spiritualdirection.com - VERY SUSPECT

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

friardchips

Guest
Dear Catholic Forum,

I wish to alert people to an elitist website which is making unfounded comments to do with the Catholic treasures of understanding and not allowing any way for people to argue with the statements they make.

I tried to post some objections and they simply abbreviated my comments, changing the sense of them, to fit in with their own ideas. I was shocked!

I was again shocked when, after complaining that they were acting outside of charity, the director of the website locked me out. Simply for challenging them. I am taking this up with others in the Church now and just wished to share with those on here that this website is, to my sad realisation, an elitist foundation, which serves only to excel the authors’ prominence on the internet, rather than serve the people.

I will be alerting authors who write on there too that this has happened and to stay away from the possibility that this website is elitist.

This is a sad occurence in the Church today, that some apologists, mainly ones online, because of their high and mighty qualifications, can lead others away from the truth with no comeback.
 
I agree. I used to follow this site, and at first really enjoyed it. Then an “agenda” took over. It is very sad.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I agree. I used to follow this site, and at first really enjoyed it. Then an “agenda” took over. It is very sad.
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting, oneofthewomen. It is nice to receive understanding and an empathising ear. I really did believe that these guys were doing good…which is true, until one disagrees with them, then they cease to be Catholics!

I feel really stressed over it - first, for the fact that they behaved with such a lack of charity, as to change the sense of my posts…quite unbelievable; second, because they wouldn’t acknowledge their fault in augmenting the dialogue to their reasoning, and then blocked me for saying so; third, because they made out that because they have qualifications, they are the elite - they said this in not so many words!

By the end of it, the author who I initially took issue with - over his writing - was ironically the only one who behaved with charity (he did get back to me on it). But they’d changed the sense of my wording anyway so he was merely replying to their sculpting of the discourse!

I was going to say this to them, that mystical truths are not decided upon solely by way of apologists and those with high qualifications, because, the Christian faith did not come by way of high priests and people of opinions, but quietly via the grace of God - from God to angel to Mary!

I never got the chance!
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I agree. I used to follow this site, and at first really enjoyed it. Then an “agenda” took over. It is very sad.
Click to expand...
Do you know anyone to whom I could take this up with as the original argument has not been resolved to satisfactory status? An official body within Church circles, maybe?
 
friardchips said:
Do you know anyone to whom I could take this up with as the original argument has not been resolved to satisfactory status? An official body within Church circles, maybe?
Click to expand...
I am not sure. I don’t think that they are affiliated with any particular Diocese.
Sadly, just about anyone can make a website and say that they are giving you authentic teaching.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
I am not sure. I don’t think that they are affiliated with any particular Diocese.
Sadly, just about anyone can make a website and say that they are giving you authentic teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes, but their are priests on there, and so I would have expected the apologists and moderators to not only write but speak and act with extreme care towards their online participants and especially when on topics to do with Christian understanding - I said nothing that was extreme or rude but I was stern. I feel they were deeply unjust. It is true, that online, people can do and say as they please, and apparently, now I realise, so can the Church self-appointed elite. I was in the undertstanding, that the more responsibility we are given, the more we are to understand that life is about serving not lording it over people.
 
The “Church” has nothing to do with this website. It was started by Dan Burke, who worked for the National Catholic Register.
As far as the priests who write for the blog, I think the best think to do would be contact them directly. If you look at the “list of contributors”, there is a link for each one.

Personally, I stopped going to this site when when they railed against Fr. Richard Rohr.
You don’t have to like him, or how he teaches, but as far as I know, he is still a priest in good standing with the Franciscans. IMHO, it is very unbecoming for a Christian to bad-mouth another with whom they don’t agree. I have seen this often on this site. 😦
 
The “Church” has nothing to do with this website. It was started by Dan Burke, who worked for the National Catholic Register.
As far as the priests who write for the blog, I think the best think to do would be contact them directly. If you look at the “list of contributors”, there is a link for each one.

