T
Tomster
Guest
Sorry, there were no concelebrants for this one and the piece of cake on the paten looked like my grandmothers homemade coffee cafe.
- Status
F
frommi
Guest
Then you weren’t watching the funeral…I can tell you that…
From news reports of the funeral:
“Bishop Joseph Imesch of Joliet, Ill. - a former priest of the Detroit archdiocese and a longtime friend - was the principal celebrant at the funeral. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton and retired Detroit Auxiliary Archbishop Walter Schoenherr concelebrated while Cardinal Adam Maida, the archbishop of Detroit imparted a final blessing.”
And again…something having the appearance of bread, coffee cake…whatever…not automatically invalid matter…
S
setter
Guest
What a contortion …let’s blame the victims and minimize and deny the pain and hurt experienced by these souls at the hand of this dissident bishop.
In all due respect, yours does come across as facetious rambling.
In an effort to break through the denial of those who would see and defend this dissident bishop through rose covered glasses, I repost this earlier post:
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
OK fine, You got me. The archdiocesan paper was wrong, someone should be fired. If there’s no conspiracy to slip these endorsements into the paper (we’ll assume there was a conspiracy) then we ought to write bitter letters to the editor and then stage a protest outside the paper’s HQ every Saturday until they post a retraction.
A brief with all video, audio and textual evidence of heresy ought to be gathered, notarized and sent to the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington DC with a cover note translated in Italian (also notarized).
To make it even easier, TG1 (Italian TV channel) ought to be invited (via the Italian Consulate) to film a short explaining why this is A BIG DEAL, so the next time Cardinal goes to Rome he has something to talk about with the Pope.
But other than this, us lay people shouldn’t volunteer in parishes, the dioceses, or religious orders that are actually doing anything to replace the 60 and 70 year old diehards of the silly season of yore, because that would make far too much sense and might even require a bit of sweat.
Have a great day!
A brief with all video, audio and textual evidence of heresy ought to be gathered, notarized and sent to the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington DC with a cover note translated in Italian (also notarized).
To make it even easier, TG1 (Italian TV channel) ought to be invited (via the Italian Consulate) to film a short explaining why this is A BIG DEAL, so the next time Cardinal goes to Rome he has something to talk about with the Pope.
But other than this, us lay people shouldn’t volunteer in parishes, the dioceses, or religious orders that are actually doing anything to replace the 60 and 70 year old diehards of the silly season of yore, because that would make far too much sense and might even require a bit of sweat.
Have a great day!
S
setter
Guest
The problem is that it is a big deal. I get the impression that too many for too long have been lulled into complacency. Then when someone does offer legitimate and articulate objections, people are more bothered that they are being challenged and bothered to reconsider their tolerance of dissent, that they turn the tables on the offended, versus the offender. Strange times that we live in.
BTW – I did write an objective, though cutting letter to the editor, but highly doubt it will get published as the Msgr. author of the contested article is also the administrative overseer of this diocesan weekly paper.
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
And my point to you is…my somewhat flippant post above is the only other way to proceed - not getting mad, not commisserating among fellow anonymous posters (I’m not anonymous) and not playing the game within the confines of an editorial.
The problem? Someone allowed a dissenting book to get a good review.
One solution? Change that person’s mind - however if the person working for the paper is a dissenter and the paper doesn’t want further morale problems or lawsuits, they’ll probably not bow to the usual outside pressure (general grumbling from the catholic people or a couple of nasty-gram editorials), thus all the heat and anger is wasted.
Other solution? Get an orthodox person hired to replace the dissenter (longer term solution, not a quick fix) and in todays economic climate probably would require a minor miracle to pull off…
Only other solution would be a massive committment of time, energy, and resources to make this an issue via protests, pickets and the creation of an ‘ad hoc committee of concerned Catholics’ with letterhead and a dedicated phone line to handle the PR battle that would be unleashed.
There are other ways to get around dissenters - like using their own play book and staging a “die in for orthodoxy” like they used to do “for peace” - but again, that requires alot of people, time, effort, and money to organized and the willingness to take personal heat for your convictions.
