Truth vs majority rule
Take the discussion on the US Leadership Conference of Religious Women for example.
The sisters recently received a blistering assessment of their (lack of) orthodoxy from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
But rather than listening, they've once more invited a new age non-Catholic speaker to give the lead address to their annual conference. And they asked the US bishop designated by the Vatican to take the lead on working with them on the issues not to attend. So much for 'dialogue'!
Yet over at Cath News the usual suspects are supporting the sisters as wronged, and berating the hierarchy for insisting on teaching truth on issues such as contraception...
Inclusiveness only applies to those we like!
One of the posters there argues for the mythical 'all-inclusive Jesus'.
Yet a story on the upcoming ordination of a group of (sooner to be former) Anglicans for the Ordinariate elicted a stream of sour diatribes about the awfulness of those who oppose the ordination of women; on married priests; the Mass in languages other than English (which was apparently the 'manifest will of Paul VI' that only English be used, surely news to those employ many other vernacular languages, as well as in direct contradistinction to his own defence of Latin: and even if it had been true, an odd bit of ultramontanism!) and more.
Even the desecration of the Eucharist is ok to some
Similarly, the story of the dog being given communion at a "inclusive catholics" service run by a priest whose faculties had been suspended (and yes that is a mortal sin Francis!) had numerous defenders.
Curiously, the balance of posts was quite supportive of Archbishop Hart's response complaining about the Age article. One can only assume that commenters criticising the Archbishop for a lack of 'inclusiveness' were rejected under Cath News' no criticism of our bishops policy.
In the meantime, The Age apparently refused to publish the Archbishop's letter. That is extremely unfortunate.
But there were two issues at stake here, the first being the way the story was reported (and that it was reported at all); and secondly, the continuing disobedience of the priest concerned.
By failing to address the issue of the status of the priest, and take public action against him and his supporters, the Archbishop has surely undermined his case against The Age.