The 2007 Weblog Awards Nominations

16 Responses to The 2007 Weblog Awards Nominations

1. Jack007 says:

   15 October 2007 at 12:31 PM

   I nominated your blog, Father.
   It doesn’t matter who wins; WE know which one OUR favorite blog! :-))
   Jack007
2. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   15 October 2007 at 2:04 PM

   I think it is important that dependable Catholic blogs have a good showing.
3. Roman Sacristan says:

   15 October 2007 at 3:30 PM

   Actually, Father, you are in 3rd place in the “Best Religion Blog” category!
   Unfortunately, it has your old address:

   http://www.bloggerschoiceawards.com/blogs/show/4131

   You might be able to contact them, claim the blog, and update the links.

   RS
4. Le Renard says:

   15 October 2007 at 4:25 PM

   Who’s voting for Fr. Z?

   W D T P R S has just been bumped up to 2nd Place when I checked it just now.
5. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   15 October 2007 at 6:03 PM

   Everyone: Kindly vote it you haven’t!
6. Anthony says:

   15 October 2007 at 7:43 PM

   I just voted Father. However after voting I received a message indicating I did not use “comment authentication services??” Other people may be having similar problems. I have never seen this before and I am concerned that if today is the end of the voting
   mine and perhaps other peoples votes may not be counted.

   This is the message:

   Thank you for commenting.

   Since you did not use one of the available comment authentication services, your comment is being held for approval by moderators. Normally your comment will be approved within a few hours, but in some cases the delay can be up to 12 hours. Do not submit your comment again! Your comment will be approved (assuming it’s not spam or otherwise inappropriate) and posted shortly. To avoid this message in the future sign into the site with one of the supported authentication methods or register as a commenter. The Weblog Awards recommends MyOpenID for all your OpenID needs.

   Return to the original entry.
7. RC says:

   15 October 2007 at 8:38 PM

   Roman Sacristan is looking at a different blog award site (“Blogger’s Choice Awards”) than Fr. Z is citing (“Weblog Awards”).

   There are probably several such operations going on, so I don’t put much stock in them: who’s to say that one or the other has substantial credibility?
8. Seumas says:

   15 October 2007 at 9:35 PM

   Actually, people keep leaving duplicate comments to nominate Father.

   The instructions say that one nomination is enough, and rather than leaving a “me too” comment, just use the + button to vote for the nomination you wish to vote for.
9. Anthony says:

   15 October 2007 at 10:13 PM

   Seumas, thank you for the explaination. Hopefully everyone will go over there and vote.
10. Matthew W. I. Dunn says:

    15 October 2007 at 11:10 PM

    Can anyone nominate a blog that opens up for debate the question of whether a *woman* can truly be a “Doctor of the Church” . . . with a straight face? How can such a blog even be taken seriously?

    And, you wonder why chancery-folk look askance at Catholics who promote Latin and liturgy and ritual? Because their experience has been that those sorts of Catholics often harbor a pre-conciliar mentality of closemindedness and exclusion.

    Fr. Z, you owe an apology for even raising that question.
11. William says:

    16 October 2007 at 1:50 AM

    And, you wonder why chancery-folk look askance at Catholics who promote Latin and liturgy and ritual? Because their experience has been that those sorts of Catholics often harbor a pre-conciliar mentality of closemindedness and exclusion.

    It is certainly true that women are excluded from the priesthood.

    Is it your opinion that Jesus Christ, in founding His Church with a male priesthood, “harbored a pre-conciliar mentality of closedmindedness and exclusion?” – And do those same chancery-folk look askance at Our Lord for that reason?
12. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

    16 October 2007 at 9:21 AM

    Matthew: Fr. Z, you owe an apology for even raising that question.

    Piffle.

    People now understand a great deal more about the issue now, and what sort of fellow Williamson is.
13. RBrown says:

    16 October 2007 at 10:34 AM

    I think Bp Williamson raised a very interesting question. Having said that, I disagree with his conclusion and think he has not understood the article from the Summa that he cited.
14. Matthew W. I. Dunn says:

    16 October 2007 at 8:53 PM

    *Piffle.

    People now understand a great deal more about the issue now, and what sort of fellow Williamson is.*

    Since you already identified him as an excommunicate, you made clear what sort of fellow he is.

    The problem is this: You *seriously* entertained his argument, even noting that he had a point with his citation of the scripture from St. Paul.

    To even raise the question of whether a woman, a f-eee-male, could be a Doctor of the Church is simply stupefying — which only reinforces the stereotype that those who are conservative about the liturgy are also conservative (in a bad way) about other issues.

    Any wonder why chancery-folk are trying to minimize the effect of “Summorum Pontificum”? They think that such narrow attitudes go hand-in-glove with the Old Mass.

    Piffle?

    I guess, your next debate will be whether the indigenes of South America have souls and should be baptized . . . or, do not and should be enslaved. Discuss.
15. Roman Sacristan says:

    16 October 2007 at 9:47 PM

    Roman Sacristan is looking at a different blog award site (“Blogger’s Choice Awards”) than Fr. Z is citing (“Weblog Awards”).

    Ooops. Sorry. Completely missed that.
16. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

    17 October 2007 at 9:11 AM

    Matthew: I guess, your next debate will be whether the indigenes of South America have souls and should be baptized . . . or, do not and should be enslaved. Discuss.

    Okay… here we go.

    That’s just dumb and you’ve missed the point. See ya!

Comments are closed.