tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6413744488053050077.post7596956415592239567..comments2024-01-23T03:34:55.446-05:00Comments on Servimus unum Deum - Latin Mass Altar Serving and Related Matters in the Toronto Archdiocese: Follow up to Jean Vanier: Radicals Misrepresenting Traditionalism and the CBC media screw things up again ... Servimus Unum Deumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12521042317656015840noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6413744488053050077.post-86530018310489324202016-07-20T23:09:50.231-04:002016-07-20T23:09:50.231-04:00Great Job Julian. God bless you.Great Job Julian. God bless you.Terry Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09819523933502820341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6413744488053050077.post-23025657458344927282016-07-03T00:32:13.664-04:002016-07-03T00:32:13.664-04:00Where I differ from you is here: ".. Meenan i...Where I differ from you is here: ".. Meenan is doing a service to the church by pointing out dangerous ways Vanier's thought could be taken...." While JPM can certainly analyze and critically evaluate what Mr. Vanier has said, the manner and language in which he did so speaks contrary to what you say. If he truly wanted to so what you say he would, then why would he choose a media outlet, becoming ever more notorious for bashing Pope Francis and the Church, for the sake of their idolization of the pro-life movement and the unborn? Further, as I stated in my criticism, the manner in which he used Church doctrine was in a non-charitable way, as to punish Mr. Vanier, rather than to point out the further potential harm that could be caused. As for Idolization, that happens in all aspects and stripes of our Church. Many of the Radical Traditionalists have made Cardinal Burke their "idol" because he challenges Francis (though until recently, when he supported Amoris Laetitia, which make hardcore Trads really angry). <br /><br />As for your final paragraph, don't ask me why Vanier doesn't want to say with the documents post Vatican II that Euthanasia is wrong? If you want to know why he said what he said to OFF and LSN, ask him directly and ask him if he purposely said it in a certain way, and was he aware of the stances of both "reporters." <br /><br />Bravo on seeing that the media sees him as agreeing with their agenda! That's exactly what CBC's spin is, although in irony, they didn't get exactly what they wanted, through they are running with it anyway. And LSN/Meenan fell into that trap of believing it. I'm also glad you see that both Meenan and Vanier won't be capable of perfect communication of human goodness because of human imperfection, though I would side with Vanier on having been more effective in his interview in doing that, than JPM did in his critique of Vanier. We're I one of those "simple" Catholics who was living in the Pope Francis era of today, I'd be more apt to side with Vanier's mercy and love approach vs. Meenan's screed, which would come off as bashing and prideful "I know more than you and enforce it." <br /><br />As for making either a saint, or a bad guy, neither is. However, Bradley, it's like you said: "For some people the faith has to be simplified and ambiguity for them equals confusion. For such people their faith needs a specific type of teacher, at least at the beginning." I say that this is at EVERY step of the way in a Catholic's growth in faith. When Catholics dip into Traditionalism or "the next level," they should have someone guide them properly and show them how to truly be Traditional without being Radical and committing sin along the way, or having their souls be tempted to vice/sin on the opposite side of the "Narrow Road." Hence why I made my critique in the first place, as I discussed in my two Spiritual Works of Mercy paragraph. <br /><br />As a final note, Bradley, had JPM constructed a critique of Vanier just like yours, one that was not detracting and slanderous, but focused on valid points such as yours that do not harm the character and dignity of Vanier, while acknolwedging the biases of both LSN and CBC, it would have been well done, and most appropriate in a valid critique of Jean Vanier's interview. I think Mr. Meenan could take a couple of lessons from you!<br /><br />Pax Tibi Christi! Servimus Unum Deumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12521042317656015840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6413744488053050077.post-57962266729803981462016-07-03T00:32:03.093-04:002016-07-03T00:32:03.093-04:00Hello Bradley!
