Why does the Archdiocese of Detroit weekly paper allow ...?

[setter]

So you DO AGREE WITH ME ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS?

If so, then are you going to follow plan a) or plan b)? Letter or personal contact with the paper…or direct action vs. the late bishop’s parallel magisterium?

Because if what you want to do - if what you feel called to do is stand up for truth against error and for orthodoxy vs. heresy, then there’s only a few ways you can go about doing this to the people directly involved and it doesn’t involve venting here but picking up the phone and calling or sending private correspondence via email or snail mail to the parties directly involved.

OR forming a committee to approach the entire board of the paper, etc.

I have a feeling you just don’t understand me.

You think I’m telling you to do nothing when I’ve practically given you the step by step how to do something that stands a chance of actually working.

I’m not personally antagonistic towards you. I WANT YOU TO BE EFFECTIVE in your resolve to evangelize these people and through their offices to reach more besides…

But as I keep pointing out, there are more than one way to skin cats, more than one way to win battles - some are easier and more cost effective than others.

All things being equal and there being only so many hours in the day, it’s better to focus on the bottom line of what you’re trying to accomplish and not merely on one comfortable tactic that just so happens to stand zero chance at accomplishing anything other than venting.

For example, haranguing someone about the wrongness of their ways only works if they’re already open to the serious possibility that they’re wrong and thus ready to apologize. It doesn’t work when they’re pretty sure they’re right and you’re wrong. (For example our very back and forth here…! )

But it sure feeeeeeeeeeeeels good to just unload on someone!

But what did Jesus specifically tell us to do with brothers (not sons, brothers) who stray? Take them aside IN PRIVATE first. If they don’t listen, take along another peer (ad hoc committee time), if they still don’t listen, bring them to the Church (full court spread, official rebutal of dissent in serious point by point dissertation, etc). If they don’t listen ‘even to the Church’ then treat them as a gentile.

Now how do we treat gentiles? WE EVANGELIZE THEM!

I observe your persistent attempts to reframe and hijack this thread into a corporate effectiveness seminar …let me redirect you to the OP question:

Originally Posted by setter
Why does the Archdiocese of Detroit weekly paper allow the Curia and vicar general to endorse and advertise the selected writings of a widely known and documented dissident bishop?

BTW – A few notable idiosyncrasies which have presented on this thread: anonymous = non-credible; voicing legitimate concern = complaining, haranguing; effectiveness trumps faithfulness; calling out dissidence = cursing the darkness = a wrong headed, ineffectual activity; validation = emotional self-indulgence; dissidents = misguided, confused individuals at worst.

 

[Joe_Stong]

“effectiveness trumps faithfulness”

Define for us what you mean when you say the word “Faithfulness”? What are you talking about?

Do you mean to say that your posting sed contra critiques of the newspaper here, on this chat room is “faithfulness” AND the same thing as “calling out dissenters”?

Because it’s confusing. Above you obviously think being effective (as in privately going to the person responsible for he newspapers’ endorsement) is somehow “unfaithful” or unscriptural, while anonymously posting your disagreement about the newspaper’s articule here on line is magically “faithfulness to the Gospel mandate” or something.

I’m not saying your opinion here is worthless. I’m just saying all things considered, nothing you or I say here is going to CHANGE the newspaper’s editorial slant, and NOTHING you’ve said so far even goes the distance in rebuting the error you’re so mad about.

“cursing the darkness = a wrong headed, ineffectual activity”

YES, YES OF COURSE IT IS!!! Not my opinion, that’s scriptural; better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

And finally, unless you know for sure what motivates the dissenters neither you nor I can say for sure that they’re not merely misguided, undereducated and poorly formed people.

They may still be wrong, but we can’t assume they’re monsters merely because we disagree with them.

 

[setter]

“effectiveness trumps faithfulness”

Define for us what you mean when you say the word “Faithfulness”? What are you talking about?

Faithful to Rome, to the teaching magisterium of the Church …in the context of our discussion, David did not size up the apparent “effectiveness” of his approach before faithfully taking on Goliath to defend the faith.

Do you mean to say that your posting sed contra critiques of the newspaper here, on this chat room is “faithfulness” AND the same thing as “calling out dissenters”?

Exactly, as in a component of (ponder this one before attempting a slam to the mat).

Because it’s confusing. Above you obviously think being effective (as in privately going to the person responsible for he newspapers’ endorsement) is somehow “unfaithful” or unscriptural, while anonymously posting your disagreement about the newspaper’s articule here on line is magically “faithfulness to the Gospel mandate” or something.

Have you considered in the midst of your confusion: Why not both? …btw – have you read all my posts this thread?

