Who is ‘Diogenes’?
Now that dotCommonweal has been humming along for couple months, we’ve had time to get our bearings in the wider blogosphere—Catholic and otherwise. There’s a lot going on out there. You’ve seen links to Amy Welborn’s blog, Rocco Palmo’s, Andrew Sullivan’s, Josh Marshall’s, Mirror of Justice, First Things, and several others. One blog the dotCom hasn’t linked to is Off the Record (though Richard John Neuhaus does). Hosted by the conservative site Catholic World News, OTR is written primarily by someone who calls himself “Diogenes.”
Diogenes has been blogging for about three years. He frequently goes after targets like the L.A. Religious Education Congress, those who support inclusive language, those who suggest that homosexuality is not the cause of the sexual-abuse crisis, the Society of Jesus (apparently en masse, and especially their work at America magazine), and several other such agents of destruction. He’s provocative, biting, given to rhetorical excess, and, yes, a talented writer. Which makes sense, given that the name he’s chosen for himself is that of the fourth-century (B.C.) Greek Cynic philosopher known for his cleverness and his contempt for his contemporaries. (He’s the guy who carried a lantern in daylight because he was searching for an honest man.)
That the writer employs this particular pseudonym–or, as he’d say, perhaps more accurately, cryptonym–involves a smidge of irony. And plenty of self-confidence. Diogenes’ provocations have inspired fevered speculation about his true identity. That an outfit billing itself as a news organization allows one of its most popular contributors–especially so conservative a scold as “Uncle Di,” as he sometimes calls himself–to remain anonymous strains credibility. He holds some serious sway in certain quarters. His identity deserves airing.
Some time ago, the Catholic blogosphere entertained a few attempts to unmask Diogenes. Rocco Palmo reported that the buzz indicated Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, was the man behind the curtain. A few years ago, Bill Cork aired the same suspicion (for some reason, the post is no longer on his blog). Later that day, Diogenes replied. The post’s headline was “Confidential to Bill C.” And the entry read, in its entirety: “Nope, try again.”
Bill Cork never took up Diogenes’ invitation to try again. So let’s have at it ourselves, shall we? Seems there are a few breadcrumbs he’s left for us. Clearly he’s a priest. Clearly he’s got a lot to say about the Jesuits. Clearly he’s heavily invested in the language wars. And clearly he’s disturbed by the recent news about condoms and HIV.
(I mean really disturbed. That link takes you to a post in which he dramatizes an imagined conversation between two residents of Soweto, whom he dubs Amos and Andy–really–with none-too-subtle hints that they may be not entirely heterosexual.)
So, do you have any theories? My request to Catholic World News brought the following reply: “We do not discuss the identity of Diogenes!” Why don’t we, then? Comments are open. Fire away.
Diogenes is an acronym for Diet, Obesity, Genes. It is perfect moniker for an obsessive blogging bloviater.
http://www.diogenes-eu.org
Fun to think about, but in all seriousness, where are the thoughtful progressive (or whatever word you choose) Catholic blogs? dotCommonweal is a really great blog from a Catholic perspective that isn’t a “st. blogs” type of venture. Why aren’t there more like it?
My guess: Paul Mankowski, SJ.
Grant, maybe I am too simple but it looks like a no brainer which Cathy seems to have gotten rather quickly. Look at this where bloggers are calling Mankowski “Diogenes” and “Uncle Di” as if there were no doubt. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736
I’m sure I am missing something here.
What appears to be missing is a post by Diogenes.
One blogger responds to Diogenes:
Diogenes, had I padded my dissertation in such a way, I should have been sacked, and quick. And, why does an illustrious agency such as Royce Carlton represent such an (apparent) scoundrel as Elaine Pagels?
Has Ms Pagels been contacted by CWN for a comment on Fr Mankowski’s letter? If not, why not? Common decency mandates that we be more charitable than she has been, thus far. And if so, was her comment a ‘No Comment’? Just curious…
This post presupposes one that has been removed. If Mankopwski is Diogenes, why does the poster address it to Diogenes and refer to Mankowski within it?
Another thanks both Mankowski and Uncle Di:
Thank you Fr. Mankowski and Uncle Di for being frontline warriors for Truth.
Isn’t this person distinguishing the two?
Diogenes is distinct from Mankowski. He is an older man. I suspect that he is a conservative Jesuit in the New England Province who goes back to the time of Cushing. He probably has some connection with Philip Lawler; perhaps some association through The Boston Pilot.
Maybe he is not so old after all. There is another Jesuit capable of such vitriol, who has written on topics that Diogenes has posted on like St. Sebastian’s Angels and gay priests. Diogenes has even referenced him in his own posts: Paul Shaughnessy. Curiously, it does not appear that Shaughnessy himself posts to the CWN site, which would be difficult for him to refrain from doing. Can it be that both are one and the same?
Who is Diogenes?
Funny question – didn’t a priest write under another pen name during the height of the Council: Xavier Rynne? Did Commonweal work to discover just who Xavier Rynne was during that time (aka Francis X Murphy)?
