Further Defense of My Use of the Term "Radtrad" / Resulting Personal Attacks from Shawn McElhinney and Other Usual Suspects

For preliminary background, see the first chapter in my recent book on radical "traditionalism." I made some arguments on a semi-public thread and a controversy ensued. I have preserved some of the gossipy, calumnious comments made on a public Facebook thread, and have replied to them, in the second section below, after the five asterisks.

***
As the author of two books on "traditionalism" and a student of them for 15 years, I am very precise in my own terminology. I know there are many respectable "traditionalists." That is precisely why I use "radtrad" to distinguish them from the mainstream ones: of whom I have several friends. [I provided the link to the chapter in my book on "traditionalism" that deals with definitions]


I disagree about [the definition of] "radical" and I know a little about use of terms for movements, too, having majored in sociology. The "radical traditionalist" is the one who goes too far: they want to "reform" the Church so much that it does become radical almost precisely in the original Luther sense (revolutionary / overturn / uproot / revolt). They are so opposed to liberalism that they go full circle and become one themselves by dissing popes. They start out opposing Protestantism and then adopt key aspects of same (again, dissing popes, dissing Church authority, councils, officially promulgated forms of the Mass, and the Catholic Mind).

Thus, "radical" used here: going to the roots, refers to going to the very roots of Catholic ecclesiology: the papacy, and digging it up. That's not a dis-use of "radical". It's exactly what it means. It can be used more than one way (like most words), but my use is not improper.

What you need to understand, too, is that my definition of "radtrad" is not simply the SSPX or sedevacantist. It encompasses the many who flirt around the edges without technically going over it: people who bitch about the Church constantly and seem to be able to do little else: trashing the OF Mass, Vatican II, and popes, while admitting (how gracious and nuanced) that they are "valid"!!! They want to have it both ways. I've written at great length about this characteristic. I used "quasi-schismatic" in the same sense back in 2002 at the time of my first book. Now I use "radtrad" that way.

[Note added later:  "OF" = Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass, also known as the Novus Ordo or Pauline or "New" Mass. "EF" is the Extraordinary Form, or the Tridentine or "Old" Mass. This is the official way now to refer to both.]

Most of those that I call radtrads are not canonically schismatics. They are Catholics in the legal sense. It's also a far larger category (the ones I describe, bitching about and trashing everything in the Church) than sedevacantists or SSPX. Thus, you still have not given me an alternate term that encompasses my larger category.  "Radtrad" is in my usage, to the left of SSPX. It doesn't go that far. If I'm talking about SSPX or sedevacantist (both true schismatics), I call them that. But radtrad is a far larger category.


Many (including most "traditionalists" and "radtrads" alike) approach these issues legally or canonically, whereas I approach it as a matter of the spirit of the thing: much like Jesus approached the Pharisees, and Sadducees, too, for that matter, and how Jesus and Paul both reinterpreted and reapplied the Law.

It goes beyond mere legality. It is a divisive, quasi-schismatic spirit. I'm trying to prevent folks from going out into wacko schismatic land.







* * * * * 

The following remarks at my expense (colored words) occurred on two public Facebook threads.
To reiterate on the definition of radtrad, I'll quote my own words from my book (link to chapter 1):

I don't have the slightest objection to anyone preferring to attend the Tridentine Mass. I was completely in favor of the 2007 decree from the Holy Father to make that Mass more widely available (that had been my own position since becoming a Catholic in 1990).
I've been attending the only parish in metro Detroit that offered it prior to that time, and have attended the very reverent, traditionally practiced Novus Ordo Latin Mass there since 1991 to the time of writing. This book will consider as “radtrads” those who insist on continually bashing the Pauline “New” Mass (whether they regard it as valid or not) as somehow less than fully Catholic, or doctrinally watered-down: along with insults towards those who prefer it, as second-class Catholics.

 
And again, later in the chapter:

Radtrads can’t stop bashing and trashing popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism: going as far as they can go without technically crossing over the canonical line if schism.

