NOTICE: Stricter moderation

[reggieM]

For clarification purposes only, if it is true what you say, that “there are false teachers at all levels”, isn’t it similar to keeping the Light under a bushel, or purposely not building the city on a hill, not to alert those who are in danger of succombing to and being the victims of the “false teachers” which you say are “at all levels”?

It may not be true what I said. That’s the problem. I offer an opinion – and we can see already that I could have given you and others scandal by claiming that there are false teachers “at all levels”. Did I mean that the Holy Father himself is a “false teacher”? No, but if someone wanted to misconstrue what I said (I don’t know what your motive is either) then we can see very clearly how dangerous this is.

My opinion is of an untrained layman. Whatever light I have is limited to my capacity for giving it. I can speak the truth by reflecting on what the Magisterium has given us. But there’s no guarantee that my opinion (beyond the Deposit of Faith) is the truth.

I need to test my opinion with the shepherds of the Church.
So, keeping my opinion private is not keeping the light under a bushel – since my opinion is not guaranteed as being true light.

Before Vatican II I would not be permitted, by Canon Law, to give my theological opinions in a public forum without the official permission of the local bishop.
Farther back, I would not be permitted to discuss theological matters in the vernacular (discussions would have to be in Latin, and in private unless supported by a bishop).

So, we’re all the beneficiaries of Vatican II here on CAF, where we can say (mostly) what we want without being excommunicated.

For some reason, my traditionalist friends don’t want to return to the glory days when they weren’t permitted to give whatever opinion they wanted, including attacks on bishops or the Pope himself in a public forum.

So, I guess Vatican II was good for them after all – although they don’t want to accept that. We all have our share of hypocricy at to overcome. It’s a bit more difficult to take from people who claim to be holier and more intelligent and more faithful than the rest of “Novus Ordo Catholics” are though.

 

[BrendanD]

I think some people have a mistaken idea that it’s “uncharitable” to point out that someone is publicly preaching heresy, or that laypeople aren’t smart enough to do so. In reality, it’s painstakingly obvious that somebody promoting women’s ordination is a heretic. And it’s definitely NOT the teaching of the church that we should sit around quietly while heretics preach in our parishes.

We don’t need an official judgment from the Vatican about every single person that promotes abortion-- we already know what the Church has to say about them. It’s pretty clear what the real issue is when someone is criticized for calling a heretic a heretic, and then in the next sentence, the same person gives a list of reasons why it’s ok for them to call people heretics.

 

[maurin]

It’s a bit more difficult to take from people who claim to be holier and more intelligent and more faithful than the rest of “Novus Ordo Catholics” are though.

This is the second time in 2 or 3 days that I have read these and similar slanderous remarks from you, reggieM.

If this is another case of you expressing your perception without calling it your perception, but presenting it casually as fact, I can understand why stricter moderation might be in order on this forum.

Although there may be some Traditionalists who might think that they are “holier” or “more intelligent” or “more faithful” than what you describe as “Novus Ordo Catholics”, then they are either living Saints (which is doubtful) or deluding themselves (which is more likely than "a living Saint).

I can assure you that I am not, nor do I consider myself to be, niether holier, more intelligent or more faithful than you.

If you would like to continue to make such sweeping generalizations as you have made above, I certainly cannot stop you. But I can pray.

 

[reggieM]

… I can understand why stricter moderation might be in order on this forum.

I’m glad to hear it and I fully support that also.

Although there may be some Traditionalists who might think that they are “holier” or “more intelligent” or “more faithful”

There “may” be? I hope it’s not “slanderous” to suggest that *any *“Traditionalists” (whatever that term means) could suffer from such problems.

I can assure you that I am not, nor do I consider myself to be, niether holier, more intelligent or more faithful than you.

I’m sorry that you read my comments as directed at you. I don’t know anything about you at all beyond the one post you offered. But I appreciate your words and I offer the same to you. If I’ve appeared as such, I apologize.

If you would like to continue to make such sweeping generalizations as you have made above, I certainly cannot stop you.

Well, I did mention that I was talking about “my friends” (and I mean real friends who I know and associate with), so it wasn’t intended as a sweeping generalization. I’ll suggest that you’re exaggerating and over-reacting.

 

[reggieM]

It’s pretty clear what the real issue is when someone is criticized for calling a heretic a heretic, and then in the next sentence, the same person gives a list of reasons why it’s ok for them to call people heretics.

I guess it would be pretty clear if you could point out who did what you claim here. If you can’t do that, then I’ll suggest that you’re writing fiction.

By the way, what is the “real issue” you’re talking about?

