Replies

"If what's said above is accurate, then unfortunately corpus, "the tale" is that your thread posting acumen is in need of tweaking. Conversely, if the RFT *is* reliable, you've got the goods. ...what those goods are is tbd.
FReegards."

My original post was in reference to the disobedience of the priest to his bishop who left Archbishop Burke's diocese due to a conflict with his conscience (see Post 1). The reliability of which is based on priests of Burke's previous diocese, as I quoted in Post 1, which also names one of the priests. I wasn't sure if it was "legal" to change the title of someone else's published article in my thread title, which is why I left it as it was, while trying to bring to the table what I caught in the article in Post 1. None of my postings on this thread have related to homosexuality or sexual perversion, nor was it the topic I originally addressed. The "different tale" was in reference to how priests and laymen view their superiors or those who have authority over them, with nothing in reference to the queer agenda of RFT.

My original post was in reference to the disobedience of the priest to his bishop who left Archbishop Burke's diocese due to a conflict with his conscience (see Post 1).

Actually, it reads to me like he may have done the "stand up thing"... if he couldn't, or wouldn't adhere to his VOW of OBEDIENCE, he should go. Your parallel appears quite flawed.

The reliability of which is based on priests of Burke's previous diocese, as I quoted in Post 1, which also names one of the priests.

OK, and the fact remains that you used a flaky source... see above picture above with their links. Perhaps we are in agreement here?

I wasn't sure if it was "legal"... ???

None of my postings on this thread have related to homosexuality or sexual perversion, nor was it the topic I originally addressed.

uhhhhh... a yeoman's task considering the source?

The "different tale" was in reference to how priests and laymen view their superiors or those who have authority over them...

Those "views" you chose to use are selected for publication in a gay/progressive rag; facts ought to be gleaned from better sources on your quest to tell "a different tale" about the good Archbishop Burke.

I am trying to illustrate that Archbishop Burke is one that often gets labeled as "traditional" or "arch-conservative" when stories such as this tell a different tale

I fail to see where you've been clear corpus about the following:

where/how you addressed my comments in post 14 about thread choices
what your illustration is/was, and the purpose of it.

But it's just as well... I'm comfortable with