As promised, here is a brief reminder about my expectations for the comment section. They couldn’t possibly be simpler:
I want this to be a place where people can engage in frank but charitable conversation about the Catholic faith without fear of being moderated to death just because they disagree with the post or the prevailing opinions of other commenters.
Disagreements will happen and things may occasionally get a little heated, but I’m not going to play com box cop. Just be civil, and when a disagreement reaches an impasse, shake the dust from your feet and move on.
In the end, each person who comments here is accountable for whatever he or she happens to say. So far, this approach has worked really well. There have been nearly 20,000 comments posted here in the past few years and I’ve never had to remove a commenter for being consistently uncharitable.
NOTE: Comments containing multiple links get trapped in my spam filter. Stick to just one link per comment and it will go through. I don’t review the comments that don’t make it past the filter, so if you have more than one link to share, do so in separate comments.
More pressing at the moment…
Comments should be related to the posted topic. Of course, tangential matters will frequently come up, and within reason, that’s just fine. It can lead to some great conversation.
What I’m not going to allow is for the com box to be treated like a mini blog site for any one, or group of commenter’s pet topic. In fact, this is the only reason I have ever banned a commenter who was otherwise polite and well behaved .
Lately, sedevacantism has become the pet topic that has cropped up in post after post, turning each comment section into a debate on that one topic. Enough already.
Look, I went to a lot of trouble and expense to create a Forum on this site where all are encouraged to zero in on any number of topics. That’s where the sedevacante debate usually, but not always, belongs.
Obviously, I don’t endorse the theory, but I am sympathetic to those who do. We’re all just doing our best to make sense out of this terrible crisis, so in that regard, we have way more in common than either of us do with the nitwits who can’t make excuses for the pope fast enough.
In short, I welcome their participation here, provided it falls in line with what is said above.
Incidentally, yesterday’s post happens to be one where it is entirely proper to discuss how a materially heretical pope is judged to be a formal heretical, but as I recall we went down that road in any number of other posts where it wasn’t exactly related.
Everyone who posts here is bright enough to get the point.
Lastly, please know that I’m grateful for all who comment here. Seriously, the depth of insight in the combox here alone is a benefit to readers, and I’ve learned from them as much as anyone.
Whenever I’m tempted to get into an argument with someone on a blog/message board, I just remind myself that I’m going to be dead someday. That pretty much takes care of it.
But what a way to go ….
Thanks for allowing the comment section to be a place where ideas can be freely exchanged without “fear” of censure, I think we should all appreciate this aspect of your blog. I think very few traditional catholic sites, perhaps none, have such an open policy. What is more, I would go further and say that some “moderators” seem to delete some comments out of a sudden fancy more than any reason. I’ve had comments deleted where I may have stated perhaps something like an uncommon opinion, but definitely nothing very contentious like sedevacantism etc
I hope we’ll all be civilized and charitable with each other to continue making this a great comment section!
Thanks, Louie, for the simple clarification/reminder. I’m the worst one for going off topic!! My mind runs on too many rails at a time so thanks for that reminder too. Each topic has plenty of meat on it so I will try not to ramble.
For myself, Louie, when you are “slow” to put up another post (don’t tell me you have a life!) some of us like to ‘chat’ while you are out of the room! That’s when I certainly bring in some off topic stuff.
This is the best blog out there, by far. Not just news. Not just opinion. An opportunity to interact and have a little fun too. You, Louie, are careful, charitable, concise and Catholic – perfect.
Agreed. I was booted off Mark Shea’s island (a badge of honor I realize now , yeah baby!) because the “moderator” didn’t agree with a certain interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Another point…just because a person is uncharitable doesn’t mean he’s wrong!
Agree with the comments. Louie as a blog host is generous enough for real debate to take place. The ‘issue’ with ‘sedevacantism’ is that in the monarchy of the Church authority is the means where-by we receive our ‘daily bread’ or something quite other. Therefore, trying to avoid debate on what constitutes a bread-giver or a stones-giver according to the revealed teachings of the Author of Perfection is a bit like trying to go swimming and not get wet. Plus eating stones is not good for the soul’s digestion as anyone who’s had to pass a kidney stone could attest.
my dear salvemur,
Another one of those gem comments from you that I wish I’d said , but so glad I didn’t, bc you said it so much better.
