Has the 'Non-Catholic Religions' forum lost its purpose?

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
To me a more interesting solution would be to split this forum into two:
(1) a forum for discussions between non-Catholics and “traditionalist” Catholics, and
(2) a forum for discussions between non-Catholics and run-of-the-mill Catholics (i.e. all Catholics who don’t fall into the category of “traditionalist Catholics”)

There is no split in the teachings of the Church. Therefore, a split in the forum is not appropriate.

This sort of points to a frequent, and probably inevitable, course of events in this forum. A point comes up, either an assertion or a question. A Catholic replies, and in the reply, approaches the issue from a perspective that is found in Catholic thought, but that is either absent from, or rejected and vilified by, some non-Catholics. This includes recourse to the natural law, the teaching authority of the Church, the role of Tradition (note the capital letter), or the Sacramental world view.

There is an immediate cry of “foul” against the Catholic, who is called upon - or put upon - to abandon this Catholic approach to the question, and to, essentially, argue from a secular or Protestant perspective. If the Catholic refuses, then he is further put upon. For instance, if he brought up the teaching authority of the Church, inevitably he is accused of ceasing to think or abandoning reason. Invoking Apostolic Teaching in Tradition leads to accusations of following the laws of man, not the laws of God. The Catholic is put in the position of the mathematician who is asked to discuss the solutions to the equation, “x squared plus one equals zero,” and then is put upon for brining up the field of complex numbers, and told not to do that. Unless he sticks to the real numbers, he’s not, he’s told, arguing properly or fairly. Likewise for the Catholic who uses other than secular or Protestant premises in his arguments.

I don’t find this particularly disturbing. It’s a nuisance at times, because of course the Catholic is not in the least bit interested in arguing as if he were a non-Catholic. But it is a not unexpected turn of events, and it does not indicate that the forum has lost its purpose. Indeed, it indicates that the discussions are encountering major issues in the differences between Catholics and others.

It is a tenet of the Catholic faith that the Church has, and teaches, the truth in matters of faith and morals. For catholics to ignore that tenet would indeed be to contribute to a loss of purpose of this forum.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[guanophore]

   He who comes here, comes to learn about Catholicism.

I think this is untrue by a long shot. In my tenure on this forum, I have encountered hundreds of people who come here to bash Catholicism, to convert Catholics, or for other reasons besides learning. I think there is a significant percentage of people that come here for reasons other than learning about the Catholic faith. Many of them can be found on the NC forum. That is why I come here to look for them.

I haven’t seen any Catholics here trying to bait anyone into anything

Well, hang in there, and you will. There are some. Some of your posts might qualify as well!

I see Protestants very upset at the answers that are given by Catholics, as if they cannot except the truth in our history and our Scriptural evidence of the Catholic church. Some won’t acknowledge if it wasn’t for the CC, there would be no bible. Some simply cannot except this. Some simply cannot except the morals and the authority of the Catholic church.

Perhaps it might have something to do with your delivery?

 

[guanophore]

Well you say Catholics are here to bait Protestants which is not true. Catholics here are very kind, try to be patient with others, and just try to teach others about this wonderful gift Christ has left us. The Eucharist.

This is ideal, of course, and sometimes we are, but many fall short, and we have not all been patient teachers, or charitable, yourself included. We all have a log in the eye to which we must attend.

 

[guanophore]

It would be nice to invite those with differing views to discuss and then contrast those views, as opposed to “that’s not what the Church teaches!!!:slapfight:”

I dont’ understand this. If we cannot put forth what was taught by the Apostles, how can we engage in a sensible discussion of how other views contrast with it? It seems to me that both things are necessary.

I can envision a Muslim posting his view on the daily prayers and then we could discuss the differences between Islamic conceptions of prayer and Orthodox Christian, LDS, agnostic questions and the like. It would have the potential for going a little deeper than hyperbole for hyperbole’s sake.

I agree about the hyperbole, but it seems to me that, if the writer cannot represent the views he espouses, then it would not be possible to 'discuss differences". Where is the “orthodox Christian” view supposed to come from, if we cannot say “the Catholic Church teaches…”??

I don’t know. I’m pretty new here so I don’t know what the “good old days” ever looked like. I just agree with the thoughts so far that we could tighten things up quite a bit and maybe move some earth in the process.

