UA, rather, is there any portion of what I posted that you actually object to? Reprint it, and let us know why? If you don't object to any of it, then you think it is a good posting.

I object to the overall presumption that traditional Catholics feel that way about Priests.   From my experience they usually err on the side of accepting and overlooking any true human faults the Priests may have.  But the superficial faults listed in yours/SGG's list is without a doubt berating and demeaning to the intellect of the Catholics in the Pew.  

Bottom line:  If you have a holy priest, then you have a better chance of having holy parishioners.

I object to the overall presumption that traditional Catholics feel that way about Priests.   From my experience they usually err on the side of accepting and overlooking any true human faults the Priests may have.  But the superficial faults listed in yours/SGG's list is without a doubt berating and demeaning to the intellect of the Catholics in the Pew.

I think you have read it wrongly. It was showing the types of things people say in rash judging when they have nothing substantial to go on. A look at "fallen human nature". It is not even meant to represent one person doing all that, but a compilation of more common ways that can be experienced people fail.

I agree that today it is not as likely to occur with people and their own traditional priest, because priests are so rare now. In pre-Vatican II times it was more common when priests were aplenty. It will, however, more apply to traditionalists in their views of those outside their own parish.

Now, what is this "SGG's list"? Was this published in that parish, too?

Exactly Bazz.  This is why some folks are upset about clergymen running their parrishes like a business.  The so called malformation spoken of.  A feeling of what can you do for me.  You can't claim "they have no charity" when this charity is a sort of frankenstein, only to be spoken of not practiced by the leadership.
 Priests are not fools, and neither are the parishioners.  Well not always.

Here's another SGG priest speaking in a sermon at a time when there were many questions and contradictory statements from Bp. Dolan and his Bazzistant.

Quote

“One of the main faults, remember that I was a parishioner here for many years, before I went into the seminary, on a whole, of this chapel, one of the main faults, as a whole, in this chapel, is the gossiping. Talking and criticizing and gossiping, that is one of the main faults here. And St Clare’s is very much known for that fault.” –Fr. Charles McGuire speaking to the people of St. Clare’s in November of 2009.

I am surprised at the negative reaction this occasioned, which actually all the more shows it was needed.

The priest has left ... oh no, he was fired. We confiscated your building fund. If you want to know what's happening, you're a gossip. Here, read this little piece in the bulletin and be sorry for your rash judgment. And most of all, be quiet and don't ask any more questions.

It takes courage and humility to accept any leadership position.  Thats why many saints declined to accept such positions and it was forced on them.  What qualities did one see in these saints?  It was heroic virtue.  Virtue and holiness are synomous.

Here is something I came across last month, and it would seem to fit this thread. It is an excerpt from a sermon by John Henry Newman in about 1857 (later made Cardinal) which expresses examples of the same character of mind as the original post. This time, in the mind of a Protestant in relation to Catholics. The same character of failure in charity:

"Here is another source of misrepresenting the Church and her servants; much of what they do admits both of a good interpretation and a bad; and when the world, as I have supposed, starts with the hypothesis that we are hypocrites or tyrants, that we are unscrupulous, crafty, and profane, it is easy to see how the very same actions, which it would extol in its friends, it will unhesitatingly condemn in the instance of the objects of its hatred or suspicion. When men live in their own world, in their own habits and ways of thought, as I have been describing, they contract, not only a narrowness, but what may be called a one-sidedness of mind. They do not judge of us by the rules they apply to the conduct of themselves and each other; what they praise or allow in those they admire, is an offence to them in us. Day by day, then, as it passes, furnishes, as a matter of course, a series of charges against us, simply because it furnishes a succession of our sayings and doings. Whatever we do, whatever we do not do, is a demonstration against us. Do we argue? men are surprised at our insolence or effrontery; are we silent? we are underhand and deep. Do we appeal to the law? it is an act of effrontery; do we obey the Church? it is a sign of our disloyalty. Do we state our pretensions? we blaspheme; do we conceal them? we are liars and hypocrites. Do we display the pomp of our ceremonial, and the habits of our Religious? our presumption has become intolerable; do we put them aside and dress as others? we are ashamed of being seen, and skulk about as conspirators. Did a Catholic priest cherish doubts of his faith? it would be an interesting and touching fact, suitable for public meetings; does a Protestant minister, on the other hand, doubt of the Protestant opinions? he is but dishonestly eating the bread of the Establishment. Does a Protestant exclude Catholic books from his house? he is a good father and master; does a Catholic do the same with Protestant tracts? he is afraid of the light. Protestants may ridicule a portion of our Scriptures under the name of the Apocrypha; we may not denounce the mere Protestant translation of the Bible. Protestants are to glory in their obedience to their ecclesiastical head; we may not be faithful to ours. A Protestant layman may determine and propound all by himself the terms of salvation; we are bigots and despots if we do but proclaim what a thousand years have sanctioned. The Catholic is insidious, when the Protestant is prudent; the Protestant frank and honest, when the Catholic is rash or profane. Not a word that we say, not a deed that we do, but is viewed in the medium of that one idea, by the light of that one prejudice, which our enemies cherish of us; not a word or a deed but is grafted on the original assumption that we certainly come from below, and are the servants of Antichrist."