This Newsweek article does not address the rumors you spread in your comment.
As to blogs not being references: they cannot be by their nature. They are not news sources and are not subject to libel laws. Anyone can write anything on their personal blog. By your logic anything anyone has ever written on the internet can be referenced as t…
This Newsweek article does not address the rumors you spread in your comment.
As to blogs not being references: they cannot be by their nature. They are not news sources and are not subject to libel laws. Anyone can write anything on their personal blog. By your logic anything anyone has ever written on the internet can be referenced as true by the mere fact that they wrote it down. This is a very silly way to view the internet.
Blogs are de facto alternative news sources, whether you like it or not. As for reliability, when I consider all the unbelievable drivel I have seen and read on the "respectable" media, from the Guardian to the BBC, I am happy to judge blogs on their credibility. Cardinal Diwicz and his multipurpose "protege" (driver, doorman, secretary, butler) Andrea Nardotto appear on various Polish social media pages holding hands, on the beach and at Nardotto's ordination as a deacon in April 2019. The various ribald comments include "Congratulations to the happy couple!" and "At least it is not a minor".
Blogs are not alternative news sources. You can decide for yourself whether or not a news organization is trustworthy. However, you should not repeat rumors on the internet without a source that has any kind of claim to credibility. The blog cites no sources so it cannot be used as a source. Think of it like Wikipedia if that helps you. May it be true? Yes. Is it true because I read it there? Not necessarily. Should I repeat it in public without another source? Only if I’m fine looking like a fool. Is it a sin to gossip about people and things I don’t know? That’s between you and your confessor.
I know nothing about the cardinal’s personal life so I won’t comment on it. Neither do you, so neither should you.
The Pillar should remove the offending portion of your comment.
Some of the best news sources I know are intelligent blogs. Again, you are free to judge whether a blog is credible or not. I first saw the story about Diwicz and his boyfriend, with an accompanying photograph, in a newspaper article which I cannot yet trace. It contained indignant comments from a Polish Catholic politician.
As for the Cardinal's private life, he inevitably becomes a valid topic for comment after serving as Cardinal of Krakow. As did the late Cardinal Keith O'Brien in Scotland.
Whether blogs are intelligent or provide reliable news is incidental. They cannot be news sources unless they provide their sources. They are sources of hearsay.
I am willing to accept that you read a Polish paper that stated what you say. However, because you cannot provide evidence of what you state as fact you shouldn’t repeat it. I do not disagree that the cardinal’s private life can be commented on merely that it is appropriate to do so without providing real sources. Without doing providing proof you are merely repeating rumors - particularly repellent ones. The catechism has something to say about that - it’s not positive.
Like it or not, blogs are part of the world wide news culture. Here is a list of British political blogs alone, any of which I would be happy to quote from.
Yes, many are hugely biased and arouse huge passions. Rather like religious writings of all kinds. If they quote from a politician's indiscreet conversation, with no written backup....well, that comes down to the credibility and veracity of the reporter, as all through history in all kinds of media.
Seeing that there are numerous Poles laughing their heads off at the Cardinal's lifestyle, I doubt that anything I say will have much effect on his reputation.
This Newsweek article does not address the rumors you spread in your comment.
As to blogs not being references: they cannot be by their nature. They are not news sources and are not subject to libel laws. Anyone can write anything on their personal blog. By your logic anything anyone has ever written on the internet can be referenced as true by the mere fact that they wrote it down. This is a very silly way to view the internet.
Blogs are de facto alternative news sources, whether you like it or not. As for reliability, when I consider all the unbelievable drivel I have seen and read on the "respectable" media, from the Guardian to the BBC, I am happy to judge blogs on their credibility. Cardinal Diwicz and his multipurpose "protege" (driver, doorman, secretary, butler) Andrea Nardotto appear on various Polish social media pages holding hands, on the beach and at Nardotto's ordination as a deacon in April 2019. The various ribald comments include "Congratulations to the happy couple!" and "At least it is not a minor".
Blogs are not alternative news sources. You can decide for yourself whether or not a news organization is trustworthy. However, you should not repeat rumors on the internet without a source that has any kind of claim to credibility. The blog cites no sources so it cannot be used as a source. Think of it like Wikipedia if that helps you. May it be true? Yes. Is it true because I read it there? Not necessarily. Should I repeat it in public without another source? Only if I’m fine looking like a fool. Is it a sin to gossip about people and things I don’t know? That’s between you and your confessor.
I know nothing about the cardinal’s personal life so I won’t comment on it. Neither do you, so neither should you.
The Pillar should remove the offending portion of your comment.
Some of the best news sources I know are intelligent blogs. Again, you are free to judge whether a blog is credible or not. I first saw the story about Diwicz and his boyfriend, with an accompanying photograph, in a newspaper article which I cannot yet trace. It contained indignant comments from a Polish Catholic politician.
As for the Cardinal's private life, he inevitably becomes a valid topic for comment after serving as Cardinal of Krakow. As did the late Cardinal Keith O'Brien in Scotland.
Whether blogs are intelligent or provide reliable news is incidental. They cannot be news sources unless they provide their sources. They are sources of hearsay.
I am willing to accept that you read a Polish paper that stated what you say. However, because you cannot provide evidence of what you state as fact you shouldn’t repeat it. I do not disagree that the cardinal’s private life can be commented on merely that it is appropriate to do so without providing real sources. Without doing providing proof you are merely repeating rumors - particularly repellent ones. The catechism has something to say about that - it’s not positive.
Like it or not, blogs are part of the world wide news culture. Here is a list of British political blogs alone, any of which I would be happy to quote from.
https://feedly.com/i/top/uk-politics-blogs
Yes, many are hugely biased and arouse huge passions. Rather like religious writings of all kinds. If they quote from a politician's indiscreet conversation, with no written backup....well, that comes down to the credibility and veracity of the reporter, as all through history in all kinds of media.
Seeing that there are numerous Poles laughing their heads off at the Cardinal's lifestyle, I doubt that anything I say will have much effect on his reputation.