All my best . . .

In the “olden days” we had an Easter Christianity section. I miss that.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think that’s what he meant at all. This is from the home page of CAF
Non-Catholic Religions (28 Viewing)
Comparing and contrasting beliefs

This was in the OP by Andrew

Since the name of this part of CAF is Non-Catholic Religions, while it is part of CAF, it is for non-Catholics to compare and contrast their beliefs with one another as well as with Catholics, but it seems to me that the presence of Catholics on this part of CAF is not necessary to it’s intended purpose and it certainly does not state that it is here for Catholics to teach non-Catholics about Catholicism or anything else.

No, Richard. All of CAF is designed to provide “Catholic Answers”. the NC forum is a place where discussion can take place with Catholics that compares and contrasts beliefs. It is distinguished from other areas that have a different focus. It may seem to you that Catholics are “not necessary for it’s intended purpose” only because you misunderstand the purpose of CAF.

All of CAF is here to teach about Catholicism. That is the mission of the apostolate.

I come to the NC forum to locate people such as yourself, who posess gross misunderstandings about what the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

 

[guanophore]

There is on balance a total refusal of the administration to control the content of the threads here as long as no Catholic is by any stretch being treated unkindly. They don’t care period what is said to non-Catholics. I’ve complained all the way up the ranks of their hierarchy and received zero reply. Uncharitibility only applies to non-Catholics speaking. This of course again speaks volumes and makes them their own worst enemy in terms of the public face they are willing to portray.

A very well thought out and perceptive post, as usual SpiritMeadow. While I have seen Catholics reprimanded for lack of charity (it has happened to me serveral times ), and even banned, I do agree with you that there is a defninite bias here. Catholics can get away with saying things that non-Catholics cannot.

 

[guanophore]

If there was a hidden agenda that somehow a forum like this may make non catholics seek further into the catholic faith, well, it has seriously backfired

I don’t think it was ever hidden. The agenda (ministry) of CAF is quite public. The forums are advertized daily on the radio as a forum for discussion. The NC forum was created to be a place for folks who are not Catholic, and are not interested in engaging in apologetics over on the other side.

In fact, there are many times when the NC forum has resulted in people seeking deeper into Catholicism, including a lot of Catholics, and former Catholics. I have watched people go through NC and all the way into Catholic Living!

 

[Peter_J]

Ah, I just remembered something I was going to respond to …

I can envision a Muslim posting his view on the daily prayers and then we could discuss the differences between Islamic conceptions of prayer and Orthodox Christian, LDS, agnostic questions and the like.

I think this makes a lot of sense if you accept the “Protestantism and Orthodoxy are a different religion from Catholicism” view that many posters adhere to. I mean if Protestantism and Orthodoxy are “other religions”, then the logical consequence is that they have more in common with Muslims, LDS, and agnostics (to use the same three examples that Convert66 used) than with Catholicism. Why, then, shouldn’t we compare the “conceptions of prayer” of Orthodox Christians with those of Muslims?

 

[guanophore]

It’s up there for you to read

I believe in God.

That does not constitute a religious background, Guy. It constitutes a religious present!

 

[guanophore]

"SpiritMeadow:

Peter did a thread the other day called “protestants why are you here?” It can’t be but a page back since the last post was on July 22. I gave 10-11 reasons why i am here. My reasons are myriad and for that reason I walk around the dog doo and still find some things of great value. Like the Catholic who posted to me today commiserating with me about certain rather uncharitable souls here. That kind of kindness really helps.

the thread I cited above is fairly short, and so it won’t take long to find my post.

This is so funny; the only posts that are worthwhile and keep you coming that you see as “value” are the posters who help you to commiserate about uncharitable people? What keeps you skirting the doo-doo is people who agree with you that there’s a bunch of doo doo here? hmmmm…It speaks volumes (as spirit frequently says) that the ‘valuable’ posts are ones that either agree with your views or help you feel better about the people you don’t like…fascinating as Mr. Spock would say…

gurney, you did not go back and read Spirit’s post, did you? I find your response uncharitable, and probably a very good example of exactly what we are discussing here. Instead of valuing all the many reasons Spirit is here, you have singled out one point, and responded disparagingly. Spirit never said “the only posts that are worthwhile”. That is your imposition of small mindedness into the post. Spirit said that one particular post was especially appreciated. I think you missed the entire point!

