One of the more repulsive sorts of blood sport one encounters on the Internet is the cowardly game of “Let’s you and him fight”.
An example: A recent incident involving my friend Erin Manning aka Red Cardigan. Erin, you see, periodically contributes to Rod Dreher’s blog over on Beliefnet. She, like me, doesn’t agree with everything Dreher says. But she thinks enough of the “Crunchy Con” idea that she contributes to the conversation there. Well, for some years now there has been a small nucleus of people out there in cyberspace who, for various reasons, just really really really hate Rod Dreher.
Now I think Dreher does things worthy of criticism and, when I think occasion warrants it, I say as much. When I say so, I am suddenly transformed from the pain in the neck the Dreher Haters normally regard me as and hailed (for a minute) as the Wonder Prodigy of the Age by people who are eager find any stick that comes to hand to wail on Rod Dreher. The basic principle at work here is “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” apparently. But, of course, differences between my approach to Dreher (I think him a good man and a wounded man who committed a bad act in joining in the recent anti-Benedict feeding frenzy) and their approach soon emerges (they think him an irredeemably bad man whose every action and every word on everything should be ridiculed, treated with contempt, and derided).
So quite soon, the conversation among the Dreher haters passed from “Yay! Shea!” to “Shea is a contemptible coward because he doesn’t really hate Dreher with the purity of my hatred for Dreher” to “Hey! Let’s see if we can use Shea as a weapon to attack that Erin Manning chick for not wailing on Dreher!”
And so, a couple of days later, Erin (who had nothing to do with my interaction with Dreher) winds up with a troll in a combox on one of her blog entries. The blog entry has, in fact, nothing to do with Dreher (what it does have to do with we shall see in a second). But this does not stop the troll from dropping in a completely irrelevant comment:
Speaking of conduct “unbecoming a journalist”; What do you think of this?
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/04/peggy-noonan-voice-of-conscience.html
He then dashes back to his little covey of Dreher Haters to report: “I sent Erin Manning the link of Mark Shea turning on Dreher. Let’s see what happens.” (The comment has now been deleted to cover Mr. Carpenter’s tracks. Four others of the cattier comments also went down the memory hole.)
Erin, not being an idiot, chose not to rise to the bait, for which I applaud her. My remarks about Dreher were mine. They were not a call to general insurrection against him, much less intended as a recruiting poster for the We Really Really Really Hate Rod Dreher Brigade, and still less as a tool in a game of “Let’s you and him fight” for the delectation of combox trolls. Once Dreher exhibited the good sense to give his unbridled remarks about the Pope a rest I was content. The Dreher Hate folks were, as is their custom, both skeptical and, in a weird way, disappointed. Breaking off his attacks on Benedict left them with one less excuse for hating Dreher, which was after all, the point. In short, I wrote seeking peace and was content when I got it. They write hoping for war and are disappointed when the object of their loathing gives them less reason to loathe him.
All of which brings me to my subject. Today, over on my Catholic and Enjoying It blog, I followed up on a little entry I had written yesterday, which took a look at Fr. Owen Kearns’ apology re: the whole situation with the disgusting Fr. Maciel. In my follow up, I looked at Erin Manning’s quite fair remarks on that apology to the effect that, whatever else may be the case, the simple fact is that what the Register did over the past decade in covering Maciel is not what we mean by the term “journalism”, because journalism would have meant chasing down the facts about Maciel, not circling the wagons to protect him. That’s just the sober truth and Erin was right to point it out. So I said so. I’m glad of Fr. Kearns’ apology and accept it (for what little that’s worth as somebody who is not one of Maciel’s victims of abuse, nor of the Legionary Smear Machine that labored for so long and with such success to shut victims and reporters up), but I think there is still a lot of work to be done to dismantle the machine Maciel built to protect himself.