 

[CradleCath]

=reggieM;4222827]

Before Vatican II I would not be permitted, by Canon Law, to give my theological opinions in a public forum without the official permission of the local bishop.

Whew, some one forgot to tell that to my Father. He was born in 1914, a devout lifelong Catholic…but, he & his friends would argue theology…over a poker game, for hours.

As for myself, I was in my 20’s before the council was called, still no one ever told me that I was not allowed to share my opinion of
Church teachings or those who spoke against them.

So, I guess Vatican II was good for them after all – although they don’t want to accept that. We all have our share of hypocricy at to overcome. It’s a bit more difficult to take from people who claim to be holier and more intelligent and more faithful than the rest of “Novus Ordo Catholics” are though

I am not aware of anyone making that claim & that’s a very nasty accusation unless you can back it up. Could you link me to the message that said this.

 

[BrendanD]

I guess it would be pretty clear if you could point out who did what you claim here. If you can’t do that, then I’ll suggest that you’re writing fiction.

To use your post as an example, telling people that we can’t make a “judgment” about bishops until there’s a “trial”, etc. Then in the very same post, you declare that certain bishops are “separated from the Church” (which is not the position of the Church at all.)

But this is kind of outside the real issue, which is that it’s not detraction, uncharitable, or anything else, to warn people that someone’s coming to their parish to teach heresy. People making that claim ought to look into the church’s teaching a bit further.

By the way, what is the “real issue” you’re talking about?

Love to explain, but it would probably be “against the rules.”

By the way, when you’re having a conversation with traditionalists, and you start talking about how some traditionalists are “holier than thou” and various other insults, people might get the impression that it’s directed at them personally. (And this is not just directed at you…it’s to everyone here who subtly calls the traditional Catholics “Pharisees”, “legalists”, etc.)

 

[Walking_Home]

To use your post as an example, telling people that we can’t make a “judgment” about bishops until there’s a “trial”, etc. Then in the very same post, you declare that certain bishops are “separated from the Church” (which is not the position of the Church at all.)

But this is kind of outside the real issue, which is that it’s not detraction, uncharitable, or anything else, to warn people that someone’s coming to their parish to teach heresy. People making that claim ought to look into the church’s teaching a bit further.

Love to explain, but it would probably be “against the rules.”

By the way, when you’re having a conversation with traditionalists, and you start talking about how some traditionalists are “holier than thou” and various other insults, people might get the impression that it’s directed at them personally. (And this is not just directed at you…it’s to everyone here who subtly calls the traditional Catholics “Pharisees”, “legalists”, etc.)

---

Agree.

 

[Matt33]

So, I guess Vatican II was good for them after all – although they don’t want to accept that. We all have our share of hypocricy at to overcome. It’s a bit more difficult to take from people who claim to be holier and more intelligent and more faithful than the rest of “Novus Ordo Catholics” are though.

WOW. THis was exactly my point from earlier posts. Passive agressive form the non traditionalists is put up with a lot on these boards, and this in a thread about stricker moderation?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Please Lets stop using judgmental descriptions of people and stay on thread

 

[BarbaraTherese]

We’re not authorized to render official judgements about bishops, even though we read something in the newspaper. Beyond that, there is the sin of spreading scandal and that can be serious. If a bishop has been publicly rebuked by the Holy See, or has been found objectively to be separated from the Church through an illicit consecration – then that’s a different matter.
But a bishop who is quoted as saying something has the right to a fair trial before being judged a heretic.
As far as our own safety (because there are false teachers at all levels) you can request that someone send you a private message.
A kind person messaged me on my question about bishops and that was helpful.
Not every conversation we have has to take place in public on the forum. Some questions are best answered privately.

Hi Reggie…What I am wondering about is that if some bishop, priest or nun, religious sister, or some well known Catholic layperson - or even not so well known - is critized in some way or even condemned by some authoritative person in The Church…or just through a media outlet of some kind and a media journalistic opinion - and personal names, titles, are stated in the media statement - can one state the person’s name (in one’s Post) that is the subject, if one links it to the actual media statement and discuss what has been said about them and/or their statements? This is presupposing of course that they are actually named in the media statement. I cannot understand why one could not, since it is in the public domain through media anyway.

I don’t mean to name the person in order to indulge in near on hysteria or personal accusations etc., but simply to discuss what has been said in the media statement either simply by the media or by some authority in The Church discussed by the media.

My subject in this post is quoting the actual name of the person in a Post

reported in the media by a journalistic opinion or reporting on what some Church authority has stated. Link to the latter supplied which states the actual name

.

What is the rule on CAF?

