:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::

:: Monday, August 30, 2004 ::

An Urgent Appeal For Preserving Life:

Here is the text I received this morning via email.

Hello, everyone!

I've been speaking to an unmarried woman in her mid-30s, in her fourth month with a Downs Syndrome Baby. She has an aborton scheduled.

She has relented, and given us a few days to see if there is a family out there who wants to adopt her special-needs baby. Her family is totally against the abortion, and wants her to adopt the baby out.

Mom was very insistent on going ahead with the abortion, so this respite of a few days buys us time.

Do you know of anyone right now ready to adopt a special-needs baby?

It is probably better if they have gotten their home study or are in the process. We need to have this woman speak to people who can take action now and convince her that her baby is wanted. If you don't know of any families, pls keep us all in prayer. I thank God we've been given this time to help her.

Thank you all.

Anyone who can help with providing a home for this baby, please contact Geri or Barbara.

:: Shawn 8:02 AM [+] | ::

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

Correcting A Common Misperception of This Weblog:

I do not worry too much about the concerns of others in this area as a rule because I am used to criticisms which miss their mark and miss badly viz. either my stated positions or those of others who contribute to this weblog. Nonetheless, as this weblog has been pretty inactive for a couple months now, it is ripe for partisans who have at best casually scanned the contents of this site to make the usual frequently addressed arguments. The most recent example is one from a certain Don Langevin who in the comments boxes of the July 31st entry made the following statements:

--The problem with the Lidless Eye Inquisition is that it paints with a broad stroke ALL traditionalists as "schismatic or heretical" and uses uncharitable language in order to do so. The official description of this site proves this to be true!

--I stand by my charge that this blogsite uses uncharitable language when speaking about traditionalists in general. The Lidless Eye description speaks of traditionalists as "crackpots" and "lunatics." Such abusive ad hominem attacks certainly undermines the credibility of arguments put forward by this site.

Now despite the fact that I responded to these and other assertions within the comments boxes,{1} the truth is, comments box statements are like reading footnotes to some extent in that they are overlooked more than they are engaged with by others as a rule. Thus, a correction made within them often is not grasped and the same misconceptions continue oftentimes. I have therefore noted these entries on the main weblog and will link to them so that the readers can peruse them and compare the contents of this weblog with both my statements about them and also Don's. I trust that those who are able to read carefully and without skimming texts with a pre-conceived hermeneutic of suspicion will see very easily that Don's statements are well wide of the mark. But I am getting ahead of myself a bit so let us start from the beginning in a sense and look at the root and matrix of Don's criticisms.

To start with, Don's entire aim seems to be at the one sentence description that adorns this weblog and has since the day of its launching. (He offers no other evidences to support his contentions so until that time, this is all we have to work from in confuting his assertions.) For that reason, it bears examining that statement and then looking at the context of the founding post to this weblog which has set the tone for all posts that have followed it. Here is that description now:

A weblog dedicated to the exposure of the crackpots of the lunatic self-styled 'traditionalist' fringe who disingenuously pose as faithful Catholics.

Frankly, I see nothing whatsoever that is confusing about that sentence. The intention of the weblog is clearly to expose the "crackpots of the lunatic self-styled 'traditionalist' fringe." Would Don or anyone care to say that there are no lunatics who claim the mantle of "traditionalists"??? I doubt that they would.

Furthermore, astute readers with a reasonably clear presuppositional slate will discern that there must be a viable reason for seeking to expose the "crackpots of the lunatic self-styled 'traditionalist' fringe" at least in the eyes of the contributors to this weblog. What might that reason be??? Has Don or anyone who has leveled that charge actually bothered to ask this question to themselves and if so what might those reasons be??? How about we let Don tell us what (or whom) they might be.

In his comments, Don himself has said that he favours the Tridentine Mass and not schism or heresy. That he even makes this statement shows that he is at least abstractually aware that not everyone who shares his interest in the Tridentime mass (TM) is innocent of wrongdoing. If they were than he would not have mentioned the subjects of schism and heresy at all. But in mentioning them, Don recognizes (again, at least in the abstract) that there are those who promote the TM who are heretics and/or schismatics. I have to wonder if it at all dawned on him that perhaps that realization also was one shared by the weblog's contributors.