Well. Almost instantly, I get a note in my combox which reads:
Mark, I’d’ be very impressed if the Register allowed posts like the one above on your Register blog site. So I posted on the same combox a question for Fr. Kearns:
I note that you publish blog posts by Mark Shea and that he has published comments elsewhere about this comment thread.
Does he need your invitation to be as frank on your site as he is elsewhere…
Let’s be honest. This is, once again, the game of “Let’s you and him fight”.
To be clear, I have, as far as I know, no restriction on what I can post at the Register, except for one thing. That’s why I can post this here now. Nobody’s breathing down my neck about what I write. I’ve never been ordered by anybody at the Register to focus on or avoid a particular topic. I’m a columnist and basically write about whatever happens to strike my fancy.
The one restriction that I face (as do all bloggers here) is frequency. With my blog here, I basically have three shots a week to talk about something. On Catholic and Enjoying It, I have limitless space to babble on about anything, so that no thought of mine, no matter how stupid, shall ever go unpublished again. That means I generally pick my subject here with a focus on catechesis, while on CAEI, it’s catch as catch can depending on the headlines and the mail.
So, a typical day at Chez Shea looks like this: I start by opening my mail and plowing through it. People send me stuff that usually constititutes much of the grist for CAEI. Then I look at a few random sites and, if something there hits me, I write about that too. That’s basically what sparked both entries about Fr. Owen’s apology. I saw the apology and wrote about that, then I saw Erin’s comments and wrote about that. Beyond that, I’ve been, in addition, crushed by deadlines for other stuff, as well as gearing up for my Excellent Videocasting Adventure. That’s why I haven’t filed anything for this space till today (normally my second piece runs on Tuesday). I simply haven’t had time to breathe. When I do get time to breathe and turn my attention to the Only Three Times A Week I Get to Blog Blog, I’m usually not thinking in the same space as I am as I plow through the mail. I’m thinking either, “How do I continue that huge long series about the Sacraments that I started last Fall?” or (since Easter Week) “What’s a good one-off piece of catechesis I can do in about 500-1500 words till I can resume the Sacraments series?” This means that it’s more likely that business involving the Situation will pop up first on CAEI (cuz that’s part of the morning news I plow through) and will only (as for instance now) turn up here when I think it makes suitable grist for some bit of catechesis.
My bit of catechesis here today is simple moral theology: One of the things that is neither compatible with Catholic teaching nor even with manly pagan virtues are games of “Let’s you and him fight”. The proper thing for my reader to have done was not assume “Why is the Register muzzling Shea?” for the simple reason that, had he bothered to ask me directly, “Does the Register forbid you from discussing the Maciel thing?” I would have answered, “Nope” and explained what I am explaining now. But instead, my reader felt that a good game of “Let’s you and him fight” would be just the tonic for a Thursday afternoon.
The silver lining? I wasn’t sure what I wanted to blog about for the Register today and I was suffering from sufficient mental fatigue after this tough couple of weeks that I wasn’t sure I had 500 words in me. Now I’ve filed my copy for the day! So it all works out. Next time, if any of my readers feels like playing “Let’s you and him fight” how’s about you just write me directly? I’m not a Legionary. I wouldn’t know Fr. Owen Kearns from Adam except that, somewhere out there in cyberspace, he runs a paper that has, I am grateful to say, been willing to publish whatever I feel like writing about (including this) for the past several years.
But when it comes to the Register itself, my chance to sound off in print about the Catholic faith has been unhindered by any demands by the staff that I not discuss Maciel, etc. Indeed, so clever and tech-savvy are the editors of the Register that they can even use a web browser to read CAEI and they do so on a regular basis. But despite my frank comments there, I have found no severed horse’s head in my bed, nor dark warnings not to talk about the egregious Fr. Maciel here. This space is generally directed toward catechetical stuff. Over the past couple of weeks (basically since Easter week) I took a break on a long march I’ve been taking through the Catechism to do a few more random and shorter pieces. The reason for that was simple: I was buried in other work and so was making my life easier here in order to do that. Next week, I hope to resume the series I was doing on the Eucharist and then proceed on to the other sacraments. But through all that time, no secret threats came across my screen from the Register, darkly warning me to stay away from Maciel, etc. I just had other things I was trying to do.
