I'm afraid the hilarious bit about Fr. Altman is going to detract from an otherwise very solid and informative article, including the parts from Bishop Strickland.
I think a lot of people (clearly falsely, some intentionally so) saying he was becoming a sede because of the "usurper" letter spooked a lot of the Papal Court into making clea…
I'm afraid the hilarious bit about Fr. Altman is going to detract from an otherwise very solid and informative article, including the parts from Bishop Strickland.
I think a lot of people (clearly falsely, some intentionally so) saying he was becoming a sede because of the "usurper" letter spooked a lot of the Papal Court into making clear Strickland was not deposed from office over anything he believed or said.
I disagree. The intersection of Church, politics, culture war, and online-ness is usually a place where people take themselves far too seriously. (Looking at you, guy in mirror.) I thought it was a needed bit of levity in an article about a subject that has gotten online Catholics very het up.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took it that you asked Fr. Altman if he would comment for this piece, and he said, "no, no..." etc., but then you quoted what he said after the "no" anyway. Did I misunderstand? I will admit I am not a journalist, but that part of your article didn't sit right with me.
Oh sure, I identified myself as a journalist and asked him a question. It is entirely ethical and normal to report his response to that question, as I’ve done.
Rome very much does not want to say he was deposed for criticizing the pope.
I think in the end Francis is like Trump: he listens to the last voice in the room. Someone made sure they were the last, convinced him to do it, then they had to find a reason.
Searching for a reason with that style of leader is often a fools errand, even if there are grounds for it
I'm afraid the hilarious bit about Fr. Altman is going to detract from an otherwise very solid and informative article, including the parts from Bishop Strickland.
I think a lot of people (clearly falsely, some intentionally so) saying he was becoming a sede because of the "usurper" letter spooked a lot of the Papal Court into making clear Strickland was not deposed from office over anything he believed or said.
I disagree. The intersection of Church, politics, culture war, and online-ness is usually a place where people take themselves far too seriously. (Looking at you, guy in mirror.) I thought it was a needed bit of levity in an article about a subject that has gotten online Catholics very het up.
I considered that, but I decided I’d just run it as it happened. I wanted to capture the cross-section of people at the event.
This is good for the historical record.
It’s good for everything. It made me laugh, which is no small thing in these dark times. -Fr Wilson
Just curious, does "no, no" not mean "no" to you?
What do you mean?
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I took it that you asked Fr. Altman if he would comment for this piece, and he said, "no, no..." etc., but then you quoted what he said after the "no" anyway. Did I misunderstand? I will admit I am not a journalist, but that part of your article didn't sit right with me.
Oh sure, I identified myself as a journalist and asked him a question. It is entirely ethical and normal to report his response to that question, as I’ve done.
Until they make very clear why he was deposed, there's no reason to think it wasn't for what he believed or said.
Rome very much does not want to say he was deposed for criticizing the pope.
I think in the end Francis is like Trump: he listens to the last voice in the room. Someone made sure they were the last, convinced him to do it, then they had to find a reason.
Searching for a reason with that style of leader is often a fools errand, even if there are grounds for it