Thanks for stopping by here! Wow ...Hello Bradley!<br /> <br />Thanks for stopping by here! Wow it's been ages! Hope everything is doing well in your current ministry! Sure I am glad to engage in good, fraternally charitable discussion here on S.U.D., and thanks for being the first with my biggest work here to do so!<br /> <br />Looking at your first paragraph, I fin it interesting, that you side with JPM in doing that. While I am fair and fine with analysis of commentary, I would have to disagree in how far the commentary went. I would have agreed with you, had the commentary stayed to saying that the statement is ambiguous, and centering around that, clarification or not. However, as you have stated yourself, lines were crossed. JPM, along with LSN, did cross those lines in their quest for righteousness. The key words as examples of that sentiment are the title of the LSN article, "Jean Vanier supports legalizing assisted suicide" and JPM's word of "scandal." This clearly came out, as you had stated, in the "heavy handedness of LifeSite" and RMTs, who used that article. <br /> <br />I focus on the word, scandal. Scandal implies an action that directly shocks, insults, and violates the values, beliefs, etc. of those whom you direct the scandal to. We could use the example of our current Prime Minister, Trudeau II. His denial of pro-life philosophy and/or values in the Liberal party, that is purposeful scandal to the Catholic Faithful, as he has betrayed us and his Faith in his position of power. Had Mr. Vanier's words been directly in supporting euthanasia, yes that would have been scandalous, but ambiguity at best, doesn't imply scandal. With JPM using that word for Mr. Vanier's clearly biased interview, alongside using Church documents and Doctrine in a strict disciplinary manner, I would NOT agree that JPM's motives were "mostly respectful."<br /> <br />What I am glad to see, is that you do acknowledge that lines were crossed, and that these individuals, both the CBC and LSN, went too far in terms of promoting their agendas, with JPM's article for LSN. <br /><br />As to your second paragraph, sure, I can agree on your point about certain types of learners in the faith. One could say the average "joe catholic" or those who do not have a theological "intelligence" as it were, might definitely struggle with statements not made in blunt language. Now, the Theological intelligence bit, I am NOT saying those people are stupid. What I am saying is that, certain members of the faithful, if you gave them, say one of Benedict Emeritus XVI's books or the writings of St. Thomas More's Summa Theologica for example, they get it, and it is huge insight! However, say you gave that to another individual, they would not be able to learn the faith from it. That's where I agree certain people, or people new to Traditional Catholicism, or even learning about their faith to begin with, need "bread and butter" books or teaching that explains it. <br /><br />Servimus Unum Deumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12521042317656015840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6413744488053050077.post-84118263563209620032016-06-30T10:24:17.616-04:002016-06-30T10:24:17.616-04:00Hey Julian, just trying to get a discussion going ...Hey Julian, just trying to get a discussion going here. I don't think JPM was wrong for criticizing the ambiguity in Vanier's interview nor in Vanier's response to Lifesite. I have issues with the heavy handedness of lifesite and the RTM but to ask for clarification from Vanier before writing the article and to really not get any I think justifies the response. Yes there were lines crossed but it was mostly respectful and I hope the motive was trying to protect others from dangerous ideas. <br /> <br /> For some people the faith has to be simplified and ambiguity for them equals confusion. For such people their faith needs a specific type of teacher, at least at the beginning. I really believe that Meenan is doing a service to the church by pointing out dangerous ways Vanier's thought could be taken. At the end of the day Vanier will still be respected and loved but hopefully not "idolized" which is certainly a danger. <br /><br /> Just food for thought. Why does Vanier not want to say with the documents of VII that Euthanasia is wrong? Will he be well received by public media? No. Of course not but by not saying it I think the media is interpreting him as agreeing with their agenda. That's not good either. I believe both JPM and Vanier are trying to promote goodness and truth and because they are human they are going to do it imperfectly. I don't believe making either of them a "saint" or "bad guy" is going to solve the cultural pickle we are in. <br /><br />In Christ,<br />BradleyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14313727947792669289noreply@blogger.com