Monday, June 10, 2019

Canon 212. Has it Changed?

An FSSP priest I know religiously follows Canon 212 for Catholic news headlines to this day. Odds are he's also reading this too, myself pleasantly surprised once I learned he follows The Okie Traditionalist.

(Hey Padre, did JH ever get ahold of you after visiting The Sooner State? Hope it's okay dropping your initials JH (who reads these pages too))

And it is in large part because of Canon 212, i.e its editor Frank Walker, that these pages have become widely circulated. So I take the risk going out on a limb asking the question--have you Canon 212 daily junkies--like myself--noticed some substantial, question-raising changes in focus and tone in say the last six months or so? Several trad friends have made that observation as of late and I quietly nodded in concurence. Would love to hear from Frank in the comments below.

The whole ongoing question of the canonical and moral legimitacy of Francis' papacy seems to me certainly valid. But the apparently daily-weekly feud between Frank and Steve Skojec over this, with ongoing counter-remarks it seems, including a mud fight between opposing parties over the question, seems at least a distraction and at worst to clutter up the Canon 212 website. Canon 212 is, or has been, primarily a traditionalist Catholic news conglomerate.

Frankly (pun intended), I'm at a loss why much of the headlines are now written with added editorial flavor of a polemical and snarky tone.  Which I get doing about some headlines here and there, to leave your own mark on the story, but not most unless the theme of Canon 212 has changed from being an unbiased presentation of the news to a satirical editorial. Which would be fine that change has not been officially stated.   Or am I off in seeing a shift??

I've wondered how Frank keeps all the details arranged in his mind every day to organize his topics.  But these last many months the headlines it seems have become top heavy and saturated about "The EvilFrancis Pontificate" to the point I personally wonder how long that focus can last without tiring readers. Which is why I've been skimming through those headlines now for a while.

To answer my question, no I don't think Canon212 has necessarily gone through a paradigm shift, but more a phase of indignation about the sitting pontiff and those who would defend such a man. Anyhoo, it's time for bed. Would welcome feedback from Frank as to the question at hand as I'd wager a steak dinner he's been getting asked similar curious questions as of late. And I trust he won't take offense to my current critique because he knows I'm just a big, soft teddy bear. 

Do I owe Frank a steak dinner?  Or have others noticed the same?

Edit:  see Frank’s reply below in the comment box.


  1. If I were you I’d buy a Frank a steak dinner anyways. I would if he came to KC. Yes, it’s gotten too snarky, but I understand why and how that could happen. He’s in the ugliness every day. He needs someone to take over for a couple of weeks so he can take a vacation offline and decrompress. Eventually a rope gets so tight that it snaps, and I’d hate to see him snap, because what he does is very useful to the cause.

  2. Canon 212 has been getting more and more insufferable by the day. If I didn't have need to see the latest news all the time, I would gladly skip that site. I have to torture myself through the headlines, and it seems Frank cannot bear to leave a single one un-editorialized. For every single thing, he must tell everyone what they are to think about it or how they are to read it. It's a real pity because he's made his web site from an important and great resource into a ridiculous show of Frank's opinion on the news. I am intelligent and mature enough to know what to think of certain things, I don't need the editor to babysit my mind for every single headline to ensure I get it "right".

    It is very tiring constantly to see half-sentence-long attributes describing a noun, with the noun itself being a made-up-on-the-spot moniker that changes by the day. It's too much and too crazy. It's obsessive-compulsive. If this gets worse still, I have no choice but to simply stop reading the site altogether. I don't want to end up in a mental institution.

    Frank Walker is doing himself a great disservice. He's made a once-great news aggregator into a sort of unbearable satire site that people can only manage to go through if they agree 100% with every view the editor holds.

    1. TheRaisedEyebrowJune 11, 2019 at 2:34 PM


      Every time he ends a sentence with "OK?" I feel like I'm listening to a girl on a schoolyard trying to sarcastically make a point to her friends. We KNOW how bad it is, Frank...

