AmericanPapist Comments
Just when you thought it could not become an even worse train wreck, someone drops an airliner on this mess.
Let's get some photos of this pastor. If the SPI are attending the Folsom Street Fair, then it could stand to reason our good father and even the archbishop could be in attendance as well.
I think it is safe to sound the cahoots alert.
Why bother? I'd be more concerned about the name-calling and anger on this blog and others. Speck, plank, eye: we know the drill, don't we?
Why, Todd? I haven't seen any name-calling or anger that would appear unjustified. I mean, nothing to rise to the level of "white-washed sepulchres full of dead men's bones" or making a whip of cords to turn out the central banking establishment of the region.
Besides, shouldn't you be worrying with your own mote, rather than trouncing about offering unsolicited spiritual advice?
Todd is a traitor of the true Gospel of Kicking Ass and Taking Names. He'd better wise up or else invest in an eternity's worth of asbestos and air conditioning.
Never fails.
Stand up for what you believe in if you are gay and it's all "you go girl!"
Stand up for what you believe in as a Christian, and it's "I thought you guys were the door mats!"
The real "apology" the whole Catholic Church needs is for Archbishop Niederauer to suppress Holy Redeemer parish, sine die.
Dcn. Fournier's article is excellent.
"Why, Todd? I haven't seen any name-calling or anger that would appear unjustified."
Let's see; Niederauer has been called "false shepherd" and "apostate" and "coward" and member of the "mafia." Any proof of this, or are Catholic bloggers and commenters just flinging this out on general feelings? Heh--and they criticize us liberals for being too touchy-feely.
"Besides, shouldn't you be worrying with your own mote, rather than trouncing about offering unsolicited spiritual advice?"
As long as bloggers keep the comboxes open, I take it as a general invitation to comment. If I choose to criticize others' advice, I'll feel free to do so.
I suspect my observations on the lack of charity of St Blog's really, really sticks in the craw of some people. Too bad; you have to live with it.
Gee, I don't remember using any of these phrases. Maybe you wandered into the wrong combox, Todd? Or do you just normally shoot from the hip like this?
Todd's upset about some other blog: not yours, thomas. I don't even see the point of his posting here. Todd, if you're angry about people who are uncharitable towards the Bishop, the tell them: don't take out on Am P's readers.
No anger here on my part, my friends. I mention in my first comment it was about comments here and on other blogs.
Friday's "popular" thread includes accusations of "dereliction of duty" among other things. Gerald's cafeteria blog's commentariat was more vicious than this one: lots of accusations here, but no really bad name-calling.
New definition of anger: "I don't quite get what that person's talking about."
Yes, and every accusation a founded one I hope. If some of them aren't, please cite which ones and why. That would constitute a contribution to the debate. Your 'mote and spec' routine is bunk. Clearly, if any sort of personal sin barred one from observing the failings of others there would be practically no debate in this world at all.
Thomas, I have no objection the text of any of your posts. My issue is more with St Blog's commentariat. It's fine to harbor personal doubts about a person. It crosses the lines of propriety, virtue/sin, charity, and scandal to indulge in groundless name-calling out of anger.
This is the flaw that requires repenting. I also thank you for reminding us that personal sin does not relieve us of our duty to admonish sinners.
Also, as blogger, we might maintain the proper boundaries as we see fit, but our commenters also post on our web pages, and as administrators of our own sites, we are colored by these associations. The big-time bloggers who have comment boxes seem less bothered by the faults of their fans. I will say, though, that your blog and commentariat are far less offensive than the Cafeteria site or a few others. My sincere apologies for impugning improper guilt by association.
While I think Deacon Fournier had some good things to say, I find an article at Catholic Online slamming anything a little bit amusing since the owner of Catholic Online has been served papers by the Kern County DA for failure to pay money owed to individuals and dioceses through his Catholic Financial Services service. Tens of thousands of dollars are missing.
As I commented in my post "A Fool For Us: Archbishop George Niederauer", I had a lot of concern about the "players" in this scandal - that appeared (to this attorney) to perfect a set-up and humiliation of my Archbishop. I urged Catholic bloggers to stop attacking the main man in the room - and look around. www.dealwhudson.typepad.com. Noteworthy, the Archdiocese was blamed in 2006 for cancelling the "Sisters" lease of parish property for their notorious "Revival Bingo", sexually charged fund-raiser. http://www.revivalbingo.com/ Is it a coincidence that they announce they have "finally" found a new place for their bingo while proudly advertising the trouble they have caused for the Archbishop at the same time? http://thesisters.org/ Please, remember the successors of the Apostles, so generously given to us by God, in your prayers as they bring Christ's message into truly needy places like San Francisco.
I would have some sympathy for the archbishop if he hadn't previously written a letter defending a pedophile and had actually dealt with the gay adoption scandal at Catholic Charities in SF.
Commenting by HaloScan
