This morning, a friend called my attention to a post over at One Peter Five wherein Steve Skojec took the opportunity to denigrate the Remnant and Catholic Family News for what he condescendingly called “excessive snark and polemics.”
“It’s unfortunate that trads can always be counted on to warm up the circular firing squad,” he wrote. “It’s time for us to drop the snark and the sharp elbows and actually gather people in from this storm.”
This he offered in reference to the Remnant / CFN recently joint-published three part series: With Burning Concern: We Accuse Pope Francis.
Skojec’s insults were delivered in the comment box immediately after having previously said of their piece:
It’s good, I think, to have such a thing on the record. Not having read what’s coming in the future installment(s), I have to say that I suspect I’ll be willing to lend my own voice to it.
“I can scarcely believe that Skojec chose to make those comments,” my friend wrote. “I’m really amazed that he would stir the pot with both hands like that.”
I’m not.
The reason Skojec decided to take a poke at two of Catholicism’s finest publications isn’t a mystery; he made his motives entirely plain when he immediately went on to say:
There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that.
If there is anything amazing here, it’s the shamelessness and ease with which Skojec can engage in cringeworthy acts of self-promotion, and it’s nothing new.
Neither is his willingness to exploit an opportunity to bash what he clearly sees as competition (not their ideas) for almighty “audience size” and the benefits presumably derived therefrom; even if it means launching a calculated attack against those who are clearly on the side of the true Faith and have always treated him with every kindness.
I’ve long since had firsthand knowledge that this is Skojec’s modus operandi, it just never merited my attention; much less yours. We have bigger fish to fry.
So, why comment on it now?
Well, for one, it’s that “Italian thing” woven into both my DNA and my upbringing:
Mess with one of us, deal with all of us.
Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, and John Vennari are family (and two of the three paesani!) These are not just sincere, committed Catholics; they are gentlemen of the first order.
Even after several years of speaking at conferences and collaborating with these men (and others of similarly impeccable stature), I still cannot get over just how readily they accepted me as a brother-in-arms in the battle to defend Catholic tradition.
I’m the least in this group by far, and yet they’ve never given off even the slightest hint of superiority; even though they have earned that right. On the contrary, they’ve consistently encouraged me and my efforts from the very first, and in ways too numerous to number.
Now, that’s not to say that we always agree with one another – mainly as it concerns style and approach (well, my style and approach, anyway) – but the bond between Soldiers for Christ isn’t built on such things as this; it’s built on the common cause of defending the truth regardless of cost.
These very same men never treated Steve Skojec any differently than they’ve treated me. As a matter of justice, they are due far better from him than the round of self-serving sniper fire they received.
By the way, if this reminds you of the Voris manifesto, there’s a reason for that; the cloth from which they are cut is far more similar than may initially meet the eye.
In any case, the missing ingredient in Skojec’s relationship with Matt, Ferrara and Vennari (and me, for that matter) is plain; it’s the aforementioned common cause.
In other words, one of these men is not like the others.
If it wasn’t evident already, it should be by now that not all who claim to be serving the cause of traditional Catholicism have this as their primary concern.
Sure, it may be a concern; after all, that’s the inventory on the shelves, but building their individual brand takes priority over building the Kingdom of Christ, and that’s precisely what is going on here.
Seriously, what Catholic commentator whose focus is where it belongs really gives a rat’s ass about “the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online;” much less is so blinded by pride and ambition as to posture openly about such things without any sense of embarrassment?
I can honestly say that I have no idea who these “top three” players are and couldn’t possibly care less. If someone is doing good work, God bless them and their efforts. If they’re misrepresenting the Faith; their false ideas are fair game.
On this blog – likewise at the Remnant and CFN – it’s enough just to focus on confronting, as plainly as possible, the unprecedented attacks being leveled against Christ and His Church in our day; sometimes even with a “sharp elbow.” (Oh, the horror!)
There is no playing both ends against the middle on our pages – at once applauding another’s effort and then sneaking a self-aggrandizing attack into the combox – or any other such patently phony attempt to “find balance in our approach.”
The proud and puffed up always end up exposing themselves eventually.
This time last week, Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara, and John Vennari thought that Steve Skojec shared the priorities of every so-called “traditionalist,” aka Catholic.
Now they know better, and so do you.
Note: The following comment was posted by myself at 1Peter5 just minutes ago…
Matthew 23:
“… 23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.
27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.
28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,
30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell? …”
Oops sorry folks- it looks as if Jesus was being a bit too snarky and using sharp elbows, perhaps the Vatican II church can upgrade Scripture to make it say nice things only….
Michael F Poulin
Well said, Michael. Funny how the “gather us in” types always seem to overlook Our Lord’s approach to the religious hypocrites of His day.
Nice job!
I didn’t get the sense he was harshly criticizing them. At least, that wasn’t my impression when I read it.
Steven Skojec has a large, Catholic family. He has I think, seven children. I could be wrong, but whatever the number, those kids probably have a bad habit of eating, and he’s got to figure out how to put that food on the table. I couldn’t blame him for paying attention to numbers.
“But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.” Matthew 18:15
There is an art to allowing people who have given offence, unwittingly or without sufficient reflection, to step-back without publicly skewering them and thus inclining them to hold fast to the mistake they have made.
I don’t for a moment believe Steve Skojec is “puffed up and proud”. He may have mis-spoken. It would, in my estimation, be infinitely more charitable to tax Steve privately with this matter and allow him a chance to save face (if indeed any face was lost). I think it’s a trifling matter and your reaction (for one who was not sniped-at) is disproportionate.
Peace.
I read Mr. Skojec’s post and the comments which followed, and think the conversation took care of the problem–most of his commenters were defending the emotion in the Remnant/CFN piece as justified, and argued the point with him.
I wonder if it’s possible the “Italian thing in your, DNAs, may have over-reacted a bit too defensively here, Mr. V, and attributed an undeserved degree of malice to his actions?
What if he simply anticipated his post being widely viewed, and wishing to give his full support to the IDEA and effort of such a public compilation of the Pope’s damaging words and actions; while at the same time saving what he considered to be his more secondary concerns- about its style and tone- for his comment box, where he could discuss them with his readers, a little more privately, and yet not ignore them?
Wouldn’t that make it less of a “stirring the pot both ways” kind of thing, and more of a genuine expression of support for the overall effort?
I can tell you first hand that he doesn’t want to entertain anything that has to do with the Vatican Bank scandal.
“Well, for one, it’s that “Italian thing” woven into both my DNA and my upbringing: Mess with one of us, deal with all of us.”
The Italian in me wants to fight
The French in me wants to surrender.
Unfortunately the Italian in me is named “Roncalli”
And the French in me is Canadian so I just have trouble deciding what to do, perhaps I’ll call a council…
“Italian thing”= takes correction well—NOT!
Frankly, I’m sick that the enemies of Christ have been so entrenched within the Church while those of us who truly love the Lord and only want to be unencumbered from following His will are arguing among themselves creating more divisions and strife.
All of us need to be unified as the Church Militant fighting the enemies with unbridled Truth and since we are not, the enemies gain more ground and more souls are eternally lost.
Please dear Holy Mother Mary, help us to find a way to join together in this battle.
Instead of Circular Firing Squad, how about a circular chain letter—
http://bureauofcommunication.com/compose/apology
I couldn’t agree with you more, Catherine.
Same here.
The Italian in me is proud of you, Louie, for defending your bothers-in-arms.
Good job!
God bless you, Louie. You are a true friend.
Why would a Catholic be worried about a “bank scandal”? What does banking have to with mortality, and what other thing should a Catholic care about aside from mortality?
The recent ‘accusation’ article by the fine men who manage The Remnant and Catholic Family News is masterful; it is a cogent and quality delineation of the errors and heresies of Bergoglio’s time on the papal throne– so far. That Steve Skojec found reason to fault these brave men, especially through his own self-revealing comments in his own comment box following his article, is appalling. However, it is indeed not surprising. I was astounded, however, when Skojec accused Chris Ferrara of ‘loving to argue’. I had to smile. It is Steve Skojec who loves to argue and who will insist on the last word time and time again. Go read his comments to those who disagree with him and you will see this. He argued not only with Christ Ferrara, but with those who wrote in to defend Chris. In all cases he insisted on the last word.
I have first hand experience of the heady manner that Steve employs on his site with those who either are blunt or those who disagree with his opinions. He seems to have a need to mollify the reality facing the Church for those not ready to face it, and I get the sense as well that he is working through his own confusion in his articles and the comments which follow. This confusion often results in useless ramblings in the comment box. Skojec’s personal befuddlement on certain issues may be the source of his irritation with those who do not need to process and process, but rather come to the simple truth more quickly than he is ready to do. I think he is a comfort to many who are fearful and uneasy with the critical reality facing Catholicism, hence his initial reservations about the accusation article.
Christ Ferrara, Michael Matt, and John Vannari, on the other hand, have not only years of journalistic experience beyond Skojec, they are also light years ahead of him in emotional maturity. They are not inclined to inject their own emotional attachment to what they write. For this reason they tolerate well those who challenge them. I have done it on The Remnant site many times. Chris’s response it to just let it be. In contrast, Skojec is a hothead. He reacts. Ferrara, Matt and Vannari are gentlemen in the true sense of the word. Shame on Steve Skojec for his subtle and, then again, not so subtle, put downs of those who are his superiors and who are working so hard for Jesus Christ and His Bride.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Are we going to desert Him? Are we going to let Him be crucified a second time?”
+Lefebvre:
“For a true Catholic, one who is truly faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, anything which touches what He Himself established moves him to the very depths of his heart, for he loves it as the apple of his eye. So, if it comes, in any way, to the point of destroying from within what Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us as the source of life, as the source of grace, then we suffer, we suffer dreadfully, and we demand absolutely that this spring, this fountain of life, this fountain of eternal life, this fountain of Grace be preserved for us whole and entire.”
+Lefebvre:
“…Is it conceivable that no voice of authority is speaking out within the Church to condemn these public sins? Where are the Machabees of today?
Your Eminence, for the honor of the one and only true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, make a public protest. Come to the help of the bishops, priests and faithful who are still Catholic…”
The “We Accuse” articles are fantastic! However, how much press will it get in the pseudo-catholic world? Does anyone have any ideas how we could help get the Remnant/CFN open letter out there for all to see?
