The Register has an article about two US bishops that don’t like what they see of Voice of the Faithful and aren’t backing down. The two are Archbishop John Myers of Newark and Cardina Francis George of Chicago.
The most telling part of the story comes at the end. In April it was reported by an Illinois Catholic group that VOTF was claiming that Cardinal George had agreed to meet with them. But the cardinal had a different take on it.
Or the VOTF people lied in the first place. Gee, I wonder why your first assumption is that the non-VOTFers lied. Did you read the NCR story? VOTF was bragging about George meeting with them and that wasn’t the case.
That you would prefer to assign bad faith to the cardinal and not VOTF may be revealing.
George himself says that he didn’t know that the people meeting him were from VOTF yet the VOTFers were trumpeting it as some great victory. Did they intentionally mislead the cardinal? I don’t know, but their track record doesn’t lead me to trust them. For the record, I’m not doubting the cardinal’s veracity here. The VOTF people were making it seem like the cardinal was saying something he was not.
Can Todd point to some words and actions of Abp. Myers that demonstrate his use of traditionalist websites as information sources? Or is Todd talking through his hat?
I think this needs to go into the achive for discussion. Understanding or no amongst our distinguished pundits, did anyone happen to notice Mr. Post’s comments to the Hartford Courant about Arch-Bishop Myers for banning VOTF from Church property:
“highly inconsistent with his pastoral responsibilities.” Before taking such an action, Post said, Archbishop Myers should have provided hard evidence that Voice of the Faithful was acting against the interests of the Church.
“When an affirmative action is taken to injure another party t>
2572
dom@bettnet.com
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2003-07-07 19:06:21
2003-07-07 23:06:21
I didn’t say you were complaining of black discrimination, I was referring back to NASCAR. And whether blacks are on the ascendancy in MLB is beside the point: they’re there and many of the top athletes are black.
Never mind. I don’t know why I bother responding.
Todd, the article isn’t on point. The Barrister gets it though. My point is, as he puts it, that I disagree with the contention that a sport can’t be at its highest level unless it is dominated by a black athlete and that only the presence of black athletes can legitimize a sport.
This whole arguent is ridiculous. Vieing for black drivers just for the sake of diversity is ludicrious. If we listen to the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and let inexperienced drivers race, there could be tragedy on the track. It’s not baseball or tennis or golf, where you hit balls and run around. These drivers drive 200 MILES PER HOUR! with 43 other drivers. I don’t care what color you are, only the best of the best should be on the track. If there will ever exist a black driver in Winston Cup it will be because that driver will be a skilled professional who will earn his place there and not kill anybody while on the track.