An (ironic) defense against unjust accusations

An (ironic) defense against unjust accusations

Carol McKinley doesn’t like me. She has stooped to distortions of what I said, mind-reading, and other personal attacks over two posts, one of which I have removed. You can read what she says on her site. Normally I wouldn’t respond to such blatant attacks, but in case she decides to delete my response in her comments, I want my response to be heard. By the way, she posted this screed against me two days after I had already removed the original post.

  • Dom, don’t worry about it.  I’ve been slimed by her also.  She is, to say it charitably, a bit erratic.  I have had dealings with her in the past and been nonplussed by some of her mischaracterizations of me, my work, Canon Law, the GIRM and, sadly, reality.

    She’s got exactly what she wants now—a self-created ‘position’ that allows her to inveigh against every bogeyman, real or imagined, within or without the Church.  She’s being photographed and counted upon for comment by the selfsame news outlets she criticizes you for using as source material. 

    I finally found that the best way to make her go away was to ignore her.  That infuriates her, but eventually even she gets the message.  I’ll be praying for her, and for you—that you don’t stoop to her level.

    PS:  to both of you, a grammarian’s point:  the word “infer” is something done by a listener; the word “imply” is an action done by a speaker.

  • Thank you, Father, for both the words of advice and the grammar lesson. smile  (I should know better about “infer/imply,” but it’s easy to fall into bad habits.)

    I usually do ignore criticisms by other on their blogs, but I thought I had to respond in my defense here so that others don’t take her at face value. Absent further accusations, this is the last I’ll say about it.

    Oh, and I especially thank you for the prayers. I need those the most.

  • This guys information is patently false. He writes without having any knowledge of the facts whatsoever

    Father, Dom, how could you miss the obvious? This guy’s……whatsoever:
    The apostrophe in “guy’s” is mandatory! The colon following “whatsoever” is likewise. may I recommend “Eat’s, Shoots and Leaves”? Biting wit and great refresher on style.

  • Join the club, Dom. As for you, Carol, I recommend that in the future, you read things carefully before you post them. You have a tendency to insult people, then insist it’s nothing personal. You also resort to name-calling and other ad hominem attacks with people who simply disagree with you. Take whatever credit you want for exposing the situation in Boston. But Father Elijah is right.

  • I gotta jump in and offer my two cents.  There have been many things that Mr. Bettinelli and I have disagreed on.  We both have stated them publicly.  I have been respectful in my rebuttals and have received the same in kind. 

    Some of us (myself included) will respond with insults if insulted.  But I have been a witness to the fact that Mr. Bettinelli will treat you with same amount of respect he’s received. 

    Honestly I found it a pleasant surprise.  I thought I might get the boot after a week.  After all, its his site.  He can, if he chooses, to insult, delete or mock anyone he wants.  Its his house and his rules.  But he has yet to resort to name calling attacks with me and I have disagreed with him plenty!!

    As for me,  I have absolutely no problem with how he runs his site. 

  • Whoops sorry, I read an “and” in after Carol in the first sentence of David’s comment.  Thus changing the meaning entirely.  (Carol and I recommend) v (Carol, I recommend) 

    My last post was in error.  I will find some more coffee before I read any more posts!

  • Yep, Dom.  I found that in disputed questions what Carol considers evidence and what you and I would consider evidence are not the same thing.  However, she has done some good by her research into abuses.

    I’m glad to hear you’ve dropped the post, and set things right with Fr. Carr.  I thought the characterization of him was somewhat misleading, due to an ambiguity about the term “the case”.  It can refer to the legal proceeding, where Fr. Carr was present. or to the original events under invetigation, where he was not present.