I have had a different opinion about Mr. Skojic for some time. In fact, since I begged to differ with his opinion and gave sound, irrefutable arguments. He was so incensed that he warned me to desist or face banishment. I was, therefore, banished from commenting on his sites, and feel almost honored. This kind of arrogance is not the stuff of which informed ideas are made. He has been signaling his true objectives and now has removed the mask entirely by attacking the other workers in the vineyard.
So true on all fronts Barbara. I also commend Michael Matt, Chris Ferrara and John Vennari for their courage. I’ve never seen the other fellow you reference admit he is wrong about ANYTHING, or apologize to ANYONE despite when it is evident to all, that he was/is wrong or had been offensive or rude. That is a significant character flaw. He also has a propensity for banishing good souls like you from his comment section, who generally always got the upper hand in exchanges with him, even though you and others were never allowed the last word. For him to even imagine that he has the same gravitas as Matt, Ferrara, Vennari, Verrechio or Barbara Jensen, is beyond the absurd, and I appreciate someone calling him out, and possibly humbling him.
I get that idea…but why broadcast it and attack fellow Trads for fighting against the demons coming out of the Vatican these days? Michael Matt has a brood of children too…aren’t we to rely on God’s providence instead of worrying about numbers? God bless~
Overall, sad to hear since I was thrilled to see him (SS) as a speaker at a recent Trad conference. We need to come together not tear each other apart. Accusing the good men of the Remnant and CFN who are just trying to fight back against the insanity and madness of this pontificate is turning your back on the true heroes.
God bless you all…Louie V., Michael Matt, John Vennari, and Chris Ferrara:+) And let us hope and pray that Mr. Skojec has the humility to seek repentance and reparation. I know all of you good Trad Catholic men would forgive him and welcome him back in a heart beat:+)
1P5 has always struck me as very safe, very vanilla, thoroughly imbued with the CatholiCuck (i.e., NeoCath) insatiable lust for respectability. Thus 1P5 has never grabbed me. My skeptical antennae have raised ever higher the louder the world’s applause for it.
1P5 seems ideally suited for those who wish to think they’re traditionalists while yet remaining, in fact, liberals–and thus retaining mainstream respectability. Yes, 1P5 seems to be targeted to the cuckservative audience. As cuckservatives in the political world believe they’re conservatives but are, in fact, unconscious liberals, so it is with CatholiCucks. I see this disjunct between subjective and objective reality as among today’s most interesting political and theological phenomena, very much part of the metastasizing diabolical disorientation.
Praise adds nothing to your holiness, nor does blame take anything from it.
Thomas a Kempis
In the article it says “Voris Manefesto” what is it?
Your point?
Louie, I’m so confused… Steve posts about the 1st part of 3 on this joint “Burning Concern” letter which to me appeared to be an encouraging review, even saying he might be “willing to lend a hand”. Then, in a comment on HIS OWN blog, he mentions what could be called a generic trait of the writing of many “trads”. Asked to explain what he meant, he responded rather well. …”The combativeness that the trad community is known for — especially online — is one that has become a sort of brand; a PR nightmare. Trads actually do have the right answers, but many people don’t want to get anywhere near them in order to learn them.”…”Collectively, trads are a mixed group. But the stigma — rightly earned — is that we’re about as much fun as lemon juice at a papercut party…. I’ve written this carefully and tactfully, and I fully expect the annoyed responses we are our own worst enemies.” Steve includes himself in this group- trads, and no where does he call out any specific person or persons. Yet Louie, you lead off with Steve’s picture under “Proud and puffed up”, seemingly because he mentioned his increasing readership while talking about style attracting or repulsing readers. I’ve seen a number of bloggers mention their number of page views attributing it to people being “sick of nice” and preferring their writing style without being accused of sinful pride. You also seemed to find offensive where he denigrated “the Remnant and Catholic Family News for what he condescendingly called “excessive snark and polemics.” C’mon. Why do you think the majority of your, Ferrara’s and Matt’s readers click on you? Polemics are just controversial issues and what’s wrong with being snarky? Also, he didn’t cite either pub. From my view it seems some Italian friend took offense where none was evident and you jumped in with both feet with snide, personal judgmental remarks. I saw that Chris F. went into Steve’s combox and discussed back and forth with him there, in essence to his face. I don’t know what the numbers are, but I don’t always go into the comboxes of every post I see. The offense taken was on what was said in the combox and it was challenged and discussed there. You made a blog posting of it, in essence a worldwide billboard. Why? Because he’s not your or Chris’ kind of Trad or +Fellay’s kind, but closer to Voris’ kind…? Are we not all AKA Catholics striving as best we can to get as many fellow travelers to heaven? Search your heart and see if this helps: https://akacatholic.com/media-code-of-conduct/
Barbara Jensen,
I believe you have falsely dipicted Mr. Ferrara here, as a self-controlled man who leaves off after a few arguments, who can easily be contrasted with Mr. Skojec, whose psychological makeup you also discuss.
I’ve seen numerous instances online where Mr. Ferrera, taking part in com- box discussions in defense of the “Remnant”, was accused of being unnecessarily and over- emotional, including one where he returned to post his apology to a priest for doing that, acknowleging it as a personal fault he’s always battling. I think we should take his word for that, over your opposite assessment of his superior control, though I’m sure we’ve all seen instances where he exhibited a great deal of that.
Also, regading his limiting of his argumentative posts to a few. Check Mr. Skojec’s blog for proof that is not the case, or the example I cited of his impressive combox activity about a month ago on Mr. V’s post entitled Clerical Messiah Syndrome. I didn’t mention at the time, that Mr. Ferrara kept arguing in that box with the author and others, until he’d made 17 posts, three of which ended with his firm declaration that he was done there and had nothing more to say, which he then immediately proceeded to prove false, until he actually stopped after the third one.
I want to be clear here, that I don’t see that as a charachter flaw in him, as first of all, it is our Christian duty to assume the best, rather than the worst motives about others. But, like Mr. Skojec, he appears to be willing at times to work hard and long to clarify what he believes to be the truth, to those who hold other opinions, and are willing to engage with him. I strongly object to the double standard being presented here, that what Mr. Skojec does on his own blog is being condemned as an extension of ego and narcissism, while those you admire are being falsely portrayed as not behaving that way, or excused from all weakness and malice, while you praise their virtues.
It’s harmful to judge anyone’s inner motivations-whether you’re putting halo or horns on them.
What what I’ve seen from reviewing this tangle of events on both blogs, is Mr. Skojec giving an opinion about an existing, provable difference between what he does on his blog in his writing, which he believes is attractive to readers, and what many other trads do, which he believes is off-putting, and therefore counterproductive . Those are OPINIONS about intangible THINGS, – not individuals he criticized. In return he is having his character publicly assaulted by Mr. V’s post labeling him as judged–Prideful and puffed up, instead of merely disagreeing with the opinion he proposed.
This is not Christian behavior, IMO.
He is Catholic man, whose reputation and character I see being deliberately attacked here, with a kind of lynch-mob mentality comprised of subjective experiences.
For all we know, he had good reasons for those he shut out of his combox. But he isn’t shaming those people by advertizing them elsewhere.
So all of this “testimony” is getting us nowhere but in more trouble with God, who is the only judge of hearts.
There is a worldliness and disingenuity in so much of so-called Catholic Media organisations today, which has increased exponentially since the scourge of Francis has been visited on the Church and the world, which tends to show these organisations never held to the True Faith but only to what gives them money, prestige or influence in the institutions of the Church and among the non-thinking, easily-led masses. One looks in vain to find more than a few who have not adopted a worldly value system diverging greatly from right reason and the Catholic Faith. The railing against those who stand up against the constant attack of the pope against the Faith and morals, whilst claiming to be upholders and defenders of that Faith and moral law, is a most blatant indictment of the diabolic disorientation to which the Church has become subject, a function of worldly pride and worldly preoccupation and worldly values.
MMC,
Accusing the good men of what, precisely?
Are you saying no man is allowed to remain in our “trad clique” unless he refrains from expressing any and all opinions not approved by you and others – concerning the possible effects of what we say and do on those outside looking in, and whether we can or should change our approach? I don’t happen to agree with his opinion, but I can allow him to express it freely on his blog, without feeling it necessary to declare him anathema or crucify his reputation. Can you show me one word of Steve Skojec’s statements that directly attacked any trad person on the Remnant or elsewhere? I see only a man talking about the use of sarcasm and controversy. . Yet I see normally sensible fellow trads like you, jumping to require him “seek repentence and reparation” .
God save us from this mentality.
“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. ”
Part I of the Communist Manifesto by Marx, submitted to the
Justice League
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“But don’t expect too many shades of meaning on my part. I come from the North, where Flemish blood pulses through the veins of most of the inhabitants and the Flemish, as you well know, are famous for their bluntness. It would be difficult to say as much about the Italians and herein perhaps lie the reasons for some of my difficulties with the Vatican.
I refuse to admit, however, that a cause such as that of Our Lord Jesus Christ can be subject to the ups and downs of human thought.”
I love this quote. However I’m sure by “Italians” he means the ones in the Vatican practising ecclesiastical diplomacy, right?
“Italians” might also cover papolaters, wherever they may be, aka rabid ultramontanes of both the avowedly liberal and cuckservative variety.
I wasn’t accusing SS of any mortal sin, helpusLord, just pointing out that his accusations against the Remnant article (which was written by specific men) were uncalled for and a shot as his own brothers. If I shot you spiritually, as my sister in Christ, it would be good of me to ask your forgiveness and seek to repair my mistake.
We both agree that what SS did wasn’t good…he wasn’t helping the cause he was attacking fellow trads. Yes, we can have other opinions and I agree that we should exhibit the spiritual work of mercy to “bear wrongs patiently” and “forgive offenses willingly”. But it’s still good to call out what SS did as not so good…and to hope and pray he offers a fig leaf to the Remnant and CFN. I left a post on his blog saying as much.
I don’t like any of this infighting as much as you do. But I also don’t like it when good men attempt to do a brave and public thing and they get spiritually shot in the back by their own, when their own should be watching their back instead.
Hope this clears things up:+) I think humility, forgiveness and charity would be a good thing in this scenario, yes? God bless~
I would assume he means do not be so worried about what others think about you. It matters little.
