NOTICE: Stricter moderation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jo_Benedict
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As a follow-up to Joysong’s post…

Since I’m pretty new here I’m not sure how thread-moving works. When a thread is moved, are we notified on the forum from which it was moved?

I would also be in favor of more threads being moved, as long as we’re notified that they’ve been moved.

Thanks.
 
In my experience here it has been one of shock. Shock about the things so called “traditionalist” can say and shock at how “non-traditionalists” can bury thier heads in the sand just because thier parish is nice for them. Shock at the double standard that anyone who is traditional is held to. Shock at how crazy mean some people on both sides can be. Traditionalits seem to be more “go out in flames” and moderates seem to be more passive aggressive, taking little jabs.
Even in posts 22-25 of this thread there are examples of how I don’t think this sub forum can work. The problem is that CAF has limited resources and abilities to address this type of issue fairly. Traditionalists seem to be chastized or banned more often than thier lets just say more tactful bretheren. But the lack of charity and sometimes outright hate by both sides is hardly Catholic or holy.
 
40.png
Matt33:
Traditionalists seem to be chastized or banned more often than their let’s just say more tactful brethren. But the lack of charity and sometimes outright hate by both sides is hardly Catholic or holy.
Click to expand...
Hello, Matt,

I invite you to read this thread and reconsider your opinion as to why traditionalists seem to be chastized more often. The thread reported a disgraceful attitude that Cardinal Castrillion is reporting about traditionalists, calling them ‘incredible and insatiable’ for their demands to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and trips to the internet to complain after being denied.

In spite of that article being posted in Catholic News, there was not a single post from one of the “more tactful brethren” that railed against the group. Had it been a reverse situation where Catholic News Service printed an article about the OF, it would be all over the forum. I know many traditionalists regularly scan the CNS for all such armor. But the silence in the thread above tells me that more virtue, patience, and tolerance exists in the “tactful brethren” than in the ones the Cardinal was so dissatisfied with.
 
Joysong said:
Hello, Matt,

I invite you to read this thread and reconsider your opinion as to why traditionalists seem to be chastized more often. The thread reported a disgraceful attitude that Cardinal Castrillion is reporting about traditionalists, calling them ‘incredible and insatiable’ for their demands to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and trips to the internet to complain after being denied.

In spite of that article being posted in Catholic News, there was not a single post from one of the “more tactful brethren” that railed against the group. Had it been a reverse situation where Catholic News Service printed an article about the OF, it would be all over the forum. I know many traditionalists regularly scan the CNS for all such armor. But the silence in the thread above tells me that more virtue, patience, and tolerance exists in the “tactful brethren” than in the ones the Cardinal was so dissatisfied with.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I mean. You look past the point of the ENTIRE post and focus on something that anyone would agree is bad. There are traditinalists like me who are not like that and are in fear on these boards because we aren’t given the same leeway as others. THose posts are horrendous, yes and they should be banned. Forget saying something in defense of traditionalism on these boards, just saying that it should be fair gets this type of response.🤷 Oh well. We all are right in our own minds.
 
Matt,

I agree that there are some very beautiful traditionalists * who are humble and devout and I would love to see this forum as a place where they can share their love of the TLM without feeling oppressed or intimidated. Most likely, this was the very purpose for which the forum was established, and the very reason Jo Benedict is looking for feedback so that it can become all you want it to be.

As for the others, the demanding souls who want to eliminate other rites and make every effort to encourage their demise through a steady flow of disparaging accusations, yes, it is disruptive of unity and charity, and I’m certain it tears the Heart of Christ.*
 
Joysong said:
Matt,

I agree that there are some very beautiful traditionalists * who are humble and devout and I would love to see this forum as a place where they can share their love of the TLM without feeling oppressed or intimidated. Most likely, this was the very purpose for which the forum was established, and the very reason Jo Benedict is looking for feedback so that it can become all you want it to be.

As for the others, the demanding souls who want to eliminate other rites and make every effort to encourage their demise through a steady flow of disparaging accusations, yes, it is disruptive of unity and charity, and I’m certain it tears the Heart of Christ.*

We all should be charitable. who could not agree. I get that you are mad at some bad Traditionalists it is evident in the way you must bring it up in every post to me so far. I get it. No need to just single it out anymore. Try to see both sides and see that on these boards the anti traditionalists can be just as bad.
Click to expand...
 
BrendanD said:
There was a thread asking for a list of dioceses that have banned a certain bishop from speaking (without mentioning his name.) It was closed because criticizing specific bishops is not allowed. Is that rule going to be applied to all the posts attacking Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson as well?
Click to expand...
That rule deals with criticizing bishops who are considered in good standing with the Church and are in union with the Pope. Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Williamson are neither, so the rule doesn’t apply to them. I do ask though that any criticism given be charitable and focused on actions, and not be personal attacks.
 
maurin said:
Let’s see, Brendan, on one hand, you have a Bishop, who has been demonstrated to teach very much in contradiction to the Church’s Teachings on Faith and Morals who may not be named, but is technically in Communion and in good standing with Rome. So, one may not criticize him, nor mention him by name.

On the other hand, you have an Archbishop and Bishop, both either having had taught or teaching still the Faith and Morals which are timeless and unchangeable. They can be named and attacked. (I’m not sure, but I think that the substance of what they teach/taught is never even mentioned by their detractors.)

