We all, I imagine, have our own networks of information; and a fair bit of the 'information' which has come my way over the last two or three of years has related to who is currently being persecuted by whom. Sometimes the intimidation is direct; sometimes it comes in the form of ueberpraelat X 'suggesting' to unterpraelat Y that Y should have a word with Z.
What intrigues me is this. The instances of intolerance that I hear all imply the dumping of the ton of bricks by a Bergoglian on a Wojtilan or Ratzingerian. Perhaps that merely says something about the sort of people I consort with. OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I should try to get out more.
But ... are there, in parallel, similar instances of intolerant intimidation currently being unloaded by Wojtilans and Ratzingerians upon Bergoglians?
Or do the Noxious Substances fly float or flow only in one direction?
I apologise if I have mixed my metaphors. I once worked under a head master who mixed his metaphors incessantly. It became a daily source of merriment in Common Room to collect ... and parody ... his rococo utterances.The genre can become quite an art form.
I only hope I don't get the Thin End of the Holy Father's Elbow.
In my experience, you are entirely correct.
ReplyDeleteThe Bergoglians behave in exactly the same way as other modern (il)liberals: under a mask of tolerance (and dare one say "mercy") they isolate, ridicule, belittle, misrepresent and persecute all who dare to disagree with their agenda.
Defender or denier?
ReplyDelete" ueberpraelat X 'suggesting' to unterpraelat Y that Y should have a word with Z."
ReplyDeleteHEY! Why bring me into this?
Amen to that Father!
ReplyDeleteAlan
Dear Father, My friend, Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque, is always reminding me of a little saying he learned while not studying at the London School of Economic, Never count your chickens when the sky is falling or they'll get the pip and never cross the road and come home to roost.
ReplyDeleteOr, as a Chinese friend explained to me about how things work in the Peoples' Republic: if you say something a little critical of the regime, a family member or friend will tell you to watch out; if you make a statement somewhat more critical, you could lose your job, while if you make a statement that is quite critical of the regime, you could wind up in prison. Stages one and two would also seem to be applicable in Rome, and in a way (substituting any "victim" group for regime) in the US as well.
ReplyDeleteFr Hunwicke is NOT bringing any Father Zee into anything unless he be specific on the statsidedness of the occurrence, thats the way the meatball crumbles and the cookie bounces , we are surely to understand a hypothetical Britspeak Father Zed, a wholly different kettle of frogspawn?
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit the nub square on the head of the coconut, Father H.
ReplyDeleteBut then, I don't think our Emeritus Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II ever in their youth acted as a bouncer for a dance club? The job frequently entails the physical strongarming and ejection of unwelcome guests, and the ability to compromise would be a definite disadvantage in the job: for all we know, the lessons so learned may well have had a lasting effect, mutatis mutandis.
Of course, academic theology in Germany is also essentially a fractious and aggressive business, though Fr Ratzinger seems to have been rather the exception in seeking to promote rational engagement with opponents. In fact it seems to have been his irenic and reasonable yet unwavering orthodoxy that so riled all the Usual Suspects, including the combative Kueng.
Goalkeeping is a by contrast a defensive occupation, and entirely harmless - except occasionally to one's own side...