I have seen a lot of people throwing around the term cuckservative. Please stop. Look up cuckold where cuckservative comes from. It means a white man who likes to see his wife have sex with a black man. It is extremely derogatory, racist, and inappropriate. It is worse than the f bob and the n word combined. I sure you did not know exactly what it meant but now you do.
MMC,
You wrote: “We both agree that what SS did wasn’t good”.
Respectfully, No we don’t. That’s my main point.
I’ve said I don’t agree with his opinion, not that I judged it as harmful, bad or wrong to utter, and especially not that it should be taken as a shot in the back to anyone currently doing otherwise than he suggests, meaning he’s a traitor to the cause for simply expressing it. THAT mentality is what I am decrying here, and from what I see, it is shared by Mr. Ferrara who began with wrongly calling SS’s combox comment a personal “attack” on the paper where he works, and insisted on viewing it as a betrayal. That obviously spread to Mr. V, who took it to a higher level of the wrong place, misusing his blog to lead others to join in his personal attack on an innocent man-who simply writing what he thinks, about an issue anyone is free to differ in opinion on, with no sin at all=venial OR mortal.
A betrayal requires a commitment be broken. You’ve all created an unwritten law here, that is invalid.
WHERE is anyone’s commitment to think and speak only as everyone else in the “top-trad” eschelon does, on non-dogmatic things? There have been many such efforts to go public with statements and letters and polls, etc. What I see going on here, tells me if I fail to sign on to any of those, I’m a traitor to the cause–with NO consideration given to my justifications for that. It’s wrong, especially because there is not even a likelihood that such an effort will succeed in achieving its goals. Even if that were the case, a conscientious objector should not be persecuted.
This is why I mentioned the Communist Manifesto earlier.
There too, freedom of individual, valid choice was forbidden by the tyrants in charge.
Why not go all the way to full Christian Charity, and let SS have his opinions, express them freely, and respectfully treat him-as you say you have done? Mr. Ferrara should have followed your example, not vice versa, and countered his idea with better ones–with no cheap shots at his loyalty or intelligence or humility.
When I saw what took place in that first exchange between him and SS on the combox,, all I could say was, SS was right. Ferrara proved SS’s point, about too many trads behaving this way. And what Mr. V did in his three-musketeer mafiosa style follow up make it even clearer. The hot-heads are in the majority among this particular group of trads.
It doesn’t have to be this way. But it’s not SS who has to change, it’s Mssrs. Matt, Ferrara and V. in this instance. I’m leaving Mr. Vennari out of this, as I know he’s ill and don’t know his current opinion on this matter.
Peace of Christ to you.
I can only speak from my personal experience of the difference between Chris Ferrara and Steve Skojec. Of all the blogs I read–and they are many –no one has taken offense to me so readily and so reactively as Steve Skojec. My experience of him is that he is very uncomfortable with directness and strong opinions. In other words, he is easily offended, and if offended enough, will ban you from his site, as he did me. As Atsa4you mentioned above, Skojec will not apologize. Evidently he does not think he needs to do so. As you point out, Chris Ferrara acknowledges his sensitivity, and he did so in a recent comment thread in which he became embroiled with a priest. He admitted his fault and herein lies the difference between him and Skojec. To apologize as he did is indicative of emotional maturity . It is not indicated by ‘super control’ of his emotions and I never said that it did. Christ Ferrara’s ability to admit his reactiveness when it overcomes him exhibits self knowledge, this is the ground of genuine humility. Skojec’s inability either to see or to admit that he has erred in his reactiveness indicates an emotional insecurity in him which is also evident in his blatant and competitive preening with men very much his better in experience, age, and, in my opinion, quality. I say this last because Ferrara is always on point and gets to the point. Skojec has a tendency to ramble and ramble and, in effect, process things to death. He has serious trouble cutting to the chase. I have challenged Chris Ferrara mightily from time to time, as I have Skojec’s friend, Hillary White. I have also disagreed with Vox on Vox Cantoris and Louie on this site. None of them felt the need to ‘ban’ me for my bluntness and my challenge to them. I was not punished for daring to challenge.
As a final point, perceiving emotional immaturity or maturity in a person is not judging motives. I suspect Skojec’s motives are the best. He just does not know himself as well as he thinks. If he did, he would know when to acknowledge his flaws and he would know well he is in no way superior to men twice his age and twice in experience and depth, no matter how high his ratings climb. As one commentator who defended Chris in the recent, relevant thread on 1P5 said to him, ‘It is not about ratings, Steve, but about the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary’.
You’ve given the cuckservative’s definition of cuckservative. They’re desperate to shed this devastating label.
Search the net for the following accurate essays on the cuckservative infection:
Cuckservatism: The Cuckoo In The Conservative Movement’s Nest, by Alexander Hart
The Cuckservative Phenomenon, by Kevin MacDonald
Unmasking the Cucks, by Jane Weir
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives, by Jared Taylor
Two more points:
-Never again confuse race realism with racism. It’s super cucky to do so.
-Those known as NeoCaths are total cucks–CatholiCucks. Desperately seeking mainstream respectability, they’re constantly sliding left.
Funny how the exact same scenarios are happening in our day. That Bible was written for OUR day. God chose those writings for us…who have eyes to see, ears to hear. It comes full circle to greet the crucifixion of Our Lord’s Church…a time we are now living through. Louie, you and your friends are pointing a finger and guilty of seeing and hearing.
The “Voris Manifesto” is a document originally published on the ChurchMilitant.tv website claiming the Pope is a sacred cow and anyone who publishes anything critical about what the Pope does, doesn’t do, says, or doesn’t say is a “spiritual pornographer.”
Ok, so what you call an “opinion” I (and many others) consider a verbal attack and an undermining of an attempt to call out the enemy and attack him. What the Remnant did was spiritual warfare. Words matter. The Remnant called out the evil for what it is, publicly. That’s a spiritual nuke in the spiritual realm. What Mr. Skojec did was attempt to downgrade the spiritual attack by attacking the senders, which is never an objectively good thing.
We are in a spiritual battle here…WORDS matter…so brushing off “mere words” as “opinions” belittles what is happening in the spiritual realm. Yes, there can be true opinions where men of good will respectfully disagree with each other. But there are times when words are used for spiritual warfare and Catholic men and women need to stand together behind such words in order to inflict as much damage on the enemy as possible.
I do hope this all gets resolved. I’m hoping Louie sees this as an “Italian” response at some point and realizes his passions might have gone overboard. But it doesn’t negate the objective fact that Mr. Skojec verbally undermined a spiritual attack against the enemy by his own brothers. Maybe this can be an object lesson for us all to reign in our passions, let things go, take responsibility for our words (because they DO matter, Our Lord said He would hold us to account for all we said) and with humility, seek to mend fences:+)
God bless~
I put a response below, spare you a longer narrow read.
Barbara Jensen
When you wrote “I can only speak of personal experience”, you get to the heart of my strongest objection to what is going on here.
Unlike many discussion on the mostly verifiable words and actions of public figures- like popes- this particular combox has been turned into a gathering place for unlimited, unverifiable, subjective testimonies such as yours, which jump to conclusions that are aimed at harming, not upholding, the reputation and character of a man you admittely know only from a blogpost and combox. These presentations mimic those used for prosecution in a court of law, but without any of the procedural regulations which in a true court, attempt to prevent grave injustice to the innocent, based on centuries of developement stemming from natural law; man’s God-given rights and the meaning of “justice”.
It’s turning into a “kangaroo court” with the final verdict already clearly pronounced at the top of the page, by the blog owner, and “evidence” provided by persons who would be quickly disqualified from sitting on a jury of the “accused’s” peers, due to clear prejudices, lack of factual information, and evidence of intent to prejudice others. In your case, against Mr. Skoject and “for” Mr. Ferrara, whose characters you presume to not only judge, but to lay side by side for comparison, citing other anonymous posters for corroboration.
Mr. Skojec’s defense against such reputation-damaging accusations is non-existent, and he has zero motivation to appear willingly in his own defense, in such a hostile environment. Mr. V’s ” Mess with them and you mess with me” mentality and “Italian DNA”- excuse, may be treated as a joke, but what’s resulting here, in not funny, it’s objectively sinful.
Your words. “no one has taken offense to me so readily”…”he is uncomfortable with directness and strong opinions” ..easily offended and …will ban you from his site… “inability to see or admit error…” could as easily be written by someone of trustworthy character, as by by a mentally ill stalker. But what would their wives, priests, co-workers and neighbors- who could justifiably testify about them because they interact with them often and more fully, have to say about these same character traits?
And does Mr. Ferrara run a blog on which he interacts regularly with readers, thus having reason and need to initiate cut-off points and polices which upset those who experience them?
Anyone can view numerous interchanges with current and past commenters on Mr. Skojec’s blog, who should not be there, if his sensitivity to criticism is as you describe it. That strongly indicates a lack information about his reasons in your case and others who share your view and experience of being shut out by him.
You accuse him of emotional writing and equate his alleged inability to quickly “get to the point” with your psychological diagnosis- of an adult lacking emotional maturity.
Regarding emotion: There’s an old saying about writing differences: ” One tears it from his guts. The other pulls it out of his overcoat pocket.”
Regarding getting quickly to the point: Mark Twain once wrote: “The time to begin writing an article is when you have finished it to your satisfaction. By that time you begin to clearly and logically perceive what it is you really want to say. ”
Closer to home though,, it’s unlikely St. Thomas Aquinas got his nickname ” Dumb Ox” from a penchant for rapidly articulating what he was thinking. And I wonder if you’ve read much of Augustine, or St Paul.
. : 2 Cor 2.. [“I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. [3] And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), [4] That he was caught up into paradise, and heard secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter…. [ He still had not gotten to the point here.], but I hope I’ve made mine, and you don’t also consider Aquinas, Augustine and St. Paul as emotionally immature.
I believe Mr. V. has invited and encouraged this type of anonymous character assasination by his post title, content, and his enthusiastic response to the first comment on this blog, and I think I’ve made it clear I believe this a very bad move.
In effect he’s calling his readers to gang up on a man he has a personal beef with, for daring to criticize his “family”. It’s not presented as a call for reasoned discussion of moral issues, but an invitation to retribution. Unjust, because Mr. Skojec had every right to express his opinion about the effect of differing writing styles on the public, and neither Mr. Ferrara nor Mr. V, nor anyone else here, has justification for declaring war on him for doing that, nor to use as an excuse, the false statement that it was a personal attack on any of the people I keep seeing mentioned here. To the extent that people continue to participate in this anonymous lynching, they will each have to answer to God for it.
