tough time to be in PR at MU...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118949269.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118949269.html)
Quote from: madtownwarrior on March 30, 2011, 07:45:26 PM
tough time to be in PR at MU...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118949269.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/118949269.html)
Yeah, the NY Times ran this the other day. Dr. McAdams had a write up on his blog about it as well.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2011/03/fr-robert-wild-dealt-with-sex-abuse.html
i'm sorry, but this is brutal and disgusting. when they handed my wife and i that bobble head-we both put them right in to the garbage and that was before we knew of this >:(
looks like we've got a real "hot potatoe" here. hmmmmmm
if any of you get the chance, look up the book "goodbye good men" a very intriguing, eye openning expose on the big cover-ups beginning with the seminaries and how they not only allowed some very promiscuous wanton behavior, but also when that behavior extended out to the churches, the father shuffle began. there are many references to arch bishop weakland and some milwaukee area seminaries. it came out at a time when people tried to conclude that the reason the catholic church was suffering shortages of priests was because of the celibacy rule. well, that may have played a small part, but this book reveals that there were many good men who felt a genuine calling to live the life of our Lord and were denied beacause they wouldn't get with "the program". if they wouldn't get with "the program", they would send them out for "psychological therapy". the would be priests could not transfer to other seminaries because they would not get a good report and were denied transfer, unless they accepted "the program". i gave the book to my mom who is as devout of a christian as there is, (her dad, my grandpa-his heros were the catholic priests) my mom could not finish the book she was so disappointed.
i know people will use this to bash religion and our faith. the problem is we look to certain people for interpretations of our faith/ to verify our faith. it's people who are fallible, not our faith. but the people we put our faith in need to be honest and come clean themselves or they lose their credibility
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 31, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Dan Quayle sighting?
depends on what part of the country you're from, i guess. think warshington and warsher. oh and dano was a good guy
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 31, 2011, 09:39:05 AM
Dan Quayle sighting?
Probably saw him in one of the 7 new states to the union that Barack Obama found.
this is very revealing :o
http://cricketsound.net/?gclid=CKjcouyh-6cCFZFoKgodeh-fsg
Quote from: wyzgy on April 01, 2011, 07:00:01 AM
this is very revealing :o
http://cricketsound.net/?gclid=CKjcouyh-6cCFZFoKgodeh-fsg
What's revealing? That the JSOnline took down their story? Or that nobody here wants to chat about the super-exciting world of internal church bureaucracy?
If you don't want your kid to get molested then don't leave them alone with creepy old men that took a "vow of celibacy."
Yeah, the whole priest-abused-kid-and-heirarchy-covered-it-up is pretty much played out as a discussion topic. Not much to be said that hasn't been said already.
You guys don't find it objectionable that Fr. Wild was involved in this sordid story?
I find it objectionable that anyone that would try to sweep this stuff under the rug. However, the problem was chronic throughout the Church and I believe hopefully they learned from it and would act different in the future. That doesn't take away from the fact that Wild has been a very good President while at MU.
But I have said everything above dozens of times...
oh, i get it, cover up the rape of young children and because everything that has to be said about it, has been said and then be a do gooder for 32 years and it just all goes away-all better. so just shut-up already. doesn't matter that he's one of our own who has been looked up to all these years, he's been more than squeeky clean and smiles a lot now. you slip in the name of anyone else in an authority position here and this board would be on fire. oh that's right, dead subject, nothing here, just keep the kids away from priests and teachers-solved
I actually never told you to shut up about it. I said the discussion was played out. You can ramble on about it all you want to.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 01, 2011, 12:21:51 PM
Yeah, the whole priest-abused-kid-and-heirarchy-covered-it-up is pretty much played out as a discussion topic. Not much to be said that hasn't been said already.
i beg to differ. this case hits a little closer to home and i believe we should be hearing from fr. wild himself about this. what you are saying sultan, is that all these cases are the same and this one is not. the reason i am "rambling on" is because i wouldn't mind seeing others doing a little rambling themselves in order to get a feel for what those closer to campus think and so far it's been crickets, which sometimes can be deafening
Don't hold your breath. Father Wild isn't going to say anything about it.
how similar the timing of bad news coming out about some student-athletes that happened some 5 months ago and the timing of the cover-up by father wild of a priest who went on to rape another young child and he is leaving in 4 months. i wonder if he would have survived this news if he did not announce his resignation for july. if that were me, i would resign immediately and reach out to the families affected; help them heal, re-gain some sense of closure and peace with the catholic church. arch bishop dolan was the man during this pr debacle. he knew what to say and how to say it. fr. wild is giving the liberal secularists another fresh target that just so happens to represent MU
Quote from: wyzgy on April 03, 2011, 06:27:42 PM
how similar the timing of bad news coming out about some student-athletes that happened some 5 months ago and the timing of the cover-up by father wild of a priest who went on to rape another young child and he is leaving in 4 months. i wonder if he would have survived this news if he did not announce his resignation for july. if that were me, i would resign immediately and reach out to the families affected; help them heal, re-gain some sense of closure and peace with the catholic church. arch bishop dolan was the man during this pr debacle. he knew what to say and how to say it.