So: please. No more games of “Let’s you and him fight”. Sometimes you discover The Truth is Out There—and it’s kind of boring.
PS. I don’t know how I missed this at the time, but about a year ago Fr. Raymond de Souza wrote a piece for First Things called, “The Legion and the National Catholic Register”. I wish to, as they say, “associate myself” with the views expressed in that piece. He lays out, clearly and charitably, both what is wrong with the Register‘s history with regard to Maciel, the Legion, and its critics, as well as a pretty sound program for what the Register needs to do going forward and I sincerely hope they do it.
Comments
Post a Comment
Did you every think that if you had actually treated me or anyone who does not adhere to your brand of “Orthodoxy” no one like me would bother you? Of course not I am not apart of your Elitist clique. Dreher is and has until recently got a free pass from you. He and other media elites can make the scandal seem to be a “Catholic” problem and you have no problem with that? That stuck up attitude bothers me and most people.
By the Way: Erin’s column was entitled “Conduct unbecoming a Journalist.” I thought your column made that point, Then again I could be wrong, maybe you think Dreher’s conduct was Becoming of a Journalist.
Mr. Shea:
Your column today makes excellent sense. You did omit the follow-up phrase that I recall from my undergraduate days over 50 years back. It went: “Let’s You and Him fight. I’ll hold your coat!” And if you had imbibed too much alcohol, you might accept the request! Anyway, the resulting physical altercation was always more entertaining to the witnesses - now they are called “trolls” - persons who post on a thread to get others to argue w/o any intent to arrive at amicable solutions.
I suspect that Fr. Owen Kearns really was uncomfortable in writing the public apology that he posted. That was fairer than his ignoring the wrong actions he had taken earlier. (In fairness, he may not have realized that he was in error on this.
In regard to the total situation of various types of abuse and cover-ups reported, More Prayer for our priests and bishops is certainly indicated. We laypeople haven’t prayed enough for our clergy.
TeaPot562
Links are all messed up.
Fixed ‘em.
Woah, the internet is serious business it seems. May the Lord have mercy on us.
really tho’ what’s the point of all this? both these trolls seem to me be no more than blogger hacks with a free website. so just let it go?
jim d—I hardly think that posting on a completely different website from Mr. Shea’s qualifies as “trolling.” But the rest of your post is very well taken indeed. Thank you!
Mark,
I don’t know you from Adam but what I do like about your column is that you are refreshingly open, you have the vision to get to the heart of the matter regardless of what it may look like on the exterior and voice it with pure linguistic talent.
Thanks for that!
jim d - perhaps I haven’t read enough of Mr. Shea’s writing to have the same perspective you do, but in reading this article, what I read was a call for more civility and less antagonism when commenting on a thread or a blog. More often than not these days, any comment section on almost any article (even the human interest stories) is filled with pure vitriol from some posters, as if they have nothing better to do than vent their hateful feelings in print. It is not constructive nor does that attitude add to the general discussion. One of the major difficulties in our society in general today is a lack of self-restraint and good manners. Again, I’m not accusing anyone of this in particular, but making a generalization. If any of us are contributing to this unkindness, we can help calm things down by re-reading what we have written and not posting it until we’re sure we’ve said what we need to say without deliberate antagonism. If what a person writes would not be said directly to another person’s face, then it’s a cowardly act to hide behind printed words and screen names and become a ‘print bully’. In other words, as mom and grandma used to say, think before you speak! (or post!) And Mr. Shea, grandma and mom also used to say “Consider the source” when someone said hurtful or angry things.
