Catholic Culture to remove their website reviews this summer
I sent Mr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture an email recently in an attempt to get the 'danger!' rating to fidelity he gave to FishEaters changed to something better and more accurate.

Here is the email he sent me in reply, with my emphasis. I have his permission to relay this information to you.

"(My name here),

Thanks for your detailed message.

We have looked again at the Fisheaters website several times in response to repeated requests to give it a more favorable rating, but we have always reached the same general conclusions about Fisheaters’ tendency to make unnecessarily harsh judgments about perfectly legitimate developments over the past fifty years or so.

Part of this is a confusion over the difference between discipline and doctrine, as evidenced by the so-called condemnation of interfaith gatherings. This is not a matter of faith and morals but a discipline thought proper at the time to protect the faith of those who might be involved. Conditions have changed, and this is no longer regarded as a prudent disciplinary approach. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with such changes, as they are questions of prudence.

We do share your concern about problems in the Church, including the general direction of the current pontificate.

Having said all this, it is also true that we have not actively maintained our website review section for some years, and we believe it is far less important than it was ten to twenty years ago, since the overwhelming majority of Catholic websites are now faithful (the faithful are always more active on the web than dissenters). Moreover, we can see that it sometimes causes unnecessary divisions when people disagree about our conclusions.

Therefore we will be dropping the website review section entirely when we make changes to this Summer.

God bless you,

Jeff Mirus

Jeffrey A. Mirus, Ph.D.
Trinity Communications
At least he personally got back to you. That shows that Dr. Mirus is actually personally invested in his website. That being said his answer shows once again the abyss of difference between traditionalists and average mainstream conservative Catholics. The idea of big t traditions and small t traditions, or this radical disconnect between doctrine and discipline are what separate the two views from each other. Things like ecumenism or obliterating the externals of the Liturgy as only a matter of discipline are things I just can't wrap my head around. It does away with with "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" altogether.  I guess I will never see totally eye to eye with Dr. Mirus or his compatriots, but it is what it is. I'm glad they are taking down that ratings section though.

Both Fisheaters and Tradition in Action have gotten "negative" reviews from the Catholic Culture site.  Here is how TIA responded recently if anyone is interested:

Dear TIA,

Here is’s website review of Tradition in Action.

Do you care to defend TIA from any of these false statements?

And how would TIA generally review Catholic Culture’s website?

    Thank you, TIA.


TIA responds:

Dear G.A.,

Catholic Culture website is run by the same ones behind Catholic World News ( and has straight links with EWTN. They advertise Catholic Answers run by the followers of Karl Keating. These organizations represent the conservative middle-of-the-road Catholic, duly approved and supported by the Bishops.

In other words, they and those who work for them fully accept Vatican II and the New Mass. They care little about comparing the conciliar and post-conciliar doctrinal and liturgical innovations with the previous teachings and traditions of the Church. They fear to do this, because they sense they cannot explain the countless contradictions.

They understand fidelity to Peter as an almost blind obedience to the ruling Pontiff, be he John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis I. They have to abhor the position of resistance TIA takes regarding the conciliar Popes. When they are obliged to make some criticism of the present day Pope, they ask one or two of their writers to express a few prudent restrictions regarding the most scandalous excesses of Francis on marriage.

Like all middle-of-the-roaders, they condemn coherent positions, which draw the final consequences of the accepted principles. They are neither hot nor cold. It is a type of person who in History never takes the party of heroism, but rather that of "good sense" and "normality." They would have applauded the condemnation of Christ – that disruptive "extremist" – to please the High Priest and the Jewish religious establishment. Dante placed them outside of Hell, because they always refused to take a consistent position in the face of evil: "Non ragioniam di loro, ma guarda e passa" (Let us not talk of them, just look and pass).

They accuse TIA of being a danger to the faith because they detest our consistence. However, they disguise this opposition under the pretext that we ridicule the Popes in some comments of pictures. They fail, however, to face the basic problem: Are the Popes in those pictures not ridiculing themselves and degrading the sacred mission they received? If they are, why don't the writers for Catholic Culture have the courage and honesty to say so? When Francis is pictured with a red clown nose, who is wrong: the Pope or the Catholic who criticizes him as a buffoon? They don't answer this question because it would break the fragile equilibrium of their pretense fidelity.

