Mad Priest Coverup. Part 5

Let me summarize this topic with a few thoughts.

One. As so many said about Nixon and the Watergate scandal: The coverup is worse than the "crime."

Two. It seems clear that my version of the dispute is essentially correct. I say this because it would be quite easy to show I was wrong by 'releasing the original exchanges.

Three. I believe the person who first made the assertion that my son had "plunged into her house etc." responded the way she did because she was not aware of the questions by my son as to whether he could ask a question.

Four. My son's responses were far less inflamatory than the charges leveled against him by the "community."

Five. We were not aware that one had to pass an 'initiation' examination to comment on the MP blog.

Six. I would suggest that a person be required to pee on a picture of Rowan Williams, and submit proof of such, to enter the outer precints of the "community."

Seven. I believe the MP blog is hysterically anti-catholic, and this may have played a role in the dispute.

Mad Priest Coverup. Part 4

Still a couple of more posts about Mad Priest. Those not familiar with their blog should know the purpose is to top each other with cutting, hateful remarks hidden behind "prayer lists." Assuming the prayer lists to be genuine, that is the only thing even approaching Christianity on the MP blog.

Now imagine the delight to "Wormwood Doxy" when a couple of young people dared to venture into her lair. Salivating would be mild. So she spewed all the venom she could muster before----piously returning to the "prayer list."

Now a day or two ago she made a feeble effort to respond to what she had obviously done. Trying to win the "mean" award of the day again she published what she said she had written back when the young people came to MP. She picked one of her comments, nasty enough, but nothing like her whole role in the incident.

She then righteously announced that whe would not discuss the matter again, althought clear proof exists part of her allegations are false. Then for protection she allowed no further comments from me. I wonder why?

Apparently she is married to some type of cleric. Let's hope he influences her rather than the reverse.

Be back tomorrow.

The Mad Priest Coverup. Part Three

Now, to the heart of the matter. I want to be fair. I am almost sure that the original negative comments were made by "Wormwood Doxy" and "Tracie the Red" There is a small, very small, chance, that another was involved, but the important point is the comments came from the "community."

Let me correct some possible misconceptions.

One. One of the above stated that my son had come to the MP blog without checking it out. This is totally false. My son, at my suggestion, had checked out the blog. Before he ask his question he requested several times if this blog might give imput on his question. He was encouraged to do so. This is clearly shown in the MP archives.

Two. My son ask a question for a just turned 20 friend of his. This was not my son's intended question. Now much ridicule has been made by "doxy" and "the red" that rather than use the word masturbation the term "touching yourself" was used. I have noted several times on my blog that my son had been sujected to severe physical abuse when young for masturbating. Indeed causing later medical problems. His young friend was raised a Baptist and was living with a Catholic family. Although the Catholic family made it clear they did no consider masturbation anything bad, the young friend of my son wanted to know what other religions might think. I then encouraged them to go to MP's blog since it advertised itself as dealing with "God and sex and rock and roll."

Three. After being encouraged by a "community" member to ask his young friend's question, "wormwood doxy" and "Tracie the red" came down on my son with full force.

Four. "Wormwood" I'm certain stated something to the effect that my son had no right to ask a question on this blog, because he had not checked it out. To repeat that is totally false.

Five. I am almost certain the "Wormwood" said something to the effect that my son was like a stranger pushing, uninvited, her door open, putting his feet on a table of hers and asking for a drink, indicating how outrageous my son had been.

Six. One of the two ladies refered to my son and his friend as 'spoiled rich brats.'

Seven. One of the two ladies, or both. refered to the young men as members of "the small penis society."

I am certain of the above. But the two ladies might say what provoked them to such rhetoric. Yes, a rather ugly exchange took place. For what it is worth, there can be NO question that one of the ladies cast the first stone. In a later post "Wormwood" said they were called "bitch." Yes that may be true, AFTER the first putdowns by the "community." "Wormwood" also said my son said something about someone having sex with another while standing in the communion line. I strongly deny this was said.

These are the basic facts as I know them. If they are not correct in essence, then they should be easy to refute by MP.

So, why do members of the "community" refuse to discuss this situation. Maybe they think it is not imporant. A definite possibility. But maybe they know they have not acted in the Christian way they proclaim. A definite possibility.

