Michael Voris just put out his 5th video on the 50th Anniversary of VII

[Adam Wayne]

Here is the Gospel and entire homily from Pope St. Gregory the Great (Matins from Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul, November 18.

Just to make things a bit more clear.

Reading 7

From the Holy Gospel according to Luke
Luke 19:1-10

At that time Jesus entering in, he walked through Jericho. And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. And so on.

Homily by Pope St Gregory the Great,
Book 27 of The  Morals, chapter 27.

If we would be truly wise, and behold wisdom herself, we must humbly acknowledge ourselves to be fools. Let us cast away harmful wisdom, and learn praiseworthy folly. For this reason indeed is it written God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise. 1 Cor. i. 27. And again it is said If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. iii. 18. And unto this doth the very Gospel bear witness, wherein it is said that Zacchasus sought to see Jesus, Who He was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see Him; for He was to pass that way. For this name Sycamore, being interpreted, signifieth the Foolish Fig.

Reading 8

Little Zacchaeus therefore accepted the humiliation of having recourse to the sycamore and saw the Lord. They who humbly choose to be fools in the estimation of the world, have a deep insight into the wisdom of God. The press standeth in our way, on account of our little stature, when we are fain to see the Lord; for the toilsome din of worldly business tormenteth our weak minds, so as to hinder our perceiving the light of the truth. But we climb up wisely into the sycamore tree, if we willingly give up our minds to that folly which God giveth unto us. What can be more utter folly (in this world) than not to seek for that we have lost, to leave that whereof we have been robbed in the hands of our despoilers, to take no revenge for wrongs which have been done us, yea, even to offer to him that taketh away our cloak, our coat also, and be patient?

Reading 9

The Lord biddeth us, as it were, to climb up into the sycamore, where He saith Of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. Luke vi. 30. And again Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matth. v. 39. From the boughs of this sycamore tree, the Lord is seen passing by. He may indeed, as yet, not be seen face to Face, but by this wise folly the inward eye may see the Wisdom of God, as it were, passing by, even that Wisdom Which they that are wise in their own conceit cannot see. They are mixed up in the overbearing press of their own imaginations, and have not yet found the sycamore tree where into to climb up, if they would see the Lord.[/qoute]

[Jackson K. Eskew]

Jackson, if I may be so bold to suggest it, I think you should find a Sycamore Tree to climb upon and try to see the wisdom of God.
 

Speaking of the wisdom of God, aren't you the same guy who recently posted a shameful litany of the Rosary's supposed deficiencies?

[ggreg]

It is the ignorance is bliss argument that many a religious cult successfully uses for years. Typical modern media people, with a modern elitist atitude to be selective with the truth and not disturb the paying subscribers. Makes business sense.

We see the same attitude in the secret doctrinal preamble. Don't disturb the plebs. The same thing in the early days of the paedophilia and clerical sodomy scandals. Let's not discuss it. It is selective denial for convenience.

Same mentality stopped us getting the real third secret in 1960. Soft sedevacantism or soft soap catholicism?  I prefer to deal with the TRUTH and let the cards fall where they may.

The Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are sifted so as not to offend our paying subscribers.  Not exactly the spirit of the Alamo.

When the Antichrist arrives people with this mentality will cave in. After all you won't be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.

[Stubborn]

If you criticize the heterodox teachings and practices of bishops and priests, then, in response to the inevitable "to whom shall we go," you can say "to Peter."  If you take the approach of the SSPX, or The Remnant, or Catholic Family News, and consistently attack the Pope, then, in response to the inevitable "to whom shall we go," all you can say is "to Peter, when he's teaching and behaving properly."  Without meaning to, you wind up damaging any semblance of unity around the Office of Peter, the Rock, and invite people to substitute the SSPX, the Remnant and Catholic Family News as proper interpreters of the Magisterium.  It's a "soft" form of sedevacantism where you acknowledge your loyalty to the Pope but undermine him at every turn.

With all due respect.................
This has been one of the most successful battle cries of modernists since the late 60s and is inspired by adherence to blind and false obedience on the part of otherwise faithful Catholics. If you take the above reasoning, then what is to be said of  the conciliar popes? Are these popes themselves "soft sede's" because they damaged not only any semblance of unity, they destroyed unity outright by their heterodox teachings and practices?