Catholic apologist Mark Shea writes very perceptively about the terminology issue. For example:]

The basic difference between a so-called "neo-Catholic" and a self-described Traditionalist who labels others "neo-Catholic" is this: A "neo-Catholic" calls himself and the Traditionalist "Catholic" while the Traditionalist calls himself "Traditionalist" and his brother Catholic "Neo-Catholic". It's a term designed by factionalists to marginalize Catholics whose only crime is docility to the teaching of Holy Church. A Catholic will, if the Traditionalist insists, refer to the Traditionalist as a Traditionalist. But that, again, is only due to a) the Traditionalist's aggressive insistence on the factional label and b) the Catholic’s desire to be accommodating. In short, Catholics are disposed to welcome Traditionalists as brother Catholics in good standing with the Church, while the Traditionalist who insists on the label "neo-Catholic" does so in order to insinuate that brother Catholics docile to the post-conciliar Magisterium are not really up to snuff and, indeed, may well be enemies of the Faith. It is only when docile Catholics are on the receiving end of this aggressive contempt that we will sometimes use the term "Rad Trad" to describe the aggressor. But we do not mean that to refer to all self-described Traditionalists. We only mean it to refer to those Traditionalists who attempt to reduce the Faith to their hothouse subculture and to exclude those outside it from the dignity of being hailed as fellow Catholics in full obedience to Holy Church. We do not apply it to those who happen to have Traditionalist sensibilities, but who do not suggest, insinuate or say that Catholics docile to the Magisterium are second-class "neo-Catholics". We recognize that the Church is the home of many kinds of piety and many schools of opinion—Traditionalists among them. [my bolding]

Very well explained there, and exactly how I use the term as well . . . Jimmy Akin hosts a 2005 paper on his website, entitled, "More Rad-Trad Than Thou," written by "SDG" (probably Steven D. Greydanus). The same distinction is drawn that Mark Shea and myself have already pointed out:

You know, in some ways, radical traditionalism — as opposed to a legitimate Catholic traditionalism that merely prefers traditional expressions of the faith but does not reject Vatican II and the contemporary Church — annoys me more than progressivism. Perhaps it is because the progressivists are usually honest enough to admit that they wish to change the doctrines and disciplines of the Church. They are easier to deal with because their agenda is clear. Radical traditionalists, on the other hand, present their discontinuity with Church history and their rejection of the authority of the Church’s leaders as a supposedly Truly Catholic Response to concerns about the admitted difficulties in some human sectors of the modern Church. Anyone who rejects their understanding of the Church and its teachings is not as Catholic as they.

Jimmy Akin himself authored a 2006 article on his site, called, "Overcoming RadTrad Temptations."

Catholic writer Daria Sockey wrote an article, "Rally, Rad-trad Protest, and a Knight," on the Catholic Exchange website on 25 March 2012, referring to our subject matter as "the extreme traditionalist" and "fringe societies" in the article.

Shawn McElhinney Were these persons regular joes or were they claiming more "advanced credentials", . . .? . . . to agitate and create controversy is one way that not a few of the apologetics mentality get attention for themselves and also are better prepared to hawk their wares -either in book sales, donations to their "apostolate", or whatever. There are also those who troll threads for material to gin up controversy for the purposes of attention and cash. A wrestling promoter named Eric Bischoff wrote a book years back called "Controversy Creates Cash" and he could have had the apologetics movement in mind every bit as much as he did professional wrestling with that title but that is neither here nor there.

Shawn -- with whom I had been friends -- decided to savagely attack my person and motives in 2005 when we disagreed on the morality and justifiability of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked: he for, me against.  Since that time, he repeatedly wrote blistering and repeated attacks against my character on his website. I replied at length at the time to the numerous outrageous slanders, but on the urging of a mutual friend (Catholic apologist Dr. Art Sippo), unilaterally removed all my replies, while Shawn decided to keep all of his up. But I did later preserve just a few of the choicer tidbits from his bizarre attacks (see #1 in this "Top Ten" paper), and consider them the worst things ever said about me by anyone online, including the avalanche of insults from James White. 

He has also viciously attacked Karl Keating and other apologists. His garbage remains up to this day on his old site, Rerum Novarum . Just search for my name there and you'll find posts like, "On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown": discussing my "pathetic delusions," etc. You get the idea. Here's my absolute favorite of his reams and reams of insults and lies at my expense (I am blessed with no end of belly-splitting laughter over this one, whenever I read it):

. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down publicly . . .

Alas, I'm not the only apologist in Shawn's huge three-car garage doghouse. For example, here he is writing about me in his usual boorish and inane fashion, on 10 December 2006:

For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable Jerry Springeresque way . . . Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants . . .

All friends of mine: all men I greatly admire . . . but for some reason Keating, Akin, and Shea are in Shawn's doghouse with yours truly (honored to be in there with 'em!), while the other three manage to escape it. What's the huge difference? Well, none, really (all three of the "good guys" have given very glowing reviews of my work, by the way), except whether ol' Shawn grants them his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or not! As if anyone cares in the first place. . .! 

Not many cared at all about Shawn's endless, War and Peace pontifications, as he consistently used to get about ten readers per day, average, on his site. But no doubt he would say that this was because his sublime profundities were well beyond the grasp of the unwashed masses of ignorant peasantry. At least he had the eventual sense to shut the thing down. In past years (before all he could do was rant against me and other apologists), he actually did some valuable work, especially about radtrad errors: some of which I still cite, despite all.

Kevin M. Tierney It is good to see my "friend" living in Melvindale is still treating his brother Catholics who love the Latin Mass like they are the enemy. Sometimes you want a change, but the old hits are lovely.

Kevin is another guy originally friendly, who turned on me quite dramatically in roughly the same period: 2005 or so. He wrote long, absurd posts about how I supposedly am what is called an "integrist" and that I think the pope is infallible in regard to the color of his socks, weather reports, and what side of the bed to get out of, and can never ever ever be criticized for even the teensiest weensiest thing!: none of which was ever remotely true at any time. I had long since had papers on my site explaining how there are times when popes were opposed, and should have been (such as by St. Catherine, St. Francis, and St. Dominic). I also differed with popes on the War in Iraq and (just a little) on the death penalty. 

All to no avail . . .  I explained all this at length to Kevin, several times, and it was perfectly useless (ever have "dialogues" like that?). Now when he hears a lie about me, he immediately believes it and parrots it, without the slightest attempt to check out the facts for himself. This is the exact opposite of the truth. I have attended Latin Mass myself for 22 years, and have always advocated Catholics having freedom to attend the Pauline Latin Mass (my preference) and also the Tridentine Mass, that my own parish offers and that I have attended. In 2011 I replied to one of his many attacks on apologetics and apologists.

Shawn McElhinney Well Kevin, in the words of those great western philosophers The Who: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

And Shawn is the same old Shawn: acting as usual, like (well, you fill in the blanks) . . .  

Kevin M. Tierney Just take comfort that Dave don't want to tangle with those who punch back without prejudice.

Right. Everyone knows how utterly fearful I am of one-on-one debate.  That's why I have about 700 debates posted online, because I am scared to death of them. I guess that's why I once did a talk (in person) with sixteen atheists and agnostics: me being the only theist (let alone Catholic) in the room. It's obviously the reason why I have been on national radio shows (Catholic Answers twice), answering questions live, with no idea what they might be. This sort of abject fear led me to debate James White spontaneously one night in his chat room, or take on Matt Slick of CARM fame, or engage anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer in hostile territory at CARM, debating whether the Church Fathers believed in sola Scriptura. He did so poorly that he split even before it was halfway done. . Who could doubt it?

What Kevin doesn't get is that people have no time for folks like him who specialize in withering personal attacks, with all sorts of goofy, outrageous speculations about supposed nefarious motives. The private letters he used to send me were some of the most amazing spectacles of personal attack I have ever seen in my life: even surpassing Shawn McElhinney, who is virtually a "master" of highly descriptive and colorful ad hominem vitriol. He expects me to waste much time with him? Even so, since he wants to make this dumb remark, it should be noted that I did "tangle" with him in 2011, as I had already noted above. Here are the sorts of idiotic comments that Kevin (then all of 21 but wise far beyond his years) was making back in 2003 (right from his own site; the links still work at Internet Archive):

The view that Vatican II might not have been prudent, but indeed her reforms have caused more harm than good is not an obscure argument, but an argument that has over 40 years gained acceptance, to where now even mainstream publications are willing to admit this. (11-18-03)

Of course, since noone really knows what Vatican II taught, or where Vatican II taught something dogmatically not taught before, noone really knows what to give assent to, other than that which was already taught before in Tradition. is there something new we must give assent to? . . . I just ask him to please be consistent, if he's going to say we're guilty of "classifying forms of Catholicism" when attacking Neo-Catholicism, I will not allow him to do the same. (11-20-03)

Everything goes, as long as you laud Vatican II, and wish no real restoration of the Traditional Mass. (12-5-03)

Kevin went after Blessed John Paul the Great:

There are many who proclaim that our current Pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II, has been the greatest Pope of the 20th century, if not of all time. A Pope's job is to protect the flock, and be a firm guard against novelty, binding the Church to the Deposit of Faith. I am in no way uncharitable in saying that the current Pontificate has failed drastically on both counts. . . .  all too many times we have seen the compromising of the Churches traditions to that of the world. . . . to call him "John Paul the Great" after he stood over the gravest apostasy since the Arian crisis, I believe is insulting to those who truly have the name of Great, such as St. Leo the Great and St. Gregory the Great, as well as truly holy pontiffs such as Pius V and Pius X. (7-31-03)

He was ahead of the curve, attacking and lecturing Pope Benedict XVI even before he became pope:

Ratzinger then talks about how since Vatican II, we now have a minority that "renews the world." With all due respect, there cannot be a larger disconnect from reality! The world has gone(and continues to go at breathtaking speed) to hell in a handbasket, so the Catholics are not "renewing the world." Ratzinger, being a European, should recognize this, as Europe will not even recognize any Christian heritage, much less a Catholic one. . . . The only Christians that are "renewing the world" are certainly not following that which is Vatican II. (8-10-04)

Same old same old from the radtrads, of which Kevin was then a proud member (now he is much more respectable; join the crowd, Kevin!). I was fighting these errors already with my first book on the topic, completed in 2002. I tried to reason with him and got back nothing but vitriol and juvenile self-importance.

After this 2011 exchange, I went to Kevin's site to post some comments (that can be read in the paper), and he deleted them. Yet he wants to debate with me now? Sorry, Kevin. I don't waste time with certain folks. You can pretend all you like that this is because of fear or inability.  That's always the reply when someone is turned down for debate. It doesn't faze me in the slightest. Your latest comments and participation in the lowest form of gossip prove quite adequately to me that I shouldn't waste any further time with you. Even this documentation was a waste of time, but people have to see it to believe it. They need to know the sort of animus that exists in the people who are involved in the current mud-throwing fiasco. I didn't seek this . . .

Napoleon de Ocampo First of all the term "radtrad " is like an attempt at being "cool", and used by some who are either too old to be cool or just trying to put others down so they can feel good about themselves... insecurity... 

Wonderfully ridiculous attribution of personal motives there, with ultra-absurd "analysis." That's the name of the game in these gossip / calumny threads!

I prefer the Extraordinary Form ... I noticed those that use that term are usually eucharistic ministers or have some role in the mass... anybody who has the need to have a role in the liturgy to feel important need to rethink their faith.....

I love this! I have written papers about the widespread abuse of eucharistic ministers. I have argued with priests, saying that I refuse to receive Holy Communion from a eucharistic minister because the priest alone is the alter Christus. We don't have them at all at our parish (I acknowledge that the Church permits them for large crowds, but this is widely abused). So nice try, but no cigar (not even a fake one).

It's called prayer, ... that's our participation and God hears us and that's all that counts.... I have been unfriended by so many, called a "radtrad" by some immature Eucharistic minister who prefers recieving communion in the hand....their over-participation is a call for attention... 


1. I don't call him that, knowing what little I know. He just likes the Tridentine Mass. Good for him. I think it's wonderful, too, and want to see it widely practiced.

2. I already commented on eucharistic ministers.

3. I always receive on the tongue, kneeling, from the priest, as we do at our parish (with kneeling and contemplation and worship after I return to my seat). I've done this for 22 years at my parish: St. Joseph's: the most beautiful building in Detroit (German Gothic Revival), for my money.

4. I do, however, defend communion in the hand as not inherently irreverential (though, I agree, often in practice), since the early Church did it for 6-9 centuries, depending on location. St. Augustine, for example, gave communion in the hand to standing recipients, who held their hands exactly in the manner that is done today.

Shawn McElhinney One exception to that rule Kevin: if he has a slew of yesman amigos to help him with his dirty work. He does not like one on one contact with someone who can throw real punches and expose his glass jaw, that's for sure.


This silliness was dealt with above. And we've seen how Shawn "argues" above, too. He's the very last person to be lecturing anyone about how to engage in calm, rational, constructive (minimally ethical and charitable) argumentation. I would send my three sons to a rabid hedgehog in heat to learn how to dialogue before I would send them to Shawn.