General Forum Rules
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150

Rules applyin to the Traditional Catholic Forum
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127816

It is acceptable to question policies and practices

I have looked through all the above and I may well be denser than most, but there sure are an awful lot of Rules to remember indeed…and at 63yrs almost with a short term memory problem (I am not attempting to be funny, my stm problem is genuine) it is an impossibility for me to remember them all. Also, and as a general comment only and an aside, I dont understand why moderators sometimes have to be so coldly dogmatic when pointing out an infringement…conveying (and perhaps unintentionally) a distinct impression that the conclusion is that the offense was deliberate. Although in the main I think that moderation on CAF is pretty good.

I also re read the OP of this thread - although to be honest by the time I got to the conclusion I could not remember everything stated, and insofar as I can discern I am on topic.

I am genuinely confused on the point in the quote box above in blue text. …Barb

 

[maurin]

I’m glad to hear it and I fully support that also.

There “may” be? I hope it’s not “slanderous” to suggest that *any *“Traditionalists” (whatever that term means) could suffer from such problems.

I’m sorry that you read my comments as directed at you. I don’t know anything about you at all beyond the one post you offered. But I appreciate your words and I offer the same to you. If I’ve appeared as such, I apologize.

Well, I did mention that I was talking about “my friends” (and I mean real friends who I know and associate with), so it wasn’t intended as a sweeping generalization. I’ll suggest that you’re exaggerating and over-reacting.

Permit me to speak my mind clearly. Of course you are free to respond, but after that, let us not beat it up any further. Fair enough?

Whether or not 2 groups agree or disagree on any issue does not prevent anyone in either group from remaining respectful to the other group, either as the group as a whole or individually.

What that means is it is more desirable, in order for real and constructive dialogue to take place, to constrain oneself from adding unnecessary barbs against another group, either individually or collectively. One can say, in the particular way you appear to have meant your comments to which I took offense, “I have been at the receiving end of comments made by certain Traditionalists which implied that ‘Novus Ordo Catholics’ are less holy…etc,” rather than painting all Traditionalists as obnoxious. The truth of the matter is that there are those on both sides of the coin who are more holy, etc. than others. I know myself, my thoughts, my deeds, what I have done and what I have failed to do. I am willing to bet that there are many people participating on this thread who are both holier and more intelligent than I.

If someone perceives an insult and expresses their hurt, whether or not such an insult was intended, it was perceived as such. Is it not living up to our dignity as children of God to clarify one’s own statement along with an apology to the one whose feelings were hurt?

Does this not foster an environment in which opposing views are not only heard, but explained and understood? Is it not easier to eat honey than to drink vinegar?

Wouldn’t it make Jo Benedict’s job at moderation a whole lot easier???

 

[ncjohn]

I fear that part of the problem when one starts feeling that they can “call out” heretics is that we don’t always agree on whether the heresy even exists. We have a variety of people and groups across the spectrum who often disagree on whether something is “heretical” or in line with Church teaching.

There are many topics, such as women’s ordination, where the answer at least seems to be definitive. There are many others though where people are being referred to as heretics because of the interpretation of individuals rather than that of the Church, or how individuals define “the Church”. For example, many traditionalists, both in communion with the Church and not, consider anyone supporting the ideas contained in the decrees on religious liberty or ecumenism from Vatican II to be heretics, and will cite all kinds of documents to try to support that position, though the Church–at least the Church as recognized by most here–disagrees with that position.

We even have people declared as heretcs because they may have some particular issue they question, though even the great Thomas Aquainas had positions that the Church does not support, such as the acceptable reasons for sex within a marriage. We see constant examples of people being abused because of quoting the teaching of someone who might have a questionable teaching in one area though the teaching being quoted is totally in line with Church teaching.

Heresy is a very, very serious charge and the Church often takes years in trying to alleviate it with a person. If unable to do so, it often takes more years for them to actually “try” a person and make any public proclamation. For us as individuals to think that we can do so without having all the information and without knowing all the circumstances, and without a trial, is to tread on very dangerous ground indeed. Coming from someone in this country, where one is considered innocent until proven guilty by a legitimate legal process, makes me wonder at times what people truly believe about fairness and justice.

I for one firmly support the stricter moderation and the rules against impugning people’s character outside the Church herself having separated them. If I see someone of questionable teachings I will warn those around me to take those teachings with a grain of salt and to research the topic, but I will refuse to be making judgments of heresy, no matter how clear cut things might “seem” to be.

Does that make me naive? Maybe so, but I will error on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt, as the CCC commands us, rather than possibly damaging someone’s reputation and spreading what is at best gossip without an official judgment from the Church. However smart I might think I am, and no matter how clearly I may think I understand the issue, I have had enough occasions in my life where I turned out to be mistaken on something about which I was 100% certain to know that my “infallibility cloak” doesn’t always work.

