The bizarre world of NCR

[bones_IV]

Seems to me that the NCR is living in the liberal’s world of fiction.

closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/10/bizarre-world-of-ncr.html

 

[cheese_sdc]

Sr. Chittister’s article, in whole.

She makes some good points.

nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/pc101606.htm

 

[bones_IV]

Sr. Chittister’s article, in whole.

She makes some good points.

nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/pc101606.htm

So you think that Triditine Mass is a dictator kind of mass? The real “grass growing through concrete” is the age-old problem of sin, which has been undermining human efforts for generations and causes cracks in our spiritual foundations. Another thing, cheese_sdc, have you ever considered that the solutions she proposes are already answered in the Church’s teachings?

 

[cheese_sdc]

So you think that Triditine Mass is a dictator kind of mass? The real “grass growing through concrete” is the age-old problem of sin, which has been undermining human efforts for generations and causes cracks in our spiritual foundations. Another thing, cheese_sdc, have you ever considered that the solutions she proposes are already answered in the Church’s teachings?

Have you perhaps considered, bones_IV, that I was not refering to that particular point. I said that she makes some good points. I did not say that all of her points are good.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I need to save room for my foot.

 

[bones_IV]

Have you perhaps considered, bones_IV, that I was not refering to that particular point. I said that she makes some good points. I did not say that all of her points are good.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I need to save room for my foot.

But the bad ones I pointed out totally negate the good ones. Consider that two negatives can never equal a positive.

 

[bones_IV]

If you have weeds growing, we have two options, either we can rid of them as the Church has done for centuries, or as Sister Chittister suggests, accept them and try to coexist with them until the pavement becomes completely useless from the cracks (which is what she seems to be implying).

 

[JimO]

Sr. Chittister’s article, in whole.

She makes some good points.

I actually took the time to read the whole article and, frankly, it seemed more like a redundant stream of conscienceness to me with the only point made is that we need more civil public dialogue. She didn’t indicate her position on any issue except to make it clear that she doesn’t like the way the public debate is going and we need to talk more. Obviously, she doesn’t like the Church’s position on the issues.

I find that those who desent from the truth always say that there needs to be more discussion. They insist that we need to sit down and calmly talk about the issues - birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc. This is exactly what nearly every “Catholic expert” on the networks and CNN was saying during the last papal election. “We need to sit down and dialogue…and talk…and dialogue…and talk…” It’s their mantra.

What’s there to talk about? The issues these people want to talk about have been decided, in most cases, infallably. Ongoing talk only implies that the possibility of change exists. Ongoing talk is designed to create doubt. She is naive if she thinks that suddenly one day all parties will come to a consensus on an issue like birth control. But, as long as the dialogue continues, you see, the Church’s teachings can be portrayed as optional. If the “dialogue is open” then people think that the Church hasn’t spoken definitively. It’s the ongoing dialogue on these matters of faith that creates the cracks through which the weeds grow.

 

[fix]

I actually took the time to read the whole article and, frankly, it seemed more like a redundant stream of conscienceness…

Yep.

 

[Maranatha]

I actually took the time to read the whole article and, frankly, it seemed more like a redundant stream of conscienceness to me with the only point made is that we need more civil public dialogue. She didn’t indicate her position on any issue except to make it clear that she doesn’t like the way the public debate is going and we need to talk more. Obviously, she doesn’t like the Church’s position on the issues.

I find that those who desent from the truth always say that there needs to be more discussion. They insist that we need to sit down and calmly talk about the issues - birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc. This is exactly what nearly every “Catholic expert” on the networks and CNN was saying during the last papal election. “We need to sit down and dialogue…and talk…and dialogue…and talk…” It’s their mantra.

What’s there to talk about? The issues these people want to talk about have been decided, in most cases, infallably. Ongoing talk only implies that the possibility of change exists. Ongoing talk is designed to create doubt. She is naive if she thinks that suddenly one day all parties will come to a consensus on an issue like birth control. But, as long as the dialogue continues, you see, the Church’s teachings can be portrayed as optional. If the “dialogue is open” then people think that the Church hasn’t spoken definitively. It’s the ongoing dialogue on these matters of faith that creates the cracks through which the weeds grow.

I read the entire article as well (which is difficult with her obfuscated style) and I can to the exact same conclusions. She wants to keep talking until you agree with her position.