Give judgment for me, O God

16 July 2008

I am attacked on an internet Catholic Chat forum! Neil Mitchell would be amused

Those who come to my website should know by now that I am not afraid to say what I think - and put my name to it. I have even dared to confront and attack the homo-fascist brigades that have captured or have under siege all the major institutions in a our fading liberal democratic society. Mad social and political suicide, that is.

I expect to receive criticism. Indeed, I try to goad some of the people into a response. Until now nobody has mounted a sustained attack on my comments or my views directly on my website, despite the growing number of visitors. I receive brief comments which are mostly supportive. So it was to my great surprise that I discovered someone, under a pseudonym and without copying me in, undertook a 'systematic' criticism of one of my comments on an internet Catholic Chat forum called "Cath Pews", 10 July 2008: http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/index-1.html

I am not a chat forum person for a couple of reasons. The chat forums I have visited are mostly not very edifying. It seems that once someone is hidden by a pseudonym manners often go out the door. Vigorous sustained argument is one thing; vitriol, gratuitous sneering and abuse devoid of argument are another. Second, the argument if it is present is often low level. I think this is because it is mostly off-the-cuff. Many issues chat forums deal with are complex and need reflection. Ignorance, not understanding the arguments and a failure in logic are often displayed because of this lack of reflection.

Normally I would not bother to reply to the critical chatter on a chat forum, but in this case the misapprehension is such, and it comes from a Catholic (I assume), that I feel it necessary. The critic goes under the pseudonym "Faz." He (I assume it's a "he") undertakes a paragraph-by-paragraph critical comment. I have copied the format from the Cath Pews website and address my responses directly to Faz (in blue ). Faz's parsing is in red and the text of my original comment in black:
 

Well, Faz, whoever you are, I have just been alerted to your paragraph-by-paragraph “analysis” of my “analysis”. You might have done the fair and gentlemanly thing and copied me in so I could exercise my right of reply. When I have a go at someone, I give my name and email address. I expect criticism and am ready to respond without hiding behind a pseudonym.

Your charge is basically that what you call my analysis is sensationalist, without the compelling content a genuine “sober and critical analysis” would give. You obviously think you have made the case. I don’t think you have.

My counter charge is that your “close reading” is slapdash and juvenile, full of meaningless mocking comment, mostly empty of any sort of argument, and where a trace of an argument is to be found it’s as watertight as a kitchen colander. Now let me justify that charge by responding to your paragraph-by-paragraph comments.

FAZ: My general impression is that this 'analysis' is a form of sensational journalistic rhetoric every bit as bad as anything Lateline produced. I think Lateline and the 7.30 Report provide plenty of opportunity for sober and critical analysis, but it hasn't come from Gerard Wilson!

GW: ABC's Lateline supports the expected revved-up political campaign of anti-Catholic bigots. Nothing was more predictable on the eve of Pope Benedict's visit to Australia for World Youth Day than a well-aimed attack on Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church by the likes of the Broken Rites group - through the agency of a supportive or compliant media, naturally.

FAZ: So, all the positive publicity I've read about WYD is now devalued because it comes from a 'compliant media'. Or are such descriptions only reserved for the media when it is critical of the church?

You ignore the main point of this paragraph, which starts the line of argument (the revved up political campaign of anti-Catholic groups on the eve of WYD) for the lesser point which you don’t state in full, that is, that some media are supportive because of their political motivations, others compliant because they haven’t the fortitude to depart from the mob. But the main point I would make against you is your wonky logic which signals what’s to follow throughout.

The explicit claim is that the media is supportive and compliant on the question of an attack on Cardinal Pell, implicitly supportive on all like matters, that is, when the Church is being attacked. A conclusion that publicity about WYD is devalued does not follow. To claim that the media is compliant on one matter does not infer that it is compliant on all matters. Second, my claim about compliance does not entail that the media never does its job (reports facts impartially) or is rightly sympathetic on occasions. Your question brings you unwittingly close to an entirely valid point: the media is generally biased against the Church. This in a non-controversial claim.

