Warning to TCers

[Jo_Benedict]

It seems that every thread that touches on Judaism, however remotely, dissolves sooner or later into anti-Judaism and/or anti-Semitism. Threads on this subject inevitably have to be closed or removed from the board. Consider this a final warning for everyone to self-edit carefully for tone and content when posting on the subject of Judaism. If you have controversial opinions about Judaism that you are unsure “pass muster” as within the expectations of charity on CAF, then kindly refrain entirely from posting on the subject.

If this warning goes unheeded, violators will be banned permanently without notice and the topic will be banned entirely on the Traditional Catholicism forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Yours_Truly:

Would you consider the truth - as taught infallibly by the Catholic Church - to be antisemitic?

No. But your wielding of the infallible teachings of the Church may well be anti-Semitic.
Yours Truly:

For example, would you personally consider it to be antisemetic to simply quote the Council of Florence which teaches that **it is a mortal sin to practice to old law **?

Quoting the Council of Florence is fine. Extrapolating from that Council to leap to the conclusion that “practice of the old law” is always and everywhere “mortal sin” is a fine example of a personal misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching. Learn to separate what a document says from your interpretation of that document, or don’t post on the topic until you can.
Yours Truly:

Would you consider it Antisemitic for someone to quote the Bible verse in which the Jews say “his blood be upon us and upon our children”? And lastly, would you consider it Antisemitic to quote the inherent word of God which teaches that " the Jews… killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men… for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end" (1 Thess 2:14).

See above.
Yours Truly:

Are those examples of the Antisemitism you speak of? If not, can you give us an example? And can you also give us an example of Anti-Islamism so that we are sure not to violate that rule.

You have here provided some fine examples. Thank you.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Ockham:

I’m not up to speed with the Council of Florence, but are you saying stating infallible teachings of the Church may be anti-Semitic?

He said that the truth as taught infallibly by the Catholic Church is not anti-semetic. I’m presuming that is what his “No” meant and that is how I understood it.

He also said that a particular poster may wield a response regarding the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church which may in fact be anti-semetic. That is how I understood his comments.

That’s an (name removed by moderator)ortant distinction.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

He said that the truth as taught infallibly by the Catholic Church is not anti-semetic. I’m presuming that is what his “No” meant and that is how I understood it.

He also said that a particular poster may wield a response regarding the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church which may in fact be anti-semetic. That is how I understood his comments.

That’s an (name removed by moderator)ortant distinction.

Correct. Thank you for making the distinction clear.

Quoting the Church’s documents is fine. Glossing the Church’s documents with a personal interpretation of them that is anti-Jewish and/or anti-Semitic is not. If a particular poster does not understand or cannot make that distinction, then he is hereby warned not to post on the topic of Judaism at all. If he does so and the post is anti-Jewish and/or anti-Semitic, he will be banned. Arguing over this will be considered a refusal to accept mod direction and will likewise result in a ban.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Ottaviani:

Stop fighting for the faith using what the Church has always taught, and being a Catholic. You might hurt someone’s feelings by being Catholic on a Catholic forum.

Well Alrighty Then.

This is a fine example of a refusal to comply with mod direction. Thank you for the demonstration. If there are any further posts like it, the outlined consequences will follow.

 

[Ockham]

Jo, I for one appreciate and respect the latitude given in this forum unlike some other more edited and censored forums on CAF. As such clarification on anti-semitism benefits all those wishing to maintain their privlidges here. Pre-Vatican II Church teaching is generally considered “traditional” so hopefully it can be discussed here without breaking any rules. Of course anti-semitism is deplorable and has no place in a civilized and Catholic chatroom.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Listen up!

Several off-topic posts have now been removed and one member has just had his account permanently closed. This is not a debate thread. It is a warning thread. Follow the mod direction on this issue or the consequences outlined will be enforced.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

BayernAnhaenger:

Jo,
I can see how this is a warning thread. But, I think it’s just downright vague. It just seems to me that the definition of “Anti-Semitism” isn’t well-defined, and merely falls into “is it offensive” and not “is it the truth.”

Jo said the following earlier:
Jo Benedict:

If a particular poster does not understand or cannot make that distinction, then he is hereby warned not to post on the topic of Judaism at all. If he does so and the post is anti-Jewish and/or anti-Semitic, he will be banned.

The one part that isn’t clear to me is: will the person be warned first or be immediately banned? I think it has been demonstrated already in this thread that a warning will be commenced first before a ban will take place.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

BayernAnhaenger:

Jo, I can see how this is a warning thread. But, I think it’s just downright vague. It just seems to me that the definition of “Anti-Semitism” isn’t well-defined, and merely falls into “is it offensive” and not “is it the truth.”

At the risk of giving a definition that is similar to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity (“I know it when I see it”), the only answer I can give you is that “truth” (particularly an individual perception of “truth”) cannot be wielded like a club. If you are unable or unsure of your ability to post charitably on the topic of Judaism, using the charity guidelines given above, then refrain from posting on the topic at all.

BayernAnhaenger:

If you’re going to enforce this vague policy, I honestly think you might as well avoid the whole problem, and just ban any and all talks of Jews on the TradCath board.