I hope it will go no further.
These are men I admire greatly for their uncountable contributions to the defense of the Faith I hold so dear. I would defend them against any unjust attack, as readily as anyone here. I honestly believe those who have equated what Mr. Skojec said in his com box, with an “attack” on them, are greatly mistaken.
Many of you wish to recognize these honorable men as the leaders in this war we are waging against evil. That’s fine as long as you don’t go overboard in assigning to the rest of us, responsibilities to back every thought, word and deed they decide to express. That is where you cross the line into tyranny and become thought police as so many have done here. We should be united in our commitment to overcome the lies and snares of Satan, not in persecuting anyone who differs in the type or degree of rhetoric one or more of us use to strike a blow against our common enemy.
God Bless you all.
You’re still attributing motives and effects of his actions to him that are not apparent at all.
He “attempted to downgrade” Mr. Skojec verbally undermined..”
First of all, he placed his comments in his com box, NOT in the post where all he did was praise the effort. But for that use of discretion, he is accused of being two faced, so he’s condemned even for that.
If Chris Ferrara and Mr. V. had NOT over-reacted to him the way they both did, this would never have gotten the publicity you all are STILL giving it.
So who is more to blame for any undermining of the effort, which is almost entirely dependent on how far and wide his comments were circulated.
I’ve put another line or two about your concerns in my answer to Barbara at the current end of the blog.
I can tell you’re sincere by the things you say, even though we’re not yet seeing eye-to eye on this, and I don’t want to go on and on endlessly. So I’m leaving it at this.
God Bless, and Peace in Christ
I’m certain most people are aware that Mr Vennari, Mr Matt and Mr Ferrara, were in the trenches long before the arrival of 1Peter5 /Mr Skojec. ..these gentlemen are seasoned campaigners and if Mr Skojec paces himself a bit he will have a great opportunity to learn from these Courageous Gentlemen.
Here is a definition of cuckold:
“of a man) make (another man) a cuckold by having a sexual relationship with his wife.”
Normally it is white man makin a black man do that to his wife.
You do not just get to make up definitions of words. I cannot make a new word called liberalfucktard and then say it has nothing to do with the F bomb.
Just find a new insult like neconservative or something. You are making yourself and conservatives in generel look like jerks.
Steve was right when he said that Trads are the first to line up the circular firing squad… look at the comment section here for proof. We are very prideful, which is why this has even become worthy of comment. And it is true that gratitude is a greater means to humility than physical penances. Trads just are not very grateful for the gifts God has given us, and it is reflected in the tenor of our arguments. We would rather argue and point out the speck in someone else’s eye than demonstrating a spirit of gratitude and truly seeking our own humiliation. “I must decrease, so He can increase.”
Traditionalists have always held as a time honored tradition that the young look to their experienced elders for wisdom…this is just such an opportunity for the young Mr Skojec and it has nothing to do with hubris and everything to do with having the humility to accept a bit of admonishment / counsel from his elders in the faith who have a deep commitment to the Faith proven by their lives of dedication to the immutable truths of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
cuckold: (noun) the husband of an unfaithful wife
cuckold(verb, transitive) to make a cuckold of (a husband).
equivalent to Old French cocu cuckoo + -ald, -alt pejorative suffix (see ribald ); apparently orig. applied to an adulterer, in allusion to the cuckoo’s habit of laying its eggs in other birds’ nests
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cuckold?s=t
I actually agree with Steve Skojec. The Remnant, IMO, have a sort of frat-boy mentality that almost makes it seem like a parody (they don’t intend that, I know). And we’ve all seen first-hand the problem of the circular firing-squad. The Crisis isn’t the fault of the trads, but the situation with modernism has only gotten worse in the last decade. I have to say, however, that the methodology of the Remnant ( and a lot of other blogs) really isn’t working to change anything. I’ll get a lot of flack for saying so, but that’s okay. Maybe a new approach is needed.
“I have to say, however, that the methodology of the Remnant ( and a lot of other blogs) really isn’t working to change anything.”
I unfortunately agree with you.
The problems have been identified, now what?
I agree that the series was well-thought-out and extremely well written. It is the most comprehensive and convincing document I’ve seen regarding this unimaginable crisis of heresy in the Church. They truly gave voice to the remnant of the Church (Interesting that yesterday’s Mass dealt with the increasingly evident fact that “Many are called but few are chosen”). I have never understood the interest in 1P5. It’s a fairly innocuous website, too infrequently updated, “published” by a not-very-intelligent or compelling blogger. I stopped going there after his embarrassing appearance on television. He was not capable at representing the position of Tradition, frankly, because I don’t think it’s really a part of him. The self-promotion of his comment about the series was embarrassing and cringe-worthy. Matt/Ferrara/Vennari are giants in the efforts to preserve Christ’s Church. To that list I would add Louie. Mr. S should listen to them…and learn.
Harris wrote:
“The problems have been identified, now what?”
That’s a really good question. I don’t have a clear answer, but if we look to the prophetic messages of our Lady from apparitions such as Our Lady of Good Success, which predicted, in the late 16th and early 17th century the current calamities in the Church, which were to begin in the 20th century . Our Lady of La Salette gave a very similar warning in 1846, then there was Our Lady’s appearance to St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858. Lastly, there was Our Lady of Fatima in 1917. Our Lady pressed for prayer and penance in all of these appearances. So maybe the answer has something to do with prayer and penance. I don’t know. I think, too, that a different approach is needed when addressing the errors/heresies of the Catholic hierarchy. We need to be strong, but grown-up about speaking out.
A few days ago, Bishop Richard Williamson gave a conference (I know that many who read this blog will not want to consider what he says), and he said something rather helpful regarding this subject, IMO, Here it is:
“So we just have to wait until it gets so bad that enough Catholics are on their knees begging God to change it, or to pull it straight, because if God gave us the answer before enough Catholics really wanted the solution, then he would be throwing pearls before swine. He’s got to wait until enough Catholics are praying seriously enough that He can be sure that if He gives us a decent Pope, the decent Pope will be followed.”
He also said elsewhere in the talk:
“Almighty God is big enough to allow an awful lot of nonsense in His Church without the Church going under. At a given moment, he will intervene to stop the nonsense….”
Again, a call to prayer seems to be the prescription, which isn’t nearly as much fun as participating on blogs. At least for me, anyway. Do you have any thoughts on the subject regarding what would or might help?
Daniel 13:50, So all the people turned again in haste, and the old men said to him: Come, and sit thou down among us, and shew it us: seeing God hath given thee the honour of old age.
1 Timothy 4:12, Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity.
Read the essays. All of them. I fear you’re infected with cuckservatism. And NeoCaths are better described as CatholicCucks.
If anything, The Remnant is soft. It must get much, much harder.
“…What what I’ve seen from reviewing this tangle of events on both blogs, is Mr. Skojec giving an opinion about an existing, provable difference between what he does on his blog in his writing, which he believes is attractive to readers, and what many other trads do, which he believes is off-putting, and therefore counterproductive.”
What you see here is the sad realization of those who have tried to reason with Mr. Skojec about his own shortcomings. Specifically, of late, accusing others of being ugly while defending ugly, judgmental statements of others. Others who, though they wear a collar, took the time to recollect themselves and thank those who persisted in explaining that their uncharitable hashing of another’s supposed lack of charity was – well – uncharitable and judgmental.
That is not to endorse hot words in themselves, but rather to tease out that using hot words to decry hot words is to exacerbate the problem and wound one’s natural allies while being somewhat hypocritical. That doesn’t help anyone.
Steve seemed disinclined to make that observation, but instead jumped in to defend his “welcomed guest” in doubling down on judgmental critiques of the sound efforts of others. Namely Misters Matt, Ferrara and Venari.
Thankfully, Steve has finally apologized, but only after others repeatedly told him that he should. After he banned them and treated them rather cruelly with baiting barbs. That is not a matter of merely upholding a policy. That is vindictive retaliation for not being able to logically and charitably address a legitimate issue.
He is still under the illusion that it was his tone that was so off putting. But what was really the problem is his having a snarky tone while accusing others of snark. In other words, he now has declared that tone is critical and so he was right in his initial observations. The reality is being a hypocrite is the problem, and one in open denial who feels the need to ban those who contradict his position. Not his policies.
Some of those Steve banned were trying to make that finer point so that even those who use “hot words” could be brought into the collective fold as they should be. Not just put into the naughty corner by those who were being naughty themselves. Like a bully selected to be babysitter.
If you cannot see that, well, you cannot see that. But I tend to agree with Barbara’s assessment. Steve doesn’t like to be bested (not that it is being bested) on his site. He appears to want to hold himself above the guidelines he sets. And, as Barbara stated so aptly, seems befuddled and reticent to move forward decisively. But being forever afraid of “turning off” people with the truth, with clarity in such times is to be one’s own stumbling block.
The very nature of what must be reported on faithful Catholic sites is distressing to the core if one doesn’t have a firm grasp of Faith. And that is what should be stressed. Not perpetual trepidation of speaking too clearly. Before you know it, it will be too late. The Apostles who were asleep in Gethsemane rather missed their window to play brave protector when they cozied up and fell asleep.
Mr. Verrechio, contrary to defending some good old boys club, has, in truth, behaved in the fashion that would preclude the circular firing squad. Rather, he is calling our attention to one who fires his weapon and then points the finger elsewhere saying, “It wasn’t me.”
You may have a great fondness for Steve and respect the work he does. I do, too. But I do not respect, nor can I condone, the hubris of lighting the forest on fire and then wanting to lead the discussion on fire safety. Doesn’t play well. But this will be learned over time. And Steve is new to this, whether he likes to believe himself to be or not.
Ann,
I’ve read a number of Mr. Skojec’s posts in recent years, but never until this week, visited his combox, so I you can definitely rule out personal “fondness” as the cause of my defense of him. I’d do the same for anyone I saw being treated as he has been here.
I can see no use in bringing up individual subjective claims of “bad” experiences from his combox , especially on a blog like this one, where most people post anonymously, and those claims cannot be proven or disproven to anyone’s satisfaction, and it appears they are being offered in an attempt to demonstrating a patter of proud behavior, which I saw more of in his commenters last week, than in Mr. Skojec. I came away admiring his patience, though I’m smart enough to realize that may not always be the case.