Personally, I stopped going to this site when when they railed against Fr. Richard Rohr.
You don’t have to like him, or how he teaches, but as far as I know, he is still a priest in good standing with the Franciscans. IMHO, it is very unbecoming for a Christian to bad-mouth another with whom they don’t agree. I have seen this often on this site. 😦
 
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who does not care for that website. They definitely push their own opinions, which they are entitled to do, just as I am entitled to disagree with some of their opinions and to usually disregard their website.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
The “Church” has nothing to do with this website. It was started by Dan Burke, who worked for the National Catholic Register.
As far as the priests who write for the blog, I think the best think to do would be contact them directly. If you look at the “list of contributors”, there is a link for each one.

Personally, I stopped going to this site when when they railed against Fr. Richard Rohr.
You don’t have to like him, or how he teaches, but as far as I know, he is still a priest in good standing with the Franciscans. IMHO, it is very unbecoming for a Christian to bad-mouth another with whom they don’t agree. I have seen this often on this site. 😦
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. We are not meant to write about people in a bad light despite their traits. Unless it is private, in the form of a complaint, and to serve a just purpose, and this also, should be exectued with extreme caution and even mercy.

I’ve made a few complaints but nothing so far. The thing also, is that when they write, the information put up there, stays there. So if they have written badly about a heavenly topic or about a person, it is in the public domain, and for all to see. I will think about writing to the contributors, the priests, as you mention, and see where it goes. I wish to reiterate that this is not about revenge but about good and bad info. I must admit that once I wrote negatively about a priest on this forum but regretted doing so and I don’t think I mentioned them by name. I have also slated ministers of government on here before, by name, and regretted it because even they are people (believe it or not :D). spiritualdirection.com, as you said, shouldn’t have an negative article about someone on there, whether they like him or not; agreed. And especially if he is a practising priest, not involved in a schism, or excommunicated.
 
We have free will, and I happen to very much like the website. I have found the spiritual direction to be sound and very helpful.
 
christofirst said:
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who does not care for that website. They definitely push their own opinions, which they are entitled to do, just as I am entitled to disagree with some of their opinions and to usually disregard their website.
Click to expand...
Howdydoody, Christofirst! Thank you for your post. I think this is not just about personal opinions though, it is about making sure we do not do and say things when in a recognised position of authority, within the Church, that do not cause hurt, and making sure, when having gained public notoriety, and trust, we do not behave as if one is elite, beyond reproach and scrutinization. If they didn’t have a website that had priests on there and so was not recognised and trusted to such a degree then I wouldn’t care less but the fact that they are acting in supposed communion with the Catholic Church makes them a threat worse than militant athiests because they can lead people away from truth without people knowing, and, without people having a way to challenge. The Pope is infallible; Dogma is indisputable; apologists and their theories are neither.
 
Dorothy said:
We have free will, and I happen to very much like the website. I have found the spiritual direction to be sound and very helpful.
Click to expand...
I did too until their recent lack of charity and flamboyant show of elitism.
 
friardchips said:
I did too until their recent lack of charity and flamboyant show of elitism.
Click to expand...
I am confused by your criticism of said website. I have read here on CAF statements vilifying Fr. Rohr, with impunity. As for the comment about said website’s writing being on public domain for all to see, what about all the threads that disappear from CAF, would not that be an equal cause for concern? Authors who hold an air of elitism…which ones rule here? You make it sound as if ‘they’ operate by the same rules as CAF. Just an observation.
 
friardchips said:
Dear Catholic Forum,

I wish to alert people to an elitist website which is making unfounded comments to do with the Catholic treasures of understanding and not allowing any way for people to argue with the statements they make.

similarly, CAF deletes threads or closes them and bans members

I tried to post some objections and they simply abbreviated my comments, changing the sense of them, to fit in with their own ideas. I was shocked!

I was again shocked when, after complaining that they were acting outside of charity, the director of the website locked me out. Simply for challenging them. I am taking this up with others in the Church now and just wished to share with those on here that this website is, to my sad realisation, an elitist foundation, which serves only to excel the authors’ prominence on the internet, rather than serve the people.

