Bishop Barron calls for Catholics to show charity online

  • Thread starter Thread starter puer.dei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximian said:
I particularly notice that there is a certain organised clique of persons here who regularly flag posts by traditionalists,
Click to expand...
You may suspect who flags a post, but unless they announce it, you can’t know. I’ve flagged posts on threads I didn’t even participate in, because they had already turned into dumpster fires.
 
Yes…and if you comment and then flag, you can bet there will be retaliatory flags.
 
Actually, it’s not that difficult to work out because they often call for posts to be flagged and invariably the same three or four people are appearing in sympathy on the same thread.

Ive already seen three traditionalists leave the site because they found it pointless trying to explain their ideas.

Im just waiting to get banned myself, even though I think I have a good track record of backing my points with sound arguments.
 
Weserthy said:
While his message is a good one, as someone who follows Bishop Barron’s online activities pretty closely I remember a couple of his Reddit AMAs that were not exactly as charitable as I would have expected from someone making this kind of a plea.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of us may be holding the Bishop to too high of a standard. We can all proclaim that sin is wrong, and yet we all sin. That doesn’t make our assertion incorrect that the sin is wrong. We’re human, and as such will fall prey to the very vices that we condemn. That’s why we have confession.
Maximian said:
Direspect and vitriol are always bad. Anger is sometimes justified.
Click to expand...
Debatable. Righteous anger tends to get us in trouble in that we mortals use it to justify pretty much any behavior towards others.
 
It is impossible not to be angry when a bishop covers up an abuse scandal. (For example)
 
Last edited:
Sure. I’m referring more to the righteous anger prevalent on CAF, for much more minor issues, and used an excuse for incivility and lack of charity toward others.
 
stoplooklisten said:
“Be not overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21)

An antidote to evil comments (calumny, arrogant comments, etc.) is good comments.
Click to expand...
Also this:
‘As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.’ - Titus 3:10-11

Sometimes it is better to walk away to avoid an angry fruitless exchange.
 
Dan_Defender said:
Sometimes it is better to walk away to avoid an angry fruitless exchange.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and it requires a great deal humility. “Someone is wrong on the Internet!” You try to correct them. If that doesn’t work, then shake the dust of that place from your feet and move on.
Maximian said:
Im just waiting to get banned myself, […]
Click to expand...
I have observed that good members are sometimes baited through repeated posts back and forth, until they get frustrated, escalate the rhetoric, and get suspended. Don’t fall into that trap.
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
I particularly notice that there is a certain organised clique of persons here who regularly flag posts by traditionalists, ironically while complaining about lack of charity and respect for others views.
Click to expand...
Same.
I would wish the flaggers would identify themselves, and first make a private comment to the person requesting a retraction. Instead, without knowing why or what to do, the flagee gets kicked off of CAF with no appeal and no understanding.
I’ve learned from this after a few expulsions.
We basically have to dance around various truths, and we have unseen enemies who are easily offended by non-offensive items. Perhaps it’s a conscience being tweaked and some guilt to deal with.
So, they attack, flag and get people kicked off.
I’m surprised I’ve lasted here two days now after suspension for a month. Maybe I can hang on for a while. I hope. I like everyone here - even if they don’t like me.
 
Catholic twitter can be the absolute worst. I actually left for a while because I was so disgusted at how many address the clergy they disagree with, or even other people they might disagree with. So in that sense, Barron is right. Don’t ever say anything online to someone that you can’t say to their face. People don’t like to hear this but we will all have to answer for how we conduct ourselves even online.

I did not think it was constructive for him to make a vague jab at “instigators” and it’s kind of curious timing that he came out with this after receiving criticism from the laity regarding a recent article he wrote. His response to the alarm and distress many were feeling regarding the tearing down of statues of St. Junipero Serra was pretty tone deaf. Some of the responses from the laity were awful, but some responses were charitable but honest. It may have struck a nerve with him. That said he did come out and say the rosary at a protest site, and for that he should be encouraged and shown gratitude.
 
Last edited:
Not really.

“Hell and unrepented mortal sin are not even possibilities for humans” and “hell is temporary and everyone eventually ends up with God” are heretical positions no Catholic leader should espouse.

“Hell, via unrepented mortal sin, is a very real possibility that we should warn about, but we should work and pray and hope that as few humans as possible meet that fate – zero would be best of all” is not the same thing at all.
 
Rubee said:
I appreciated Bishop Barron’s take on the possibility of hell being empty. I believe it echoes something speculated by Pope Benedict as well as the Catechism teaching we have reason to hope for the salvation of those outside the church.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, the problem with preaching that “hell may be empty” goes beyond the usual arguments that O.L. Fatima showed the children souls there… the problem is this: if he’ll IS empty, it means hardened sinners appeared to die completely unrepentant but… somehow repented at the moment of death?? Can we then presume God is sooooo merciful that my sins will be no match for his mercy and therefore it’s less important for me to strive after virtue in this life in order to avoid damnation?

Something nag to think about…
 
Jen7 said:
preaching that “hell may be empty”
Click to expand...
And on the opposite side you have St Augustine who proposed the massa damnata theory, meaning most people are actually going straight to Hell. I pick St Augustine over the modern empty-Hellers any day.
 
Jen7 said:
The way I see it, the problem with preaching that “hell may be empty” goes beyond the usual arguments that O.L. Fatima showed the children souls there… the problem is this: if he’ll IS empty, it means hardened sinners appeared to die completely unrepentant but… somehow repented at the moment of death?? Can we then presume God is sooooo merciful that my sins will be no match for his mercy and therefore it’s less important for me to strive after virtue in this life in order to avoid damnation?
Click to expand...
I don’t see this as a problem. First, the church in all her wisdom refuses to say that Judas is in hell and admonishes us not to judge any soul. Who are we to decide we know that a “hardened sinner” could not have possibly repented? Are we in his soul? Are we God? On what basis would we make such a determination? Secondly, God gives us chances right up until the last possible minute, and yes, his grace is sufficient to convert even someone like Hitler. Who are we to decide it’s not possible? The fact is, it is possible, and we can’t say there’s anyone whose sins are greater than the grace wrought by the Trinity’s love through Jesus crucified and raised. We can’t. So there’s absolutely no problem in hoping.
 
How did this thread morph into the empty hell controversy? Does that now define Bishop Barron? Or maybe it’s just the easiest (convenient, accessible) criticism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top