I will have a couple of more post on this matter.

Mad Priest Coverup. Part Two.

Well, what is an "internet troll?" Basically, in my opinion, it is anyone who disagrees strongly with a blog owner. The people who use this term, usually use it when they have no reasonable response to what the "troll"is writing. The Mad Priest crowd think calling someone a troll is all that is needed to emerge triumphant. So let's break it down.

The troll is off topic. My first comment on a blog some three years ago dealt with the topic of evolution. This blog had a very long list of posts he had written over the years. I got no response. Then an experienced 'commenter' responded to me a few weeks later saying I needed to comment on the most recent post. Many bloggers do not check comments on old posts. I did as he suggested and immediately started a discussion that had many comments. So, yes it is true; in order to contact a blogger my son used a current post to ask if the blog might have some answers. There was NO attempt to disrupt the thread.

The troll is usually anonymous or uses a fabricated name. Well, who doesn't. Those who most use the troll term against others almost always hide their identity. For example, many commenters don't even have a listed "profile." Others use names like "IT." What in the helldoes that tell us as to his real identity? I should point out that my son and I have given our real names, our city of residence and even the church we attend.

The troll tries to start arguments. That may be right. I do not comment on recipes for egg salad sandwiches. I do comment when I think the subject is of some importance to me and others. Yes, this may lead to strong responses.

The anti-troll yellers think nothing of deleting scores of comments if they are not right in line with the blog owners ideas. Mad Priest recently posted a thread that had over 80 comments. When I checked the following day he had deleted the comments down to 47---apparently not liking people disagreeing with him.

In sum then, a "troll" is best defined as one who comments in a way the blog owner does not like. His right, of course. But attempting to "win" your argument by labeling someone you disagree with a "troll"really doesn't cut it.

The Mad Priest Coverup.

I feel it necessary to use my blog to correct some imaccurate and misleading statements on the blog OCICBW run by Mad priest. Let me explain why.

Some 30 years ago, I was involved in a suit against the Board of Regents for Higher Education in my state. In preparation for the trial I met with the president of the most pretigious private university in our state. Moving ahead without details, he produced from behind his desk a framed map relative to the suit. Several months later at the trial, the president was asked about the map that he had shown me. Under oath, he denied such a map existed. Later this president died and was accorded universal praise from the citizens of the area. He deserved such praise, I guess, but I always wondered why he lied under oath.

Now today, I am involved in a minor squabble with Mad Priest and his "community" in a somewhat similar situation. My son and I, since last March, have been dealing with comments and statements which were made, but which no one will come forward and admit what they wrote. Before I get into the details like me touch on the 'conspiracy of silence.'

I have given the details under a blog "Youngcatholicfank." Let me say before I begin my post that it is possible, but highly unlikely, that I have attributed some of the remarks to a wrong person. I do not think so. But the attribution is not the key. We know what was said. Primarily two women were involved in the dispute. One going under the moniker "Tracie the Red" and the other "Wormwood Doxy."

Let me touch briefly on what I know of Mad Priest. He is an Anglican clergyman in England.. He and his followers consider themselves a "community"(their word.) Mad Priest has had some rather severe mental problems in the past. I do not say this to put him down, but to possibly explain the loyalty his "community" feels toward him.

Now in my first post on this matter let me explain why I believe this has turned into a rather harsh exchange. I have explained, as above, how this situation between the "community" and us has developed.

One of his commenters after our first contact with the blog suggested I might be a"troll." I will deal with this in another post.

Within a day or two, we were banned from the blog. MP directed his "community" not to respond to any comment we made. He then deleted all of our discussion, except a few he apparently overlooked. We,of course, wondered why the deletion was necessary? Was it to protect the "community." I don't know.

I offered to have one of the "community" review our exchanges and to abide by his judgment. No one responded.

I offered Grandmere Mimi to e-mail her discussing the problem. She refused, saying she would reveal my e-mail on her blog apparently so I could be called to task.My e-mail is always available. It is true I had critisized Mimi for not responding more strongly when 'put down' by MP. Mimi also barred me from her blog.

