From FishEaters Forum
So, in summary. . .
Nothing to see here! Let's move on!
Hey, let's talk about left-wing politics! That's most important. That will save... souls!!
Oh, souls? I thought my job was to "solve" every problem in the world.
Immanentize the eschaton! Time to talk about left-wing politics! That's the new mission of religion!
Forget about the confessional! No time for that. No time for personal judgmentalism.
Heaven? Hell? Oh, I forgot. Hey, maybe there's no hell anyhow! Who am I to judge persons?
It's amazing how powerful the influence of partisanship and politics is on men. It's disgusting that the current tactic, beside simply to ignore, is principally an ad hominem, as if Archbishop Viganò's particular claims, which are either true or false, can be swept away by claiming it's a conspiracy. Yes, his claims are political. How could they not be in the context at hand? He claims there are powerful, convergent forces at work here. So they have to be looked at. In any case, however, what matters is the truth or falsity.
The current response: Attack the messenger. Ignore the subject. Change the subject. Let's talk left-wing politics!
People should be hopeful because Archbishop Viganò is getting support. But we should also be fearful: the pope, and many of his supporters, believe that silence and enough time, apparently, will allow them to escape investigation and scrutiny. I have that fear. It's real and, sadly, very warranted.
Attack the messengers? Cardinal Cupich on Pope Francis critics: "Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he's a Latino." Unbelievable! Actually, never mind: it's totally believable that they will resort to smearing critics as "racists."
This shouldn't work, but Cupich learned left-wing politics well: alas, it has success in his circles. Hopefully most can see through that rubbish.
Ignore the subject? Cardinal Cupich goes on and on about ideological this and that. When I read the Chicago Tribune Report interview, he never ONCE addresses the MAIN POINT of Archbishop Viganò's claims, except to say he stands by the pope. To quote the article, "Cupich urged people to also focus on the language and tone of the letter." Okay? What does he expect? Is the tone to be happy-happy? This is beyond stupid. If Viganò is right, what kind of tone should we expect? Even if----for the sake of the argument----the tone was bad, it was too ideological, or whatever, that ignores the subject.
As one follow-up to my above reply. . .
Also, speaking of being ideological: is Cardinal Cupich blind to his own? His very response is ideological.
The layers and layers of stupidity is breathtaking.