 

RealCatholicTV.com is not going to say anything about the Assisi meetings.  Why?  Because there's not much about those events that will strengthen the faith of Catholics................... They have also shown their humanity and fallibility and the ability to give scandal.  If we (RealCatholicTV.com) emphasize what is good and "ignore" what might not advance the cause of the Faith, exactly how are we harming anyone?  The Truth always helps, while sin and its consequences always tear down.

Not so. Talking about the inherent danger of Assisi to the faith is *always* important and can absolutely strengthen the faith of Catholics. Exposing scandal that needs exposing will strengthen the faith even if by only exposing what Cathilcs *are not* supposed to do. How many Catholics participate in the local Baptist or Jewish or etc. meeting places without giving a second thought to exactly what it is they are doing, thanks to Assisi?  Silence on RCTV's part, due to Assisi's world wide public display of scandal, in this case, implies consent.

Pointing out that wrong is wrong no matter who is doing the wrong, is for the good of the faith - because how else are today's Catholics to know wrong when they see it if you do not expose it for what it is?

By exposing Assisi as wrong, others can avoid it rather than imitate it - *that* is the way to tell the truth of sin and its consequences - exposing it does not always tear down, but it can always educate.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have been pretty remarkable in defending orthodoxy in these terribly secular times.

This is completely untrue on so many levels that I am at a loss. To name only one thing - - what is orthodox about the pope trying to describe "it was this big" by holding both his hands up and apart -  instead of giving his papal blessing by actually making a distinguishable "sign if the cross blessing" when he is greeted by crowds?  That simple, yet important gesture is so orthodox that it goes all the way back to pope John Paul II - and it is a signature of the new orthodoxy. 

Can someone post a video showing the pope in his pope mobile or any other event showing that his blessing is *obviously* a blessing and not some modern papal rendition of greetings?

We have a Pope, the Successor of Peter, the Rock of unity and stability in the Catholic Church.  We have Our Lord's promise that He will be with us and protect us from error.  That promise doesn't extend to matters of prudential judgment or private teaching.  If the Pope says something confusing, e.g., some of his statements about environmentalism, then why go out of our way to point out to people (most of whom don't even follow what the Pope says regularly)  that he said something likely to be confusing?

Yes, Pope Benedict XVI is surely our Holy Father the Pope and no power on earth will change that. He, like all the conciliar popes, also do things that are obviously anti -Catholic . . forget about environmentalism, reference Assisi.

When the true faith is not being taught, or better said - when the conciliar faith is being taught, environmentalism is important to talk about, so is respect for all other religions, so is the necessity of freedom of religion and human rights and etc. ad nausem. When there is no faith being taught, the worst offense against the conciliar authority is tradition.

This is because adhering to tradition means denouncing the modernist conciliar faith - this offense of persevering in tradition is worse than all the pedophiliac activities put together that went on for 50 years since V2, and goes on still - - - - traditionalism and all that it entails was abruptly intolerable and all but completely eliminated some 50 years ago and is still a punishable crime to many among the Church hierarchy today.

We (RealCatholicTV.com) are just as aware as anyone here that our current and past Popes can say and do controversial things.  We choose to emphasize what is good and ignore what might be less good. 

"Less good"? What happened to good or evil? Why always take "the middle road"?

The real issue I personally have with RCTV is the stance they have, which a stance "firmly situated on the soft sand of the middle ground". They have important things to say and the courage to say them, yet they usually stop short of offering any solution - - - - - this is typical of those on middle ground.

Additionally, RCTV seems to take for granted that this crisis is *not* (or even that it is) of diabolic origin, that it was somehow a big, nasty mistake on the part of individuals or "who knows?". RCTV seems to believe that those modernist perpetrators who still linger within the hierarchy will at some point simply surrender to the truth without even any battle whatsoever - provided enough people "wake up" and cause some action to rid Rome of these perpetrators. Silly imo.

RCTV does it's share of "preaching to the choir" and is not without purpose, but it is regrettable that for all it's efforts, it falls short of actually taking a stand that does not cause one to be confused as to which side of the fence they are on.

Exposing the modernists and exposing the lies are certainly very good, but what good is it if that's where it all stops?

 

[Scriptorium]

Hi Mr. Carroll,
I have this feedback on your response. No need for debate, just thought I'd give my opinions.

Without meaning to, you wind up damaging any semblance of unity around the Office of Peter, the Rock, and invite people to substitute the SSPX, the Remnant and Catholic Family News as proper interpreters of the Magisterium.  It's a "soft" form of sedevacantism where you acknowledge your loyalty to the Pope but undermine him at every turn.