Rose:
Thanks for your kind comments. I’m not going to hold myself up as some shining example of netiquette. I’m not. I tend to be pretty direct and often *too* direct. However, in answer to Jim’s question, I should think it’s fairly obvious. For not the first time or even umpteenth time, somebody tried to set up a “Let’s you and him fight” scenario starring me and somebody else. I find such behavior to be chicken-hearted. Combined with that fact is the fact that they happened to attempt it *here*, with an accusation concerning my conduct and the conduct of Fr. Owen here. So it only seemed like a fitting thing to answer it here.
I’ve now spoken my piece on this and have no interest in revisiting it. I simply wanted to say, “Be a man. If you have issues with somebody, confront them directly and don’t run around setting little “Let’s you and him fight” fires.
Finally, as to considering the source: point well taken. The main problem is that, very often, it’s impossible to consider the source since such trolls are typically anonymous and impossible to identify.
I simply wanted to say, “Be a man. If you have issues with somebody, confront them directly and don’t run around setting little “Let’s you and him fight” fires.
Clarification: I’m not saying that to *you*, Jim, but to the sort of people who get their jollies with this sort of “Let’s you and him fight” game. Thanks for writing.
Is this why people read the NCR, to get a blow-by-blow account of internecine blog exchanges?
Mr Shea:
I enjoyed this post—well said! I think it ties in a bit with another topic which you return to somewhat frequently on your blog: that of the Neo-con praise of Hitchens/Harris/Dawkins (et al.) when they agitate for fighting the Muslims. It seems to me that these two sets of people are in a sense two sides to the same coin.
As random aside:
“The silver lining? I wasn’t sure what I wanted to blog about for the Register today and I was suffering from sufficient mental fatigue after this tough couple of weeks that I wasn’t sure I had 500 words in me. Now I’ve filed my copy for the day! So it all works out. “
I especially appreciated this line on a more personal level. It seems that whenever I run into a dry period for writing (or praying), something new pops up. I won’t call it a blessing per se, but it does provide the “silver lining” to any bad situation. In as much as it inspires to prayer, it seems to me to be more evidence of God’s Providence at work even in suffering.
I am done with you Mr. Shea! However, the next time you try to get another cushy speaking gig in Dallas I will show them all the emails you have sent and then we will see if any parish wants to have someone like that speaking to them!
Mr. Carpenter:
Thanks for your input.
Iif I’m that much a menace, you should probably just go ahead and expose me now. If I were you, I’d start a website or blog and alert the world right away. It’s not fair to all those innocent souls I menace that you should sit on all this damning information until I happen to come to Dallas. What about the rest of mankind? Don’t they deserve to be warned too?
You know if you had just addressed me as Mr. Carpenter instead of a troll or just tried to address any of the points I made it would not have come to this. Yet you omit quite alot don’t you? That is problemn with you. Allowing Massive Sins of Ommission to be committed by your Media pals and demonizing anyone who is not part of your clique. As for Dallas we will see.
good grief….
Normally, I enjoy reading your column, at least in part because you are direct. I think you make excellent points, as you did today; however, I am disturbed by some of the negative emotion in this column and the accompanying comments that appear to reduce points to pointless bickering and last-word attempts.
But that is not my main point. I am disturbed by judgments of persons as opposed to behaviors. In particular I was disturbed to read “the disgusting Fr. Maciel” and the “Legionary Smear campaign.” There can be no doubt that Maciel’s deceit was incredible and his actions were deplorable but if I ask myself why he did it, I have to admit that I don’t know if he was ill or malicious. Further, knowing his adamant refusal to repent and accept forgiveness I have to be saddened for him who seems so ill he defends his lie on his death bed. As for the LC Smear machine—does it take a whole machine? was I part of it when I believed him? how many LCs could not accept what they did not experience because it was so different from what he presented—what they experienced? Did some know? How many? Was it a machine or a chosen few? What did they do and why? I would love to know all the details but then so would everyone else and we have a smear campaign in bud. So how do we deal with this responsibly? For me, we begin by seeking truth without judging (throwing stones?). Seeing truth clearly & wholly and judging behavior with out judging the person are difficult things to do. But then, that is what we are called to do.
