Posted on 02/03/2011 1:34:21 PM PST by Pyro7480
>> “At least Bill Clinton didn’t screw children.” <<
.
Offering ‘facts’ not in evidence?
It has nothing to do with Hannity. Lord love an Irishman, but Hannity is a sad sick joke as an intellectual commentator. If brains were TNT the poor guy could barely blow his nose.
Why not just admit that “involve the sexual act” is a lame equivocation, and if the lameass equivocator could have said that it did not involve “a” sexual act, the reprobate would have said so, and move on?
Regardless? No. Give it your regard. Either you do see equivocation in him saying it was not “the” sexual act, or you do not.
I would say that like you I make assumptions. My assumption is simple and is as follows:
People tend to assume the worst e.g. breaking a vow of chastity would be the sexual act. What I see is clarification -not so much for himself but rather for the others involved. It may be true that many, we, do not know the specific people involved; however, they know who they are. I would contend that are is a small group including those directly and indirectly involved including innocent spouses etcetera maybe even children that know the identities of these people.
I would suggest for instance as a husband knowing your wife was unfaithful to you that the degree of unfaithfulness would equate to the pain and the burden caused the relationship. Carry this thinking out to its logical conclusion...
I would say rather than let go all those effected to the mercy of the wolves that benefit from such falls as this that the Priest attempts to lessen the blow with truth.
Those are my thoughts premised upon assumption of course...
I’m sorry that Mr. Hannity wasn’t able to rise above this. We need more adults in the conservative movement, and fewer teenage boys who Nyah Nyah Nyah.
I see said the blid girl.
I did not know the conflict was about birth control. I thought it was about abortion and I know Hannity speaks out against abortion so I could not understand.
Hannity’s “pro-life” is a good example of”filthy rags” righteousness; its all for looks.
And stop it with the football pass already. Who do you think you are, Broadway Joe?
May be he shared that information with her and said something like “I never thought I could be so tempted to do something carnal,but with you I was”. And she took that and ran with it.
When I went to college in the late 50’s there was a group of girls,who were not Catholic that thought there was nothing more challenging then trying to get priests to break their vows. It was thought to be quite cutting edge.
Is that a feature on the tv show? We don’t have cable, so I just hear Hannity on the radio sometimes, if I’m driving somewhere between 3:00 and 6:00. I heard ten minutes or so this afternoon on my way to pick up some kids at swimming lessons.
My husband likes his radio show, but I prefer Andrew Wilkow and Jerry Doyle.
Indeed, when we compare the situation to that of a person who has committed to marriage, transgressions of chastity include a lot of involvement short of having sexual intercourse, including things that might be known only to a spouse "wishing" for a relationship, without ever being known to the object of desire.
I don't watch the tv show that often, but it seems to be a regular feature.
Exactly. Well put...
In what context is he using the gesture?
I think Hannity has a nice radio voice, but I just don’t find him that interesting. Wilkow and Doyle are unpredictable. (And Jerry Doyle is really hot, speaking of chastity issues unknown to the object of desire ;-).
As you know, I called this the other night when Fr. E’s admissions were first posted. I’m 41 now, and if I live to be 100, I doubt I’ll see a more egregious display of a “holier-than-though” attitude than Hannity’s response to this. I had hoped he would have been classy enought to forego mentioning it, but deep down, I knew he wouldn’t be able to help himself. Hannity merely lived up to my very low expectations for him.
It’s as if Hannity is saying that because the priest who questioned his faithfulness to the Church has had his own failinjgs, Hannity’s failings are now OK.
Yes, you were right. I was wishfully thinking of someone’s being focussed on the goal rather than on shoring up his ego.
Hannity doesn’t seem to be hawg-stupid, although I don’t get the impression that he’s *real* bright ... rather like my James, always two steps and an intuitive leap being the psycho-genius brothers ... so he must know that Fr. Euteneuer, whatever his personal sins, is right about Catholic moral theology, and Hannity himself is wrong. I have things I’m defensive about, too, because I know I’m called to be better than I want to be.
The fact that Hannity brought this up again after Fr. Euteneuer gave a contrite humble public confession was to somehow act like he is superior to this humble priest and shows the depths of Hannity’s lack of compassion.
Hannity is arrogant and prideful and is only out to please the crowd that glorifies him and makes him money.He lives in a bubble just many Hollywood actors do -surrounded by people who kiss up to them as if they are some sort of God
I won’t be surprised if Our Lord allows the devil to attack Hannity to bring him to his knees over this sort of thing
It is apparent you have an agenda here beyond that of the topic. My assumptions were stated as was my opinion. As I already stated I disagree with your opinion. Attempting to put words in my mouth or attempting to disparage me painting me with the broad brush you paint the Priest with will not change my opinion on the matter although it serves to change my opinion as to your intent which appears from from good...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.