The best thing to do is - as galling as it sounds - fight evil with good, teach kids the truth without wasting time on the “official” channels still teaching watered down Catholicism… in other words, let them do what they want, but you do what is right. No need for confrontation at all.
But again, you want to fish or cut bait? Complaining on this forum as an anonymous soul among mostly anonymous souls isn’t going to do anything; not going to convince a dissenter of the error of their ways, not going to instruct someone in the truth of Catholicism, and it’s not going to advance your cause of winning the next generation for Christ’s Church.
I have alot of practical solutions but none of them involve venting online.
Alternate solution?
The problem? Someone allowed a dissenting book to get a good review.
One solution? Change that person’s mind - however if the person working for the paper is a dissenter and the paper doesn’t want further morale problems or lawsuits, they’ll probably not bow to the usual outside pressure (general grumbling from the catholic people or a couple of nasty-gram editorials), thus all the heat and anger is wasted.
Other solution? Get an orthodox person hired to replace the dissenter (longer term solution, not a quick fix) and in todays economic climate probably would require a minor miracle to pull off…
Only other solution would be a massive committment of time, energy, and resources to make this an issue via protests, pickets and the creation of an ‘ad hoc committee of concerned Catholics’ with letterhead and a dedicated phone line to handle the PR battle that would be unleashed.
There are other ways to get around dissenters - like using their own play book and staging a “die in for orthodoxy” like they used to do “for peace” - but again, that requires alot of people, time, effort, and money to organized and the willingness to take personal heat for your convictions.
The best thing to do is - as galling as it sounds - fight evil with good, teach kids the truth without wasting time on the “official” channels still teaching watered down Catholicism… in other words, let them do what they want, but you do what is right. No need for confrontation at all.
But again, you want to fish or cut bait? Complaining on this forum as an anonymous soul among mostly anonymous souls isn’t going to do anything; not going to convince a dissenter of the error of their ways, not going to instruct someone in the truth of Catholicism, and it’s not going to advance your cause of winning the next generation for Christ’s Church.
I have alot of practical solutions but none of them involve venting online.
Alternate solution?
S
setter
Guest
I see that you take alot of pride in not being an anonymous forum participant …your ‘tone’ comes across as more than a a bit prideful and self-exhaulting to me …maybe you need to consider that it takes a bit more humility to remain anonymous …
This over simplifies the issue at hand.
Can you offer any suggestions on how a humble lay person goes about changing the mind of a career dissenter, as in heterodox, who occupies a most prominant position in the archdiocese?
You are losing useful perspective here.
Is the goal to avoid confrontation and uncomfortable feelings?
You attempt to trivialize and reduce the legitimate concerns of a serious and faithful Catholic as a self-absorbing exercise in “complaining” and “venting”, and as if “anonymous” somehow disqualifies my thoughts and convictions.
I fight the battle in my sphere of influence as I feel called by God – which I am trying to do.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Perhaps you weren’t around the forums when this Bishop was overseeing this diocese. Maybe you didn’t bother to read some of the links I provided. And there were many, many more threads that were lost due to the crash on CA. At any rate, countless Catholics wrote thoughtful, concise letter that were not “anonymous” to their priests and to this Bishop in the hopes of seeing some changes. People were organized and willingly gave their time and effort, not flinching from taking heat for their convictions.
Glib response. Of course children need correct teaching. Unfortunately, those “official” channels are making everyone’s task more difficult. The “official channels” are the ones who monkey with the liturgy until it is unrecognizable, and turn our once beautiful Churches into high school auditoriums with pretty painted pictures and banners. My 80 years old parents who have not missed ONE Sunday Mass in their lives are confused and wondering what has happened to their beloved Catholic faith. What do you suggest I tell them to do?
I wonder why people feel it necessary to belittle those who come to these forums to express their concern and distress about matters pertaining to their faith. Contrary to what you may think, many of us find it helpful and encouraging to speak with other Catholics who are struggling with these issues. We also find it gives us the strength to address our concerns with the “officials”. As a personal testimony, the folks on these forums most certainly “won” me from the errors of my generation and have instructed me more than the 13 years of Catholic school I had back in the stone age.
