NOTICE: Stricter moderation

[reggieM]

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.

What is the rule on CAF?

I don’t know, but it’s a good question. I’m not an authority on CAF rules, but I think it’s a matter of interpretation and attitude. I would think that if the news item was informative that people could discuss it.
If the post caused the hysteria you’re referring to, then I think moderators should just shut it down.

It also depends on what purpose the discussion is raised.

If an anti-Catholic decides to post every negative news article that could be found against the Church, I think that would eventually be stopped – or else, people would try to convert the person.

(Interesting question – can we try to convert “traditionalists” here on CAF? I’m just wondering.)

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 haven’t seen that from the moderators. If the offense is deliberate or not, people should learn where to draw the line in a conversation.

 

[ProVobis]

The Anglican Church had valid ordination for a while. The Eastern Orthodox had valid ordination. These were done outside of the Catholic Church.

I know what his predecessor wrote in Ecclesia Dei. His ordination to bishop was done without permission of the Holy Father.

These ordinations and consecrations are valid because Christ established the rules of Apostolic succession, not Peter, who, by the way, denied Him thrice.

 

[Aramis]

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.

While you won’t receive a PM, the forum software usually shows a link to the new location in the threads list. That usually moves down-list a page every 12-48 hours…

 

[maurin]

I haven’t seen that from the moderators. If the offense is deliberate or not, people should learn where to draw the line in a conversation.

One would do quite well to take these wise words to heart, and not just honor them with the lips–or in the case of posting on the forum, with the fingertips.

 

[maurin]

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.

forgive me if I seem contrary here, but I don’t think what you’ve written here makes much sense–at least the sense eludes me.

On one hand you say, “…to get offended when someone says 'traditionalists do…whatever”, and on the other you say “…it’s impossible to prove that they do or don’t.”

So if it is impossible to prove what they do, then doesn’t it render unnecssary the need to make such statements about ‘what they do’ if it is impossible to verify? Do you not yourself see why someone would take offense at your broad generalizations?

I have made my position clear. I am firmly in the SSPX for the reasons I have also previously made clear. I do not wish to lead anyone else there by my posts. However, I would certainly not paint all, as you have termed them, 'Novus Ordo Catholics" as denying the fundamental Truth of the Mass as Calvary. Some do, in my experience. Some don’t, in my experience. Many have no idea what that means–“The Mass as Calvary”–in my experience. I certainly admit that I am only in the process myself of coming to understand that statement of Archbishop Sheen, who wrote a book called “Calvary and the Mass”, published in the mid-thirties, I believe, explaining it.

I have also made clear that innuendo, coming from either side, only leads to strife, division, arguments and more work for the moderator. We live Jesus’ prayer “that they all might be one” when we put down our swords and fashion them into plowshares. When we lay aside the tools which cut and injure the bodyand soul and fashion them into those which feed and nourish the body and soul. When we strive to respect, instead of demean one another.

 

[reggieM]

So if it is impossible to prove what they do,

Is it or isn’t it? You haven’t addressed that question.

then doesn’t it render unnecssary the need to make such statements about ‘what they do’ if it is impossible to verify?

If you’re willing to accept that the term “traditionalist” is meaningless – then that’s a big step forward. You, however, objected to what I said about “traditionalists” without even understanding what I meant by the term.

Do you not yourself see why someone would take offense at your broad generalizations?

No, I don’t. I asked direct questions about what the term means, who holds the correct definition of it, and what one needs to do to become a “traditionalist”. You avoided all of those points.

I have made my position clear. I am firmly in the SSPX for the reasons I have also previously made clear.

It’s important to recognize that I haven’t read any of your posts before these so I don’t know anything about you.

However, I would certainly not paint all, as you have termed them, 'Novus Ordo Catholics" as denying the fundamental Truth of the Mass as Calvary.

You continue to return to a defensive posture and repeat points you already made. I can’t see any reason for that.

 

[maurin]

Reggie,

it appears that you have no interest in discussing the issues you raise in a gentle and constructive fashion–which is the only issue I have raised with you.