They also blame TIA for lack of respect for calling the recent Popes: Pope Wojtyla, Pope Ratzinger and Pope Bergoglio. We had to smile when we read this "tragic" accusation. If they were able to read in Italian L'Osservatore Romano or other Vatican news sources, they would be surprised to see that these press organs – symbols of the ecclesiastical establishment – often use the same titles as we do. It is picturesque to find a touch of provincialism in a group that pretends to be very scholarly.

So, dear G.A., here you have the appraisal of Catholic Culture you requested.


    TIA correspondence desk
In His Love, as I've told you privately, I am so grateful to you for fighting Catholic Culture on this (and I'm just as grateful to the many others I know about who've also written to Mirus.)

He has hurt my work more than anyone on the internet, and that's saying a LOT. I, myself, have written to him numerous times. In my last letter to him, which I'll post here, I rebut each and every single point of that review, a review that assumes authority its writer doesn't have. Because of the emails I've sent, and because, after receiving them, Mirus KNOWS that that review is a lie, I consider his attack on my work malicious, an evil. He has very seriously affected the amount of traffic this site gets (when I first wrote to him, FishEaters was getting a LOT more traffic than Catholic Culture, BTW. A LOT more!). Go to CAF sometime and do a search for "FishEaters" and see what comes up. "Don't go to THAT site! Catholic Culture gives it a warning!!!!!" I've seen that and have been told about it over, and over, and over and over). Mirus's "Moses come down from the mountain" attitude as to his authority, and the willingness of people like those who populate CAF to buy into it, has affected my very ability to eat, to feed myself, to feed my cat, to keep the lights on and the house warm in the Winter. If I could have afforded an attorney, I would have sued him.

The last letter I sent to him --- and, mind you, this letter followed at least two other letters sent over the years, letters that had a much more "nice" and "conciliatory" tone, and letters from lots of others who've written to him the same sort of thing:

My last letter to Mirus:

I am informing you now that you are incorrect, engaging in libel worthy of a lawsuit, and, worst of all, are engaging in calumny, which is a sin. I state very clearly on my contact page ( what I believe, and what I believe is what every FSSP priest I've ever met believes. Nowhere on the site do I say that the OF is not valid. Nowhere on the site do I tell people to not attend the OF if there is no EF available. Nowhere do I question the authority of the Church over the liturgy. I imagine that if someone were to talk to you and tell you he doesn't like the EF, thinks it's too long, or too "Latin," or too old, or too complicated, or too whatever, and he just doesn't like it, you likely wouldn't think of telling him that he's "calling into question the authority of the Church over the liturgy" or "denigrating the Catholicism of the vast majority of Catholics" who've existed since the beginning of the Church. Think about that for a minute, Mr. Mirus. I don't have to think the OF and EF are equally good in terms of beauty, poetry, sense of the sacred conveyed, etc., in order to know they are both equally valid. And no Catholic does have to think they are equally good aside from validity. Priests of the FSSP and ICK think the exact way I do. So who are you to tell others that my site is deserving of some "Red Light" because of such opinions?

In that letter, you are intimating that I believe that those who are attached to the OF are "Modernists." Really? (in fact, people throwing around the word "Modernist" is a major pet peeve of mine!) You intimate that I see attachment to the EF as a "sign of spiritual superiority." But I believe neither of those things. In no way WHATSOEVER do I believe either of those things. See  and the "Conversion of the Heart" page:  and tell me if you actually believe that I think anything like what you are intimating to other people that I think.

I spent years and years writing the content for my site. Writing that website was a total labor of love, done for the love of Jesus and His Church. It is what I did as a full-time "job," as it were, for years. And I am still writing for it, though much more slowly these days. There is nothing -- not one thing -- that is heterodox on it. I repeat: I guarantee you that every priest of the FSSP or ICK believe exactly what I believe. And Catholics have every right to think and feel about the liturgy exactly what those priests do. But you are willing to take my years of work and trash it by telling untruths about it, by publicly attributing opinions to me that I do not, in fact, hold. Further, I am a Grandmother who is sickly, living under the poverty line, and trying to eke out a subsistence through advertising and subscription money. You are taking food out of my mouth, and taking presents for my grandson from under the Christmas tree, with your untruths.

