Let Us Prey, Part 7b: Still Half-Baked

Okay, okay, folks; I hear you loud and clear: back to John Wojnowski, or prey-er versus pray-er.

Yesterday afternoon, I received a comment on one of the posts I'd put up in a still-unfinished series (under the too-apt title of "Let Us Prey") where I've been responding to some particularly hateful things being said about the Catholic Church.

This comment was strong and harsh enough that I decided not to delete it (i.e., not spam or garbage), but rather respond to it, and post his and my words here as well. WordPress, which kindly (or perhaps foolishly) hosts my Empty Tomb blog, requires all people commenting on a posting to leave their email address and (if possible/applicable) their own website.

So besides first name, I had the fellow's email address (and IP address/WhoIs, etc.), and so could email him directly (and did). The webpage URL he provided was to John Wojnowski's own website, which largely reproduces his vicious diatribe, and goes even further.

Caveat lector: to protect the gentleman's privacy, I've changed his name and email address – this will also protect him from the spammers whose webcrawlers are constantly harvesting these addresses for their own nefarious purposes. And I've slightly redirected the URL in that comment section to take you to a Washington Post article on Wojnowski's campaign. His website is easy enough to find anyway, but I didn't want a link to it on my blog. So sue me, Eric.

No, I take that last sentence back; that was rude and petty. Let me also repeat now what I've taken pains to stress throughout this "Let Us Prey" series: that I have no issue with Wojnowski's claim – totally credible, even if not fully substantiated – of abuse by a priest, and having his personal buck passed somewhere into oblivion by some of the hierarchy. I support him morally and spiritually in his quest for redress, and also don't buy into the cold-hearted claim of "statute of limitations" he claims to have been handed.

My problem is that his objective seems to go far beyond seeking redress, and he appears – by his own words at his site, and on at least one handout – to be trying to pull down the entire Church through cheap shots, warmed-over old rumors, and outright lies, slander, and bitter innuendo.

Yes; failings of trusted members of the hierarchy – whether to heed their own vows of chastity (including against children, and members of their own gender), or to support and empathize with suffering members of their flock – have indeed sullied the Church.

This does not change the fact that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself, sustained and spread by his Apostles, and comes down to us today through the direct line of authority and responsibility Jesus first laid on Peter and his fellows.

What it does do is show how far short some of us fall in how we are called to live and share Jesus' message. I'm not talking about John Wojnowski there; I really do mean some of the less-than-exemplary members of Christ's mystical body, the Church.

John – I assume – suffers still from wounds inflicted on him by one of these men some fifty years ago, and for this that (now-deceased) priest, and others, bear the blame, and the shame. I agree with him that – regardless of the time intervening since his molestation – he deserves both a genuine, sincere, contrite apology, and a reasonable settlement.

What he doesn't get from me is an ounce of sympathy, let alone empathy, in his assault on the Church itself, her history, her doctrines, and her mission. That kind of cowardly, spiteful malice is unbecoming of a mature, intelligent man, John, and does your genuine objective a terrible disservice.

Enough; here's the comment that came in:

-----Original Message-----
From: eric [mailto:EricIdol@YouWho.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:09 PM
To: AGeneChilde@YouWho.com
Subject: [MT2mb] Comment: "Let Us Prey, Part 7: The Half-Baked Scheme"

New comment on your post #416 "Let Us Prey, Part 7: The Half-Baked Scheme"

Author: eric (IP: [yadda-yadda] )

Comment:

You're a spiteful and, indeed, petty apologist with absolutely no defense for the catholic mafia's legacy of brutality.

Yikes! as my dad used to say. I took a while to simmer down, reflected a bit, then began my response:

-----Original Message-----
From: AGeneChilde@YouWho.com
To: EricIdol@YouWho.com
Subject: Half-Baked?
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:08:23 -0400

Hmm… those are pretty heavy words, friend Eric. Let's look for a moment at what you've happened on:

What I'm doing in addressing Wojnowski's diatribe is showing how the fellow – suffering as he may be from the old scars of abuse at the hands of a priest (and some unforgivable cold-shouldering by the priest's superiors) – uses no genuine evidence, and employs apparently deliberate misdirection, selective emotion-laden words, and old-old long-disproven charges that a little research (even by a non-Catholic, or an atheist) will readily scuttle. This reveals an extreme, biased attitude of hatred against the Church, and a determination to draw others – strangers, the gullible, the scandal-hungry – into his twisted outlook.

Let's do the same here, you and me. How about you back up your words:

1)  Where have I been spiteful?

2)  Where in my apologetics have I been petty? (You do understand the difference between "apology" and "apologetics", right?)

3)  In what way have I failed in this particular defense of my Church?

4)  What do you mean by "Catholic mafia"? On what solid evidence (hearsay will not be accepted; sorry if you're a fan of Dan Brown) do you use this term?

5)  Cite proven examples of brutality by the Church – brutality by members of the Church (e.g., Pizarro) will not be accepted. Otherwise, that kind of wide tarbrushing would say that all Americans are domestic terrorists, since the American Timothy McVeigh – a Gulf War veteran, by the way (and Catholic-born, for that matter) – murdered some 165 fellow Americans in Oklahoma City, using a truck bomb, in 1995; victims included nineteen children in a day-care center.

6) Sub to question/request 5): Having proven (this should be interesting) brutality by the Church herself, and not by misguided members, show next where that would be an actual legacy. Or are you referring to a legacy of charges? That's not news; that goes back to the First Century, when Catholics were accused of murdering babies (I think).

You see, my friend, anybody can use weighted words and accuse anyone – an individual, family, association, country – of all kinds of things. (E.g., I could state that everyone named "Eric" is a cold-blooded murderer, and offer Eric Harris as a clear example.) But accusations are not evidence, nor proof, except of either misunderstanding, resentment, or an agenda; I'm assuming you simply misunderstand.

What say you?

Kind regards,

A. Gene Childe

No word back yet – and those times (just two, I think; no, three) that a posting of mine received a harsh comment from a truly rare reader, I never heard back again after responding. This is disappointing; if someone feels so strongly about something, s/he really should be able to engage in at least a modicum of debate.

(In fact, I have done that once before here, though I was actually airing a series of emails between me and an ultra-ultra rightist friend of my own friend, Anon E. Mouse. That was engaging – i.e., quite enjoyable and challenging. Intellectual fun.)

This "Eric" person… on further reflection, I believe he's one of John Wojnowski's blinded supporters (as opposed to a rational one)… or possibly John himself. Let's see what happens… but don't hold your breath, everybody.

Followup: Eric responded, removing his mask:

phosphoro6 Jun 30, 2008

I’ve emailed my response to you and look forward to further discussing the issues at hand.

-“Eric”