But then again, no Pope has excommunicated the former, and Jesus was Crucified.
Click to expand...
Please throttle back on the rhetoric. The rules here are what they are. Members are free to personally disagree with CAF rules but may not publicly criticize CAF for them on CAF’s own site. Thank you.
 
Joysong said:
For those who would like to generally respond and do not venture into this forum, it is unfortunate that their (name removed by moderator)ut cannot be complementary. May I ask that when these threads appear, they be moved into appropriate forums?
Click to expand...
All of the mods work hard to move threads to appropriate forums. If you see one that should be placed elsewhere, please file a post report (using the red-and-white triangle icon attached to each post) asking for a move. Thanks.
 
Pam_Folbrecht said:
As a follow-up to Joysong’s post…

Since I’m pretty new here I’m not sure how thread-moving works. When a thread is moved, are we notified on the forum from which it was moved?

I would also be in favor of more threads being moved, as long as we’re notified that they’ve been moved.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but the mods unfortunately do not have the time or resources to notify everyone every time a thread is moved. I recommend subscribing to threads that interest you so you can keep track of where they are. Check out the Concierge Desk for tech support info on how to more easily navigate CAF.
 
JuanCarlos said:
To counter the claims of the newly added document, I invite you to add this document, written by no less a source than Cardinal Ratzinger himself.

sspx.org/images/Miscellaneous/ratzingerdecree_4june93_520x680.jpg
Click to expand...
I couldn’t read the image at the link provided. In any case, you would need to provide a link to the document from a non-SSPX site. (Members may provide links to SSPX sites when substantiating points made in their posts, but CAF prefers not to use SSPX links for references it personally provides.) Also, please send such suggestions by private message only. Thanks.
 
Jo_Benedict said:
I couldn’t read the image at the link provided. In any case, you would need to provide a link to the document from a non-SSPX site. (Members may provide links to SSPX sites when substantiating points made in their posts, but CAF prefers not to use SSPX links for references it personally provides.) Also, please send such suggestions by private message only. Thanks.
Click to expand...
To make it bigger, hold your mouse over it and magnify it.

Lamentably, I could not find a non-SSPX source for the letter. Regardless, the “Honolulu Six” incident really happened, and their excommunications were declared null.
 
Matt33 said:
Traditionalists seem to be chastized or banned more often than thier lets just say more tactful bretheren. .
Click to expand...
There may well be a relationship, but it is not in moderation bias. Most of the ones I have seen banned attend a chapel or support those who operate outside of obedience to the Catholic Church. Often one can see without being too nosy the rule of rules that were broken that resulted in the ban. If there is a correlation, it is the mindset that rules are meant to be broken, if one believes he has a valid reason.

As far as unfairness toward traditionalist (at least those faithful to Rome), CAF has opened up this forum just for them. They have never been chastised in the least here and many have been here since the first year. Their witness here have brought me, and I am sure others, a greater appreciation of their struggles and their faith.
 
Jo_Benedict said:
Please throttle back on the rhetoric. The rules here are what they are. Members are free to personally disagree with CAF rules but may not publicly criticize CAF for them on CAF’s own site. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I apologize, Jo Benedict, and agree that my rhetoric toed the line between good and bad taste. However, my intention was not to criticise the rules of the Forum, or the Forum itself. It was intended more as a comment on the way some speak of the leadership of the SSPX, especially a comment made awhile back by someone who believed they knew where Archbishop Lefebvre is spending eternity.

I am sorry for my transgression.
 
maurin said:
It was intended more as a comment on the way some speak of the leadership of the SSPX, especially a comment made awhile back by someone who believed they knew where Archbishop Lefebvre is spending eternity.
Click to expand...
That could be characterized as a “personal attack” and would transgress CAF rules. Merely criticizing the Archbishop’s actions, on the other hand, would not.
 
Jo_Benedict said:
That rule deals with criticizing bishops who are considered in good standing with the Church and are in union with the Pope.
Click to expand...
A bishop that promotes abortion, homosexuality, and women’s ordination is considered in good standing with the Church and in union with the Pope :confused:
 
Jo_Benedict said:
That rule deals with criticizing bishops who are considered in good standing with the Church and are in union with the Pope. Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Williamson are neither, so the rule doesn’t apply to them. I do ask though that any criticism given be charitable and focused on actions, and not be personal attacks.
Click to expand...
The official toleration of detraction isn’t a good idea–whether the target is orthodox, like the two bishops mentioned here, or heretical, like many of the bishops who enjoy “good standing with the Church.”

Also, regarding union with the Pope, Bp. Williamson considers Benedict XVI to be his pope. As far as I am aware, the Pope considers Bishop Williamson to be a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Furthermore, Archbishop Lefebvre, to the very end, considered John Paul II to be his pope. Whether or not the late pontiff ever reciprocated this allegiance I do not know. I hope for his sake that he did.
 
Binx said:
The official toleration of detraction isn’t a good idea–.
Click to expand...
Criticism is not detraction. Accusing others of tolerating sin, is.

Williamson was ordained in direct opposition to the will of the Holy Father. His opinion of the Pope is not an issue. The pope’s opinion of him is what counts. His ordination was valid, but done outside of the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top