If it was you, you'd probably repeatedly post about it anonymously on a forum on the Internet even though nobody else really cares.
Quotefr. wild is giving the liberal secularists another fresh target that just so happens to represent MU
Keep this political BS to yourself.
i am registered here like everyone else-no anonymity here. anyone could find out who i am without much difficulty if they wanted to. i am actually a little more transparent than you skatman-no hidin here
Keep this political BS to yourself.
[/quote]
there is nothing political about that statement. it's a label on a group of people who have certain beliefs contrary i believe, to those of marquette. get your underwear out of your einis and walk tall young man. set forth and you'll do great things 8-)
Quote from: wyzgy on April 03, 2011, 08:28:02 PM
i am registered here like everyone else-no anonymity here. anyone could find out who i am without much difficulty if they wanted to. i am actually a little more transparent than you skatman-no hidin here
Keep this political BS to yourself.
there is nothing political about that statement. it's a label on a group of people who have certain beliefs contrary i believe, to those of marquette. get your underwear out of your einis and walk tall young man. set forth and you'll do great things 8-)
Explain how that isn't political. I'd love to hear.
It sure seems that some see the word "liberal" and assume it is political. Liberal secularists is a defined label for a group of people in oppossition to many of the Church's teachings. It is a political term within the Church, but in the broader context, it is not a political term.
In the context the poster used it, it was the definition of those that are attacking Wild - which if I recall, was the premise of this thread.
People really look long and hard for things and people to attack on this board. ::)
Quote from: MUMac on April 04, 2011, 08:19:23 AM
It sure seems that some see the word "liberal" and assume it is political. Liberal secularists is a defined label for a group of people in oppossition to many of the Church's teachings. It is a political term within the Church, but in the broader context, it is not a political term.
In the context the poster used it, it was the definition of those that are attacking Wild - which if I recall, was the premise of this thread.
People really look long and hard for things and people to attack on this board. ::)
So then wyzgy is a Conservative Spiritualist?
I did look into it, Mark. The only place I've found mention of 'liberal secularist' is on crazy right-wing blogs. It's far from being a 'defined label' that's widely used.
I'm sure that secularist would suffice without the 'liberal' modifier. I suppose some people feel the need to attack others that don't share their same beliefs. Keep fighting the good fight here on the Internet :P
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 04, 2011, 08:27:56 AM
So then wyzgy is a Conservative Spiritualist?
I did look into it, Mark. The only place I've found mention of 'liberal secularist' is on crazy right-wing blogs. It's far from being a 'defined label' that's widely used.
I'm sure that secularist would suffice without the 'liberal' modifier. I suppose some people feel the need to attack others that don't share their same beliefs. Keep fighting the good fight here on the Internet :P
+1 exactly. Anytime you try to label someone in that way, it will be political.
Additionally, I doubt there are many "Conservative Secularists" out there.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 04, 2011, 08:27:56 AM
So then wyzgy is a Conservative Spiritualist?
I did look into it, Mark. The only place I've found mention of 'liberal secularist' is on crazy right-wing blogs. It's far from being a 'defined label' that's widely used.
I'm sure that secularist would suffice without the 'liberal' modifier. I suppose some people feel the need to attack others that don't share their same beliefs. Keep fighting the good fight here on the Internet :P
Actually it is called fundamentalist, not conservative.
But have at it. Should we ban him for this abhorent use of a phrase that is so despicable to you? ::)
Your comments have taken this much farther than it EVER would have, that is the irony that is lost on you and hards, I am sure.
Quote from: MUMac on April 04, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Actually it is called fundamentalist, not conservative.
But have at it. Should we ban him for this abhorent use of a phrase that is so despicable to you? ::)
Your comments have taken this much farther than it EVER would have, that is the irony that is lost on you and hards, I am sure.
So, a Fundamentalist Spiritualist?
I'm pretty sure you two are making up phrases at this point to justify labeling other people.
Quote from: MUMac on April 04, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Actually it is called fundamentalist, not conservative.
But have at it. Should we ban him for this abhorent use of a phrase that is so despicable to you? ::)
Your comments have taken this much farther than it EVER would have, that is the irony that is lost on you and hards, I am sure.
How has it taken it farther? Didn't you step up to his defense with some inane excuse? He drops the political stuff all the time, and no one calls him out on it.
Quote from: MUMac on April 04, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Your comments have taken this much farther than it EVER would have, that is the irony that is lost on you and hards, I am sure.
So is calling someone out on a racist joke. Just saying - thats not what irony is.
Quote from: MUMac on April 04, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Actually it is called fundamentalist, not conservative.
But have at it. Should we ban him for this abhorent use of a phrase that is so despicable to you? ::)
No, we should ban him for his abhorrent use of the English language.
I agree with Sultan and others that this has been talked to death.
Its despicable and wrong what the Church and leaders within did. The fact that Wild, as a Jesuit leader, was doing the same is disappointing but not surprising.
