This priest served as canon lawyer in at least one case where a religious superior went to bat to get rid of a priest who was credibly accused of serious wrongdoing. They are pressing Rome for the monk to be laicized.
Again, I had very good reasons for stating Dr. Eckleburg didn't have a clue about this priest, which is a part of a clear pattern of posting on this forum. This is not "making it personal," its simply correcting an obvious slander.
This priest is one of the good guys, and there is no basis whatsoever for claiming Rome is not trying to clean house with this appointment. On the contrary, this is exactly the kind of priest we need elevated to bishop to clean up a diocese like ours.
The Religion Moderator told you not to make that statement, but in defiance of the stated rules and a personal admonishment by the RM to you in post 21, you repeat the remark.
You have no idea what I know or do not know about this priest.
This priest is one of the good guys
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
there is no basis whatsoever for claiming Rome is not trying to clean house with this appointment
There is tons of information that Rome refuses to clean house, not the least of which is the opinion offered by the author of this thread.
Which he is entitled to.
Kindly abide by the stated rules of the FR Religion Forum.
Yes, that is "making it personal."
You can write whatever you think about this priest. You cannot, however, tell me what I "as usual" think about this priest.
Is it impossible for RCs to discern the difference? Discuss your own thoughts. Or the beliefs and practices of other churches or institutions or faiths. Just don't make personal comments about individual, named FReepers, as you have done.