Please don’t tempt me. That was my first inclination, but I chose to take this route because I dislike topic bans and only enforce them when there is no other choice.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

The one part that isn’t clear to me is: will the person be warned first or be immediately banned? I think it has been demonstrated already in this thread that a warning will be commenced first before a ban will take place.

This thread serves as a warning to all. Failure to comply with the warning already given will result in a ban. (If the person could legitimately not have seen this thread, some leeway may be given by sending him or her a link to the thread first. But that would likely only apply to new members or new participants in the TC forum.)

 

[chosen_people]

It seems that every thread that touches on Judaism, however remotely, dissolves sooner or later into anti-Judaism and/or anti-Semitism. Threads on this subject inevitably have to be closed or removed from the board. Consider this a final warning for everyone to self-edit carefully for tone and content when posting on the subject of Judaism. If you have controversial opinions about Judaism that you are unsure “pass muster” as within the expectations of charity on CAF, then kindly refrain entirely from posting on the subject.

If this warning goes unheeded, violators will be banned permanently without notice and the topic will be banned entirely on the Traditional Catholicism forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you and CAF for your efforts in this matter. I think it is superfluous to point out that for some reason there has been an unprecedented increase in the past few months, both in frequency and virulence, of anti-Semitic posts on this forum. I do hope that you will not deem it necessary to ban all discussions on Jews and Judaism as I believe a mutual dialog may in fact contribute to changing these attitudes.

 

[NCSue]

It seems that every thread that touches on Judaism, however remotely, dissolves sooner or later into anti-Judaism and/or anti-Semitism. Threads on this subject inevitably have to be closed or removed from the board. Consider this a final warning for everyone to self-edit carefully for tone and content when posting on the subject of Judaism. If you have controversial opinions about Judaism that you are unsure “pass muster” as within the expectations of charity on CAF, then kindly refrain entirely from posting on the subject.

If this warning goes unheeded, violators will be banned permanently without notice and the topic will be banned entirely on the Traditional Catholicism forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you so much for this post. I’ve been disturbed by the hateful tone of some posts here. If we’re known as His disciples by virtue of our love, it seems we have a bit of work to do.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

UnusMilitum:

Moreover, the topic of this thread (implementing the ban on anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic expressions) is 50% idiotic (no offense, Jo).

This is the kind of statement that should be self-edited before clicking the “Submit” button. Telling a mod that her direction is “50% idiotic” is certain to land you on her bad side, and it doesn’t cover you at all to add “No offense.”

Consider that your only warning.

UnusMilitum:

As Christians we are all anti-Jewish… That’s why we’re Christians, duh.

Wrong. Any participants on this forum who believe that this accurately reflects the Church’s position on Judaism are hereby warned that this is an example of anti-Judaism that will cause them to have their accounts permanently closed if repeated on CAF. And arguing the matter will be considered a refusal to accept mod direction.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

More off-topic posts removed. More bans issued.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Orogeny:

I personally find it amazing that this discussion is continuing even after, what, 3 or 4 posters have been banned. Amazing. Jo has the patience of Job.

No, really, I don’t – which is why I’ve just banned several more and removed more off-topic posts.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

PaulinVA:

Jo, isn’t this entrapment? Giving posters the opportunity to argue with you so you can ban them?

I’m giving participants in this forum fair warning. It is not “entrapment” to offer fair warning and the opportunity for members to ask for clarification or to assist other members with clarification when the moderator is not online. If members choose to misuse the thread – despite fair (and repeated!) warning – the bans are merely enforcement of stated policy.

PaulinVA:

I would think that out of love you would lock this thread and let the admonition in the original post stand on it’s own.

See above. Also, locking the thread would mean it would fall into obscurity. As for sticking the thread, we’ve found that the stickies are ignored.

 

[CWBetts]

I’m giving participants in this forum fair warning. It is not “entrapment” to offer fair warning and the opportunity for members to ask for clarification or to assist other members with clarification when the moderator is not online. If members choose to misuse the thread – despite fair (and repeated!) warning – the bans are merely enforcement of stated policy.

See above. Also, locking the thread would mean it would fall into obscurity. As for sticking the thread, we’ve found that the stickies are ignored.

I know I am guilty of blowing past stickies without thinking about it.

 

[T700]

PaulinVA:

Jo, isn’t this entrapment? Giving posters the opportunity to argue with you so you can ban them?

I would think that out of love you would lock this thread and let the admonition in the original post stand on it’s own.

In the tech world, we’d call it setting up a “honey pot”. In my work, that means an unsecured network or server exposed to the internet for for the express purpose of flushing out attacks. It’s a good idea with servers and I think it is a great idea with this thread.

Jo, thank you so much for stepping in and cleaning up this mess! God bless you and your incredible patience–I could never do it 1/10 as well as you.

Paul

 

[CWBetts]

In the tech world, we’d call it setting up a “honey pot”. In my work, that means an unsecured network or server exposed to the internet for for the express purpose of flushing out attacks. It’s a good idea with servers and I think it is a great idea with this thread.

Jo, thank you so much for stepping in and cleaning up this mess! God bless you and your incredible patience–I could never do it 1/10 as well as you.

Paul

I agree. It is an excellent way to take out the trash

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Thread pruned to remove off-topic and otherwise extraneous posts. No one banned in this round. Improvement!