Loading ...
She got my morning started with a good laugh by sending us this loving note. Here it is in its entirety:
Your brand of Catholicism masks deep insecurity. You are no better than the Taliban. Re-read the New Testament.
Zing! What penetrating insight and wit!
To be honest, we don’t get much hate mail anymore. We did occasionally in the early days, but now the sort of people who would write it just don’t seem to come here much. That’s mostly fine with me, but it is entertaining to at least occasionally have someone lash out in pointless, unreasoned rage. I wonder how long she spent reading the blog before writing that? And which post got her blood boiling?
Lola, I hope you’ll forgive me for having a laugh at your expense. But I have a slightly perverse sense of humor, and being compared to the Taliban tickles it exceedingly. Dominus tecum.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Clara, I myself am rather saddened that we don’t get as much hate mail as in the old days. But when we do get a sweet missive like this, I treasure it! I tucked it away for safe keeping in my CSGT mail box (seriously). It’s good when we get the occasional visitor who affirms us in our mission.
Well, yes, there are some positives to getting the hostiles. People tell me that Rod Dreher gets an incredible number on his blog — more hostiles than friendly readers, in fact. I have some doubts about Dreher, but that is rather a feat, is it not? It would be interesting to be writing regularly for a readership like that.
On the other hand, friendly readers enable a different kind of conversation that too many hostiles would render impossible. So.
“Dominus tecum”
You Talibanis, always quoting the Koran . . .
I hope that my posts played some role in eliciting this response.
Now, off to Dreher’s blog to shoot him an email denouncing him as a formal schismatic . . .
My envious congratulations, Clara. I am embarrassed to admit that my only similar praise recently received — in apparent response to the Latin Mass newsletter you used to follow — was a request that I
“Please always remember the 1970s Catholic liturgy is also known as the ordinary form of the mass and one of its lovers was Pope John Paul 2 of happy memory.”
But in comparison to the fulsome tribute you received, this is thin gruel, indeed. Hmm … I wonder whether this my admirer, as meager as is his praise of me, would appreciate a link to a certain post entitled, if I recall correctly, “John Paul the Fair”.
Oh, but you know, I still read the Latin Mass newsletter, which has often been the source of edifying information and good devotional suggestions. In fact, I meant to post the Novena for Pope Benedict on this blog, but I forgot. Shame on me.
I’ve been intrigued to hear about the upcoming Palestrina Mass that’s being prepared. If only the Doctor and I could be there!
*Your brand of Catholicism masks deep insecurity. You are no better than the Taliban. Re-read the New Testament.*
This is only one “brand” of Catholicism – the one, true, and apostolic version. All others are not Catholic no matter how hard they want it to be.
I agree. That person’s zinger was rather funny indeed!
I miss the loopy quasi-traditional people who used to comment on here.
Cudgel toting on this blog has lost all its fun.
If traditional Catholicism is the mark of insecurity, it is because we are concerned with the ends of souls and the fates of civilizations; we are the few awake in the night, watching for threats to all that is good, true, and beautiful in the world.
I wish “insecurity” didn’t have such a bad rap; the Britons could’ve used some when they considered inviting the Saxon tribes across the channel.