Many, many years ago I was chairing the recruiting committee for my department. We were attempting to hire a professor from the University of Toronto who specialized in, I believe, welfare economics or some area about social choice I knew nothing about. He had the most genuine good manners and most pleasant personality of anyone that I had ever met. Based on that and his publication record, I should have known it would be difficult to hire him. As the process was coming to a close, a colleague told me that he could not figure out whether the candidate was really interested or had such good manners that it was impossible to tell. He took a job somewhere else.
Pope Leo, from what I have read, seems to be someone of this sort. I don’t think anyone really knew his views, because he saw no reason to reveal them. But I like the fact that he sings.
Enraged? More like amused. You seem to ascribe deep emotions where I'm simply pointing out the dissonance of Catholics who said horrible, disgusting things about Pope Francis praising Leo for wearing a cross used by Pope So-and-so, while talking about synodality and accompaniment and a listening Church, while quoting from Amoris Laetitia and Laudato Si. Or hearing Larry Chapp and Mark Lambert wax poetic about how Pope Leo means "true synodality" or whatever.
The truth is that while Leo is his own man, he was Francis's top collaborator during the last 2 years of this papacy. I know plenty of people who know him and they were all thrilled when he became pope. I am going to trust Rodrigo Guerra (who reported directly to him for 2 years) more than I'm going to trust Scott Smith or Ed Pentin.
My expectation is that Leo will reinforce all the Magisterial teaching Francis promulgated while adding to it. On style and matters of discipline, there will likely be some changes.
Finally, I have it on good authority and from multiple sources that Pope Leo XIV is well aware of the problems with the traditionalist movement that Traditionis Custodes sought to address and he is likely more concerned about them than Francis was.
I'm not at all worried about Pope Leo, but I do wonder what the reactionaries will do when he doesn't turn out as they hope.
You don't sound amused. Then, or now. You sound quite agitated tbh. People aren't criticizing a pope you like. That should be a dub to celebrate, not go "but why are they fine with this but not with that".
I get the internet content machine needs to be fed, but you gotta be able to enjoy the fruits of your labors sometimes man.
Nice to see you at least engage without hiding behind blocking someone this time.
As for how people will react if Leo turns out to not be what they expected him to be, thats more a concern for Leo tbh, who will have a difficult expectations game to manage, and isn't in it for kicks as you clearly are, or as a mostly spectator as I am.
My view is whatever he thinks are the problems or not of trads, the current course seems to make it worse, if the goal is to do something other than broadcast impotence to people you hate. Which might work well for a blogger like yourself (though not too good clearly) but I bet probably not for the Supreme Pontiff
Here's the thing: you have turned me into some sort of boogeyman, twisting everything I write or say in the most uncharitable way possible. Even though I blocked you, you will tweet into the wind every few months to tell people that I'm evil and vile.
Obviously you are obsessed and sick in the head, so I don't take you too seriously, but it does kind of suck that there's a mentally disturbed guy I've never met in Michigan somewhere who periodically takes to a public platform to announce to others that I'm a horrible person. There's another guy in Australia and an ex-deacon in St Louis who do the same thing. It's annoying but I guess that's what I get for speaking out for the truth.
I get it, you're nuts. (You're also an enormous asshole, based on your behavior towards me.)
But the craziest thing of all is that you seem to think you know how I feel, what I believe, and what motivates me. You don't. You don't know me. You are engaging in projection.
The only reason I responded to this blog post was because it was completely wrong about me. I wanted to correct the record.
Responding was a mistake obviously - because what you wrote wasn't really about me but it was about the fantasies you entertain in your clearly troubled mind, and unless you do some very serious self-work, you are not going to free yourself from your obsessions and delusions.
Look at what I said here. Then what you said. Yes, when you say stupid stuff and it comes across the timeline ill laugh about you saying stupid stuff. Then I move on. You clearly can't.
Really gotta grow some thicker skin if little old me drives you so.
Im just gonna say for the record how funny this is to me and peace out.
You're a big shot Catholic writer who gets thousands of not tens of thousands of visitors a day, and youre this worked up over a few randos 3-4 times a year talking down something you said?
