How Come CA bars honest conversations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fullmetalcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fullmetalcatholic

Guest
How come Catholic Answers apologists who cruise the forum block and ban such posts for asking questions regarding legitimate issues? Any post regarding some of the latest controversies such as the Vatican participating 100% in UN Agenda 2030 has been blocked?

By not allowing the discourse of the conversation the staff apologists and mediators are doing the Church and the Faithful a disservice.

The Church is in crisis now; and we need to have the hard conversations.
 
Usually because these so called “hard conversations” devolve into party politics, mudslinging, and yelling matches where no one listens and no one learns.

They also typically become a platform for people who want to attack to the pope to do so, or for people who want to attack traditionalists to do so.

Basically, they almost never last as legitimate discussions for more than a dozen posts or so.
 
There are no “Catholic Answers apologists” on here.
Everybody on here is just some random person who dropped in off the internet like you did.
Everybody on here is also allowed to flag posts. Posts are supposed to be flagged for violation of the forum TOS.

If a post is flagged, it goes to a moderator who is employed by CAF who reviews the flag and takes whatever action is necessary like remove the post, suspend the poster, hide the thread, lock the thread, etc.
 
Last edited:
I’d like to know more about Agenda 2030 and the Catholic Church - that’s all. How come we’ve been signed over to it? That’s an honest question.
 
We haven’t been, the Vatican as a city-state has. As the head of the Papal City, that is the Pope’s prerogative, and is not binding on Catholics as a whole. You are conflating matters of governance with matters of faith.
 
Honesly, I’m not conflating anything; it’s legitimate to ask how come our leadership is signing over the Vatican city state then to the issues in Agenda 2030; primarily abortion and homosexuality. It confuses the faithful.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
We haven’t been, the Vatican as a city-state has. As the head of the Papal City, that is the Pope’s prerogative, and is not binding on Catholics as a whole.
Click to expand...
The OP no doubt means, why is the Pope supporting it, which is a very good question and worthy of discussion.
 
Erm… to be fair, that sounds more like a spelling error than a slight. It’s just missing the ‘r’.

Anyone who reads my posts with any regularity would probably notice that I routinely misspell ‘the’ as ‘teh’. It’s just an ingrained sequence that I have trouble deviating from. There’s no reason to assume maliciousness here.
fullmetalcatholic said:
Honesly, I’m not conflating anything; it’s legitimate to ask how come our leadership is signing over the Vatican city state then to the issues in Agenda 2030; primarily abortion and homosexuality. It confuses the faithful.
Click to expand...
Finn said:
The OP no doubt means, why is the Pope supporting it, which is a very good question and worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...
It is a legitimate question, and concerning, I agree. My point is that you rarely see a measured and reasonable discussion about this sort of thing around here. I love these forums, but that is a consistent deficiency. If both sides could refrain from rhetoric we could probably have a better discussion.

My 2-cents, he’s probably supporting it because of the environmental concerns, despite it’s other negative aspects. I disagree with that decision, but I am not in charge of the Pope, and he will answer for his decisions just like the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and we respectfully are allowed to kiss the ring also to get our indulgence.
 
Or more correctly, His Holiness the Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ, Bishop of Rome,Head of the Catholic Church… must I continue?
 
Last edited:
Didn’t another poster mention on the ring kissing video thread that the status of this indulgence is questionable?
 
Yes. I find it questionable that laity consider themselves to be more informed about the Vatican conclaves than the Popes (plural) involved in it.

I also find it interesting how this “dissent” against Pope Francis and Vatican 2 is a phenomenon unique to the West. Nothing of the sort in the East. An interesting insight, no?
 
Salibi said:
Vatican 2 is a phenomenon unique to the West
Click to expand...
I would argue that it’s because the West is where the writings of Vatican 2 were abused and ignored in favor of a politically / sexually liberal movement within the clergy and laity, resulting in an abuse of power which makes people distrusting of the documents people claimed supported their departure from traditional Christian morals and ideologies.

I don’t know of anyone who has read the documents that believes it supports the things dissenters on either side claim it does.

(Yes, I know, that was a massive run on sentence. I apologize.)
 
Last edited:
People are supposed to trust the Church and the Holy Spirit, especially if they distrust or don’t understand something. They’re not supposed to “pull a Luther” and decide to be their own Popes.

God isn’t going to punish you for obeying the Pope.
 
Last edited:
If the Pope commands you to do evil and you know better and follow the Pope, than yes, you will both burn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top