. . . this was just another example of Dave wading onto a thread and subject he did not know as much about as he tried to pretend and could not admit that lest he lose face. Saimo-saimo with The Venerrrrablleeee Daaaaaviiiiid basically but I digress

So now I don't know anything about "traditionalism." That's odd, since Pete Vere (canon lawer and co-author with Pat Madrid of a book on the topic) is also participating in these discussions and (to his eternal credit) being very classy: refusing to indulge in the attacks. It's tough to be neutral like Switzerland but Pete is managing to pull it off. Kudos! He is friends with all of them over there, and they obviously respect him. 

Pete asked me around 2003-2004 or so to come work and live at the FSSP place where he was (somewhere in Pennsylvania). It was being very seriously considered. Isn't that strange? He must have thought I knew something about the topic: had some sort of qualification. Why, he even credited me with playing some part in his own departure from his former ways, and his very vocation, writing:

Dave Armstrong['s] . . . apologetics ministry was one of God's tools through which I both reconciled with the Catholic Church and discerned my vocation as a canonist.

Now, that is quite a feat, to have managed to persuade someone out of schism or semi-schism (wherever he was; SSPX at one point), while not having much of a knowledge at all about the subject (which Shawn pontificates is the case, even today). If anyone can figure how that can be, please let me know pronto. My brain can't wrap itself around it, much as I try.

I dare say that Shawn himself used to be quite effusive in his praise of my apologetics till he and I disagreed on nuclear war and whether incinerating 100,000 civilians is right in line with Catholic just war ethics or not. I'm almost positive that would have included my work in critique of the radtrads.


Kevin M. Tierney I don't want to dog on him too much. He's a gifted guy who in his own area knows his stuff.

Good for Kevin: a rare bit of charity. And I would actually say the same about him, too, despite his manifest shortcomings that are evident again in this thread.

But he still isn't an expert on traditionalists. If he wanted to know how traditionalists really thought, he could always have taken a drive down to the other parish in the cluster where guys like me were hanging out, and we would've set him straight.

No thanks; I respectfully decline. I would much sooner go to Pete Vere, who has written a book on the topic, as I have (two), and can actually engage in civil discussion, minus all the vitriol and ad hominem. I have many mainstream "traditionalist" friends: folks like David Palm and Ben Douglass and others. Many (quite a number, actually) follow my blog and Facebook page. I have many, many Eastern Catholic friends, too. Kevin has never taken the trouble to bother to become my friend in the first place, and that is generally required for any good dialogue to take place, per Plato and Socrates (as I have often noted). And what he is saying and rah-rahing in this thread is not exactly designed to make me desire to be his friend now, at this late date.

Isn't it interesting, too, that I have the most cordial, trouble-free relations (including phone conversations) with someone like Tracy Tucciarone, who is one of the owners of the influential Fish Eater's "traditionalist" forum. They run me down there, too (the sky would fall if I weren't attacked in all the usual quarters), but she and I have normal, mutually respectful discussions. So I don't need lectures about personal contact with mainstream "traditionalists": certainly not from Kevin Tierney, with all the pathetic baggage and fiery venom he brings: that have gone down in the past.

Napoleon de Ocampo I'm very honest with some people who are hostile to the EF... People are not stupid, they are lazy.... in the EF, one have to follow the mass through a missal, you cannot sit there and daydream like what some do in th OF .... a little judgemental .... someone said to me that the missal is expensive... yes, but those complaining seem to have no problem buying IPads, IPhones and all the I products .... in my experience with complainers it's a matter of they just don't like it or too lazy to follow or learn.... if that's the case, leave us alone.... we don't attack people who prefer the OF....

No need to further rebut Napoleon at this point. His posts are plainly self-refuting.

Miguel Agustin Livas Escobedo I've always had my reservations about the man though I've never dealt with him. I will pray for you.

Timothy J O'Brien The fact that he's gone on and on on his wall about this and then over to his blog is embarrassing (regardless of where the fault lies). Imagine a non-Catholic wandering onto that blog and is treated to that as his/her first impression. It looks very bad. I just can't believe how he cannot let it go. 

Shawn McElhinney . . . did I not tell you . . . that Dave would find a way of bringing me into the mix if he could? 

Shawn started gossiping about me as soon as he had opportunity to do so, in one of the attack threads. But if I dare respond to his lies, that's me trying to drag him into the conflict, and somehow being paranoid / mentally ill / contentious [or insert chosen alternate epithet] . . . this is classic Shawn polemics. This is how cynical revisionism and creation of fairy tales proceed: urinating all over the actual facts of the matter, which are plain as day.