There are many of us here that commiserate about uncharitable people. What is wrong with that? Do you think we should approve of an appreciate rude behavior? I even miserate about my own lack of charity…

Yes, other people noticing and pointing out piles of doo-doo helps everyone. It is valuable to recognize and avoid the doo-doo.

I recommend that you go back to the referenced thread and read SpiritMeadows reasons for being here, and try again. :tsktsk:

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J;5487723:

…
To me a more interesting solution would be to split this forum into two:
(1) a forum for discussions between non-Catholics and “traditionalist” Catholics, and
(2) a forum for discussions between non-Catholics and run-of-the-mill Catholics (i.e. all Catholics who don’t fall into the category of “traditionalist Catholics”)

There is no split in the teachings of the Church. Therefore, a split in the forum is not appropriate.

Hi Gerry,

I would be interested to know: what, according to your thinking, should be done with the Traditional Catholicism forum? Merge it with another forum(s)? (Just curious to know your opinion. Not promising that I’ll support it.)

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Hi Gerry,

I would be interested to know: what, according to your thinking, should be done with the Traditional Catholicism forum? Merge it with another forum(s)? (Just curious to know your opinion. Not promising that I’ll support it.)

Well, I don’t see why it can’t just be let to be. It seems to be doing OK.

Sadly, here in the Western world, many things Catholic, with respect to practice, not doctrine, have been sort of lost track of. Things like, say, novenas, and eucharistic devotion (not to mention the Sacrament of Penance). They are still relevant, and a re-discovery and re-visiting of them is a good tonic for much of the psychobabble that replaced them. For instance, no, the Eucharist is not, repeat not, a symbol of anything. It is the Body of Christ, physically present, full stop. Eucharistic devotion sprang from that fact, and its de-emphasis has let the grip on the reality loosen. Reminders of these “traditional” Catholic practices is a good thing.

Now if one is of a mind that it’s OK to be a cafeteria Catholic, its presence may annoy. It doesn’t annoy me.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I don’t see why it can’t just be let to be. It seems to be doing OK.

I don’t have any objection to having a seperate Traditional Catholicism forum. The statement:

There is no split in the teachings of the Church. Therefore, a split in the forum is not appropriate.

(concerning this forum, i.e. Non-Catholic Religions) was made by you, not me.

Now don’t get me wrong here: even though I disagree with the particular argument you’re using here, I can nevertheless understand why Traditionalist Catholic posters would oppose a split in this forum. (Well, I guess I should say “I think I understand”. Not being a Traditionalist myself, it might be presumptuous of me to say that I understand why they oppose something.)

Realistically, I don’t think there will be a split, per se. Rather this forum will gradually grow closer and closer to

(1) a forum for discussions between non-Catholics and “traditionalist” Catholics

while those posters who are more in favor of

(2) a forum for discussions between non-Catholics and run-of-the-mill Catholics (i.e. all Catholics who don’t fall into the category of “traditionalist Catholics”)

will one-by-one migrate elsewhere.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I can’t see this being a comfortable place for Catholics who don’t think that being Catholic makes them in any way different from others. They don’t tend to do anything that points out that they are Catholic - like, say, join a Catholic forum.

Blessings,

Gerry

PS: Not sure what you disagree with, but if it is my statement that there is no split in the teachings of the Church, I stand by it, because there isn’t. Some Catholics just selectively ignore, or try to explain away, certain teachings. That’s different from failing to follow them; it’s effectively denying them. But there is but one set. Don’t be confused by academic Catholics who aren’t in the Magisterium. They speak with no authority of the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

PS: Not sure what you disagree with, but if it is my statement that there is no split in the teachings of the Church…

Thank you for asking. No, what I disagree with is your using that as an argument for not splitting this forum. As I said in post #51, that logic doesn’t jive with the existence of the Traditional Catholicism forum.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Thank you for asking. No, what I disagree with is your using that as an argument for not splitting this forum. As I said in post #51, that logic doesn’t jive with the existence of the Traditional Catholicism forum.

