Pro-Life Gettysburg Address
One score and fourteen years ago, seven Supreme Court Justices brought forth upon this nation an unjust law; conceived without liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are not created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great spiritual war testing whether our nation or any nation so conceived and so misguided can long endure. Today we meet on a battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of our day to remember those nearly 50 million innocent, future Americans, who had their lives taken from them to uphold a misguided notion of freedom that says the choice to kill the innocent is more sacred than life itself. It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this day. The innocent children who only desired to live, and were so brutally killed, have consecrated it, far above our power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but they can never forget the holocaust of the unborn. It is for us living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work of eliminating all laws that legalize the slaughter of the innocents, we take increased devotion to eliminate the cause of their deaths, that we here highly resolve, that the nearly 50 million unborn have not died in vain, that this nation, once under God, shall restore our forefathers' original notion of freedom, that values the sacredness of every human life, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
It's 12 below here in good old NO, OH, so a good day to dream of global warming and how great it would be if it really were going to happen. I've taking actions to help increase the chances of global warming, burning styrofoam, passing a lot of gas, having a lot of kids who leave carbon footprints, etc. So far to no avail.
Of course, I haven't written to complain to Al Gore, as Oengus Moonbones has:
Dear Mr. Al Gore,
A "white Christmas" never happened in SoCal, all during the time I lived there. On the other hand, you should come here to Land-In-Between, where we had it, and not only did we have it, we had it in spades. Our whole town looks snowed-in and buried. And our snow shovels dug and dug, moving snow from here to there. But today, a break in the weather finally came (see picture), and the Sun, long forgotten, showed its face once again, making the winter a little less bleak. And the roads are plowed enough to be passable, and people are moving about, shopping for after-Christmas bargains. But I must confess, Mr. Gore, that I am a little disappointed in the "Global Warming" you promised everybody. Other than providing you with a Nobel Prize, it has had little benefit for us here. But I know you are a generous man, so please share more of your benefits with us. A little warm air would be great. Thanks.
His heartfelt plea is so sincere it almost brings a tear to my eye. But I'm glad it doesn't since it would freeze to my cheek.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Hollywood's Sundance Kid is hurting poor people.
So say some East Coast ministers and conservative activists, who took to the streets in front of a downtown Salt Lake City theater on the eve of Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival to accuse the actor of holding down low-income Americans with his opposition to oil and gas drilling near national parks in Utah.
The protesters, led by the Congress of Racial Equality's national spokesman Niger Innis, suggested Redford should "relinquish his wealth" and live like a poor person. They complained that the filmmaker's anti-drilling stance could lead to higher energy prices for inner-city residents, forcing them to accept a lower standard of living.
The clergymen prayed for Redford "to see the light" and linked his environmental activism with racism.
"The high energy prices we're going to see this winter are essentially discriminatory," said Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. of the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., chairman of the High-Impact Leadership Coalition, a petroleum industry advocate.
Then the old canard is thrown by Redford's corporation about how energy companies already have a lot of leases. Blah, blah, blah.
Let's not forget that Robert Redford is a wealthy, corporate white person who can afford to buy expensive gas and oil. Then, after he gets his little white nails done, he can go to the nearest microphone and spew his liberal vomit to the other liberal rich white head-nodders who will feed on it. High energy costs are a crushing burden on poor and minorities. Send this man Robert Byrd's old Ku Klux Klan uniform, it will fit him fine.
This blog post is my seven hundred and sixty fifth (765th) post since I started this blog seven hundred and twenty-four (724) days ago. In honor of this milestone, I'm inviting everyone to become a follower of this blog. Diane has already done this, shaving her head and donning a white toga. Don't worry―it's not so bad―you get used to it after a few weeks.
She's got the chant down:
Pauli Rama Pauli Rama
Rama Lama Pauli Dingdong
Something like that. Anyway, it's easy to follow Est Quod Est or Contrapauli―or whatever this blog is called―just click the link on the right. Like smoking cigarettes, you can quit whenever you want to.
Hey, check it out... I'm following myself!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Many are grateful for the service that Father Richard John Neuhaus offered to the entire Church, especially through his contributions at the Institute on Religion and Public Life. He was an exemplary priest and a personal friend.”
