dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors

.

Robert P. George responds to my critique of his critique of 'On All of Our Shoulders.'

In its entirety [links added by me]:

Oh my. I'm in big trouble. My friend George Weigel tells me that Michael Winters at the National Catholic Reporter has declared (ex cathedra, I assume) that Grant Gallicho at Commonweal has "exposed" me for . . . sanctimony! (It was in my post criticizing the statement by Catholic liberals branding Paul Ryan as a Randian enemy of Catholic social thought.) Well, there it is. I have been exposed. The magisterium of liberal Catholicism has spoken. I am condemned. Woe is me. How does one stand up under an assault by such formidable personages? I mean, Michael Winters. And Grant Gallicho. Perhaps I should recant and throw myself on the mercy of the tribunal: Paul Ryan is a Randian enemy of Catholic social thought! Paul Ryan is a Randian enemy of Catholic social thought! Paul Ryan is a Randian enemy of Catholic social thought!

He really does want to dump old ladies in wheelchairs off cliffs. He really does want to dump old ladies in wheel chairs off cliffs! He really, really, really, really, does.As the Cowardly Lion said: "I do believe in spooks. I do believe in spooks. I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks."

Res ipsa loquitur.

Topics: 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

I am appalled at Prof. George's sarcastic response to some serious critique. When one has no rebuttal, sarcasm is appropriate. Whatever credibility he had with me has now evaporated.

Ouch!

I generally read Robert George's posts on both Mirror of Justice and First Things, and of all the people that I usually disagree with (that I bother to read at all), I am most likely to disagree with him. So I don't pretend to be an objective observer. But there has been something about his last several posts that I don't remember seeing before. They have been too manic or hysterical in tone to be the kind of thing one expects of a law professor from Princeton University and a conservative Catholic public intellectual.

Terry: re: "I am appalled at Prof. Georges sarcastic response to some serious critique. When one has no rebuttal, sarcasm is appropriate. Whatever credibility he had with me has now evaporated." Do you realize you are responding to a post by Grant Gallicho?

Michael Kelly:You wrote,

Terry: re: I am appalled at Prof. Georges sarcastic response to some serious critique. When one has no rebuttal, sarcasm is appropriate. Whatever credibility he had with me has now evaporated.Do you realize you are responding to a post by Grant Gallicho?

Take another look. He was responding to Robert George, not Grant Gallicho.

Thanks. I am responding to the entire post of George put up by GG. Prof. George is smarter than that and should not stoop to such awful replies. Of course, one cannot respond to the mirrorofjustice blog.

Grant --Sounds like you REALLY struck a nerve :-)

gene palumbo and Terry: Wow! Do I really have to explain my comment? How long have you been reading dotCommonweal?

How does one put a positive spin on a Catholic's advocacy of the philosophy of Ayn Rand?

Actually, I think it's Gallicho responding to George responding Gallicho responding to George responding to Camosy, et al.It certainly does seem that it takes a different set of skills to thrive both in the classroom and in the more rough and tumble world of political, or semi-political, blogdom (sort of like the difference between socialism and capitalism). Some professors are naturals at it (think, Garnett and Imbelli). For others, it's a learning process, but they are learning. And then there are those for whom it's a learning process, except that there's no apparent learning going on.

Newly posted at Mirror of Justice by Robert George:Some of our friends at Commonweal seem to have figured out that I mean to express contempt for the claim made by signers of "On All of Our Shoulders" (some of whom themselves reject central moral teachings of the Catholic Church) that "we do not write to oppose [Paul] Ryan's candidacy" but are concerned only "for the integrity of the teachings of the Catholic Church." Good for them. Contempt is warranted by the statement's tendentiousness; its stunning one-sidedness; its lack of interpretative charity (and, for that matter, justice); its laying aside foundational principles of Catholic social teaching, such as the sanctity of human life and the importance to society of marriage as a conjugal union; and the timing and other circumstances of its release. If those responsible for the statement want serious intellectual engagement from those of us who do not share their views, they can put out a serious statement, free of tendentious claims and characterizations and laughable pretensions to non-partisanship. There are people among the signers of "On All of Our Shoulders" who are capable of writing such a statement. Let them do it. Then we'll have a serious discussion, if they like.http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/10/were-only-conce...