This Dad should get very little for Father’s Day this year. I’m not saying he should get nothing because he does eventually stop the stroller but…come on.
Update: It looks like MLB won’t let folks embed it. Don’t know why but it probably has something to do with lawyers. So here’s the link.
http://larrybrownsports.com/youtubeage/dad-baseball-kid-baby-stroller-video/222214
In the end, he can always point to this Dad and say at least he’s not as bad as him.
March 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
He is blowing the Smoke of Satan in the Church – the only issue is it deliberate or has he been deceived because his hubris and lack of humility. He is in my prayers.
Ditto to Scott Eric Alt
March 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm
I had to search for "fine vestments and red shoes" to get the image of B16's red shoes. Nothing like it came up with just "fine vestments." And Sandy never put red shoes and Benedict together when everybody knows he wore those red shoes. I'm afraid D. Sandy can't face his own anger at Papa.
March 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm
If *only* our Papa Emeritus had had the good sense to leave his stemma off the fascia, like his successor has done!
March 12, 2014 at 7:00 pm
Who's he kidding? Sandy's syrupy style can't hide his stabbing Benedict in the back. Imagine how those red shoes stuck in Sandy's craw each time the pope wore them.
March 12, 2014 at 7:06 pm
A little less show and tell and AV presentations, a lot less rambling, and a subscription to Homelitics might help
March 12, 2014 at 7:30 pm
how sad, I browsed through several other videos , one video was marketing the church. really poor. he must have taken an evangelism course in the seventies. he warns visitors that they will be asked to introduce themselves.
it has been recognized for over a decade that pressuring people to introduce themselves in a new church is off putting. maybe the congregation is so sparse because he has given potential visitors a reason to pass up on his parish. there is some extra bowing to and from the congregation , just silly.
I would give the guy a pass for at least trying something to keep the place alive but his passive aggressive panning of disagreements as hurtful and divisive is meretricious .
March 12, 2014 at 8:37 pm
Now, that's probably not the original reason the Pope has worn red shoes, but it irritates me when the added symbolism is dismissed: it's often quite valuable and it makes keeping an otherwise dispensable habit, custom, or tradition worth it. This is a case in point.
March 12, 2014 at 10:34 pm
He marginalizes, ridicules, ostracizes, and when he is called out on it, he plays the victim. A Communist wrote a playbook which included these tactics. His name was Alinsky. Any relation, Sandy?
March 12, 2014 at 10:37 pm
He's either a bigger liar than previously imagined, or a fool. My money's on both.
"I do not ask that you or anyone else agree with me – what is troubling is the dark nature of the commentary, and the accusatory, divisive and judgmental tone." You don't ask much, do you, champ? Only that we believe you are the victim of an elaborate hoax, when in fact your pre-recorded actions are your own accusers.
(And one more thing: to call someone judgmental is to BE judgmental.)
March 12, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Schmenz – the deacon IS acting like a man. A girly man. "…painful and hurtful…" What a wimp.
March 12, 2014 at 11:55 pm
No, I am not buying his excuses. If he really doesn't know who might wear a white cassock and red shoes and a fascia with a coat of arms, then he really is a fool. I suppose it is possible that a permanent deacon is an absolute ignoramus, but it surely is unlikely.
The pope emeritus is a beloved grandpapa to me and to many others. I not only respect him and the office he held at the time the image was captured, I love him dearly. How can Deacon Sandy expect us to ignore this affront? I ask an apology from him. To use his own language, I find this very "painful and hurtful", not to mention "divisive" and "judgmental".
March 13, 2014 at 12:02 am
I do think the persecution of Deacon Sandy has been way over the top. A very young person I know well has gotten way too into attacking Deacon Sandy and the whole thing is just sad to me now.
March 13, 2014 at 12:42 am
"Persecution"? Are you serious? Deacon Sandy very publicly ridiculed a Pope..or just some other guy in a white cassock with red shoes and a white fascia with a coat of arms. I am sorry if some young person is attacking him. I am in no way attacking him. He is a grown man and a cleric of the Catholic Church. As such, he has no business sneering at a man who has given his all to God and to the Church. A man who has been a priest for Yeah, I think THAT is sad.
