10 June 2015

Why Isn't Saint Louis Catholic Covering...?

1) The SLU/De Smet debacle?

2) The USCCB meeting in St. Louis?

3) The upcoming encyclical on non-existent "climate change"?

The answer is the same on all three. I leave it to you to figure it out.


Polytropos said...

I have a few guesses:

a) because these events are not "news", they are "olds". They are simply more of the same from an increasingly embarrassing church bureaucracy that is tripping over itself to keep up with the progressive main stream.

b) because covering these events is an occasion of sin for you and an occasion of physical harm for those (people, animals, and inanimate objects) around you. You can't get through a paragraph of typing before the urge to punch something while screaming obscenities becomes overwhelming. Or is that just me?

Anonymous said...

Watching too much Bruce Jenner coverage? ;)


Anonymous said...

i didn't know about #2. Got the others covered at my place. Jenner...let's try to forget.


thetimman said...

Polytropos, you know me!

More the first reason the the latter. I have been increasingly dismayed to read the local diocesan news outlet, which is nearly content-free. Not merely party-line stuff, which is what you'll get on the USCCB meeting in this week's edition (if Twitter is any indication), but just a lack of any news apart from high school sports scores. The purge is complete; the Ministry of Truth has no more work to do.

I mean, I didn't write at first on the SLU matter because SLU isn't a Catholic university, it is a joke. It has been a joke. It truly is an "old". But I get that other Catholic sites have written, figuring that this outrage must be answered. So, I have been meaning to write, just to "represent" the local Catholic scene. But then I figured on playing a game of Chicken with the Review (unknown to them, obviously). Once they weighed in, I would. But nothing. I figure if they don't think it's news, then it isn't news. Right?

The USCCB is meeting to discuss racism, immigration and climate change. Really?! Dear Excellencies, we await with eager anticipation your statement promising fidelity to our Lord's own teaching on marriage and the Integrity of Holy Communion. That is your duty. If you have opinions on the prudential application of teachings to the other issues, please give them. But duty first.

I mean, there is a synod in four months that threatens to abandon Divine teaching! I ask the Review: is that news? Is this thing on?

The Church is dying for lack of faith, hope and charity.

But whatever.

Elizabeth R said...

Archbishop Cordileone gave a talk on same-sex "marriage" at the USCCB conference. I'm glad someone is standing up.

"Nothing the Court says can change what marriage truly is, and we will continue to promote and defend it,' said Archbishop Cordileone, who received sustained applause from his brother bishops at the end of his talk. 'We may have to suffer this lie about marriage in the law, but we must not participate in it or keep silent about it.'"

TradDadof4 said...

When did "racism" become one of the cardinal sins. Answer? Never. It cant be a sin because it has no definition. It is the modern equivalent of "poo poo head". And as bad as the church can be at times, it does not convict you of mortal sin for sins which have no clear definition.

bbdata said...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines racism as "Unjust discrimination on the basis of a person's race; a violation of human dignity, and a sin against justice". It does not define "poo poo head", another solid theological term.