NOTICE: Stricter moderation

[Jo_Benedict]

Since the opening of the Traditional Catholicism forum, I, as a moderator, have tried to step in as little as possible, only intervening when necessary. My philosophy is that micromanaging conversations has a negative impact on a healthy sharing of diverse opinions.

Problem is, it hasn’t worked. Some have taken advantage of the light moderation to proselytize for various brands of radical Traditionalism that is not in keeping with mainstream Catholicism. On the other side, tender consciences have been scandalized.

So, here is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future:

1. Proselytism will not be tolerated. If you need a definition of what is considered proselytism, click here. Participants are solely responsible for knowing and following the rules of the forum before participation. Proselytism will be a one-strike rule. Violate it and you’re gone.

You are also responsible for knowing and following all of the rules of this forum. Read the stickies at the top of the forum if you need a refresher.

2. Any lack of cooperation with mod direction will not be tolerated and will also be subject to the one-strike rule. Violate it and you’re gone. Lack of cooperation includes public complaints about mod action and private verbal abuse of the moderator (including but not limited to insults, emotional manipulation, and questioning her competence and/or religious faith).

3. The moderator will make every effort to read new threads and respond quickly to complaints that are filed. Do not abuse this by increasing her workload through filing numerous petty complaints. Save filing complaints for serious, substantial breaches of CAF rules. Petty bickering should not inspire petty reporting. Abuse of the post-report system will make you as subject to mod discipline as anyone else.

4. All SSPX discussions are currently on probationary status. While I understand the importance of discussion of the SSPX in a Traditional Catholicism forum, those who participate in those discussions cannot seem to restrain themselves to charitable dialogue. If the situation does not improve – immediately – there will have to be at least a temporary ban on discussing the SSPX. If you want to be able to continue discussing this subject, do your part to improve the atmosphere of those discussions.

5. If you are struggling with temptations to radical Traditionalism, please understand that this forum may not be the right forum for you to participate in. CAF hosts many different forums, and you may find a better fit in one of them (e.g., Liturgy & Sacraments).

6. This thread will be left open for now to allow follow-up questions. Please do not view it as an opportunity to argue with these new guidelines or the necessity for them. Thank you.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Sticking this for the time being so everyone gets a chance to read it. Will also continue to leave the thread open for now. Feel free to ask follow-up questions.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Bump.

After further consideration, I’ve decided to keep this thread in the main body of the forum for the time being since stickies tend to get overlooked. If need be, I’ll re-stick it later. Thanks for your attention to these new guidelines. If you have any questions or concerns (as distinguished from argument or debate), please feel free to share them here.

 

[JuanCarlos]

In regards to the SSPX, could there be a sticky that has a list of links to documents regarding their status? It would include John Paul II’s “Ecclesia Dei”, which is used by some to argue that SSPX Mass attendance is never justified, but it would also include the various statements made by Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in regards to the SSPX’s status which seem to suggest Mass attendance is alright.

Just a thought, given that this question is very frequently asked on this board.

 

[maurin]

In regards to the SSPX, could there be a sticky that has a list of links to documents regarding their status? It would include John Paul II’s “Ecclesia Dei”, which is used by some to argue that SSPX Mass attendance is never justified, but it would also include the various statements made by Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in regards to the SSPX’s status which seem to suggest Mass attendance is alright.

Just a thought, given that this question is very frequently asked on this board.

yes, I agree.

Given the fact that Cardinal Hoyos this year has explained His Holiness’ position that the SSPX is an *internal *matter of reconciliation within the Church, and that one can fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation at an SSPX Mass, if links are provided in the sticky, one would hope that all aspects of the SSPX’s highly irregular status would appear in them.

To be clear, I would always recommend anyone who asks me to check with their Chancery for the closest available Diocesan Traditional Mass.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanCarlos View Post
In regards to the SSPX, could there be a sticky that has a list of links to documents regarding their status? It would include John Paul II’s “Ecclesia Dei”, which is used by some to argue that SSPX Mass attendance is never justified, but it would also include the various statements made by Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in regards to the SSPX’s status which seem to suggest Mass attendance is alright.

