D
Dadrocks
Guest
Cy and Joe, I applaud your efforts.
But I’m sorry, I was disappointed in your unsuccessful effort to achieve the goal of your discussion. You addressed two prominent Catholic personalities’ criticisms of Pope Francis.
You just failed to address the question satisfactorily (Cy, you “hoped you had” with an inquiring tone, so I’m not attacking you, but providing my honest feedback). Joe admitted that he addresses the issue flippantly for reasons he did explain and are understandable.
You both addressed the specific criticisms indirectly and it came across as a personally defensive defense of the papacy which is not what the criticisms are about (although Cy, you admitted this need to defend was your tendency, which is also understandable). You vaguely alluded to the necessity of our need to look at the: preponderance of evidence, its implications, and inevitable conclusions regarding poor behavior and leadership of the man who is the Pope.
The laity has the responsibility, if not an obligation to (as a work of mercy) to call out that poor behavior and leadership by the prime minister of the faith. In this “Time of the Laity”, we can not be called to stand by quietly without endangering our souls by the good we fail to do.
How long can one continually defend the behavior (not the office) again and again as you stated, continually? Sorry so negative, I appreciate and enjoy you Cy, the show, and all your guests, except maybe Tim Staples, LOL, just kidding (I can’t pass up to giving a fellow Jarhead a hard time). He’s great too.
Maybe you could take another stab at answering the question, or provide some guidance on weighing the evidence and drawing one’s own conclusions, and how to correctly respond to those conclusions positive or negative (which I thought Joe did a beautiful job. I think its true when you loose your peace, you are on the wrong path). Thanks for hearing my (name removed by moderator)ut. God Bless!
. . . .
But I’m sorry, I was disappointed in your unsuccessful effort to achieve the goal of your discussion. You addressed two prominent Catholic personalities’ criticisms of Pope Francis.
You just failed to address the question satisfactorily (Cy, you “hoped you had” with an inquiring tone, so I’m not attacking you, but providing my honest feedback). Joe admitted that he addresses the issue flippantly for reasons he did explain and are understandable.
You both addressed the specific criticisms indirectly and it came across as a personally defensive defense of the papacy which is not what the criticisms are about (although Cy, you admitted this need to defend was your tendency, which is also understandable). You vaguely alluded to the necessity of our need to look at the: preponderance of evidence, its implications, and inevitable conclusions regarding poor behavior and leadership of the man who is the Pope.
The laity has the responsibility, if not an obligation to (as a work of mercy) to call out that poor behavior and leadership by the prime minister of the faith. In this “Time of the Laity”, we can not be called to stand by quietly without endangering our souls by the good we fail to do.
How long can one continually defend the behavior (not the office) again and again as you stated, continually? Sorry so negative, I appreciate and enjoy you Cy, the show, and all your guests, except maybe Tim Staples, LOL, just kidding (I can’t pass up to giving a fellow Jarhead a hard time). He’s great too.
Maybe you could take another stab at answering the question, or provide some guidance on weighing the evidence and drawing one’s own conclusions, and how to correctly respond to those conclusions positive or negative (which I thought Joe did a beautiful job. I think its true when you loose your peace, you are on the wrong path). Thanks for hearing my (name removed by moderator)ut. God Bless!
. . . .
Last edited: