I wouldn’t say thay Fr Doyle has been “merciless” in his criticism of bishops. I am aware of some of the frustrations involved in urging bishops to deal with the pedophilia problem in the 80’s, and we’re all aware that it has taken significant legal and financial and moral damage to see the bishops collectively taking action against sex offender-priests.

An adjective like “merciless” is a personal judgment I’m not sure you can support. Criticism fits, but we’ve all criticized bishops from time to time.

“Charity is not apathy or appeasement, or remaining quiet while we see injustice to the Church being done.”

Well, is this what Fr Doyle is moving against with his criticisms of bishops? Or does this only apply when a pet issue of ours is being trampled, and we call out our own big guns?

Shelray, I don’t look very kindly on vain attempts to rewrite the meaning of the Bible. But this on particular thread, it was the issue of Fr Doyle’s alleged dissent, not Mr Sipe’s.

Thanks, however, for the replies.

Spelling errors? O.k. if you fix yours on your blog, that’s your business. If someone points out errors, and they don’t get corrected, is it possible that others don’t manage their blog in the same way. It reminds me that I am human and make mistakes.

Fr. Doyle was right to criticize the original insinuation that celibacy was still required for this laicized priest. Yet you’ve chosen to keep the link, though with words crossed out. What’s that about?

Please read comment # 3 with the links.

Bloggers sometimes avoid responding to questions, asking questions of their own, as you have done in this thread.
Sounds A little presumptive on your part, unless you have the gift of knowing one’s intentions. FYI, you asked 5 questions in your comment.

You ask for a definition of charity in this context
No, I actually asked: What is charity and what is it’s ultimate purpose.

I took time to look it up and found: Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and His Christ. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, and raises it to the supernatural perfection of divine love. Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works.

Charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction

There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

I think there is a misunderstanding of what true charity is. Charity is not apathy or appeasement, or remaining quiet while we see injustice to the Church being done. It is a virtue that one must pursue in order to love God above all else simply for the fact that He is God.

On the other hand, maybe it’s a good starting point for us to get there. What do you think?

God has performed bigger miracles, and anything is possible with God

Oh yeah, I almost forgot – Dissent:
This quote by Sipe led me in that direction: Likewise the idea that Jesus was a homosexual can also be anchored in the bible, specifically in the evidence of his closeness with the Apostle John, and a text in Mark’s Gospel. I am quite confident this is Not exactly in line with Catholic teaching.

God Bless

Perhaps you will not see this but it seems to me that your comments consistently succumb to the fault of which you wish to accuse me.

You say in the context of what you define as charity:

>>The Catechism in section 2478 presumes we approach disagreement with presumption of good intent, reading positive purposes into the words of others whenever possible.

But then you intuit nefarious intent on my part, saying:

>>Instead of addressing the core issue of the post, namely a reasonable and polite response from a first-time visitor to your site, David instead veered into an excerpt from a five-year-old article, …Supposedly, this was to discredit the person, rather than address the input.

Here you do not seem to exhibit the charity you described earlier with respect to my intentions of which you expect from me. I would argue that a charitable perspective on your part might have resulted in noticing that I explicitly did not attempt to assign motives to Fr. Doyle or to Mr. Sipe but instead criticized their actions because of what I see to be their actions scandalous and personally damaging effects. Given your criticism of me and Fr. Doyle’s merciless criticism of all bishops and what he calls “the institutional Church” and that you both appeal to charity, neither of you would seem to consider criticism itself as uncharitable. I would agree. But then, I am at a loss as to what you are getting at unless you are about the business of doing yourself what you think I am doing.

With respect to your criticism of my not addressing the core of Fr. Doyle’s letter, it is interesting that you consider the core what he terms a final thought in his letter. It is true that I did not address his view of charity in my post but I did address it in a return e-mail to him, though you would have no reason of knowing this. Nevertheless, it still seems to me that you seem to have established a protocol for blogdom whereby those who you perceive as not follow it are accused of illicit intent. Ironically, I have also been criticized for addressing every issue in a post instead of selecting just one or two. Fr. Doyle also criticizes C-L-S for not doing a book review in the original article but as with your case, neither am I sure I understand why we deserve criticism for not doing what he thinks we ought to be doing with our blog. Again, in neither of these cases am I sure that the criticism in meeting with your definition of charity. What I mean is that both are aimed at assessing intent as ill willed because we do not address what you intuit as the point that ought to be addressed.

I am also not sure of your further criticism of our not following your blog protocol for the right approach for correcting posts. You further seem to assign illicit intent in our failure to follow your suggested protocol. However, another possible motivation that might be intuited from one disposed to charity could be the desire to keep substantive content intact out of fairness to those who have already read, and especially those who have commented / criticized. In some cases we will correct things if they have not been up long but if there are comments already made then we use our judgment whether it is significant enough to either update the post and make a comment about it or make a new post. In this case, I judged that giving Fr. Doyle’s criticism central place in a new post took care of the matter. I’m sorry you do not agree but I fail to see how this falls into the category of a lack of charity.