What follows is a rebuttal of each point you make in your site review:


There is no "rejection of the 'New Mass' (The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite) and Vatican Council II" on my part. That is a lie, and I am calling it a lie as opposed to a "mere" untruth because you have been contacted before about this and you have done nothing to correct your review. Here, once again, in black and white, is what I think about the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II:  I, Tracy Tucciarone, writer and owner of, believe the Novus Ordo Missae is vastly inferior in ways not touching on the matter of validity (see below), but I do not "reject" it or think it "invalid," and I never advise people to not attend it if that is all they have available to them, even as I -- as is my right and, according to the dictates of my informed conscience, my duty to -- encourage people to find a "TLM" if at all possible and/or try to get TLMs set up in their parishes. Neither do I "reject" Vatican II (whatever that means exactly).  I don't know how many more times and in how many different ways a person can say that she believes Vatican II was a true ecumenical council, convened by a true Pope, which produced documents that are ambiguously written, must be interpreted in light of Tradition and in such a way that does not contradict Tradition, and which have been abused, mistranslated, exploited, and lied about by liberal Catholics and by the media. Is there anything I just wrote that you find unclear?

There is not one word of what I just said about my stance on things that is unorthodox, that makes me a heretic, a bad person, a poopy-butt, or a person any more unworthy than you are of teaching Catholics. I simply teach them how to be a Catholic "trad style" in accordance with Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum, which Catholics have a perfect right to do, even if to the chagrin of some Catholics who seem to demand that everyone love the Novus Ordo Missae as much as they do, to the point of preference or of having no opinions about it whatsoever other than "it's great."

Below are specific points you make in your review. Your words are in bold:

"Fidelity: Danger!"

This is an absolutely unjust and incorrect appraisal of my work. The "About This Site" page (contact.html) clearly lays out my stance, and it is 100% orthodox, faithful to the Holy Father, and in no way warranting such a description.

Fidelity: The site as a whole implicitly and explicitly rejects the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) Mass. Example(s)

This is a lie. I do not reject and have never rejected the Novus Ordo form of the Mass. I find it to be inferior in terms of its: beauty; poetry; choice of Scripture readings; catechetical qualities; ability to inspire holy thoughts and reverence; ability to psychologically connect modern Catholics with their spiritual (and often blood) ancestors; proneness to abuse because of all the options; divisive aspects due to priests typically not using the Latin language that allows Catholics from all over the world to worship together as one, and so forth. But I also believe the Mass of Paul VI to be valid and, as I said earlier, I would never, ever advise someone to not attend the NO if that's all he has available to him. I attend the OF myself sometimes. And my thinking all of the above in no way makes me unorthodox, heretical, or a bad Catholic. I'd wager that every single priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter thinks the exact same things.

Fidelity: All of the material and resources offered are pre-Vatican II. Example(s)

This is yet another lie or untruth, but even if it were true, how would that say anything at all about my "fidelity"? Are you implying that pre-Vatican II material and resources are no longer of value -- even to Catholics who worship according to Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum? We Catholics of that type -- we "traditionalists" -- use a different Ordo Missae, a different liturgical calendar, a different version of Sacred Scripture, etc., than do most Catholics, and we not only have a right to do these things, we are encouraged to do so by Pope Benedict XVI. But, as I said, the statement you made is simply not true.

Fidelity: A "Dictionary of Dissent" Example(s)

Absolutely nothing you mention in your criticism of my tongue-in-cheek "Dictionary of Dissent" shows a lack of orthodoxy. Nothing. You might not agree with me, but you don't have the moral authority to judge me as some sort of "heretic," and you have no moral right whatsoever to mischaracterize my work and engage in calumny.