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
It’s a glib response because by merely complaining about something without specifying what the truth of the matter is on the one hand or posting a genuine Catholic rebuttal to the late Bishop’s works on the other, what sort of service are you providing to the Catholic world in general other than venting or preaching to the choir?
And since most people here and on other chat rooms are anonymous you’re not even gathering likeminded souls into something useful - not like organizing your own lay group would be for example…
Now, if you want to propose some practical solution based on the outrage de jour, go for it - but as my post above points out, you either will run afoul of an entrenched bureaucracy which is not going to back down, or you’re faced with a situation where you’ll be throwing “pearls to the swine” in that the people who most need to hear the truth (the youth, fellow lay people) won’t even hear about it and those who are “opposing” you will STILL have the official organs to play with - and depending on your vociferousness, they may eventually use official Diocesan means against you, personally thus distracting you from spreading light.
Which returns me to my conclusion - if you want to evangelize the youth and protect fellow Catholic lay people from heresy, you’ll get much further along in the task by just forgetting about diocesan or parish media entirely and just do you own thing. Lighting a candle is always preferable to cursing the darkness.
Of course, this is all premised on YOUR orthodoxy reflecting what the Pope actually teaches and not your own opinion.
If you pour your time and money and talent into a lay based Catholic education apostolate and attract like-minded souls to the cause, then eventually when the Bishop and Bureaucracy changes, they will have a ready made pool of well formed lay people to draw from to restock their official Church offices with - and there won’t be any bad blood between you and “them”.
Or you can just continue to bicker, whine, gossip and complain - get angry that I’m not joining you, and think I’m some sort of enemy to be argued with rather than someone who’se trying to help you not waste time and energy better spent elsewhere. .
And since most people here and on other chat rooms are anonymous you’re not even gathering likeminded souls into something useful - not like organizing your own lay group would be for example…
Now, if you want to propose some practical solution based on the outrage de jour, go for it - but as my post above points out, you either will run afoul of an entrenched bureaucracy which is not going to back down, or you’re faced with a situation where you’ll be throwing “pearls to the swine” in that the people who most need to hear the truth (the youth, fellow lay people) won’t even hear about it and those who are “opposing” you will STILL have the official organs to play with - and depending on your vociferousness, they may eventually use official Diocesan means against you, personally thus distracting you from spreading light.
Which returns me to my conclusion - if you want to evangelize the youth and protect fellow Catholic lay people from heresy, you’ll get much further along in the task by just forgetting about diocesan or parish media entirely and just do you own thing. Lighting a candle is always preferable to cursing the darkness.
Of course, this is all premised on YOUR orthodoxy reflecting what the Pope actually teaches and not your own opinion.
If you pour your time and money and talent into a lay based Catholic education apostolate and attract like-minded souls to the cause, then eventually when the Bishop and Bureaucracy changes, they will have a ready made pool of well formed lay people to draw from to restock their official Church offices with - and there won’t be any bad blood between you and “them”.
Or you can just continue to bicker, whine, gossip and complain - get angry that I’m not joining you, and think I’m some sort of enemy to be argued with rather than someone who’se trying to help you not waste time and energy better spent elsewhere. .
S
setter
Guest
Strategy #1) Invalidate: You have no problem with the very specific examples provided of this late Bishop’s words lend themselves to causing ambiguity and mistrust and choosing error amongst the faithful. Then you turn around in defense of this dissident bishop by negatively labeling the presented evidence as “complaining”, “venting” and implying the disingenuous motives of those concerned about protecting the deposit of faith.
Strategy #2) Discredit: You would have us believe that Anonymous is synonymous with Disqualify, i.e., not useful.
BTW – What type of “lay group” are you recommending, for what purpose, and what criteria for “useful” do you apply.
