Comment on comments

A commenter has asserted that this blog is ‘full of condemnation.’ I disagree and challenge anyone to find a post which condemns anyone. There is all the difference between clear speaking about sin and error and condemnation. Condemnation is the judgment of a particular person. Hearty disagreement with an individual is not condemnation. Dislike of a person is not even condemnation.

You’ll find strong opinions expressed here, but that’s what blogs are for. If you want to dialogue and discuss and debate go to an internet forum. If you want to read my thoughts and views, then that’s what you’ll find.
That being said, I have a very open policy regarding the combox. Pretty much anybody can say pretty much whatever they want. The only time I delete comments are when they are way too long (over five paragraphs) or they are especially crazy or hate filled or ugly or profane.
I reckon my readers are smart, and that commenters who write stupid, ugly, self righteous or ignorant stuff will be revealed by what they have written, and I let the other readers decide on the matter. I also trust that my readers accept that I am not responsible for the stupid (or the brilliant) content of the comments.
I’ll answer for the posts. The comments speak for those who comment.

  • MAB

    Perhaps some casual readers do not "get" the tone of your alter-ego posts. I love them. But I understand the humor. If I happened on the Vicar or Mantilla on my first try I might be confused as to the tone of the blog. But please do not stop writing them. I always look forward to them. And I'm rooting for Mr. & Mrs. Vicar to come over!

  • Adrienne

    Alright – where's the other post you wrote. You know when you delete a post after after hitting the publishing button, it's still in the feeds (like Google Reader).Anyway – it's excellent and I wanted to link to it to make up for my flagrant theft of yesterday's post. I'm sure Terry at Abbey-Roads feels real remorse, too. ;-)Does this mean I should publish my troll comments that refer to me as a c*nt, bit*h, old (that's unforgivable), and wishes me to die sooner than later??

  • Michelle Marciniak

    I have laughed well into the night over your posts. I love your humor and all of your alter-egos. Don't stop Father! Unfortunately, as you already know, in today's day and age, if you don't agree with something-right away you are condemning them. I am a Catholic missionary mama of nine, conservative, loving and serving the poor. Married to the same man for 20 years, faithful to the Magisterium, (in all things). I condemn people with who I am and how I live. Oh well. And by the way, Mantilla is my favorite!

  • Rick

    Your openness in entertaining opinions that contradict your position is invaluable and enables the other to also be open to the Word. I think you do a great service in the process of (dare I say it) dialogue.

  • Sarah – Kala

    Amen!Adrienne, really? People do that? Where has common decency gone?Father, I LOVE your blog – keep on keeping on!

  • Fr Longenecker

    Hi Adrienne, I actually get very few trolls here. I deleted that other post because it was too much like a rant and too much like this one and because I want to think the topic through a bit more then try again.

  • john

    Fr. Longnecker even though at times I find your comments a tad "over the top" especially when it comes to your former Anglican brethren some of it is well deserved by them. If tha shoe fits…. Anyhoo I always find your posts informative and amusing. I am a former Anglican now Catholic.And I am THRILLED about what the Pope is offering Anglicans, I am really enthusiastic about this. That being said, since this post seems "open" I would like to ask you a question. Can I still use my Book of Common Prayer for Morning and Evening Prayer as a "Catholic Anglican or is that "Anglican Catholic" in union with the Pope? What I mean by BCP is the 1662 English Book, the 1928 American Book, or the recent Reformed Episcopal Church BCP (which is sort of a cross between the English 1662 and the 1928 American BCP instead of the Roman Breviary or "Christian Prayer" which to be honest I find rather confusing.How about the Authorised or King James Version of the Bible as long as it has the Deutero-Canonical books because I find the Catholic NAB atrocious, the New Jerusalem is too paraphrasy and the RSV-CE has too much "liberal" influence in its translation BTW I have a Douay-Rheims-Challoner and the names in the OT are all Latinised which makes it difficult for me. Sorry bout the long post but I would like to know how my Anglican Ways can "fit in" while still maintaining an Anglican ethos ( the good parts of course)

  • Fr Longenecker

    dear john, if you are a layman I guess you may do as you wish, but why not discover the Book of Divine Worship. I believe they have an authorized form of Morning and Evening Prayer devised from the BCPKJV is fine as far as I know if you have the apocrypha.

  • romishgraffiti

    In general, one should be pleased with a gainsayer when they characterize you or your argument in lieu of interacting with it. So when you get complaints about your tone, your supposed "judgementalism", or pretend they have an 8-ball into your soul by leveling accusations of mysogyny or homophobia; in short, grasping at anything but the topic at hand, it tells you and anyone witnessing, that they haven't a leg to stand on.

  • Londiniensis

    Father, a warm "Hear, Hear" (to your excellent tho' vanished Dialogue on Dialogue post) and support from across the pond. In the words af that infamous dog-Latin tag: "Nil illegitimi carborundum".

  • Londiniensis

    "of" not "af" – why do I only spot typos in the final posting and not in preview mode? Apologies.

  • Steve

    Father, Christ's teaching in the Gospel is indeed "objective" truth. Your interpretation of others' motives, or your ability to interpret what God thinks of individuals' actions in most circumstances, is quite limited, as you are a human being. You've argued more than once that you are merely promoting "the objective truth." If only you understood how subjective many of your arguments are. In the past, for instance, you've ranted against Obama as though you knew what was in his soul. Last fall you basically said he had a grudge against white people. That and many other of your views might strike you as "the objective truth," but you are a mere mortal. We all are. Humility goes a long way — in promoting the gospel and in most human affairs.

  • romishgraffiti

    If only you understood how subjective many of your arguments are.Example?

  • romishgraffiti

    I of course meant an actual example rather than just vague references to something said awhile back and a flimsy meta-analysis.

  • Fr Longenecker

    Obama has a problem with white people?I don't think much of one, because I think he's smarter than that, but on the other hand, here are some quotes from the man himself:From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'From Dreams of My Father: ; 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

  • Steve

    So, Father, is your point that you do indeed have "the objective truth" when you express your views? You are able to quote out of context from Mr. Obama's books (for instance, I believe the first quote references a time in his late teens or early twenties when he was dealing with some ugly feelings that he worked hard to reject). Are these quotes meant to demonstrate that your beliefs are not at all subjective? Yes, blogs are full of subjectivity; such is the nature of personal writing, and there's nothing wrong with that. What I object to is your pretense, Father, of being "objective" in your discussion of morality or in your analysis of people's motives. Even if you were pope you would not have that mantle of objectivity; papal infallibility has been invoked only a couple of times since its proclamation in the 1870s. I pray for your peace and for the blessing of your life and vocation, Father. But I also pray that all of us who are called to live out the gospel do so in humility, without climbing up on a pedestal so that we can look down on all the sinners. Those sinners are us; we are they. Christ died not for the righteous but for the sinner. I'm so glad God chose to die for me, and that's why I self-identify as a sinner (that, plus the fact that there's no denying this reality). Accepting God's mercy requires humility, not just in our relationship with God but in how we relate to other sinners, perhaps especially how we relate to those whom we assume are so much worse off (morally) than we ourselves. The speck in the eye and the log.Peace to you.

  • Fr Longenecker

    Steve, allow me to clarify: I speak much here about 'objective truth'. This does not mean that I believe all my opinions are divinely inspired 'objective truth.'Any thinking person who is fairly well catechized should be able to distinguish between my opinions and the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that certain actions are objectively and intrinsically wrong and always will be.That is what I seek to defend.

  • Terry Nelson

    Fr. you are always a gentleman and always charitable – not to worry – oh – and you have a great sense of humor too!