Let me turn the discussion a bit. I feel somewhat uncomfortable, and therefore seldom post on other forums here. Not always but rarely. How do Catholics feel about Protestants posting on issues they are interested in on the other forums?

I can’t think of a way to subdivide this forum since people will post where they will. I have from time to time saw no reason why someone posted, given the topic, on this forum for instance, yet they do have some purpose it seems.

I would personally like to see issues like: Are there differences between definitions or practice of social justice issues between varying denominations? Does your church engage with others on things like food pantries and jail ministry? What is the most effective way to address institutional inequality? What types of programs have been the most effective in helping people “help themselves?” What has worked in interfaith dialogue? What hasn’t?

I seldom see these types of issues here. Why not? Just some thoughts.

Why has this forum devolved into what is wrong with your church and what is better about mine?

Can we effectively sidestep those who choose to be devisive by ignoring their posts and continuing our dialog?

Can we en group ask for policy changes from the administration?

Ideas anyone?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

…
I would personally like to see issues like: Are there differences between definitions or practice of social justice issues between varying denominations? Does your church engage with others on things like food pantries and jail ministry? What is the most effective way to address institutional inequality? What types of programs have been the most effective in helping people “help themselves?” What has worked in interfaith dialogue? What hasn’t?

I seldom see these types of issues here. Why not? Just some thoughts.
…

Although these issues are important to Catholics and the Church, they do not define either one. It’s not that they are unimportant to Catholics. But what we believe is more important.

For example: Every year, our parish operates a severe weather shelter over the winter. We consider it important. We would not claim that it makes our parish Catholic. On the other hand, we would say that our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and Transubstantiation are among the things that do.

I know from experience that liberal Anglicans point to that social action as one of their defining characteristics.

Some of the issue labels are loaded, too. Whereas some may argue that the male priesthood is a sign of “institutional inequality” in the Catholic Church, for us, them would be fightin’ words.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The question is exactly as the thread title suggests. Below I have what the intended purpose of it is, per Catholic Answers description of the forum.

Is this what is really going on? When I first came here about 3 years ago, there was a lot of active discussion; a true comparison/contrast of beliefs. Now it seems like it is an opportunity for Catholics to bait Protestants into debates. I guess that is sort of expected to a degree, but can’t talking about “how wonderful Catholicism is” or “why today’s Mass readings apply to Protestants” be done in the Apologetics forum? Instead, people are posting threads degrading others or trying to get a rise out of them. Maybe the intentions are good, but I think this particular forum may have drifted from its intended course.

Can some semblance of honest and heartfelt dialogue be regained? I myself think it is possible to dialogue with others without cheapening or watering down your faith.

Is the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ forum a place for discussion, or just a place for Catholics to share their faith with Non-Catholics? I want to hear from everyone, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Agnostic, et al.

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi Harpazo,

Although I joined in 2004, I have not participated until recently. I am Catholic. I have been active at a non-Catholic site that other than affiliation seems quite similar. I like the model St. Thomas gives us in the Summa Theologica. It doesn’t mean we have to be scholastic theologians to be willing to permit other faiths to present their beliefs in a light which best states their case. Sometimes going through the Summa, the Angelic Doctor can argue very persuasively on behalf of something he doesn’t believe.

I think those of us who believe in absolute truth in religion should know that successful error is seldom ridiculous and absurd. I guess some people of faith need to have some kind of reinforcement in their minds about how easy it is to know the truth of their particular belief because of how stupid it would be to believe anything else. To my mind, this view of truth and error does not reflect reality.

In defending the Mormons in the thread about their being “brainwashed” (I applaud the thread opener who has subsequently apologized) my understanding of Mormonism was challenged by someone who claiming to have studied it, thought they could discern in my defense of them, that I was unstudied. Frankly, I don’t consider myself in the least to qualify as a student of Mormonism and I agreeably said so, but with a hint that perhaps my interlocutor had taken even less trouble to become acquainted. I admitted that I had read maybe only a dozen books by LDS authors.

As I see it, the problem many Catholics have, is that even though they know that it is wrong for others to judge Catholicism solely on the basis of non-Catholic materials, they will still turn around and do it themselves to the non-Catholic religions. I don’t have the inclination to study non-Catholic religions, but I recognize with St. Thomas, who never ridiculed but tried to find support for those with whom we differ, that our holy faith is not aided but smeared in the eyes of outsiders if we do not take the trouble to criticize their beliefs knowledgably, charitably, and with an understanding that a flawed ship only needs one hole in the hull to be unseaworthy.

