Interview with Bp Dolan and Fr Cekada
#21
Dramatic much?  If I misread the tone of your post, I apologize.  No need to freak out.
Reply
#22

It is a real possibility you are still misreading something.

 

The problem is your post had all the usual characteristics of our modern era.  In any debate civil or uncivil, religious or secular and the same sort of pattern emerges.  When an opponent (or one who is perceived as one) says something the other side does not want known they react in one of several manners as follows:

 

1.  Change the subject, do not, I repeat, do not admit the fact, redirect attention to safer territory.

2.  Accuse the messenger of the undesired fact of some unrelated (and possibly undeserved) failure.

3. Whatever you do, do not admit the fact is true or important.

 

None of these methods address the fact.  The subject is changed because they are trying to control the debate.  They want their man to win the boxing match but not by a fair and civil manner.  They cheer every blow their guy throws and scream foul for ever hit.  These sorts want to win a flip of the coin with rules that amount to "heads I win, tails you lose."

 

It is too too common; I see it in the secular political world and among some Catholics.  Too many Novus Ordo defenders use it but so do many people who call themselves Traditional Catholics.  Sedevacantitist unfortunately are the worst offenders in the Traditional Catholic movement.  I used to be very sympathetic until I started to see too many use these sorts of methods.  I have also found they are too willing to make false statements that I know is false.

 

I do not charge all of this, but it is a general trend that has soured my opinion over the last several years.

 

Your intentions I can not know but the outcome is the same.  The subject has been diverted, the question I asked has been diverted and remains unanswered.  Your intentions are irrelevant the affect is the same, which is the unanswered question.  So I will repeat the question.

 

Is this Fr Cekada the same man who claims the death of Terri Schivo was well within Catholic Doctrine?

Reply
#23
Quote:
Is this Fr Cekada the same man who claims the death of Terri Schivo was well within Catholic Doctrine?
Yes.
Reply
#24
didishroom Wrote:
Quote:
Is this Fr Cekada the same man who claims the death of Terri Schivo was well within Catholic Doctrine?
Yes.


Thank you for answering the question.

Now that we have a clarification on this man's understanding of Catholic doctrine allow me to quote neel when he said the following in reference to Fr Cekada.

neel Wrote:And an excellent priest


Based on your understanding of the man would you say this is a correct assesment?

I have another question about the other man that is the subject of this thread but considering how hard it is to get a small question answered I will delay asking until later.
Reply
#25
Let's just be careful with discussing this man's character. As a Sede and one who believe's in the State-sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo I am most dfeintely NOT on the same page with him, but must still treat him with respect(not that I'm saying you're necessarily not) as he is a priest.
Reply
#26
MitOS Wrote:

The problem is your post had all the usual characteristics of our modern era. In any debate civil or uncivil, religious or secular and the same sort of pattern emerges.



Awesome. I've been accused of a lot of things on this forum before, but I've never crammed "all the usual characteristics of our modern era" into 6 extremely short sentences spread out on two posts.


MitOS Wrote:

When an opponent (or one who is perceived as one) says something the other side does not want known they react in one of several manners as follows:

1. Change the subject, do not, I repeat, do not admit the fact, redirect attention to safer territory.

2. Accuse the messenger of the undesired fact of some unrelated (and possibly undeserved) failure.

3. Whatever you do, do not admit the fact is true or important.



You seem to have it in your head that I'm out to defend Fr. Cekada and am some how trying to cover up his defense of the Schiavo murder. That's not the case at all.


While I originally thought I misread the tone of your original post, I now think I was correct at least somewhat close to the mark. I thought your question on Fr. Cekada's stance was rhetorical and sarcastic, hence me asking you to be polite since he's both a priest and a fellow member of the forum. You took this as some kind of unbridled defense of Fr. and made it appear like I was somehow trying to cover up his stance.



I think its obvious that this whole exchange is being fueled by each one of us misreading the other's posts. But this isn't helped by you coming out with both guns blazing, making horrible (and really dramatic accusations.) I mean, I literally laughed out loud when you just accused my posts of having all the errors of the modern era. Don't you think that's just a little bit of an overreaction?



MitOS Wrote:

None of these methods address the fact. The subject is changed because they are trying to control the debate.



What debate? I'm not trying to control any debate. I thought you were being rude and told you to be polite.



MitOS Wrote:

They want their man to win the boxing match but not by a fair and civil manner.


Haha, there you go with crazy assumptions that betray you're just out looking for a fight. Fr. Cekada is "not my man" by any means. I happen to be a fan of him personally, but don't agree with him on a lot of things.


MitOS Wrote:They cheer every blow their guy throws and scream foul for ever hit. These sorts want to win a flip of the coin with rules that amount to "heads I win, tails you lose."


More melodrama. Give me a break.



MitOS Wrote:

So I will repeat the question.

Is this Fr Cekada the same man who claims the death of Terri Schivo was well within Catholic Doctrine?