Mr. Shea, from your behavior in this comment box, you seem to have a vested interest in keeping this feud hopping. Indeed you seem to enjoy it. I have to wonder if the editors of NCR enjoy it quite as much as you do.
Sbea, you and most of the other evangelical/progressive Catholics who love to blog their “testimony” are a bunch of self-absorbed pseudo-Protestant ego-maniacs….
Really, you sound like a high-school girl.
AMDG
Knight
Mr. Shea,
I really enjoy reading your blog, very much as a matter of fact. However, on this article I have to agree with DD. It seems as though you got your feelings hurt by someone and struck back. Remember, and I know you know this, forgiveness is the answer.
Your Friend in Christ,
Arthur
Mr. Shea,
I assume you received my first response. It comes down to forgiveness, which I feel none from you or Mr. Carpenter. As you know and I have to agree with DD. Forgiveness is the answer. God Bless you.
Your Friend in Christ,
Arthur
Dear DD and Arthur:
I’m quite willing to forgive Mr. Carpenter. Insofar as Maciel or his enablers have hurt me by hurting my Church, I forgive them too. Thanks for your obvious hearts of charity. You are good eggs!
Mark, I truly like some of your blogs but after reading this rambling conglomeration, I think you need to have your medications adjusted.
well i see some share my sentiments, kt, hcs knight and robert lifelong catholic. “who cares?” is what i’m still thinking.
Mark, I believe the Church has tried forgiveness, like it tried punishment, as a means to get wayward souls to behave themselves. It basically comes down the old saying “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” So what’s the Church to do with those who will not drink? Have pity on them. I think then, the question becomes more along the lines of “What’s the Church to do with those who DO choose to drink?” I know I get rewarded when I choose to drink from the cup, and I know it for having drunk. Charity commands that I not become elitist for having drunk. And those who do not drink, they suffer a loss they do not even know they suffer. For that I pity them. And one of my fondest prayers is “Jesus, Master have pity on me.” Pity is a form of charity, its good form allows one to let love and forgiveness spring forth.
Mark Shea,
Finally saw this today, so thanks for the 1.5 seconds of fame ;)
I’d complain that you misread my comment, but a commenter came to my site telling me not to let up on folks like you, so clearly he drew the same inference that I was delivering the “white feather”.
You warned on your own site about the Legion “careening on like a headless giant continuing to do the stuff Maciel built it to do”. Here you state there “is still a lot of work to be done to dismantle the machine Maciel built to protect himself”.
What’s to complain about? Never thought you were shy. And I’d still like to see Fr. Kearn’s drag you into a longer commentary in the Register itself. Perhaps after the Vatican follows up on the Visitation?
Sometismes you have to treat anonymous nonsense like the static on your radio. Keep in mind <a >Online Disinhibition Effect</a>. Or, if you are not squeamish about four-letter words, try <a >John Gabriel’s theory.</a>
Mr. Shea,
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I can’t figure out why anyone is upset with your article. I found it delightfully refreshing this morning, and am incredibly relieved. As a former RC, I have been struggling with whether I should read the Register, even though I have found it to be the best Catholic paper in existence. The silence about ‘the elephant in the living room’ (see: http://lifevictorious.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/struggling-with-the-elephant-in-the-living-room-part-1/) in the Register was kind of bothering me, even though I can see the ‘conflict of interest’ argument… even so, that argument wasn’t enough to pacify me into trusting everything reported like I used to… that is, until I read your post today. The fact that the Register is allowing you to publish such a frank article on their website renews my respect for them, that they are not trying to hide the truth (like other factions of LC may have done, or are doing).
And so, THANK YOU! You have a new fan ;)
~shalimamma @ www.lifevictorious.com
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.