As the testimonials from persons of all faiths have shown, Father Neuhaus's work in the area of ecumenism was appreciated by those who saw the importance of working together for the common good of our nation. He had the ability to engage in dialog that was intellectually honest, fully respecting each person while remaining true to his own faith.
Father Neuhaus will be deeply missed. His life and work were a great gift to the Church and to the country he loved so much. It is my prayer that the Lord will bring him quickly home."
Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Here's Bill Donohue on Obama's inclusive inclusivity inclusion of Mr. Gaypiscopal himself, Bishop Gene Robinson, on his inauguration prayer team:
“President-elect Barack Obama says he wants to unite Americans, and yet he chooses the most polarizing person in the Episcopal Church, Bishop Gene Robinson, to offer a prayer at one of his inaugural events. Robinson, who dumped his wife and children to live with another man, is not just an embarrassment to rank-and-file Episcopalians, he has a record of offending Catholics, as well.
“In 2005, Robinson said the following: ‘I find it so vile that they [the Catholic Church] think they are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries. It is an act of violence that needs to be confronted.’ He added that ‘Pope Ratzinger [sic] may be the best thing that ever happened to the Episcopal Church. We are seeing so many Roman Catholics joining the church.’
“Three months ago, the disgraced openly gay bishop admitted that he had led a retreat a few years ago for gay Catholic priests. He stuck his nose into the affairs of the Catholic Church even further when he urged those priests to push for women priests, saying ‘that if you work for the ordination of women in your church, you will go a long way toward opening the door for the acceptance of gay priests.’
“In other words, Obama has chosen a man who offends Catholics as much as he does Protestants. If that’s his idea of inclusion, he can keep it. The only saving grace is that Robinson says he will not use a Bible next week. It would be news if he did.”
Robinson's remark about "Pope Ratzinger" is spin if I've ever seen it. Wonder if he's caught wind of anyone possibly leaving his church? Ahem.
Pikkumatti's comment deserves a post of it's own.
I was wondering what it is about Dreher that gets all of our danders up. Pauli's blog is relatively quiet, but then we have a Dreher-related post and blammy.
And then Pauli nails it. It isn't so much that the crunchy One left our Church -- that happens all the time. It isn't so much that he is a conservative poser -- we've got plenty of those around, esp. in Congress.
It is that he poses as a conservative somewhat-Orthodox Christian to the non-believing or fringe-believing "intellectual" world (think Franklin the pagan), and trashes the Church in front of them. (Ditto for conservative issues, but that hits a duller nerve.)
As I wrote back at the time of the Great Orthodox Conversion, it was as though he tossed a stink bomb into a party that he just left. And then called a crowd outside the house to watch the mayhem through the windows. We couldn't help but defend the Church, but to the outsiders, that defense couldn't help but appear ungracious at the least.
And the pagans et al think that Dreher himself plus the harsh words of the defenders are what the Church is all about. Either we are snobs who claim to care about Truth but will change our views for issue-convenience (Dreher) or we are just a bunch of touchy nutcases.
As Pauli said, we appear as believers in a system with no internal logic. And that unfair and incorrect appearance is not only annoying, but in fact is the deepest cut -- made by someone who should know better. That is what gets to me about him, anyway.
I think that's a good summary of what infuriates the infuriated.
Another reader remarked on the phenomenon of Rod Dreher being the one topic causing the most comments on the blog. That was about a year ago. I laughed at the time, and I still do. Although I don't post things merely for the sake of comments, it's obvious that comments―among other indicators―serve to demonstrate the interest level on the topic being blogged. But here's something else interesting to note. Over the last few days, a good portion of the hits on my humble blog have been coming from a google search of "dreher neuhaus", so it's not just the usual suspects driving up the interest level, outsiders―those not involved in the original discussions―are interested in this topic, too.
Also, I suppose I should find someone to blame for using a big nasty bowling word in said comment section. Well, I was watching this and this along with other Steeler-related material which might account for a spike in testosterone levels. This is not to mention 4-hours of Jack Bauer to kick-off the week. But it's possible that I'm just a crude human being who's prone to crudeness now and then. So let that be a lesson to me.
BTW, Tom, the Ravens are going down, mutha.