I would only point out that these folks are working in circumstances placed upon them. The Popes, Bishops, and Priests have undermined the Faith and themslves, the faithful have taken those shattered pieces, and attempted to restore a semblance of a Catholic life, including loyalty to the Pope.

If they watch RealCatholicTV.com, and the Vortex, they represent a microscopic sample of the Catholic Church at large.  To alert these people to controversial teachings or actions by the Pope accomplishes nothing but reducing the "hanging in there by your fingernails" faith that is the norm.

Maybe this is the case with the demographic you are going for. I know many people who come to a stronger faith by getting a clear overall picture of the problem, what the posssible future solutions are, and what we can do while we wait for Peter to straighten the mess out. If they respond to your prompting, some day they'll approached the question of the teachings and actions of the Popes, and they'll say, Why didn't RealCatholicTV talk about this? You may be looked upon as derelict. or covering up. This may not be true, but it is a risk when educating people to give some of the tale, but not all. I maintain there is a way to cover trully news/noteworthy Papal actions while remaining loyal.

As I said above, with bishops and priests it is possible to appeal to a higher authority for redress of grievances.  With a Pope, what is the proper response?

That's our dilemma, that's the crisis. A future Pope redresses the grievances.

To harp on their "deficiencies" leads people to lose confidence in both the Church and the Pope, and that's not an appropriate or fair response to such deficiencies.

We don't have to harp. There is a way to do it with respect and taste, and not heavyhanded or obsessive. We also don't have to lose confidence in both the Church and the Pope. We can get educated about what is what, and come out stronger. I may be odd, but I am strengthened when the Pope does something scandalous, because it is an even clearer display of Christ's care, just as Peter denied our Lord moments after He declared Himself the Messiah before Annas and Caiphas. People place too much confidence in people, and RealCatholicTV seems to be catering to that overconfidence in the Pope, like He is Jesus Himself instead of the Vicar. Something like this can even be simply pointed out on a nice piece on infallibility, and what's in, what demands our assent, and what can be ignored. Give people the tools to judge everything they hear top down.

I don't have problems with people who think the Pope should have done some things differently.  That makes for good discussions.  I do have problems with portraying the Pope as untrustworthy such that Catholics lose their faith.  Some issues are best left to competent theologians and not discussed in public.  Or maybe over coffee with friends.  Most of us don't really need, and we don't really benefit, from airing what we judge to be papal dirty laundry.

These are not secrets though, but public scandals. We are not the judges, but we have to judge on a personal level. So for instance, when viewed, RealCatholicTV has judged, "It doesn't exist." On a personal level you may judge, "I find this problematic." One person may then want to go to a trusted source to figure out if they are right in finding it problematic, or if they are wrong. If the Pope is causing scandal, or interpretated as such, then they will get no help from RealCatholicTV. So for instance, covering VII, one may wonder, "If these things are problems, and the Pope is the man in charge. then what am I supposed to do about these problems." I mean, you guys have read tracts which criticize the Pope, and you seem alright. Do you not trust your viewers to the same level of trust you placed yourself in when educating yourself in the crises of our time?

[The_Harlequin_King]

I'm actually glad Jackson heckled RealCatholicTV into a response. The lack of a response didn't bother me since I don't listen to Voris anyway, but if you're trap falsehoods, be an equal opportunity basher. I'm tired of neo-Catholic "Republican Party at prayer" types.

In fact, I don't think anyone in a position of power or influence ought to feel comfortable. Take the Occupy movement, for example. I don't intend to join one, but I won't feel sorry for any crony capitalists who find themselves hanged from streetlamps. No one is innocent or above being picked on.

[Old Salt]

2) He's preaching only to the Neo-Cath choir, not to trads. If he were preaching to trads in this series, he would have cited the disasters of Assisi. And he wouldn't portray John Paul II as a hero, but as one of the most disastrous popes in the history of the Church.

If you criticize the heterodox teachings and practices of bishops and priests, then, in response to the inevitable "to whom shall we go," you can say "to Peter."  If you take the approach of the SSPX, or The Remnant, or Catholic Family News, and consistently attack the Pope, then, in response to the inevitable "to whom shall we go," all you can say is "to Peter, when he's teaching and behaving properly."  Without meaning to, you wind up damaging any semblance of unity around the Office of Peter, the Rock, and invite people to substitute the SSPX, the Remnant and Catholic Family News as proper interpreters of the Magisterium.  It's a "soft" form of sedevacantism where you acknowledge your loyalty to the Pope but undermine him at every turn.

