Anyone out there willing to explain to those who use the electronic media the difference between its and it's?
Why not some classes on the redundant apostrophe? A priest writes in a current pious magazine about how the time is going bye so quickly.
And a man preaching about the intellectual life is not sure when to use me and I. It is most annoying.
Maybe what is even more annoying is how these writers and preachers can go on to explain with such 'erudition' the eternal truths.
I must confess I am greatly confused how illiteracy can mix so easily with theology or is it another hint that it really is 'spoof theology'.
God's name seems so easily trotted out without the slightest problem and yet basic rules of grammar and syntax are mangled and broken.
The piousity, the platitudes and all carefully mixed in such a pompous fashion is shocking.
How can people speak so easily about God?
-
Dominican priest Leo Donovan died in Kiltipper Woods Care Centre, Tallaght on Saturday morning, February 17. Leo had been over two years in ... -
Seósamh Laurence Collins died in Tallaght University Hospital in the early hours of Monday morning, January 22. Larry, as he was known in t... -
John O’Rourke was born in Newry on November 14, 1939. He joined the Dominican Order in September 1958 and was ordained a priest in July 1965...
7 comments:
Does God really care about grammar or syntax? Speaking for myself, truth and integrity are far more important when assessing homilies or spiritual writing than the finer points of punctuation. Isn't the attitude you portray here the same as that of those who look for flawless vestments or shined shoes or perfect gestures or adherence to rubrics before they judge the liturgy to be 'valid'?
Peter,
Thank you and a valid point.
Let me try to explain.
I am inclined to think that what appears in the written and spoken word by the 'smells and bells' constituency is mostly either sham or pious drivel.
I keep thinkining it is simply not believable.
It is dressed up in Latin quotes and pious cliches so as to give it some semblance of authority.
It is either crazy or sham so when the masks slip and the grammar falls apart I think it is worth pointing it out.
Pick up some crazy right wing paper or watch EWTN and one really has no option to think it is sham or crazy.
Too harsh?
I have seen it first hand and I have seen how untrue it is.
In an article in a current pious magazine the editor consistently spells 'native' as 'native' but right through the magazine it is 'Friar'.
Whay is it 'Priest' but then 'plumber'?
So often words, grammar and linguistic style tell the reader much about the writer and his or her mind set.
Check captions in right wing publications and they will always have the name of the priests, bishops etc in the picture - everyone else's name regularly omitted.
Your chances of survival if you are a liberal thinking heterosexual priest are indeed slim.
All the dice is wieghed in favour of the closet gay priest who seems crazy and talks and writes pious drivel.
Once you hear the words 'Mother Church', 'Holy Father', spot the crazy dress, shiny shoes and those immacultate cuffs with the cufflinks you know you are in trouble.
It's all one sad game and few are speaking out about it.
If one says a word about the issue of closet gay clerics then one is considered 'suspect'. He is even considered so unworthy as not to be allowed have contact with clerical students.
At present there is a closet gay clerical culture that is in the ascendency and it is most worrying.
It has nothing to do with being gay, it is the secrecy and the sub cultures that are being created that will in the long term greatly damage the church.
But maybe it has always been so.
Post a Comment