Fidelity: Link to SSPX Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Fidelity: Link to a favorable review of the book, The Great Facade by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Fidelity: Link to The True Notion of Tradition on the SSPX website Example(s)

With regard to these last three items: Going by this standard -- the standard of "orthodoxy" that says that linking to "an unorthodox website" shows the linking website itself to be unorthodox -- you'd have to "red light" your own website because you link to my site, a site you characterize as being unorthodox and lacking in "fidelity." I describe my linking policy very clearly on my "About This Site" page,

    Linking Policy

    "I don't fall for the idea that a given work is verboten simply because its author may have written other works that are questionable. That is an ad hominem fallacy and lacks charity; even the Index of Forbidden Books only banned individual works, not people or everything a given person ever wrote. If a lesbian atheist (like Camille Paglia, whose writings I often enjoy in spite of frequent obvious and vehement disagreement) writes a relevant, inoffensive essay, if Famous Apologist X who might have an animus against "trads" writes an article that any Catholic would find beneficial, if a dunderhead pundit who writes 99% nonsense comes up with a good one for once, etc., I might well link to the articles in question.'

    "Essays, like art, stand on their own, apart from the writers and artists involved, and they should be judged on their own merits (to think otherwise is to romanticize art and make it only about personal expression rather than about the True, Good, or Beautiful). The arrogant, Manichaean idea that there's an "us" -- the good, holy people who err not -- and a "them" -- the baddies who can do no good and speak no Truth -- has got to stop. I loathe it when I see it among trad-bashers, and I loathe it when I see it among trads. Most people are good and bad, and do good and bad. This Truth informs my linking policy and I'm sticking to it, even if to the chagrin of those Catholics who can't fathom why I'd link to an article in the SSPX's Angelus, or of some trads who hate that I'd link to an article written by "Mr. Apologist Who Hates Trads," and so on. At this site's Offsite Links for Catholics and For Catholics pages, I try to provide information from which I believe all Catholics would benefit if they'd get over their holier-than-thou, "he's one of them!" gang-banging mentalities. I write -- and link -- for the typically educated, reasonable person of average intelligence whom I trust has read a few Catechisms and has some sort of clue as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff."

And at the bottom of the page from which I link to sites "For Catholics," I have these words: "Posting offsite links above does not imply complete agreement with the sites or their authors."

I trust the intelligence of the typical Catholic and don't feel the need, as you apparently do, to treat them like children who are unable to think and discern. Even if I thought the average, high school-educated Catholic needed such hand-holding, I wouldn't dream of setting myself up as some "official Catholic authority" as you seem to do, haphazardly judging others' orthodoxy or lack thereof, warning people away from perfectly faithful and helpful websites and, thereby, destroying for too many the effect, the reception, of years and years worth of their writers' work through a sloppily thrown up "red light" that, for some reason, some people take seriously, as if you are Moses just come down from the mountain, inspired by Holy God Himself to lead the people through the "internet desert." And even after having been contacted by me and by others before (I've gotten a number of emails about this and you admit yourself that you've been contacted by others as well. In other words, apparently a lot of people know better and have told you so, but you disregard them!), you persist in defaming me and my work. You are engaging in calumny, which is a mortal sin, and are committing libel. By committing this libel, you drive people away from my website, and, so, are depriving me of the website traffic and potential subscribers on which my staying alive - my very ability to EAT -- depends. You are taking food out of my mouth, taking away from my grandson, and so I am no longer asking you nicely, but telling you to cease and desist right now. Either amend or remove your review. Further, I expect a public retraction and a public apology in your "Catholic World News" section to publicly set the record straight about my website and, by such a public link, to attempt to make up for a small part of the loss of traffic I've suffered over the years due to your having written such a review in the first place, and not having attended to these concerns after you were contacted by me and by other concerned Catholics who've read your review, gone to my website anyway, and discovered that what you say is untrue.

I find it very ironic that you accuse my site of promoting some sort of sense of "spiritual superiority" when it is you who ignores Summorum Pontificum, disses Catholics who worship according to what that document allows, engages in calumny against me, commits libel against me, and mess with my ability to support myself -- to eat. And you've been doing this for years now, even after having been corrected numerous times by numerous people.