Bishops and priests can be replaced, so exposing their misdeeds has at least some hope of response.  If the Pope "misbehaves," there isn't a Parliament that can impeach him or any method at all of "getting a better Pope."  That's just reality.

There are and always have been Popes who were not candidates for canonization.  Some have been truly embarrassing.  The majority of Catholics don't follow the Pope's actions or words with the same intensity that "true believers" on both the left and the right do.  For most Catholics, all they know about the Church is what they "learn" or "experience" at Mass (the relatively few Catholics who actually go to Mass).  If they watch RealCatholicTV.com, and the Vortex, they represent a microscopic sample of the Catholic Church at large.  To alert these people to controversial teachings or actions by the Pope accomplishes nothing but reducing the "hanging in there by your fingernails" faith that is the norm.

RealCatholicTV.com is not going to say anything about the Assisi meetings.  Why?  Because there's not much about those events that will strengthen the faith of Catholics.  Even the secular media ignored these Assisi meetings (for the most part).  Assisi is capable of being interpreted as supporting or endorsing religious indifferentism, and to counter those interpretations (as the Pope himself would do if asked) would go over the heads of most people and do little to satisfy those who consider "all things Assisi" to be scandalous.  We (RealCatholicTV.com) have, on more than one occasion, addressed the issue of religious indifferentism.  Who benefits by doing a "piece" on Assisi that can only sow confusion among the faithful.  Some things are properly judged "the less said, the better."  Assisi is one such thing.  Kissing the Koran would be another. 

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have been pretty remarkable in defending orthodoxy in these terribly secular times.  They have also shown their humanity and fallibility and the ability to give scandal.  If we (RealCatholicTV.com) emphasize what is good and "ignore" what might not advance the cause of the Faith, exactly how are we harming anyone?  The Truth always helps, while sin and its consequences always tear down.  As I said above, with bishops and priests it is possible to appeal to a higher authority for redress of grievances.  With a Pope, what is the proper response?  To harp on their "deficiencies" leads people to lose confidence in both the Church and the Pope, and that's not an appropriate or fair response to such deficiencies.  I, personally, am not happy that our current Pope writes as BOTH "Pope Benedict XVI" AND "Ratzinger," as "Peter" and "theologian."  I think it's asking too much of Catholics to make this kind of distinction when listening to the words of the Pope.  I wish he wouldn't do that.  I wish, at Assisi, that the Pope had issued the equivalent of an "altar call" and invited everyone present to join the Catholic Church!  But how is the cause of Our Lord advanced by using a prominent media vehicle to express MY opinions?  People who love the Pope are given reasons not to.  Tradition protects us.  Knowledge of our Faith protects us.  If the Pope has a "bad day," it's not likely to upset me, even though I wish very much that he NEVER had a "bad day."

We have a Pope, the Successor of Peter, the Rock of unity and stability in the Catholic Church.  We have Our Lord's promise that He will be with us and protect us from error.  That promise doesn't extend to matters of prudential judgment or private teaching.  If the Pope says something confusing, e.g., some of his statements about environmentalism, then why go out of our way to point out to people (most of whom don't even follow what the Pope says regularly)  that he said something likely to be confusing?  If, for example, every "papal offense" posted at Most Holy Family Monastery is absolutely true, it doesn't change that the Pope is the Pope and that we give him obedience and loyalty when he acts in his solemn capacity as Pope.  Assisi is not a magisterial statement, just an example of papal action capable of causing scandal.  Even in my personal life, I don't go out of my way to tell friends and relatives that the Pope may have said or done something that is "dubious" or embarrassing because, as I said above, "to whom shall we go?"  If we decide that, like Obama, that "this Pope is not what we need or want," it's not like we have some options to get a new Pope!  We CAN get a new President.  There is absolutely no process whereby unhappy faithful can organize petition drives to put "the next Pope" up for public referendum.