Update: To be fair, not everything that goes on over here makes Christianity look good to all people either, and maybe I ought to think about cleaning up my act a bit (burrrp.)
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I've always had misgivings about Habitat for Humanity ever since I heard one-term disgrace Jimmy Carter was involved. Kathy Shaidle shows these misgivings weren't entirely unfounded in a column which is hilarious if you don't live in one of slumlord Carter's houses:
Now, in a development sure to embarrass Nobel Peace Prize laureate Carter and his widely admired charity, a recent investigation by the Times of London revealed that the Fairway Oaks housing development is “better known for cockroaches, mildew and mysterious skin rashes.”
April Charney is a lawyer representing many of the 85 homeowners in Fairway Oaks who are now suing Habitat for Humanity. The charity, she told the Times, failed to tell residents that their new homes were built on a reclaimed garbage dump.
Some residents blame their health problems on the Fairway Oaks location, and their crumbling homes on Habitat for Humanity’s philosophy of using volunteers as construction workers, rather than experienced, licensed professionals.
“The intentions are good,” Charney told the Times, “but when the politicians and big-shot stars have left we’re stuck with the consequences. This house looks pretty but inside it either stinks or sweats.”
This part was darkly funny to me also:
Habitat for Humanity’s problems seem to date back to 2005, when the organization’s founder, Millard Fuller, was dismissed by the board of directors following sexual harrassment accusations by former Habitat employees.
Fuller and a legion of supporters, including Jimmy Carter, denied the allegations and worked to overturn the decision. In a confidential letter to the board, after Carter warned that a “national scandal” could ensue if Fuller was relieved of his duties as cheif executive.
In the March 26, 1990, letter, Carter explained that in the Southern culture that he and Fuller shared, physical displays of affection were commonplace. He came to realize, however, that such gestures were not universally welcomed, citing his dedication of the John F. Kennedy Library in 1979, when former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had “visibly flinched” at his attempt to hug her.
I wish I was a fly on the wall for that Jackie-O moment.
This is kind of stale but boy, do I love John Zmirak's piece on the film Longford from December '08. It's sort of a review/recommendation, but more than anything it's an illustrated condemnation of "misguided compassion". Zmirak quotes Mother Angelica as calling this folly "the reigning sin of our time" and he shows how the character and story presented in the movie gives us a perfect example of this vice. From his article:
Frank Pakenham, the Seventh Earl of Longford, was a kind and pious man. Born a British aristocrat, he flouted public opinion by converting to Catholicism in 1940. An accomplished historian, loving husband, and nurturing father -- one of his many overachieving children is historian Antonia Fraser -- Lord Longford was also active in politics. Long a member of the British House of Lords -- and a convinced socialist -- he led campaigns against pornography and gay activism, in the face of widespread mockery in the press. (It didn't help, I guess, that he insisted on conducting widely publicized fact-finding tours in strip clubs, with journalists in tow. Did I mention that Longford lacked the virtue of prudence?)
Educational reformer, chronicler of the Irish war for independence, visionary moral crusader: For none of these things do Englishmen remember the Earl of Longford. Instead, they know him as the British lord who tried to get Myra Hindley out of jail. Hindley's name is still a watchword for hellish cruelty; she was convicted in 1966 along with her lover Ian Brady for jointly kidnapping, sexually abusing, torturing, and murdering five children -- whose anguished cries they tape-recorded. The Moor Murders, and the subsequent trials, were the media sensation of the middle 1960s, and neither Hindley nor Brady showed remorse at their public trial. The two were sentenced to life in prison.
And that's where poor Longford came in. As a deeply religious Catholic, the Earl made a point of visiting prisoners -- which, you might remember, is one of the Corporal Works of Mercy. What you might also recall from Catechism class is that it nowhere says you have to try to get the prisoners out, assuming they're guilty. That distinction eluded the good Lord Longford, who responded to a letter from Myra Hindley requesting a visit.
As the film depicts their dawning (fawning?) friendship, it is clear that Hindley is a brilliant manipulator, skilled at reading Longford's character and telling him what he most wants to hear: That she is deeply, profoundly sorry for what she did. That she was an abused child, seized and dominated by a strong, sadistic lover, who forced her to take part in the murders. Oh yes, and that she is deeply attracted to Longford's Catholic faith. Would he consider sending her some Catholic books, including her in his prayers, and returning for future visits?