My point is that the man should not be on trial here, in the first place. I believe he stands falsely accused regarding only one post, . and due to a desire for retribution based on a false purpose attributed to it due to rash judgments.
I’ve given ample reasons for that, which you’ll find in a post to Barbara near the end of this blog, if you care to read them.
Anyone’s praise for what Mr. V did here, I believe is morally wrong, and I see you dismiss his own reasons for it, which I also see as a mistake, and explained.
Please consider what taking part in all this may do in God’s eyes, and in your soul and others whom it scandalizes.
God bless you and all of us.
What will be accomplished by the Remnant becoming much, much harder?
More truth.
Thanks, didn’t know that. How did explain the case of Pope Honorius the Heretic and Pope Liberius?
HelpusLord,
“…I can see no use in bringing up individual subjective claims of “bad” experiences from his combox , especially on a blog like this one, where most people post anonymously, and those claims cannot be proven or disproven to anyone’s satisfaction, and it appears they are being offered in an attempt to demonstrating a patter of proud behavior, which I saw more of in his commenters last week, than in Mr. Skojec.”
With all due respect, you cannot see the value of bringing up “experiences” because, as you have admitted, you are not familiar with Mr. Skojec’s style as displayed in the comboxes. That is a limiting perspective, friend. It is limiting because it is precisely within the combox that Mr. Skojec displays the tendency to do exactly what he chastises in others as not helping.
Much like one can believe that a man is a wonderful father because when he is out in public with the children, he behaves in a certain fashion. When he is at home, however, perhaps only in the company of his wife, he may be a tyrant. You, who are not familiar, are, in truth, not the best judge of overall behavior patterns. Why? Because you dismiss an entire arena of pertinent example. Example you reject if only to support your feeling of what you want to believe.
Please, you need to consider what “not taking part in all this does” to a man’s ego. For it is precisely the puffed up notion that it is only the article itself that is sending a message to Catholics. Whether you like to read comboxes or not is not the issue. Others do. Others have witnessed the inconsistency. Others have been promoting, engaging, contributing to 1P5 for the past two years.
So in your driveby assessment, you may want to assess your own incapacity and ask yourself “why” others may be compelled to speak about this issue. That would be unifying, and helpful, helpusLord. For grace builds upon nature.
The only rash judgement here is that which pretends that trads are ugly and bitter in an attempt to move conversation forward. A conversation that, in light of others being banned despite polite disagreement, does nothing but marginalize others and perpetuate a gross stereotype that does nothing to alleviate differences, but shut off true understanding.
IOW: Actions speak louder than words.
With regard to “my own soul” I suggest you keep to watching your own, friend. For all of the preaching about watching one’s soul while perpetuating marginalization and shutting off legitimate critique (or explanation of the reality of a situation even though it frustrates some) leaves one to become infatuated with their own notion of what is best.
It sullies that purity of intention, taking the goal from fighting the enemy to fighting anyone who doesn’t agree with me and my narrative.
And, yes, I read what you wrote. I also read what Barbara had to say.
Moving forward, you may want to advise Steve to stay away from commenting in the combox. Let his articles stand on their own merit. And let the monitoring be fair, monitoring that will call out even a cleric when they are judgmental and out of place. They also have much to learn.
“…I honestly believe those who have equated what Mr. Skojec said in his com box, with an “attack” on them, are greatly mistaken.”
Mr. Skojec has apologized for his sharp remarks, friend. Why? Because they were inappropriate and “he” led the charge in the combox because he was attempting to defend Fr. RP’s unhelpful critique of others who are doing what needs must in their own venue.
Had such an apology occurred up front the requisite need to correct would not have manifested. It did. But that is not the fault of those here, friend.
The time has long since come to put on our listening ears, those tuned in to truly wanting to understand the perspective/agenda of others. Not a blanket pass for agitation masked as the high road.
“…We should be united in our commitment to overcome the lies and snares of Satan, not in persecuting anyone who differs in the type or degree of rhetoric one or more of us use to strike a blow against our common enemy.” Exactly. And that’s why having a critique of one’s actions, not just one’s intentions, is a good thing. Checks and balances.
God has helped us.
…it is grace that will bring in the fruit. But the work is hard, Caimbeul. And zeal for God’s house and the sullying thereof is the appropriate motivator for harsh words and passionate response.
The Remanant is not going to solve the problem. Neither is OnePeter5. The Triumph belongs to the Immaculate Heart.
In the interim, we labor and get dirty and sweaty in the process. Thank God for the Sacrament of Penance.
Many times, it is the one who sins in his attempts who is doing the most work. The sin is proof of action. Being belittled because of it is a means of remaining humble. But that doesn’t discount the good Our Lord will draw from it.
…there’s nothing prideful, ora et labora, in defending others (in this case, “trads”) from attack by way of critiquing the job they did. And perpetuating the myth that “trads” are just not grateful is not helpful. It is, in large part, inaccurate and does nothing but anger people further. (The same holds true when those from more modern circles come to the discussion. Stereotypes don’t help.)
Why?
Because to be continually shut down and told what you are thinking and doing from another is no communication. It would be like one’s husband shutting you down in perpetuity by stating, “Wives are just naggy and I know that’s the real problem so I’m going to tell you to keep shutting up in front of the kids” while refusing to address the realities.
Yes, husband and wife must work together for the good. But that requires true listening, not proceeding based on a double-down stereotype wherein the husband in the analogy is nothing but a “typical” male in shutting off all input save that which he deems to be accurate. Especially that input that calls into question his modes of engaging with his helpmate.
That also, whether one believes it or not, and despite what one may say about the husband valuing the wife’s input, teaches the kids to shut off all input from the wife because, well, she’s just naggy. Wives are like that. Sorry, friend, but that is anathema and helps nobody, least of all the kids.
Working together means listening together. Taking the time. Not, I’ve started something and now I’m tired and want to go to sleep. Indeed, we must decrease so He can increase. And Christ always listens to us…. no matter how exhausting, no matter how sinful, no matter how confused. He is ever patient.
What sort of truth can the Remnant provide that they have not provided already, in your opinion?
Ann,
You missed my point.
There is no reason for anyone to be attempting to PROVE with alleged “perspective” acquired from Mr. Skojec’s combox, that the scandalous words at the top of this blogpost are justified.
The basis of Mr, V’s accusation of pride, was his own error of judgment. He accuses Mr. Skojec of the sin of pride in public, for merely presenting his theory that his less own reserved way of writing and speaking, may be drawing those outside the Traditional movement, i.e. attracting them to it, as opposed to the harsher rhetoric many trad blogs use, which he believes may be driving them away, or keeping them from seeing the truth we all have to share with them.
This is a case of a very Catholic man, being defamed and disgraced in public, for merely mentioning the large numbers of people who apparently like what he is doing–not as a sinfully prideful boast, as Mr. V. presented it, but as a logical proof of his theory.
He had EVERY right to think and present that .
Mr. V. not only had no right to rashly judge him as being puffed up in that situation, but to spread that to others and attempt to “punish” him for it so publicly, is sinful behavior and abuse of his power.
Jesus Christ and St. Paul tell us how to correct a brother-first in private. Mr. V made a point of doing that, when Mr. Voris attacked trads as purveyors of spiritual porn. If you look back at the blog he did on that, you’ll see him mention his attempt to contact Voris, and his offer to talk about it.
Did he do that in this case? No.
Did he mention any email exchange? No.
Did he accept the correction offered him?
No indication of that, yet.
Yet his rash actions, which he claimed were based on his attack one of us -attack all of us mentality, and his Italian DNA, both of which are admission of that he was acting in a spirit of retribution and anger, an eye for an eye mentality, rather than a rational judgment- are not only contrary to God’s laws, but a scandal that obviously led others to join in his behavior.
Your attempts to justify him, by “proving” his accusations founded, are adding to this scandal, because none of you have any justification for publicly putting Mr. Skojec on trial for the sin of pride. In fact, if you were objective and consistent in your behavior, you would see how hypocritical that attempt is, because Mr. V has exhibited objectively far graver tendencies to sin in what he has done here.
Yet there is no sign of humility visible as yet, from him.
Did Mr. Skojec have a right to mention his blog popularity in discussing whether or not it might be an indicator that people thought his ways better?
Asolutely yes. Does that action demonstrate pride?
Aboslutely no! Mr. V has led other people to think so, though.
I noticed today, that Mudabor treated of this issue -albeit without “naming names” but opining that anyone who seeks high numbers/ popularity (this is in my own words, not his) is likely taking the moderate road and that is a bad way to go. THAT implies that people like Mr. Skojec, are compromising the values we hold, in order to gain more of the world’s praise.
And THIS is where my reading of Mr. Skojec’s articles over the years, allows me to see the evil spreading from what Mr. V. said and implied above.
It all stems from the false accusation that pride was behind Skojec’s statement. You and Mr. V. cannot prove that true, because the facts speak for themselves.
The Pride was ATTRIBUTED to his statement, and used to justify the slander that is still going on here.
So stop joining in with your “proofs” of a man’s pride, when it’s contributing to all this evildoing. That is what I am begging you and every poster here, to do.
It is wrong.
Mr. V needs to take the plank out of his eye, and make reparation to Mr. Soject, before he will re-acquire the credibility to try to remove the TREE from this Pope’s eyes, which we all so desperately need to have done.
Please see my reply to your earlier comment, above, as it covers most of this issue. Mr. Skojec’s apology for “sharpness”, in no way justifies Mr. V’s. misrepresentation and objectively sinful judgment of his s MOTIVES being the sin of PRIDE. What Mr. V did here, went far beyond what you mildly and wrongfully present here as necessary correction..
It only demonstrates that Mr. Skojec has to wish for his criticism to ignite a blog war. And his criticism took place in his com-box, not in a post.
Ann,
As you’ve made repeated references to it, would you please post the Skojec apology here ?
God Bless.
HelpusLord,
I have taken your point, HUL, and found it lacking in substance. That is all. Nothing to write home about.
As for what constitutes rash judgment, perhaps your perception meter requires some calibration.
This article came well before Mr. Skojec’s apology, friend. That’s rather the point being made.
So the judgement of actions here was rather accurate.
As to your assessment of wrongful, I will again suggest you calibrate taking all comments into account. It is now being posited that other writers don’t have door-to-door experience converting/reverting non-Catholics/fallen away Catholics.