GW: I have, incidentally, no hesitation in providing the link to the Broken Rites website. This website does not bear scrutiny: it's a turgid flow of misrepresentation, wild unsupported allegation, statistics twisted to meet particular ends - a travesty of basic justice.

FAZ: Talk about hyperbole!

The first of your meaningless comments. If you think I’m engaging in hyperbole, you should say what I am hyperbolizing about – where I have got it wrong. You don’t. Just a few paragraphs further on (which you reproduce) I say that I will justify this charge in a later comment. Incidentally, it is going too far to call my comment an "analysis", which I think implies a self-contained piece. My comments are linked and ongoing, and if you bothered to navigate around my website you would find they are consistently placed in an unambiguous philosophical framework. Have a look and inform yourself.

GW: Broken Rites is essentially a political organization devoted to the destruction of a body that is ideologically unacceptable. As much as they try to hide their political purpose behind the misery and sordidness of clerical sexual abuse the message inevitably seeps through.

FAZ: Presumably he's getting on to the topic soon ...

A meaningless sneer. No attempt to examine an important claim about Broken Rites: that it’s primarily politically motivated. You show you haven’t taken up and followed an unbroken line of argument. It’s you that’s not on the topic. I purposely gave the link to the Broken Rites website so those who can read can find what I have found and comment if they want.

GW: Anti-Catholic groups who hide their purpose behind some front or another know that among the most easily manipulated media instruments for advancing their political campaign is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

FAZ: No, need to soften up the ABC first.

We pass here from meaningless to unintelligible. You evidently can’t follow the line of argument. I make a claim about the ABC which is true or false. The claim is clearly part of the argument I am pursuing about political motivation. Each of your responses so far is a cop-out.  

GW: Indeed, it's likely there is a hushed collusion between some ABC people and a group like Broken Rites.

FAZ: 'It's likely'??!! 'Hushed collusion'??!!

I hardly need point out to the person of average reading ability that this sort of response with a combination of punctuation marks is not only unintelligible but childish. Again, I make an assertion which is either true or false, an assertion fitting neatly into the line of argument. It is also with reference to the people who appeared on the Lateline program as expert witness. These people appeared as hostile witnesses in terms of the campaign against Cardinal Pell.   

GW: Talking about hushed and dissembling people, the individuals behind Broken Rites are hardly eager to show a public face.

FAZ: In the coverage I've seen, there's been people who've spoken for BR. But it does add to the sense of secretiveness to say they're 'hardly eager to show a public face'.

Well, who were they? Or are you talking about someone who spoke anonymously in a line of demonstrators? You’re tragically missing the point which is about political motivation under the pretext of the clerical sexual abuse. You are maintaining a high level of silliness.

GW: This is all they say on their website about who is behind their activity:

Broken Rites is staffed by volunteers who are themselves survivors of church-related sexual abuse. We are therefore motivated to help other people – free of charge. Our executive committee includes professional practitioners with expertise in investigation and advocacy.

Who are these survivors and what were the circumstances? And who are the professionals? Why don't they put their names to their political activity?

FAZ: Just guessing here: maybe it's because they're not terribly confident outgoing types?

Don’t make me laugh. I would be embarrassed to write such nonsense. “Professional practitioners with expertise in investigation and advocacy”, shy retiring types. Give me a break. The line of my argument remains unbroken.

GW: People who come to my website know who I am and what I stand for. In a following comment I will look more closely at the Broken Rites website and raise the question of why the media in general and the ABC in particular have not subjected these people to their penetrating investigative skills.

FAZ: Is the analysis about the actual issue coming anytime soon? ...

It’s there, and been since the start in clear English, but you appear unable to understand. I raise a valid point, which others would see, even if you cannot. It’s all about the partiality of the reporting. Why do the boys of Lateline accept Broken Rites on face value? Really, I shouldn’t have to explain this sort straightforward point.