True, so glad you pointed that out, since I am almost always uncharitable but am definitely always right!
No, of course, but as someone said – charitable words make for much better fraternal correction than harsh words of condemnation.
And, after all, we ALL are sinners, in need of charitable correction, every now and then…
I agree. The issue of authority must surely be on topic on every single post on a Catholic blog these days.
Especially after the publication of LS, the average (credible) blog is reading more or less as follows:
BLOGGER: Hi, Welcome to the Catholic Church. I’m “X”, I’ll be your tour guide today.
VISITOR: Thanks. Can I see the Pope?
BLOGGER: Certainly. He’s there in the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
VISITOR: Oh, good. Can I see his teaching?
BLOGGER: Not a chance!
de Maria – thanks. It’s good to know if one is making oneself understood (and not just yapping like a chihuahua).
And the traditionalist Catholic tour guide when explaining a certain man in a certain white cassock – “for display purposes only”.
I agree fraternal correction in private should be your first response. Then bring a witness if that doesn’t work, then bring the person to the Church. If that doesn’t work then….??? I can’t help thinking our Lord Jesus Christ called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs” at one point. So there must be a point at which an unrepentant public sinner can be publicly corrected – and harshly no less. I don’t know where to draw the line myself, or even if that’s my role, and what to do when the leaders of the Church itself seem to be in the wrong? … its usually fruitless doing on-line arguments…. My fall back position is… try to make sure I’m right first, present the data… let the Spirit do the heavy lifting. I’d appreciate any advice.
Peace and Blessings
“there must be a point at which an unrepentant public sinner can be publicly corrected – and harshly no less.”
I’d agree with that – that can sometimes be as charitable as trying to persuade someone through gentler means. If someone is fast asleep and doesn’t notice that the house is on fire, would one try to gently whisper, “hey – wake, up – we gotta get outta here fast!.” But acting like this shouldn’t be the “starting point”.
“I don’t know where to draw the line myself…”
I guess that’s where praying to the Holy Ghost for discernment comes into play. And it’s a great help if one has a good, holy, wise spiritual director too! Oh, it can be difficult to know how best to act in a given situation – it doesn’t make it any easier that we all have different personalities and may react differently in various circumstances. Prudence, wisdom, humility, patience, kindness and true Christian charity are all required!
Here is a barely on-topic comment, but this is the column to bring it up. A few days ago the following appeared as a comment:
“TWN June 15, 2015
Chaput is a (homosexual) outsider (predator) sent to Philadelphia…”
I reacted strongly against this totally unwarranted attack, a slander on Archbishop Chaput. I wrote to you personally about it. If I had seen this comment the first time I had read your blog, I might very well never have returned. This kind of comment is harmful to all the good that you do.
By the way, I enjoy reading the sedevacantists who write; I am not a sede (getting closer), and your correspondents are some very sharp people.
Are these statements slanderous: (1) “Hitler was a Nazi Jew-hater who killed 6 million Jews.” (2) “Hitler’s staff were Nazi Jew haters who killed 6 million Jews.”? As a senior member of the Roman Catholic Church since 1978 who remains silent as Bergoglio appoints Barros as bishop, Danneels and Bonny to the Synod on the Family, and continues to serve side by side with McCarrick, Wuerl, Lynch and other known sodomite predators in the U.S., it is hardly slander to call Chaput a sodomite predator also. Chaput tipped for me when he didn’t talk about sheep in private to his priests, but held up for standing ovation the hireling who hid sodomite abuse of minors for his sodomite superiors and shifted their discarded sodomite playthings to fresh pastures of innocent children: “Msgr. William J. Lynn, the former church official awaiting trial for allegedly protecting sexually abusive priests, drew words of encouragement from Philadelphia’s new archbishop and a standing ovation from scores of priests at a private gathering last month, according to people familiar with the event. During the invitation-only dinner for Archbishop Charles J. Chaput at a parish hall in Montgomery County, Chaput singled out Lynn in the crowd and noted how difficult the ordeal has been for him, according to one priest who attended and two people briefed by others at the gala. Much of the audience, which included hundreds of priests, then stood and applauded, said the sources, who asked not to be identified.”
“Lynn’s lawyers have argued that the child endangerment charge should not apply to him because he did not supervise any child.” (he supervised pedophile sodomites (I mean God holy will not Catholic be priests mocked)
“The emotional upheaval suffered by children of separated couples who suddenly find themselves with a single parent or in a ‘new’ family poses a challenge for BISHOP’s catechists, teachers, and all who are responsible for the young…. It is not a question of replacing their parents but of collaborating with them.”
Chaput’s Wuerl/McCarrick/Wright/Hickey connection: In 1965, at age 21, Chaput entered the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, a branch of the Franciscans, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1967, he graduated with a BA in Philosophy from St. Fidelis College & Seminary in Herman, Pennsylvania. In 1969, Chaput finished his studies in psychology at the Catholic University of America located in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C. In 1970, he earned a Master of Arts degree in Religious Education from Capuchin College also located in Washington, D.C. Chaput was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Cyril Vogel on August 29, 1970. He received a Master of Theology degree from the University of San Francisco in 1971. From 1971 to 1974, he was an instructor .at. St. Fidelis College. He then served as executive secretary and director of communications for the Capuchin province in Pittsburgh until 1977, from which position he was appointed pastor of Holy Cross Church in Thornton, Colorado. He was consecrated on the following July 26 (1978) by Archbishop Pio (“I can share with you which I have not seen elsewhere is that Cardinal Dolan, Archbishops Cupich, Schnurr (of Cincinnati) and Bishop Cote (of Norwich, CT) were all staff to the late Cardinal Pio Laghi at the Washington nunciature, mostly at the same time” Bishop (sodomite predator who presided over the murder of Teri Schiavo) Lynch’s blog)) Laghi, with Archbishop John (Bernardin was also reported to have participated in homosexual and occult activities at Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary in Winona, MN. This information was discovered through an official investigation by a group of laypeople from Illinois. Among the bishops who were involved in the abuse of seminarians were Bishops Joseph Bernardin, John Roach, and Robert Brom.) Roach and Archbishop James (WYD Denver 1993 where Jesus was “played” by a woman and perhaps explains why Chaput is hosting Sodomite & Adultery Celebration for Frances) Stafford serving as co-consecrators. (see Wikipedia)
Chaput & Sean: “At age 12, he (Sean) entered St. Fidelis Minor Seminary in Herman, a boarding school for students who were considering joining the Franciscan order. On July 14, 1965, at the age of 21, O’Malley professed his vows in the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin (Wikipedia)
“An afternoon with America’s Capuchin heavyweights (Sean & Chap) by John Allen 5/31/2013 “Chaput didn’t shrink from chiding his confreres on at least one point, telling them he believes they missed the boat with regard to a renewal effort launched by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and a handful of fellow Capuchins in the 1980s. Groeschel and his followers broke off in 1987 to found the “Franciscan Friars of the Renewal,” 9/10/12 Reforming Capuchin Benedict [“People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath,” Groeschel said in the interview. “But that’s not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.” “Well, it’s not so hard to see. A kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping, but not having intercourse or anything like that,” Groeschel said. “It’s an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers.” Groeschel expressed sympathy for Jerry Sandusky referring to him as “the poor guy”, who was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse including raping a child in a Penn State locker room”] Groeschel
The Capuchin Franciscans: John Corvino from his book: “what’s wrong with homosexuality [nothing!]”: “By the time I entered college [1990 grad], I was a candidate with the Capuchin Franciscan Order. This development was crucial for two reasons. First, the Capuchins were the FIRST people to directly challenge me on my sexuality…Second, for the first time in my life I met OPENLY GAY people [PRIESTS and RELIGIOUS who had vowed celibacy before Almighty God]. During one of our discernment weekends, I attended a lecture by Fr. Richard, a gentle man to whom I had taken an immediate liking. At one point he uttered the words, “as a gay (not HOMOSEXUAL or SODOMITE) man”… I was floored by the admission. My shock was only compounded when later that day, my friend and fellow candidate, Scott, told me “Me too.”… Fr. Richard’s lecture was a gateway to my real “Road to Damascus” moment which came a few months later [when following Fr. Richard John tried to solicit sex from another man, i.e. ACTED (like the Holy Bible Book: ACTS), committed mortal SIN– and John associates these MORTALLY SINFUL acts of impurity and lust w/Priest, Bible & Catholic Religion (whom he has been taught (like you no doubt) CARES for his Soul and would do nothing to jeopardize him).