I'm not suggesting anyone shut up, but if you truly have anything new to add to this I would be surprised.
thanks mac, for a voice of reason. you other guys are pieces of work. first of all, why do liberals hate being called liberals?? secondly, that statement, using the term "liberal secularist" is only political if you want it to be. will it make you feel any better if i told you i meant liberal as an adjective. also, i didn't realize we were being graded on our english here. you guys ever consider laxatives?? this topic really seemed to keep the bugs up your asses. you fellas seem to have separation anxiety. you don't own this board. :o you don't like something, let it go baby, pass some gas and turn the page. you'll all feel much better
Quote from: wyzgy on April 04, 2011, 07:44:32 PM
thanks mac, for a voice of reason. you other guys are pieces of work. first of all, why do liberals hate being called liberals?? secondly, that statement, using the term "liberal secularist" is only political if you want it to be. will it make you feel any better if i told you i meant liberal as an adjective. also, i didn't realize we were being graded on our english here. you guys ever consider laxatives?? this topic really seemed to keep the bugs up your asses. you fellas seem to have separation anxiety. you don't own this board. :o you don't like something, let it go baby, pass some gas and turn the page. you'll all feel much better
I don't mind being called a liberal. I generally am one on most issues (there definitely are some exceptions though).
But some people object to being labeled by people they don't even know, based on one or two opinions they post on a message board. "Liberal" or "conservative" are very black and white terms and most people's political views are really more nuanced and don't fit so neatly into one of these terms. So when you use them, you are denying them the ability to speak for themselves, you are instead forcing them into one of these catch-all categories. Most people on either side on the aisle don't take too kindly to that.
Second, your use of the word "liberal" is smug, dismissive, and condescending. You take anyone with an opposing view and simply dismiss it as that of a liberal. Therefore, their opinion must have no value. Your use of the term creates an other which is then easily opposed. Its really useful for creating a logical strawman (i.e. "liberals are crazy commies because of x, y, and z", therefore their opinions on EVERYTHING must be treated as that of a crazy leftist). Its really not fair discourse. I personally don't care, but its not good for effective dialogue. Then again, I doubt that is what you really desire.
Finally, you continually antagonize people into political discussion, which is banned. You aren't Dennis Miller. Your little analogies aren't funny.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on April 04, 2011, 08:01:05 PM
I don't mind being called a liberal. I generally am one on most issues (there definitely are some exceptions though).
But some people object to being labeled by people they don't even know, based on one or two opinions they post on a message board. "Liberal" or "conservative" are very black and white terms and most people's political views are really more nuanced and don't fit so neatly into one of these terms. So when you use them, you are denying them the ability to speak for themselves, you are instead forcing them into one of these catch-all categories. Most people on either side on the aisle don't take too kindly to that.
Second, your use of the word "liberal" is smug, dismissive, and condescending. You take anyone with an opposing view and simply dismiss it as that of a liberal. Therefore, their opinion must have no value. Your use of the term creates an other which is then easily opposed. Its really useful for creating a logical strawman (i.e. "liberals are crazy commies because of x, y, and z", therefore their opinions on EVERYTHING must be treated as that of a crazy leftist). Its really not fair discourse. I personally don't care, but its not good for effective dialogue. Then again, I doubt that is what you really desire.
Finally, you continually antagonize people into political discussion, which is banned. You aren't Dennis Miller. Your little analogies aren't funny.
yawn
Quote from: Victor McCormick on April 04, 2011, 08:01:05 PM
I don't mind being called a liberal. I generally am one on most issues (there definitely are some exceptions though).
But some people object to being labeled by people they don't even know, based on one or two opinions they post on a message board. "Liberal" or "conservative" are very black and white terms and most people's political views are really more nuanced and don't fit so neatly into one of these terms. So when you use them, you are denying them the ability to speak for themselves, you are instead forcing them into one of these catch-all categories. Most people on either side on the aisle don't take too kindly to that.
Second, your use of the word "liberal" is smug, dismissive, and condescending. You take anyone with an opposing view and simply dismiss it as that of a liberal. Therefore, their opinion must have no value. Your use of the term creates an other which is then easily opposed. Its really useful for creating a logical strawman (i.e. "liberals are crazy commies because of x, y, and z", therefore their opinions on EVERYTHING must be treated as that of a crazy leftist). Its really not fair discourse. I personally don't care, but its not good for effective dialogue. Then again, I doubt that is what you really desire.
Finally, you continually antagonize people into political discussion, which is banned. You aren't Dennis Miller. Your little analogies aren't funny.
Well said. Proven because all he could come up with was "yawn"
Quote from: wyzgy on April 04, 2011, 08:23:36 PM
yawn
Oh yeah? Well, at least he knows enough to capitalize the first letter of the first word of each sentence, and he knows that the word "English" is capitalized when it refers to the name of a language. So there!
Huh, this thread took a wrong turn (don't ask me if it's a right or left turn) and ran into a padlock...