The boys of ABC's Lateline obviously thought they were on to something they could exploit when Anthony Jones approached them with his carefully rehearsed story of woe.

FAZ: 'Carefully rehersed' [sic]?

Yes, very carefully rehearsed. Anybody who saw the program, apart from you, perhaps, would know what I mean. This is consciously a leading assertion which I intend to pursue in following comments. You see, Faz, whoever you are, my website is largely a series of connected comments, with allusion and cross-referencing. This is the first time in following your responses that I have found a point worth making against me. As I say, I deliberately left the idea hanging so I could take it up again later – not here. Here I have the tedious task of wading through your nonsense.

GW: The tendentious headline on the online report signals immediately where they were going:

Exclusive documents reveal church ignored abuse allegations
Church ignored abuse allegations? How does that stand up to the information they provided in their unashamedly partial report? We will see. Presenter Tony Jones opens with this:

As the Australian Catholic Church prepares to host the Pope for World Youth Day, Lateline can tonight reveal new evidence showing how its most senior figure, Cardinal George Pell, misled a man who complained of being abused by a Sydney priest.

One would have thought that clever Tony Jones, a responsible journalist, may have ventured to question the timing and significance of Anthony Jones's shocking revelations. But, no, that would detract from the terrific scoop, wouldn't it?

FAZ: Yep, he's a journalist. The WYD and it's most senior promoter are in the news. It's a very cynical game, but it should come as no surprise.

Can any of your friends tell me how this confused comment is an answer to the point I continue to make about political motivation? Can’t you understand the simple question about timing and its implication?

The slavering crew at Lateline would also have taken a dim view if such a pertinent point were brought up. Most likely it didn't matter. The ABC's agenda is independent of their stories and those that bring them.

FAZ: Quite possibly, but, again, no surprises there.

Yet another meaningless comment that misses the point about ABC bias.

GW: Now what about that word "misled". How does that go with the accusation that the Church "ignored abuse allegations"? How would you mislead someone about an allegation that was ignored? Not very careful, is it?

FAZ: Quite clearly the misleading is in regards to other offences of the perpetrator. Did this guy read the allegations?

By this time we know which “guy” can’t read simple English. What offences? Read what you have just glossed over. You cannot claim that “x” ignored statement “a” and at the same time claim that “x” made misleading statements about statement “a”. This is basic stuff. It’s about the basic “principle of contradiction”. Go to Wikipedia, it probably has something on it.

GW: Tony risks stumbling over his sword in the rush to the block. With this ominous build-up of the explosive "new evidence", Tony reveals what it is. The reader must brace himself for shock:

Lateline has documents that show George Pell wrote to the man telling him his sex assault allegation wasn't being upheld because the church had received no other complaints of sexual assault by the priest.

But on the very same day, the Archbishop signed a letter to another man, upholding his claim that the same priest had sexually assaulted him when he was a young altar boy. The new documents also show that Cardinal Pell ignored the recommendations of the church's own investigation.
Shocking stuff, isn't it?

FAZ: Shocking enough to need an explanation. If it didn't our 'analyst' could stop right there, but he doesn't ...

Missed the point, missed the irony, missed the sarcasm…  I think I have done enough thus far in explaining the obvious.

GW: I ask the reader, after he has picked himself up from the ground, to reflect hard on what is actually being said here. Forget about Cardinal Pell's desk for the moment, and take any administrative desk "X". From administrative desk "X" two letters during a hectic day go out about the same subject. They go into the full glare of public scrutiny. The second letter contradicts vital information that is contained in the first letter. What is the most likely explanation for the contradiction?

FAZ: OK, he's made it clear that there is a contradiction. That's good. Contradictions need explanation. Right?

Oh, good, my critic is able to follow something. I must be prepared for what his lack of understanding is going to make of it.

If we act on the principle of Ockham's Razor and take the simple explanation without unnecessary assumptions rather than the more complicated explanation with gratuitous assumptions, we would think an administrative stuff-up was the culprit.

