[Land of the Irish]

The Wanderer is hardly representative of the best Catholic press this country has to offer. Each issue is filled with its own brand of polemic screeds, interpreting our Catholic faith and its dogma through the prism of its own narrow, rigid opinion. Objectivity, that centerpiece of journalism, seems of no interest to the newspaper. Their editors and writers use the newspaper as a forum to preach their own version of the Gospel and to castigate those, often including this archbishop, whom they find to be in serious violation of church teachings. Most certainly, the light and spirit of Vatican II has never penetrated the darkness of those editorial chambers.

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The Catholic faith needs interpreting? I did not know.

Most certainly, the light and spirit of Vatican II has never penetrated the darkness of those editorial chambers.

LOL LOL LOL LOL

[AskStPhilomena]

Gentle Barbara Kralis is probably classified as a fundamentalist by bishops like Flynn, but that's what liberals call anyone who hasn't been enlightened by the "spirit of Vatican 2"....
http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0924/essays.htm

[AAABEST]

Most certainly, the light and spirit of Vatican II has never penetrated the darkness of those editorial chambers.

What a rich quote, it just doesn't get any better.

The Wanderer ought to put this on all of their advertising blurbs.

[dsc]

I don’t know much about this guy, but he starts right out with a false moral equivalence, which is a mainstay of the left: “Even partisans and those firmly in support of a candidate must grow weary of the incessant personal attacks on the candidates”

Here he equates telling unpleasant truths about a scumbag with telling despicable lies about a decent person, as moral equivalents. Who would do that but a leftist?

Archbishop Flynn whines, “Such editorial examinations and conclusions ought not, however, be determined by “scuttlebutt” or rigid preconceived biases.” Gee, that almost sounds reasonable, but…Uh-oh, what’s this?

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/colleen.htm

Looks like the archbishop has been shielding homosexual priests.

Ooops, and what’s this over here?

http://www.thewandererpress.com/b4-1-2004.htm

“What kind of benighted self- righteousness causes someone who doesn’t even know me to speculate that people have “files” or “scuttlebutt” that would assist her to write a fair, balanced analysis of me on something I have said or done in my role as archbishop?”

Maybe she’s trying to find out if you protect homos out of moral blindness, or because you are one.

Oh, and here’s a serious charge against the Wanderer: “Their editors and writers use the newspaper…to castigate those, often including this archbishop, whom they find to be in serious violation of church teachings.”

Well! Da noive.

“respect for the reputation of persons forbids every action or word likely to cause them unjust injury.” The catechism then defines detraction as being one of those offenses against persons. It explains detraction involves “without objectively valid reason, disclosing another’s faults to those who do not know them.”

Clerical sexual misconduct constitutes objectively valid reason for its own disclosure. So does covering up for clerical sexual misconduct.

“Society has a right to information based on truth, freedom, justice and solidarity”

Solidarity. Puke. Ah, but there aren’t any commie infiltrators in the clergy, right?

That aside, if society has a right to those things, how about telling us why you protect homosexual priests.

Not surprisingly, he’s on the wrong side of the communion issue, too.

These theological leftists never hesitate to trash the reputations of others, but just point the finger at them if you want to see what real self-righteousness looks like.