8/17/2011: ‘Dr. Fred Berlin, a chief consultant for decades to the American Catholic Bishops and Religious Order Provincials on sex offender priests, will address tomorrow in Baltimore a controversial symposium sponsored by an organization that calls itself ‘B4U-ACT.’ B4U-ACT advocates the decriminalization and tolerance of persons who have a lifelong attraction and desire for sexual contact with youngsters. B4U-ACT, when describing its core values states: ‘Individuals who are attracted to children are the focus of everything that we do.’ Not surprisingly, Archbishop Emeritus Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, in a deposition taken in 2008, cites Berlin as the chief expert on pedophilia that the U.S. bishops consulted when faced with the growing sexual abuse crisis. (Locally, Berlin was also hired by at least one major religious order, the Capuchin Franciscans.)”
P.S. I can’t help but notice how you reacted strongly against Chaput being called a homosexual predator and wrote personally to Louie and how if you had seen this comment the first time you might never have returned and this kind of comment is harmful to all the good you do, and comparing that with how you “enjoy reading the Sedevacantists who write” about the sacrilege and crimes that are taking place in the Roman Catholic Church today and I pray for your moral state. Imagine John the Baptist crying out in the wilderness for your enjoyment! Did you never consider writing a letter or going in person to express your outrage for the evil deeds these sodomite predators have committed and are still committing? I believe sexual perversion is only an indication of their spiritual perversion/turning away from God. They are endangering your immortal soul and using the Catholic Church to do it. Nothing could be more evil. Glad you are considering leaving there (despite all the good they are doing (ha ha)).
Has anyone checked out the World Meeting of Families Website and the catechesis and lesson plans (I didn’t read, did some word searches but if anyone wants to see perversity of Chaput in all its flaming evil check out this hootenany)
Just to mention a few issues:
Teaches sexual sin (sodomy (and adultery)) must be welcomed inside the society, the church AND the family: “The same teaching that calls same-sex-attracted persons to lives of chastity in the form of continence calls all Catholics to abandon their own fears, to shun unjust discrimination, and to welcome their homosexual brothers and sisters to the communion of love and truth within the Church…Yet the response to this summons [call] to conversion is inevitably a work in progress on the part of we recovering sinners who make up the Church’s members. The key is to create within the family, the parish, and the wider Christian community an environment of mutual support where moral growth and change can occur.” (page 94-95)
This is a direct contradiction of St. Paul in 1 Cor 5: “But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.”
Teaches what Benedict said about the suffering “divorced” applies to the “divorced AND REMARRIED”: “In her pastoral care of the divorced and remarried, the Church has sought to combine fidelity to Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage — which dismayed his disciples — with the mercy at the heart of his ministry. Consider, for example, Benedict XVI’s teaching on the pastoral situation of DIVORCED men and women: I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded.”… This is very important, so that they see that they are accompanied and guided…. They need to realize that this suffering is not just a physical or psychological pain, but something that is experienced within the Church community for the sake of the great values of our faith. I am convinced that their suffering, if truly accepted from within, is a gift to the Church. They need to know this, to realize that this is their way of serving the Church; that they are in the heart of the Church. 169. In other words, Pope Benedict presupposed the truth of what Christ taught, but he did not simply dismiss the divorced AND REMARRIED, telling them to grit their teeth or suffer in loneliness. That is not the Church’s way, and any Catholic who acts as if it is should remember that one of the crimes of the Pharisees was burdening others with laws, yet not “lifting a finger” to help people with these burdens. (Mt 23:4) Rather, Benedict echoes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says “priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude to divorced Catholics, so that they do not feel excluded.” (p 95-96)
Teaches not that “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it” but that the confessor decides what each person is able to do: “The “law of gradualness” refers to the progressive nature of conversion. As they recover from the wounds of sin, Christians grow in holiness in every area of their lives, including their sexuality…The “gradualness of the law,” on the other hand, is the misleading idea that “different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law [exist] for different individuals and situations.” For example, some wrongly argue that married couples who find Catholic teaching on responsible parenthood to be burdensome should be urged to follow their own consciences in choosing contraception. This is a false form of gradualism.” (p93) “But at the same time, Pope Francis noted that Paul VI told confessors to interpret his encyclical with “much mercy, [and] attention to concrete situations…. The question is not whether to change the doctrine, but to go deeper and make sure that pastoral care takes account of situations and of what each person is able to do.” (p94)
Teaches Christians are a “creative minority” –even though six members of the Supreme Court (a majority) are Catholic, the Vice President is Catholic, House Majority & minority leaders are both Catholic, 26 senators, in 2005 44% of governors were Catholic and practically every Catholic running for President Democrats Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden and Martin O’Malley; Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush are Catholic. “As “Christendom” fades, Christians are learning to live as a creative religious minority, like Christians in Africa or Asia. Though a minority, we are still able to be creative, active members of society, gathering “to seek the common good together” (LIOM 193). Jews have always done this in every age and society.” [Lesson 10 Grades 9-12] FACT: Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with 70.6% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2014] Do Jews seek “the common good” – Other three members of the supreme court are practicing Jews. How are they voting on abortion, homosexual marriage, black and/or poor people forced by the state to have abortions, to be killed by death panels (Ezekiel Emanuel)? What have Jews done to remove religion, prayer and morality from U.S. society because of their denial and refusal to worship Jesus Christ as Messiah?
