Trad forum

[ibkc]

---

I believe it would benefit this forum to exclude posters when it becomes obvious that they are here to muddy the waters/stir the pot/etc. via statements like – traditionalists being dissenters and cafeteria Catholics, etc.

Yes, exactly. This is part of what I meant of everyone being held to the same standard. Yes, the occasional sedevacantist may post here and say insulting and outrageous things, but that shouldn’t makes others feel they then have carte blanche to call all conservative or traditional advocates names like “dissenter” or whatever. Charity and respect needs to be exercised by all.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think what’s getting me in this thread is that, at least in these past week that I’ve been paying close attention to this particular forum, I haven’t seen anything like the uncharitable remarks that are being cited.

To be frank, I haven’t seen myself, cathguy, ibkc, Walking_Home, etc. say anything in this thread or elsewhere that could be construed as markedly uncharitable. We certainly haven’t said anything that would imply that we are “cafeteria Catholics” or schismatic.

Whether or not such talk goes on or has gone on and I just haven’t seen it is certainly a possibility, but I think that lumping all of us together with the nutjobs is quite unfair.

 

[JReducation]

I think what’s getting me in this thread is that, at least in these past week that I’ve been paying close attention to this particular forum, I haven’t seen anything like the uncharitable remarks that are being cited.

To be frank, I haven’t seen myself, cathguy, ibkc, Walking_Home, etc. say anything in this thread or elsewhere that could be construed as markedly uncharitable. We certainly haven’t said anything that would imply that we are “cafeteria Catholics” or schismatic.

Whether or not such talk goes on or has gone on and I just haven’t seen it is certainly a possibility, but I think that lumping all of us together with the nutjobs is quite unfair.

The subscript is mine.

Generalizations rarely work and are usually violations of justice and charity.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I just found an example of something that need not be said in a public forum.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4021919#post4021919?rd=

Post 147.

**“Mahony Land?” ** That’s unnecessary.

"A Church that allows bishops to hide abusers." Also unfair and inaccurate. There was very bad handling of the problem, yes. The Church does not allow bishops to hide abusers. Many bishops were guided by mental health “experts” who said that this was an illness that could be handled this way or that. Did the bishops make a mistake in following such bad advice? Yes. Were they being malicious? I doubt it.

"I’ll add another now…I’m not content with part of the laity making excuses for desecration of the Eucharist." Another generalization.

"Have you ever bothered to read anything about the Church in parts of California? San Francisco? Cardinal Mahony land? Maybe you’ve heard of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis??" Is it necessary to mention bishops and parishes by name on CAF? How does that help? Why not write the proper authorities about these concerns?

This is the kind of stuff that some of us feel does not belong on TC or CAF.

JR

 

[ethelzguy]

---

I believe it would benefit this forum to exclude posters when it becomes obvious that they are here to muddy the waters/stir the pot/etc. via statements like – traditionalists being dissenters and cafeteria Catholics, etc.

Especially those who make a habit of following other posters around like a stalker.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, everyone.

Note:

**This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. **