Zmirak goes on to reveal the horrifying and embarrassing results of what he brilliantly describes as the "slow-motion train wreck of the Little Choo-Choo That Could." He states that he favors the death penalty for this noble do-gooder by the end of the film. Although he is possibly exaggerating, Longford seems like a guy who, after pushing an enormous boulder down a mountain, claims that he had no idea that fifty goat-herders would be smashed. In other words, Longford is the kind of moral idiot who really poses a danger within society.
I said at the start I loved this article, and I do for the same reason that I love my Swiss Army knife and my all in one Epson printer. It's designed to take on a number of important jobs and complete them well. First of all, it shows the major attack on the virtue of prudence and how that attack takes shape in our society among the bleeding hearts. I especially like the point that helping the guilty get out of punishment is not a work of mercy.
Secondly, I sense a corollary here that I've seen play out in my life personally, viz., the more prudent one becomes, the more mean one seems to the aforementioned unwisely compassionate in certain situations. For example, if a fairly close in-law's sibling is "dating" an incarcerated pen-pal, starts falling in love with him and talking about marriage, you might be considered mean for stating that you smell a train-wreck. Not that you are told this directly to your face, however, you are told that you don't know this guy and that "...she feels that he really has turned his life around and gotten saved in prison." Then you ask what he's in for. "Well, he hasn't told her that yet, even though she did ask him." Oh. That's when you start feeling like you know this guy a lot better than everyone else involved. The most merciful event in that case was that the in-law got wise in time and called it off.
Thirdly, the argument against capital punishment has been blurred and marred by the fact that many of those fighting it choose the worst poster children. Remember the efforts of left-wing wackos to save Stanley "Tookie" Williams, a convicted multiple murderer who refused to help police whilst penning anti-gang children's books? From Wikipedia:
Williams refused to aid police investigations with any information against his gang, and was implicated in attacks on guards and other inmates as well as multiple escape plots. In 1993, Williams began making changes in his behavior, and became an anti-gang activist while on Death Row in California. Although he continued to refuse to assist police in their gang investigations, he renounced his gang affiliation and apologized for the Crips' founding, while never admitting to the crimes for which he was convicted. He co-wrote children's books and participated in efforts intended to prevent youths from joining gangs.
Not quite a graduate from the St. Mary Magdalene school of repentance, I dare say.
Fourthly, aren't there people out there who need assistance who have never spent a day in jail? I've found plenty of people to help out by various means, finding work for them, just chatting and being friends with them, etc. There are people who are called to prison ministry--obviously Longford was not among them. My guess is that other romantics have fallen prey to wily criminals in much the same way. This story also reminds me of the judge from Tom Sawyer who thinks he's rehabilitated the town drunk, before he's forced to think again. Should have stuck to being judgmental, Your Honor.
Finally, It seems like people tempted to rob justice to pay mercy should take a lesson to the thief on the cross who pointed out to the other other criminal that they deserved punishment. I suppose that St. Dismas was showing us that a lot of the misguided compassion toward which we might be tempted is self-directed.
This was one of my favorite tunes in high school. I really wanted to see this video, but the only guy who had a VHS copy was a serious druggie who threatened once to put acid in my food so I'd have to "take a trip and see how cool it is, man." Scary.
A lot of good stuff here, like the fact that this was the band's fave tune to perform, what kind of phase effect they used on the drums, etc.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Joseph Bottum says he felt as if he needed to say something about Damon Linker's snot-nosed obit and Dreher's "attack", as he terms it. I'm glad he did. If you haven't read Linker's pitiful obit and don't want to, he basically calls Father a two-faced son-of-a-bitch. Here's what Bottum says about Dreher's:
The second consists of Rod Dreher’s postings over at Beliefnet. Again, if you’re interested and want to read a reasonable response, Alan Jacobs has taken on the burden. My own reaction is much like Alan’s: The duties we owe to the dead are different from the duties we owe to the living; if you’re going to attack someone with a personal story, you need to do it while they are alive. I made a parallel point about parents last year, in a long essay called “The Judgment of Memory,” which may be worth quoting:
Every memoir of childhood is necessarily overshadowed by parents, and I could find, were I to turn my mind that way, stories of my father’s drinking, his pretension, his bounce.
