Posted on 08/26/2004 3:38:43 PM PDT by corpus
Hey .... it may not be worthy enough to wrap fish but, as a "NYer", I would challenge the words "most worthless". The NYT could win that category. Here is how the RFT describe themselves.
The Riverfront Times was founded in 1977 as St. Louis's alternative newsweekly. Since then, we've cultivated an audited weekly circulation of 100,000. Because of the pass-along nature of the RFT, our weekly reach is more than a quarter of a million readers.
The Riverfront Times focuses on the issues that are important to St. Louis's young adults. Each week, hundreds of thousands of readers turn to the RFT for award-winning journalism, powerful investigative reporting, news and commentary on local politics, and the most comprehensive arts and entertainment coverage in the St. Louis area.
If this article represents their best attempt to dig up dirt on the good archbishop, it's no wonder their circulation is so poor. As to the "names" posted in this 'flagship edition of moral depravity', how seriously can one take them? Written BY MALCOLM GAY, with a testimonial from Richard Dickman?!
Puhlease!!! Garbage like this doesn't even deserve 1k of commentary from any of us. This thread should have ended with Girlshortstop's rebuttal in post #2.
That would be Albany, not Rochester, though these two bishops are good friends since seminary, were positioned in their respective episcopates 27 years ago, and both adhere to an ultra liberal agenda.
The victim of a 'purported suicide' was Fr. Minkler, an orthodox priest, who returned from a retreat to find a message from the chancery advising him to get his butt down there asap. He was met by the bishop's legal assistant, handed a document denying that he wrote a report to Cardinal O'Connor on the scandals in this diocese, and told to sign it. He was found dead the next day, face down on a blanket placed on the kitchen floor - you know, the 'typical' suicide ( /sarcasm).
This is a "hit piece."
Must you always be the one to take the most ridiculous position on everything?
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the RFT and the NCR are on the same side.
BTW, the morale among priests here, so far as I can tell, hasn't changed. When Lindell isn't looking (that would be the Chancery) they do as they darn well please.
The RFT is basically a tabliod which has the sole purpose of causing as much trouble for the establishment as possible.
O my Jesus, I beg You on behalf of the whole Church: Grant it love and the light of Your Spirit and give power to the words of priests so that hardened hearts might be brought to repentance and return to You, O Lord. |
A smear job. If you stand with Christ, they will hate you. The perverts can't stomach that there is an authentic Shepherd willing to speak the truth.
Burke was quite clear in his response to the complainant--that Rome had approved this deal.
So, although I have my doubts about the veracity of the claim in the first place, that's irrelevant--Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
It is possible that Rome and Burke know more about this than the complainant--and CERTAINLY more than any of us, at this time, pending the investigation of Pyro.
It is true. This entire piece is about that stuff and by those who worship that stuff.
Everything east of Lake Michgan is sort of a blur except NYC and DC.
Just couldn't pull up from memory which of those two twit-Bishops was the one in question...
But they are BOTH Friends of Rembert, which has its connotations.
If it's somebody you like, you'll twist yourself into a knot defending behavior, no matter how bizarre.
Let me see if I understand. No homosexual men in Catholic seminaries, but a man who turns himself into a woman is OK in a religious order for women.
Isn't a transgender just a legitimized cross-dresser?
I'll HELP you understand: Rome has officially pronounced that no homosexuals should be admitted to the priesthood, (or the seminary for that matter.)
Rome has also (apparently) indicated that this deal, whatever it is, is OK with them.
Please note the common element: Roman statement.
That's not real hard, is it?
OK. The next time Rome overlooks some blatant transgression that you disagree with, I will remind you that Rome knows best.
Dear sinkspur,
Archbishop Burke has stated that there is more here than meets the eye, and that Rome is aware of it. He states that it is of a confidential nature.
Why would we not give Archbishop Burke the benefit of the doubt in this?
Also, Archbishop Burke assures us that the person in question "in no way espouses a sex change operation as right or good. In fact, she holds it to be seriously disordered."
Do you say that he is lying? On what basis?
It appears that the facts in this case are not really known, and it appears that they may not be suspectible to public knowledge. Thus, we ought to avoid characterizations like this:
"Let me see if I understand. No homosexual men in Catholic seminaries, but a man who turns himself into a woman is OK in a religious order for women."
We really don't know what the story is.
Do you disagree?
sitetest
Mary Therese Helmueller, a Burke friend, apparently knows what the story is, and wrote the Papal Nuncio over it.
One can always repent over anything. But the fact that this is "confidential" and there "is more here than meets the eye" simply confirms the story to me. What is intrinsically disordered to Sister Julie now may not have been when she had the surgery. So, she's had a conversion.
If it's OK now to accept repentant transgendereds into religious orders, why not come out and say so? If Rome says it's OK, then let's say it.
Would you go to confession to a transgendered priest?
Dear sinkspur,
You presume far too much.
I don't care if Ms. Helmueller is Archbishop Burke's friend or not. That doesn't mean she knows the whole story. In fact, she may have overheard snippets of things and badly mangled the truth by badly putting together individual facts in ways that they don't actually relate one to the other.
"One can always repent over anything. But the fact that this is 'confidential' and there 'is more here than meets the eye' simply confirms the story to me."
Then you have made leaps of logic not justified by the facts. I don't care to speculate, but I can think of at least one or two circumstances that could have given rise to this story, but nonetheless wouldn't support the view that this is a "transgendered" person.
As to "accepting transgendered persons into religious orders," there is an inherent difficulty related to the priesthood that don't present in mere admittance to religious orders. An individual born a woman who has surgery to "become" a man is not ontologically a man, and thus cannot be validly ordained.
This is an insuperable difficulty not present in merely accepting someone into a religious order.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.