    2. I concur. Frank is Canon212's own worst enemy. He gets in the way of the news. Frequently his expositional headlines reveal that he doesn't even understand the linked article. He should keep his editorializing to his own vlog.

      If I didn't see my own news surfing as a vice disguised as a "need to know" what's going on, I'd start my own aggregator. My own vice is bad enough, but I wouldn't want to participate in the corruption of others.

    3. Agree with you 100% plus with all his uncharitable insults, he must spend hours per year in the confession line.

  3. If anything, Canon212 is simply reflecting the upheaval and chaos that this antipapacy from Hell was designed to instigate. Frank's not causing it - he's simply exposing it.

    And as far as Skojec - Frank is one of *many* faithful Catholics who Steve has unjustifiably lashed out against. If anything - you should be asking:

    "What exactly is the source of Steve Skojec's major malfunction these days?"

    "Why has he morphed into the Mark Shea of the TradoSphere?"

    Because he's one of the biggest self-promoting bomb-throwing snarky-*ss punks in the Catholic blogosphere. And his denigrating and increasing little habit of name-tagging, banning, and herding his minions against anyone who dares question his incongruent and stifling insistence that "Bergoglio is definitely the pope and SHUT THE HELL UP!" is more than deserving of a focused spotlight as a warning to all Catholics.

    I think Frank is doing yeoman's work - and I know it has to take a toll on him spiritually. And he never seemed to be motivated by the typical narcissistic pride and marketing motives that seem to enslave Skojec and so many other "professional" Catholics. In an information world of evermore - "Catholic" know-it-alls and self-appointed experts of the smarter-than-you pharisaic crowd - Frank has been a refreshing island of stability in a stormy sea of noise....

    1. TheRaisedEyebrowJune 11, 2019 at 2:37 PM

      "The Mark Shea of the TradoSphere..."

      BINGO....we have a winner.

    2. Lazarus Gethsemane...If I could up-vote your comment a thousand times, I would. And then I'd up-vote it a thousand times more. Bravo.

    3. "The Mark Shea of the TradoSphere..."

      That's it for sure.

  4. Anyone that reports on Mark Shea's musings is bound to become snarky. If he would eliminate both Shea and longnecker he would be extremely mild. As it is, the saltiness is fine with me.

  5. I find both Canon212 and OnePeterFive to be extremely disappointing.

    I find Canon212 to be very disappointing because of the tone of voice that it adopts in the headlines. It always sounds angry, bitter, snarky, mean, scoffing, condescending, mocking, rude, bombastic, arrogant... all of the attitudes that one should avoid! I use it to look at the headlines, but I wish that the site could be more like Drudge, and just give us the headlines without all the draining attitude. The only people that will appreciate that unhealthy attitude are those who are like that themselves. Psychologically healthy people would not want to be around an attitude like that in real life, so why plaster it all over the news site? If most traditionalists like that kind of attitude, then that has a lot to say about them...

    Plus, the endless attacks on Steve Skojec are tiresome. They make Canon212 look highly immature, and just make the site even more unpleasant to get through.

    As for OnePeterFive, it is very much the same at times, particularly in the comment box. I would like OnePeterFive a lot more if it did not have a comment box... the anger, mocking, condescension, and just all around ugly attitudes really only do traditionalism a disservice. There are so many times when I just avoid the site for long periods, and then sometimes when I look again, I end up regretting it because of all the murky spew that I find there. Steve does have a lot of good things to say, but it can get ugly over there.

    I do not think that news sites like these should be run by angry men. It is difficult enough to stay sane in the midst of everything. I wish that both authors would reboot and share their messages in a much better way. The essence of things is good. The attitudes are not. It just adds more negativity to the already negative news, and really only hurts its own cause.

    Guys, if you are so angry, take up boxing. Get in the ring and hash it out. But then please, say some prayers, calm down, and do your jobs with class. If you are going to promote such high ideals, it would be good to match your attitudes with them.

    1. TheRaisedEyebrowJune 11, 2019 at 2:40 PM

      It's not bitter, OK!?!?!?

