Search This Blog

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

They don't mean a word of it.

As I've said before, "dialogue" is a shibboleth of Catholic [sic] progressives, a bit of virtue-signalling, a verbal secret handshake with no deeper significance.

"I am a proponent of dialogue" means "I am a good person whose views are impeccably correct, fellow card-carrying leftist. I'm definitely not one of those bitter/clingy/fundamentalist yahoos. Keep the invites a' comin." 

The actual practice of Dialogue™ is a form of bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense of the term, meant to obscure truth and not actually explore it.

Exhibit A is this shoddy bit of mau-mauing from a claque of self-described Catholic academics.

Ross Douthat dared to disagree with their ideological preferences, so they bestirred themselves from within their well-appointed, tenure-bestowed offices and got huffy.

This part was particularly rich:
Aside from the fact that Mr. Douthat has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject...
The subject, of course, is Catholicism. No doubt this degreed array of door stops are happy to praise the competence of modern American laity (BEST EDUCATED EVAR!!!) when it suits their purposes...but Gaia help you when you disagree with them.

It's the pissy reaction of guild members to those who infringe on their imagined prerogatives, marking their territory in the same way an outraged feline does his.

So, does this oily band of twee gnostics think only they can speak to Catholic issues, and those without certifications can't? That's the kind of intellectual corruption that leads to reformations. But, it does get you on some media contact lists, so it's all good.

For future reference: if the omnipresent Rev. Jim Martin praises you for something you say about the Faith and you don't have a collar or letters after your name, it's worthless. The bottom line is that he regards you in exactly the same way he does an orangutan who knows some sign language: you're adorable, but he's never handing you the car keys.


  1. Jim Martin is Michael Sean Winters diluted with several shots of Robert Barron, or maybe vice versa. After years of reading his books I always wonder exactly what he thinks of sin and redemption other than God is a Very Nice Guy.

  2. Yep.

    Amazing how abruptly the AGE OF THE LAITY™ comes to an end when the wrong ox is gored.

  3. Fr. Martin is in many ways worse than the friendly ghost Cardinals of our world. Outright dissidence can be shrugged off or combated, but the passive-aggressive, "I'm totally in accord with Church teaching but really I'm not if you read between the lines and aren't lines friendly reminders of the grace of the merciful God hey don't be a Pharisee and try to comprehend my true intent her" rubbish that emanates from Fr. Martin's keyboard. It's that stuff that infests the laity and slowly works its way, drip by drip, into the collective consciousness of the Church.

  4. There's something about Fr. Martin that raises my hackles. That's one of the reasons I try to avoid reading the guy. I think a lot of it does stem from the "Loyal Son of the Church" assertions followed almost immediately by triangulating towards the zeitgeist.


Be reasonably civil. Ire alloyed with reason is fine. But slagging the host gets you the banhammer.