FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop of Little Rock Responds to The Remnant
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
(02-15-2012, 11:13 AM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 10:44 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 09:08 AM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]Taylor

He's not your next door neighbour.  Show some respect.

You're not a mod.  Stop acting like one.

Any Catholic has a right to call for respect for prelates of the Church.
(02-15-2012, 02:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Can you make a case that Facebook is intrinsically immoral?

I'll take that challenge.

Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish.  Jews are evil.  Therefore Facebook is evil  :LOL:.
:LOL:
(02-15-2012, 01:49 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 11:13 AM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]You're not a mod.  Stop acting like one.

That has nothing to do with it.

That has everything to do with it.  You're not a mod, and can't instruct me to write a title before Taylor's name with any authority or expectation that I'm going to do it.


But back on topic, it's obvious Taylor is playing Micky Mouse with the TLM community in the article, the so-called "EF" Confirmation the odd bone thrown for appeasement.  When Taylor's diocesan priest returns from training, I wonder how long he'll wait (if at all) before he decides to spout a sermon on the mutually beneficial qualities between the "OF" and the "EF."  :eyeroll:

To borrow a favorite line from +Williamson... Kyrie eleison!
(02-15-2012, 02:18 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]That has everything to do with it.  You're not a mod, and can't instruct me to write a title before Taylor's name with any authority or expectation that I'm going to do it.

The Catholic faith its self compels a Catholic to do so.

But that says more about you and your ilk than anything..
(02-15-2012, 02:22 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 02:18 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]That has everything to do with it.  You're not a mod, and can't instruct me to write a title before Taylor's name with any authority or expectation that I'm going to do it.

The Catholic faith its self compels a Catholic to do so.

But that says more about you and your ilk than anything..

Oooooh.  Good one.  Way to stick with the OP's topic after I finished up with that matter of title.  :thumb:
(02-15-2012, 02:18 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]You're not a mod, and can't instruct me to write a title before Taylor's name with any authority or expectation that I'm going to do it.

He was appealing to your conscience.  This would have worked if it were properly formed.

You sound like a child.  "Nyah, nyah, you can't make me."
(02-15-2012, 02:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 01:55 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 08:39 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]This bishop is using Facebook to keep in contact with his flock.  It is a means of communication, no morally different than a printing press

You're joking?

No, I am not. Can you make a case that Facebook is intrinsically immoral?

Intrinsically immoral? I don't think so. Yet many things that aren't intrinsically immoral are nevertheless to be rejected. Television, for example. And Facebook. I'm tempted to write an essay about why, about how Facebook promotes frivolity, time-wasting, disengagement from real life, the toxic notion of the eternity of the present moment, etc., and that a bishop should therefore have nothing to do with it. But I'm willing to say that a bishop should avoid Facebook on one ground alone: it cheapens him. I agree with Marshal Mcluhan and Neil Postman: the medium is the message. But writing such an essay would be a waste of my time. Instead, I'll point to a couple of others that don't make all the points that I'd make, but do make some:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/d...twork.html

&

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...s-lies.htm

Also listen:

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/201108...iting.html
Cheer up, alphonsusjr:  recent polling (for whatever that's worth  :P) suggests that daily Facebook use is generally decreasing among regular users.  In my experience, most of the time-wasting on FB is done in the first year (being in school, of course, only extends the problem); I guess Taylor is still in that "Oh wow, new toy!" phase.
(02-15-2012, 02:34 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 02:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 01:55 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 08:39 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]This bishop is using Facebook to keep in contact with his flock.  It is a means of communication, no morally different than a printing press

You're joking?

No, I am not. Can you make a case that Facebook is intrinsically immoral?

Intrinsically immoral? I don't think so. Yet many things that aren't intrinsically immoral are nevertheless to be rejected. Television, for example. And Facebook. I'm tempted to write an essay about why, about how Facebook promotes frivolity, time-wasting, disengagement from real life, the toxic notion of the eternity of the present moment, etc., and that a bishop should therefore have nothing to do with it. But I'm willing to say that a bishop should avoid Facebook on one ground alone: it cheapens him. I agree with Marshal Mcluhan and Neil Postman: the medium is the message.

The message I get from him using Facebook is that he is reaching out to people where they are and using means they are comfortable with.  He is being open and approachable.  While there are certainly bad things that happen on FB, he was using it to publish his homilies.  I don't see anybody complaining about Bishop Williamson having a blog and sending out a e-newsletter.  

I see no reason anyone should take this Zurbeck seriously.  He is obviously making things up and has no clue what he is talking about.  That you seize on Facebook as an excuse to criticize this bishop is a further indication that you are acting from prejudice rather than reason
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5