I'll be real in that I have no clue how often anyone I don't like has mentioned me. Mostly cuz I only do this part time but my socials are an outbox, not an inbox. I have never looked at any of your timelines. I see what comes across, I kek, and continue my day.
Meanwhile you check my pages despite blocking me to see how often I might say something? You might rival my wife for viewing little old me important. That's wild..
Last word is allyours man. Otherwise I'll hear from you in 3-6
This is the first time I've seen your blog. Someone told me you mentioned me. I saw that you projected your own personality disorders onto me and I made the mistake of dignifying your post with an honest response. You are a nasty piece of work, and not worth engaging with. I will not do so again.
I'll leave you with one last bit of advice: find a therapist and a spiritual director (a non-trad one). Do it for the people around you. You are filled with hate and spite and I can't imagine how hard your presence would be to endure in real life.
Hi Mike: I'm someone you blocked, too, a while back, so I'm sure you'll think my advice doesn't count for much. But here it is anyway: It's always a mistake to characterize your debate opponent as "filled with hate and spite" and needing a "therapist." This is not just ad hominem; it also suggests you don't have any good arguments to support the merits of your position and are substituting personal attacks. If I were you, I'd come up with some examples to support your thesis that Pope Leo is Pope Francis in a mozetta. Otherwise, outsiders reading your comments might reasonably conclude that it's you, not Kevin, who is the "nasty piece of work."
Do you think what I stated above is a "view"? One finds both Peter's never-failing faith (Luke 22:32) and his threefold denial of Christ in the Gospel.
Leo's resumption of his predecessors' practice of bestowing the pallia personally on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul is yet another 'small way' of repudiating the idiosyncratic enthusiasms of the late Pontiff. But yet another step in the right direction.
Many, many years ago I was chairing the recruiting committee for my department. We were attempting to hire a professor from the University of Toronto who specialized in, I believe, welfare economics or some area about social choice I knew nothing about. He had the most genuine good manners and most pleasant personality of anyone that I had ever met. Based on that and his publication record, I should have known it would be difficult to hire him. As the process was coming to a close, a colleague told me that he could not figure out whether the candidate was really interested or had such good manners that it was impossible to tell. He took a job somewhere else.
Pope Leo, from what I have read, seems to be someone of this sort. I don’t think anyone really knew his views, because he saw no reason to reveal them. But I like the fact that he sings.
I hope this doesn't mean we have a Napoleonic pope next.
Enraged? More like amused. You seem to ascribe deep emotions where I'm simply pointing out the dissonance of Catholics who said horrible, disgusting things about Pope Francis praising Leo for wearing a cross used by Pope So-and-so, while talking about synodality and accompaniment and a listening Church, while quoting from Amoris Laetitia and Laudato Si. Or hearing Larry Chapp and Mark Lambert wax poetic about how Pope Leo means "true synodality" or whatever.
The truth is that while Leo is his own man, he was Francis's top collaborator during the last 2 years of this papacy. I know plenty of people who know him and they were all thrilled when he became pope. I am going to trust Rodrigo Guerra (who reported directly to him for 2 years) more than I'm going to trust Scott Smith or Ed Pentin.
My expectation is that Leo will reinforce all the Magisterial teaching Francis promulgated while adding to it. On style and matters of discipline, there will likely be some changes.
Finally, I have it on good authority and from multiple sources that Pope Leo XIV is well aware of the problems with the traditionalist movement that Traditionis Custodes sought to address and he is likely more concerned about them than Francis was.
I'm not at all worried about Pope Leo, but I do wonder what the reactionaries will do when he doesn't turn out as they hope.
Snark aside;
You don't sound amused. Then, or now. You sound quite agitated tbh. People aren't criticizing a pope you like. That should be a dub to celebrate, not go "but why are they fine with this but not with that".
I get the internet content machine needs to be fed, but you gotta be able to enjoy the fruits of your labors sometimes man.
One more thing: Im not mad
Dont print in the papers I'm mad.
Nice to see you at least engage without hiding behind blocking someone this time.