I really, really hate to throw words like "lawsuit" around, but I've had it.  I know full well -- better than anybody -- that there are fringey, nutty trads out there, and ridiculous websites that are written by hateful, bitter people who intellectually know all about dogma and the liturgy but don't know a thing about Charity, who haven't truly MET Jesus, who mistake salvation for an IQ test, but FishEaters is not such a site, and the Catholics who come to my place are sick of being lumped together with the [Vox: name of website removed] types, and are tired of being bashed by people who accuse them of "spiritual superiority" and what have you. FishEaters is a website that most any FSSP or ICK priest would love. And many of them do love it, and use it in RCIA classes, in parish bulletins, etc. I've even gotten a few fan mails from FSSP priests. And, Mr Mirus, you don't have more authority than the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter. So please stop what you're doing (either emend or remove the review), retract in a public manner what you've said about my site's "fidelity" and orthodoxy (and by "public," I don't mean buried somewhere, but easily visible), and allow me to live in peace and maybe eat and have enough money for the medicines I need.

Tracy Tucciarone

P.S. Mind you, there is a discussion forum associated with my website, for people who are 18+. There are lots of people -- Catholics, atheists, Jews, etc. -- saying lots of things, some of it heterodox, some of it not-so-nice, etc. -- but most of it fine. That's the nature of discussion forums and com-boxes. What people other than me might say at the discussion forum isn't what I say any more than what some atheist at Catholic Answers forum represents what "Catholic Answers" thinks. FishEaters -- the website itself --  is what it is, and I am the only person who speaks for it; what people at the discussion forum say is on them. I am the sole moderator of the place and don't like heavily moderated fora.  In my opinion, the best way to deal with lies is to speak the Truth, so people can learn. That's how the place rolls.

He's kept that review up, in spite of that email, to which he didn't even bother to reply. Nasty. Very, very nasty.

I'm glad he's taking his site's reviews down, but he should've removed or amended his site's review of FE long, long ago. I can only wonder at how this site would be situated if he hadn't been defaming me all these years.

[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Fionnchu

BTW, when this matter has come up before, I've posted this, from New Oxford Review, that touches on how neo-cons, globalists, Jewish groups, etc., buy off websites that they consider to be (or potentially be) in opposition to their agenda. They tried to buy off NOR. And they failed.

I can't claim to know, but wouldn't be surprised at all, if Catholic Culture has been bought off (the Catholic Exchange website actually used to have Daniel Pipes, of all people, as a columnist! Surreal!) This sort of thing would explain Mirus's malice anyway, his absolute refusal to get rid of that review that is nothing but lies, a refusal the nastiness of which isn't mitigated now in his taking down all reviews (that is, if he weren't taking down all reviews, the FE review would undoubtedly remain as it is). The article, my emphasis in bold:

Your Voice of Orthodox Catholicism, Without Any Strings Attached
September 2005
By Dale Vree

The only intellectual, theologically right-of-center, Catholic-oriented magazines that have a significantly larger paid circulation than the NOR does are Crisis and First Things. Why? Because they get their funding from neoconservative foundations. In 2003 (the last year reported), Crisis and its affiliated Morley Publishing Group got $105,000 from neocon foundations. Since Crisis’s founding in 1982, neocon foundations have pumped in $1,774,000. In 2003 (the last year reported), First Things and its affiliated Institute on Religion and Public Life got $425,000 from neoconservative foundations. Since its founding in 1990, First Things has received a whopping $8,217,500.

Crisis’s budget as of 2003 was $1,641,151. The budget for First Things as of 2003 was $1,773,059. By comparison, the NOR’s budget for 2003 was $449,383. Imagine what the NOR could do with a budget of over a million and a half dollars! Still, we are pleased to say that we don’t rely on political foundations, for there can be strings attached.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that First Things is called First Things, not Last Things, as in the Four Last Things (death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell). Nor is First Things called Last Things First or First & Last Things. You probably thought — and we certainly thought — that the purpose of First Things and its affiliated Religion and Public Life was to instruct people about religious orthodoxy, maybe even Catholic orthodoxy. We were wrong. Their purpose is to “teach people about the moral and ethical basis of capitalism” (according to Crisis used to be named Catholicism in Crisis. Now it’s just Crisis, with the subtitle being Politics, Culture, and the Church — note the order. One could easily get the impression that First Things and Crisis are bought and paid for by neocon foundations.

