Well done MIke in posting this- sadly, the Church continues to conceal abuse and thus allow its critics to be confirmed in their assessment ‘we’ are insincere regarding any meaningful reform or repentance. No wonder we are a laughingstock
One thing to remember, abusers like Ripken or Marcel, their master manipulators, complete con men, it has been encouraging to see the left put their foot down and say enough is enough, I think the hierarchy thought no one was paying attention
Hi Mr Lewis. I don't have a WPI account so let me say here that your piece tonight on Strickland et al. was both excellent and compendious, I've saved it for reference!
He hasn't addressed, isn't going to address it, doesn't have to address it; just like he isn't going to say anything else about Strickland or Burke if he doesn't feel like it. No one judges him and since you are ok with that absolute unaccountability in other contexts you have to be ok with it in this context too.
Or you could just offer it up.
Or maybe you could reconsider your ultra-ultramontanism.
I do see your latest podcast mentions it. I guess it comes down to your desire to have WPI provide a fair assessment of Pope Francis. If you have the kind of misgivings that you have expressed here, it seems that those should be mentioned as a WPI article as well, as you figure out how to do that in a way consistent with your intentions for WPI. But the Holy Father's failings as well as his virtues need to be expressed (in a respectful manner of course).
If i ever do my own Substack letter, I might take you up on it. For the record, I do respect Pope Francis and the office he holds as the successor of Peter, no matter what shortcomings I perceive.
But put that aside. This is not about my views, but yours.
I get you want to defend Pope Francis against unfair criticism. That is a worthy endeavor, and I respect that. But here, you admitted that the Holy Father could fairly be criticized for his actions regarding Marko Rupnik. I think you owe it to your readers at WPI to be as honest there as you have been here. Doing so should make your website more credible, not less, in its mission of defending Pope Francis. My two cents.
Take care, Mike, God bless and have a good Advent.
It shouldn't have reached this point but I think the press did its job. Francis's policies typically point in the right direction but I've heard that he does inexplicable things and has inexplicable blind spots when it comes to certain people and things. I just can't understand his actions in light of Rupnik's pattern of behavior.
He can't remain silent on this. I think his next trip is to Dubai and I think he needs to be asked about this on the plane, if not sooner.
You committing them same mistake again here Mike, just like in the case of Cdl.McCarrick.
Proof?
Pope Francis is docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit, he sees things and discerned better than the rest of us, just like in the case of Fr.Rupnik, do you think Pope Francis has an inexplicable blindspots, or his prudential judgment is on points?
You have not learned, that behind the noise in the media, is the Rad Trads, the Council of Media is behind all this thing, and so, you should know that all this things are just an exaggeration, and ofcourse, the rise of Bogus Accusers will follow, to back-up the evil propaganda.
Remember, you are dealing with adults in the case of Rupnik, there's no force, it's a mutual consent, and the rest are all fabricated allegations.
Be wise Mike, for the nth time.
And ofcourse, I hope by now, you had learn your mistake in jumping on the wagon of the Rad Trads, in painting the good and zealous Cdl.McCarrick as "homosexual predator". I hope you know by now that McCarrick was just a victim of character assassinartion stemming from his refusal to endorse Ratzinger Notes in 2004, that clearly showed, he won't tolerate the politics that US corrupt bishops were into.
Its the same with Fr.Rupnik,. the Council of Media is painting again, with their evil strokes.
Well done MIke in posting this- sadly, the Church continues to conceal abuse and thus allow its critics to be confirmed in their assessment ‘we’ are insincere regarding any meaningful reform or repentance. No wonder we are a laughingstock
One thing to remember, abusers like Ripken or Marcel, their master manipulators, complete con men, it has been encouraging to see the left put their foot down and say enough is enough, I think the hierarchy thought no one was paying attention
Thanks, Mike.
Hi Mr Lewis. I don't have a WPI account so let me say here that your piece tonight on Strickland et al. was both excellent and compendious, I've saved it for reference!
oh thanks
He hasn't addressed, isn't going to address it, doesn't have to address it; just like he isn't going to say anything else about Strickland or Burke if he doesn't feel like it. No one judges him and since you are ok with that absolute unaccountability in other contexts you have to be ok with it in this context too.
Or you could just offer it up.
Or maybe you could reconsider your ultra-ultramontanism.
Mike, at what point will you post an article on this topic on "Where Peter Is"?
Why do you ask?
We have posted podcasts on this topic on WPI. I explained above the reasons why I published it here.
I could foresee publishing an article detailing new developments (like a news/factual report).
I do see your latest podcast mentions it. I guess it comes down to your desire to have WPI provide a fair assessment of Pope Francis. If you have the kind of misgivings that you have expressed here, it seems that those should be mentioned as a WPI article as well, as you figure out how to do that in a way consistent with your intentions for WPI. But the Holy Father's failings as well as his virtues need to be expressed (in a respectful manner of course).
Start your own website, then. You can find that kind of criticism of the pope in plenty of places. You won't find it on WPI.
If i ever do my own Substack letter, I might take you up on it. For the record, I do respect Pope Francis and the office he holds as the successor of Peter, no matter what shortcomings I perceive.
But put that aside. This is not about my views, but yours.
I get you want to defend Pope Francis against unfair criticism. That is a worthy endeavor, and I respect that. But here, you admitted that the Holy Father could fairly be criticized for his actions regarding Marko Rupnik. I think you owe it to your readers at WPI to be as honest there as you have been here. Doing so should make your website more credible, not less, in its mission of defending Pope Francis. My two cents.
Take care, Mike, God bless and have a good Advent.
It shouldn't have reached this point but I think the press did its job. Francis's policies typically point in the right direction but I've heard that he does inexplicable things and has inexplicable blind spots when it comes to certain people and things. I just can't understand his actions in light of Rupnik's pattern of behavior.
He can't remain silent on this. I think his next trip is to Dubai and I think he needs to be asked about this on the plane, if not sooner.
You committing them same mistake again here Mike, just like in the case of Cdl.McCarrick.
Proof?
Pope Francis is docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit, he sees things and discerned better than the rest of us, just like in the case of Fr.Rupnik, do you think Pope Francis has an inexplicable blindspots, or his prudential judgment is on points?
You have not learned, that behind the noise in the media, is the Rad Trads, the Council of Media is behind all this thing, and so, you should know that all this things are just an exaggeration, and ofcourse, the rise of Bogus Accusers will follow, to back-up the evil propaganda.
Remember, you are dealing with adults in the case of Rupnik, there's no force, it's a mutual consent, and the rest are all fabricated allegations.
Be wise Mike, for the nth time.
And ofcourse, I hope by now, you had learn your mistake in jumping on the wagon of the Rad Trads, in painting the good and zealous Cdl.McCarrick as "homosexual predator". I hope you know by now that McCarrick was just a victim of character assassinartion stemming from his refusal to endorse Ratzinger Notes in 2004, that clearly showed, he won't tolerate the politics that US corrupt bishops were into.
Its the same with Fr.Rupnik,. the Council of Media is painting again, with their evil strokes.
Be wise.