Just a thought, given that this question is very frequently asked on this board.

yes, I agree.

Given the fact that Cardinal Hoyos this year has explained His Holiness’ position that the SSPX is an *internal *matter of reconciliation within the Church, and that one can fulfill one’s Sunday Obligation at an SSPX Mass, if links are provided in the sticky, one would hope that all aspects of the SSPX’s highly irregular status would appear in them.

To be clear, I would always recommend anyone who asks me to check with their Chancery for the closest available Diocesan Traditional Mass.

---

Ditto.

 

[alih]

from my point of view, the only reason that this particular forum exists is due to the influences of not only, pius x but also groups who view themselves as sedevacantists, privationvecantists, independent chapels, et al: it must be remembered however, that all basically are interested in the same thing, and that is the salvation of souls. i would like to consider this forum to be one where those who have questions concerning “traditionalism” are able to obtain reasonably accurate replies and/or information on where to find them. i also feel if one believes strongly that which they are doing is correct and within the bounds of decency no critiques should be necessary. have a good year. (alih)

 

[Cat]

from my point of view, the only reason that this particular forum exists is due to the influences of not only, pius x but also groups who view themselves as sedevacantists, privationvecantists, independent chapels, et al: it must be remembered however, that all basically are interested in the same thing, and that is the salvation of souls. i would like to consider this forum to be one where those who have questions concerning “traditionalism” are able to obtain reasonably accurate replies and/or information on where to find them. i also feel if one believes strongly that which they are doing is correct and within the bounds of decency no critiques should be necessary. have a good year. (alih)

I would like to think that a new Catholic, a confused Catholic, and non-Catholics can come here and get correct information without being told that the Mass they regularly attend is invalid, illicit, inferior, etc. Catholic Answers is just that–a place to get ANSWERS. I find it quite upsetting to my faith that SSPX people regularly come onto this board and tell me stuff that is contrary to what my bishop and priests teach, but claim that their teaching is truly “Catholic.” This is the kind of thing that can cause a shaky person to leave the Church.

I applaud the strong stand that the moderators will be taking, and beg them to continue to make CAF a place where we can get correct answers to our queries.

 

[maurin]

I would like to think that a new Catholic, a confused Catholic, and non-Catholics can come here and get correct information without being told that the Mass they regularly attend is invalid, illicit, inferior, etc. Catholic Answers is just that–a place to get ANSWERS. I find it quite upsetting to my faith that SSPX people regularly come onto this board and tell me stuff that is contrary to what my bishop and priests teach, but claim that their teaching is truly “Catholic.” This is the kind of thing that can cause a shaky person to leave the Church.

I applaud the strong stand that the moderators will be taking, and beg them to continue to make CAF a place where we can get correct answers to our queries.

Hi Cat,

yes, I agree that those who claim the NO is invalid inherently are taking Lefebvre’s concerns much further than he did or the Society does today.

But we also cannot ignore the fact that many many NO Celebrations are also seriously in contradiction to what Paul VI had in mind when he promulgated the new Missal. These abuses are as seriously damaging and scandalous to ‘sensitive minds’ as are what you described above.

My fervent hope for this new structure for SSPX dialogue will be extremely fair to both sides of the issue.

We must remember not to go further than the Church Herself does in describing the status of the SSPX. And we who assist at SSPX Chapel must also remember not to go further either. We admit we are in irregular canonical status and also that His Holiness himself describes the status as an internal matter of reconciliation inside the Church.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Please keep the thread on topic and do not let it devolve into SSPX vs. NO debates.

As for the sticky idea, if someone wants to create text for such a sticky and send it to me by private message, I’ll look it over and post if appropriate.

 

[strugglingalong]

Please keep the thread on topic and do not let it devolve into SSPX vs. NO debates.

As for the sticky idea, if someone wants to create text for such a sticky and send it to me by private message, I’ll look it over and post if appropriate.