I doubt I have said one word to him in about six years but he is STILL smarting over getting his ass handed to him back in 2005 and 2006 when he bit off more than he could chew with me. 

Humility or truth-telling about his own deficiencies was never one of Shawn's strong points . . . I sort of suspect it won't be, either, for some time to come.

I am no psychologist but Dave sure shows symptoms of NPD in the way he reacts to things and the way he cannot let anything drop. 

Oh, of course. No attacks on me would be complete without personality / mental analysis. "NPD" is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder."  This is the strictly comedic and entertaining aspect of otherwise tedious and ultra-booring ad hominem attacks. The anti-Catholics love to do the same thing (this is one of their favorite slanders; lacking any rational arguments), and Shawn will readily use any lie from their playbook, on the old principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Pray for the man. One can only pity one who feels the need to stoop so low.

It's real simple, folks; makes perfect sense; nothing mentally ill about it at all. I document because people (ones who want to clash with me) have a tendency to revise the past. I know this because it has happened over and over: much first-hand experience. If I didn't keep people's words (the ones who feel led to personally attack me), they would simply spin them as if they were no big deal. After all, a person that is willing to shamelessly lie about another has no compunction about lying about the lies later on, to cover their own tails and present themselves in a saintly (or at least situationally faultless) light that never was the case.

I don't give it a moment's thought otherwise. If the thing rears its ugly head again, I have the documentation. And oh, how people hate that!!! Thus, when I deign to cite Shawn's own words, he comes back with the old mental illness canard. He has to. This is his modus operandi. It's like a hog scratching his itch. He's gotta do it!

Nothing like the facts . . . They sit in my "Idiotic Comments and Attacks" file. Big Deal! If Shawn had ever had any actual influence with his flatulent avalanche of words, he would have been as massively attacked as I have been, too. But since he hasn't, all he can do is sit on the sidelines and partake of the imbecilic attacks. If he doesn't have me to go after, he can flail away at his numerous other targets: Karl Keating, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, the class of apologists as a whole, men, women, human beings, dogs, cats, mice; anything on God's green earth will do, as long as it is a target . . .

I mean, its been more than SEVEN YEARS now and he is still going around digging up tidbits from my mothballed weblog from those conflicts that he spins out of context. He has to do that because context on these things is not his friend and deep down, he knows it.

Yes; down deep (at least in my better, most honest moments) I know that Shawn is my overlord and superior in every way: ethically, mentally, intellectually, as a writer, debater, amateur philosopher, political junkie, as a webmaster (with his ten hits a day average that he never managed to break out of), as a father (if he is one), as a sports fan, athlete, cookie-maker, weed-puller, repairer of can openers, you name it: anything and everything! He'd probably even beat me in chess and arm-wrestling. But he can't outlaugh me. When I read his drivel, I laugh and laugh till the cows come home: till my gut hurts; till I cry a bucket . . . I think he missed his calling as a comedian.

All this does is illustrate why I proactively blocked him on FB as soon as I found out he was on here: I have no interest in retreading old ground and being trolled by this person.

Oh, that is great news! Delighted to hear it.


Deb Boy am I clueless. I don't even know who Dave is. 

Count your blessings, Deb!

Kevin M. Tierney This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend, some people started posting not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting forever just because.....