Sorry, but that’s just more of the same. Mr. Skojec may predicate his blog on going after the unassuming newcomer. Other’s have been busy sustaining the already disaffected.
So let’s not take sides, but thank all who work in the vineyard, friend. As to that, I’m glad for this article as it was timely and perhaps helped precipitate learning on behalf of one who proclaims his desire is to find common ground.
Here goes:
“Does anyone here really think that continuing to foment divisions among people on the same side is going to help our cause?
Do we really want to waste energy fighting each other?
I know that my comment came across badly, and for that I apologize. Looking back, I was irritated at the reaction that Fr. RP’s fairly benign criticism was getting. That showed in how I handled my own responses. I am not just lecturing from an ivory tower when I talk about having sharp elbows. I know what anger does when it’s an ever-present thing. It’s one of the chief vices I fight every day. And it’s hurt a lot of people close to me.
So yes, I do think tone matters. (It certainly mattered in my comment that started all of this, don’t you think?) And yes, I do think that how we approach these topics matters — sometimes almost as much as the truth of what we’re saying. It’s not about some false dichotomy between being nice or mean, it’s about removing the rhetorical stumbling blocks that could keep someone who is just waking up to the crisis (in a way that only Francis could make happen) from being willing to commit to the answers that tradition offers. I have family members and friends who have had this reaction. I’ve even experienced it myself, over a decade ago, when I first found tradition. Sometimes you can agree with what is being said while still finding the way it’s said so abrasive that you almost regret your agreement.
We make lots of strong statements here. We have earned a lot of enemies of our own doing it. I’m not selling Jesus as a fluffy butterfly from the mountain. I don’t think I hold back on the crisis. I just try to avoid, wherever possible, the ad hominem and impugning motives that so often distracts from the larger point (unless you already agree with it.)
But again, we are supposed to all be on the same side here, so why not act like it? I have no animosity towards the folks at The Remnant (or CFN; I met John Vennari last year and he was very gracious, and I was very sad to hear about his recent illness). I don’t see the point in forming up sides for a brawl.
I have my own ideas about the best way to do things, and that’s why I started my own publication. I’ll keep doing what I’m doing, and I expect others will do the same. We are wasting precious time and energy, though, if the few of us who really see things for what they are turn on each other rather than face the enemy in the field.
Can we all please move on? This isn’t worth it.”
The idea here is that Fr. RP’s criticism is cast as fairly benign despite the reality that it was divisive. Steve’s defense of Fr. RP’s criticisms (this from a well meaning priest who, demonstrably, is new to Tradition despite seriously good intentions is the problem.
To build unity, the sensibilities of not only Fr. RP and all those he represents must be take into consideration, but also the sensibilities of all those who are erroneously miscast for convenience sake as bitter from the sustained battle.
Yes, Steve’s approach may work and that is all well and good. But in commenting the way he did to those who took offense, he behaved in the fashion of the angry stereotype he was attempting to pin on others. Others who were, in truth, just giving leeway for different strokes for different folks.
I hope that clarifies for you.
To Ann and others defending this blog’s post., I ask that you take a good look at what you are defending, and decide for yourselves whether it qualifies as sinful hypocrisy. :
(in quote Mr. V’s post, all-caps emphases are mine)
Louie Verrecchio quotes Steve Skojec, above, writing:
“There are probably any number of reasons why 1P5 has, in just two years, become one of the top three mainstream traditional Catholic publications online (in terms of audience size), but I suspect our attempt to find balance in our approach and not treat those who don’t yet see the point we’re making as the enemy are a part of that.”
Mr. V. then attacks those words saying:
If there is anything amazing here, it’s the shamelessness and ease with which Skojec can engage in CRINGEWORTHY ACTS OF SELF PROMOTION, and it’s nothing new.
(Mr. V goes on to claim that Mr. Skojec is motivated by that desire for popularity, to attack his competition)
and then continues his attack, writing
Seriously, WHAT CATHOLIC COMMENTATOR whose focus is where it belongs really GIVES A RAT’S ASS ABOUT “THE TOP THREE MAINSTREAM TRADITIONAL PUBLICTIONS ONLINE” MUCH LESS IS SO BLINDED BY PRIDE AND AMBITION AS TO POSTURE OPENLY ABOUT SUCH THINGS, WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF EMBARRASSMENT?
and further on:
I CAN HONESTLY SAY I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THESE “TOP THREE” PLAYERS ARE AND COULDN’T POSSIBLE CARE LESS. ”
ON THIS BLOG, ….IT’S ENOUGH TO FOCUS ON CONFRONTING….ATTACKS AGAINST CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH IN OUR DAY, sometimes even with a “sharp elbow.” (Oh, the horror!)
.Mr V finishes with this:
THE PROUD AND THE PUFFED UP ALWAYS END UP EXPOSING THEMSELVES, EVENTUALLY.
——————————–
So Mr. V would never self-promote, right?
The what is the following doing on blog, promoting himself for paid speaking engagements?
“Author of the internationally acclaimed Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II faith formation series, which received the endorsement of numerous churchmen and theologians – including George Cardinal Pell –Mr. Verrecchio IS UNIQUELY ADEPT AT helping “conservative” Catholics break free of the “hermeneutic of continuity” illusion in order to rediscover the rich inheritance of faith – both doctrinal and liturgical – that is rightly their own.”
And iif Mr. V. COULN’T POSSIBLE CARE LESS about promoting his blog using it’s popularity, Then what is THIS doing on his ABOUT page just above his request for donations?
“Over the years, this blog has served as a piazza for like-minded men and women who share a passion for discovering authentic Catholic truth, and encouraging one another in learning it and living it.
The commentary offered by our insightful readers is ONE OF THE REASONS SO MANY PEOPLE VISIT THE BLOG FOR SOLID CATHOLIC NOURISHMENT
NEARLY 3 MILLION PAGE VIEWS PER YEAR!
Did you all GET that last lint?
NEARLY 3 MILLION PAGE VIEWS PER YEAR! The exclamation point is all his.
So, should Mr. Skojec do a blog post on Mr. Verrecchio’s hypocrisy and pride?
I’m sure if he did, many of those curretly defending this mockery of truth, would claim Mr. Skojec was vengeful.
May God have mercy on all of us, by opening hearts and minds to the truth, bringing justice and sorrow for sin and error.
I’d like everyone reading the above to note, that when I read it, I did not view it as an indication of pride, any more than when I read Mr. Skojec’s words.
Both of these men were merely using facts about their successful work, to propose it as reason for others to be persuaded they are right in their thinking and should be listened to. No shame in any of that. But plenty of reason for shame in attributing pride and covetousness to Steve Skojec’s words.
From the Catholic Media Code of Conduct Proposed to all Commentators by Louie Verrecchio:
l. I will make every attempt to ensure the accuracy of every claim that I make, either written or spoken, in every public venue in which I participate. In furtherance of this cause, I willingly agree to the following:
3. Whenever I find it necessary in defense of the truth, to criticize any individual or group of individuals, by name, I agree to accept any reasonable offer from those persons, or representatives of those groups, to engage the matter with me directly in an equally public venue, so as to afford them the opportunity to defend and explain their positions in their own words.
4. I will not accuse any individual or group of individuals of ecclesiastical crimes for which the Church has not charged them.
5. If I am provided with any information that would exonerate any individual or groups of individuals from criticisms that I previously leveled in a public forum, I will amend and retract my comments, also publicly, as necessary, to reflect the truth.
Again, HelpUsLord, you need to calibrate in light of all factors, comboxes included as that is part of the message being presented. That you have your own bias is very evident.
God bless.
Ann,
God Bless you too. I mean that in all sincerity.
My only “bias” here, is towards Our Lord’s will being done, under all circumstances, including on this blog, including the prevention of scandal and ongoing sin..
I rightly challenged Mr. V’s accusations against Mr. Skojec, using his own words, above, which did not include the combox behavior you refer to, in order to show that what Mr. V chose to focus on to demonstrate cause for this ongoing, public shaming, is something he himself is guilty of doing–shamelessly (as both should be viewd) This matters, because it is his chosen basis for the rest of his claims.
There is no need to dig up your com-box “proof” that Mr. S acts proudly (in your opinion) there.
The Catholic definition of the sin of defamation is this:
“The unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other IS REALLY GUILTY OR at any rate is seriously BELIEVED TO BE GUILTY BY THE DEFAMER.
An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a MORTAL SIN sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice.
You can read up on it, as there are many circumstances which can mitigate it to venial, but they depend on it being motivated by need to protect the common good from being harmed by the person being defamed.
Mr. V. described his motivation in terms of retribution for a perceived “attack” on his fellow trads. That only worsens the sin and scandal here.
I suggest you acquire the same bias I have, to protect you from defending this any further, as you are promoting evil by doing so.
I offer this in fraternal charity to you.
God Bless you, again.
Ann, please see my post below. It seems you don’t realize what the sin of detraction is.
I’ll recalibrate gladly if I’m shown to be wrong about that.
You don’t really mean to excuse what you said, do you? “Many times, it is the one who sins in his attempts who is doing the most work. The sin is proof of action.” Paul to the Romans just flashed all over when I read those words. Check out the end of Romans chap. 5 to 6, verse 1, “Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. …What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” Saying it’s okay to sin when you’re doing something sounds like you’re emulating Pope Francis. Our Lord draws out good IN SPITE OF our sin. Let’s not try to give Him ample opportunities.
My parents only had one argument in forty-five years. It lasted forty-three years.
Cathy Ladman
Ann,
Much obliged. Now know what he was apologizing for:
” know that my comment came across badly, and for that I apologize” He then explained why he was feeling irritated when he make it, giving very valid reasons, and adds that he includes himself in the general criticism of trads acting snarky – whenever it fits.
What about this gave you the idea it acknowledges sinful pride, such as that Mr. V. claimed to be exposing.
I re-read every word of what Mr. Skojec wrote in the criticism, and still see absolutely no reason for anyone to take offense from it, OR for him to apologize. Sad to say, I think Christopher Ferrara showed himself to be petulant and thin-skinned in his response to it. He’s really the one who instigated this whole thing, if you look at it fairly.
I’ll let this part of it go, as it just get’s more and more into subjective opinions.
Again, thanks for posting this. God Bless
Ann Malley wrote:
“And zeal for God’s house and the sullying thereof is the appropriate motivator for the harsh words and passionate response.”