We (RealCatholicTV.com) are just as aware as anyone here that our current and past Popes can say and do controversial things.  We choose to emphasize what is good and ignore what might be less good.  I (and this is me speaking personally) think that the SSPX, The Remnant and Catholic Family News include wonderfully faithful Catholics, with whom I have more in common than not.  I just think it is harmful to foment hostility towards the Pope such that we wind up being practically if not actually "out of communion" with Rome.  We only have one Pope at a time, and I hope never to see a process in place that will enable us to "vote the Pope out of office" to be replaced by one WE judge "more faithfully Catholic."

The Pope is not a 24/7 "infallibility machine."  There are good reasons why Vatican I carefully defined when the Pope is speaking infallibly.  We trust that the Pope will not issue dogmatic statements that are false.  We don't trust that his every word about every thing in every circumstance deserves to be analyzed, exposed and judged by the likes of ourselves.  I don't have problems with people who think the Pope should have done some things differently.  That makes for good discussions.  I do have problems with portraying the Pope as untrustworthy such that Catholics lose their faith.  Some issues are best left to competent theologians and not discussed in public.  Or maybe over coffee with friends.  Most of us don't really need, and we don't really benefit, from airing what we judge to be papal dirty laundry.

Terry Carroll
Executive Producer
RealCatholicTV.com

Excellent response Mr Carroll!
Words of great common sense to live by.
Thank you so much.

[damooster]

It is the ignorance is bliss argument that many a religious cult successfully uses for years. Typical modern media people, with a modern elitist atitude to be selective with the truth and not disturb the paying subscribers. Makes business sense.

We see the same attitude in the secret doctrinal preamble. Don't disturb the plebs. The same thing in the early days of the paedophilia and clerical sodomy scandals. Let's not discuss it. It is selective denial for convenience.

Same mentality stopped us getting the real third secret in 1960. Soft sedevacantism or soft soap catholicism?  I prefer to deal with the TRUTH and let the cards fall where they may.

The Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are sifted so as not to offend our paying subscribers.  Not exactly the spirit of the Alamo.

When the Antichrist arrives people with this mentality will cave in. After all you won't be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.

This all the way. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[RealCatholicTV]

It is the ignorance is bliss argument that many a religious cult successfully uses for years. Typical modern media people, with a modern elitist atitude to be selective with the truth and not disturb the paying subscribers. Makes business sense.

The Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are sifted so as not to offend our paying subscribers.  Not exactly the spirit of the Alamo.

This all the way. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Suppose we ignore your lack of charity in presuming a desire "not to offend our paying subscribers" and focus charitably on whether it is ever appropriate to to bring someone's faults to light without a compelling, good reason.

Let's also ignore the barely concealed contempt you reveal for the Church.  Are you Catholic?  On what rock do you stand?  Are you hiding the real Pope somewhere?  Or are YOU the real Pope and you resent that no one has acknowledged it?

Let's propose, hypothetically, that the Pope has serious problems with chastity and regularly sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.  This would be undeniably sinful behavior not likely to strengthen the faithful.  To report this would be to report something true, to "expose lies and falsehoods" insofar as the Pope's public persona is that of a holy person and he is really a serious sinner.

The knowledge that we have a seriously sinful Pope could not help but impugn his moral authority, just as the moral authority of bishops in general has been impugned because of the shameful responses of many to the sexual abuse crisis.  Given that there is no mechanism in place to replace a Pope, and exposing his sinfulness to public scrutiny would impugn his moral authority, do we not seriously harm the mission of the Church -- to teach and defend the Truth of Christ -- by helping people to ignore even authoritative documents because they have lost respect for the Pope?

At least through the time of President Kennedy the press cooperated in protecting the image and status of the Presidency by failing to report moral failings by a President.  It was recognized that it was important for the country to have respect for its President, even though Presidents CAN be replaced in the next election.  To expose moral failings of the Pope, to editorialize endlessly about something he shouldn't have said or shouldn't have done, cannot help but reinforce a mindset that, as a matter of prudence, WE need to judge the faithfulness and orthodoxy of the Pope whenever he says or does ANYTHING.  Is it not important for Catholics to have respect for the Successor of Peter?  When the Pope issues an encyclical, is that encyclical better received by the faithful for having been informed of his lack of moral character?

Or, instead of a lecherous Pope forfeiting moral authority and credibility by his sinfulness, how about a Pope and a Church that a) is lying to us about the Third Secret of Fatima; b) is disobeying the Mother of God in failing to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart; and c) produced an impostor Sister Lucy to ratify the lies and disobedience of a) and b)?  With a track record like this, exactly when do we accept a Papal teaching on, say, "Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces"?  Is the Pope to be respected and obeyed only after some "college of defenders of the Faith" that meets in my basement every week judges his latest teaching acceptable?