Anyway – I think I might know Diogenes’ true identity: Diogenes might in fact be a “woman” and a former “Jesuitess” (recall the IBVM’s were an unofficial female branch of the Jesuits) “Diogenes” may in fact be a pen name Lavinia Byrne writing in the spirit of Xavier Rynne.
Just a guess……after all she is a writer.
Best of luck in your noble hunt for the hate-spewing Diogenes, one of those people who seems to have forgotten that being Catholic also means being Christian. The more I’ve read his mean-spirited tirades over the past few years, the more I’ve concluded that Diogenes is either (a) a fellow Jesuit (since only a Jesuit could get quite so hysterical about what other Jesuits are doing or are not doing); (b) a closeted gay man (since only a closeted gay man could be so morbidly obsessed about gays in the priesthood and all that); (c) someone who is probably frustrated with the course of his life or career (since the blog brims with barely disguised contempt for those who actually seem happy to be Catholic); or (d) some combination of the above.
But I wonder if he (or she or they) will ever admit to their true identity, even if you have the goods on them. For clearly this person knows a great deal about the church, and most probably works for, or in, the church in some capacity, and, therefore, his superiors would never allow him to continue writing such bile were his identity to be revealed or proven. And this is the most revolting part of his blog, which delights in slander and malicioius gossip: it’s all anonymous. So perhaps I should add another characteristic–that is: (e) Diogenes is also a coward. Anyway, happy hunting.
In what regard are Xavier Rynne and Diogenes similar, apart from the fact that both published anonymously?
In what way are Xavier Rynne & Diogenes similar?
Beyond the fact that both publish anonymously?
We don’t really know because Diogenes is still anonymous! Unless, like Elvis, Murphy is still “out there” but now under the name “Diogenes”.
However, and more seriously,
a. both give cogent comment from a clear perspective dealing with reform,
b. both (one was for sure) may be members of religious communities (Murphy was CSSR) some think Diogenes might be a Jesuit,
c. both are (were) familiar with the (C)hurch,
d. both rankle(d) their opposites in the contemporary ecclesiastical culture.
Hmm. Diogenes is a Jebbie incognito, while Jape is a layman masquerading as a Jebbie (Jape, originally of the Devil’s Dictionary, lately of the New Pantagruel).
http://japery.newpantagruel.com/
I’ve never read anything by this “Diogenes” or better call him diminutively Diogenidion, but from his use of a nom de guerre he clearly imagines he has something to hide and that is most unlike the canine character whose name he has usurped. No true follower of the great cynic would have the slightest hesitation in unveiling himself for all to see. Being rude behind behind a bush ill suits even a Diogenidion, much less a Diogenes.
I thought I had a pretty tough hide, but “Amos and Andy” made my blood run cold. It’s not only hateful, but the writer clearly enjoys the lasciviousness of the scene even as he’s trying to denounce it.
It’s about the saddest thing I’ve ever seen.
If James Martin is correct in assuming Diogenes works for the church in some capacity, I can only pray his superiors will ferret him out and get him some help.
You liberals kill me. Why do you care who Diogenes is? You spend all your time focusing on unimportant issues on this blog, although after lifetimes spent trying to disassemble society and the Roman Catholic Church, I guess you’re all too tired to do something intelligent.
Dear Betterthanthou
Do not imagine that you have aroused anyone’s curiosity. The status you assume makes it unlikely you exist anyway.
I had never read Diogenes before today, but his gleeful malice, eloquence, and passionate intensity , coupled with that commitment to a strangely perverse agenda seemed awfully familiar . Unfortunately, the voice I heard in my inner ear was that of another literary persona, so it won’t help to uncover Diogenes’ true identity. Ever read the letters of His Abysmal Sublimity Undersecretary Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood?
Now Diogenes, as can be seen in his comments on the Jesuit Urban Center Ash Wednesday Homily, himself cites the Screwtape Letters, and is capable of consciously playing Lewis’s game of turning vice and virtue around. Consider the game plan he assigns to the Jesuit preachers in Boston. He is a clever rhetorician, but I wonder if he realizes how many of his own most fervent postings read to those who don’t share his world view.
The Amos-’n-Andy dialogue is a doubly offensive text, being both racist and anti-homosexual.
I have no sense of what it tells us about the sanity, such as it is, of the author. We should start with the author’s readership, about which I know nothing: Are they likely to receive this sort of horrendous nonsense as somehow representing something true? Do they know already that many observers think that the Church’s prohibition of condom use to prevent HIV is not at all a good thing? Do they think that AIDS is a uniquely gay disease? Do they think that condoms are only for gays? Do they think that gay people deserve whatever ills they get? Do they think that the lives of gay people have not as great a value as the lives of straight people?
It would do us a great good if the author of such evil could be dragged into the light.
But my greater fear is, not only should that stop him (or whatever) from writing, but his audience, of a certain persuasion, may actually delight in his being “persecuted” by us “godless” progressives.
Read the “Sound Off” comments on his posts, Marcus. His readers eat it up.