Are we then to behave in the same manner as the enemies of the Church? Is that what our Lord and Our Lady really expect of us?
Louie,
I like you, BUT— You’re first statement against Steve was:
“Skojec’s insults were delivered in the comment box immediately after having previously said of their piece…”
Actually if you check, his comment came 2 days AFTER he entered the post. (The combox has this weird “sort by” button.) And it was directed toward a commenter in the combox, NOT in reference to the Rem/CFN letter.
Also, where it’s claimed he “apologized”, (copied elsewhere in your combox), he explained that he made that comment, (2 days later), in reference to what commenters were saying to each other.
Did you challenge the terms snark and sharp elbows or justify your and others “style”? Did Steve anywhere call “snarks” et.al. sinful, despicable or other derogatory terms, impugning their motives, because they choose a certain “style”?
Why did you do it? You said, “Well, for one, it’s that “Italian thing”…” So, if your friend says “He’s mean.”, that gives you leave to spit in a guy’s face? I say, “Grow up and play nice.” There’s too much of this “I can’t help myself… I was born this way… The devil made me do it”, especially in our narcissistic society.
I think you’re out of line. You might not like Steve’s style, or his position on V II or Novus Ordo, (I’ve no clue what it is), but he is a brother in arms. Maybe a different branch, but still a soldier for Christ. And what you did here, IMHO, is sinful defamation, directed to a specific individual, in a public arena, and deserves an apology. In addition you should correct this blog post, noting such in the title and immediately under the photo, an explanation of your contrition.
Aside from the moral issues, this post could potentially cost someone named Skojec –not even THIS Steve Skojec, a future job, as employers often check online and don’t tend to discuss it. How would one react to seeing “puffed up” and Prideful associated with a name?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/05/17/how-an-online-reputation-can-hurt-your-job-hunt/#6b79047d14d8
“In fact, 90% of executive recruiters say they conduct online research of potential candidates, according to ExecuNet.
Up to 70% of employers who have used LinkedIn say they’ve chosen not to hire a person based on what they’ve found out about them online.
However, only 27% of employers give job seekers the opportunity to discuss the online content that is associated with their name, such as social media profiles, blog posts and photos.”
My goodness. Look at your many words all over the place here. You’re hysterical. Louie said what he wished to say. You don’t like it. Too bad. Get over it.
There is only one pretty child in the world, and every mother has it.-
Chinese Proverb
…I’m not going to excuse what I said, Mike. Obviously we are not to encourage sinning. But failing is often a sign of trying.
Even the just man sins 7 times a day.
The idea is that we try, Mike, not stay idle for fear of sinning. We should trust that grace is there should we fall. And we will fall.
Maybe you should ask for explanations before asserting that one needs to excuse “what they said.” Understanding is key, Mike.
That’s again why my issue with 1P5 is that for all of the admonishment now to beware division and to avoid labeling, there was nothing but labeling going on in the discussion about the Remnant/CFN piece.
In other words, the editor had fallen into the trap that he had been warning others of. Don’t label. Don’t assume. Ask for clarity. Clarity for charity.
Perpetuating myths about cranky trads is not helpful, especially as it can give newcomers an excuse to stop seeking truth which is often had at the expense of much suffering and just having to take that leap of Faith.
We are to behave in the manner that Christ did, using anger where appropriate. When God’s house is under attack, that is the proper time, friend.
As for your ” are we to act like the enemies of the Church do”, remember that we are admonished to learn from wordlings about how they think and act to protect that which is dear.
The bad steward had the singular focus to make friends for himself when he got kicked out of the master’s house for being lazy and not doing his job.
So, while some may pretend that it is always necessary to be mild and calm, that is not a true representation of Our Lord who used anger when it was appropriate. Not to defend Himself, His Person, but to defend God’s House – ABSOLUTELY!
…I’m sorry, but you didn’t prove that Mr. V’s critique was unwarranted… or that he broke his own guidelines. Perhaps by your standard, but then you admit to not looking at the whole of that which has been said.
As to promoting evil, you are engaging your own judgement which is not right judgement, friend. Although you may be thoroughly convinced.
“…Detraction in a general sense is a MORTAL SIN sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice.”
Sorry, but detraction in a general sense is not automatically mortal sin. That said, you are precipitous in labeling such conversation as “detraction”. If you are not up to rigorous discussion, then so be it.
1Peter5 has now revisited some of their earlier articles, specifically the need to distance ourselves from labeling others and ourselves. Would that that policy had been upheld in the combox of the recent offerings of that site, and by the editor, this entire issue would have been avoided.
But, as you see, discussion and highlighting of the slip has resulted in a renewal of the elevated argument. For ALL parties. And that was the point, friend.
“We have recalled to your minds, venerable brothers, this deathly mass of ills, not to increase the sorrow naturally caused by this most sad state of things, but because we believe that from its consideration you will most plainly see how serious are the matters claiming our attention, as well as devotedness, and with what energy we should work and, more than ever, under the present adverse conditions, protect, so far as in us lies, the Church of Christ..”
“It is perfectly clear and evident, .. that the very notion of civilization is a fiction of the brain if it rest not on the abiding principles of truth and the unchanging laws of virtue and justice, and if unfeigned love knit not together the wills of men, and gently control the interchange and the character of their mutual service.”
INSCRUTABILI DEI CONSILIO
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII 1878.
I completely agree with you.
Mr. Skojec is an angry, unbalanced man with a towering ego. If you doubt that, please try expressing an opinion opposed to his, on his site. I pity his children and wife.
Would it have also been more charitable for Mr. Skojec to offer his criticisms privately to Ferrara, Vennari, and Matt, instead of trying to publicly belittle them? Your concern for Mr. Skojec and lack of same for the other worthy gentlemen sounds quite discordant.
The bank scandal is fundamental to some of the most odiferous rot in the Church. It is exceptionally naive to suggest that corruption and criminal activity at the highest levels of the Church have no impact on her spiritual well-being.
Your tireless, obsessive partisanship in defense of Mr. Skojec can hardly be explained on a rational basis. If you have a personal relationship with him, perhaps you know him better than the sundry people whose only contact with him was to be unjustly silenced for disagreeing with him. However, it would also be a tad dishonest to represent yourself as disinterested.
Ann, thank you for this cogent and effective explanation of what this argument means. Mr. Skojec, or ANY blogger, should show respect for his audience and know when to allow readers to draw their own conclusions after succinctly laying out his position.
Ann, thank you for this cogent and effective analysis.
Mr. Skojec, or ANY blogger, should show respect for his audience and know when to allow readers to draw their own conclusions after succinctly laying out his position. Instead, Mr.Skojec denounces those who challenge his opinions, after the manner of a fascist.
An excellent quote, helpusLord, From Pope Leo Xlll. I hope that the commenters here, as well as Louie, will consider its import.
But see, here’s the thing. St. Jerome was a notable crank. Apparently he was very touchy and irascible, and people didn’t like him, but look at what he accomplished, he translated the whole Bible and did us all good. There is room for all under God’s blue heaven, and I know I have my faults, want me to list some? I don’t expect perfection in bloggists, and accept they have their own problems and weaknesses, as do I. That seems ok. If they annoy too much, they’ll get pushback and either adjust and change or find fewer readers. That’s capitalism.
Was it fair to The Remnant? I don’t know, but they are all big boys, and I bet they have thick skin after doing this all these years.
I think we ought to not sweat the small stuff and help each other out. Call a spade a spade, by all means, communicate, but at the end of the day we should stick together.
Methinks in the desire to protect those who Steve has tagged “welcome guests” on his blog, he allows them the liberty to be harsh with others with whom they should be gentle… or at the least, appreciative and respectful.
I noticed Steve put up a 2 year old article on not labeling others.
Hopefully no more truthful voices will get banned at 1P5. Their countering the nonsense is what brought that much needed reminder up from the archives.
God bless!
Hello Ever Mindful, You’re a treasure trove of quotations. That Chinese proverb is particularly poignant in light of the Chinese atheistic communist regime’s systematic murder of all the other babies of a given mother. The global government in all its agencies, and the numerous states that it controls, is complicit in the systematic murder of people on a stupendous scale. Lord, have mercy! Reparation! God bless.
If that is how YOU FEEL, it would be just as well to avoid those sites without proselytizing against them. Many would heartily disagree with your frivolous and insulting characterization.
I suspect, from the tenor of the Skojec defenders, that the ground level issue is, indeed, modernism, writ large, with its concomitant tendency to silence those who challenge the omniscience of its adherents.
Critical Thinker-
You really need to do some more research into the derivation of the word “cuckold” which is not close to your assertions, in either its origins or its profound obscenity. In fact, your definition is incorrect, except perhaps in some urban dictionary usage. The cuckservative label is in no way vulgar. Strange how modern ears, so accustomed to profanity, recoil when a stringent truth assails them.
“Caimbeul”
If that is how YOU FEEL, it would be just as well to avoid those sites without proselytizing against them. Many would heartily disagree with your frivolous and insulting characterization.
I suspect, from the tenor of the Skojec defenders, that the ground level issue is, indeed, modernism, writ large, with its concomitant tendency to silence those who challenge the omniscience of its adherents.
Alphonsus
These Catholicucks, as you call them, are really just plain, garden variety, Novus Ordo liberals. However, they shrink from some of the bolder excesses of Conciliarism and wish to identify themselves as superior in some way. These are the “lukewarm”. But maybe the worse problem is that they want to make the rest of us shut up. So they want to claim the mantle of reformers, while working diligently to prevent any discussion that might lead to a real reform.
“Critical Thinker”, cuckservative is not a dirty word. It is indeed an intended barb, but your urban dictionary definition of cuckold is way off the mark. Have you never read Shakespeare? This is nowhere near dropping an F-bomb; it isn’t even a milder profanity. Please stop trying to censor because of your personal sensitivities.
It is not silence to which I am hoping to achieve. You have misunderstood my stance. How is it frivolous to want to proclaim the truth with dignity and maturity, instead of snarkiness, of which many trad bloggers seem to resort to in order get the message out. How is that working out? Has modernism been defeated by the tactics used by trads? I think not. The modernists love it when we are mean and nasty, toward each other and toward the modernist hierarchy, because it keeps the devil right beside us, and the focus is on us instead of the truth. Think of the Apostles when they went out, after Pentacost, to proclaim the truth to the masses. They spoke the truth with dignity and meekness. They gave their lives for the truth as well.