I earnestly and sincerely hope you find the answers you are seeking.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[alih]

“hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the church.” (st. thomas aquinas. summa theologiae, iia iiae, q.33 a.4) wish i thought of this. have a good year. (alih)

 

[ethelzguy]

What does this have to do with moderation of this sub-forum?

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Please get back on topic. Second warning.

 

[I_Believe]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273045

It is called BAITING.

Drag up some obscure document or commentary that is irrelevant in today’s world and post it for others to wag their fingers and complain how the church has gone to heck in a handbasket since vatican two. :tsktsk:

Wow. Do you really believe that ? Don’t you think that there are Catholics in this filthy world that truly care for other’s souls ? I do.

Can you find one single post of 7rosario’s that would offer proof of your assertion ? There are two negative posts on this thread, and neither one has been posted by the OP.

Asserting that the OP is baiting is uncharitible and cruel. You are looking for a problem where there is none.

That is one reason why we have to have threads like this one on stricter moderation, because of this crazy tendency to attack an OP for no reason other than the fact the topic is one we don’t have an interest in. Wouldn’t it be just as easy to ignore the topic and move on, seeing as though there is nothing contrary to Church teaching there ?

 

[michelle_p]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273045

Wow. Do you really believe that ? Don’t you think that there are Catholics in this filthy world that truly care for other’s souls ? I do.

Can you find one single post of 7rosario’s that would offer proof of your assertion ? There are two negative posts on this thread, and neither one has been posted by the OP.

Asserting that the OP is baiting is uncharitible and cruel. You are looking for a problem where there is none.

That is one reason why we have to have threads like this one on stricter moderation, because of this crazy tendency to attack an OP for no reason other than the fact the topic is one we don’t have an interest in. Wouldn’t it be just as easy to ignore the topic and move on, seeing as though there is nothing contrary to Church teaching there ?

Whether a given reader or poster has interest or not doesn’t change that it is baiting. Perhaps the stricter moderation will reduce such baiting.

If someone is going to OP some document, shouldn’t they have some comment to make of their own for it to be a legitimate discussion?

 

[ethelzguy]

Asserting that the OP is baiting is uncharitible and cruel. You are looking for a problem where there is none.

That is one reason why we have to have threads like this one on stricter moderation, because of this** crazy tendency **to attack an OP for no reason other than the fact the topic is one we don’t have an interest in.

Or, maybe we need stricter moderation because of all the name-calling that goes on within this particular sub-forum?

 

[snhs]

Or, maybe we need stricter moderation because of all the name-calling that goes on within this particular sub-forum?

That is not name calling, it is a characterisation of another person’s behaviour.

From the way michelle_p has been posting it is in my view an accurate one. Surely you agree that it is not charitable to assume someone is baiting by making a post in which they provide an extract of a Saints writings? It certainly isn’t kind to a poster to assume that they are engaging in a practice which is generally considered unacceptable, is it true to say it could be cruel?

Similarly to say someone has a tendency is a valid point if they have done the same thing/used the same tactic on various occasions. Someone could say I had a tendency for pedantry if I kept picking out minor grammatical errors, for example. As for whether it is crazy, is it a rational/sensible/sane response to attack someone for something they have not said or done without first asking about their motive or trying to engage with them as to what their view on the point might be.

Now if someone had written “X is an uncharitable, cruel and crazy person” then it would be name calling, I’d submit that it not what has happened here.

 

[palmas85]

I think stricter moderation is fine as long as it is equally applied across the board. That means clamping down on everyone who gets out of line. Also, just an opinion, if I get called on something, I’ll accept it as long as the moderator will tell me what I did specifically. I don’t think though that giving warnings in overly vague language is productive and can lead to resentment and anger.

Just a thought. Not commenting on moderators actions or inactions, just a thought.

 

[Matt33]

I think stricter moderation is fine as long as it is equally applied across the board. That means clamping down on everyone who gets out of line. Also, just an opinion, if I get called on something, I’ll accept it as long as the moderator will tell me what I did specifically. I don’t think though that giving warnings in overly vague language is productive and can lead to resentment and anger.