  6. Sadly, 1P5 (skojec) has gone totally off the rails. I still enjoy Canon212, though.

  7. agree with anon 10:37 completely. yes, i no longer like visiting canon212, i understand the clickbait of it but the bizarre grudge and ad hominems against steve skojec, and the meanness and hostility in general is not how a Christian should behave

  8. Does any of this matter?
    In the meantime the real pope : Benedict xvi , presides over a church incapable of disciplining heretic priests , bishops and cardinals devouring the flock.
    The only light on the horizn is the advanced age of these scoundrels which means the horror ,thank God, can not last much longer.

  9. AnonymousJune 11, 2019 at 11:27 AM

    You're apparently not aware that it was Skojec who started throwing the insulting snark-bombs at anyone who dared to question Benedict's weird and mysterious resignation. Skojec started hurling crap at Barnhardt - and then others - Canon212 reported it - then Hot-Head Skojec went after Frank Walker.

  10. Thor and his roman catholic hammer.June 11, 2019 at 11:28 AM

    "Does any of this matter?
    In the meantime the real pope : Benedict xvi ...."

    Whoa now! Hold on right there!

    Holy Steve Skojec (the magisterium of 1P5) has assured everyone that you "Benneyvacanists" are full of "bull**it" and you're all just a bunch of illiterate low-I.Q. rubes. Oh and, Steve also wants you to know that Frank Walker is unhinged because he had the audacity to report on Snarky-Steve's ....snarkiness.

  11. Okie trad here. Frank gave his reply to post:

    Joe, I haven’t changed. I only respond to the news as it has developed over these years. If it sounds more ugly, it’s only because that’s the way the news is.

    I don’t have a feud with Skojec. He decided a while back, to try and smear Canon212 and myself, like he has done to others. I don’t think it’s a personal thing. I’m guessing that there are others who are happy to try and limit our reach and Steve is trying to help them. But Steve DOES make news, because he represents a certain dishonest, establishment focus in the faithful press and often discredits them inadvertently. He’s made it clear that he doesn’t feel I have the right to editorialize at all in my headlines. But I have always done that, and I feel it’s my responsibility.

    I don’t understand why being ‘snarky’ is some kind of problem. I think snarkiness in the face of trouble is usually a good idea. It’s honest.

    You bet a steak dinner that some people are complaining about reading C212 headlines. I’m not getting that. My readers seem to like it. Readership is a bit better than this time last year. Occasionally some liberal will shout at me, but that’s as it should be. So, in short: If there are people who don’t like the headlines at C212, it’s probably because they don’t agree with the things they express.

    You call Francis, “the sitting pontiff.” I would not use those words to describe him, since he is a faithless disgrace to the pontificate and, for a number of reasons, he may not even be the pontiff at all. The term isn’t fitting, applies too much honor, and misrepresents him a little. And that’s just one example of how you and I may have differences on substantial things. That’s a more likely explanation for why you’re ‘only skimming’ our headlines these days.

    Anyway, Joe, I’ve always liked your blog and I’ll keep linking to things my readers might use, even this one here. It’s going to say, “Okie Trad: Canon212’s getting too snarky and opinionated. I’d bet a steak dinner people are starting to complain!”

    1. "I don’t understand why being ‘snarky’ is some kind of problem. I think snarkiness in the face of trouble is usually a good idea. It’s honest."

      Actually, snarkiness is a form of dishonesty, and that is exactly why it is not a good idea. It is like passive-aggressive behavior in the sense that it tries to address it's true issues in a round-about manner, but can be easily seen through.

      Snarkiness is a way of expressing anger without coming out and doing so in an honest, straight-forward way. It is harmful because it consistently injects subtly angry attitudes into a situation. Over time, it wears away on the psyche and creates a mindset that responds to life situations not with empathy and compassion, but with suppressed anger (and hence coldness) simply because it is constantly addressing the world around it with a thinly masked anger. In no way is this psychologically healthy for the one doing it, or those listening to it.