Wormwood doxy responded to an inquiry from me by closing her blog to me after, I believe, very strongly she had been inaccurate and incomplete in her initial reply.

"IT' ciritisized me about contacting him, and refused to discuss the issue after making a rather harsh judgment about me.

"Erika" showed interest in the situation of my stepson and then refused to discuss it further.

DA VEEH has made critical comments but is very difficult to reach. I did once but he does not have his own blog.

Now my request is quite simple. I would like the WHOLE exchange printed where MP would desire. If my statements and judgements are inaccurate in essence I WOULD BE MORE THAN GLAD TO EXPRESS IN THE MOST ABJECT TERMS MY REGRET. If MP and the "community' are wrong, I WOULD NOT ask an apology.

I must be honest and say I think MP and the "community" are involved in a "coverup." But let us see the record and let each decide.

More details later.

Abortion and the seamless garmet.

Anyone who has surfaced this blog realizes that I am Catholic. However, like most other people of faith, I find certain doctrines of the Catholic church, as most people do with their own church, very difficult to accept. The most obvious example of this is the Church's teaching on sex. Now since the Church, at least in our country, has elevated its teaching on this matter to the most exalted state, it is necessary to make some comments.
I have dealt with the issues of celibacy, contraception, masturbation, sexual thoughts etc in some detail. Also I have written that the stance of the Church on abortion needs to be examined. The Church position(at least the 'official' position) is that an abortion is an "instrinsic" evil and therefore supercedes all other Catholic social teaching is based, it seems quite clear, is based on the Catholic teaching of the "economy." The teaching of the "economy" is that religious/divine truth must not be revealed all at one time to new Christians in that these new Christians are not ready and cannot absorb the 'mysteries' in toto until later in their Christian experience. This, of course, was the argument between Kingsley and Newman which led to Newman writing his apologia.
Now we see this "economy" in play today in the Catholic position on abortion. The overwhelming majority of Christians, Catholics included, see a clear distinction between a few undifferented cells and a fetus just prior to birth. The question then becomes for almost all people as to when those cells develope enough to be called a "person." The embryo/fetus at the earliest stages has no traits of a person. No brain activity, no organs, no limbs and so forth. So these cells are not seen as a person by almost 90 percent of people.
But here comes the "economy'' or a slight variation thereof. The "average" person--the 90 per cent--are simply not capable of determining the line between a group of cells and a person. A debate on this issue would probably not be finally conclusive. So the Church teaches that the first cell formed after sexual intercourse is a"full person" just like your 3 month old grandson. No one really believes this, but as a wise mother, the discussion is ended says the Church. After all does not this position eliminate all the intricacies of what/when are these cells a person.
Now, I believe the Church has a very strong prejudice against sex in the sense that sex is an impediment to a full relationship to God. Obviously this is easily shown from the catechism and, of course, from the position that only celibates have any true authority in the Church. And, obviously, abortion is the final 'birth control.'
Now I believe the Church gives itself away on this issue when they take the position that the 'major' player in any abortion---the pregnant women---should not be punished by our laws. Even though the Church's logic, indeed its own statements, classify abortion as nothing less than murder. That a women who has an abortion is is guilty of "murder'' but is not responsible for such is clearly absurd.
Oh, but the Church says most women who have abortions do not realize it is killing a person. Therefore she is not responsible. But such an answer it to make things even more complicated. Does it mean that a woman's knowledge of biology is a factor in her guilt of killing a person? Does it mean that all people who support the right to abortion are excused? Does it mean that only the "right to life" people who have abortions should be tried for murder? Does it mean that since the Church teaches that abortion is murder, that only Catholic women should be tried for murder for having an abortion? Does it mean that since Catholic women have abortions at the same or greater rate than non-catholic, that the Church wants the state to enforce its belief on others? Or only on Catholic womem?
So what does it all mean to a Catholic like myself? Well it means the Church "fibs" a bit when it says one or a few cells are a"person" as almost all define a "person." Yes, I think the Church does "fib" for what they think is the greater good. And a believe such a teaching is part of the seamless garmet of anti-sex prejudice.

The Worst Blog

I have been blogging for going on three years now. I do not believe I have ever devoted a post to discussing another blog. However, at this time I feel I must call a blog to the attention of any who pass here.

