Speaking of namecalling, Karl, here's Vree's defense of it in the May 2003 issue of New Oxford Review:
--------------------------------
Yes, there are times when Hell should be spoken of. And, as we explained in the January 2003 issue (pp. 8-9), there are times when using a word that shames is called for, and "fag" is such a word. Now, we do not advocate going up to a homosexual and yelling, "Fag!" What's the point? On the other hand, the word "fag" should not be taken out of common parlance, for, as we explained in our November 2002 issue (pp. 6-7), it is etymologically rich and highly descriptive. Moreover, to make use of the word "fag" is to assert a social stigma. If we don't insist on our social stigmas, the cultural liberals will insist on theirs, calling us "bigots" and "homophobes." Social stigmas happen ? they're inevitable. The only question is: Whose social stigmas will prevail? Yes, "fag" is offensive, but so what? Jesus called the Pharisees "hypocrites," "fools," a "brood of vipers," and "sons of Hell" (Mt. 23). He was not squeamish. Should we be? Were the Pharisees offended -- were they angry and defiant? Darn right they were!
If, as Mr. Clark contends, we should not use words that offend, that shame, then we must be consistent. We must not call a sex worker a "whore," a priest who sexually abuses boys a "pervert," or an abortion provider an "agent of the Culture of Death" (Pope John Paul II is in egregious violation here), etc.
Of notorious sinners, St. Paul said, "Rebuke them sharply..."; he even gave us examples, calling them "evil beasts" and "lazy gluttons" (Ti. 1:12-13; he also called them "dogs" [Phil. 3:2]). Why did Paul resort to "name-calling" -- or, as the Navarre Bible Commentary puts it, to "ridicule"? To get their attention so as to get them to change their ways.
-------------
Hi Karl, we will have to agree to disagree.
I thought Michael O'Brien's essay was well composed, but Dale Vree happened to be right in saying that O'Brien overstretched in using "totalitarian" to describe the trend of the present situation in Canada. That word has a particular, narrow meaning, and I think O'Brien used it unwisely. This left him open to criticism.
I also think that Pete Vere has blown this incident way out of proportion (I told him this privately, on the phone), and now he is using language that is less appropriate than Vree's comments about O'Brien.
No one profits from this kind of name calling:
1. "New 'Osama' Review"
2. "Dale 'Khadr' Vree"
3. Vree as an "alleged convert" (there's nothing "alleged" about it: he really is a convert)
4. Vree compared to "Islamo-fascists" (a nonsense term anyway, one that shows ignorance of what "Fascist" means)
5. Vree as "chickenhawk" and "piskie pantywaist"
6. NOR as engaging in "vicious blindsiding" and being "simply despicable"
All of these terms are out of line and, taken together, are far worse than the perceived offense.
I sometimes disapprove of the way Vree writes (and several times I have told him so privately, on the phone). When he writes something worthy of criticism, it should be criticized, but the criticism itself should be measured and certainly should not be an even worse example of the fault that he is alleged to have displayed.
Thanks Kevin - I'm glad someone agrees with me. I was of half a mind to write a letter to them with the quote and ask how they dealt with it.
I have commented on this over at Rerum Novarum but the link has failed to post twice. As of this writing, it is viewable HERE but that may change if blogger has another technical problem. (They told me they are working on fixing it.)
I was once growled at by a poorly behaved pitbull while working the bar-b-que at a hunt camp. The owner thought it was funny to let his dog run on other people. I didn't.
I grabbed the pepper at poured it on the poochie's nose and eyes. He went down and started rolling over. I then loaded my shotgun and pointed it at poochie. The owner saw the look in my eyes and called poochie off.
Moral of the story? Canadian shotgun trumps American pitbull.
As an alleged convert, Dale Vree reminds me very much of the islamo-facists who come to our country fleeing persecution in their own (just like Vree was fleeing the Anglican communion), take out citizenship, then start threatening the locals and other immigrants when they don't get their own way.
