limits. Nonetheless, what was left in was adequate to accomplish what we intended to do and that was notify the readers of The Wanderer of the status of Fr. Gruner and a little bit about the unCatholic underpinnings of those who are so devoted to his apostolate. And furthermore, what was noted there was sufficient for the benefit of those with a decent understanding of the principles as enunciated by the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition. Another way of saying it is that it was written for those of good faith who possess the disposition proper to anyone who would presume to call themselves a Traditionalist.

Now, Jacob mentioned Mr. Ferrara's response to that piece as a so-called "taking [Pete and I] to task" and then mentions Pete's brief followup to the matter. But, not surprisingly, he failed to mention my essay length response to Christopher Ferrara "Esq" on the subject of Fatima and Fr. Gruner. This is a significant oversight on his part and really gives me reason for pause as to his sense of fair play on the matter.

For in that essay, I exposed the intrepid attorney's ignorance on a whole cornucopia of subjects including (i) canon law, (ii) the writings of Suarez and Bellarmine on so-called "papal resistance", (iii) Italian immigration law, (iv) the process of incardination/excardination of clergy in a dioceses, and (v) the Catholic spiritual tradition. (With the latter, I highlighted the deficiencies here that permeate all of his contributions on these and other related subjects.) This is quite an omission on Jake's part doncha think???

Let me see (i) that essay has only been on the web for about ten months now. Also, (ii) it has only been linked to The Lidless Eye scroll of links for about that about same amount of time. Furthermore, (iii) I quoted it a couple of times in weblog posts at The Lidless Eye and also (iv) in my essay response to David Palm's article from The Remnant on novelty.

Now the response of "Mr Esquire" himself to being publicly taken to the woodshed by yours truly is precisely what I thought it would be: silence.{2} I am used to that approach from people like him who make accusations of "lies" or "errors" and then when they are corrected, continue on their merry libelling way without acknowledgment or apology.{3} However, that does not excuse Jacob's most recent glaring public error -particularly in light of the accusations he sets forth on your weblog.

For when Jacob says of the Fatima stuff by Mr. Ferrara that "No reply was given. Just like no reply was given by Vere, McElhinney, or Mockeridge to the challenges leveled at them" he is at least as complicit in making a gratuitous error as Pete was in saying that you were not an Indult goer. If anything, he is *more* complicit because my essay response to Mr. Ferrara has been on the web since the Feast of the Assumption 2003. (By contrast, Pete has had at most a passing knowledge of you and your particular positions but a lot of knowledge on general issues pertaining to so-called "traditionalism" as a rule.)

I have not exactly been quiet about that essay's existence on my weblogs -though the insignificant nature of Mr. Ferrara and Fr. Gruner has resulted in a handful of references at best to those writings. And as Jacob continues to reiterate statements from Ferrara that I have already exposed as blatantly false or seriously misleading,{4} what am I supposed to make of this Kevin??? I will not speak for Pete or Greg as they can do that themselves. But again it must be noted, that I responded in detail to Ferrara's original article in The Remnant responding to Pete and I. And unlike Pete who chose the route of brevity for his own reasons, I preferred the detailed more-sledgehammer approach as is my wont when writing web essays.{5}

In that essay -which I might add was written contrary to Pete's recommendation to remain silent on the matter{6}- I revealed in reasonable detail the shoddy nature of Ferrara's quack scholarship. (Much as I have done in weblog posts to Lidless Eye and Rerum Novarum in the past when discussing Ferrara's work.) I am wondering though if you will correct Jacob on this as I have corrected Pete here viz. the Indult issue.

Jacob makes a lot of gratuitous statements about my work when he has quite obviously not read much (if any) of it.{7} Why is he given a free pass when you want me to muzzle Pete???{8} I trust that you will exhort your friend to at least familiarize himself with my work before he makes such sweeping statements publicly. Because believe me, it would not be difficult to make his assertions look very foolish indeed. Instead, it would be much easier than it was exposing Ferrara's sophisms last year{9} because I do not have to take time to track down some of the sources to do so as I did there: the proof to confute Jacob being available from my own previous writings.

Addendum:

I should probably note here that if Jacob actually wants to respond to this that it would be in his best interest to follow a certain protocol in responding to a piece of writing. I explain the sort of charitable approach someone should take towards the work of another HERE in some detail.

Notes:

{1} And a classic example of "straining the gnat and swallowing the camel" (cf. Matt. xxiii,24) is the approach taken by one Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

{2} Because the errors and omissions he committed were so blatantly obvious that he cannot possibly vindicate himself by responding to that piece. (Unless he twists it into a myriad of out-of-context prooftexts and prevaricates on them of course: which is par for the course for ambulance chasers like Mr. Ferrara to do.)

{3} In this, Ferrara, Gruner, and The Remnant are akin to liberal goons like Al Franken and Michael Moore: another reason why frequent positive references to them (as is seemingly Jacob's wont at times) will raise a red flag with Ecclesia Dei French Traditionalists such as Pete Vere. (And non Frenchmen such as yours truly.)

