Posted on 04/08/2015 6:35:16 AM PDT by marshmallow
595 men are expected to be ordained to the priesthood in the United States in 2015, an increase of 24.7% over last year’s figure of 477, according to data released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The number of men ordained to the priesthood in the US fell steadily from 994 in 1965, to 771 in 1975, 533 in 1985, 511 in 1995, and 454 in 2005, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
Victory dance?
And this; "accuse them of covering up "anti-Catholic statistics"?
40% overall decline, despite a recent uptick (595 people --- out of an overall population of more than 320 million people? how many of the wanna-be, hoping to be "priests" are Mexican immigrants?) -- and the knives came out as if he was one of the authors of Vatican II...
There was no dancing, and there was no open "accusing of covering up". But there was a simple pointing out that a long term trend was downwards.
For doing that, noting that aspect of things, he was set upon personally and forthwith by FRomans.
Laugh, I thought I'd die!
To be fair though most of the Catholics still posting on FReep are thrilled silly with VatII. Yes, If I'd jumped all over him you would have nailed it but for future reference when you're talking about the normal Catholics around here you might write "and the knives came out as if he'd said something positive about the SSPX".
Here, hold my beer and watch this:
"The SSPX isn't in schism."
Alex's contribution was to select the raw numbers for 2015 and 1965 provided in the article, convert them into a percentage and then rebuke Catholic Culture for not doing likewise....
An ability seemingly impossible for Catholic World News. Can't have any "anti-Catholic" statistics! (post #10).
A ridiculous statement since the article source makes no attempt to hide the raw numbers nor the overall trend on which Alex's calculation was based.
It's a two line article. The deficit between 2015 and 1965 is already abundantly clear from the raw numbers provided.....as well as the recent uptick.
It's more like "limbo"...
Ha. And there are people out there in radio-land who think that doctrine was generally done away with?
Nope.
It's just been re-assigned.
There may (or may not be) un-baptised(?) babies floating around out there, in the aether, but for the SSPX'ers, limbo has been made [cough-cough] eminently affordable.
Dang that Vatican II!
It mentioned that Christians of other ecclesiastical community (other than the Roman Catholic one) were (or at least could be -- some of them -- maybe) actual Christians.
Oh, the horrors of having to find ways to unwind from past dogma while still clutching at the exclusivity of that (I'm in the club -- you ain't -- Jesus loves me, but He can't stand you)?
What color is the sky on this planet wherein Catholics are compelled to repeatedly disassemble, analyze, and then grade my every post? Do I have to pay rent for living there?
If you'd rather I didn't post to you, just say the word.
It aint a problem.
Do I get my full rent deposit back if I say "yes"?
No sweat, either way.
It was not himself who brought up past posting history.
If you want me to look at anything else you may have to say, start there, before trying to justify the over-reactions he received which then led to all the rest.
In the past I've seen the guy pilloried for doing nothing more than italicizing for emphasis some portion of an article.
As far as the claim to have "rebuked Catholic Culture" for having had not have included contemplation of apparent long-term downwards trend --- that claim is false, for initially what he did say was a perhaps too loose, "in other words", before pointing towards the overall, still 40% decline since '65, even in spite of this last apparent upwards movement of numbers.
If that was taken as some form of rebuke, then that's as much or more in the minds of FRomans who went after him personally for having looked at the numbers in that way.
You say that's ridiculous? What was truly ridiculous is that when he pointed it out it was characterized as an anti-Catholic statistic" as if the numbers themselves were "anti". But then we know it was all about FRoman's perceptions of Alex Murphy, with the bleak (and long term) trend of those numbers being not something that rah-rah, go team go Roman Catholics want to hear.
You yourself made it out to be as if he was doing a victory dance...which was to attribute motive, while all but blaming him for the overall downwards trend itself.
Oh wow man, did he harsh your mellow?
It was also a FRoman who accused him of *thinking* that all [Roman] Catholics were "going to hell" (he didn't say that) to which he responded (and justifiably so) that if a Catholic were to have discussed the numbers in the way he did it would be one thing, but since it was himself -- then ill motivations were attributed to himself.
595 out of how many [Roman] Catholics?
Doesn't that number seem awfully small to you?
A serious allegation. Take it to a higher authority.
If you consider that some posters are crossing the line, call the Mods.
I've already offered not to post to him if he finds my posts obnoxious.
If not, stop whining about the "incoming".
Serious allegation you say? Yeah, but not one to take to a babysitter.
I'll be the one who decides what I will do and what I won't in any particular situation. I'm a free man, according to the Word of God spoken directly to myself. That can include -- I don't much take orders from you.
I showed you what was going. I sure hope that you looked again at what really went on, seen from perspective other than "It's Alex Murphy! Whatever he says...let's all of us read into it further and see how bad it can be made out to be!"
You are not the most obnoxious individual around here, even from among the "FRomans". Would that be saying something charitable towards yourself personally? I would say so. 8^')
Yet you did play along with and further extend a hyper-ized over-reaction.
It seems to me (and this is not the first time) as soon as some people around here see the name "Alex Murphy" they don't hesitate to attribute motive, then add "extra" stuff he allegedly (but did not) say.
Go to the mods --- but don't bother telling yourself first?
At this point I tell you;
Stop your own whining.
Turning things into RC Whiner's Caucus at the drop of a hat mention of a statistic --- is not something one needs go to management and complain about.
They already know.
On the true "higher authority" level --- if one cannot fool me, can't get the fast ones by even just little 'ol me --- then how would God Himself be fooled?
Ultimately He's the who needs to be pleased, not me, and not you either (nothing personal, just the fact's ma'am).
Would those four words accurately summarize that tiresome wall of text?
Bingo. Quality not quantity. If they are just a bunch of ecumaniacs then they aren't going to be a good thing.
ROFLMAO...so true.
grow up.
First I had to explain what the deal was, pointing to illustrative instances and examples.
I pointed out to you aspects of the truth --- which yourself and others also, likely did not notice even as you heaped more and more upon the guy -- putting words into his mouth that he did not say, taking whatever he did say, then twisting that into something yet further, reading additional words and meanings into everything before then condemning him further as if he did say those things.
But I noticed.
It happens every time he shows up.
I see the same sort of low-wattage, lopsided, less than fully rational, self-justifying emotionalism out of the usual sort of suspects daily -- if I take the time to look.
You've repeatedly accused posters of attributing motive and mind reading.
Time to let the Mods decide.
Well, I've decided. It's time for everyone to stop making this thread about me.
How about you shut up, yourself?
I brought the complaint to you, and to others who were part of the whiny rick-roll.
If you can't handle being called out on that sort of thing -- then don't participate in that sort of thing.
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.