Strategy #3) Instill with sense of futility and wave your lantern as the only practical way to illumine the darkness: You seem to struggle with conflict as a bad thing to be avoided, that Goliath is too big for the uncredentialed David to oppose, that certain battles for the truth are simply an exercise in distraction from the real mission at hand, and that is strategic to concede ground to the Enemy and allow darkness to maintain it’s place in the structural hierarchy of the Church.
Strategy #4) Create the aura of suspicion over the orthodoxy and faithfulness of the critics: Instead of giving serious consideration to how the dissident writings which call into question, contradict and established and binding Church teaching based on non-substantive arguments, you obfuscate and deflect attention away from the writings of the dissident bishop.
See Strategy #’s 1, 2 & 3: Invalidate, discredit, instill sense of futility. You are not an enemy, rather a distraction and opposing fan bent on sowing seeds of discouragement to the faithful at hand. I suggest that you give this article link a thoughtful read to see why your recommended strategy of ignore and bide time only perpetuates the widespread problem and bad fruit of dissident religious and laity: ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/jhitchcock_bishops95_may05a.asp
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
If by “invalidate and discredit” you mean I disagree and convincingly argue your methods to be ineffectual in achieving your stated goals, then I’m guilty as charged.
I INVALIDATE your modus operandi because it IS an invalid, useless means to achieve the goal: to whit, the systematic taking down of the late Bishop’s doctrine and defense of the Church’s age old teaching was not, and is not capable of being achieved by means of posts on this chat room.
Unless you do a far better job at quoting specific affirmations of his and rebuting them than you have hitherto done. You yourself admitted that the late Bishop, as other dissenters besides him, tended to issue wimpy ‘CYA’ type non sequituurs designed to create an atmosphere of doubt. Fine. But then strictly speaking that’s not heresy as much as muddled thinking. Muddled thinking about the Letter to the Romans helped produce the Protestant revolt, but that doesn’t make St. Paul a dissenter.
Without specifically heretical affirmations to rebut, critiques of him and his work look more like ad hominems than anything else - thus contributing to the ‘martyrdom’ mentality of those on the “left” who tend to consider themselves very brave for disobeying Rome, when in reality most aren’t brave as much as just very confused.
If the bottom line is to save souls, then the WAY you do so is important. Many who currently dissent from Rome emote more than they think their way through issues. This is why we who are faithful must be careful to acknowledge a person’s “being nice” but also clearly outline where they were wrong…and clearly point to evidence of the real harm their wrongness led to in children, families, marriages, society etc.
Now you could do this in an editorial to the Paper - or personal note to the editor where in you lay out the factual decline of the Saginaw dioceses, the loss of mass attendance, the loss of priests and religious, the decline in income, the scandals and the mismanagement problems.
This MIGHT work, depending on how you phrase the letter and how much it really informs and wins over the Paper’s editor to your point of view. But it’s not a given that this letter would ever see the light of day.
Or you could write a book taking apart each of the late Bishop’s arguments and exposing them to the light of Catholic truth. But that’s a long term investment of time and money. It may still be good, but unless you are a pro at marketting and have a network of bookstores willing to make a financial risk, a book may not be read by many who need to read it.
Or you could just complain about the Paper’s endorsement of his book, anonymously, here, and then go away satisfied that you’ve done your part.
Well, I disagree with this latter option and have argued that it’s invalid and ineffectual and silly.
Calling my criticism of you - specific, detailed, and made in my own name somehow unfair is to fall into the dissenters’ own universe of psychobabble.
To get the job done - a) to get the newspaper to run a retraction, mea culpa and b) get them to routinely run nothing but orthodox book reviews, you are going to need more than anonymous complaining on a chat room.
If you feel called by God to do something to defend the faith, then here’s my suggestion. Have a Tea or coffee at your house this weekend and invite your closest 5-10 friends who share the faith.
Draft up a short, medium and full court spread critique of the Bishop’s tenure and teaching; replete with verifiable facts, not judgment calls (you want to avoid ad hominem arguments).