I will be alerting authors who write on there too that this has happened and to stay away from the possibility that this website is elitist.

This is a sad occurence in the Church today, that some apologists, mainly ones online, because of their high and mighty qualifications, can lead others away from the truth with no comeback.
Click to expand...
 
Dear Casilda. there is a marked difference in the way this forum works and the way spiritualdirection.com operates.

First, the moderators do not really get involved with discussions indepth on here, because they are ‘moderators’ only. That is not to say that they wouldn’t have the capability. But rather they take the responsibility of moderating as their duty/job etc…

Second, although there was one minor instance on here I could have said that the mods did not seem to uphold their side of the rules, it wasn’t a moral issue, and so, it didn’t really affect anything, and furthermore, I think they were turning a blind eye on purpose for the sake of goodwill; IOW, they behaved with charity. And I decided to not take issue with it because I would probably have been proved wrong.

This other website, took my posts and CHANGED THE SENSE OF THEM, by taking one snippet and only posting that part so it concurred with their lack of reasoning ability.

Could you imagine the mods on here doing that: no. In effect, spiritualdirection.com lied, by doing this.

Third, their answers were insecure in the face of scrutiny, in that, instead of arguing objectively, they felt the need to back up their lack of reasoning by flouting what qualifications they had. Big deal! Qualifications do not go to Heaven with you. Only what love is in your heart. Sure, study can show love, but then if that learning only serves to lord it over people as if their opinions are the only important ones, and if their qualifications somehow make them believe they are in receipt of some divine extra grace that is given in order for them to glorify their own opinions, then it would be better that their tongues remain silent. I reiterate:

Mystical truths are not decided upon solely by way of apologists and those with high qualifications, because, the Christian faith did not come by way of high priests and people of opinions, but quietly via the grace of God - from God to angel to Mary!

Even the prophets were humble people, of humility, and in some cases even lacking earthly intelligence and cunning, for they took for themselves Heavenly Wisdom, Who Was, Is and Always Will Be - our Creator, Himself.
 
Friar,

Perhaps its a difference in emphasis and terminology, like Duns Scotus and Aquinas or Cyprian and Augustine/PopeSt.Stephen.

I can see why they would take umbrage with your claim if coming from a different definition.

Just as those who today claim with the classical Franciscans that the Theotokos never died, while all Patristic and Apostolic teaching including the Pope’s statement within the Dogma of the Assumption lean the other way.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Friar,

Perhaps its a difference in emphasis and terminology, like Duns Scotus and Aquinas or Cyprian and Augustine/PopeSt.Stephen.

I can see why they would take umbrage with your claim if coming from a different definition.

Just as those who today claim with the classical Franciscans that the Theotokos never died, while all Patristic and Apostolic teaching including the Pope’s statement within the Dogma of the Assumption lean the other way.
Click to expand...
Hi SyroMalankara,

My username is friard, not friar. My fault as this tag was initially a silly joke.

Yes, they may have a different understanding, or what I believe to be a limited understanding, and at first, the argument being over Mary, was what got me initially annoyed and felt inspired to write back. The author then responded with a spoonful of humility by at least engaging me after I received nothing but hostility from the mod and owner. But he was respnding to posts I’d written which the Mod on there had abbreviated and so changed the sense of my argument. Then when I said that I felt like complaining, the head honcho responded by attacking me back. When I complained again, that was it. So it is they who acted outside of charity, and not only that, but they behaved as if their qualifications, which they flouted before me to put me off, were enough for them to be beyond questioning. It is everything about the ordeal that I find upsetting and I am certainly not leaving things at this. Because until I am satisfied that they have been argued with to a deep enough level in debate, over this matter, then why should I? I don’t think they undertsand something and are using their qualifications to make themselves iron rods able to say and do what they want.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that all his reasoning was of straw - this is humility. ANd he was a genius. St. Augustine would have heard me out and I would have accepted his answer either way because his prayers and writings prove that along with his wisdom he was kind and loving. Saints were humble and kind as well as being in receipt of extra grace; hence, the term saints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top