It’s sad when a priest publicly engages in Pope bashing.
Another member of the tin-foil hat brigade complaining about imaginary persecution, even from Pope Francis. I expect him to move out to some schismatic or sedevacantist group before long, with the rest of the hard-core conspiracy theorists, where they can all drink Koolaid together and wait for the mother ship in their brand new sneakers.
Unless you are 100% sure of his story just being him “complaining about imaginary persecution” I would be a lot less critical of him and what he is saying. We haven’t walked in his shoes and we haven’t seen, heard and experienced what he has. He is (even if not our “cup of tea”) A Priest in the Catholic Church. PLEASE PRAY EACH & EVERY DAY for ALL Priests, Religious Brothers and Sisters, Deacons, Seminarians, our Pope, Bishops, Cardinals and all discerning a vocation to the Priesthood or religious life. If there were NO issues in the Church we wouldn’t have all of the scandals, divisions and questionable issues that we have.
I’m 100% sure. It’s just standard, run-of-the-mill Pope Francis bashing. Seen it many, many times before. Predictable, banal and nutty as a fruitcake.
Here is Fr. Z on the same topic…
My last post before I leave the forum because I’m having serious readability issues with both of the currently available themes.
This priest just sounds like a traditionalist finding reasons to complain because he got reprimanded for preaching about sin or using too much Latin.
Also, while I know that many priests in the 70s and 80s had problems, he is presenting this like every baby boomer priest out there is gay, an alcoholic, sleeping around with women, “wicked and cruel”, or impossible to get along with. I find this hard to believe. If he has this many problems with all of his superiors, did he ever stop to think that maybe he himself is contributing to the problem?
Finally, if this was all so important for him to say, then why doesn’t he sign his name?
He speaks very little of Pope Francis. I saw nothing too extreme in what he said about Francis or the state of the Priesthood and the Church. I’ve heard similar things from other priests.
I highly doubt he’ll move to a sedevacantist group. And frankly, I don’t get what you mean by “conspiracy theories.”
we will miss you
We have a bingo!
He might not be a priest at all.
The forum has recovered enough that I managed to come back but I have to limit my time on here till they get the dark theme working, because I can’t read for long on the white.
And I thought it was just me.
Classic Charlie Brown Syndrome: “Why is everybody picking on me?”
I am tired of hearing that all of the problems are from Baby Boomers. Those between 58 and 76 years of age are the Baby Boomers. They became adults between 1967 and 1980. Most of them were not old enough to run the Church during those years (1967-1980). That means that all of the problems were not caused by the Boomers. No wonder it was an anonymous letter from an unidentified person.
When you use exaggerated claims, it shouldn’t be a surprise that no one believes you.
I’m tired of it too. Like I said, I know that the priests of the 1970s were often flaky, but many of the flakiest ones left the priesthood years ago, and I know a lot of priests in their late 60s and early 70s who are currently running parishes very competently. If they go back in their room and punch the wall, yell, drink or commit sexual sins, then they will have to answer to God for it, but when I see them they are acting like kind, Holy men, and by that I don’t mean they never say boo about sin, I mean they are KInd, Holy, Prayerful, giving good homilies, acting caring towards their parishioners, and doing what needs to be done to keep the parish up and running.
They aren’t a bunch of irreverent egomaniacs and they aren’t posting anonymous articles casting a lot of aspersions and sounding like a petulant child.
The baby boom is defined as born in 46 (turns 72 this year) and 64 (turns 54 this year [well, except for me; I’ll just have another annual 24th ]
Someone turning 76 would have been born very early in the war. (Don’t ask me to explain why it goes all the way to '64, though).
hawk, technically a boomer
The cutoff is different depending on which source you read. I’ve seen it set anywhere from 1960 to 1965. A lot of sources place the cutoff at the Kennedy assassination. I can tell you right now that someone born in 1946 grew up in a completely different era and has a completely different headspace than someone born in 1963.
Some sources describe the people from about 1961 to 1969 as the “post-boom” generation, which makes more sense. Virtually all of my friends growing up were born in the 60s and we couldn’t stand “old hippies”.
I wept for him as I read this. There may be truth in some of his biases suggested in this thread, but still
What else can we do to support our priests? Pray for them and don’t speak ill of them, but what else? This letter has been very motivating to show them some appreciation.