March 13, 2014 at 2:39 am
I absolutely love Pope Benedict. As I said on the other recent Deacon Sandy post, DS's actions are lamentable and indefensible… but not actually grave. He is an obvious product of Weakland's episcopacy and when there are enough priests in that diocese the current bishop will be pleased to have a real priest pastor at that parish again. In the meantime the parish remained open. This deacon has way more people scorning him on the blogs than he has sitting in his parish apparently, one does imagine that this may have been painful for him, and I do not happen to think this was a necessary or a glorious episode for the blogs or that my young friend is helped to grow as a man by his role in the mass mockery of DS.
March 13, 2014 at 2:41 am
Jdub–yes. You are right.
March 13, 2014 at 2:59 am
Not grave? Insulting and mocking a man who sat in the chair of Peter for being materialistic? And comparing himself and his parish to that man and patting himself on the back for being better and less materialistic? Yes, that is grave matter that all Catholics should reject.
We don't get to say that it is someone else's fault when we act like a..well, horribly, towards a man who has done nothing to deserve it. Has he free will or has he not? He has born false witness towards his neighbor. That is objectively grave sin. And no one told him to broadcast his idiocy..that was his choice. Having broadcast on youtube his calumnious accusations towards PBXVI, he has no defense that we are all just mean and judgmental. And, no, I am not buying the..I had no idea that dude in a white cassock and red shoes and a white fascia with a COAT of ARMS was not just some random dude whose image just showed up. Please!
I do not mock him..HE mocked Pope Benedict XVI. He should apologize, and do it publicly. I demand an apology for his behavior. He is a cleric of the Catholic Church. I do say he should be ashamed, and I will not apologize for saying that. Perhaps if he took responsibility for his actions, your young friend could respect that. I hope that he would. I guarantee you that I would.
March 13, 2014 at 3:59 am
You evidently are not strongly grounded in the Church, common-sense, or reality.
Your argument is thin.
We are called to admonish those who sin, and in this case an ordained minister of the Church has sought to belittle and ridicule the pope emeritus, both in a Catholic church but also then to do so as publicly is possible by elevating it to YouTube. He knew what he was doing, and you should know it too.
Last year we had a Jesuit speaker address our parish after supper. Before supper started he, our pastor, and 3-4 parish progressives stood around extolling thenew Pope Francis (which is absolutel fine). However, our pastor made a crack that at least he won't wear the red shoes and all of them roared with laughter, mentioning Benedict between gasps for breath. They thought it was pretty funny.
Believe me, Catholic liberals have been ridiculing his read shoes and other papal dress for years. They ALL know about them. This deacon has been caught in a lie, and I suspect you know it.
As another commenter above pointed out, liberals always attack the word choice or tone when they lack an argument of substance. You betray yourselves, Jdub and ELizD. Youshould be concerned about the insult to our pope emeritus.
March 13, 2014 at 4:12 am
I second both Pat and Scott, particularlly that a public action requires a public rebuke and, eventually, a public apology or where appropriate, a recantation. This has ever been so in the Church. If Deacon Sandy (sorry, the very title makes me laugh…where has gone our sense of proper decorum for ordained clergy?) had done this in private, no one but his parishioners would even know about it and the "rules of engagement" wwould be scaled down to require an apology from the ambo at the church where the offense occurred – after he had been rebuiked in the churc hin view of the other parishioners. Unfortunately, I bet there's no one at this church who would do that.
Scott's paricularly good contribution is to correctly bring in Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen's view. Rob, you and your "amen corner" are a transparent lot. We see right through such thin argumentation.
Sheen not only would dismiss you with a wave of his hand (a blessing very much needed, no doubt), but I suspect he'd haul in Dcn (I hoped abbreviation would help control the snickering, but no…) Sandy for major disciplinary action.
March 13, 2014 at 4:57 am
Fuck him and his heretics back to Helldom!
March 13, 2014 at 5:02 am
Sure Deacon; we are the judgmental and divisive people when you are the one who is causing grave scandal by voluntarily choosing to mock the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as you have also subjected him to laughter by your Cafeteria congregants. Your title should be stripped of your name, you are a disgrace to religion and those who admire a theologian whose academic and intellectual caliber will Never reach.
Furthermore, you add insult to injury to the American public by claiming that you do not know the identity of the Pope in the red shoes. How dare you, how dare you treat us like sheeps in misery. You are disgusting and I hope you repent for this scandalous act. Your bishop is no better!!!! All the same with you and your kind, apostasy apostasy and apostasy.