"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
-
Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
- Anonymous
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" -
HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
- Comment
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
- Comment
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on
Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-
Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at
1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in
comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."-
Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. -
- Mark Shea
Therefore…all socialists are immature. The notion that big government can solve all of our problems is at the root of the destruction of this country currently well in progress and is the root of our nation’s increasing rejection of the Almighty.
Don Colacho is great—and greatly undervalued, at least in the English-speaking world, as a defender of tradition and traditional values.
Since I have not learned to completely self-edit yet, I must ask the Don and the whole court of WDTPRS: what about the aspect of politics which removes the forces of death and darkness (“ahem”) from power, or at the very least, limits their power? Isn’t that a solution drawn from politics? [Not being able to self-edit is a “bad thing”. I hope your learning curve is good.]
UncleBlobb,
That’s not an unreasonable question, but you may have to read a little more of Nicolás Gómez Dávila to understand what he is talking about when he mentions “problems” and “solutions,” which he does often. “Problems” and “solutions” are really terms of art for him. (You can read collections of those aphorisms here and here.)
I can tell you right now, though, that when Gómez speaks of “solving a problem,” he does not mean simply coming to terms with a situation; he means figuring everything out by our own power so that we no longer have to deal with any problem. “Removing the forces of death and darkness” is not really solving a problem, as Gómez would see it, because the forces of death and darkness will not be completely eliminated so that evil is no longer a problem. It is quite possible, after all, given our fallen nature, for the forces of life and light to be transformed into forces of death and darkness. Gómez doesn’t mean to say that it’s not worthwhile to fight for the good; all he means is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that any victory we win here on earth will be permanent. His way of thinking bears some similarity to Tolkien’s, who viewed history as a “long, slow defeat.” (Incidentally, EXCHIEF is right, I think, to interpret this aphorism as a rejection of utopian thinking, which is certainly consistent with the rest of Gómez’s thought.)
Maturity for Gómez, then, is accepting that we don’t have permanent solutions. Hopefully, this aphorism will make a little clearer what I have tried to explain: “Christianity does not teach that the problem is solved, but that the prayer is answered.” If that doesn’t help, all I can tell you is to keep on reading…
UncleBlobb,
I think you miss the point we’re reaching for. Political efforts may indeed remove a “force of death” from power. At one time, I felt that we’d be OK if we voted a Republican government into office: They’d reduce the size, scope, and budget of government, eliminate or dramatically reduce abortion, better enable business to create jobs, and generally pull us from the deathtrap the Democrats had been creating.
Thus I voted for George Bush and Friends in 2000. We had, even if by a narrow margin, a Republican-run government for a few years.
They didn’t do much of what I thought they’d do.
I learned the dark side of your comment: The same populace may ALSO vote that same evil force INTO office! (From my (biased) point of view, that’s what we did in 2008…..)
Point is, I grew up in an era in which we had a strong, subtle hint that we could solve most of our problems politically. I’ve learned over the years that this only works IF the populace has decided to insist upon a morally virtuous group of leaders. AND has agreed upon what constitutes moral behavior.
We, the Catholic faithful in America, along with our brothers and sisters of various faiths, routinely get smacked by political efforts because we’ve come to too little consensus with regard to what moral values ARE. If we don’t agree on that, our legislation looks pretty jagged.
Thus, I suggest that rigorous prayer and rigorous catechesis between elections will provide most of the answers we need.