Before Crisis and First Things were even founded, the NOR was contacted by a neocon foundation — right out of the blue. The foundation wanted to give us money — “free” money. A fellow flew out from the East Coast and asked me (the Editor) to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant — on him. Sure! (We were desperate for money.)

He told me he would fund us regularly — if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic U.S. foreign policy. I had to think quickly on my feet. I immediately realized that our first loyalty is to Christ and His Church, not to any ideology, political party, or even any nation (for the Church is universal). It was patently obvious that our religious mission would be compromised, that the whole idea was to make us a front group for the neocon agenda. I gave him a firm “no,” and that was the end of that.

Vox Wrote:
I guarantee, too, that what is expected of the bought-off websites is more than just supporting corporate capitalism,* things like the war on Iraq (remember that? Remember how neo-Catholic websites, who otherwise were calling JPII "the Great" before he even died, were pushing the Iraq War in spite of JPII's being against it?), and other such political and economic stuff. I guarantee that it also entails their saying nothing about the nature of post-Temple Judaism, things like the USCCB's document that, in essence, said that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved (I guess because they have sacred DNA, an idea I find to be obviously racist and, ergo, un-Catholic), AIPAC and their power over America's Congress, the Noahide Laws, etc.

* Just FYI, I'm a fan of free markets -- as long as they don't include usury, fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking, institutions like the Federal Reserve, a materialist or materialistic worldview, etc. Capitalism in that sense -- and even the sort of crony, corporate Capitalism we have now -- has most definitely, no arguing about it, made the world better off materially. It's not the free market, but the bad things I just listed that allow for the incredible wealth disparity between "the 1%" and the rest of us. (and when it comes to "the free market," I favor protections for nations with regard to tariffs, etc.)

Have I regretted that “no”? In my weaker moments, yes; but mostly I have not. For Catholic social teaching does not support unregulated capitalism, and we know that the Holy See’s stand on foreign affairs can at times be sharply at odds with U.S. foreign policy.

The offer from the neocon foundation was reminiscent of how the Communist Party (CP) operated in the U.S. Indeed, many of the leading neocons are ex-Trotskyites (ultra-Left Communists), and know how the CP manipulated people. The CP set up front groups (with the help of Moscow gold) for religious people to advance the CP line. Leaders of these front groups were sometimes dupes. But some knew full well what they were doing. We don’t know if Catholics who jump aboard the neocon gravy train are dupes or know full well what they are doing. All we know is that it’s not something the NOR could do.

We at the NOR are glad to be independent of the ideological bigwigs. We don’t have to run around on the New York and D.C. cocktail-party circuit. We don’t have to kiss up to the neocon money-barons. We don’t have to serve their vested interests. But that’s only possible because we receive our funding from our subscribers.

We were amused when the Editor-in-Chief of First Things, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, said he gets a “princely salary” (First Things, Dec. 1998, p. 80). Well, when you’re on the neocon dole, you do get a princely salary. But when you’re not! No one at the NOR gets a “princely salary.”

When you chase after the fat cats, things can get sticky. The fundraiser for Crisis is (still) Deal Hudson. In a letter dated April 5, 2005, announcing Crisis’s seventh annual golf tournament signed by Hudson, he said: “Again, we invite you to a special White House briefing,” linked to the golf tournament. (The tab for the golfing was $2,000 for one person.) This caught the attention of Julia Duin, the religion reporter for the conservative Washington Times, who raised ethical issues about Hudson’s letter (as we all know, Hudson has other ethical issues dogging him). White House spokesman Trent Duffy responded: “The White House was not aware whatsoever it would be used in this fashion. It’s well-established that it’s inappropriate for third parties to use the White House for briefings to raise money.” The White House canceled the briefing, and so Crisis had to cancel its event. Obviously, the enticement was the White House briefing. And do remember that Hudson’s letter of April 5 said, “Again, we invite you to a special White House briefing.” So how long has this underhanded fundraising been going on?

