You, Anglicanorum Coetibus Society

Last weekend an individual posting as the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, presumably speaking for its whole membership, made a rather angry personal attack on me, imputing base personal motives and saying

I will not name this blog or link to it so as not to give it oxygen. But I do think it traffics in detraction if not downright calumny from time to time and gets many facts wrong.

Why am I bringing this up, and by doing so, risking giving oxygen even directly to this blog?

Mainly, what I see in the blog’s constant negativity regarding the Ordinariate reminds me of Aesop’s Fable of the fox and the sour grapes. The fox could not jump high enough to reach the cluster of ripe, luscious-looking grapes, so he consoled himself by telling himself the grapes were sour and not worth the trouble.

So for the sake of shorthand,let’s call the blog the Sour Grapes blog.

I believe bitterness darkens the perspective of Mr. Sour Grapes and contributes to his drumbeat of doom and gloom.

Secondly, it struck me in looking at a recent spate of posts how lacking in supernatural faith Mr. Sour Grapes’ perspective is.

It goes so far as to impute to me bitterness and lack of supernatural faith, but it goes even father to accuse me of "detraction if not downright calumny". I'm not entirely sure who is making these very serious charges, either of which could involve mortal sin, while hiding behind the name of an entire society, but on Sunday I challenged Ms Gyapong (or perhaps it's Mr Murphy) to explain precisely where I've engaged in detraction or downright calumny. So far, there's been no reply.

I'm not entirely sure who-all is a member of the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, but whoever is speaking for them here is, as far as I can see, speaking for among others Fr Bergman and Prof Tighe. I certainly hope these members can make it clear to me whether they endorse the position that I'm engaging in detraction and calumny out of bitterness. I would be very sad to see at least one personal relationship damaged.

On the other hand, if an individual claims to be speaking for the organization but is not authorized to make personal attacks and impute motives to people a continent or more away, then I would suggest the organization has very serious problems.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of detraction,

Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

The employment of this teaching, however, is limited by a twofold restriction.

• The damage which one may soberly apprehend as emerging from the failure to reveal another's sin or vicious propensity must be a notable one as contrasted with the evil of defamation.
• No more in the way of exposure should be done than is required, and even a fraternal admonition ought rather to be substituted if it can be discerned to adequately meet the needs of the situation.

Journalists are entirely within their rights in inveighing against the official shortcomings of public men. Likewise, they may lawfully present whatever information about the life or character of a candidate for public office is necessary to show his unfitness for the station he seeks. Historians have a still greater latitude in the performance of their task. This is not of course because the dead have lost their claim to have their good name respected. History must be something more than a mere calendar of dates and incidents; the causes and connection of events are a proper part of its province. This consideration, as well as that of the general utility in elevating and strengthening the public conscience, may justify the historian in telling many things hitherto unknown which are to the disgrace of those of whom they are related.

California court documents draw a rather convincing picture that a number of individuals, including clergy in the ACA and a current OCSP priest, engaged in felonious conduct. I believe the damage resulting from those sins or vicious propensities is notable as contrasted with the evil of defamation. We're talking here about damaging another priest's good name, as well as the good name of an entire parish, and directly causing years of litigation. I believe there are lesser issues, like careerism and opportunism, that must be brought to light in the context of the OCSP, but of course the potential damage that might accrue from inveighing against those matters is also proportionally much less. I believe I'm also speaking on this blog as both a journalist and historian.

I wonder if the individual who is speaking for the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, whom I believe to be either Ms Gyapong or Mr Murphy, would be willing to speak as an individual and explain how I have engaged in detraction on my blog, providing specific instances. I've already made this challenge regarding calumny, and so far, I've received no reply. If either Ms Gyapong or Mr Murphy is not behind this post, I would appreciate it if they would also make this clear.

Frankly, I think the post linked here would be out of line if it came from an individual. Since it claims to be speaking for the entire Anglicanorum Coetibus Society, I believe it's indefensible. I think responsible members of the Society should take action to be sure it isn't repeated.

My suggestion would be that the individual who made this post identify him or herself and, if unable to substantiate these serious accusations, retract them with an apology and a clarification that they were not made on behalf of the entire Anglicanorum Coetibus Society. I think justice would require that the apology be made to me by name.