The blog I am speaking about is run by a rather 'strange' Anglican priest who has gathered about himself a group of people he refers to as "the community." A support group. A strange group indeed. The apparent purpose of "the community" is to keep the priest in good mental health by catering to him in ways that are often embarrassing.

I have just had an exchange with one of his "community" in which the member uses every blog 'trick' possible to not admit she acted in an bizare manner. She did this by putting on her blog a small part of an exchange she had with me on the "community" blog. She did not respond to the more egregious comments she had made on the "community" blog.

Now, of course, to cover herself, she has cut off any further information or discussion. I know what she has done. I think she knows, but on the theory of some bloggers. the more strident your comment the more people will believe it.

The real sad thing about the priest's blog is that it claims to be about religion. Yet the attitude of the "community" reminds me of Newman's reply when ask to toast the Pope. Not the exact words but: I toast the Pope, but to my conscience first.

The motto of the community is: I toast the truth, but to my "community" first.

Yes, I will continue to go to the priest's blog. As Menken said:"Why to people go to the zoo?"

Sainthood for the "naughty."

As I have written, the "seemless garnet" of Cardinal Bernadin is really not about "life" but about "sex is bad." There are several aspects to the "sex is bad" garment. The Church is making a real effort to show it is into sex as much as...say Hugh Heffner. One track being taken is to 'show' that the Church recognizes married saints just like celibate ones. The only problem is, it doesn't.

I haven't done a statistical analysis but here are some clear conclusions and ideas that show the Church still is and has been in love(wrong word maybe) with "don't touch...don't admit" sex is BAD.

Looking at the issue of married saints,we find they make up at maximum about 3 percent of all saints. Of course, such a figure should tell us "case closed!!!" as my high school history use to say. But looking a little deeper we find that these married saints were usually married at 13-15 years of age. Usually through a forced marriage. Some tried to get their husbands to make a vow of lifelong celibacy. Reading their biographies we find that almost all desired a life of total sexual abstinence. In other words they definitely weren't into "doing it." My favorite a St. Cecilia who jumped out a window when her husband tried to "approach" her on their wedding night!!!

But let's be generous. Let's say a handful DID enjoy a romp in the hay. But let's be clear, when it came to their possible sainthood, it is almost impossible to find a saint whose "ability" as a wife was a factor in their saintliness.

Now Catholic apologists have an excuse for the overwhelming--over 97 percent--of Saints who found a little sex a real turnoff. Leaving out the clear teaching of the Church that any type of sex is a clear impediment to being "really good,"(a position the Church tries to hide today) the excuse is put up that married people don't have enough 'lobbyist,' as we would call them today to push their saintliness. The celibate order of the Church apparently having plenty of time to make up and circulate stories to get their members well on the road to sainthood.

So the lesson is obvious: If you know a 'married' man or women that might be a saint---well look around and find the best public relations firm you can find. Then a married saint, who was really married, with all that naughty sex might be considered good enough to affix St. in front of their name.

Priestly sex advice!!!

Any of you who have stopped here since I've had this blog know that the "seamless garmet" of Cardinal Bernadin was supposed to be about "life" issues. All the way from contraception to abortion to war to the death penalty. What I've heard of Bernadin he was a fine man.

But the Catholic "seamless garmet" to me is the SEX IS BAD garmet. I'll take that up in more detail tomorrow or so.

But before I start I must bring a little reaearch I've found on the Catholic attitude to masturbation. Or more directly, Catholic thoughts on how not to masturbate brought to you by the Inexperiened (or Experienced?) Catholic clergy.

My favorites:

One. When taking a shower, imagine worms are crawling up your legs!!!!

Two. Just discovered today, a priest's advice to a 13 year old boy masturbator.

A. Stay out of the shower.
B. Stay out of your bathroom.
C. Stay out of your bedroom.

These suggestions are not jokes!!! They come from a Father Groom(I think that was his name) on a catholic young persons answer site.

I should add most of the discussion on this subject deal with whether masturbation is a straight to hell(mortal) sin, or how many times you have to do it and what you are thinking about when you do it, to move it from the venal to mortal sin.

Keep this in mind for tomorrow's post. Mark