Yes, the neocon magazines have a lot of money to throw around. They hold conferences, go on fancy cruises and stage golf tournaments to lure in more high rollers, travel hither and yon, and pay their writers handsomely. The NOR does none of that; indeed, we don’t pay our writers anything. You’ve heard the slogan: “Freedom Is Not Free.” You pay a price for your freedom, and the NOR is truly free.

Over the years, we’ve managed to increase our number of pages per issue from 32 to 48, and increase our number of issues per year from 10 to 11, all without increasing our subscription rates. This is due to donations from our subscribers. If you multiply the number of pages by the issues per year and divide that sum by the subscription price, you’ll find that among serious Catholic magazines the NOR comes out as number one — that is, you get the most bang for your buck. And that’s the way we want to keep it.

However, over the past year, we’ve lost $142,000. Part of that is normal (as expenses exceed income), but part is not. What is not normal is this:

(1)We have reconstructed our website, Previously, it was operated by a kind fellow in his spare time, free of charge. But because he has a growing family, he told us he could no longer be our webmaster. So we hired Michael S. Rose to reconstruct our website. It is now up and running, and you’ll notice that it is vastly improved. To that end, we’ve been archiving our past issues, and our online Archives currently go back to 1996, with every article, editorial, guest column, New Oxford Note, book review, and letter to the editor now available at our website — with more to come. And our “infamous” ads are available in our online Ad Gallery. You know, those biting, satirical, often laugh-out-loud ads, those that have been banned by Commonweal, the National Catholic Reporter, America, Crisis, the National Catholic Register, and Our Sunday Visitor, among others. And we have compiled over 40 Dossiers containing all the material that has appeared in the NOR going back to 1996 on particular topics or persons: C.S. Lewis, Hell, prolife issues, Scott Hahn, ecumenism and ecumania, wacky theologians, sacred music, Catholic social teaching, “inclusive” language, the clerical sex scandals, the Lavender Mafia, and much more. And we continue to offer a growing selection of NOR items that have been translated into Spanish in the En Español section of our website.

Visitors to our website can also browse the online NOR Gear Shoppe, and choose from a wide selection of T-shirts and tote bags, sweatshirts and hoodies, coffee mugs and beer steins, BBQ aprons and baby bibs, and more — all bearing pithy, NOR-themed designs.

One new feature of our upgraded website that we think will be of great use to our readers is the New Oxford News Link. Updated every weekday, the News Link features the day’s news items that are of particular interest to Catholics, from the headline news to overlooked news oddities, culled from news sources the world over. The News Link is a free service; you can sign up to receive daily email updates by going to our website, clicking the “Free Email Updates” link, and entering your email address. One need not be a subscriber to take advantage of the News Link.

Of course, Mr. Rose is not doing this in his spare time; it’s a real job, and he must be paid. We didn’t hire someone off the street who knows nothing about the NOR and then disappears when he’s done. Rose knows what the NOR is all about, and he has the same “attitude” as the Editor. For example, at the top of the homepage of the website there are three puffs for the NOR: “Catholicism’s Intellectual Prizefighter” — Karl Keating; “Cheeky” — Newsweek ; followed by “Very Offensive!” — Archbishop Rembert Weakland (that’s the best puff we’ve ever gotten!). And Rose is maintaining our website year round, so it will not become stale.

It is extremely important to have an engaging and comprehensive website, with new material every weekday, because young people spend enormous amounts of time on the Internet, and it goes without saying that young people are the future of orthodox Catholicism and of the NOR. On our website the News Link, the Ad Gallery, and the Spanish translations are free, as is one different item each weekday from the Archives, from the current issue, and from the previous month’s issue. This is how we get people coming back to our website — and, we hope, get them to subscribe. But in order to view our entire Archives and all our Dossiers, you must pay a small fee. Still, for now and in the near future, our website will be draining us of money, but our prayer is that it will eventually pay for itself.

