If I highlighted the sexual errors of a Catholic priest or made delicious fun of the women who think they can be ordained priests (like the oh-so-brave but oh-so-anonymous Diogenes) I would be crowned with flowers.
if I constantly reported the mere allegation of sexual abuse against every priest (like Amy Welborn) without regard to whether or not those allegations had yet proved to be true, I would be lionized as a brave hero.
If I castigated Nancy Pelosi for her absurd theological points (like just about everybody), you would think me smart and fancy.
But if I dare to question Christopher West, Janet Smith, Mark Shea, Pat Madrid, et. al,
Then I am:
- MEAN-SPIRITED
- DIVISIVE
- EVIL
- VICIOUS
- PERTINACIOUS
- ACRIMONIOUS
- SHOOTING OUR OWN
- FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT OF SCREWTAPE
- CLAWING AT THE BODY OF CHRIST!
MAKE HIM SHUT UP!!!!
Yeah.
Well.
I don't worship at your altars, so I don't get your point.
Are their errors less important?
Or are they more dangerous precisely because you'll swallow from Chris West and Janet Smith what you would never accept from Pelosi and the priestesses?
This they scream as they spew pea soup in my general direction...
Yeah.
Well.
I don't worship at your altars, so I don't get your point.
Are their errors less important?
Or are they more dangerous precisely because you'll swallow from Chris West and Janet Smith what you would never accept from Pelosi and the priestesses?
20 comments:
+JMJ+
Mr. Kellmeyer, I want you to know that I'm praying for you--not because I think you're wrong, but because I think you're right. And I hope that you can find another, more effective forum for what you have to say, not just about your experiences, but about Catholic schools and everything else you write about. It must be frustrating to have only a blog, when other people have whole media companies behind them and still call you the bully.
It's been said that if Paul had live in today's world, his efforts to correct fellow believers on the Internet would have just been considered "rock throwing." It's just one more sign that christians have given in to the politics of political correctness and don't have the strength or knowledge of their own beliefs to defend their discussions, Catholics no longer know how to debate a point without believing that all criticism of their beliefs are personal attacks, and no one reads the heated debates of the ancient Church. When did Catholics start believing that a smiling, personal insult like "will you pray for them" became more acceptable than pointing out the errors of their arguments?
Steve's not pointing out Madrid and Pinto's "errors." He's dishing cause he's pissed off and feeling aggrieved.
This whole Lone Wolf of Plano thing is tired. There've been plenty of TOB critiques ever since JP came up with it. From liberals, trads, academics. That never stopped Steve from exploiting it for his own ends and making money off it.
he was all for it! Until he was against it!
So you're criticiaing business practices. Great! What are your business practices? What are you doing for work? Why were you fired from St. Francis in Grapevine?
And Cristina: "whole media companies?" Selling a few thousand books a year? Yeah, that's power, baby. Those behemoth Catholic Media Companies.
DeAngeli
For the sake of full disclosure, why don't you address Steve's concern from the previous comment?
Are you a heteronym of Chris West's or a follower or what?
And just to elighten us outsiders, what difference does it have between a "Lone Wolf of Plano" and a Lone Commentator With a Blank Blogger Profile?
DeAngeli, like you, Pinto and Madrid claim to be on the side of the angels.
They aren't.
They don't address theological points, just like you don't give your real name.
They just call me names and tell me to shut up.
Apart from the story of the Pat's car, everything I've said is personal experience or commonly known fact that anyone who has been paying attention would know.
I haven't engaged in gossip at all. I've given you the historical facts, and my personal experiences with these people, to give you a feel for why they would be interested in calling me names, why they would fail to address my theological points.
If you want information on me and my business practices, go and talk to the people in the community. If I've sinned against anyone, I'm sure it will come out.
Indeed, I'll tell you the only sin I'm aware of right now - after West insulted me on the phone and Pauline Books and Media began their under-the-counter campaign against me, I chose for a few weeks to respond in kind. I went on the Amazon list as an anonymous commenter and said things about West's book like, "This is a good book and certainly has its' points, but for a really GREAT book, get Sex and the Sacred City."
No insults, no detractions, just a redirection. Three or four posts. Then I stopped.
They had taught me that this is what marketing is about.
That's the only piece of dirt I'm aware of on me, and I'm happy to let you know about it here.
Find something else if you can. I'm not aware of anything.