FAZ: Or, using the same principle, there was deception afoot. It's a very simple explanation. This is not just some random 'subject', it's about a topic that must surely be high on the church's 'be careful' list. +Pell takes responsibility for the tone and content himself and if he didn't know the consequences of what he'd written who would? He more than 'overstated' the findings of his own process of enquiry, he over rode that enquiry's recommendation. An experienced leader with an academic pedigree like +Pell has to come up with a better explanation than 'it was poorly worded'.

Congratulation, Faz. Contrary to my expectations, you’ve written a paragraph that’s actually coherent. But you’re wrong, on the facts. The explanation of deception is far more complex than the explanation of a mistake, or an administrative stuff-up, the loose term I use. Witness the efforts that Lateline is going to, to make a case of deception against Cardinal Pell. Witness the counter arguments on other websites. You either don’t know about or don’t understand the issues of legal terminology. This is a critical issue I deal with in following comments. You don’t address the straightforward three-fold argument for a human mistake.

Tony Jones, if he is honest with himself in his private unobserved moments, would have to admit that anyone, especially those whose job is mostly managerial, is regularly subjected to this sort of administrative cock-up.

FAZ: Really? I don't think so! Not on such a sensitive issue!

Here you show your lack of experience. I can assure you that the very brightest sometimes make stupid mistakes or suffer an extraordinary failure of judgment (which is not necessarily same thing, I hasten to point out). Who remembers brilliant Senator Gareth Evans sending an RAAF F111 down to Tasmania to spy on the Franklin Dam protesters? But I fear you won’t understand the analogy.

GW: Surely he would not be so rash as to assert that administrative cock-ups of this sort never came across or went from his ABC desk. No, such purity would be fantastic even for an ABC journalist.

FAZ: But he didn't make such an assertion.

I said, surely he would not…  Back to not understanding simple English.

GW: Apart from the principle Ockham's Razor to support the likelihood of an administrative stuff-up as an explanation,

FAZ: An administrative cockup is really not the simplist [sic] explanation though.

GW: I say it is. See above. I don’t need to labour the point.

GW: there is also the question of credible action for a normally intelligent person. Now we know how inclined the intellectuals at the ABC are to scoff as the intelligence levels of anyone who does not fall in with them ideologically.

FAZ: More softening up; no evidence required.

The argument from credibility is simply ignored. I use a little sarcasm to make a point about ideology that vast numbers would readily agree with. You only have to be abreast of the frequent criticism of the ABC. This was a big issue during the Howard years when there was a move by the more conservative liberals to moderate the leftist bias in the ABC. This is stuff that is continually churned over in the media. As my specialty in philosophy is conservative thought I think I can safely claim to understand the philosophical distinctions.

GW: They have a world-beater in this talent in the person of Philip Adams who has set worldwide benchmarks for hypocrisy and bigotry.

FAZ: What the ...? How did Adams come into this?

This question shows just how much you lack the necessary understanding to dialogue on such matters. Don’t you know who Philip Adams is? He is a perfect illustration of the point I make. Straightforward.

But in the cold light of day, outside the invigorating intellectual atmosphere of the ABC, one has to admit that Cardinal Pell is a person well above average intellect with a breadth of knowledge that is at least at the same level as that of Tony Jones.

FAZ: Which makes the 'admin cockup' theory so much less likely! (Not to mention +Pell doesn't use this as his excuse!)

Refer above. I did not say Cardinal Pell used this as an excuse.  

Many of us are deluded enough to think that His Eminence ranks well above the average ABC journalist here, but I will suffice with just at the same level as Tony.

FAZ: Oh the humanity!

Another meaningless evasive comment.

GW: Would Tony Jones contemplate, if he were in Cardinal Pell's position, sending out two letters that were contradictory in a matter that the vultures continually circling the Cardinal would swoop on in an instant? I don't think so. Why would anyone in their right mind in Cardinal Pell's position purposely provide such richly stinking carrion for these ideological vultures to swell their already bloated bellies?