Juxapose authentic Papal or Councilliar teaching with the late Bishop’s affirmations or arguments - diagram his somewhat muddled prose if need be to tease out what the heck he was trying to say, then rebut it. Connect his teaching with the free fall, across the board of Catholic piety, life, and membership in his diocese.
Thus prepared, your group could very well get speaking gigs on local Catholic radio, tv, and secular news outlets, further advancing the message of the late bishop’s errors and the truth that needs to be spread.
This alone will stand the best chance of reaching the most people in the appropriate way and format to convince minds and win over hearts to the “Way”, Truth and Life of the Church.
If you are waiting for “the bureaucracy” to take the lead on this, you will wait a long time. If there are loved ones, children, youth, teens, fellow Catholics in need of the proper catechesis, then don’t wait on the Archdiocesan Paper to put them right, do it yourself or find other lay or religious organizations that you can join.
I call all othe ways invalid and ineffectual because as I’ve shown THEY ARE. Anonymity on chat rooms is a problem for credibility because…if you’re not willing to sign your real name to an opinion, how serious can you be about it? And seriousness of committment is what is needed here, not merely “opining”. Isn’t the defense of truth worth your real name?
I INVALIDATE your modus operandi because it IS an invalid, useless means to achieve the goal: to whit, the systematic taking down of the late Bishop’s doctrine and defense of the Church’s age old teaching was not, and is not capable of being achieved by means of posts on this chat room.
Unless you do a far better job at quoting specific affirmations of his and rebuting them than you have hitherto done. You yourself admitted that the late Bishop, as other dissenters besides him, tended to issue wimpy ‘CYA’ type non sequituurs designed to create an atmosphere of doubt. Fine. But then strictly speaking that’s not heresy as much as muddled thinking. Muddled thinking about the Letter to the Romans helped produce the Protestant revolt, but that doesn’t make St. Paul a dissenter.
Without specifically heretical affirmations to rebut, critiques of him and his work look more like ad hominems than anything else - thus contributing to the ‘martyrdom’ mentality of those on the “left” who tend to consider themselves very brave for disobeying Rome, when in reality most aren’t brave as much as just very confused.
If the bottom line is to save souls, then the WAY you do so is important. Many who currently dissent from Rome emote more than they think their way through issues. This is why we who are faithful must be careful to acknowledge a person’s “being nice” but also clearly outline where they were wrong…and clearly point to evidence of the real harm their wrongness led to in children, families, marriages, society etc.
Now you could do this in an editorial to the Paper - or personal note to the editor where in you lay out the factual decline of the Saginaw dioceses, the loss of mass attendance, the loss of priests and religious, the decline in income, the scandals and the mismanagement problems.
This MIGHT work, depending on how you phrase the letter and how much it really informs and wins over the Paper’s editor to your point of view. But it’s not a given that this letter would ever see the light of day.
Or you could write a book taking apart each of the late Bishop’s arguments and exposing them to the light of Catholic truth. But that’s a long term investment of time and money. It may still be good, but unless you are a pro at marketting and have a network of bookstores willing to make a financial risk, a book may not be read by many who need to read it.
Or you could just complain about the Paper’s endorsement of his book, anonymously, here, and then go away satisfied that you’ve done your part.
Well, I disagree with this latter option and have argued that it’s invalid and ineffectual and silly.
Calling my criticism of you - specific, detailed, and made in my own name somehow unfair is to fall into the dissenters’ own universe of psychobabble.
To get the job done - a) to get the newspaper to run a retraction, mea culpa and b) get them to routinely run nothing but orthodox book reviews, you are going to need more than anonymous complaining on a chat room.
If you feel called by God to do something to defend the faith, then here’s my suggestion. Have a Tea or coffee at your house this weekend and invite your closest 5-10 friends who share the faith.
Draft up a short, medium and full court spread critique of the Bishop’s tenure and teaching; replete with verifiable facts, not judgment calls (you want to avoid ad hominem arguments).
