“The Wile E. Coyote of contemporary liberal Catholicism”

You all must go to First Things and read Robbie George’s response to the loony tunes attack made on him by Fishwrap’s (aka National Schismatic Reporter) Michael Sean Winters (hereafter aka the Wile E. Coyote of contemporary liberal Catholicism).

The piece is replete with descriptions of how MSW’s mental hand grenades go off, inevitably, at the wrong time.

When you stop to think about it, the invocation of such a beloved cartoon character by George is pretty tame… at least compared to the way MSW often describes people.

My question is: Will MSW-WEC respond with his usual venom?

Meanwhile…

Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Lighter fare and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to “The Wile E. Coyote of contemporary liberal Catholicism”

  1. Deacon Jay says:

    I love that cartoon – thank you Father Z!

  2. Jackie L says:

    I think it’s sad the attention given the Fishwrap, years ago they published a finding that their average reader was 67, I’d rather see the biological solution solve this. Engaging a fool like Winters who is not interested in Catholicism, with arguments that only make sense from a Catholic viewpoint, is a waste of time.

    Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. —Mark Twain

  3. crickally says:

    Michael Sean Winters is our present day living proof of the veracity of what St Paul wrote in Romans I:18-32.

  4. excalibur says:

    OT…….. I wonder what they will do (if anything) to this priest who came ‘out’, and endorsed homosexual marriage at the same time. And his parishioners?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11337423/Irish-priest-receives-standing-ovation-after-revealing-he-is-gay.html

    Fatima.

  5. ray from mn says:

    I could watch Roadrunner ‘toons all day long. And I almost never read anything by the Fishwrap!

  6. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    Unchastity corrupts any intellect. When unchastity has become a “cause,” and is coupled with a determination to be known as a “Catholic,” the corruption is total. The intellect does not merely turn away from the truth; it turns to mush. Such a person loses the ability even to pretend to be reasoning.

  7. John Grammaticus says:

    To be fair I think that Wile E Coyote is much more virtuous than Winters; he displays fortitude to a heroic degree, he is innovative and logical in his thinking; its just that he posseses an extraordinary amount of bad luck. On the other hand Winters just throws out meaningless drivel (unless of course it turns out that I lack the intelligence to translate his words into coherent sentences) . I must therefore accuse Professor George of being a xenophobic, speciesist who publishes screeds offensive to coyotes :)

  8. Johannes Quinque says:

    The Wile E. Coyote cartoon is a good analogy! It reminds me of our Lord’s warning in Scripture: “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.” One cannot measure the spiritual realm with scientific instruments, but can certainly be perceived through the eyes of faith!

  9. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Robbie’s reply was terrific.

  10. Gerard Plourde says:

    Fr. Fitzpatrick,

    I agree about the danger unchastity poses to the intellect. At the same time, it must be remembered that Satan fell through the far more serious sin of Pride. As a pure spirit, he was immune to the temptations of the flesh, yet his fall was complete and led to the corruption of the world, putting all of us at peril.

  11. daveams says:

    I’m not sure Prof George is exactly correct when he says:

    “And the question of when a new human being comes into existence is in the first instance a biological question, though it has moral, metaphysical, and religious implications. To resolve it, the proper methods of inquiry are scientific, not philosophical or theological.”

    It is primarily a task of philosophy to determine such things as what constitutes a substantial versus accidental change. Science gives us the ability to gather new and better evidence, but isn’t it ultimately philosophy which takes the empirical evidence and draws the proper conclusions from it?