Saturday, November 05, 2005
MY RESPONSE TO COMMENTER HA
I have taken the day to consider how to respond to HA's comments and to avoid responding in the heat of anger.
HA: I have another couple of other random observations to offer. I realize I'm probably shouting in the wind -- for some people, focusing on these sinister influences is the religious equivalent of pornography, except unlike porn addicts, the religious pornographer indulging his fetishes further deludes himself by thinking that he is benefiting the church.
Religious pornography? Since that is what HA implies this blog is about, let's look at the company I'm keeping:
"The Bible as Religious Pornography".
"Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion’: Religious Pornography for Christians"
The Bible and "The Passion of the Christ".--Thank you for the compliment, but I assure you I don't deserve it!
HA: A big problem with those who focus on fringe movements attacking hte Church, without bothering to back it up with hard data and specifics, is at some point the anti-Semites come in and start telling us "the Jews" are behind this. (See more on that below.) Call this a paranoid hunch on my part if you will, but I stand by it. Maybe Carrie, to her credit, won't take the ball and run with it, but sure as night follows day, others will do so.
Since I've been focusing most recently on the monks, apparently HA believes our Monastic communities are fringe movements. I do agree that when they focus on the Tarot and the magical fraternity Golden Dawn they have moved to the Catholic fringe.
You can't get any more solid data than what an organization says about itself in its own website. The commenter accuses me of bias. I think the bias is obvious. It's right there in the banner across the top of my blog. I'm Catholic. I speak from a Catholic perspective. The impliction is that I'm an anti-Semite. Would that be the conclusion the commenter has reached because I cite favorably and repeatedly the work of Gershom Scholem? That "paranoid hunch" is somewhat over the top. I am not responsible for what others do with the material I blog.
HA: Also, there is the matter of style, though I'm trivializing my point by using such a word. Here are some of Carrie's quotes over the last couple of days to give you an idea of what I mean. If you want to get the full effect of what I'm talking about, add a few exclamation points and boldface characters to each of the following quotes.
"Rome...has made multiple overtures to the Jews. Is there something Rome isn't telling us?"
"Is there something Rome doesn't want us to know?"
"I see no evidence that Benedict XVI has any intention of stifling it. In fact, .. I suspect that Pope Benedict will promote it...it is a revival of our most persistent heresy. Is this the future of the Roman Catholic Church?"
"This is where ecumenism is taking us apparently...into post-denominationalism. And it seems to have the Pope's blessing."
"Will polytheism be next? Or more realistically, will Sophia as a separate hypostasis of the Trinity [be] embraced...?"
"Is the Roman Catholic Church in the process of reinventing Herself while at the same time claiming to be based in Tradition, or is there a widespread deception such as the Great Apostasy taking place?"
If HA wanted boldface characters and exclamation points, why didn't s/he add them her/himself? Apparently asking questions is a style the commenter finds offensive. Has it become politically incorrect to ask questions now, or is it that this commenter doesn't want to entertain the possible answers to the questions I ask?
HA: I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is yellow journalism, plain and simple. It reads like headlines lifted from the National Star, and unless you think Elvis is alive and well and hanging out with Bigfoot and all their little friends from Roswell, it's not the kind of writing that inspires confidence. Moreover, since most of the questions are of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety they're not the kind that can be sensibly answered.
News from Planet Zircon: Commenter thinks asking questions in a blog is the equivalent of yellow journalism.
Wow! I am wide-eyed with wonder. Considering the revenue earned by yellow journals, I could have an income-producing career instead of slugging away at this computer screen for no pay to cover the expenses. Who knew? (I trust, HA, that you can recognize sarcasm when you read it.)
HA: I realize it is important to be aware of all these esoteric movements out there, but there is something sinister in the way this is being done here. It's not intentional, and I'm not saying that this blog isn't doing a service at the same time, but add my voice to the chorus of those urging everyone here to be very careful. Hopefully, I'm being overly concerned. In any case, I'll admit it's just my opinion.
HA 11.05.05 - 9:34 am #
Where to begin?
What I'm doing is an important service that is sinister--but not intentionally sinister, you understand--and that's why I should stop doing it.
Perhaps it hangs upon the definition of "is".
Since you like neither my style nor my content, HA, please place your cursor over the little "X" up top and take yourself to places that are more to your liking. No one is forcing you to come in here; but if you do continue to come in here, don't complain about what you find.
I trust that we can move on to another topic now. This is the last I'm going to say on this matter, and I trust it will be the last anyone will say on it.
