|Hey, we may share the same last name, but|
I don't get what's going on either.
It reminds me of a movie I made once.
Ferrara responded to one of Hitchock's previous attacks back in 2007 when Hitchcock's spleen apparently hit maximum inflammation. His recent book - Abortion, Religious Freedom, and Catholic Politics is filled with errors, misquotes, and general sloppy scholarship. How sad.
In the past I have read Hitchcock's articles with interest and respect for his insight and scholarship. I read his analysis of Vatican II and found it enlightening. Even since he initiated the war against fellow Catholics, he wrote a brilliant piece in 2014 about the "religion of liberalism" a bit of which reads:
...in reality there are now two fiercely contending religions in America, which are—trite though the phrase may be—engaged in a fundamental battle for the American soul....
One of the two competing contemporary religion...acknowledges divine authority in the affairs of men, the need to conform the human will to the divine law.
On the other side, liberalism is now not merely a political philosophy compatible with many kinds of religion but has itself become a religion....[I]t is expedient for liberals that their movement not be seen as a religion, since it thereby escapes the accusations of dogmatism and intolerance that are routinely made against conventional religions. Liberalism is a religion because, for liberals, ultimate meaning lies in a commitment both to the ever-expanding welfare state, which is the fulfillment of the ideal of justice, and to the continuing liberation of individuals from all binding authority, which is the key to personal happiness. Liberal ideology ultimately rests on an act of faith.
It can never be discredited by historical events, because the believer simply knows it to be right. Liberal ideas are considered self-evidently true, and, in their present ascendancy, liberals prefer merely to assert those ideas rather than discuss them. The religion of liberalism makes demands on the individual that traditional religion is no longer allowed to make.How totally on target!
So how can one explain Hitchcock's behavior toward other members of his Catholic family who should be welcomed as allies in the real war -- against liberalism? I admit, I don't understand it. Chris Manion tried to dialogue with Hitchcock in 2007 when The Wanderer gave Hitchcock space on the front page (to the tune of 3,000 words) to air his beefs. He apparently ignored that bit of information in his recent book that continues his hit on The Wanderer and its reporters.
It's an unfortunate situation and I really call him out on it. Dexter Duggan's and Chris Marion's articles are the first "go-to" pieces I read when the newspaper arrives in my mailbox. I know them both personally. They are scholars and gentlemen with a love for the truth. They report with integrity and I've never read an ad hominem attack under their by-lines. Now what could possibly be the justification for Hitchcock's fomenting what I can only call a family feud?
I invite readers to check out Chris Manion's new blog outlining the Jim Hitchcock And Chris Manion Conversations. It's time to stop the "friendly fire" against allies. We have enough enemies out there without attacking those holding ground for the faith.