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
I don't remember seeing this in the Remnant.  Was it an internet-only article?
There is nothing wrong with using Facebook.  Once can also waste time on media such as FE.

It depends on what you use it for. If you waste time liking pages, responding to silly comments, "poking" people, then yes,it is a waste.

However you can use Facebook to keep in touch with people in various parish groups, such as:

Youth group events
Bible study groups
Parish Events
Drives
Updates such as this whole HHS Mandate thing
Invitation to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament for Youth

There are all sorts of things that can be used for the Glory of God.
(02-14-2012, 02:41 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]I sent this notice individually to about 1,500 people in late October and early to mid-November, 2011, at first to people who sent me messages during that time, and then one by one as I went down the list of "friends" on this second page in alphabetical order and about 500 of these made the switch.  Unfortunately, I only made it through the first part of the alphabet before Facebook froze my account again, saying that I was sending too many messages too quickly, many on the same day and so was abusing the system—leaving 2,895 not yet changed over "friends" in that account and I abandoned the effort.  It was tedious and time consuming to send this message to each person. 
Doesn't facebook allow sending messages to multiple persons? That's what I hear from those facebook parties gone wrong. Or is Bishop Taylor just not very tech-savvy?
(02-15-2012, 03:56 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2012, 02:41 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]I sent this notice individually to about 1,500 people in late October and early to mid-November, 2011, at first to people who sent me messages during that time, and then one by one as I went down the list of "friends" on this second page in alphabetical order and about 500 of these made the switch.  Unfortunately, I only made it through the first part of the alphabet before Facebook froze my account again, saying that I was sending too many messages too quickly, many on the same day and so was abusing the system—leaving 2,895 not yet changed over "friends" in that account and I abandoned the effort.  It was tedious and time consuming to send this message to each person. 
Doesn't facebook allow sending messages to multiple persons? That's what I hear from those facebook parties gone wrong. Or is Bishop Taylor just not very tech-savvy?

I suspect the latter.  It is commendable that he publishes his homilies where his flock has access to them, that is Apostolic and frankly St. John Chrysostom would have if he could have, and it is nice that he manages it personally, rather than foisting it on an underling.  Lack of technical know-how seems much more likely than conspiracy, particularly since I've known other public figures who had similar issues with their Facebook page recently (one Dominican I know, who has a following).  Frankly, when bishops make the effort to help and get this response, it is sad.
(02-15-2012, 02:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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

Prejudice? Absolutely. And reason. In short, reasonable prejudice.

Most have embraced the error that prejudice and reason are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Many prejudices are actually quite reasonable. Indeed, there are many instances in which one radically fails if he isn't prejudiced. For instance, parents would be unreasonably unprejudiced if they failed to exclude convicted child molesters from their babysitter applicant pool. Reasonable prejudice demands that they exclude them all.

Similarly, I'm prejudiced against all post-Vatican II bishops. And given the wreckage over which they've presided and continue to preside, this is a reasonable prejudice. To suspend prejudice in the face of the wreckage would be unreasonable. Nor would it be charitable, because true charity demands purification, and purification demands that their feet be held to the fire.
(02-15-2012, 02:47 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I don't remember seeing this in the Remnant.  Was it an internet-only article?

I'm not sure. I don't get the print edition.

Take a look at this page:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/archives.htm

Hopefully that article on the top will soon be available.
I was on Facebook for two weeks, until I started getting requests from perverted sites.
I also got "discovered" by old girlfriends who sent "proposals"
I quickly discontinued this garbage.
(02-15-2012, 04:48 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 02:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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

Prejudice? Absolutely. And reason. In short, reasonable prejudice.

Most have embraced the error that prejudice and reason are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Many prejudices are actually quite reasonable. Indeed, there are many instances in which one radically fails if he isn't prejudiced. For instance, parents would be unreasonably unprejudiced if they failed to exclude convicted child molesters from their babysitter applicant pool. Reasonable prejudice demands that they exclude them all.

Similarly, I'm prejudiced against all post-Vatican II bishops. And given the wreckage over which they've presided and continue to preside, this is a reasonable prejudice. To suspend prejudice in the face of the wreckage would be unreasonable. Nor would it be charitable, because true charity demands purification, and purification demands that their feet be held to the fire.

Your response to this situation has nothing to do with facts, reason or charity.  It is all prejudice.  You have made up your mind that this bishop is at fault and nothing gets in the way of you believing it.
(02-15-2012, 05:10 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 04:48 PM)alphonsusjr Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2012, 02:45 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]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

Prejudice? Absolutely. And reason. In short, reasonable prejudice.

Most have embraced the error that prejudice and reason are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Many prejudices are actually quite reasonable. Indeed, there are many instances in which one radically fails if he isn't prejudiced. For instance, parents would be unreasonably unprejudiced if they failed to exclude convicted child molesters from their babysitter applicant pool. Reasonable prejudice demands that they exclude them all.

Similarly, I'm prejudiced against all post-Vatican II bishops. And given the wreckage over which they've presided and continue to preside, this is a reasonable prejudice. To suspend prejudice in the face of the wreckage would be unreasonable. Nor would it be charitable, because true charity demands purification, and purification demands that their feet be held to the fire.

Your response to this situation has nothing to do with facts, reason or charity.  It is all prejudice.  You have made up your mind that this bishop is at fault and nothing gets in the way of you believing it.

I've noticed that you have a habit of speaking like this, later realizing your error, and then apologizing for your rashness. True, it's good to apologize. But it's better not to create situations that call for apologies. It seems to me that under a mask of reason, you're actually a sentimentalist, since such a pattern is characteristic of sentimentalists. In the future, you might consider checking your feelings before you respond to see whether they're truly in accord with reason - along with reasonable prejudice. Additionally, next time you're feeling that you hold the charitable high ground, you might watch this:





(02-15-2012, 03:38 PM)Illumina Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing wrong with using Facebook....

I think you'll find a significantly deeper view of the matter here:

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

To be read with today's mass permanent adolescence in mind.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5