Dear Mr. Fickett,
I disagree a bit.  Yes, we may be being asked to move toward that authenticity of being hated and if so we will be blessed.  But since we live in a society that still pretends, at least, to be based on dialogue we are not asking that Faith be given a privileged position but that the persons who have offended be given a chance to tone it down and reenter dialogue.  When they have not fine shake the dust from our feet.

Of course if you are suggesting that we grow up and that satire is is a correct Christian response, I have been waiting  for someone (perhaps Catholic Exchange ) to employ a cartoonist or essayist for a daily or weekly entry totally skewering the secularist Know-Nothings (19th Century reference ironically appropriate).  Perhaps one lampooning Doyle and Huffington would be a good start.  Their worship of the Pill and dead babies as the key to happiness under their high priest Obama should provide someone with the right kind of artistic talent ample material with which to work. 

As for Mr. Doyle’s response:  Perhaps you know him personally and feel confident about his quaifications as a satirist.  He asks to be given every benefit of the doubt, while taking Santorum to task giving him none.  We are to trust that he is not a bigot while he assumes that Santorum’s statements are bigotry.  You ask me to trust that he is the gentleman satirist who merely
criticizes one Catholic whom he finds extreme but he did not lampoon
Santorum he lampooned the whole Faith!  When one ridicules the Eucharist I pause to wonder if he aims merely to light rhetorical fires in hearts or to actually burn the churches down.  The former does not always lead to the latter but the latter often begins as or masquerades as the former.

 Thank you for your comment Father Calabrese.  I take your point.  It would bear more weight, at least with me, if the conservative religious response weren’t so predictably censorious.  I think by presuming that folks would like to be civil–and understanding that satire as a form depends on posing as a neutral observer (even a fool) while attacking ferociously–we are more likely to draw them into a dialogue than by using pressure tactics to silence them.  That only increases our opponents’ outrage.

Specifically, Larry went on these pages to comment, running the risk of incurring further attacks, as a means of reaching out to the Catholic community.  That was pretty cool of him, don’t you think?  If he wanted just to trade insults he could have done that in a lot of other places–ones much more congenial to his point-of-view.  I’ve tried to honor his gesture in my responses, as have others.  You have, too, of course.  If we could JUST ask people to tone it down instead of rising up in righteous indignation and demanding apologies, I think we would be more effective.

I also think, as you suggest, that it would be TERRIFICALLY effective to employ a cartoonist at Catholic Exchange along the lines you mention.  I stand ready to accept any appropriately talented volunteer that comes along, and also officially stand here with my tin cup for alms toward that end.  Few things could delight me more.  God bless, Harold

Why should you put up with something written by a guy would not have the guts to say it out loud in a bar.  This having a conversation with Larry to see why he is so hateful, why we don’t understand  the brilliant satire of what he wrote, ad nauseum is like telling your kid to be reasonable and show kindness to a bully. Plus, this business of atheists and whoever else pointing out to you what your religion teaches so they can feel superior to you while they are insulting you is total bullshit. The person attacking you is going to tell you how much better they are than you because they are so fucking smart and dignified by comparison? I don’t think so. Even if you are some kind of renegade radical reformer revolutionary priest or nun and no one has recognized your cause, the early abolition of slavery for example,  it still does not work that way. That is not how it works even when you are Protestant at total war against the church. Like putting up with the tactics of a dirty fighter. 

I will concede that the satire (let’s not forget what it was) is
completely mean-spirited.  However, I must take issue with the blithe
quoting of one of the Beatitudes.  In order to qualify, the accusations
MUST be completely unjustified–they key word is “falsely.” 

Are there
not injustices and ambiguities within the Church’s history?  I have been
asking hard questions in order to search for the truth.  As a matter of
fact, I went to Confession yesterday to ask for renewed faith in
Christ’s presence in the Church.    I appreciate Blessed John Paul’s
mass of penance immensely, as it is a much-needed starting point for
renewal.  

Oh, an I do appreciate the serious attempts on this thread to dialogue with the author. 

Larry thinks he is a smart guy but he is in for some big surprises. Like from my relative Catholic moral theologian Jean-Pierre Gury who addressed this very topic about how to deal with guys like Larry: 
http://myweb.lmu.edu/ckaczor/DERhistory.pdf   

I think everyone would agree that in order for evil to gain any head-way, it has to make itself appear good; “Wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Hitler claimed to have good intentions. I don’t think Doyle can promote his cause without 1st proving his “Pedophile Protectors” label. The only statistics I’ve seen show a  low- single digit percentage of credible cases against Catholic clergy. This compared to a much higher percentage among secular authority figures.  I agree that if someone can’t back up their claim, you should limit discussion to the weather or more trivial subjects.   We are not called as much to doing great things. Rather, we are called to do things with great love.  Until I can sense the love/concern in Doyle’s argument, I’m just going to comment on the weather. Such lack of credibility isn’t worth getting upset over.