Just a thought. Not commenting on moderators actions or inactions, just a thought.

This is a fair post. I agree. One thing that I have had a hard time coming to terms wth but I think I have accepted is the idea that CAF is not a freedom of expression forum, but one that is run by and moderated by CAF as is thier right. We choose to participate or not. Mostly, some powers here have not apealed to my sense of fairness. But in CAF defense it isn’t supposed to be fair. For me I have two ways of looking at the situation that have been helpful on my journey of acceptance of the rules. 1 It makes me apreciate the country I live in the USA for the ability to express myself as I can. CAF is great, but not USA great! On a small scale it provides a tiny peek as to what it is to have to curb your speech. The second thing is the idea that as Westerners we are used to eveything being up for debate, but in truth in our Church it isn’t a democracy run by polls but a kingship run by God himself. In this way Our faith cannot be compromised or decided by majority rule. While CAF is not “the Church” it does provide some reflection on what submission is and how to come by it even when you don’t agree. In this way I support the moderation here and hope it is applied fairly. There are some even on this thread who applaud the decision and probably could have got the boot under the old rules.

 

[palmas85]

This is a fair post. I agree. One thing that I have had a hard time coming to terms wth but I think I have accepted is the idea that CAF is not a freedom of expression forum, but one that is run by and moderated by CAF as is thier right. We choose to participate or not. Mostly, some powers here have not apealed to my sense of fairness. But in CAF defense it isn’t supposed to be fair. For me I have two ways of looking at the situation that have been helpful on my journey of acceptance of the rules. 1 It makes me apreciate the country I live in the USA for the ability to express myself as I can. CAF is great, but not USA great! On a small scale it provides a tiny peek as to what it is to have to curb your speech. The second thing is the idea that as Westerners we are used to eveything being up for debate, but in truth in our Church it isn’t a democracy run by polls but a kingship run by God himself. In this way Our faith cannot be compromised or decided by majority rule. While CAF is not “the Church” it does provide some reflection on what submission is and how to come by it even when you don’t agree. In this way I support the moderation here and hope it is applied fairly. There are some even on this thread who applaud the decision and probably could have got the boot under the old rules.

I agree but if you don’t know exactly what you have done and they won’t tell you, how can you reasonably be expected to correct your behavior?

 

[pnewton]

Bear in mind that no one can claim that the moderation is biased or one-sided. After all, not all action is public information. No poster has knowledge of prviate message sent back and forth from moderator to user, of user to user. These too can result in bans and suspensions. Furthermore, I have noticed a few years back some of the bans have come from nothing posted, but rather when banned poster create a new log on to get around the ban. It was a rarity to have this insight but once this was made public to quash complaints about biased moderation. This may never appear as anything said publically.

The “bias” that is given is ususally totally public in the form of rules and banned topics.

 

[ethelzguy]

That is not name calling, it is a characterisation of another person’s behaviour.

From the way michelle_p has been posting it is in my view an accurate one. Surely you agree that it is not charitable to assume someone is baiting by making a post in which they provide an extract of a Saints writings?

After several months and nearly 2000 posts, I think it’s safe to say that where and how a quote is posted has much to do with intent. The TC forum, as a norm, is a place where many come to criticize the Church since V2.

Quite often, OPs are clearly intended to agitate and promote criticism, whereas putting the same quote in a different sub-forum might create a completely different outcome.

It should be noted, that the thread in question here, has been moved by the moderators to the Spirituality sub-forum. So, it would appear that there is something to the idea…

 

[lentang2]

Thank you for reading my posts. I usually read yours as well (and your wife’s).

I have never seen Masses that are irreverent.

I have never seen priests that teach things contrary to the Catholic dogma, priests that avoid topics like artificial contraception and abortion, priests who rail against celibacy, priests who advocate women priests, priests who criticize tradition.

I have never seen a bishop who refuses to allow the Latin Mass.

I have never been in a Mass where the music is worldly, or in Masses that are inclusive to the point where they cannot be distinguished from Protestant worship services, or at Life Teen Masses that are abusive.

