Replies

Just so the records complete. Here are Mark Shea's comments on the above article:

The Court Records of Yesterday's "Tribunal In Judgment of the Worthiness of Greg Popcak to Bear the Name 'Christian'" Are Now Available On Line

To briefly recap: Some Inquisitor decided to smear Popcak as an enemy of the Faith because a) he used (gasp!) sexual and nuptial imagery to speak of the Trinity (unheard of to the authors of John, Revelation, and Ephesians) and b) in the course of a long career of teaching chastity and the sanctity of marriage Popcak remarked that he knows some people who let their adolescent kids chart their siblings cycles, but that, of course, others think this is immodest, so make up your own mind since you are the parent and it's your job to decide such matters. Oh, and he was apparently also guilty of the heinous crime of observing that such a practice might help to de-mystify and de-eroticize the biology of sex and help defuse the "If you keep it all hushed up, they'll only want it more" phenomenon which is sometimes at work in the adolescent discovery of sex.

This, apparently, is the extent of Popcak's crimes against the Faith. And for this, a nucleus of embittered malcontents thinks the solution is to defame him. Now some have observed that Popcak is not above criticism. Quite so. And if the Spastic Sphincter Tribunal had written (or defended) a measured response saying, "Popcak, for all his good work, might have considered just not mentioning this rather curious practice" I would have no problem (though I can see nothing intrinsically immoral about it). But let's get real. The purpose of this article was not to suggest that Popcak is a faithful brother in Christ who mentioned a couple of curious ideas in passing. It was to a) practice the art of Catholic Character Assassination and b) as ever, to launch yet another fusillade against JPII, his damn newfangled Theology of the Body, EWTN, Hahn, and all rest of the wicked apostate neo-Catholics.

One of my readers, bless her heart, at least had the good grace to cite the passage in question from Popcak's writing and acknowledge that he was not saying what the Character Assassins for Christ claimed he was saying. But amazingly, other readers were in a snit with me for defending Popcak's good name. Can't a Character Assassin for Christ have *any* fun without judgmental people like me pointing out the thin-lipped phariseeism and lust for condemnation? What a killjoy!

And, of course, a number of people persisted in the false notion that I was arraigning all people who are fond of more conservative expressions of piety as "Lidless Eyes". Allow me to introduce you to my good friends Pete Vere and Shawn McElhinney, two quite "Traditionalist" types whom I am quite happy to call friends. Why? Because they don't go around looking to drum fellow Catholics out of the Church for using the wrong buzzwords and for not having a problem with JPII. They will, like me, *defend* fellow Catholics from self-appointed Inquisitors (a consequence of Just War theory). But they don't feel the peculiar itch to cobble together Character Assassination for Christ campaigns, nor to damn the Pope and all his teachings at every opportunity. If you self-identify as a "traditionalist" but don't share in these sins either, you are not who I am referring to when I speak of Lidless Eye types. If you feel that peculiar itch to hunger and thirst after the condemnation of brother and sister Catholics (or other human beings) on the flimsiest provocation, then perhaps this blog isn't for you.
posted by Mark Shea at 7:56 AM

the Spastic Sphincter Tribunal

I like this better than the Tridentine Taliban. Much better.

It appears that Shea and Fr. Johanssen monitor this site very closely, and have reduced the UltraTrads to an ecclesiastical version of South Park.

LOL!!!!

Allow me to introduce you to my good friends Pete Vere and Shawn McElhinney, two quite "Traditionalist" types whom I am quite happy to call friends.

This is actually what started the whole discussion -- when I pointed out that in another thread posted by Diago these guys were claiming to be traditionalists when they are not; they are anti-traditionalists. Pete Vere seems to be making a career out of attacking traditionalists. The other 2 only do it for fun on an amateur basis, apparently.

Because they don't go around looking to drum fellow Catholics out of the Church for using the wrong buzzwords

Seems to me that this is precisely what they spend their time doing. Does anyone else besides me see the irony of someone having blogs named "spastic sphincter" and "lidless eye" while at the same time trying to put on an attitude of wounded innocence?

I see that now Popcak has explained his charting comment on Shea's Blogspot.
He mentions Love and Responsibility. I read that book, and I didn't come away with the conclusion that Popcak did.
As a Mother, and a former child, I find the whole making charting a family affair pretty creepy.
I am assuming he has never mentioned this idea on EWTN radio or television. I certainly couldn't see this particular idea translating into: "Oh, that's such a great idea. I'm going to send EWTN a big fat donation right after I tell Johnny and Suzie to get a notebook and a thermometer."