Peace,

 

[maurin]

I fear that part of the problem when one starts feeling that they can “call out” heretics is that we don’t always agree on whether the heresy even exists. We have a variety of people and groups across the spectrum who often disagree on whether something is “heretical” or in line with Church teaching.

There are many topics, such as women’s ordination, where the answer at least seems to be definitive. There are many others though where people are being referred to as heretics because of the interpretation of individuals rather than that of the Church, or how individuals define “the Church”. For example, many traditionalists, both in communion with the Church and not, consider anyone supporting the ideas contained in the decrees on religious liberty or ecumenism from Vatican II to be heretics, and will cite all kinds of documents to try to support that position, though the Church–at least the Church as recognized by most here–disagrees with that position.

We even have people declared as heretcs because they may have some particular issue they question, though even the great Thomas Aquainas had positions that the Church does not support, such as the acceptable reasons for sex within a marriage. We see constant examples of people being abused because of quoting the teaching of someone who might have a questionable teaching in one area though the teaching being quoted is totally in line with Church teaching.

Heresy is a very, very serious charge and the Church often takes years in trying to alleviate it with a person. If unable to do so, it often takes more years for them to actually “try” a person and make any public proclamation. For us as individuals to think that we can do so without having all the information and without knowing all the circumstances, and without a trial, is to tread on very dangerous ground indeed. Coming from someone in this country, where one is considered innocent until proven guilty by a legitimate legal process, makes me wonder at times what people truly believe about fairness and justice.

I for one firmly support the stricter moderation and the rules against impugning people’s character outside the Church herself having separated them. If I see someone of questionable teachings I will warn those around me to take those teachings with a grain of salt and to research the topic, but I will refuse to be making judgments of heresy, no matter how clear cut things might “seem” to be.

Does that make me naive? Maybe so, but I will error on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt, as the CCC commands us, rather than possibly damaging someone’s reputation and spreading what is at best gossip without an official judgment from the Church. However smart I might think I am, and no matter how clearly I may think I understand the issue, I have had enough occasions in my life where I turned out to be mistaken on something about which I was 100% certain to know that my “infallibility cloak” doesn’t always work.

Peace,

ncjohn,

a distinction needs to be made between judging one’s actions and judging one’s soul.

Calling someone a heretic is certainly judging one’s soul.

Judging one’s actions that are executed in the public eye and *can be verified *is judging not the person, but the action.

This is an important distinction to be made. Without this distinction we are reduced to having our hands and feet bound, capable of doing nothing. I do not believe that this was or is Our Lord’s intention when He endowed or soul’s with Faith and with Reason.

 

[pnewton]

ncjohn,

a distinction needs to be made between judging one’s actions and judging one’s soul.

Yes, and I have seen people err by judging Church leaders to be heretics. On the other hand, I have seen those who have made the distinction you mention get accused of judging Church leaders as heretics, when all they do is discuss the principles. Assuming the best in others is a two-say street. In either case, the rules here have been defined. Integrity demands we attempt (at least) to adhere to it or find a site more appropriate to our agendas.

By the way, I like the way you brought things back on topic by your post before last. You may have just stopped someone from getting axed. For those that do not yet get it, stricter moderation means now is the time to stop pressing the boundries. It is also the only way to stop certain topics from being banned, if that is one’s desire.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Part of the problem with this is that some of what is used to point to some one, or their action, as heretics or heretical is a quote that is taken out of context of some document or larger speech given. Many times when taken in context we can see that it is not such.

There is also the possibility that some misunderstand what is actually being said.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

This thread is not about heresy; it is about the rules of this forum. Please return to the topic. Thanks.

 

[reggieM]

To use your post as an example, telling people that we can’t make a “judgment” about bishops until there’s a “trial”, etc. Then in the very same post, you declare that certain bishops are “separated from the Church” (which is not the position of the Church at all.)

When were the excommunications lifted?

 

[reggieM]

Whether or not 2 groups agree or disagree on any issue does not prevent anyone in either group from remaining respectful to the other group, either as the group as a whole or individually.

I can agree to some extent. As with the case of the group of people who call themselves “traditionalists” though, this is a lot more difficult because that particular group is not well-defined. I discovered that here where you took offense to my comments about “my traditionalist friends” and I think you though I was talking about you.

What if I wanted to become a traditionalist? How would I do that, and how would I know when I was one? Who validates my membership in the traditionalist group?

