On that basis, cam you at least give us evidence of your condemnation of NOR? Are you saying all conservative Catholics are liars, and not so conservative Catholics are not to be questioned?
On the basis of guilt by association, NOR accused Richard John Neuhaus of being a universalist (therefore false teacher).
This in turn was based on a tendentious and hyperbolic reading of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s views. And Neuhaus merely praised vB as a great theologian without endorsing his controversial views.
And that’s only one example.
I’m tired of traditionalist Catholics who think they can play fast and loose with truth and who exaggerate and gossip.
I’m a traditionalist Catholic. I am most certainly not saying all conservative Catholics are liars.
I
specifically
cited
NOR.
For you to suggest I attacked all conservative Catholics is precisely the kind of hyperbole I’m talking about.
Fr. Haley may be the victim of evil persecution.
I
just
don’t
know.
And this thread has offered zero credible evidence one way or another.
FR prides itself on critical evaluation of claims.
I was once a fan of NOR. I stopped reading it when it became clear that they lacked prudence and the ability to evaluate critically and fairly.
Much of Michael Rose’s books are good and solid. But some of it is hyperbole and some of those he attacked appear to have been falsely accused.
Richard John Neuhaus was an impeccably orthodox and solid Catholic. Because he said nice things about someone NOR was already (incorrectly and inaccurately) on the warpath against, they turned on someone whom only months earlier they would have praised to the skies.
Not unlike FReepers willing to turn on Jim DeMint and call him a RINO because of a single statement. Except that Jim DeMint, from time to time, has endorsed a RINO or two.
That
does
not
make
him
a
RINO.
Von Balthasar was not a CINO. His views on “dare we hope” are
in fact
orthodox. They differ from those of Barth and Origen. But NOR falsely accused him of universalism. John Paul II disagreed with him on this issue but did not turn on him. NOR did and did so in an intellectually indefensible way. One may disagree with controversial views without calling the one one disagrees with a heretic.
That was bad enough. To turn against Neuhaus SOLELY on that basis was cheap, intellectually dishonest and violates Christian charity. NOR was just plain wrong but steadfastly refused to reconsider.
So, to hyperbole and rash judgment I’ll add the charge of plain old bull-headedness.
NOR did a lot of good and probably still does a lot of good.
But NOR has done some bad. Not the first, not the last time someone or some journal does some good, does some bad.
But I do NOT trust NOR’s judgment in this Haley case.
Fr. Haley may be the innocent victim of evil persecution.
But I just don’t know and neither do you and you have an obligation under God and the Catholic faith not to indulge in rash judgment.
Would it hurt you to suspend judgment on the Haley case until you have credible evidence?
Or do you believe every accusation and conspiracy theory you encounter?