FAZ: Because he wanted to protect the church from further litigation and bad press? Hey, it's happened before!

 
Again, you ignore or don’t understand the point. The stakes were far too high, which anyone of normally intelligence should appreciate.

GW: A third argument to support the administrative blunder thesis, is the character of the Cardinal.

FAZ: The Cardinal who doesn't claim that this was the result of an administrative blunder?? Why defend an explanation the Cardinal himself doesn't make?

That’s just what he did do. What he called “badly worded and a mistake” I called an administrative blunder. A point of logic: A compelling explanation/excuse of a person’s action does not have to agree with the person’s own explanation/excuse. They are two separate independent things.

GW: Of course, that's simply laughable to the anti-Catholic bigots in front of microphones and presiding over newspaper copy. Most fair minded people who know Cardinal Pell, both in Australia and overseas, know him to be person of outstanding character, a person who sticks to his undertakings. The Cardinal has established fixed protocols overseen by independent people to deal with allegations of sexual abuse against Catholic clergy. These protocols are open for review. His Eminence would be mad to deviate in any way from those protocols.

FAZ: But, by his own admission, that's exactly what he did! His letter, quite clearly, went against the recommendations of the process!

You’re wrong. Recommendations from various specialists are adjudicated. The adjudication can be reviewed. As I understand the process, there is the opportunity for a complainant to call for a review all along the way. Indeed, that seems to have happened in Anthony Jones’s case, which went through the civil and criminal courts to a resolution. I am happy to admit I am wrong if you can demonstrate your claim on the basis of the Toward Healing document.

GW: The principle of Ockham's Razor, stretching one's credulity or appealing to good character mean nothing to people who have a rigid agenda, whose purpose is to apply tactic regardless of the truth or standing of the person to achieve a political end.
 

FAZ: Somehow the principle of Ockham's Razor has to apply to the Cardinal, but it can't be applied to the ABC?

I neither said or implied any such thing. Juvenile question.

GW: Enter Anthony Jones into the hallowed halls of the ABC. This is the victim the high-minded people of Lateline are acting as an agent for. That is to say, the victim of Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church. Anthony Jones, reports Tony Jones, "says that George Pell destroyed his faith and damaged his life."

FAZ: A bit dramatic, but the notion of abuse destroying a victim's faith is not that outlandish. The notion of a system that fails effectively 're-abusing' a victim is not that outlandish either. These are sad realities.

You set up two abstract ideas, which I will for the sake of argument not challenge. Faith and the content of the faith are independent of what trials a person of faith goes through. The real point is how or to what extent they apply in the Jones case. Go to my next response.

GW: Once again let's get this straight. The allegation is that the one letter as outlined above by Tony Jones has destroyed Anthony Jones's faith, despite the eventual resolution of the issue both as regards the church and the processes of the law. My response is that only people without faith would be eager to swallow anything so ridiculous. Anthony Jones has little faith to be destroyed if can be destroyed so easily.

FAZ: Easily? Is this guy for real?

More meaningless comment. Yes, this “guy” is for real. I am wondering the same about you. You seem totally unable to understand the arguments. In this case my argument is clear. I’m not going to the trouble to explain it all over again.

GW: Any Catholic who sticks to the unadulterated teaching of the Catholic Church will be subjected to continual ridicule and often ostracised in his work environment.

FAZ: We're not talking about being ostracised here though, are we? We are talking about the sexual abuse -- confirmed by the church's own investigation -- by a priest.

We are talking about being put under trial. More importantly in this context we are talking about the reception of an erroneous letter that allegedly abused and destroyed a person’s faith. You also have a problem of concentration.

GW: Catholics have had forty years of unrelenting ridicule, nasty and misrepresentation of their beliefs from the ABC's Philip Adams, to name just one person who has earned his money building a legion of like-minded bigots.

FAZ: Philip Adams again? How does the 'Ockham's Razor' apply to bringing into a theory someone that had no involvment?