Todd, don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to say that I am never guilty of trying to assume intent. Neither would I try to convince anyone or myself that I do not sometimes respond in appropriately or more out of emotion than a conscious desire for the good of the other. If I have ever done this to you, let me take this opportunity to apologize and ask for your forgiveness. I mean this with all seriousness. In general I think we agree with the goal of the Church though definitely not in all the particulars and certainly we probably are still far apart in understanding how this is achieved. While I would never knowingly mischaracterize someone’s statements, I realize at times I am guilty of misreading others’ meanings because of where I assume they are coming from, though I continually endeavor to do better in this regard. Having said that, I do not believe in this particular case I am guilty of that. I will save these thoughts for another time though.

I completely agree with your sentiments about civility in discourse and in honestly trying to understand one another’s point of view. I told Fr. Doyle that this is our blog’s intention but I also admit that we are not always will not always be successful. I admitted and continue to admit to being a sinner who wants to be a saint.

I do not disagree with all of Fr. Doyle’s criticisms but I the point of my post is that I do think that he has become more destructive than helpful to those who he wants to serve and to the Body of Christ as well. This pains me to no end. I do not think that my post will make any difference but my prayers and other’s may and that is the reason for my post.

http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2005/09/19/112713876436946968/

Bloggers sometimes avoid responding to questions, asking questions of their own, as you have done in this thread.

You ask for a definition of charity in this context, which I would say is a reasonable and respectful discussion among believers. The Catechism in section 2478 presumes we approach disagreement with presumption of good intent, reading positive purposes into the words of others whenever possible. I think your labelling this post under the title of “dissent” is questionable. Why did you do it?

The ultimate goal is to foster human relationships that attempt to model the love and holiness of the Trinity, and of God for human beings. In such relationships, people are more willing to receive correction, knowing the person has genuine best interests of the Body of Christ at heart, and not scoring debate points.

I have no doubt that my posts and suggestions here might make some bristle. I’m pointing out what I believe is a breach of good manners, and since we do not truly know each other, it is more likely we will treat this as a debate rather than an opportunity to grow in Christ and forge deeper bonds of belief and relationship in the context of the Church. On the other hand, maybe it’s a good starting point for us to get there. What do you think?

This post would be an obvious candidate for misdirection. David did post a contrary position from the original post and I admire his courage for doing so. Fr Doyle pointed out factual errors, including easy ones like spelling mistakes. I often see such errors popping up in my own posts on my blog, and when I do I correct them promptly. Certainly, I would correct something after a factual mistake was pointed out, and most recently, did so when an inquiry came about the observance of St Joseph Day for 2008.

Another example from the original post: Fr. Doyle was right to criticize the original insinuation that celibacy was still required for this laicized priest. Yet you’ve chosen to keep the link, though with words crossed out. What’s that about?

Instead of addressing the core issue of the post, namely a reasonable and polite response from a first-time visitor to your site, David instead veered into an excerpt from a five-year-old article, quoted a portion, and mistook the writer’s problem with the style of the institutional church for an attack on the very principle of hierarchy. Supposedly, this was to discredit the person, rather than address the input. I challenged David’s assumption, a challenge which as of now has gone unaddressed. Do you agree with me, but are bothered by the truth of it? Or do you have additional statements in which Fr Doyle expressly rejects any notion of Catholic hierarchy?

How many other blogs use this approach? Many of the more strident apologists aim to discredit the messenger, thus dismissing the message. I think of the selective quote of Bishop Trautman in the Adoremus Bulletin which I blogged on a few years ago: http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2005/09/19/112713876436946968/

Another tactic of misdirection is to decline to answer the question and ask a question of the person pointing out the error, as you’ve done with me. For the moment I will presume your good will and direct you and David to respond to these questions in your next posts here:

- Why haven’t you corrected spelling errors on the original post?
- Why did you bring up an example of supposed opposition to hierarchy, and where exactly does Fr Doyle oppose any hierarchical form in any of his writings?
- Why didn’t you address the points of his e-mail to you, namely his accusation of factual errors?

As far as charity in the context of discussion among believers, it would be as the Catechism suggests in 2478, the avoidance of rash judgment, of taking care to interpret a neighbor’s words in a favorable way. Certainly, avoiding the label of “dissent” would be helpful.

The ultimate purpose is to foster an environment in which people, once they know and trust one another, can openly offer correction on important issues with a reasonable hope it might be well-considered and followed by the person one has in mind.

Could you please give a specific example of St. Blogs practice of obfuscation and misdirection? because you must have one in mind in order to make this statement
Also, using the parameters you established, what would you consider an appropriate response to your own question?
This how we all learn Todd, and this would be an excellent teaching opportunity for you to share how you avoid this practice of St. Blogs as well as to have ideas on how to be more charitable. What is charity and what is it’s ultimate purpose?

thanks, I am open to your heart felt response.

If you’re referring to Mr. Sipe’s retirement, I thought it appropriate to leave his “retirement” in his own words.

“I retired from religious life and the priesthood with the permission of Rome in 1970.”

http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report.htm

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/sipe.htm

http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report_2005.htm

God Bless.

It might be time to attend to Jesus’ wish for the apostles and their successors as we read in Luke 22:25-27.

I think Doyle’s question of charity is a very apt one. How would you respond, outside of the frequent St Blog’s practice of obfuscation and misdirection?