As for how people will react if Leo turns out to not be what they expected him to be, thats more a concern for Leo tbh, who will have a difficult expectations game to manage, and isn't in it for kicks as you clearly are, or as a mostly spectator as I am.
My view is whatever he thinks are the problems or not of trads, the current course seems to make it worse, if the goal is to do something other than broadcast impotence to people you hate. Which might work well for a blogger like yourself (though not too good clearly) but I bet probably not for the Supreme Pontiff
Here's the thing: you have turned me into some sort of boogeyman, twisting everything I write or say in the most uncharitable way possible. Even though I blocked you, you will tweet into the wind every few months to tell people that I'm evil and vile.
Obviously you are obsessed and sick in the head, so I don't take you too seriously, but it does kind of suck that there's a mentally disturbed guy I've never met in Michigan somewhere who periodically takes to a public platform to announce to others that I'm a horrible person. There's another guy in Australia and an ex-deacon in St Louis who do the same thing. It's annoying but I guess that's what I get for speaking out for the truth.
I get it, you're nuts. (You're also an enormous asshole, based on your behavior towards me.)
But the craziest thing of all is that you seem to think you know how I feel, what I believe, and what motivates me. You don't. You don't know me. You are engaging in projection.
The only reason I responded to this blog post was because it was completely wrong about me. I wanted to correct the record.
Responding was a mistake obviously - because what you wrote wasn't really about me but it was about the fantasies you entertain in your clearly troubled mind, and unless you do some very serious self-work, you are not going to free yourself from your obsessions and delusions.
Again, don't print you're mad.
Look at what I said here. Then what you said. Yes, when you say stupid stuff and it comes across the timeline ill laugh about you saying stupid stuff. Then I move on. You clearly can't.
Really gotta grow some thicker skin if little old me drives you so.
Im just gonna say for the record how funny this is to me and peace out.
You're a big shot Catholic writer who gets thousands of not tens of thousands of visitors a day, and youre this worked up over a few randos 3-4 times a year talking down something you said?
I'll be real in that I have no clue how often anyone I don't like has mentioned me. Mostly cuz I only do this part time but my socials are an outbox, not an inbox. I have never looked at any of your timelines. I see what comes across, I kek, and continue my day.
Meanwhile you check my pages despite blocking me to see how often I might say something? You might rival my wife for viewing little old me important. That's wild..
Last word is allyours man. Otherwise I'll hear from you in 3-6
This is the first time I've seen your blog. Someone told me you mentioned me. I saw that you projected your own personality disorders onto me and I made the mistake of dignifying your post with an honest response. You are a nasty piece of work, and not worth engaging with. I will not do so again.
I'll leave you with one last bit of advice: find a therapist and a spiritual director (a non-trad one). Do it for the people around you. You are filled with hate and spite and I can't imagine how hard your presence would be to endure in real life.
Hi Mike: I'm someone you blocked, too, a while back, so I'm sure you'll think my advice doesn't count for much. But here it is anyway: It's always a mistake to characterize your debate opponent as "filled with hate and spite" and needing a "therapist." This is not just ad hominem; it also suggests you don't have any good arguments to support the merits of your position and are substituting personal attacks. If I were you, I'd come up with some examples to support your thesis that Pope Leo is Pope Francis in a mozetta. Otherwise, outsiders reading your comments might reasonably conclude that it's you, not Kevin, who is the "nasty piece of work."
Most of us “reactionaries” just hope he turns out Christian.
Fortunately Catholic doctrine says God gives the pope the gift of Truth and never-failing faith, so there's nothing to worry about.
St. Peter had never-failing faith and yet denied Christ three times
Somehow I don't think the Fathers at Vatican I shared your view.
Do you think what I stated above is a "view"? One finds both Peter's never-failing faith (Luke 22:32) and his threefold denial of Christ in the Gospel.
Some gifts gather dust in the back of a closet.
Leo's resumption of his predecessors' practice of bestowing the pallia personally on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul is yet another 'small way' of repudiating the idiosyncratic enthusiasms of the late Pontiff. But yet another step in the right direction.