Well, I guess he disagrees with me.
Actually, he disagrees with M. Cathleen Kaveny, professor of theology and law at the University of Notre Dame, who wrote on Dotcommonweal here, about the excommunication of Sister Margaret Mary McBride. He also disagrees with Kevin O'Rourke, professor of bioethics at the Neiswanger Institute of Bioethics and Public Policy at Loyola Chicago's Stritch School of Medicine, who wrote about the case in America. And he disagrees with Ladislas Orsy, S.J., professor of canon law at Georgetown University, who has also taught at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Fordham University, the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and is the author of numerous books on canon law. Fr. Orsy wrote about the case in a Letter to The (London) Tablet.
All the above scholars discuss this somewhat provocative case in some detail, but without engaging in ad hominem attacks. That is, none of them attack Bishop Olmsted personally. So why is it that so many on the far-right seem so quick to do so? On top of demolishing the arguments, many feel obliged to demolish the person, too. (Check out the blogosphere if you need any proof.) Anyone who disagrees with anything is a "dissident" or "heretic." Why do so many on the far-right, at least on the blogosphere, move to ad hominem attacks? As far as I can see Professor Kaveny, O'Rourke or Orsy did not feel the need to do so. Why did this commentator? Why do so many in the blogosphere?
James Martin, SJ