      A wise-cracking joke from time to time is one thing. To live that way constantly is a whole other issue.

  12. We are called to be salty are we not? Canon 212 is salty and if you want milquetoast keep with Fr. Z.

  13. Anonymous June 11, 2019 at 12:15 PM

    Actually, snarkiness is a form of dishonesty, and that is exactly why it is not a good idea. It is like passive-aggressive behavior in the sense that it tries to address it's true issues in a round-about manner, but can be easily seen through."

    Then you should check out Steve Skojec's ubiquitous social media comments. Because that jerky-clown specializes in schoolyard punk snarkiness.

    Oh but Frank Walker is the problem here - simply because he reported on Skojec's "dishonesty" as you have labeled it.

    1. That is an interesting comment. It makes a lot of assumptions without any foundation.

      My point was, and still is, that snarkiness is not a healthy form of behavior, regardless of if it comes from Canon 212, Steve Skojec, you, me, or anyone else.

    2. AnonymousJune 11, 2019 at 12:32 PM

      That is an interesting comment. It makes a lot of assumptions without any foundation.

      My point was, and still is, that snarkiness is not a healthy form of behavior, regardless of if it comes from Canon 212, Steve Skojec, you, me, or anyone else.

      Then you should have specified that context, because your response was specifically to Frank - and given the *reality* that Frank's snarkiness pales in comparison to Skojec's arrogant, dismissive, and vindictive snark and that this entire article is unjustly focused only on Frank - it would have been helpful.

    3. Hopefully this conversation cleared the context.

      Just to add one more point: it would be helpful to move past this internet feud between these two. Regardless of where it started or why, it is just adding more tension to an already horribly tense news environment.

      I do not think that this is what either one of them wants to leave behind: two men who took up arms to fight for the faith, and ended up being remembered as fighting each other in some small corner of the great battle field whilst the war raged on.

    4. Anonymous June 11, 2019 at 1:43 PM

      On the contrary - the battle between Skojec and Walker IS part of this greater war. This is what this spiritual war looks like up close and personal. This is how the vast majority of us will fight it within our own small lives. Even among our own families and parishes. Already the wheat is being separated from the chaff. People's true motives are coming to the surface as they chose which side of Truth they really serve.

      Skojec has revealed to the world that his number one motive - is his ego. And his second - is "marketing" his brand of Catholic truth.

      Any Catholic enterprise built on that foundation of self-serving sand is doomed to collapse. And subconsciously - I think he knows it - which is why he's becoming increasingly agitated, angry, and openly vicious. He knows he's more interested in competing for market shares by selling his image of self-confidence than he is about humbly looking for the Truth with a heart of open uncertainty and a willingness to see the reality before his eyes.

      “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” ~ James 4:6

  14. One Peter Five hit the skids when Skojec went ballistic attacking John Venari & Michael Matt over the tone they used in their letter concerning the Holy Father. Skojec's obsession with how others conduct their affairs is obnoxious at best, but truly reprehensible when he attacks on his website and then shuts down comboxes under the auspices of keeping things nice. It's very sad.

  15. The snark is usually most well deserved.

  16. Jeremiah AlphonsusJune 11, 2019 at 4:42 PM

    Frank’s tone is a form of gallows humor. He knows the situation: laugh or cry. I welcome his dark humor, which is entirely consistent with the tragi-comedy of this rotting age.

    Cucks, whether they be cuckservatives or CatholiCucks, can’t resist tone-policing. Cucks of every species burn with lust for mainstream respectability. Hence today they must always be sliding left in one way or another. Tone-policing is part of this pitiful slide. Let us not be cucks of any kind.

    1. Damn straight, Jeremiah. My only beef with Frank is that he never posts links on the Jewish Question. If Catholics don't understand the JQ, they'll never understand what's happening to us and why. It's of critical importance. (If you're reading this Frank, Dr. E. Michael Jones is doing amazing work on youtube). Yes, you will be falsely accused of anti-Semitism by the likes of Shea, but just remember the source.

