Another episcopal attack on Catholic blogs. But . . . . Aquinas and Newman are with us
‘If the faith is in imminent peril,’ said St Thomas, ‘prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.’ What a blogger he would have made…
By William Oddie on Friday, 19 April 2013
Not for the first time in his own indispensable blog, Protect the Pope, Deacon Nick has drawn our attention to another attack on Catholic blogs, coming from a familiar prelatical source.
In a homily given during the Diocese of Westminster’s recent Mass following the election of Pope Francis, Archbishop Nichols quoted the new Pope’s reflection on the disciples complaining on their journey to Emmaus and extended it to make it look as though Pope Francis had been criticising Catholic blogs for spreading complaints and destroying love in the Church.
“Pope Francis,” he said, “has already identified two kinds of behaviour that destroy love in the Church. They are complaining and gossiping. He is a practical man. He knows that we live in a society in which complaining and gossip is a standard fare. They sell newspapers and attract us to blogs because we love hear complaints and to read gossip. But Pope Francis is clear: they should have no place in the Church.”
What, blogs? Pope Francis was saying that blogs should have no place in the Church? But he doesn’t say anything at all about blogs. “We, as Catholics,” concluded the archbishop, “are always ready to profess our love for the Lord. But now Pope Francis is calling us to show that love in down-to-earth ways. How wonderful it would be if our Church was known to be a place that was free of the sound of complaining and the whisper of gossip! Then the light of Christ would indeed shine brightly.”
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/04/19/another-episcopal-attack-on-catholic-blogs-but-we-will-not-hold-our-tongues-and-aquinas-and-newman-are-with-us/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Those are two great ways to destroy not just the Church, but homes, families, even businesses.
meow2u3
(24,761 posts)Gossip destroys homes, families, businesses--even the Church--from within, ruining our bodies, our thinking, our outlook on life, and especially our souls, in the process.
georges641
(123 posts)I don't think the Pope, the bishops, and our pastors can remind us too often about how wrong it is to gossip and how destructive it can be.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)And I've never heard such bad talk from them.
But isn't Nichols head of the conservative wing that split from the liberal arm of the church? If so, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear him spinning facts. Shame on the guy. I don't care how much he tried to look like he was complimenting the Pope, it seems he was still LYING about what Pope Francis actually said.
Apart from that, I can certainly agree that untrue gossip and excessive complaints can ruin any group. I retired to a tiny Midwest town where they're still fighting the Civil War and a large element behave like Hatfields and McCoys. Thank goodness for the nicer ones. Which may or may not include me, because I've been shouting the news from the rooftops all my life. But at least I stick to the facts and choose my subjects carefully. It's also done (or at least so I believe) only for necessary reasons, such as pulling bullies' teeth.
For instance, I've never revealed the name of the man I saw coming out of someone else's house at about 3 a.m. when I was out walking my Chows - before the yard fence went up - in the middle of a blizzard. No moral imperative there for me to squawk in the public square. Besides, it was funny; there he was headed to his truck, oblivious to our approach. Then at the sidewalk he looked up and saw us, got this horrified look on his face, and ran back in the rear door of the house. I might've put it down to his fear of the dogs, but for the fact that he lived on the other side of town and the homeowner was away on business. It's also funny because the guy's a deacon and you'd think he'd watch his step with me after what I saw, but not so.
I have to confess that one reason I'd never reveal his identity is because then I'd have to quit telling the story! Why embarrass the cuckolded spouses and the kids, anyway? That's the difference between funny stories and gossip; one's to amuse, the other's to hurt even the innocent. Nobody could ever guess who he is, either. I wasn't here 6 months before 2 different men asked me out - to the town wife swapping affairs. I chewed those guys out royally, but I've never revealed their names either.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Rather, I think they meant Episcopal as coming from a Bishop. Seeing as how the source is European that's I think that's what they would take Episcopal to mean.
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I still don't like the man, though.
One thing I did learn some time ago was that the Episcopal Church in America claims the right to apostolic succession because the Church of England was a little tardy in trying to cut them off.
If a liberal Episcopal congregation happened to be within reach, I'd enjoy visiting there. There was a retired, famously flaming liberal priest in AZ where I lived several years, and he taught post-graduate level classes which I loved. He'd been right at the forefront of the civil rights movement, and the head honcho of that particular congregation hated him like poison. I was privileged to be within earshot one time when they met in the hallway just before one of our classes. The main guy asked the theoretically retired priest what heresy he would be teaching tonight, and the answer was a terse "something about a church not being the building it's housed in, probably." The mean one kept trying to get the good one in all kinds of hot water with the hierarchy but it never did succeed too well. First of all, my guy didn't give a rat's patootie what the other one thought, and secondly, he was retired and volunteering anyway so he couldn't be fired. Also the need for clerical help was so severe they would've kept him almost if he'd had horns. Some thought he did, because he often taught from Catholic theologians!
Here's one bone of contention between these two totally different men: That particular church was extremely wealthy but one particular year its entire expenditures outside its own walls amounted to less than $3,000. But you should've seen the entrance; almost like a cathedral. It had a massive chandelier looking down on the biggest genuine Oriental rug I've ever seen. Must've been 20'x20'.
One day I stopped there to use the restroom, and a woman coming out of a classroom saw me and tried to prevent my reaching the facilities. It was purely political, because she hated the retired liberal priest too, and me by extension as one of his admirers. I tried walking around her but she still blocked my way. It would've been all too easy (and fun) to deck her but still bad form so I didn't. Instead I backtracked a little until I was standing directly under the chandelier, hiked my long skirt halfway to my knees, squatted a little and asked loudly enough for all gathering onlookers to hear:
"Would you rather make me pee on your rug? "
She stood back real quick at that. I've always had an instinct for the jugular.
If he's still alive, I bet Fr. Bill hasn't quit laughing. It still cheers me up to remember.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Actually what happened was that Samuel Seabury was elected as Bishop by the clergy in Connecticut he went and sought consecration from English Bishops but they told him to get lost. They felt that as an American citizen Seabury couldn't take the oath of allegiance to the King. Seabury then turned to the Scottish Episcopal Church which at the time didn't recognize the authority of the British monarch. The English got worried that the American church would become an entirely Jacobite institution, so Parliament passed the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786 which allowed English Bishops to go ahead and consecrate William White and Samuel Provoost as Bishops, giving the Episcopal church two branches of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England and the Episcopal Church formally separated in 1789 so that the priests in the US would not be required to accept the supremacy of the British Monarch. The Church of England consecrated the next Bishop - James Madison - to strengthen the ties between the two churches and because of unease over Seabury's going to the Scottish church for consecration.
I feel much more informed on the matter now. 
tjwmason
(14,819 posts)Which covers London north of the River Thames and is the principal diocese in London. Highest ranking Catholic cleric in England and every previous Archbishop has been made into a Cardinal (Nichols probably will be in due course).
IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)I feel doubly blessed. 
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Some of them can be gossipy, but that does not damn all blogs.
