The small number of dedicated Christian Order readers who manage to wade through through the first 26 pages of the latest edition will find a few paragraphs attacking me by name, on page 27 and the top of 28, for my blog post about the fiasco of the cancelled conference organised by Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice. I hesitate to give this any publicity but I think it is worth making a few remarks about it.
As Editor of Christian Order Rod Pead has long treated it as a personal mouthpiece, but recent issues have taken this principle to new extremes. The current issue comprises entirely, with the exception of a letter to the editor printed on the inside covers, the Editorial. Christian Order has a small format, but that is 79 pages of text (there are no pictures), not counting the contents page. This is not an unprecedented situation, and this is in fact just Part III of an apparently endless rant about the Jews.
I doubt any sane person will have the time or inclination to sit down and untangle the various theological and political claims being made by Rod Pead in these articles, to establish whether he can fairly be accused of anti-semitism. What a glance at the contents page tells us, however, without further ado, is that he is in the grip of an obsession. The style is prolix and undisciplined; he's just rabbitting on like a pub bore on speed. If there were a serious point at the bottom of all this verbiage, a serious person would realise that these CO articles are counter-productive in getting it across.
Rod Pead's attack on me is entirely about a single sentence in my blog post about the 'PEEP fiasco'. The point of the post was to say, against Dr William Oddie, that the successive errors of judgement which led to the cancellation of the PEEP conference cannot be attributable to a traditonalist element in Pro Ecclesia which Daphne MacLeod ought to purge. On the contrary, Mrs MacLeod was taking full responsibility for the decisions, and the conspiracy-theory element of the story is neither typical of or nor restricted to those associated with the Traditonal Mass. I added, towards the end:
"I don't know much about Kramer and Sungenis, but I know they are widely regarded as dangerous lunatics, and with justification."
I'd be happy to withdraw the 'with justification', on the basis that it is for their accusers to make the case, which of course they are happy to do. My point is simply that there is a perception of them being extremists, and that this perception is based on enough evidence (justification) that it is not going to be undone in a trice by a couple of adverts in the Catholic Herald. Given what had just happened - the withdrawal of Cardinal Burke as a speaker on the grounds that PEEP was a cause for concern to faithful Catholics (ie, a bit extreme), inviting two alternative speakers who are regarded as more than a bit extreme was not a very clever idea.
Rod Pead's accusation against me is that this remark of mine is an unjustified slur on the good names of Kramer and Sungenis: no, it's not, it is merely a comment about public perceptions of them; my lack of knowledge about them in themselves is made explicit.
He also says that this remark indicates that I am a 'useful idiot' in going along with the great conspiracy of Jews, Communists, Freemasons, and promoters of theological innovation, yawn yawn. Well, I have news for Rod Pead: insofar as there are problems in the Church, insofar as error needs to be opposed, and our great liturgical traditions made available once more to all Catholics, as our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI now gloriously reigning wills, the Latin Mass Society is doing a great deal more about it than Christian Order.