Juxapose authentic Papal or Councilliar teaching with the late Bishop’s affirmations or arguments - diagram his somewhat muddled prose if need be to tease out what the heck he was trying to say, then rebut it. Connect his teaching with the free fall, across the board of Catholic piety, life, and membership in his diocese.
Thus prepared, your group could very well get speaking gigs on local Catholic radio, tv, and secular news outlets, further advancing the message of the late bishop’s errors and the truth that needs to be spread.
This alone will stand the best chance of reaching the most people in the appropriate way and format to convince minds and win over hearts to the “Way”, Truth and Life of the Church.
If you are waiting for “the bureaucracy” to take the lead on this, you will wait a long time. If there are loved ones, children, youth, teens, fellow Catholics in need of the proper catechesis, then don’t wait on the Archdiocesan Paper to put them right, do it yourself or find other lay or religious organizations that you can join.
I call all othe ways invalid and ineffectual because as I’ve shown THEY ARE. Anonymity on chat rooms is a problem for credibility because…if you’re not willing to sign your real name to an opinion, how serious can you be about it? And seriousness of committment is what is needed here, not merely “opining”. Isn’t the defense of truth worth your real name?
F
fix
Guest
Then CA is all wrong. Chat rooms are all wrong, and the only correct view is your self appointed authority on the matter. Now that I know your name why should I give assent to your view? I accept or reject arguments I read here based on fact and reason, not who penned them.
From what you have said the only right way to hold an opinion, express oneself, or comment on dysfunction in the Church to to hold to your position.
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
Non sequitur.
Chat rooms function are other than your goal of getting the diocesan paper to do something.
They’re great for allowing people to share opinion, information, tips, and suggestions (such as my suggestions to you).
But they’re not so great in getting officials in some office to change their practices or thoughts on something controversial.
You have every right in the world to opine on anything you want. But don’t expect your anonymous opinions to make a bit of difference unless they happen to be really top notch arguments backed up chapter and verse to documents everyone can access - or are arguments of logic or common human experience.
For example, are you denying that office politics and current labor laws about termination would make the Paper less likely to issue a mea culpa just because you told them off?
The argument is about probability based on all we know - as adults about human nature and labor issues.
Or are you denying a hundred years of marketting, pedagogy and fundraising experience that points to person to person testimony as being far more effective in winning minds and hearts to a cause than newspaper articles or ads?
I’m pointing out that your use of this chat room is not effective for your goals. Other means are more effective. That’s my point. Since you’re anonymous I can’t pick up the phone and call you, or drive over and speak with you, or take you aside after Mass…
So once again, email - for its advantage of speed and public source propagation of information - is less useful than you seem to think.
Chat rooms function are other than your goal of getting the diocesan paper to do something.
They’re great for allowing people to share opinion, information, tips, and suggestions (such as my suggestions to you).
But they’re not so great in getting officials in some office to change their practices or thoughts on something controversial.
You have every right in the world to opine on anything you want. But don’t expect your anonymous opinions to make a bit of difference unless they happen to be really top notch arguments backed up chapter and verse to documents everyone can access - or are arguments of logic or common human experience.
For example, are you denying that office politics and current labor laws about termination would make the Paper less likely to issue a mea culpa just because you told them off?
The argument is about probability based on all we know - as adults about human nature and labor issues.
Or are you denying a hundred years of marketting, pedagogy and fundraising experience that points to person to person testimony as being far more effective in winning minds and hearts to a cause than newspaper articles or ads?
I’m pointing out that your use of this chat room is not effective for your goals. Other means are more effective. That’s my point. Since you’re anonymous I can’t pick up the phone and call you, or drive over and speak with you, or take you aside after Mass…
So once again, email - for its advantage of speed and public source propagation of information - is less useful than you seem to think.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It’s a valid distinction, which the OP quite rightly made. There is nothing “sentimental” or “ambiguous” in making proper distinctions.
Maybe he was serving Him - it’s for the bishop’s accusers to make good their case. Where’s the “toxin” ?
