My friend, you have nothing to explain. I get it. Everybody is so quick to take offense these days that we all have to be super careful in our language choice. It was just unintentionally funny to read.tuttle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:33 amHa! Sadly, probably, yes.hugodrax wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:23 amI doubt that you intended to give me a good hearty laugh this morning, but I thank you for it nevertheless. Has modern Christianity really devolved into the language of group therapy?tuttle wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:48 amThanks for your transparency and honesty. I feel for you and pray God guides you through this.hugodrax wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:30 pmGlad you’re reading around. There’s a lot of bunkum being written these days on every conceivable subject. Unfortunately the WSJ article is paywalled for me so I couldn’t read it. I’m suspicious in general of the press these days because it all just seems to have an ax to grind.tuttle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:00 pmI hear ya. I really do. There are certain sites I'll see a story from and be leery, but this story is being reported by more than just the post. And to be fair that was just the paper the article I linked to quoted. How bout the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-b ... 1542043668hugodrax wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:50 pmTuttle,tuttle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:26 pmThe Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.
Quoting the Washington Post:The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.
In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.
The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.
“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.
Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”
“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”
I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.
I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.
The point is that the vote was halted by the pope, not the source who reported it (unless the source reported it falsely). I linked to that specific article (from The American Conservative...no doubt it leans to the right...but that should be obvious) because I find the insight and commentary interesting from author (a former Catholic) who has been following all of this.
But I want to make it clear that I might have an ax to grind, too. I don’t know what’s going on anymore than the next guy and I want things fixed. I live in Pittsburgh—the diocese that got into the hottest water since Boston. Twice. I have a Bishop that forced a second collection plate last week to give to the synagogue. Wrap your mind around that one. Hey, do you spit upon His Most Holy Name and utterly deny His divinity, mocking those who believe? Here, have some of our parishioner’s money to rebuild your synagogue. We want to make sure you can spread your message that He is not risen. Some of the money that we’re also spending on criminal defense because we were diddling our parishioner’s kids.
I’m angry, but I don’t want a deflection of that anger, if that makes sense. We have some good bishops and some bad bishops, but right now my finger is pointing squarely at the Bishops as the ones that cocked this one up. The Bishops that, when they wrote the zero tolerance policy, specifically exempted themselves. I’m not saying the Pope is right and I’m not saying he’s wrong. But I will say I wouldn’t put the bishops in charge of their own investigations. They had that chance and they blew it.
But I only put it that way because I wanted to make sure I was being read as genuine rather than a smartass, which is a high possibility considering I'm playing for the other team while discussing some crazy, horrible, sinful stuff. I don't ever want to come off as gloating or smug when I'm in the middle of this discussion. I really do appreciate you revealing what you did because you didn't have to. It helps me be more specific in prayer.
You know, I've honestly never thought of you as playing on a different team, though I certainly wouldn't put you in the starting squad if I was coaching, either. If it's any consolation, i wouldnt include myself, either. t's so hard to explain. Theologically, I suppose, we both think the other is in error. To me, though, playing on different teams here would mean one of us thinks the other is playing for the Devil.
I appreciate the attempt to be as inoffensive as possible. Lord knows, I'm easily offended and more offensive than most, and you've kept me gruntled.