Anyway, while those points are left to percolate in the minds of the readers, let us move onto some evidence that undermine Don's understanding of this weblog, its contributors, or this weblog's purpose.

To start with, here is an excerpt from the very first entry to this weblog:

This is a weblog specifically intended to address those who falsely pose as faithful Catholics but in reality are wolves in sheeps clothing. The term "Lidless Eye" was coined by Mr. Mark Shea...I tend to refer to them in my writings as "self-styled 'traditionalists'" or some variation thereof. Lest there be no confusion as to these terms, I explain HERE my usage of terms and they are synonymous with the manner whereby a growing number of people are referring to the same sort of people as "Lidless Eye reactionaries". This is noted up front because there are people who refer to themselves as "traditionalists" who are not "Lidless Eye" reactionaries. All of this may sound confusing but hopefully as this weblog develops, the distinctions will manifest themselves with greater clarity. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from the Lidless Eye Inquisition circa January 21, 2003]

Obviously if there are people who refer to themselves as "traditionalists" who are not "Lidless Eye" reactionaries, then Don's assessment of this weblog is erroneous at its very roots. But there is more.

In a message box response to James M. Scott IV from about two months ago, I noted the following

[L]ong time and/or careful readers of my work know that my criticisms of "traditionalism" have never been lacking in nuance. In the interest of fairness, I mention here the Society of St John (who have done some very good scholarly work), the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (who have done some good work as well), and The Insitute of Christ the King: all of which (among others) have been mentioned favourably in my treatise confuting false "traditionalism" for the past four years. That is not to say that these are without their extreme zealots of course but (thankfully) the latter in the above groups are few and far between. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from the comments boxes of my weblog entry from 7/01/04 (posted on 7/02/04)]

I hereby publicly challenge Don to find for me one single statement of any kind on this weblog about those Tridentine apostolates in the nineteen months of its existence that can vaguely qualify as "uncharitable."{2} His success or failure to do this will be all that we need to have in order to definitively affirm or confute his stated theory about the nature and aims of this weblog.

Notes:

{1} See this response as well as this one.

{2} Constructive criticism respectfully made of one of these sites would not suffice to sustain Don's accusations lest anyone presume that it would. (Again, read his words carefully please and note the broadbrush of his strokes despite accusing others of this same deficiency.)

:: Shawn 1:15 PM [+] | ::

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

Tomorrow Christendom As most of you know, I spent a good part of the summer finishing off three book manuscripts I had been working on for some time. The first two, More Catholic Than The Pope and Surprised by Canon Law, are due out in mid-September. The third, which I hope to send to the publisher this week, should be out just before Christ-Mass. Taking up Gary Potter's challenge about ten years' ago, my friend Raymond Lesveque and I began translating Dom Gerard Calvet's masterpiece Demain La Chretiente. As Mr. Potter put it, this is a book every traditional Catholic should read since it more or less became the blue-print for the traditional Catholic movement in France and Belgium. At the time, Potter had become concerned that the traditionalist movement was losing focus this side of the Atlantic and becoming distracted by all sorts of minor side-controversies. I went a little further. Most traditionalist publications this side of the Atlantic (with the exception of St. Benedict Center's From the Housetops in Still River and the sedevacantist CMRI's Reign of Mary) had, in my opinion, degenerated to little more than a tabloid and scandal-sheet you see at the check-out counter of the local supermarket. Where was the English version of La Nef? That being said, Dom Calvet needs no introduction. Until his recent retirement due to age and health, he was the founding abbott of Ste. Madeleine de Le Barroux Benedictine Monastery -- the first post-conciliar Benedictine monastery to follow the traditional Roman liturgy. Raymond and I actually finished the translation about two years ago, but needed to make a few corrections and put the manuscript on disk. (As a retired school teacher, Raymond still uses an old fashioned typewriter). Also, Dom Gerard and his publisher requested a few changes and corrections to smooth out the translation. These are now finished, and a good friend of mine has just finished putting the manuscript into computer format. For those who are wondering what happened to the traditionalist movement and whether a master-plan exists to restore tradition within the Church, as Mr. Potter put it, this is the book you need to read.

:: Pete Vere 7:09 AM [+] | ::

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

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated.

As the concept covered at the above link has been utilized here at The Lidless Eye, I note the link here for those who might be interested.

:: Shawn 3:39 PM [+] | ::

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