But my father, being dead, is not here either to be triumphed over by my telling of those stories or to defend himself against them. The death of parents leaves their honor in their children’s hands, and the cruel accuracies we might fling in anger against them while they are alive seem even more wrong to use against them once they are gone. “To the living, we owe respect; to the dead, only truth,” Voltaire once opined. It’s a good line: high-minded, confident, sententious in the way only enlightened French philosophes could manage with any aplomb. But it also feels exactly backward, particularly about those we knew and loved. To squabble with our vanished parents about how they lived their lives seems more than a metaphysical nullity. It is, in fact, a moral failing.
Rod and I were friends, I thought, or, at least, we spent some fun days together in Rome once. But then, a while ago, he used me as an occasion for an unpleasant column he wrote attacking Scooter Libby. I guess I should have understood, and, no doubt, he felt it all strongly. But, in truth, that cashing in of a friendship for the sake of scoring a transient political point was as painful an experience as I’ve had in public life, and Rod Dreher’s eagerness to do it weakened my ability to trust the kind of points he now wants to score by cashing in on his acquaintance with Fr. Neuhaus.
Whoa... I had to read that last paragraph a second time. Strong stuff. I wonder if Rod will go for a hat-trick with Bottum and say something about his mother.
But would Rod Dreher use people like this? Would he "cash them in for political points"? Ironically enough, Dreher wrote a rambling post yesterday semi-regretting what he called the "dust-up over my Neuhaus posting". You have to read it to believe it--he actually partially blames Damon Linker for his attack on Neuhaus. Then he claims that he has a sort of "writer's autism" which blinds him from foreseeing any of the consequences of his writing, then he compares himself to Truman Capote who lost friends by blasting at them in his gossip column....
Well, I just decided I'm not going to re-post any of it here, nor any of the comments which I found hilarious because frankly, and I'm completely sincere, it really made me feel pity for the guy. Furthermore I think I'm done with the man for awhile. That post was written after Bottum's; perhaps the Capote remark was occasioned by his reading it. And maybe he's realizing that you can't just write or say whatever you want whenever you want, something we should all take to heart.
I'm turning off comments to this post, something I rarely do.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Richard John Neuhaus, who died earlier today in New York, was the most influential Catholic and Christian theologian and writer in America during the second half of the 20th century. His influence can be compared to that of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, with one important distinction: Fulton Sheen exercised his sway over the public directly, through his radio and television sermons. Father Neuhaus did so less directly, through his books and articles, through his editorship of two important magazines devoted to religion and politics, through his friendship with Pope John Paul II, and through his impact on other theologians both in the Catholic Church and in other Christian congregations. Partly for those reasons, however, Neuhaus’s influence is likely to be the deeper, longer-lasting and more extensive one.
The Acton Institute's Fr. Robert Sirico also has a great article.
It turns out that there is a lot you can say about this man without descending into dubious personal anecdotes in order to smear him.
Roland de Chanson made this comment on the original post, date-stamped January 9, 2009 10:32 PM:
You have deleted posts by authors whose kind words I acknowledged in my reply. I must therefore look like a fool in replying to comments ostensibly never made. I acknowledge your right to censor any and all respondents to your blog, but I am dismayed that you would delete posts from a person or persons (whom I in any event do not know either by name or reputation) which are neither scurrilous nor defamatory nor even mildly provocative and even in some cases quite amusing.
If you wish to delete my posts as well, please do not feel constrained in so doing. I enjoy reading your articles here and in DMN and I agree with you more often than not, but in this instance I am afraid you have transgressed the bounds not only of civilised propriety but also of Christian charity, in that you have profaned the obsequies (pokhorony) of Fr. Neuhaus for your own picayune vindication. You are hardly a nonentity; you ought to have enough confidence in your own integrity and reputation that you might eventually be proven more correct in your assessment of the scandal than Fr. Neuhaus, if indeed history ultimately justifies you. All things in the fullness of time.
