'Convert Neurosis' Article Sparks Change of Policy at Crux


Further to the dreadful piece self-appointed papal interpreter Austen Ivereigh posted in Crux last week (see my post here), the editor, John Allen, has posted a quite extraordinary rebuke of both the content & the premise of the piece.
Up to this point, Crux has never had formal editorial policies, because we’re a small enough operation I didn’t think we needed them. As of today, however, I’m implementing Policy #1. For “Star Trek” fans, you might think of this as our new “Prime Directive": Yes to vigorous discussion, no to personal attacks.
Allen apologises, and goes so far as to say:
I should not have allowed such personal criticism to appear, because ultimately everything that runs on Crux is my responsibility.
How humiliating for Austen. I wonder if there was some outside pressure brought to bear that prompted such a comment from Allen?

Ivereigh did issue an apology (Eccles posted on it here) which basically amounted to "Sorry, folks! I was right of course - I always am - but I shouldn't have said it!"

Of course, there's also Austen's "Irish friend" who attacked Dan Hitchens calling him a "spiritual toddler" and has been pushing this same line of convert neurosis for a number of months now. I wonder if Michael Kelly at the Irish Catholic will be posting a similar piece to the Crux one anytime soon?
However, I suggest that the real story is why this "nasty convert" line of thinking popped up simultaneously in several places (both Austen & Allen refer to two other pieces). This was at the same time as the gay orgy story. Could it be that Austen and Kelly and Faggioli etc are all being briefed by the same spin doctor?


Popular posts from this blog

Far from gossip, The Dictator Pope is "absolutely reliable"

Pope Francis has elevated immoral men in order to change the Catholic faith

The response of youth to the "youth" synod? Largely horror.