L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Could it be that " political correctness " is not necessarily the best approach?
If this response by St. John Henry Newman appeared on CAF he would probably be banned. And this is not the only example that could be given. The good Saint could give just as good as he got. And it is a shame that we have to stand around like punching bags.
You are here: Home » Entertainment » New Media » How Cardinal Newman Handled the Haters
How Cardinal Newman Handled the Haters
Brandon Vogt | November 26, 2012 AD | 7 Replies
In January 1864, the Protestant pastor and novelist Charles Kingsley reviewed an English history book for Macmillan’s Magazine. The review began innocently enough. Kingsley critiqued the author’s handling of English figures like Mary Tudor and Queen Elizabeth. However, it quickly devolved into potshots against Catholicism in general, and against one of its most ardent supporters, John Henry Newman, in particular. Newman was not yet Catholic, though he was on his way to converting in October 1845. But that didn’t stop him from being grossly offended by Kingsley’s remarks. This one hurt the most:
“Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not to be.”
To translate into modern parlance, Kingsley basically said: “All priests are liars and Newman is the worst.” Or into leetspeak: “Newman’s a n00b.”
So how did Newman respond? Well, the same way any of us would. The internet is flooded with slander and personal attacks—if you doubt that, go on Facebook and comment on any religious or political issue—and the typical response is to fight fire with more fire. If they dish it out, you serve it right on back. Newman was of the same mindset, so here’s how he responded:
Dear Mr. Kingsley,
Your amateur review, which contains unneeded and demonstrably fallacious accusations, hardly deserves a reply. The charges within are no mere error—they’re simply idiotic. They betray your lack of intellect more than my lack of virtue, as a simple reading of any of the Church’s most Holy Scriptures—you do read, don’t you?—would affirm the primacy of Truth. I can only assume your density precludes such understanding, or it may be your arrogance which renders comprehension impossible. Whatever the source, be assured that you have my deepest sympathies and prayers. I can only hope the smoke of Satan stops clouding your already pitiable intellect.
I am,
Your dear brother in Truth and charity,
John Henry Newman
Newman’s response would
If this response by St. John Henry Newman appeared on CAF he would probably be banned. And this is not the only example that could be given. The good Saint could give just as good as he got. And it is a shame that we have to stand around like punching bags.
You are here: Home » Entertainment » New Media » How Cardinal Newman Handled the Haters
How Cardinal Newman Handled the Haters
Brandon Vogt | November 26, 2012 AD | 7 Replies
In January 1864, the Protestant pastor and novelist Charles Kingsley reviewed an English history book for Macmillan’s Magazine. The review began innocently enough. Kingsley critiqued the author’s handling of English figures like Mary Tudor and Queen Elizabeth. However, it quickly devolved into potshots against Catholicism in general, and against one of its most ardent supporters, John Henry Newman, in particular. Newman was not yet Catholic, though he was on his way to converting in October 1845. But that didn’t stop him from being grossly offended by Kingsley’s remarks. This one hurt the most:
“Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not to be.”
To translate into modern parlance, Kingsley basically said: “All priests are liars and Newman is the worst.” Or into leetspeak: “Newman’s a n00b.”
So how did Newman respond? Well, the same way any of us would. The internet is flooded with slander and personal attacks—if you doubt that, go on Facebook and comment on any religious or political issue—and the typical response is to fight fire with more fire. If they dish it out, you serve it right on back. Newman was of the same mindset, so here’s how he responded:
Dear Mr. Kingsley,
Your amateur review, which contains unneeded and demonstrably fallacious accusations, hardly deserves a reply. The charges within are no mere error—they’re simply idiotic. They betray your lack of intellect more than my lack of virtue, as a simple reading of any of the Church’s most Holy Scriptures—you do read, don’t you?—would affirm the primacy of Truth. I can only assume your density precludes such understanding, or it may be your arrogance which renders comprehension impossible. Whatever the source, be assured that you have my deepest sympathies and prayers. I can only hope the smoke of Satan stops clouding your already pitiable intellect.
I am,
Your dear brother in Truth and charity,
John Henry Newman
Newman’s response would
