AC has, yet again, proved himself to be a sociopathic Viper of Vaudeville.

In case there is any confusion, I am referring to the information contained in the article in the OP, not to Nonno, whose word I have no reason to doubt.

Carry on...

Looking at the OP (original post), it is a very lengthy one, predominantly an article by Droleskey concerning Fr. Cekada and Fr. Ramolla, which was entitled,

"Removing All Doubt", Fr C's latest blunders..."  

The theme of the OP centers around Fr. Cekada sending, not publicly, but privately (not secretly) to concerned fellow clergy, his thoughts that Fr. Ramolla's deportation was "probable". Nobody can be considered to have "blundered" who expresses probability (no harm done if he is wrong). That is common sense. So, Droleskey's article, and gladius promulgating it, is their big blunder.

The "Removing All Doubt" comes from a quote attributed to Mark Twain (and some other famous people):

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

What Droleskey and gladius have done was not just express some fleeting verbal words, but to publicly call Fr. Cekada a "fool" in standing print. This could, for most Catholics, spontaneously bring to mind our Lord's frightful words in the Sermon on the Mount:

"whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire".

Further, the Church has always insisted upon obeying doctors, even in ages past when their knowledge was so little, and even mistaken, compared to today. In the annals of the Saints it features quite prominent. For instance, Saints were not fools, nor did they blunder for letting themselves be "bled".  There is a principle behind this, about believing those who specialize in a legitimate field. Fr. Cekada believed an expert in the field that it was probable Fr. Ramolla would be deported. Neither foolish, nor a blunder. At the heart of Droleskey's article is the attempt to gloat in Fr. C's face that his hopes did not materialize, and to call him a fool, as well as to gloat that their altar-against-altar has not yet failed. That's in a nutshell.

When any OP is made here, it is fair game to be silent, and it is fair game to address any point within it. More power to one if he addresses more to the heart of the OP. Directed to Raoul, there is no other way to address any point, than to do it "right away" (is someone supposed to "ooze" into a point?). Nothing odd about addressing a point right away. I addressed the idea of a "miracle" because it happens to be at the very heart because the idea of "miracle" implies admission that the deportation was probable.

To reiterate, Fr. C felt the deportation was probable, and Fr. R did too. Yet some supporters of Fr. Ramolla (such as Droleskey and gladius), blunder by only laughing at Fr. Cekada. This reveals very blind bias. My comments on the "Miracle" were quite accurate which further revealed itself by gladius carefully avoiding any direct analysis or comment on my exposure.

Now, effectively, gladius is saying, well, Fr. C may not have blundered with that....but what about THIS, as gladius points me to read an article by Fr. Cekada concerning another of the points in the OP. Again, we have a strange mentality surfacing here - it is okay to be silent on an OP, but if you decide to address one of the points in it, you MUST address them all. That is downright nonsense. Addressing this blunder about the abuse of the word "miracle" is to wake people up to vigilantly avoid distorting such a holy and Catholic concept. No Catholic (let alone a priest publishing it) should use the word "miracle" in surprise to a natural but improbable occurrence just because he prayed before it happened. Otherwise, let's put our money down on a horse that hasn't won for a while, say a Hail Mary, and then when we win, proclaim a miracle has occurred!

Interestingly enough, the author of vovwatch.com had the gall to proclaim that decision by immigration as a "vindication" of everything Fr. Ramolla and Fr. Hall have been saying about St. Gertrude's parish for the past couple of years. This is yet another example of the false miracle mentality - to attempt to publicly force a divine stamp of approval on their own apostolate just because the US immigration department allowed Fr. Ramolla to stay....while at the same time conversely saying it shows a divine stamp of disapproval for Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan. Utterly absurd.

Now, I expect to hear once again the false principle surface - "if you decide to address one of the points in an OP, you must address them all."

No one ever pretended you (or anyone) must address all within the OP, but we are all appreciative of your efforts to give that bogus impression.  Further, my posting of an article is not to be taken as my agreeing with every single thing contained therein.

You still have not touched what AC wrote about Abbot Leonard.

I find it humorous that Nonno wants to give me grief for not getting tied up in his stale, unprofitable discussion of meaningless minutiae, acting like my inaction on this non-point is noteworthy, while at the same time pretending that he is being unduly hounded to actually discuss the substance of the OP (which his lengthy post danced around).  I honestly don't care if he ever touches the substance of the OP, but...

If it is fair game to ignore some/all of the OP (and I agree that it is), why is it not also fair game to avoid a rather boring discussion of meaningless minutiae?    Rob?

I have a right to decline, and expect my choice to be honoured.

I have said so openly and I respect your choice, but it is a two way street, Nonno.

I expect you to grasp that I don't actually care about your worthless, tangential discussion about the use of the word miracle.  Un/answerable and worth answering are not the same thing.  You, however, seem to think I should and that my failure to do so is a fault.

You want to be given what you refuse to others.

. That is very strange, there's more to this Nonno character than he's telling us.

There is more to each of us than any of us know...and, for that, I am grateful

You do have a right to make a request for more, and I have a right to decline, and expect my choice to be honoured.

I shall take this as your roundabout way of saying you will not, in fact, address AC's comments about Abbot Leonard.  I wouldn't touch them, either...ugly stuff.

Shamelessly (and groundlessly) attributing the basest of motives to a well-beloved dead man is...just a wee bit tasteless.

I'm Spartacus!

 :idea:


Oops, wait a minute. No I'm not.