Steve,
Enjoyed your linked post "Three Problems". As a revert I was somewhat taken in by much of what you speak. Much of my catechetics I received from EWTN radio. I guess I started sensing something wasn't right when a well known Catholic convert theologian was cranking out many books that were informative but lacked depth. I needed more. Maybe I wasn't the typical audience member for that author anymore? Or maybe I was placing others above Christ? I moved on and saved time and money. I have always been one to heed caution and question everything. You certainly have given me food for thought concerning some of my own revelations. Heresy is heresy no matter how popular. Selfish motives are of Satan. Dead fish go with the flow.
Peace, Graubo
Graubo,
I've always told people that if they really want meat, they should read the saints, Fathers and Doctors.
All of us modern commentators are fairly useless. We are, the best of us, kindergarten teachers. The worst of us are the theological equivalent of pedophiles, interested in getting people to love us in order to feed our egos.
None of us are saints, none of us are particularly insightful. Read the saints. They know.
+JMJ+
OMG!!! DeAngeli (aka Chris West, I suppose?) knows my name!!!
Mr. West, did you read my post about you? =) Would you autograph it for me?
Mr. West, did you read my post about you? =)
Out of curiosity, did you mean this one?
+JMJ+
Matheus, yes I mean that one.
Enbrethiliel,
Thanks for the prayers!
It is remarkable how dangerous I am, isn't it?
He probably got your name off your e-mail address. Which means he has your e-mail address linked to your name somewhere, as I don't see anything on Google linking the two.
Fascinating that our friendly Anonymous DeAngeli is so interested in you, eh?
Maybe DeAngeli is really God. After all, we now know God is a pathological stalker...
+JMJ+
You're welcome, Steve! =)
My real name isn't a big secret. Anyone who e-mails me will get a reply and then learn what it is. And I used to have a Twitter account that identified me as both Enbrethiliel and Cristina. So I'm always amused by how many (anonymous!) commenters make a big show out of using it. I'm either notorious in trolling circles or am running into the same old guy over and over again. Either scenario is funny.
Yeah, now that you say so, I realize you really did not need to. I am convinced by the Peters/Shea/Madrid episode. The objections to your rhetoric are not about how, but about whom.
Yep. If Nancy Pelosi or John Stewart or Sinead O'Connor said "God is a pathological stalker" the hue and cry would be terrible to behold.
But since it was Janet Smith (or if it were Chris West or Mark Shea)well...
It's as bad as watching the MSM backstop Obama.
God is a pathological stalker??
Wow.
I'm glad we live without TV here on the farm! I'm missing a lot that... well, I'm glad I'm missing.
Yes, that was part of Janet Smith's address to Chris West's TOB Congress.
You know, the same Janet Smith that Dr. Ed Peters, the canon lawyer, vociferously defends as a great theologian.
No. Just a theologian *canonist* Ed Peters shows is *canonically* qualified to hold the position she holds when somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about hold forth on matters of which he is clearly ignorant. A fact you could acknowledge if you weren't emotionally invested in winning at any cost. Peter makes no claims about Smith's "greatness". He merely points out that you were wrong to say she was in violation of some sort of canonical policy in holding the job she does.
It's a pity you give in to your hatred with this stuff. When you keep you head, as you did with Voris, you do a real service. But when you simply say anything, even when you know you are being dishonest (as here, with the lie about Peter's alleged claim of Smith's "greatness"), you just make it impossible to take you seriously as a responsible critic.
You know Mark, the thing I like about you is your consistency.
As far as you are concerned, I can critique ANYONE I WANT, as long as it isn't one of your friends.
If I critique you or your friends, I am being hateful. If I critique someone you don't give a fig about, then I'm finally being reasonable.
I'm still waiting for you to address any of my theological arguments against positions you've taken or West's taken or Janet Smith has taken (try out that "God is a pathological stalker" line, for instance).
But, as with all Pinto/West supporters, ad hominem is your forte now.
Sigh....
Mark Shea actually accuses Steve Kellmeyer of "lying" when he said Peters defended Smith as a great theologian.
Peters did praise Smith's supposed qualifications as a theologian. He unfortunately says he is speaking "frankly" when he says that Smith has served so many dicasteries. That is not frank language, because the statement is actually meaningless in this context if it is not intended to imply that she is so great. (Loaded implications are the antithesis of frankness. And Peters is well-paid for his level of education.)
Then Shea proceeds to criticize Kellmeyer for refusing to acknowledge that Peters corrected his ignorance on canonical matters, after Kellmeyer did so repeatedly in his comments on the relevant forum post, to the point of near self-deprecation!
Shea's failure to notice that would be completely understandable, if he were not then trolling in to hurl more insult about it. How hard would it have been to check first?
Then he lectures Steve about civility, decency, honesty? I personally have had it. Seriously, Mark Shea has lost all credibility with me.
Post a Comment