It seems that it is not safe to turn one’s back on this website even for an instant. I wandered away for awhile in pursuit of more pressing concerns and when I return I discover that a veritable hurricane has hit the site in my absence. I refer to the furore that followed in the wake of my last post “Defending EWTN”. A perusal of the string of comments reacting to the post will enlighten those who have missed the controversy. For the most part, and with a few exceptions, the exchange was entirely constructive and civilized. In those instances where I have been personally criticized unjustly, I shall turn the other cheek; in the cases where I have been criticized justly, I am very happy to apologize. With regard to the latter, the criticism that was most valid was the one relating to the fact that I unequivocally distanced myself from a book that I hadn’t read. For this, I apologise as unequivocally as I had previously distanced myself. I shall, however, beg the indulgence of an explanation.

The controversy began with my apparently unequivocal endorsement of a book that I also hadn’t read. I refer to Christopher Ferrara’s book on “The Church and the Libertarian”. I did so on the strength of the short video in which Mr. Ferrara very eloquently and cogently declared his central thesis, the crux of which seemed worthy of endorsement. See the post of July 22nd, “The Church and Libertarianism”. It was then brought to my attention that Mr. Ferrara had also written the book that was critical of EWTN. My follow-up post, which had the effect of disturbing the hornet’s nest, was intended to make it plain that my support of Mr. Ferrara’s stance on libertarianism did not entail or suggest my support of his stance vis à vis EWTN. If I have judged Mr. Ferrara harshly, without having read his book, I reiterate my apology. At the same time, I reiterate my support and admiration for EWTN and all the great work it’s doing – even if it isn’t perfect and even if it has made mistakes. In its imperfection and its tendency to err, it is very much like the rest of us. Perhaps we should spend more time looking for the planks in our own eyes …