    2. Jeremiah AlphonsusJune 11, 2019 at 9:04 PM

      Jewish power in every sphere has never been greater. From the news media, to the entertainment media, to the print media, to academia, to finance, to the judiciary, to the levers of govt power.... It’s simply never been greater than it is today. But since, as Steve Sailer has written, “political correctness is a war on noticing,” we’re not supposed to notice such facts. And of course minds formed by the Judas Council (VII) are Judaized minds. Even those who rejected the Judas Council can't escape its taint, just as those who live in a slaughterhouse can't escape its stench. Modernity is a slaughterhouse.

    3. That's exactly right, I've often said that Bergoglio and his merry band of heretics are nothing more than Judaizers. And yes, it's very disheartening to see even Catholics fall in line with the anti-Semite ruse, for simply pointing out the truth to them. We've all been tainted by the Council. This has to be overcome somehow, or you can kiss Western civilization goodbye.

    4. Jeremiah AlphonsusJune 12, 2019 at 1:48 PM

      Even many Catholics styling themselves as traditional are desperately afraid of being branded "anti-semitic," or they just don't want to face the JQ. For example, I was recently banned from the IP5 site for getting really real about the Jews and quoting saints in support. See the comments under "The Hemlock Self-Prescribed" article. But those who personally attacked me were not banned.

  17. So you cure snark with psychobabble? Snark is actually one way of expressing cynicism. These days cynicism is warranted. Yes there are exceptions; sad to say they prove the rule.

    It occurs to me that if C212's headlines are that dispiriting one should stop reading it rather than whining about it. I don't agree with Frank's take on everything either, but he finds a lot of interesting stuff.

    1. How is it "psychobabble" to warn people that living in a state of anger is not good for them? Do you really think that living in a state of anger is spiritually beneficial? Can you honestly say that constantly feeding people "snarky" attitudes is spiritually healthy for them?

      Constant anger is toxic. It drains a person not just emotionally, but spiritually as well. Even scripture warns against this on numerous occasions, encouraging people to make amends with one another and to not call each other "fool." Yes, there are times when anger is warranted, but to just live in that state is by no means wise, and any spiritual teacher worth their salt will tell you this.

      It is important to think deeply about how such behaviors effect a person, as there are genuine side effects to living in such a way. Call it "psychobabble" all you like. Christianity is a religion of healing, and even it knows that this is not a good way to live, as so many throughout it's history have taught.

      Unfortunately, the world of internet traditionalism is loaded with anger. Like attracts like. Let's face it: traditionalists tend to be angry people. They get online and fight like school yard bullies. You say that I am whining, but the online trad world is a seeming never-ending litany of angry "whining." Trying to convince people living in the murk and mire of anger that their attitudes are unhealthy is virtually impossible, as they are all supporting each other in it. It is genuinely sad to see, and a great disappointment. How can people with such high ideals be such angry, unhappy, mean people?

    2. And you know that Walker 'lives in constant anger'

      Internet psychoanalysis is usually wrong, dear.

    3. Anonymous seems to think we should respond to tyrants like Bergoglio with empathy and compassion.

    4. @ AnonymousJune 12, 2019 at 2:54 AM

      You sound like you're living in a state of constant anger.

      "Christianity is a religion of healing, and even it knows that this is not a good way to live, as so many throughout it's history have taught."

      One can only "heal" when the sickness of evil is confronted.

      Our Lord stated His mission clearly in two Gospels:

      “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword." ~ Matthew 10:34

      "Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." ~ Luke 12:51

      You sound like a Liberal Novus Ordo Vacuum II "catholic" - who believes the modernist fallacy that Jesus was some sort of Peace-and-Love Hippy Camp-Counselor flower child who just wanted "peace on the earth" and tolerance and non-judgmental "love" and niceness among all religions.

      And yet - here you are - bitter, intolerant, incredibly judgemental, and spiritually pretentious.

      No go - and sin no more.

