You ask rhetorical questions, accuse the Pope of a double-standard, that is, being a hypocrite, then cue your own silence. That is the essence our your post.
What has happened to this place?
I don’t know about ‘this place’ but **I accused the POPE of nothing. **
There are other people out there, not simply Pope, bishops, or even priests, to whom my so-called ‘rhetorical question’ might apply; why do you assume every word that ‘questions’ or notes disparity of action regarding ‘anybody’ is 'accusing the Pope?"
Sheesh. No offense, because I certainly understand your being sensitive --I myself was a bit sensitive to actual (not simply perceived) criticisms directly quite specifically at Pope St. John Paul II and at Pope Benedict, and I have, although you may not have noted it on other threads defended Pope Francis against
real criticism and unfairness. . .but a big problem with ‘this place’ is reflected in many other ‘places’ especially in the last 10 years or so – a difficulty, even among well-educated and well-intentioned people, including you and the vast majority of decent, thoughtful people who post here, of actually ‘discussing’ concepts, ideas, events, etc. in a ‘normal way’, the way in which many of us educated in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and even 70s would have recognized, the classical style of debate, exchanges of information, etc. That apparently is long gone and replaced by hypersensitivity, hypercriticism, chips on the shoulder, arguments full of fallacies especially those marked by ad hominems, emotionalism, false dichotomies, etc. and with people not really ‘talking’ but simply spitting out their own ideas which are cloaked with a kind of ‘personal infallibility’ and aimed to deride, dismantle, and disregard anything that is ‘perceived’ as ‘against’.
I must be careful to remark that **your arguments **are not themselves couched that way. However, what has happened is that, due to the fact that so many people (not just on these fora)
do argue this way, one comes into a discussion with a predetermined but mostly unconscious bias. I know that I’m guilty of it at times (probably most times) but I’m on guard against it, because I know that just because there is a high preponderance of armchair pontiffs out there, it does not mean that every poster, or every post, is made from that viewpoint. But that viewpoint colors our instinctive reactions. And that is why, when we are bombarded with a media that for all it bleats, “Shades of grey” is bent on a ‘black and white’ attitude; 'the ‘right way’ is all white, the ‘wrong’ is all black. People are no longer simply mistaken; if they say something ‘wrong’ it is because they are deliberately trying to be wrong, evil, etc.
It is indeed terrible, and I am not sure how long these fora can stand against it.
That, and the upcoming Nineveh 90 challenge (part of which limits ‘recreational internet’ except on Sundays) and which starts tomorrow is why I myself will be visiting only occasionally on Sundays until May 13. I can only hope that with time and prayer the prevailing attitude of very, very nasty internecine warfare which is all too prevalent here will have somewhat abated.
