Diogenes is evil.
I don't think so.
But Tom Kreitzberg over at DISPUTATIONS does.
I can't wait to hear what the Openbookblogger has to say about this. She abides the raffish rants of Rocco Palmo without a word of judgment, but obviously has reservations about the "perspective" of blogs such as this one.
It will be interesting and indeed very telling to see how she as well as other Catholic bloggers sort themselves out over this.
I have benefited much from both DISPUTATIONS and MARK SHEA and include them in my blogroll. But I could not disagree with them more on this particular "disputation".
But Tom Kreitzberg over at DISPUTATIONS does.
"What "Diogenes" does at "Off the Record" is evil.What DIOGENES does at "Off the Record" is "mortally sinfully evil." CWN are "formal cooperators" in this grave sin. Why? A link made by DISPUTATIONS to Mark Shea is supposed to explain the reason for this excessive remark.
Gravely evil. Mortally sinfully evil. Putting his immortal soul at risk of damnation evil.
By their formal support for "Diogenes," the editors of Catholic World News are formal cooperators in this grave evil. Formal cooperation in grave evil is gravely evil."
I can't wait to hear what the Openbookblogger has to say about this. She abides the raffish rants of Rocco Palmo without a word of judgment, but obviously has reservations about the "perspective" of blogs such as this one.
It will be interesting and indeed very telling to see how she as well as other Catholic bloggers sort themselves out over this.
I have benefited much from both DISPUTATIONS and MARK SHEA and include them in my blogroll. But I could not disagree with them more on this particular "disputation".
posted by Quintero at 12:15 AM
6 Comments:
What Mr. Kreitzberg says here is stupid.
Gravely stupid. Staggeringly stupefyingly stupid. Putting his rational mind at risk of spontaneous implosion stupid.
By his agreement with Mr. Kreitzberg, Mr. Shea is a formal cooperator in this grave stupidity. Formal cooperation in grave stupidity is gravely stupid.
Oh my!
I’m new to the world of Blogdumb and I thought I’ve seen everything. But, some of these people take themselves way too seriously.
“Gravely evil. Mortally sinfully evil. Putting his immortal soul at risk of damnation evil.”
Kreitzberg (whoever in the world he is) is declaring Uncle Di to be guilty of mortal sin?
Bwahahahahahaa
Poor Kreitz wasn't paying attention during his RCIA classes or maybe he was and this is the kind of nonsense they're teaching nowadays. Be nice, Kreitz. Unless you know Uncle Di’s intent, you don’t get to declare him or anyone else guilty of mortal sin nor should you do it publicly anyway. PERIOD. Besides, where is the “serious matter” in all this. Calling a spade a spade was practiced by Catholicism’s greatest saints including Aquinas, Francis de Sales, Chrysostom etc and is, indeed, an act of charity. Eveidently that is not so in the world of neo-Catholicsm. I don’t bother reading Shea but he’s another neo-cat halfwit if he agrees with Kreitz.
Not only is their judgement of Uncle Di off the mark, It’s importatnt to keep in mind who and what these two Einsteins are defending in their criticism of Di.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick
from the Jester
Even if Shea and the guy at Disputations were wrong (and I am not convinced that they are), what harm comes from crucifying the imagination and the tongue a bit?
I agree with Clayton that perhaps we may still need to convince oursleves of Diogenes' complete innocence here.
But I've just commented at Disputations and to me one thing is clear: we can question each other's motives or the wisdom of our actions. But we can't go around imputing EVIL INTENT in the actions of Catholic colleagues, EVIL which merits ETERNAL DAMNATION.
It's just that simple.
And in case anyone says just go have a lie down, there was no hint of hyperbole or humor in the original Disputations post.
JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...
I'd like to cite the following quote that one Fr.
Walter Coleman left on the comment thread in question on the CWS blog:
"As a priest who has served in DC, and has known plenty who served under his Eminence in Newark, he would pray in the name of Baal to get a 7, and sometimes 6 figure check. As one cleric explained to me, "Money talks and....", well, the rest is about something that walks. (emphasis mine)."
I'd take the word of Fr. Coleman -- a man who has some personal acquaintance with the Cardinal Arsebishop of D.C. -- than either Shea's or Kreizberg's.
Sock and gfvonb, kudos to you both on your evaluations (especially, yours, sock, on Shea as a "neo-cath halfwit"). My experiences with both "august" men reveal them to be nothing more than blind apologists for the episcopocrasy. They are the "neo-cath" versions of Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss.
man with black hat: St Blog's: A Comedy of Errors
Post a Comment
<< Home