Sunday, 22 June 2014

Now let me get this straight....

......we are bound to love our fellow arguments there.

But, I loathe Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. That's not right.....I must, MUST, not, loathe them.

Now what was it Our Blessed Lord said about Herod?

I think he called him a fox......pretty much akin to saying: "you skunk"

And what punishment did Our Lord outline for those who abused children, women and the weak and feeble? Did he mention something about millstones round the neck?

I am sure Our Lord disliked (loathed) those who dealt in hard cash in the temple....he used a whip to express his regard for them.

Ho, hum.

And there is a long litany of saints who were bad tempered grouches and worse.

Love is the key but loathing of the sin and a possible "dislike " of the sinner follows on close behind.

Put it another way; did the Good Samaritan "love" the poor beaten up traveller whom we believe was Jewish.

Of course, yes.

But did he "like" him?

It may be some time before we have certain knowledge of the answer to that one.

And, I am making a bit of a long link betwixt "like" and "loathe" but, it exists, believe me.

That really is the nub of where Laurence England and I seem to be at variance.

And I wish the Guild well but it is here that (not just for this reason) we shall part company.

The fault lies with me.....I'm not really a clubby sort of person.

Curmudgeons, even Catholic ones, are best ploughing their own, solitary furrow (sob, gasp)

Goodbye Blessed Titus, May God's Providence be with you.


  1. I can't quite figure out what this is all about. But it is understandable that fellow Catholics can agree on the principles but disagree on the particular practicalities of running a blog due to given circumstances. I think that in practice perhaps no more than a couple of people can manage the running of a blog. Thank you for all your great work for the Church, for souls. The world is definitely a better place for Linen on the Hedgerow! God bless.

    1. Thank you Lynda but I also believe that, if you have a group of bloggers operating under a common banner, then all should have the chance to subscribe to the format. Bless you for your kind comments.

  2. Hello Richard, why are you drawing attention to this here, instead of on our Facebook page, where we are actually discussing it? Of course you can write what you like, but you it would seem sensible to thrash this out with me, rather than with your readership. We are, after all, good friends.

    1. What's the difference Laurence? Just opening out the debate a little. I do not wish to get involved in recriminations (totally unnecessary) but ideally this should have been discussed at a Guild meeting, not on Facebook.

    2. And, yes, we are good friends!

  3. you have left the guild because I asked bloggers to be charitable to one another? You want to be able to be free to loathe other guild members? I did not think anything I said was in the slightest bit controversial. I was not saying that the whole guild will be lovey dove, but that we should strive towards Christian charity with one another.

  4. I never joined the guild because as soon as I saw list of initiators I suspected it would be a control organisation which would follow only the pet love(s) , of certain people.
    I respect all its members and find most most blogs interesting though I most certainly do not agree with everything they write!
    I am concerned some of them are constantly sniping at Pope Francis and THAT is NOT A BASIC CATHOLIC ATTITUDE.
    To be honest I fear that the next almost inevitable step will be them stepping out of the Catholic Church.
    They have done great work in defending the Church in the past but seem now to have lost their way.
    Some, though not all, of them,sadly, seem to be outraged that the Holy Father does not appear to be swimming in their little pool in respect of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I could go on.

    I urge prayer that all may appreciate the richness of the Church and the gifts bestowed on her down the centuries though the Popes

    1. "Some, though not all, of them, sadly, seem to be outraged that the Holy " above is badly expressed:
      The comma after "sadly" should be removed. I find it sad that even some are outraged by Pope Francis.

      Thanks for your post. The modern day "Moses" handing down edicts on matters where THERE IS FREEDOM GIVEN BY THE CHURCH need to be challenged.

  5. I'm with Marx on this one- Groucho, that is- I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!

    1. I'm more of a grouch than a Groucho Patricius.

    2. The challenge for you then is to be a charitable grouch and to be of good cheer- as it says somewhere in the Gospel.
      As a canny nun once said to me, we have to ask ourselves the question "Am I good news?"!!!!

  6. Let me state again: I know nothing of the Guild other than what I have read on this website.

    But if (I repeat, if) the Guild is now officially re-established as a vehicle to dispense soothing syrup, then let its, uh, "leaders" know this: every homosexual activist, every Muslim, every Mason, every communist, every modernist, every Stern Gangster, every Bishop Bozo, and every Padre Paedophile in our midst will be absolutely delighted that niceness has, once again, been allowed to vanquish Catholic Truth.

    Niceness is not only not charity. It is the precise opposite of charity.

    And yes, I, unlike certain others, am perfectly prepared to use my real name, which happens to be Robert Stove.

  7. Robert: Was Benedict XVI nasty? Or did he express the truth in charity?

  8. He was charitable, but still had enemies because he stood for the truth of Christ.

  9. Bravo! Facebook is one of the free tools that collect information for the CIA. Well done for breaking away from such guild/club organisation. The time has come when we as Catholics need to confront face to face the evils of the Relativist era by name and surname. Either we choose Christ head on or we hide behind false safehavens.
    God Bless!
    Paul Rodriguez

  10. The hard thing is knowing when to pick your battles. It's quite possible that both sides are right. That is to say we're called to love our enemies (supernatural grace, because on our own this won't happen) and we can loathe particular actions of individuals (making sure to spearate the action of a person from their inherrent dignity)....The truth is always to be taught in charity, but charity doesn't always mean being nice either.

  11. Joe Potillor is of course right: one must choose among possible battles. Yet that means, by definition, the existence of battles from which one must choose.

    (A thing cannot be a battle and a non-battle at the same time. This is Theology 101. The Principle of Non-Contradiction. A principle familiar to almost every 10-year-old catechumen pre-Vatican-II. Thus entirely unknown in 2014 to any Tablet reader under the age of 60.)

    There is another consideration. If we try to turn ourselves into moral cowards, we will simply be trying in vain to do what 90% of the bishops have far more effectively done for four decades. They have a head start when it comes to invertebracy. Attempting to outdo them in spinelessness is not only unconscionable but, I would submit, literally impossible.

  12. Yep RJ, imitating the spinelessness of our BIshops is both impossible and not commendable

  13. Richard, reconsider--we need you in the Guild

    Hey if the Boomers do not stay in it, it will fall into complete subjectivism


  14. John 8:44 comes to mind, it would make Ecumenicists cringe in fear.

    The problem that seems to emerge is the failure to distinguish between cursing and comparisons. Is it wrong to call Hitler a blood-crazed genocidal maniac? What about David Cameron as a Chameleon for his two faced treachery? It's not cursing which is what is condemned.

    1. That last sentence should read:

      It's not cursing, which is what is condemned.