Is there something wrong with being practical in one’s approach ? Surely not. ##
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Perhaps you are unclear about the purpose of these forums. Maybe that is why you are having so much difficulty with the OP’s original question:
As you can see, the question was not “What should I do about the Paper,” in which case, perhaps your suggestions would have been valuable.
I will argue the opposite and use myself as an example (though I know there are countless others who would testify as well). When I first came back to the Church after a 27 year absence, I didn’t even recognize the Mass. It was primarily because of these forums (which I would argue are not “chat” rooms), Catholic Radio and my own study that I was able to comprehend the changes that had occurred. When I was confused about an issue, I would ask the questions here, either to the posters or the apologists. I have been motivated to take action many times because of the feedback and encouragement I have received here. Hardly silly. In case you hadn’t noticed, there are many confused Catholics out there.
You’re very proud of the fact that you’ve used your real name, aren’t you? Congrats. Have you considered that anonymity not only protects those who come here with opinions, but also those who come here with questions and problems, sometimes serious and personal problems. How willing would a Catholic woman who is struggling with post abortion trauma be to use her real name on this forum? How about an abused teenager? Or those young ones struggling with SSA? Give me a break with the self-righteousness.
Trisha
F
fix
Guest
That is what I think about your position as well. I am not being sarcatic. I see your position as having little to do with the OP’s intent.
You sate that as the sole goal of the OP. I reread the first post. I do not see how you draw that conclusion.
I agree. They are good for that. Folks are sharing.
Perhaps true, perhaps not. My intent is not to do what you say here. As an aside we have no idea who or how many read these things and how the HS could use them in anyone’s life. You have chosen to narrow the issue. That may be one part of the issue, but I see it as broader.
This is not a legal brief, a doctoral dissertation, or a scientific paper. It is a common area for discussion. What is your motivation for narrowing it to your one notion here?
Why bother with letters to the Editor? I find those who dismiss views have a vested interest in remaining unchanged.
Perhaps you mean the argument is exclusively what you want it to be about regardless of other factors and other folks views?
I have no response as I see no correlation to the discussion.
Why is one way the enemy of the other way? Why cannot both exist together? People share views. They may or may not change hearts and minds. No one’s words really convict as the HS does.
I have no particular love of email. It is one tool in this world. I really think we are talking past each other.
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
- I apologize for misunderstanding the original post’s intent and wasting everyone’s time.
- I don’t disagree with Setter’s beliefs re: the Church that needs defending and the dissenters that need evangelization, just with the means we Catholics, anonymous or not, are tempted to employ on line chat rooms… it’s one thing to share opinions and info, suggestions and stories. But another to actually change hearts and minds in the Church.
I just think there’s a common tendency for everyone -myself included - to mix up what is the former from the hard work of the latter. Maybe this wasn’t what happened here and I jumped to conclusions. If so, I apologize.
- The only point of me not being anonymous is for me to take responsibility for my posts - for good or bad. Obviously if I’m wrong here, then it sucks, but I need to take responsibility for being stupid or ‘self-righteous’. Eating humble pie is a good way to lose ‘self-righteous weight’ this Lent.
I just think - however misguided this may be - that life is too short to be afraid that opinions expressed in 2007 will haunt me in 2012. If I need to apologize OR CHANGE my opinion, then I will, admitting to having been wrong and making amends as best I can.
S
setter
Guest
What is my “stated goal” as you keep alluding to? My agenda, is to expose the darkness with the light of truth.
I do not think that you fully appreciate the magnitude of “bad fruit” ripple effect caused by dissident teachers who create an atmosphere of ambiguity, confusion and doubt amongst those entrusted to their care. Why is this? Does not the “modus operandi” of the dissident teachings have all the markings and tracks of the Enemy who is seeking to sow the weeds along with the good seed crop?
Funny, in the light of truth, faithfulness and trust in the magisterium, this dissident teaching which you kindly, forgivingly label “muddled thinking”, is what St. Paul warned the believers about false teachers and false doctrines, and Jesus cautioned to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will know them.”. Is this too strong a condemnation for your taste for those heterodox teachers and guides who sprinkle in error and seeds of doubt along with the good teaching to be consumed unbeknowest by the faithful entrusted to their care? It is not for me as one who been too many times of the receiving end of destructive [to one’s soul and otherwise] dissident/heterodox instruction, guidance and coaching.
