The Gullible Theme - Part 6: Follow-Up

+

JMJ

According to Google, the series “Examining the Calgary SSPX School Policy” generated a fair number of 'views'.

What is interesting is the distribution of the views. Basically, aside from the 'Gullible and those like him' post, the majority of views were on part 4b – where I dealt directly with the offending texts.

Meaning that a number of the readers are focusing on only 17% of the posts. In fact the majority of readers passed right over part 4a, where I focused on the immediate context of the offensive text.

Some of the responses that Google picked up were over at CathInfo (see bottom of article for texts that I copied on January 10, 2020).

A look at the distribution and comments on CathInfo support my conclusion: People don't have patience to read a thorough analysis of a topic.  They seem to go along with their confirmation bias (see linked article) and look for elements that support their feelings instead of a rational conclusion.

Few read in the conclusion:

Was the mandated inclusion of those phrases in the policy desirable?  Of course not. However, that is not the point. Many things in Canadian Law are not desirable. Is what was required sinful?  The answer is no.

They seem to completely miss the point of the analysis was to assess whether or not the SSPX had an obligation to obey the civil authority. An authority provided by God (if you believe Catholic Teaching).

Of course, no one (including Gullible himself) provided any comments. I suspect this is because his 'resistance' priest probably told him not to bother.

This result has given my some ideas to explore, ideas that I will let percolate until the Easter 2020.

Wishing you a spiritually profitable Lent!

P^3

 

Post	Views
Gullible and those like him	99
Gullible Theme: Part 1	45
Gullible Theme: Part 2	26
Gullible Theme: Part 3	36
Gullible Theme: Part 4a	11
Gullible Theme: Part 4b	75
Gullible Theme: Part 5	23
Total	315

CathInfo Comments

Eyeball: SSPX supporting blog implies Calgary school should not have been shut down since the policy was okay. Guess Tradicat is smarter than Fr Couture. Better read his blog before Fr C calls Tradicat and orders the blog to take it down.

Tradical:  Eyeball has clearly missed the point.  The core question was whether or not there was an obligation to obey the civil authority. My conclusion is yes.  Further, if Eyeball had read the entire series, he would have noted that the school has had issues for quite a while.

========================

Matthew: I have saved off the page to PDF form.

Tradical: I wonder if Matthew copied all the posts or just part 4b

========================

thebloodycoven had to following remarks:

How is it possible for a "traditional Catholic" school to tolerate these statements is simply beyond me: i.e. "The students MAY SELECT a respectful and inclusive name for the organization or activity, INCLUDING the name “gay-straight alliance” or “queer-straight alliance”, after consulting with the principal." - page 47,  St. John Bosco Private School Policy Handbook

Tradical:Again, the commentor has missed the point.

What the Rev. Fr. Couture did was right. He halted school operations and will reformat or reorganize the said institution. I wonder why this blogger bothered defending such unCatholic (piarum aurum offensiva) policies?!

Tradical: Because it is used by the 'resistance' as yet another 'proof-text' in a vain effort to show that the SSPX has compromised.  The world is not as simple as the 'resistance' would like to believe.

Also, if what blogger apologist was saying (quoting Fr. Couture's email as shown in Louie Verrecchio's blog that the bad text was taken out) does not necessarily equate or mean that such bad texts were sinful or morally evil, THEN pray tell what made such statements "bad" to begin with?

Tradical: I guess the commenter needs to look at a dictionary for the meaning of the word 'bad'. If Father didn't say 'sinful' then the commenter is leaping to a conclusion.  Perhaps he should email Fr. Couture.

Furthermore, this defence proves too much since why would Father go to such length just to temporarily close down the school, displace the faculty and the students (with their worrying parents) if it is after all compatible with the Catholic principles of education?! Why not simply defend it? Again, are those statements so "bad" it merited to shutdown operations? But it is not "intrinsically evil according to the blogger. Is the blogger better than Bishop Fellay and Fr. Couture who made the call?

Tradical: Again he missed the point. 

I may disagree with the SSPX on many things but reading the policy, I totally agree with the then Superior Genral and the Canadian District Superior to remove the said statements and reorganize the school since what's at stake is the reputation of good Catholics, further damage to the Church through scandal, and the salvation of all those involved. 

Tradical: I guess the commenter doesn't really understand the Catholic meaning of the word scandal. Something that is merely offensive to the ears is not a scandal.

========================

kasimierez: I wonder if that school will get off the ground again in the fall of 2020. Right now there are only two priests residing at said priory. The decision not to have more priests there has all but killed off the mission wherein I attended prior to severe illness/surgery. I would be content enough with just a valid priest. If it is one thing I am immune towards it is the neosspx and its wiley ways.

 Tradical: My information is that the school is presently operating as a homeschool co-op.  I do not know if they will reopen totally independent of the Government.   As mentioned the budget was quite large and the funding made up a large portion of it.

Also, if your mission is populated by a large number of 'resistors' then they / you may have poisoned the well of your own accord.