CWN getting it wrong?

CWN getting it wrong?

Bill Cork sees that the Massachusetts Catholic Conference testified at the State House in favor of a bill saying marriage should be between a man and a woman, and assumes that Phil Lawler was off-base in asking where are the Massachusetts dioceses on this (Go to the May 6 menu item) and Kevin Miller of HMS Blog quickly agrees with Bill without bothering to think whether they got the whole story.

Uh, Bill and Kevin, for one thing, Phil’s comment was about the four Catholic priests who testified against the bill. Where are the dioceses on those priests?

And in addition, where are the bishops? Why aren’t they on Beacon Hill testifying? They send a couple of underlings from a politically powerless lobbying organization to make some ineffectual comments, but don’t go themselves on an issue of such importance to the fabric of society? But they can’t go because the bishops of Massachusetts, like most of the US bishops, have squandered what political capital they have by the way they have mishandled the Scandal. No politicians, least of all Massachusetts politicians, will heed anything they have to say now.

I think Phil was trying to make both of those points. So before you both, Kevin and Bill, castigate Phil for “getting it wrong,” perhaps you should have asked for a clarification or at least given him the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions.

N.B. I hate to say it because I like some of the people who blog there, but I don’t read HMS Blog anymore. I find some of the posts high-handed and condescending and overbearing. I don’t like to say that because there are people I respect who write there, but those others have pushed me away.

  • Kevin,

    What are you talking about? What several other items? Like I said, I don’t read HMS blog anymore. I only knew about this particular rant because Bill linked to it.

    I’m actually embarrassed that you teach at my alma mater. You don’t bother to discuss things civilly. Anyone who disagrees with you is not just wrong, they’re bad. You jump to the most sinister motive possible and attribute the worst intent. And of course the always lovely ad hominem attack.

    Nice example of Christian charity.

    And sorry that I try to make a living by working for a company that actually thinks its product is worth paying for. Do you teach for free?

  • I checked your blog and the other items of criticism against Phil Lawle. Most of that was from before my time at Catholic World Report. I asked Phil about them and here’s what he said:

    We’ve never wrote anything favorable about the Tamil Tigers. What we did write was something critical of the Sri Lankan government. But in your black and white world that’s probably the same thing.

    He never defended David Koresh as chaste, but he reported that Janet Reno et al. were spreading unsubstantiated rumors about his wild sexual excesses. Again, that’s probably the same thing to you.

    And, yes, he wrote a fairly favorable review of Duesberg’s book; many of his arguments have not been answered. (If your correspondent views Science as the ultimate authority that’s not Phil’s problem.) Duesburg’s questions are interesting, although he perhaps overplays his hand and underestimates the role of HIV in AIDS.

    I get the impression that your blogs cater to people who like their opinions and information in neat packages. The Tamil Tigers are terrorists. Koresh was a lunatic, and Duesberg probably had a few screws loose as well. Does that mean everything said against them is true, and everything they say is false?