Assisi was a virtual non-issue in both the secular and mainstream Catholic press.  It was just about ALL The Remnant, Catholic Family News and the SSPX could talk about for months ahead of time right on up to the event itself.  The overwhelming majority of the Catholic world, whether faithful Catholics or not, had and have no idea that Assisi even HAPPENED, much less THREE TIMES.

What is the prevailing attitude among those who consider themselves part of the audience addressed by The Remant, Catholic Family News, and the SSPX?  Would you ever get the impression that they respect the Pope?  Would you ever get the impression that they are even part of the same Church as the Pope?  Does anyone really think that Pope Benedict, if directly challenged, would say that Assisi was intended to promote religious indifferentism?  Granted, it's easy to understand why people might conclude that this is exactly what was being promoted, but the Pope would not only deny it but (as the author of Dominus Iesus) vigorously defend the unique and irreplaceable role of the Catholic Church in the salvation of the world.

What The Remnant, Catholic Family News and the SSPX achieve in their relentless "correcting" of the Holy Father and the Church is the development of catholic (deliberately lower case) communities of faith that are not in communion with the Catholic Church.  I'm not talking about "blind obedience" here because Assisi and other pet issues of the "soft sedevacantists" are seldom issues of obedience.  Assisi is a matter of prudential judgment by the Pope, an event within which, in his judgment, the cause of Christ could be advanced better than if the event did not occur.  Yes, it is entirely possible, even probable, that observers of this event (the few that there are) might conclude that "all religions are of equal value" but this conclusion is precisely what the Pope, if challenged, would reject.  Remember: outside of the hand wringing angst of certain tribes of "traditionalists," no one even knows that this confusing religious event even occurred and, therefore, can't be scandalized by it!

The response of RealCatholicTV.com to world events is filtered through a lens that that focuses on teaching and defending the Truth of the Catholic Faith.  The Vortex probably represents no more than 1% of what we produce.  If Assisi is capable of being understood as promoting religious indifferentism, our response is to treat the subject of religious indifferentism so that, in the present or future, Catholics are equipped with the necessary knowledge of the Faith to interpret events with a "Catholic mind."  Assisi CAN be interpreted as endorsing religious indifferentism, but a "Catholic mind" should be able to judge that event in a "Catholic way," which excludes religious indifferentism.

RealCatholicTV.com judges the state of the Church today to be one of severe crisis, perhaps the worst ever experienced by the Church.  The proper response to that, for us, is to encourage people to learn the Faith, to provide resources to achieve that end, and to strive for holiness WITHIN the Church.  Relentless, parochial attacks on the Vicar of Christ  yields a community of faith that is skeptical of EVERYTHING the Pope says, even when he speaks authoritatively.  We choose not to be part of that.  We choose to interpret anything the Pope says or does in the most faithful, orthodox light and, surprisingly, it isn't all that hard to do because we have two millennia of documents and reflections on the Faith to assist us in understanding things with a "Catholic mind."

We have the assurance of Jesus Himself that the Church will teach and defend all Truth, but Popes can be (and have been) severely disappointing without dogmatic error having been proposed for belief.  We shouldn't withhold respect for the Church or the Vicar of Christ pending a Pope and Church administration more satisfactory to us.

[Scriptorium]

Suppose we ignore your lack of charity in presuming a desire "not to offend our paying subscribers" and focus charitably on whether it is ever appropriate to to bring someone's faults to light without a compelling, good reason.

...

You know, for what it's worth, I respect your candor. There definitely needs to be more charity, and interpreting things in the best possible light. Notwithstanding the true problems top to bottom this last 50 years, I do think the Popes are too disrespected by some. I have been guilty of it at times when I simply used him as my whipping boy out of frustration at the situation. At times it has felt like being a battered wife (figurative!), and never can divorce, but he keeps on disappointing me. I think there is a balance to be had to navigate between the extremes. I don't agree with every one of your positions, but I agree that we can be accused of overly focusing on the Pope so that he becomes the root of all the crisis, no matter what he does to change it. And he can never do right. I think we need to pray about this, and keep that prayerful perspective especially when surfing the web and having 24/7 access to Papal actions. Just imagine what it would be like if we were under the same scrutiny. I know I am not without sin. + PAX