Personally, I don’t think anyone does that – unless, like many do, we have to accept that those who attend SSPX chapels are “traditionalists”. That is a clear distinction and it makes some sense. But it excludes everyone else who doesn’t attend such chapels (or one could say Tridentine-rite-only chapels – SSPX, independent or sedevacantist."

But again, that’s not much of a definition of a group. Nor do I find any objective definition of “traditionalist” in the teaching of the Church (aside from the heresy indicated by the term, but which doesn’t apply to the modern usage).

One can say, in the particular way you appear to have meant your comments to which I took offense, “I have been at the receiving end of comments made by certain Traditionalists which implied that ‘Novus Ordo Catholics’ are less holy…etc,” rather than painting all Traditionalists as obnoxious.

Again, I didn’t paint all. But let’s face it, I couldn’t paint all traditionalists because thus far I can’t even define who is a traditionalist and who isn’t one. I could say that “all traditionalist reject the papacy of Pope Benedict” and that would be true depending on how I define the term “traditionalist”. I don’t see a lot of precision used with that terminology.

If someone perceives an insult and expresses their hurt, whether or not such an insult was intended, it was perceived as such. Is it not living up to our dignity as children of God to clarify one’s own statement along with an apology to the one whose feelings were hurt?

I apologize if I caused hurt. That was not my intention. I know many people who fit the unhappy description that I provided, but I didn’t know that you consider yourself a “traditionalist” or that you would take my comment personally.

Does this not foster an environment in which opposing views are not only heard, but explained and understood? Is it not easier to eat honey than to drink vinegar?

I think some part of the opposing view that I’ve been looking at is how people identify themselves as “traditionalists”. Without a clear definition of what this term means, it is potentially very divisive.

I don’t think the term “Novus Ordo Catholics” is something unusual or unheard of. I see it used on a daily basis on the traditionalist websites I read. I see a lot of abuse given to those people, as well as to the bishops and the Pope.

Isn’t that the nature of “traditionalism” to do such things? I depends on how you want to define the group and what it means.

If the group is invisible, and one really doesn’t know if one belongs to it – then I don’t think it makes much sense to get offended when someone says “traditionalists do … whatever” because it’s impossible to prove that they do or don’t.

One can always say “he’s not really a traditionalist”. I think that point stands until someone has the authority to affirm that a person is or isn’t a traditionalist.

Is there a separate set of doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a traditionalist? There are other questions like that.

 

[maurin]

I can agree to some extent. As with the case of the group of people who call themselves “traditionalists” though, this is a lot more difficult because that particular group is not well-defined. I discovered that here where you took offense to my comments about “my traditionalist friends” and I think you though I was talking about you.

What if I wanted to become a traditionalist? How would I do that, and how would I know when I was one? Who validates my membership in the traditionalist group?

Personally, I don’t think anyone does that – unless, like many do, we have to accept that those who attend SSPX chapels are “traditionalists”. That is a clear distinction and it makes some sense. But it excludes everyone else who doesn’t attend such chapels (or one could say Tridentine-rite-only chapels – SSPX, independent or sedevacantist."

But again, that’s not much of a definition of a group. Nor do I find any objective definition of “traditionalist” in the teaching of the Church (aside from the heresy indicated by the term, but which doesn’t apply to the modern usage).

Again, I didn’t paint all. But let’s face it, I couldn’t paint all traditionalists because thus far I can’t even define who is a traditionalist and who isn’t one. I could say that “all traditionalist reject the papacy of Pope Benedict” and that would be true depending on how I define the term “traditionalist”. I don’t see a lot of precision used with that terminology.

I apologize if I caused hurt. That was not my intention. I know many people who fit the unhappy description that I provided, but I didn’t know that you consider yourself a “traditionalist” or that you would take my comment personally.

I think some part of the opposing view that I’ve been looking at is how people identify themselves as “traditionalists”. Without a clear definition of what this term means, it is potentially very divisive.

I don’t think the term “Novus Ordo Catholics” is something unusual or unheard of. I see it used on a daily basis on the traditionalist websites I read. I see a lot of abuse given to those people, as well as to the bishops and the Pope.

Isn’t that the nature of “traditionalism” to do such things? I depends on how you want to define the group and what it means.

If the group is invisible, and one really doesn’t know if one belongs to it – then I don’t think it makes much sense to get offended when someone says “traditionalists do … whatever” because it’s impossible to prove that they do or don’t.

One can always say “he’s not really a traditionalist”. I think that point stands until someone has the authority to affirm that a person is or isn’t a traditionalist.

Is there a separate set of doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a traditionalist? There are other questions like that.

reggie, I believe you have missed my point.

I will leave it to others to answer your questions.

Pax Christi tecum (the Peace of Christ be with you),

maurin