{4} Jacob even uses the prooftexting quotes from Ferrara which are revealed in context in my essay. To put it mildly, they are not to Ferrara's advantage when read in context.

{5} Not that I am short on utilizing sources in weblog posts but this medium does not lend itself to the same style of writing that I utilize in web essay format. Ergo, a slightly different approach is taken with weblogs which --though not as strong resource-wise or with regards to the detail of argumentation can nonetheless be somewhat compensated for by virtue of (i) the ability to write pieces much shorter and thus available to a wider reading audience and (ii) the "real time" response capabilities of this medium in clarifying weblog statements either in main weblog format or with comments box software.

{6} Not because I could not respond as Pete knows my capabilities reasonably well. The reason was because Pete knows that with ideologues who place their agendas over and above truth (as Ferrara so obviously does) that there would be no end to the matter. He and I went through the same crap with CAItanic and its resident captain for two years on private discussion lists. With regards to Ferrara, only last year in a few blog entries and the essay response did I deign to acknowledge his existence. With regards to the aforementioned essay response, after dealing with numerous distortions of the truth by Mr. Ferrara, I noted the following in summarizing that essay why it is a waste of time to bother with much of what Mr. Ferrara has to say:

(I)t is very clear that Mr. [Ferrara] and his allies do not comprehend the very simple and Traditional notion of Catholic obedience. This is why discussing more advanced subject matters with them is counterproductive. (And also why those of us who value our time, our sanity, and our spiritual health do not spend very much time responding to these kinds of dogmatically deficient screeds.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: Squelching Fr. Gruner's 'Squawking Squire' (c. 2003)]

In short, there is a good reason why we do not respond to the mountains of drivel from Ferrara's keyboard and it is not because what he writes is irrefutable.

{7} And what he has read he obviously does not comprehend well.

{8} Is there a double standard here that I should be aware of???

{9} The threads for those who are interested can be found at my other weblog Rerum Novarum in the category titled On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called).

:: Shawn 7:29 PM [+] | ::

************************************

Points to Ponder:

As far as [Derksen's] "you are assuming that Karol Wojtyla is the Pope" schtick, it is yet another in the myriad of examples where radtrads ape the tactics of liberals. (I really have to consider writing on that subject soon as it has been on the backburner to be dealt with ever since I started blogging nearly two years ago.) After all, the idiot loons who claim that Bush is not president do the same thing fundamentally speaking. (They refuse to accept Bush winning every recount despite thousands of servicemen's votes being discounted, the decision made by the state of Florida's election committee, and of course the Supreme Court's judgment on the matter in Bush vs. Gore.) And just as we would be foolish to accept their arbitrary assertions uncritically, the same is the case with [Derksen] and his sedevacantist buddies.

We are not to be presumed as having to prove anything here. As the ones challenging a commonly-accepted belief (that Karol Wojtyla is the Pope), Mario and company have the burden of proof in sustaining their assertions. And in doing so, it is not acceptable for them to ape the antics of liberal Democrats, heretical Protestants, and apostate atheists and agnostics. Indeed that they resort to the same antics and approaches should give them reason for pause if they are remotely paying attention.

Let us take it to brass tacks here. They need to explain to us why their treatment of magisterial texts -parsing them absent context to manufacture "contradictions" and supposed "heresies"- is any different substance-wise than (i) Prots doing the same thing with Scripture to prove Catholic doctrines are "unbiblical" or (ii) atheists and agnostics doing the same thing with the Bible to prove that it is "contradictory" and thus "discredited" as a viable medium of conveying the Word of any diety. Until the sedes can do that -and do so in a manner that cannot be appealed to by the liberal Devilcrats, the Prots, and the atheists/agnostics to justify their methodologies- there is no reason whatsoever to give delusional sede utterances the time of day. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Discussion list comments on the "Karol Wojtyla is the Pope" subject (c. 7/8/04)]

:: Shawn 11:31 AM [+] | ::

************************************

Mario finally comes clean with his conscience

Wow. I'm finally back on-line after moving back from Florida to pursue doctoral studies and the entire blog is buzzing about Mario Derksen's recent adoption of the sedevacantist position. Like Shawn O'Mac, I'm not surprised. I told Mario something like five years ago that the SSPX position was, in my experience, a highly inconsistent position held by intellectual sissies who lacked the stones to follow their conscience with regards to traditional Catholicism. One is either sedevacantist or an indult supporter. Of course, being the highly excitable mental midget he was at the time, Mario scoffed at my observation and stated he would never go sedevacantist. He then parrotted the usual unconvincing SSPX line vis-a-vis sedevacantism.