From the Catechism: “Living in the world as a creative, faithful minority takes spiritual discipline. In the Book of Daniel, Daniel and his Jewish friends are able to serve in the court of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. That Jews would go so far as to serve a pagan king is itself striking. But they were helpful to the king precisely insofar as they remained faithful Jews. . The reason that they had the wisdom which the King’s magicians did not possess was that they had conformed their lives to faith in the one true God. They said their prayers and maintained key Jewish disciplines (such as dietary restrictions). They were leaven in a pagan palace because they knew who they were. They knew how to be in a particular social world but not of it. And they knew when not to compromise — they knew that their religious identity would sometimes be costly — and they accepted the lions’ den and the fiery furnace rather than betray their God and worship idols.” (page 111) [Why not mention the New Testament St. John the Baptist here (martyred for standing up against adultery ) or all the apostles martyred by the Jews not to mention Jesus Christ because the Jews (as the Catholics today) had become corrupt in religion and thus in everything else.
Code of Conduct for ADULTS (but not the youth!) ” To set a positive example for youth. Profanity, sexually explicit, suggestive or vulgar language, or habits such as the use of tobacco or alcohol products in the presence of minors are prohibited. 2. To encourage healthy behaviors. Adults under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or in possession of drugs or alcohol during the Congress will be removed…. 8. To dress appropriately for an interactive event. 9. To respect youth and adult privacy concerns by ensuring that at least two adults accompany a youth into a private area to avoid one adult being alone with a youth.”
Main Stage (that’s right STAGE!) Ages: 6 to 17 years old [protestant] Prayer, Praise, and Worship with Steve Angrisano our Master of Ceremonies (like at the three ring circus!) for the Main Stage. Stay on the look out for Steve Angrisano around the Ascension Cafe, he might stop by for a special performance.
Activities for The Capuchin target age group
Bowling with the Bishops and Other Wii Games
Ages: 13 to 17 years old
Bowl and play other interactive Wii games with local and visiting bishops and priests!
Ages: 13 to 17 years old
Relax and spend time getting to know one another, have a snack, and enjoy live entertainment. Hear inspiring music and speakers who will address real-life issues and help you to navigate through the challenges of life as a teen in 2015 and beyond!
Shooting Hoops with the Seminarians
Ages: 13 to 17 years old
Test your basketball skills alongside seminarians and priests. Chat, ask questions, or just have fun!
Swing with the Sisters Dance Party
Ages: 13 to 17 years old
Don’t miss the dance party! Have fun with the sisters – show them your dance moves while they show you their love of God
& Be sure to visit “the pink sisters” The Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters, known and loved by many as the “Pink Sisters”
You have convinced me that Fr. Groeschel had terrible things to say. (I had already read them.) But where is the smoking gun with Archbishop Chaput? Yeah, Chaput blew it with Lynn, but that doesn’t make him a predator. I live in Denver. The word here is that he did a good job with this problem here; he was fortunate to inherit a diocese without a terrible track record. Maybe my problem is with the word “predator.” To me it means a molester; perhaps not to you.
Actually, friend, we probably disagree very little about the homo problem in the church.