As one born a Catholic, I have nothing but the utmost reverence for those who find their way to Rome, given the intellectual and spiritual obstacles history has thrust into the path of conversion. And I was greatly moved by the story of your own conversion. I cannot disagree with your sense of betrayal and disgust during the heyday of the homosexual scandal. But, as I know you are well read in history, I found it preposterous that you abandoned your religion because of the failings of mere men. As I have written here several times before, I love the Byzantine churches, both Orthodox and Uniat, and have been overwhelmed with the transcendence of their liturgies, yet, despite my contempt for the perpetrators and facilitators of the scandal, I cannot think that a sufficient reason for apostasy.
Censor me too if you wish. But, from a bad Catholic to a bad Orthodox, let us hope we both learn a bit of the charity of Christ.
Rod's response to this: "....I don't think it would be fair or accurate to judge John Paul II's papacy (for example) by his failure to govern the Church well. The man was, in my view, a saint, and his greatness is assured. And yet, the way he handled, or mishandled, the sexual abuse crisis was part of who he was, and showed his humanity." In other words, even saints need journalists to interpret their lives properly for the faithful. As for plain old Catholic clergymen, who better to moonlight as all-around advocatus diaboli than Mr. Part-time-chicken-farmer himself, our Working Boy!
Here's another thoughtful comment from "Disappointed Reader":
Since discovering your book and blog several years ago, I have been a devoted reader and fan, but the handling of Fr. Neuhaus’s death on these pages has me questioning whether I should continue to read and recommend your writings.
As someone who is not just a blogger but also a journalist, don’t you have an obligation to verify a derogatory story about a public figure? Perhaps before accusing someone in a public forum of bullying and censorship, you might send a simple email to check with your former boss and see if you had the facts straight?
As a reader this whole affair raises serious doubts in my mind about how much weight to give to your writing. If this is how you treat someone whom you claim to respect greatly and who hasn’t even been dead for a week, should I accept as fair and balanced your representations of those you disagree with?
I have read Fr. Neuhaus for years and while I disagreed with him on several issues, I felt his death as a real loss. Now added to that, I feel I might also need to stop reading a blog that has been a daily part of my life for a long time. Say what you will, your treatment of Fr. Neuhaus here strikes me as a failure of journalistic integrity, civility, and Christian charity. With those qualities called into question, I’m not sure why I should continue to read this blog.
Anyone want to attempt to convince D.R. to continue reading the crunchy blog? Bueller?
Alan Jacobs posted this at The American Scene, a Dreher-friendly mag for sure. It's basically a brief "common sense and manners 101" for folks who have forgotten about this and this:
But still, there is something that troubles me about Rod’s story. If someone has mistreated you, or done anything discreditable in your presence in private, and you wait until he is dead to tell the story in public, you’re ensuring that he doesn't get the opportunity to give his side of the story, to clarify or correct — and above all, to apologize and ask for forgiveness. He is forever, and publicly, the person who acted badly towards you; whereas if the story had been told while he was still alive, he could have been the person who repented and apologized for such behavior.
And last but not least, Simple Sinner's piece is a must-read. Excerpt:
In this swipe & smear piece where Dreher takes opportunity to further reflect on his hobby-horse - the priestly sex scandals… Well the hobby horse, ever inching its way across the blogosphere carpet, arrives just in time to rock across the as-yet unburied body of the very recently late and much beloved convert priest.
I hope the ratings are worth it.
From the above-linked post, Dreher tells us...
I tell you this story not to speak ill of Father Neuhaus,
...But then goes on to offer unverifiable (and now somewhat retracted) comments about interchanges that the now-dead priest can neither deny, affirm, corroborate or correct.
Had a priest of Neuhaus’s immense gifts and stature spoken out on behalf of Catholic victims and their families earlier, or at least not have stood up for them when he ought to have been calling them out, who knows how much good might have been done, and suffering might have been avoided?
If he had troubled to put himself in the position of Catholic mothers and fathers instead of the high-ranking churchmen who were his usual milieu, maybe it would have changed his views.
Gee, Rod, no incongruency at all in noting that you are not out to speak ill of the dead (before his body has been committed to the ground) before criticizing him in this highly emotive way.
Rod also makes mention of his deleting comments by our friend Diane, so maybe she could enlighten us about other reactions. Please bring to my attention any other reactions, especially those defending Dreher's remarks.
AFAIK, Mark Shea has not commented yet.