[GirlShortstop]

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

[GirlShortstop]

Oops... sorry that I hit 'post' before I finished html review....

I'm comfortable with my post from the get-go... this [thread] is crap, reads like it's right out of the National Enquirer... and makes absolutely no sense..... Pretty pathetic and lame attempt at a smear.

FReegards.

[Pyro7480]

Could the following be the reason why the sodomites are going after Burke?

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1186232/posts:It is important to note that not only does the canonical discipline Canon .915 include the estimated 500 so-called 'Catholic' pro-abortion politicians (Democrat as well as Republican) in the U.S., but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners.

A short list of such sinners would include homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite, rainbow banners over their shoulders, as well as those divorced and 'remarried' without benefit of annulment. [11]

Also, included would be employees of abortion mills and Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, notorious criminals, couples living openly in fornication or adultery (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of manifest sinners).

Earlier, Archbishop Burke said, "So serious is the moral obligation to avoid scandal that we are admonished not only not to do wrong but also not to appear to do wrong. When a person acts, he or she must always consider the appearance of the act to be done." [12]

Footnotes: 11. "Declaration by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts," June 24, 2000, by Cardinal Julián Herranz, President; Cf. Apostolic Constitution 'Familiaris consortio,' the Letter 'Annus internationalis familiæ,' 'Ecclesia de Eucharistia,' and Redemptionis sacramentum,' for those teachings regarding irregular marriages.

12. 'The Catholic Response to Scandal,' by Archbishop Raymond Burke, address given at the Milwaukee Wanderer Forum, December 6-7, 2002.