    5. Jeremiah AlphonsusJune 12, 2019 at 1:52 PM

      One Sins by Not Becoming Duly Irate

      The liberal myth spreads that a man should never become irate; he should always be mild-mannered and unruffled. This is not, however, the teaching of the Church. St. John Chrysostom and St. Thomas Aquinas explain that it is not only good, but also necessary to become irate for a due cause. Doing this, a man acts according to reason, not passion. If he fails to be irate before evil and punish it as it should be punished, then he sins.

      St. John Chrysostom:

      Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

      Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong.

      (Homily XI super Matheum, 1c, nt.7)

      St. Thomas Aquinas:

      Ire may be understood in two ways.

      In one way, as a simple movement of the will that inflicts punishment not through passion, but by virtue of a judgment of the reason: and in this case, without a doubt, lack of ire is a sin. This is how Chrysostom understands ire when he says: ‘Ire, when it has a cause, is not ire but judgment. For properly speaking, ire is a movement of passion. And when a man is irate with just cause, his ire does not derive from passion. Rather, it is an act of judgment, not of ire.”

      In another way, ire can be understood as a movement of the sensitive appetite agitated by passion with bodily excitation. This movement is a necessary sequel in man to the previous movement of his will, since the lower appetite naturally follows the movement of the higher appetite unless some obstacle prevents it. Hence the movement of ire in the sensitive appetite cannot be lacking altogether, unless the movement of the will is altogether lacking or weak. Consequently, the lack of the passion of ire is also a vice, as it is the lack of movement in the will to punish according to the judgment of reason.

      (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 158, art. 8)

    6. There is nothing wrong with being justly angry over a just cause.

      It is living in CONSISTENT snarky bitterness (a form of anger) that is the problem.

      The current climate today gives us reasons every day to be justly angry. We could easily live in irate bitterness 24/7, making biting comments at every turn, and feeling "justified." Yet when there are so many reasons to be justly angry as we are experiencing on a daily basis, it is important to make careful decisions about just how much of that negativity we are going to live in. In other words, we also have to protect ourselves, and each other, from ending up dwelling in anger so much that we just become consistently angry, bitter, negative people. My argument is that sites that exude this sort of atmosphere CONSTANTLY do not offer this sort of support and protection when it is what we need.

      Lazarus Gethsemane, I am not going to enter into a bitterness-based feud with you that is fueled more by petty comments than any sort of just anger. Traditionalists should be building each other up, not tearing one another down. If the later is what you are interested in doing, as it appears that you are, then I wish you the best but have no interest in engaging.

      We have work to do, people. We have battles to fight. We need to support one another, and not drain our energy by living in consistent bitterness. If that is the path that you choose to follow, and you want to keep attacking each other in com boxes and making bitter, snarky comments all over the internet, then it is your choice. But you might one day want to stop and ask yourself why you feel the need to do so. Has something in your culture made you that way, and if so, is it really worth it?

      I, for one, simply think that on a CONSISTENT BASIS, there is a better way.

  18. Driving doubtless thousands to opoid abuse, there are numerous sites that approach rape, perversion, mass murder, & Berg's Global homosexual bathhouse with much thoughtful concern. FW's magnificent contempt for all that is what makes keeping up with the horrors bearable. Ok?

  19. The problem with editorializing every news headline is that to do it right requires both Omniscence and perfect virtue. Zeal is good, but bitter zeal carries away no fruit.

    1. Frank does not carry the fruit away. He leaves it for us!! Frank is charitable!!

    2. Alexis Bugnolo

      Tell ya what, why don't YOU try sifting through the dozens of news stories on the Church's daily collapse and descent into unprecedented evil from within - and do it with perfect virtue and happy cheery zeal.

    3. Exactly. The entire atmosphere is becoming more and more angry, bitter, and negative. People talk about "just anger," but then attack each other over petty little ideas. They are sinking more and more into base, pride-based reactions than a well considered "just anger." You can even see it in some of the communities, where the traditionalists bicker with each other like little fight cats and attack newbies who displease them with spiteful venom. It is dysfunction at its best, and like most dysfunction, they cannot see it.