Category: Uncategorized

Why it’s the Cranky Professor, of course! I happen to agree with him, though I am neither as cranky nor as learned as our crotchety sage. That post was very thought provoking.

Yes, Popes ‘can’ depose bishops. I tremble to think of it happening. Please see: “History”. There are usually horrifyingly painful schisms after depositions. You think this is undermining pastoral care? What about an authoritarian pope (not the one the liberals think we have, but an ACTUAL authoritarian) who deposes bishops left and right.

Among the Bourbon Barons by Matt Labash.

A good bourbon is the ideal slow-and-steady pick-me-up. First, it bites you with its sweet burn. Then you learn to like it, when your tongue picks off the oaky vanillas and caramels, or perhaps the more subjective flavors of “cedars of Lebanon” or “new-mown grass,” at which point, you know you’re drunk. Bourbon is the spirit most likely to put you in an easy sipping rhythm with all its attendant benefits: the relaxation and conviviality, the brief waylay in that magically lucid state that resides somewhere between stone-cold sobriety and intoxication.
Mark Twain, who harbored no such animus against Scotch (he liked his drinks one way: strong), took a simpler view of bourbon: “Too much is barely enough.”

but a pal forwarded me this story about The Rahman-Holyfield fight. Holyfield hit him so hard he practically grew another head!

I am always amazed at the simple faith of athletes:

Holyfield showed he has enough left to beat a man who was heavyweight champion only seven months ago and is 10 years younger.
“Don’t tell me what God can’t do,” Holyfield said. “Don’t tell me he can’t revive a 39-year-old.”

and I’m proud to say I had two entries that made it on Brian’s list of NFP Alternative Meanings. Thanks for not posting my name next to them, Brian.

[He quotes me first] “The anti-Catholic rhetoric in the media is heating up. I heard Mark Serrano of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests this morning on WMAL in Washington DC and he calling the Bishops “pathological” and a “secret society” and changing the phrase “sexual abuse” to “sexual terror against our children.” And the radio anchor merely repeated what he said, adding, “So you’re saying the bishops are hypocritical, correct.”
There’s lots of talk in Blogland about how Weakland, Egan, Law, etc. have abused their power or turned a blind eye to abuse. Just remember that the media is taking a thorough and one-sided approach to telling the story which includes a great deal of vitriol.”
Not really sure just what you’re objecting to here. Mark Serrano calling the Bishops “pathological”? That’s certainly too-broad of a brush for ALL the Bishops, but the pattern of cowardice, venal cover-ups and depraved indifference to children being raped is indisputable.
You also seem to take issue with Serrano changing the phrase “sexual abuse” to “sexual terror against our children.” Why is this? Not antiseptic enough? Too uncomfortable? In the words of SO MANY Bishops, “We’re so terribly sorry for the ways in which some have failed you.”

You did make one point for me already: “That’s certainly too broad a stroke for ALL the Bishops.” I take issue with broad strokes when we have a small number of Bishops (like the ones I mentioned) who have been irresponsible to the point of grave sin.

Re: the “sexual terror” comment – it’s not an issue of it being to “difficult” to deal with. Sexual abuse describes the problem. The use of the term sexual terror is meant to elicit the same horrified response you get when discussing terrorism, suicide bombings, etc. It’s a common tactic for someone who is more interested in stirring up emotions than being truthful and accurate in a discussion. It’s pure demagoguery.

Finally – where’s the equal time? Why did the anchor just agree and repeat what the person said rather than playing devil’s advocate like a journalist should? Why not have another person on to add some perspective to the matter?

All in all, the discussion was inaccurate and biased against the Church – what more needs to be said than that?

Don’t misunderstand my point – I am not defending abusers and the Bishops who have defended them. But many are happy to use the situation as a way to crucify the entire Church. That I don’t accept and I’ll continue to discuss it when I see it.