I am confident that the Barque of Peter, the Holy Catholic Church is the only true vessel which is built to carry souls through stormy seas unto the far shore. I claim that. But I also admit that there are other vessels that look good on the outside. I am uncomfortable with the way so many Catholics seem to perceive the other churches. I try to see what is true, good, and appealing with the other ships as well as what is ultimately that flaw which will make the boat sink in the end. I think that this is the scholastic way, in the Catholic tradition, the way advanced by St. Thomas Aquinas.

To hear some folks, to be anything other than Catholic is to choose a life raft over an ocean liner. A plainly crazy and obvious mistake. I don’t see it that way. I think the successful false religions appeal to both the will and the intellect, and give a good appearance of being a sea worthy ocean liner.

Respectfully,

Rory

 

[guanophore]

Let me turn the discussion a bit. I feel somewhat uncomfortable, and therefore seldom post on other forums here. Not always but rarely. How do Catholics feel about Protestants posting on issues they are interested in on the other forums?

Speaking for myself, and my experience reading your posts, I would very much welcome your participation anywhere you wanted to post. I think your perspective would be particularly insightful on the Catholic Living Forum. All areas are open to everyone.

I can’t think of a way to subdivide this forum since people will post where they will. I have from time to time saw no reason why someone posted, given the topic, on this forum for instance, yet they do have some purpose it seems.

I don’t think some people pay any more attention to where they are than what they are saying. The topics and areas are not to restrict members, but to help people find an area where others of similar interests will be likely to respond. People SHOULD post where they will, and not be concerned about the title of the area. If it is a topic of interest, go for it! If a topic ends up in the wrong area, once in a while the mods will move it to a more appropriate one so that people can find it easier.

I would personally like to see issues like: Are there differences between definitions or practice of social justice issues between varying denominations? Does your church engage with others on things like food pantries and jail ministry? What is the most effective way to address institutional inequality? What types of programs have been the most effective in helping people “help themselves?” What has worked in interfaith dialogue? What hasn’t?

Great topics! Feel free to start them.

The Apologetics has social justice area, but if you wanted to capture the non-catholics, it would be better over here. I was surprise to learn that a lot of folks don’t venture off the ND, as if they did not think it was allowed or appropriate.

I seldom see these types of issues here. Why not? Just some thoughts.

Perhaps your standard might upgrade the norm?

Why has this forum devolved into what is wrong with your church and what is better about mine?

Maybe just because of a lack of the type of topics you suggest. We could upgrade ourselves. “whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things…”

Can we effectively sidestep those who choose to be devisive by ignoring their posts and continuing our dialog?

You know, I think this is very possible. It is also helpful to report these, so the mods can counsel the member, or possibly remove the post if it is very offensive.

Can we en group ask for policy changes from the administration?

Yeah, but don’t hold your breath! I think self management would be a lot faster!

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know what the original intent of this forum was, either. A couple years ago, the moderators created list of suggestions on where to start a thread on different topics, and this is what they said about Non-Catholic Religions forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=145189

I’m not sure, however, that this forum has ever been a very charitable place. I know for a year or more I refused to visit this forum because it was so pugnacious. I think part of the problem is that CAF is attached to an apologetics website (Catholic Answers) and it attracts a lot of individuals who are eager to stick up for their beliefs, but can’t figure out how to do so except in a confrontational manner.

Well, it has…

“Non-Catholic Religions - explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents”

By the way… that does not say convert or inform them how their church or belief is oh so wrong…

Janet,

I hear what you’re saying, but I think there’s another possibility you’re overlooking: namely, that the ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ forum hasn’t strayed from its purpose, but that the purpose itself has changed. Big difference.

Keeping things in perspective, the forum-purpose isn’t something that going to change every day or even every month, but it may very well change in 2 years and 3 months (note: the post you and Dale linked to is dated Apr 11, '07).

So has the purpose, in fact, changed in the last 2 years and 3 months? Well, I think the simplest way for me to convince you that it has changed is if you read this post (which, incidentally, was written by the very same person you quoted).