[The above is the beginning of the original post. It then continued:]
Then there’s this:
UPDATE: At this point in the original post, the rest of the post was censured. It was only like five words of personal opinion that appraised my own intentions regarding Super-Tuesday, November 3, 2020, something like, “As for me: Trump 2020,” or words to that effect. And that was the whole of it. Those words of my personal opinion outraged a very censorious personage.
My patriotic instinct made me think that this smacking down of free speech was stepping over the line. Questions came to mind:
- Upon ordination to the priesthood, do I have no personal voice in the public square?
- Upon ordination to the priesthood, do I have zero Constitutional First Amendment rights?
- Upon ordination to the priesthood, do I have zero rights in the Canon Law of this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
So, what did I do?
- I asked for some links to research and dear readers sent them in. Great! I’ve yet to go through all that, but I’m most encouraged by what I see at first glance.
- I asked for some advice from some really smart people. I find out, of course, that no matter how good I think I am at analyzing stuff, there’s always someone much better at it than yours truly. The truth of the identity concerning the complainant against yours truly then finally hit me in the middle of the night. And then I laughed out loud. I didn’t see that snowflake’s communication to the one who smacked me down (but smacked down in such a friendly manner, which I appreciate!), but methinks that my conclusion about who the complainant happens to be is at a Zero Dark Thirty 100%:
Careful! There’s some bad language in that video. Maya (actress Jessica Chastain) is my hero. As she said in the script concerning the whereabouts of terrorist Usama bin Laden:
- “It’s 100% he’s there. O.K. fine. 95% because I know certainty freaks you guys out. But it’s a 100.”
Hah. Yes. LOL. It’s the logistics of the communication made to me that convinces me, the when and the who of it. As pointed out by advisors, forcing that communication at that time by that person would be quite impossible even for really clever people heading up political campaigns. There’s only one person who, as the original complainant, could and would do this according to the time and manner of communication. Yes. I agree with that. 100%.
In the past, the complainant – in my Mayaesque opinion – a most tender entitled snowflake, has used the same method of having me smacked down, hiding in the background and having someone else smack me down, which is entirely unfair to the messenger. He’s a grown man. The messenger is a woman. He hides like a coward behind her. Now twice. That guy has got to stop this abuse of women. What a cruel guy. What a coward. All bullies are cowards. He should just put a comment in the post itself, or send me an email, as he has my email address. But no, he has to use a woman as human shield from the words which might come back at him, demonstrating how unreasonable he is.
The previous incident? He had written something about active shooters in churches, having it that people should just go ahead and die in all their hundreds, and that church-goers should never ever have competent and capacitated security at hand, having it that no one should ever micro-aggression terrorist mass-killers by supporting the God-given right to protect the innocent from unjust, mortal and being-delivered aggression that we’ve too often seen with the bully tender-snowflakes in this otherwise great country.
I challenge this coward to come out from behind his anonymity so we can discuss law of all kinds, natural, civil, federal, church, so we can discuss duties and rights, so we can discuss candidates for the coming election, comparing the most pro-death guy, the most anti-church guy, to the most pro-life guy, the one who has done the most to protect the free exercise of religion.
Let’s lay down some background:
- What I wrote in five words about Trump in 2020 I wrote during my down-time, in zero official capacity as a cleric, not on any of our church campuses, but on my own private computer in all the privacy of my dwelling, with my own internet connection I myself pay for, disregarding what I can otherwise claim from the diocese. I didn’t do this from the pulpit, or on any parish campus, not Catholic radio nor in a Catholic newspaper. I didn’t use the church bulletin, which hasn’t been published this entire time of Covid-1984. I didn’t use any church function no matter where it might be.
- The blog I write on is my own personal blog. I myself pay the fees. My blog has NOTHING to do with the parish. It has nothing to do with the Diocese. It has nothing to do, believe me, with the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. It has nothing to do with the Holy See. Nothing to do with Pope Francis. I say all this loudly: look at the ABOUT page of this blog. I pay for the blog domain as well. I designed it myself. No one edits it for me. No one is required to read this. Almost zero people in the parish do read it. Those who do so only read it once in a while, well, except for one or two people. But even they say that they pretty much just look at the “Flowers” posts, wishing these were on Instagram. Never!
But, let’s start in the next post, if he’s willing to chime in, on the very specific IRS policy. But even prior to that, let’s discuss the fact that the parish has it’s own 501c3. I don’t have one myself. And I don’t use the 501c3 of the church. No. I pay my own income tax to the Federal Government quite apart from the parish, quite apart from the Diocese, quite apart from the Bishops Conference, quite apart from the Holy See. But I get ahead of myself.
For now, I’m just baiting this guy to show himself. I’m baiting him to throw theology of identity at me so I can smack him down about courts not going anywhere near any theology. Courts are interested in taxes, numbers, not in defining theological concepts.
Right now, I’m just shadow-boxing, as it were, since the accusation was not read to me by the messenger. It’s quite impossible to defend yourself when you don’t even know what the accusation is that is leveled against you in such a cowardly manner. However, the accusation is serious, and the polite messenger of the accuser told me how any appeal would go, who I would have to bring that appeal to. That was a threat, however nicely delivered on behalf of the accuser.
So, here’s the challenge to the accuser: send me a copy of your communication to the one who smacked me down (ever so politely) on your behalf. No, really! Be brave! For once.
I laugh out loud again. I’ve added a “Humor” entry to both the categories and tags of this post. Truly. I laugh out loud. I have really a lot to say about the morality of positions of both candidates. I will speak of those. A lot. As I say, he has no idea what he has unleashed. It’s the last thing he wants. It’s the last thing the society of his ilk wants. I’m indebted to him, of course, for I might not have done this unless it was for his misuse of women (which irks me altogether), unless it was for his anonymity to me. Thanks, bud.
For now, it’s time for me to offer Holy Mass and set about what might be a 12 hour saga of priest stuff with another priest. Such drama! I love being a priest for Jesus. And that’s the point, right? All for Jesus.