Again, Philip Adams is an illustration the point being made, which you are unable to grasp, and most people of average intelligence would understand. The question that follows is illustrative of your ignorance and inability to follow my arguments.

GW: Unlike my sixties generation contemporaries, I did not jettison my faith and, to make it doubly worse, I thought the radicals of the sixties were the biggest hypocrite-frauds I have ever come across.

FAZ: And?

The point is clear.

FAZ: Anthony Jones does not know what it is to be under pressure because of adherence to the Catholic faith.

FAZ: How does the author know this?

Obviously because he has caved in under such little stress with such little struggle. Look, let’s get to the main point here, which is more implied than stated and which I raise in following comments, and will devote a full comment to later. It’s about Jones’s motivations. I am certainly not the only to raise questions about the claims and behaviour that you seemed to have swallowed uncritically. Indeed, I doubt whether the extent of your understanding goes that far.

GW: But, really, the thing about being Catholic - living and thinking like a Catholic - is that you accept such trials as part of a spiritual proving. I doubt whether Anthony Jones knows what the inside of a Catholic church looks like, just like most ABC journalists.

FAZ: Anthony Jones was a heavily involved teacher in a Catholic School. Did Wilson actually read anything about his story?
 

I’m happy that at last I have been promoted from “guy” to my name.  Again, you miss the point made through a little exaggeration. Second, it’s clear to many of us that teaching in a Catholic school does not necessarily mean that you understand the faith or adhere to it.

GW: As for letting the event of receiving a disagreeable letter damage his life then I can only regard Anthony Jones as the biggest sook.

FAZ: Sook? This the level of this guy's awareness of abuse? Isn't he 'sooking' about +Pell then?

Oh, dear oh me!  I'm glad I’ve come to the end of responding to your silliness. Go back and read what you have just commented on. I am talking about the reception of a disagreeable letter. I note that I have been demoted to “guy” again.

FAZ (in conclusion): What a poor attempt at a hatchet job! He posits and defends an explanation, based on the 'Ockham's Razor' principle of simplicity that +Pell hasn't made, then throws poor Ockham out the window with all sorts of conspiracy theories about the ABC!

Nonsense. You’ve understood little of what you’ve read.

Peace to you

And peace (and understanding) to you, too, Faz.

Faz has ended his "analysis" well short of the end of my comment. He has in fact broken off halfway through a paragraph which begins a look at Anthony Jones's account of what happened between him and Fr Goodall.  This is a critical part of the comment on this date. This neglect simply underlines the incompetence of this "commentator" to do justice to what he is reading. It's a joke to call his effort an "analysis". To my surprise, Faz seems to enjoy some prestige in the Cath Pews chat forum. Totally unwarranted on the present performance.

More seriously, I find hard to understand how an alleged Catholic can display such a lack of understanding and sympathy for Cardinal Pell and the hate-filled campaign that has been running against him for years. The Catholic Church does not need enemies when Catholics do the job for them.

POSTSCRIPT: I should qualify my comments about chat forums. First, I include comment pages appearing on websites in this. They can be particularly vicious. Second, I was talking generally, not specifically about Cath Pews. I have read the Faz comment and a few surrounding comments on this forum. The Faz comment is not a good advertisement. The administrator for Cath News says this about the purpose of Cath Pews:

A Catholic orientated discussion board for the rank and file of the Catholic Church and indeed all those interested in discussing our Faith in God and the role of the Church in the world during these troubled times.

20 January 2011

To my surprise this comment has been visited a number of times recently. Coincidentally, someone told me (also recently) who Faz is and that he has a 'reputation'. I did not have enough interest to commit his real name to memory (it is a 'he'). So unfortunately I cannot reveal it here, which I would do had I remembered. I sincerely hope that Faz has in the meantime learned to understand what a writer is saying - and not what he imagines he is saying. Hardly anything appears sillier than a writer blissfully making facetious comments about what he clearly does not understand - either because of factual ignorance or because he does not understand simple English.

comments: gerardwilson01@optusnet.com.au