(2)One can subscribe online to the print edition of the NOR, or extend or renew a subscription. And this can now be done by credit card, something many of our readers have been asking of us for a number of years. We are happy to be able to offer this service, but, unfortunately, accepting credit cards is also a monetary drain. We hope it will eventually pay for itself, but we can’t be sure of that.

So, all in all, to cover our losses and project us into the new fiscal year, we need to raise $176,000. Please do help us achieve our modest fundraising goal by sending your donation to: New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706. The New Oxford Review is a nonprofit entity and has 501©(3) tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service. Donations are therefore tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. Checks are of course to be made out to New Oxford Review. Credit card donations can also be made at our website:

As St. Augustine said, “God provides the wind, but man must raise the sails.” Please do help us raise our sails in this blood-dimmed and turbulent ocean.

DONATE: Make a donation now...
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Fionnchu
I remember way back when when I was first converting to Catholicism and exploring the trad world, I remember seeing FishEaters receiving that rating and even then not understanding it. FishEaters lumped in with the various sedevacantist and nutjob conclavist sites - it never made any sense! The only long-term effect it has on me was distrusting Catholic Culture!  :LOL:
(03-20-2017, 07:06 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: He has hurt my work more than anyone on the internet, and that's saying a LOT.

That IS saying a lot, Vox. I am really very sorry to hear it. I knew there was a situation here, but never realised it was _this_ bad. Hard, for me, at any rate to keep up with and process  all that vast, encyclopedic information your brain processes so rapidly.

Now, I need to process this NOR piece ...

As to what you write of "corporate capitalism" - sounds like capitalism full-stop to me or as Americans say, period. What we call capitalism could not have evolved without usury, "a materialistic worldview", etc etc.

The Middle Ages prior to these things had free markets but that's not the same as capitalism. Big topic ...
Aquinas138 Wrote:I remember way back when when I was first converting to Catholicism and exploring the trad world, I remember seeing FishEaters receiving that rating and even then not understanding it. FishEaters lumped in with the various sedevacantist and nutjob conclavist sites - it never made any sense! The only long-term effect it has on me was distrusting Catholic Culture!  :LOL:

I'm so glad you looked beyond Catholic Culture's lies and made your way here!  Really, I can't imagine the number of people who've been turned away simply because of what Mirus has on his site. There must be thousands and thousands, given how often I've seen or been told about its coming up at CAF.  It's just vicious.

(03-21-2017, 09:13 PM)Roger Buck Wrote: That IS saying a lot, Vox. I am really very sorry to hear it. I knew there was a situation here, but never realised it was _this_ bad. Hard, for me, at any rate to keep up with and process  all that vast, encyclopedic information your brain processes so rapidly.

Now, I need to process this NOR piece ...

As to what you write of "corporate capitalism" - sounds like capitalism full-stop to me or as Americans say, period. What we call capitalism could not have evolved without usury, "a materialistic worldview", etc etc.

The Middle Ages prior to these things had free markets but that's not the same as capitalism. Big topic ...

A lot depends on what exactly "capitalism" means. Present day American capitalism definitely involves all the bad things I listed in the post you're responding to here, that's for sure. But even that style of "capitalism" has led to the reality that most Americans are "living large" materially while the people who live in places like Venuzuela can't even get enough to eat, or toilet paper. None of this makes usury, fiat  money, etc. OK (it most definitely doesn't, and I am VERY against all that)). But free markets, with protections for nations (and, obviously, laws against fraud, laws that protect the common good, etc. -- with such laws being as few in number as possible or else they'd cease to protect the common good, as a rule of thumb, and with subsidiarity being honored), work. They just do.

Re. your saying that " capitalism could not have evolved without usury, 'a materialistic worldview'": Historically, capitalism did, in fact, evolve concomitant with usury, etc., and, as far as I know, didn't evolve elsewhere in some other way, so who's to know? But I can envision a sort of "capitalism" (by which I mean free markets) without usury, fiat money, etc. Such an economic system situated in a Catholic culture would be stupendous, IMO! I think it'd look a lot like Distributism in that it'd prevent a "1%" from developing, encourage small businesses, get more people running their own shows, as it were.
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Fionnchu

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)