A new approach is needed. If you disagree, that’s fine.
Yes, though CatholiCucks are those commonly seen as conservatives by others and by themselves. Unlike avowed liberals, CatholiCucks–like cuckservatives–are unconscious liberals. Among Catholics, CatholiCucks are commonly known as NeoCatholics. I think CatholiCucks better describes them.
“…The modernists love it when we are mean and nasty, toward each other and toward the modernist hierarchy, because it keeps the devil right beside us, and the focus is on us instead of the truth.”
That is why it is critical when one publication has done their utmost to respond to the crisis as they see fit, instead of being hypocritically snarky on a public forum to supposedly call out the superiority of not being snarky, the publication promoting soft-speak undermine themselves. And the efforts of unity.
That is the supposedly high road publication is taking the low road by marginalizing others. Instead of tut tutting, let that publication who chooses to act in the perceived better manner do so in action – not just words.
…and while you point to the Apostles going out with dignity and meekness, 1P5 used anything but dignity and meekness to decry the faults of others when they were committing them themselves while advertising a superiority of position. One they were not adhering to.
So unity must be obtained for all. That includes mildness in correcting our brother’s perceived faults. (That is not to say that the Remnant has no call for hot words. Everything has its place.)
Like a person fighting anger should not get mad over having lost his/her temper. The reason? Because it only magnifies anger.
And while you assert that a “new” approach is needed, you fail to recognize that the Remnant’s isn’t the only voice. If that were so, then you may have a point. But there are also myriad mild voices, friend.
“…Has modernism been defeated by the tactics used by trads? I think not.”
Sorry, but man proposes and God disposes. God will bring the increase. Not us. That said, labeling faithful Catholics as “trads” is just adding fuel to division. It is giving those who do not engage traditional practice more fuel to ignore righteous anger. And there is such a thing.
So perhaps what is needed is another approach to add to that which is already there. Not the removal or condemnation of that which doesn’t appeal to you. For the Remnant has absolutely aided a good many for decades to continue to continue the daily battle to pick up one’s cross and follow Christ.
Daily battle….for what, may I ask?
Seriously?
You don’t understand what it is we battle daily?
We battle the world, the flesh, and the devil, friend. We pick up our cross, despite falling, and carry on in imitation of Christ.
And being cast as villainous or merely angry and cranky by one’s fellows is a cross. But then Our Lord was rejected by those who should have welcomed Him. He was crucified by those who should have welcomed Him. And we may receive martyrdom at some point, but for now, the weapon to tamp down the truth is to call out others as mean, hateful, divisive, bitter, etc. Anything to keep the truth from getting out. We don’t want to offend anyone after all.
Enjoy your weekend.
Ann,
I was trying see how it is that you define “Battle.” A battle has a military connotation, does it not? When engaging in battle, aren’t we supposed to look to win in the end? On one level, we have our daily battle with trying to grow in holiness. But the larger battle, if we choose to fight in it, is for the defense of the Catholic faith. Are we just to battle on though the years, without looking to win? Generally in a military battle, when one side is losing, they will step back and retreat for awhile, in order to re-assess the situation, and possibly to try a different tactic, that is, if they want to win. But trads haven’t done this. They still fight using the same methods, which aren’t working. If you want to just fight without any goal of winning, that’s up to you. But I, for one, think that maybe a re-assessment is in order. The modernists are winning. Speaking truth with charity, it’s not that difficult. But there will be less traffic to any website that endeavors to speak truth with charity, since most of us enjoy contention, which is a product of original sin.
Caimbeul,
Respectfully, you are perhaps looking at the entire battle and expecting it to be already won. You do not, perhaps, see that the skirmishes that are daily engaged are effective in their own way at the Remnant.
It is God’s to determine when/how to end this crisis. In the interim, although the battle is protracted, we should not put down any weapon, to include righteous anger. That has its place. Just like soldiers who are going in for a battle need to get their game on, that is they need to mentally prepare for battle for it takes vigor to make it through. (That is not to discount grace, but to understand that grace builds upon nature.)
So some may well indeed come into this conflict and think some new tactic must be engaged because they don’t like the bluster or find it offensive. But that is not true for all. And bluster and tone are no sign whatsoever that other methods aren’t also being used in tandem.
To believe that hot words are all there is is to judge with wrong judgement…. or, at the very least, to judge knowing only a portion of what is being done.
“…But trads haven’t done this. They still fight using the same methods, which aren’t working.”
Sorry, friend, but the methods are working, just not perhaps for the group you desire to target. There are many fronts in this battle. And the ultimate “win” is God’s. So the scrambling to accuse “trads” of a supposed desire to just fight is similar to a new parent accusing older parents of not “doing” enough to solve the problems of children when experience has taught that the method engaged is doing the job. That is of supporting the disaffected.
Again, look at the goals. What do you define as a win? What do others define as a win. Not always the same.
Let’s stop pointing fingers at the supposed failures of others and get busy thanking others for doing what needs must and moving forward.
Here is what I would define as a win: To turn hearts and minds away from modernism, the effects of which are attempting to destroy the Church.
When trads go into bullying mode, how many who actually needs to turn towards truth and away from error, are going to listen to them? Very few, I think.
As Dom Marechaux once said…”Authentic gentleness, founded on a firm adhesion to truth, conquers hearts.”
Cimbuel writes: “Here is what I would define as a win: To turn hearts and minds away from modernism, the effects of which are attempting to destroy the Church.
When trads go into bullying mode, how many who actually needs to turn towards truth and away from error, are going to listen to them? Very few, I think.
As Dom Marechaux once said…”Authentic gentleness, founded on a firm adhesion to truth, conquers hearts.””
Exactly. That is why Skojec bullying others and labeling them as “trad” (especially while apparently identifying himself as one) in a supposed attempt to take the highroad helps no one. (He should have used the sweet words and charity to overcome what he “said” was a deficiency in others. Others who actually did the work. One does not go about scapegoating others to win friends and influence people. The ends do not justify the means. In this case, pretending that others are some histrionic pariahs whose tone is sending droves of would be Catholics rushing toward Modernism is utterly false.)
That said, one must understand what “bullying” really is. To be clear, bullying can and is often perpetrated with the highest language and perfect manners. It is the well suited, soft spoken individual that is overly concerned with tone so as to project a certain image and then lead them where “he” desires they should go that can – and often IS – the real enemy.
So I say thank you Remnant/CFN (You choice of style and tone is your choice.)
And to Skojec (Your choice of style and tone is your choice, but please, be consistent in upholding the style and tone you say you’re representing, especially when it comes to light that you’re bullying your allies.)
An Malley wrote:
“In this case, pretending that others are some sort of historic pariahs whose tone is sending droves of would be Catholics rushing toward Modernism is utterly false.”
Who has made the accusation about ‘historic pariahs whose tone is sending droves of would be Catholics rushing toward Modernism?’ I haven’t seen anything of this sort written at all. Where did you get it from?
Perhaps confusion comes from the fact that I accidentally wrote “historic” instead of histrionic. Forgive me, please.
In truth, I see no unity or the setting of proper example by those who assert – for whatever reason – that “trads” are to be considered as being embittered, angry, divisive, etc. And that “trads” must change their approach to accomplish the win/win because their tone is off putting.
(The hyper-focus on tone is a distraction.)
The rise of Modernism and Modernist thinking is not due in any part to the “anger” of “trads”. That is just a convenient excuse or scapegoat. And to perpetuate that myth helps nobody. Especially coming from those with an eye to win/win.
True unity, in my view, is to welcome the fighting prowess of those with an eye to defeat the true enemy, not those intent on critiquing the armor and weaponry of others, especially when they are newly come to the field.
The term ‘histrionic’ doesn’t really change anything. You made the accusation about me saying that the “tone” somehow sends “droves of would be Catholics towards modernism.” I never said any such thing. First you were dishonest about saying that I was trying to silence trads, which wasn’t true. Now you are lying again. Not a good quality in someone who professes to want to uphold the Truths of the Catholic faith. Perhaps you believe that lying is somehow justified when defending truth. That’s just evil.
Friend, I made no accusation against “you”. I am merely stating that Catholics who earnestly and faithfully desire a win/win err when they, even with good intentions, cast the blame for this ongoing crisis at the feet of those whom they label as “trads” and assert are helping nobody with their hot words.
This is a paraphrase of my position on this entire subject, friend. It is to say that Catholics must walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
So when some, in an attempt to calm the waters as they say and promote union, engage in labeling, bullying, and marginalizing their brothers, they are doing little more than shouting, albeit in kind words, “Do as I say, not as I am doing.” (All while refusing to look at their own words and take their full meaning.)
“…First, you were dishonest about saying that I was trying to silence trads, which wasn’t true. Now you are lying again. Not a good quality in someone who professes to want to uphold the Truths of the Catholic faith. Perhaps you believe that lying is somehow justified when defending truth. That’s just evil.”
First, you need to stop misinterpreting my opposition to a stance as an attack on your person. It isn’t. Second, you should attempt to clarify before declaring others are lying. Third, you commit the very sins you seem to assert to me while making your indignant leap.
Clarity for charity, friend.
Maybe you should look at your statement, “When trads go into bullying mode, how many who actually needs to turn towards truth and away from error, are going to listen to them?” and try to understand what message that sends.
The Remnant/CFN wasn’t going into bullying mode. And while your approach may be a different one, to pretend that the approach of the Remnant/CFN is the reason the average Catholic isn’t embracing the fullness of the message is a diversion. You may not see it that way. Other’s do.
So look to your own “hot” words and lack of charity in speaking, friend. For now you are calling others liars for merely responding in all honesty to the fullness of the words represented.
That’s not building unity, that is precipitously ruffling one’s own feathers.
….and you may want to reconsider the “evil” of blinding yourself to your own failings, Caimbeul. At least in the words you post.
Funny, Cortez, I think you are missing the point. This actually refers to those “humbletons” who continually call for dialogue and accompaniment for those who hate Christ, while simultaneously judging those who condemn error and try to defend the Catholic Faith of Our Lord. Perhaps you ought to mind your OWN fingerpointing, eyes and ears.
This article is from last September, but I now realize that Louie was right about Skojec. I was wrong to support Skojec on this thread.