Why can’t people discuss SSPX or SSPX vs. NO issues? I don’t understand since SSPX is a specific issue in the Church and SSPX relates to traditional Catholicism. I can see why people can’t evangelize people to join SSPX but I can’t see why people can’t discuss it…

Also, in a thread on whether John Paul II should be called “the Great” I was told not to bring up things like the kissing of the Koran, of the Assisi congress, etc. Why can’t we discuss things people legitimately question during his Pontificate? I don’t understand why that is the case. It’s just discussing whether these were good or bad things…

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Why can’t people discuss SSPX or SSPX vs. NO issues?

I didn’t say you couldn’t. I just said you couldn’t *in this thread *because it is on a different subject entirely. Please be aware though that SSPX discussions are currently on a probationary status, so make sure to keep any discussions you do engage in charitable and in conformity to CAF and TC rules.

strugglingalong:

Also, in a thread on whether John Paul II should be called “the Great” I was told not to bring up things like the kissing of the Koran, of the Assisi congress, etc.

Because, as I said in the thread, they’ve been hashed out repeatedly elsewhere. Please read all mod posts carefully to avoid misunderstanding mod direction and to avoid asking questions to which answers have already been given. Thanks.

 

[strugglingalong]

Because, as I said in the thread, they’ve been hashed out repeatedly elsewhere. Please read all mod posts carefully to avoid misunderstanding mod direction and to avoid asking questions to which answers have already been given. Thanks.

So we should have discussed whether John Paul II is “the Great” without referencing things people think were not so good? That leaves only the good things.

I’m sure many things have been hashed out repeatedly elsewhere. I doubt many threads have new content.

Thanks for the clarification.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

So we should have discussed whether John Paul II is “the Great” without referencing things people think were not so good? That leaves only the good things.

It is possible to discuss whether or not John Paul II should be given the title “the Great” without allowing the conversation to get sidetracked into debates over previously hashed-out issues. It is at the moderator’s discretion to limit old arguments from re-surfacing, particularly now when she is busy applying ice packs to an overheated forum.

strugglingalong: If you have any further questions or concerns about this, contact me by private message. Thanks.

 

[ncjohn]

I would like to think that a new Catholic, a confused Catholic, and non-Catholics can come here and get correct information without being told that the Mass they regularly attend is invalid, illicit, inferior, etc. Catholic Answers is just that–a place to get ANSWERS. I find it quite upsetting to my faith that SSPX people regularly come onto this board and tell me stuff that is contrary to what my bishop and priests teach, but claim that their teaching is truly “Catholic.” This is the kind of thing that can cause a shaky person to leave the Church.

I applaud the strong stand that the moderators will be taking, and beg them to continue to make CAF a place where we can get correct answers to our queries.

Ditto

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I would like to think that a new Catholic, a confused Catholic, and non-Catholics can come here and get correct information without being told that the Mass they regularly attend is invalid, illicit, inferior, etc. Catholic Answers is just that–a place to get ANSWERS. I find it quite upsetting to my faith that SSPX people regularly come onto this board and tell me stuff that is contrary to what my bishop and priests teach, but claim that their teaching is truly “Catholic.” This is the kind of thing that can cause a shaky person to leave the Church.

I applaud the strong stand that the moderators will be taking, and beg them to continue to make CAF a place where we can get correct answers to our queries.

Cat, I totally agree with your post. Also, I applaud Jo Benedict for her action taken. Thanks
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[redrosetea]

Thank you I was followed from thread to thread by one of these zealots trying to get me to see the light…well I didn’t see it, nor will I. I am faithful to the magesterium of the church

 

[michelle_p]

It is at the moderator’s discretion to limit old arguments from re-surfacing, particularly now when she is busy applying ice packs to an overheated forum.

Thank you for your intervention. It was impossible to participate in a discussion without it degenerating into a roll call listing of Why the church today is bad.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Does this Stricter moderation cover what is in users signatures also?

As I have seen some that seem to promote SSPX and other non-Catholic traditional stuff.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

In regards to the SSPX, could there be a sticky that has a list of links to documents regarding their status? It would include John Paul II’s “Ecclesia Dei”, which is used by some to argue that SSPX Mass attendance is never justified, but it would also include the various statements made by Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in regards to the SSPX’s status which seem to suggest Mass attendance is alright.

Just a thought, given that this question is very frequently asked on this board.

A sticky has been added. See SSPX: Documents. Thanks for the links.