The Super Vatican Unofficials - revised
I have removed the original post. Here's why:
I went to my site meter this morning, and noticed there was a sudden spike in page views in July - more than 1,400. That's my second highest total in the last year (1,800 plus last December).
It's due, I suspect, to the recent interest generated by (this) piece (that was) critical of some of the "Super Vatican Unofficials."
I'm sure that traffic will die soon. Good. It saddens me. The piece was written in a pique, and, as I've always acknowledged, my mouth (or my typing fingers) are my own worst enemies.
On rereading the piece, I can see how it might be taken as critical of traditionalists - especially the comment about the wearers of medals, scapulars and hair shirts. The hair shirts was the real point of that line - building from two normal things to something that's absurd. After all, I wear a scapular, and in the past have worn medals and crosses. But still, some folks might see that line and feel slighted or offended. Sorry.
I have nothing against traditionalists. Given my beliefs and actions, I could easily be taken for one. How many people do you know who go to shrines on their anniversaries?! Or hang out in chapels? Or read theology and spiritual books on their summer vacations? Or blog about G. K. Chesterton?
The target of the post was the nit pickers and the people who seem so full of anger and hurt.
Ahh, but there's that word "target." Am I any better?
Rather than trying to argue, or trying to tweak them, I should be praying for them, asking their prayers for me, and seeking reconciliation.
And asking their forgiveness.
Sarcasm is not the way to promote dialogue, or to foster Christian community.
I need to keep in mind the model set by St. Francis.
I went to my site meter this morning, and noticed there was a sudden spike in page views in July - more than 1,400. That's my second highest total in the last year (1,800 plus last December).
It's due, I suspect, to the recent interest generated by (this) piece (that was) critical of some of the "Super Vatican Unofficials."
I'm sure that traffic will die soon. Good. It saddens me. The piece was written in a pique, and, as I've always acknowledged, my mouth (or my typing fingers) are my own worst enemies.
On rereading the piece, I can see how it might be taken as critical of traditionalists - especially the comment about the wearers of medals, scapulars and hair shirts. The hair shirts was the real point of that line - building from two normal things to something that's absurd. After all, I wear a scapular, and in the past have worn medals and crosses. But still, some folks might see that line and feel slighted or offended. Sorry.
I have nothing against traditionalists. Given my beliefs and actions, I could easily be taken for one. How many people do you know who go to shrines on their anniversaries?! Or hang out in chapels? Or read theology and spiritual books on their summer vacations? Or blog about G. K. Chesterton?
The target of the post was the nit pickers and the people who seem so full of anger and hurt.
Ahh, but there's that word "target." Am I any better?
Rather than trying to argue, or trying to tweak them, I should be praying for them, asking their prayers for me, and seeking reconciliation.
And asking their forgiveness.
Sarcasm is not the way to promote dialogue, or to foster Christian community.
I need to keep in mind the model set by St. Francis.
posted by A Secular Franciscan | 6:42 AM
4 Comments:
Actual "charitable" Super Vatican unofficials comments from elsewhere:
"I'm actually quite surprised that Bishop Clark is still in charge of that Diocese, particularly, if accounts of his personal life and views are true."
"I’m surprised we don’t hear more about rampant homosexual perversions too, as this bishop is quite fond of them and his own degenerate indiscretions with the neighboring bishop are not a very well kept secret."
"The long-suffering faithful of Rochester have endured this episcopate for 29 years, with apparently 4 more to go. Surely there must be some way for the most obviously egregious papal mistakes in episcopal appointments to be corrected in less than 33 years."
"If Benedict XVI is the great defender of tradition that conservative Catholics insist he is, and if his predecessor deserves to be named in the same breath with Gregory I and Leo I, then why is this man still a bishop? It is John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI, the two darlings of the Catholic right, who are responsible for this situation. Otherwise, the doctrine of papal supremacy is meaningless."
...
Yeah, how come the Vatican is not doing what we want?
So the whole Sister/Father/Bishop/Pope Joan saga is OK with you? The hideous "wreckovation" of the cathedral is OK with you? The sad legacy of Bishop Clark is/will be OK with you? We'll pray for you.
trad tom - I've offered criticisms of some of the things in the diocese and that Bishop Clark has done before - that was not the point of the post.
As for the prayers, thank you. I appreciate them. I can always use more!
Pax et bonum
In the interest of full disclosure, over the years I've worn a variety of medals, crosses and scapulars. I currently sport a scapular that was among my mother's effects.
Post a Comment
<< Home