I note your emphasis on protocal, effectiveness, proper channels, the appearance of credibility, having all your ducks lined up, …meanwhile, the dissident drumbeat goes on.
Again, curious how you label “invalid and ineffectual and silly” when someone simply points out the shades of darkness with in the Church ranks.
I never called your criticism unfair, just that it is a distraction and like a wrong headed fan you are booing the wrong side.
One person’s self-assessment and opinion.
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
Oh dear. It’s gotten personal.
I’ve already apologized for misreading the original post and intent. Silly me, I thought your goal was to actually do something to get the Paper to retract or change course.
Maybe it’s a “guy thing” about wanting to solve the bigger problem when I should have just posted "Yeah, it sucks that the Paper is filled with either naive people who don’t know the destructiveness of dissent or worse, staffed with people who think dissent is “progress” and left it at that.
I took the “point” of even bringing up a diocesan endorsement to be a serious attempt of changing the paper and via the paper setting people straight.
Now I see that this wasn’t even close to your purpose.
Well fine.
But now the thread is changed to charges that I don’t understand dissent and its devastating effect on the faith of the innocent.
Au contraire, I fully understand Bishop Ken’s problems and what disssent has done to Sagninaw-Bay City. I also know from experience what it’s like dealing with entrenched bureaucracies who don’t see dissent in a negative light and thus won’t issue retractions much less change the editorial slant of the paper.
I’ve known people who spent alot of effort, time, and money trying to get the shepherds to change course which in hindsight would have been more effectively spent just reaching out directly to the flocks (many of whom don’t read the paper to begin with).
I’m not saying “do nothing”.
I’m not saying “it’s no big deal”
I AM saying “if you want to do something effective to change the status quo, then here’s how to go about changing hearts and minds…” and it doesn’t primarily pass through public websites… at least initially.
I’ll start a new thread to show you what I’m talking about and invite you and anyone else to contribute to an effective solution. If you want to contact me you know at least where to start looking. THEN we can actually effect a positive change.
OK? This isn’t about me or you, but about the goal. Peace?
I’ve already apologized for misreading the original post and intent. Silly me, I thought your goal was to actually do something to get the Paper to retract or change course.
Maybe it’s a “guy thing” about wanting to solve the bigger problem when I should have just posted "Yeah, it sucks that the Paper is filled with either naive people who don’t know the destructiveness of dissent or worse, staffed with people who think dissent is “progress” and left it at that.
I took the “point” of even bringing up a diocesan endorsement to be a serious attempt of changing the paper and via the paper setting people straight.
Now I see that this wasn’t even close to your purpose.
Well fine.
But now the thread is changed to charges that I don’t understand dissent and its devastating effect on the faith of the innocent.
Au contraire, I fully understand Bishop Ken’s problems and what disssent has done to Sagninaw-Bay City. I also know from experience what it’s like dealing with entrenched bureaucracies who don’t see dissent in a negative light and thus won’t issue retractions much less change the editorial slant of the paper.
I’ve known people who spent alot of effort, time, and money trying to get the shepherds to change course which in hindsight would have been more effectively spent just reaching out directly to the flocks (many of whom don’t read the paper to begin with).
I’m not saying “do nothing”.
I’m not saying “it’s no big deal”
I AM saying “if you want to do something effective to change the status quo, then here’s how to go about changing hearts and minds…” and it doesn’t primarily pass through public websites… at least initially.
I’ll start a new thread to show you what I’m talking about and invite you and anyone else to contribute to an effective solution. If you want to contact me you know at least where to start looking. THEN we can actually effect a positive change.
OK? This isn’t about me or you, but about the goal. Peace?
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Hey Joe, got anymore of that humble pie left? I think we could all use a piece (peace?) right about now. I’ll look for your thread on this topic. God bless.
Trisha
- Status