Have at it! Obviously a lot of people have way too much time on their hands, if all they can manage to do is attack and lie about me. As always (I've been subjected to 17 years of this sort of thing, online), it doesn't do the slightest thing to stop the work I am called to. I have removed an avalanche of car manure that I had on this post previously, but my argument that brought on all the galaxies of manure and imbecilic sewer scum attacks is still here, intact. And that's all that matters. Who cares about all the other nonsense and verbal diarrhea? Let the nattering nabobs play and pummel away . . . 
Shawn McElhinney It was mid-August 2005-Spring of 2006 with flare-ups that summer and fall. I sought to end it in September of 2006 and Dave then sought a "reconciliation" in January 2007 which in retrospect it seems he just used as a ruse to lure me back in and try and get me to affirm his whitewashed version of previous events by default. 
Even my attempts at reconciliation are a "ruse" . . . you see the cynical spirit at work here.  That is the spirit of the father of lies, the accuser (and I'm not trying to be melodramatic; just matter of fact); not of the God of the royal commandment and 1 Corinthians 13. This is not the Spirit of Christ. And this is why reconciliation was impossible, with his unyielding demand that I must admit I am an inveterate and deliberate liar, as his first condition. Once I admit that and bow and kiss his feet, everything's great!
I finally took the emails I wrote to him, edited mentions of him out of them, edited any of his actual words out of them, and structured the sequences into three threads that encapsulated the core problems I had with him and blogged them in the winter and spring of 2007. Those three threads are now required interaction by him if he truly wants a reconciliation or not and by all appearances he does not.
I always did want reconciliation (as I do with anyone with whom I have had a falling-out). I tried everything under the sun: reason, pleading, endless explanations of prior comments and arguments I made that Shawn would relentlessly and cavalierly (not to mention quite pompously and arrogantly) blow off as "grandstanding" or "insincere".  Finally, I removed all replies about him and anything about him at all from my blog (except a few places where I cite work of his that had some actual value, that he used to do). 
At length, I worked with Dr. Art Sippo, a mutual friend, to try to achieve a breakthrough. He persuaded me to remove the papers, but of course (shock!) Shawn was absolutely inflexible (but I'm the one with the grudge, you see, while his flatulent attack-papers remain online to this day). Now you can all see how he requires these asinine conditions (essentially I have to admit that he kicked my butt in the nuclear debate -- which is untrue -- and that he was absolutely right, and I was dead-wrong, or else I am necessarily [by the singular Shawn "logic"] dishonest and a liar beyond all doubt), and mocks my attempts at reconciliation as an insincere ruse.

Nothing can be done with him. I mightily tried (far more than most people would have had the patience to do). My conscience is perfectly clear on this. God understands contentious people: that we can't always get along with them, no matter how hard we try. His present resumption of personal attacks at the drop of a hat, without the slightest attempt to hear or interact with my side, is hardly grounds for hope of a reconciliation. I wish the man well. I have no resentment at all (I don't waste time with that in my life). I'm simply passionately responding to nonsense and calumny. May God bless him abundantly in all things.
In light of that and other similar issues with other folks (including sad to say the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus), to say that I have a view of apologetics now as a rule that is lower than my view of prostitution is no small exaggeration. But that is another subject altogether for another time.

I like that! My profession is lower than being a whore. Isn't that a wonderfully edifying thought? Even Fr. Neuhaus isn't safe from Shawn's self-righteous ire. Now the world's oldest and most disgusting, loathsome professions are not one and the same. It's a split ticket. We apologists are the lowest of the low: cain't get no lower than us'n's!.

But of course ol' Shawn brings no personal or intellectual bias to the present conversation; not at all (and no one could possibly think that!). No! It's all sweetness and light and rock-solid objectivity from our friend. I'm over here whoring and degrading myself by trying to help folks escape from the prison of radtrad nonsense, but it's all worthless (because I supposedly [like Akin and Shea and others] used one word like a dummy and an ignoramus) and I must be attacked at every turn with lies and calumnies for doing so.

Hell, Dave even edited it to put my name in the title! See what I mean about folks who cannot let things go?

. . . Dave continues to add stuff from this thread in a desperate effort to try and goad responses from us and again courtesy of his selective prooftexting ala the way folks prooftext magisterial texts or even Scripture for their own ends. (Albeit nothing said on this thread here has that sort of status of course!)
But since he is seeing this thread, before you change the settings, I will address this to him personally and say nothing else on this thread in the foreseeable future. Here goes...

Hey Dave, the issue I had with Fr. Neuhaus (God rest his soul!) had NOTHING to do with you whatsoever. It was in the grand scheme of things a minor matter (as virtually all things which involve someone who passes on are) and I let it drop a long time ago -mentioning it only in an aside to Pete on this thread which now I wish I had not. But hey, if you had any sense of honour or decency, you would not kick dirt on the grave of a deceased for the sake of your ego.

That's the problem with someone like you who is not interested in the truth but instead just spinning anything they can into whatever revisionist light best suits their inflated ego. I am thinking of going back to where I reviewed one of his books on Amazon and deleting the review -the thought of saying anything nice about someone who acts this way is frankly something I am starting to regret.

. . . I am through on this thread feeding Dave's massive revisionist ego. I will pray for him that he seeks the help he so badly needs and accept this as a reminder of why Christian unity in general is such a seemingly insurmountable mountain and only by God's grace will it ever occur on this side of the eschaton.

[reply to someone who was mockingly saying they "disagreed" with me; as if no one can ever do so] So you were "Denying The Faith" then,. . .?

Flail away, y'all! God sees everything you are doing . . . .


* * * * *