And the earth was in admiration after the beast. The Apocalypse.
This week's sign of the beast in any prospective replacement clergy is an abnormally intense, disordered desire to control and regulate the most intimate details of laymen's lives. Traddie cultist-clergy feel compelled to trespass into areas where pre-Conciliar priests with a sound formation, some common sense , and a knowledge of the human condition almost never ventured without the gravest of reasons. Sede Svengalis know if they can manipulate your heart to their ends in matters remote from the faith -- a control-strategy forbidden to decent clergy -- they can get you to surrender your will, your personality, and, soon enough, your dollars.
When you interview a replacement for the bums you're going to bounce in 2013, ask others who have met them if they've detected any of the following traits:
> A manic tendency to regulate the laity's attire, particularly women's -- and always with weirdly disturbing appeals to "purity";
>A history of withholding absolution based on details disclosed at the penitential tribunal, which were incidental to the penitent's self-accusation;
>A marked inclination to pontificate on matters that are purely political without concern that the informed conscience of the laity may have provided very contrary guidance;
>A record of publishing written communications that are decidedly self-promotional and egocentric;
>A resistance to correct their proven errors out of fear that the laity will be less mystified if they admit they were wrong;
>An aggressive policy of counseling the laity to avoid friendships with people who don't belong to a certain chapel or who think independently of the pastor or one of his minions; and
>A habit of becoming abusive when well-meaning laymen gainsay their out-of-the-blue hunches (which these clergy mischaracterize as "judgments").
Run, don't walk, when you detect even one of these signs in a Traddie priest or bishop. Holy Mother Church has given you the spiritual resources to continue alone, if need be, on the path to salvation without having to associate with control freaks.
The Reader has statistical record of never being "wrong" about anything. According to your rules is he to be held as suspect?
ReplyDeleteIt never occurred to the Readers to compile a scorecard based on objective observations. Perhaps you did. In that case, you may say that the Readers are never wrong, but we could not possibly comment.
ReplyDeleteNo comment is required or requested. Your smugness speaks for itself. The "know it all" Readers are absolutely sure about everything......and wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe Readers limit themselves to laying out the facts and allowing Catholics to judge for themselves, whether these facts be the many unscholarly errors of "Work of Human Hands" or the appalling acts of Traddie clergy. It's all rather objective, as a matter of fact. We present documented behavior and let the faithful compare that to known Catholic (or, indeed, to secular ) standards of propriety and then draw their conclusions. Right reason produces concurrence with the Readers' opinions, not our personalities. We are no more smug than the weatherman who predicts rain one day and reports its occurrence the next, and we certainly don't care if anyone doubted our forecast. When we see foul weather, we'll continue to sound the alarm.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, you are never wrong. You say, "Right reason produces concurrence with the Readers' opinions" Therefore, if there is disagreement with your opinions the reason for the disagreement is in error not your opinions. Therefore, you are always right.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous -
ReplyDelete1. Instead of throwing out accusations, provide facts. You seem to be hung up on the nasty messages that's being delivered about unworthy clerics(maybe don't want to believe them?) & instead attack the messenger.
2.There's a difference between facts & opinions. The Readers have provided facts. Right reason is based on facts to base opinions. Therefore it seems to me that your last assertion in 'disagreeing with your opinions the reason for the disagreement is in error-----" Do you disagree with the facts that they've presented? I'm not following your line of reasoning.