Now in case you didn't notice, Michael O'Brien is a Canadian. We in Canada are shouldering the brunt the gay agenda in North America. Dale "Khadr" Vree can call himself the intellectual prize-fighter of Catholicism, but would he be willing to run his vile if he was on our side of the border and face a two-year prison fine everytime his publication referred to a homosexual as "fag", "rump ranger" or some other term you don't find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
My guess is that we would quickly discover that without first ammendment protection Vree is a chickenhawk and a piskie pantywaist. On the other hand, O'Brien risks serious fines and jail time just for publishing his essay. As do I everytime the Wanderer publishes one of my pieces chronicling the growing threat posed by the gay agenda in our country. (For the seemingly geographically challenged like Vree, that would be that large frozen land mass north of the 49th)
I am not surprised at these rivers of acrid bile poured out upon Vree. Those of you familiar with my articles on NOR's "Pit Bull" will know why I am not surprised. But you, in turn, should not be surprised if I find it completely inordinate. Look: I wish Vree didn't find things to criticize in good guys like O'Brien too. I, too, like O'Brien and have been a fan of his books for years, and I thought his essay (the one Vree criticizes) was generally quite good, sounding an alarm that needs sounding. But come on: Vree's criticism aren't simply ad hominem. He does have a point: O'Brien's alarm might be taken much more seriously if it weren't quite so overwrought with apocalyptic notes about the incipient conspiratory totalitarianism of the left. As Vree points out, the truth is that our laissez-faire democracy has brought these leftist notions into ascendency on its own without any totalitarian machinations by some sinister 'Big Brother.' The effect on marginalized Christians may indeed feel like totalitarianism, but the sad truth is that a democracy gets the government -- and the culture -- it deserves. Does it not? Lost the bile, if you can. Smile. God loves you. Have a nice day.
O'Brien is a very kind a gentle man. I have often disagreed with him, however, among orthodox Catholics this is no big deal. Nevertheless, New Osama Review's vicious blindsiding of O'Brien was simply dispicable.
Be honest Pete...you and Vree are going at it because of last name letter placement disputes (you being Vere and him being Vree) 
Well, I'm surprised that Vree doesn't try a religion a little more suited to his writing style, like radical Islam.
BTW, the first country to legalize abortion was COMMUNIST Russia in 1920.
In Christ,
As an aside, I think that O'Brien's "Children of the Last Days" series, especially Father Elijah and Eclipse of the Sun, are true wake-up calls and literary gems to boot.
I may be the only traditionalist who thinks so, because he clearly admires JPII. 
Matthew,
I think that's a very good point. Leo XIII was an avowed Thomist. As a result, he always stressed that the natural way of things pointed towards ideas, which were then purified and elevated by the Catholic Church. Liberty and freedom properly understand (rather than license and anarchy) did exist before the Church, but found itself most effectively managed from within the Catholic framework.
It amazes me that those who claim fidelity to the Angelic Doctor have methods so alien from that of him.
Obviously they can have some good material but I'm glad I didn't go so far as to subscribe also. Reading what is made available on their website will do.
I really diagreed with Dale Vree over what "freedom" means. He says that "authentic freedom" (ie the idea freedom does not include the ability to sin which is an abuse of freedom) is a "Catholic" idea. That's not how the dictionary defines it or what most American people understand by freedom. I don't know what gain he gets out of saying this. I always thing a) who gives a damn what the dictionary says. Obviously it's going to incorporate the common understanding of it. And b) as for the common understanding (what "most Americans understand by freedom") well - so what? The people who inhabited present day Germany didn't think stealing was wrong. Does that make it right? And finally and most importantly Pope Leo XIII rejected in his encyclical on liberty the idea that this is some "Catholic" or "Christian" idea.
From paragraph 6 of that document:
"But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, 'Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin'."[4] Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term "wise man" was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue. "
Sorry for going on but I've always wanted to get that one off my back !
I still think I'm one of the few people who has never read NOR. After seeing stuff like that, I'm glad I don't.
Quite frankly, I found the NOR screed against O'Brien an incoherent piece of garbage.
In Christ,
Pete, thank you for posting this. The NOR is unbelievable. Why in the world would they attack O'Brien? Amazing . O'Brien is a wonderful and thoughtful writer and artist. His books are the essence of literary Catholicism in the secular age.
Well I just read the rather ridiclous statement that "America is not headed towards totalitarianism." Yet he notes about how the will of the majority is thrwated by a few individuals, and private property is thrwated, and we are becoming under increasing government of the courts. That's not the road to totalitarianism?
The people at NOR LIE like Devils & distort the beliefs of their fellow Catholics especially Dale "I believe the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary" Vree.
One expects this sort of crap from the likes of James White or Dave Hunt but you would think a "Catholic" publication like the NOR would know better.
Commenting by HaloScan
