Jun 17 2009
When Contrarians Attack!
I coined the term “Contrarians” one day in a conversation with Baby Brother. It was a riff on the “Vulgarians” at the Michigan Renaissance Festival, a fictional royal family that was not only vulgar, but also cheated, insulted other families, etc. 
In a similar way, Contrarians don’t just disagree with other people’s opinions. They seldom create anything of their own, yet when viewing the results of another person’s labor, they state (loudly) how it could have been done better. They throw no fabulous parties, but they somehow manage to attend the most popular (and disappointing) affairs.
To Contrarians, everything has been done and everything is jejune – and yet they have the ability to emote boredom or apathy without appearing to strain themselves. Highly-skilled Contrarians can quash inventions and innovations without ever losing their blasé mien. Such are their skills that nonContrarians can’t hear the whoosh as the joy is sucked from the room.
Contrarians can be found in every stage of life, from callow teenagers to retirees. They have a myriad of occupations, from guidance counselor to movie director. And they thrive in a variety of habitats, from intimate family gatherings to classes with “Critical Theory” in the title.
The reverend John Zuhlsdorf, aka Fr. Z, has dissected a theological specimen.
Nicole Sotelo wrote a column in the National Catholic Reporter in which she criticizes the Pope’s declaration of the Year of the Priest (a call to prayer for priestly vocations). She says he should be declaring a Year of the Laity. In between, she declares that priests didn’t exist in the ancient church and that Christ Himself wasn’t a priest, which is why all people should emulate Him in a common priesthood.
Sound confusing?
As I note in the combox, her manner is familiar to anyone who’s taken a class in “Critical Theory” (Deconstructionism’s eviler Marxist twin). She blatently cherry-picks the Bible because she’s on a sexism/classicism hunt. Thus, truth is no defense.
I’m slightly amused by her implication Pope Benedict is not as great a theologian as she is. She expresses (sardonically) her reluctance to inform him of his errors. If she were any more condescending, she’d be a (male) character in a Dan Brown book.