I have never known charismatic Catholics that are factious, etc.

I have never seen clowns or dancing in Mass.

I have never seen irreverence, abuse, or indifference towards Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

I HAVE seen Adoration offered 24/7 in our city, TLM offered daily in our city, Life Teen offered in our city (and growing by leaps and bounds!), Catholic schools that teach orthodox Catholic dogma, RCIA programs that truly disciple new Catholics, a two-year ministry formation program required by the bishop for all who are involved in teaching ministries in the parishes, “Why Catholic” Bible/catechism studies offered throughout the diocese, magnificent music from all the centuries of Catholic tradition in Mass, Bible studies and apologetics classes offered in many of the parishes, a SURPLUS of vocations in the diocese, and active involvement by Catholics in the prolife movement as well as in movements that help the poor and the disenfranchised.

So it is difficult for me to assess how the things you speak of upset or confuse the average lay person since I have never experienced anything but the best that the Catholic Church has to offer.

I’m kind of like Richie Rich here–I have no idea how the “lower half” lives.

However, in spite of living in the incredibly orthodox diocese that I described above, I have met plenty of Catholics (lay) in the diocese who are what I would describe as “carnal.”

They support liberal causes (women priests, marriage of priests, etc.), they join their voices and paychecks politically with those who support outright sin (abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.), they disrespect the Eucharist, they refuse to submit to the Pope and the Magisterium, they are hard-hearted, unrepentant, and openly sinful, and critical of Catholics who DO adhere to the orthodox Catholic Church.

So it seems to me that having an “orthodox” diocese and a conservative bishop is no guarantee that Catholics will remain close to the Church.

If someone gives in to temptation and practices deliberate sin, they will do so even if Pope Pius X is standing over them intoning in Latin.

And on the other side, if someone is trapped in a diocese where the things that many of you decry are practiced regularly (abuses, incorrect teachings, irreverence, etc.), I agree that it is possible that they will become confused, discouraged, and eventually fall away from the Church.

I think that more than likely, Catholics are likely to become confused when they look away from the Church to the “green grass” on the other side of the Christian block–the Protestant churches and fellowships where the music is fine, the fellowship is friendly, and it’s OK to use a condom and have sex more than a few times a month.

I agree that the answer to this sort of confusion and attrition of Catholics is better catechesis, however, there are times when catechesis is excellent and teaching is orthodox and non-confusing and Catholics still choose the easier road of Protestantism or outright un-churched life.

I think there are many things that can confuse a Catholic who does not stay close to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, avail themselves of the Sacraments (especially Reconciliation), read the Scriptures and the Catechism, and attend Mass as often as possible, even a sub-par Mass. As long as Jesus is offered, Mass is worthwhile and efficacious for a person’s soul.

A Catholic who does these things may be upset by “confusing teachings,” either from groups like SSPX or from liberal priests, but they will NOT be led down the wrong path. Jesus promised that He will not lose any of His sheep.

But WE have to listen to and obey God

If you have read my posts, you will see that many times, I have said that rather than submitting to unorthodox teachings in the Catholic Church and allowing yourself to become whipped into lethargy and possibly even sucked into attending an organization that is questionable in the eyes of the Church, it would be better to move away to a different diocese.

Your very soul is at stake. People say they can’t move. This may be true in some situations, but I honestly think that many people COULD pull up stakes and immigrate to a city in a diocese like mine. I’m not saying it’s easy to leave kith and kin behind, quit a good job, sell a house (especially in todays market), uproot children, etc. But again–your SOULS are at stake! What is the worth of your soul? If you are really serious about ending abuses and irreverences to the point where you are willing to become part of a movement that is divisive (not necessarily truly schismatic, but certain factious, something that is utterly condemned by St. Paul in the Scriptures), then you should be willing to move. Action, not words.

If you aren’t willing to move or you truly can’t move, then FIND a way to deal with the abuses rather than abandoning the true Church of Jesus Christ for a factious group.

GREAT response!