Yes. Sorry if I thought you were asking a sarcastic and rhetorical question. But you still need to calm down. There's a time and place to bring those pistols out; this wasn't one of them.
Reply
#27

</FONT>[url=http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view/mb/profile/apologia/1019841 Wrote:didishroom[/url]]

Let's just be careful with discussing this man's character. As a Sede and one who believe's in the State-sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo I am most dfeintely NOT on the same page with him, but must still treat him with respect(not that I'm saying you're necessarily not) as he is a priest.


 

It was neel who brought up his character; you may note I provided a quote.  I have no intention of giving my opinion on his character anyway no matter what your conclusion was on the matter.  So I let your statement on that matter stand on its own.  My goal is to take the temperature not to make it on his character or on the subject of Mrs. Schiavo.  If you had said you agreed with him on the matter I would only have said “I will let others come to their own conclusion on both issues based on your own remarks”

 

And so I do now.

 

As to this often referred status of Fr Cekada as a Priest and the implied warning that often seems to accompany it I will offer a list of other men who were priest and ask if you grant the same to these men?

 

Fr Drinan who was a Priest and a Congressman who voted FOR abortion

 

Cardinal Martini who is a Priest and of high rank, at that, who said it is good that abortion was made legal

 

Cardinal Mahoney who is a Priest also of high rank …do I really need to comment on his record?

 

These men are Priests in our lifetime, alas history offers even more examples such as:

 

Fr Martin Luther….

 

Fr Arius

 

Bishop Nestorius

 

Brother Eutyches Okay he is a monk not a Priest so skip Eutyches

 

Brother Pelagius also a monk

 

Add to these religious men there is a legion of Priest who were Gnostic and a host of other ills including the founder of the Illuminati, a Jesuit Priest.

 

This is just a partial list but in the hopes of fair play would you offer the men listed above the same defense you offered Fr Cekada?

 

Luke 12:1

“1 And when great multitudes stood about him, so that they trod one upon another, he began to say to his disciples: Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

 

I make no charge of anyone here but can you say you would offer the same courtesy to Fr Drinan?

 

neel Wrote:

I thought your question on Fr. Cekada's stance was rhetorical and sarcastic,….


 

It was but a rhetorical question is hardly impolite in a debate on issues of substance.

 

neel Wrote:

You took this as some kind of unbridled defense of Fr. and made it appear like I was somehow trying to cover up his stance.


 

I offer a quote from one of my earlier posts

 

Quote: Your intentions I can not know but the outcome is the same.  The subject has been diverted, the question I asked has been diverted and remains unanswered.  Your intentions are irrelevant the affect is the same,…

 

As to the rest of your post I think the above covers most of it.  You are right back to controlling the debate and making it about a charge of impolite behavior even to the point of redefining a rhetorical question into an impolite act.  It is not like I asked that old classic question “Is Fr Cekada was still beating his wife?”   I asked a question that is a well known landmark of who the man is.  He signed his name to these views and as far as I know he has never refuted or modified them.  So be it but it is a measure of the man for all readers to know what to think of the man including those who may not have heard of him or what he is about.

 

Fr Cekada claims to be a Roman Catholic Priest valid and true to the faith.  The rhetorical question I asked is a measure of the man.  That is not an impolite act since the entire purpose of the Priesthood is the Christian faith and its’ Practice in practice matters.  I do believe that would include life and death matters.

 

And yet you prefer to make a manufactured issue of courtesy the issue rather than the doctrines of the faith as expressed by this Priest.  Your intentions may not be to do so but you keep doing it just the same.

 

Please note I never made a conclusion on any of the Priests listed here including Fr Cekada or on their doctrines and opinions; even so most will be able to make a conclusion on my opinion.   

 

I do not need to. 

 

It is a simple matter of letting these men and their own words do that for me.  Even so I am still subject to charges of impoliteness by neel.  It is these own men and their own words that do that which you wish to blame me.  My only offence is making it known that you find impolite. 

 

Which puts us back to the same old modern tactic of blaming the messenger for the fact that makes others wince.  I recommend a goggle search of your favorite Bible program for the word “manly”.  It is most often used to describe the sort of faith a good person should aim for instead of the opposite word the Bible often uses.  I will let you come to your own conclusion as to which word I mean, it might be perceived as impolite if I did it.

 

Hell it will be the bases of the same charge just because I noticed he keeps trying to make the conservation about politeness instead of the subject of the thread.

Reply
#28
Please stay on topic or take it to e-mail.  Thanks.
Reply
#29
QuisUtDeus Wrote:Please stay on topic or take it to e-mail.  Thanks.


It seems you killed all interest in this topic.

 

I completely agree with your post but it seems to have lessened the interest.

 

There is a possible link between the subject of the thread and the subject of polite behavior toward Priest but I would have to make the link by asking a couple of questions to make the connection.  Since there has been a death of interest I will let it pass.

 

That is unless someone shows an interest.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)