The Wonderful? And the Wlatsome?

Go here if you want to see matters of personal taste set up as standards of propriety and reverence.

All done anonymously. Of course.

Hey. I take as many (more?) potshots as anybody does. No doubt. But I put my name to them.

This remark is particularly galling — nay, it is offensive: "Mass itself is forgettable -- not particularly reverent, not particularly irreverent."

How about that? Some alleged Catholic writes about a certain liturgical celebration that didn't meet the exalted standards of the high-and-mighty-anonymous gaze down his nose. Which, of course, makes the re-presentation of the eternal, infinite, ineffable Divine Sacrifice "forgettable".

Like, am I supposed to be grateful for that? Am I supposed to be impressed? What? I consider the statement to be precious close to sacrilegious. Somebody help me out here.

And how about this? "All in all a parish that just seems to be 'going through the motions'." Wow. The person who wrote that was graced by the Holy Spirit with the ability to look into the hearts and minds of those around him. Wow. I guess that kind of person has no need of Matthew 7:1, Romans 14:4, or James 4:12.

Am I, like, out on a limb by myself here? Doesn't anybody else find that weblog to be objectionable?

Or am I just setting up my own personal taste as a standard of propriety and reverence? (I mean, "Morning Has Broken" is a hymn that can take me out of myself.)

P.S. See also Text Without Context is Pretext.

P.P.S. Dom, Mark, and The Mighty One weigh in, too.

[Follow-up: Re: The Wonderful? And the Wlatsome?]

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 09/03/03 08:39:27 PM
Categorized as Religious.

The Case of Msgr. Daniel Pater

Vide.

See also Vatican elevated abusive priest.

(Thanks, Mark.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 09/03/03 04:08:56 PM
Categorized as Religious.

GOP, MIA?

Here is the famous editorial from Sunday's Manchester Union-Leader:

Had there been any doubts about the direction the Republican Party is headed, they vanished last week when Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie visited New Hampshire.

During a cheerful and pleasant meeting (that’s the kind of guy Gillespie is) at The Union Leader offices, the party’s new chairman, energetic and full of vigor, said in no uncertain terms that the days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over....

They ran a follow-up editorial today:

.... Over the course of an hour-long meeting with Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, we took great care to give him every opportunity to explain himself fully so that nothing could be misunderstood. The result was a surprisingly frank admission that the Republican Party defines “fiscal responsibility” as increasing the federal budget at “a slower rate of growth” than the Democrats (his words).

We asked him three times to explain why President Bush and the Republican Congress have increased discretionary non-defense spending at such an alarming rate, and why the party has embraced the expansion of the federal government’s roles in education, agriculture and Great Society-era entitlement programs.

“Those questions have been decided,” was his response. The public wants an expanded federal role in those areas, and the Republican Party at the highest levels has decided to give the public what it wants....

We are, I think, finding out that "compassionate conservatism" was code for "Democrat Lite".

See Is the Bush Administration Really Conservative? and Is the Republican Party Really Conservative?

P.S. Thanks to The Mighty for the notice.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 09/03/03 07:38:31 AM
Categorized as Political.