Is Outrage

I just tried to read Pope Francis, Say Yes to the Pill on National Review Online.  I guess it’s an insightful tour de force about how it’s time for the Church to get with the times and whatnot.  Doesn’t bother me that someone is saying this, because everyone says it.  Doesn’t bother me that it’s on National Review, because National Review went down the toilet about a decade ago, and only serves to remind me of why I’m not a Republican anymore.

But it does bother me, a lot, that someone would write the following:

The sex-abuse crisis has been a horrible and shaming problem, but Catholicism’s enemies have amplified and exploited it to incite the inference that most of the Roman clergy are deviates compounding superstition with perversion. The most frequent and wishful version of these events is as a mighty coruscation before the great Christian scam expires in a Wagnerian inferno, an inadvertent Waco. It took the most antagonistic pundits, in their uncomprehending skepticism of the viability of what they regard as a medieval flimflam factory anyway, only one day to assimilate the election of a man none of them had mentioned, in their omniscience, as a contender, before pronouncing his papacy dead on arrival at the Sistine Chapel.

and still be considered a writer.  Coruscation?  Uncomprehending skepticism of the viability of what they regard as a medieval flimflam factory?  I’m sorry, has someone checked in on this guy lately?  I think he’s having a stroke.

If anybody has the strength to wade through both pages of this masturbatory mess, please let me know what it’s about.  Furthermore, circumstantial evidentiary horticulture would presume,  one would cogitate, an obstreperous de-regimentation of, if you will, unregurgitated foofaraw, if you know what I mean.

Advertisements

54 comments

  1. I simply commented on the article: “If you discover yourself lured to utilize the thesaurus on the subsequent occasion you’re toiling on a treatise, mull over what just transpired to this stretch.”

  2. Whew! While reading the passage I thought you were going to provide some deep refutation of what he said, meanwhile I was thinking that understanding it at all was beyond me. Thankfully by the time I hit Wagnerian inferno and inadvertent Waco in the same sentence I realized the problem wasn’t me.

  3. Never use a large word where a diminutive one will do.

    I’m reminded of the episode of Seinfeld, where his dentist converts to Judaism, and Seinfeld suspects it’s so that he can tell terrible Jewish jokes. Jerry talks to a priest about it, who asks him if he’s offended because he’s Jewish. No, Jerry replies, I’m offended because I’m a comedian!

    Likewise, this piece shouldn’t offend Catholics (we’re used to hearing it at this point), but it should offend writers everywhere.

  4. Oh. It’s Conrad Black. He’s a liberal masquerading as conservative because he ran afoul of Canadian speech laws. Not worth reading. And his opinion on the church? Worthless. Wake me up when there’s more Steyn bopping around.

  5. I read the paragraph and thought, “I must be an idiot! Simcha certainly gets this, but I honestly have no clue with this man is saying!” I read it twice more, and THEN read your concluding paragraphs. Thank you for, just today, making me feel a little less like an idiot than I usually do! 🙂

  6. All he is saying is that some people have exaggerated the sex-abuse crisis in order to make all our clergy look like superstitious perverts, in the hopes that this will eventually blow up in the Church’s face and destroy it. He then says it only took one day for the most combative and ignorant media types to declare that Pope Francis’ papacy will be ineffective.

    Now, was that really so hard to understand? (As I sneakily slide the dictionary under my chair and hide the fact I worked on this for 20 minutes…)

  7. Halfway through I thought, “Wow, this guy is a really bad writer.” English teachers everywhere should use this piece of prose as a warning to precocious students.

  8. I thought the reason I had no comprehension of that paragraph was the fact that I had three small children in the same room talking very loudly while nursing the fourth. I’m very relieved it is not just me and my noisy surroundings and sleep deprived brain!

  9. I think it’s quite likely that Conrad Black was wrongfully convicted.

    But only because he wasn’t being tried either for hubris, or for crimes against the English language.

  10. I tried reading the article. The take away seems to be that the Pope needs to approve condoms/the pill or else the terrorists will win.

    “A Church Militant, tolerant but strong, and not hobbled by absurd controversies over contraception, will be a mighty rampart against the outrageous gibe of Islam that the West is a completely profane and blasphemous society.”

    • I agree, Tim. He tries (somewhat successfully) to give the Church a lot of credit for its message, but says that unless It gives up on contraceptives, the message will always fall on deaf ears. Funny thing is that he concedes that he isn’t qualified to address the theological arguments involved. Sounds wise, disregard the teaching without trying to understand the rationale.

  11. In high school, I would always pull out a thesaurus when I knew that I didn’t make the effort to support a position in a paper or that it was lacking. Indubitably, fluff can be covered with bunglesome writing and pharaonic words.

  12. I can’t bear reading most secular commentary on anything remotely having to do with the Church, because it’s like listening to a deaf person object to the way the orchestra is functioning. Just…missing a key point.

  13. “Read over your compositions, and where ever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.”

    Dr. Johnson

  14. I spent time reading the comments, which most supported the Church’s right to teach its own dogma (Oh, thank yew so much!). But so many were so ill informed I just think it’s a shame I don’t have enough alcohol to play a proper drinking game with it. Oh. And it’s Lent.

  15. I am aspiring for the day when I can use the word “masturbatory” correctly in a sentence, and at a suitable moment.

  16. Masturbatory is right. I’m so glad to know I’m not the only one that uses the word as an adjective. When deserved, of course.

  17. WOW! English is clearly not his first or second language. Does Mr. Black understand that the point of article writing is typically to communicate information??

  18. Wow. I tried. I am an editor by trade, and accustomed to hacking through the purple prose of young reporters, and I couldn’t get through it, either. Really badly written, and condescending, too. The pope represents a traditional Catholicism only believed by a “small” and “doctrinaire” segment of lay Catholics? News to me …

  19. There’s a lot of good stuff on National Review Online–in fact, there were a couple of excellent responses to Conrad Black’s opinion on the Corner, one of them by Katherine Jean Lopez. Just sayin.

  20. Like you, I abandoned NRO long ago. One reason was their posting incessant whining screeds on what the cool kids in the MSM were talking about, instead of posting intelligent, original material.

  21. Perfect example of satanic derangement syndrome. You measure it by number of deviations from a simple english sentence. This sample has an excedingly high derangement quotient. It’s positively sulphuric.

  22. “If anybody has the strength to wade through both pages of this masturbatory mess, please let me know what it’s about.”

    If it is indeed a masturbatory mess, then it it’s about two pages.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s