Looks like his graduate studies into classical Thomistic philosophy has finally forced him to examine the violence he was doing to his conscience. In short, he's now examined his position and followed it to its logical conclusion. I may disagree with the position he's taken, but at least he's now taking a position that corresponds closely enough to logic that it can be argued. In short, he is no longer a lemming who just goes along with whatever happens to be the politically correct opinion of the day among those who set the trends among the radtrad elite.

His sedevacantism, while wrong, is at least well thought out. So I'm finally capable of conceding Mario my respect. Sooner or later, every traditionalist who has any sense of conviction will choose either the indult or sedevacantism.

:: Pete Vere 10:03 PM [+] | ::

************************************

"Responsum ad Tiernum" Dept.

This is a response to Kevin T's comments viz. my earlier reply to Jacob. Originally written for the comments boxes, revising and adding some tidbits made me think it would better serve as a post in its own right. Kevin's words will be in black font.

Shawn,

Hello Kevin:

I think you missed the point of Jacob's article. You went off on one of your rants about how "so and so used this to grind their axe against the Pope" without providing any names.

Why must every commentary constitute a rant with those of your operative point of view???

With regards to your statement, I generally prefer to focus on issues and not personalities Kevin.{1} To mention a bunch of names would avoid doing this; ergo I chose not to implicate anyone personally lest they see it as being "targeted" by me.

Jacob provided of all people your favorite Fatima Network saying they couldn't go either way on the story, only that if it was, it was a scandal(something you seem to concur with in your writing.)

My position on this issue is more complex than I have noted publicly thus far. My noting of this situation is because of concern for the accuracy of the reports and the perceptions that those who misreport the facts appear to be trying to convey.

Perhaps it would help to note publicly what should be obvious in implication within many of my writings or weblog posts, etc. and that is this:

---I have no problems whatsoever with the protocols set forth in the Code of Canon Law and in the Oecumenical Directory.

The same cannot be said for the Fatima Network which surely takes issue with both sources.

In essence, you didn't really demonstrate why your sources are so credible,

Let me see (i) two mainstream London papers who are not favourable to Catholicism and have an axe to grind against Blair assert that the rumours are false (ii) National Catholic Reporter -which is quite liberal and would like this story to be true for their own agenda purposes-{2} likewise claims that it is false.

Meanwhile, (iii) The Church Times, an Anglican paper claiming independence of Anglican ecclesial control --and one that I would bet a box of Sancho Panza Double Maduros wants to see indiscriminate intercommunion-- claims that it is true based on one key source.{3} Finally, (iv) John Allen who is in Rome{4} claims to have spoken to the parties present at the mass as well as the "source" of the Church Times report whom Allen claims denied that he said what was attributed to him.

This would seem pretty thorough to me Kevin, what do you think I am missing here???

providing exmaples of traditionalists (since you allude to them being prominent) making these claims, and again playing soul reader(these people do it simply to grind their axe against the pope, but I haven't named anyone in particular.)

Kevin, I have dialogued with hundreds of so-called "traditionalists" on weblogs, message boxes, on discussion lists, by email, etc. What I noted on this matter is quite often their objective modus opperandi.{5} Indeed the so-called "traditionalist" agenda in most people's minds requires such an outlook in order to justify its very existence.{6}

Therefore, with those in mind, I let him run with it.

Running with scissors is never a good thing ;-)

I was hoping to see a credible rebuttal, instead it just seems as if you two are going in circles.

Well, I suggest a reread of what I posted then. The first four sentences of James Scott's reply encapsulates the root and matrix of this whole situation. The long and short of it is this:

---Those who make the accusations bear the burden of proof.

---I have pointed out the questionable nature of the "sources" used to advance this rumour -and done so from sources that as a rule disagree with me.

---The sources used to substantiate the rumour have denied that they said what was attributed to them;{7} ergo,

---The entire foundation for the rumour collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind kimosabe.

What in your opinion is missing from this sequence???

Notes:

{1} An exception as of late is the Mario-sedevacantist post back on June 20th. (And I only posted it unedited because Apolonio asked me privately to do so.)

{2} Like most liberal sources, NCR seems to take solace in the fact that most people will miss the finer theological and canonical points on the matter. Hence, they refer to the Oecumenical Directory which I am sure very few of their readers have actually looked through for the context of the principles that pertain to the subject in question.

{3} And they are the ones that the other media outlets got this rumour from.

{4} His theological ruminations can be a mixed bag but when it comes to reporting on news facts pertaining to goings-on in Vatican City, John Allen is a reliable source.

{5} There is no subjective judgment of the inner forum being made here Kevin: only an objective judgment of what their actions and statements constitute.

To deny that objective judgments are possible is to deny the existence of universals: the very crux of my disputation with Tim Enloe on religious matters.

I know for a fact you would not side with Enloe on this intentionally so I ask you to consider that this is what a denial of objective foundation in an argument inexorably does.

{6} I trust my qualification of terms will not be overlooked this time.

{7} See footnote four.

:: Shawn 12:47 PM [+] | ::

************************************