I’m not saying your opinion here is worthless. I’m just saying all things considered, nothing you or I say here is going to CHANGE the newspaper’s editorial slant, and NOTHING you’ve said so far even goes the distance in rebuting the error you’re so mad about.

There you go again on that “effectiveness” track …and use of projective phrases – “you’re so mad”.

“cursing the darkness = a wrong headed, ineffectual activity”

YES, YES OF COURSE IT IS!!! Not my opinion, that’s scriptural; better to light a candle than curse the darkness

.
Again, you are forgetting to include the very pertinent scriptures that I provided …“You brood of vipers!” and such.

And finally, unless you know for sure what motivates the dissenters neither you nor I can say for sure that they’re not merely misguided, undereducated and poorly formed people.

They may still be wrong, but we can’t assume they’re monsters merely because we disagree with them.

Not necessarily monsters, but objectively speaking instruments of spreading error and evil; culpability speaking, a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7: 15). Active and career dissenters are not unintelligent people.

 

[Joe_Stong]

“David did not size up the apparent “effectiveness” of his approach before faithfully taking on Goliath to defend the faith.”

Uh…bad example for you - this example actually proves my point about using effective tactics to achieve stated goals.

David’s use of stones WAS effective! He was too small for armour and too weak to hold a sword, so for his size and weight, a smooth rock hurled by a sling was the most effective tactic available to him. (And it wasn’t miraculous either - slingers were ALWAYS part of warfare - a good sling can hurl a stone fast enough to kill a man at 100 yards.)

The virtue of David was his faith in God’s will, and God’s grace to guide the stone to the precise spot on the giant’s forehead that’d kill him.

He didn’t stand there and just ‘bear witness’ he used the most effective means available to him for the task at hand.

Later as he grew up and assumed more authority he didn’t use stones to overcome his enemies but used swords, spears, strategy, etc…

When on the run from Saul, he used tactics appropriate to his goal of not being killed - from shaming the king to sending go-betweens to him etc.

Jesus was well within bounds and his authority (as a Rabbi and as the Messiah) to chastise the pharisees publically. But note that he did it PUBLICALLY - he didn’t diss them behind closed doors or to his disciples. He did it to their faces.

If you want to put yourself and your posts on this site in an analogous relationship to Jesus calling the Pharisees vipers, then you will need to have some moral authority over them, and they will need to be on this site to hear from you.

As well, if you want to inform the majority of the lay faithful about the error of the dissenter’s ways, it’d be better to focus on the error and not go ad hominem on the ones in error.

It’s called hating the sin but not the sinner and giving people the benefit of the doubt but not their error.

If you need the last word on this go for it, but I’m done here. I don’t know how to spell it out any more clearly.

 

[setter]

“David did not size up the apparent “effectiveness” of his approach before faithfully taking on Goliath to defend the faith.”

Uh…bad example for you - this example actually proves my point about using effective tactics to achieve stated goals.

David’s use of stones WAS effective! He was too small for armour and too weak to hold a sword, so for his size and weight, a smooth rock hurled by a sling was the most effective tactic available to him. (And it wasn’t miraculous either - slingers were ALWAYS part of warfare - a good sling can hurl a stone fast enough to kill a man at 100 yards.)

The virtue of David was his faith in God’s will, and God’s grace to guide the stone to the precise spot on the giant’s forehead that’d kill him.

He didn’t stand there and just ‘bear witness’ he used the most effective means available to him for the task at hand.

Later as he grew up and assumed more authority he didn’t use stones to overcome his enemies but used swords, spears, strategy, etc…

When on the run from Saul, he used tactics appropriate to his goal of not being killed - from shaming the king to sending go-betweens to him etc.

Jesus was well within bounds and his authority (as a Rabbi and as the Messiah) to chastise the pharisees publically. But note that he did it PUBLICALLY - he didn’t diss them behind closed doors or to his disciples. He did it to their faces.

If you want to put yourself and your posts on this site in an analogous relationship to Jesus calling the Pharisees vipers, then you will need to have some moral authority over them, and they will need to be on this site to hear from you.

As well, if you want to inform the majority of the lay faithful about the error of the dissenter’s ways, it’d be better to focus on the error and not go ad hominem on the ones in error.

It’s called hating the sin but not the sinner and giving people the benefit of the doubt but not their error.

If you need the last word on this go for it, but I’m done here. I don’t know how to spell it out any more clearly.

What can I say …derogatory, presumptuous, belittling, pompous, smug, …in tone and content …and no apparent evidence that you have read or thoughtfully considered the entirety of my post …bottom line: Not a convincing or effective argument. IMHO.