Why are we here?

[PeterClatworthy]

I am not a Roman Catholic, and so I regard myself, very much, as a self-invited guest on this discussion forum.

I feel so strongly about what has happened in the short time that I have been here that I wanted, please, to ask you for your candid opinions.

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

This is my experience.

I believe that the internet provides us with a unique opportunity, and it is also important, to debate and discuss the issues that affect us. I realise that these issues may be sensitive, or even controversial. Accepted. I also accept that strong views may have to be expressed, on both sides of a debate.

However, what I find hurtful, and most disturbing on what is, after all, a religious Christian forum, is that when any dissent from Catholic doctrine or opinion is expressed, it is greeted with aggression, including personal attacks on one’s integrity, on the automatic assumption that because a contributor might disagree, he or she is therefore, automatically, anti-Catholic.

Disagreeing with one of your children does not make you anti-child. You can disagree out of love, or simply respect for that child and its undoubted right to politely express a contra point of view, or both.

God gave us a brain. It is the most complex and amazing muscle. He would not have done so if He had not wanted us to think for ourselves.

Are we here to discuss and debate important issues of our time, or are we merely here on the understanding that we are not permitted to test, question, and yes, even change the opinions of others?

Am I alone, or do others here feel similarly?

Surely if we already agree on ever issue in advance, and any reasoned and politely expressed opposition is stifled, or rejected without due consideration, then those who remain will be bored to tears, and ill-educated that we live in a diverse world where it is necessary to pursuade others, rather than to simply bully them into submission?

What has happened to good, old fashioned, and gentlemanly good manners?

“Manners makyth man” - William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester (1324-1404)

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

 

[KC91]

Unlike many others you are not unreasonable but you have to see the strong reactions from some Catholic members here in context. In majority non-Catholic places such as Northern Europe and the United States many Catholics understandably have folk memories of persecution or marginilisation which goes on subconciously today. Now not all Freemasons are anti-Catholic and I know that you aren’t given your posts but again some Catholics make an automatic assumption that Freemason = Anti-Catholic given the role of many Masonic Lodges in Anti-Catholic revolutions in France, Mexico and Spain.

 

[jpjd]

No, it’s not just you. It is the culture of this board, which is very holier-than-thou.

 

[kalt]

I am not a Roman Catholic, and so I regard myself, very much, as a self-invited guest on this discussion forum.

I feel so strongly about what has happened in the short time that I have been here that I wanted, please, to ask you for your candid opinions.

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

This is my experience.

I believe that the internet provides us with a unique opportunity, and it is also important, to debate and discuss the issues that affect us. I realise that these issues may be sensitive, or even controversial. Accepted. I also accept that strong views may have to be expressed, on both sides of a debate.

However, what I find hurtful, and most disturbing on what is, after all, a religious Christian forum, is that when any dissent from Catholic doctrine or opinion is expressed, it is greeted with aggression, including personal attacks on one’s integrity, on the automatic assumption that because a contributor might disagree, he or she is therefore, automatically, anti-Catholic.

Disagreeing with one of your children does not make you anti-child. You can disagree out of love, or simply respect for that child and its undoubted right to politely express a contra point of view, or both.

God gave us a brain. It is the most complex and amazing muscle. He would not have done so if He had not wanted us to think for ourselves.

Are we here to discuss and debate important issues of our time, or are we merely here on the understanding that we are not permitted to test, question, and yes, even change the opinions of others?

Am I alone, or do others here feel similarly?

Surely if we already agree on ever issue in advance, and any reasoned and politely expressed opposition is stifled, or rejected without due consideration, then those who remain will be bored to tears, and ill-educated that we live in a diverse world where it is necessary to pursuade others, rather than to simply bully them into submission?

What has happened to good, old fashioned, and gentlemanly good manners?

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

First, the brain is not a muscle.

Second, the rules clearly state that the faith of the Catholics on these forums must be respected by the non-Catholics who post here. So, if by “change minds” you mean “to convince Catholics that the Catholic faith is wrong on some point of Doctrine”, you are being unreasonable in expecting Catholics not to respond strongly. You are here, apparently, to convince Catholics that their religion is wrong on some point or other, and you expect them to take this “lying down”. I think we’re to feisty a lot to meet your expectations of meek Catholics who don’t know their faith well enough to defend it, or who don’t love it enough to stand strong against false teachings proposed by quests on this forum.

 

[Contarini]

No, it’s not just you. It is the culture of this board, which is very holier-than-thou.

But it’s still better than most other Internet forums. I complain about it too. But at the end of the day I keep coming back because one can have interesting and thoughtful conversations about important issues here.

Also, to be honest, I hope to be a “subversive” influence, pointing out weaknesses in what I find to be the aggressively triumphalist agenda dominant here. But the great thing about this forum is that the moderators seem to have no problems with someone like me. I’m not anti-Catholic by any means (if I were going to accept any dogmatic Christian tradition–and by dogmatic I mean one that requires people to believe in more specific teachings than those of the ancient Creeds–I would accept Catholicism), and I frequently defend Catholicism when I think people are being unfair. And on the whole people tolerate me pretty well around here.

Edwin

 

[reggieM]

I find this board to be very tolerant of disagreements and various arguments against Catholicism. At the same time, the editorial-line is fidelity to the teachings of the Church and that’s as it should be, in my opinion.

I agree also that those who bring dissenting opinions should be aware that we face a lot of outright hostility and one should try to build some trust - because without that it can appear that you’re launching an attack versus trying to bring out your different point of view.

 

[KC91]

Second, the rules clearly state that the faith of the Catholics on these forums must be respected by the non-Catholics who post here. So, if by “change minds” you mean “to convince Catholics that the Catholic faith is wrong on some point of Doctrine”, you are being unreasonable in expecting Catholics not to respond strongly. You are here, apparently, to convince Catholics that their religion is wrong on some point or other, and you expect them to take this “lying down”. I think we’re to feisty a lot to meet your expectations of a meek Catholics who don’t know their faith well enough to defend it, or who don’t love it enough to stand strong against false teachings proposed by quests on this forum.

Peter’s controversy on this forum is more political instead of proletysing, he was defending his version of Freemasonry which he claims is not anti-Catholic but which some members strongly disagree with on the basis of the dark anti-Catholic past of many Masonic lodges.

 

[crazzeto]

Honestly my experience has been the polar oppisite. This bord has not been holier than thou, nor have I seen very many “attacks”, and other such charactarizations made here.

My experience instead, can be broken down by forums

Apologetics / Non-Catholic (this forum seems to end up being apologetics in many cases)
I see many informed Catholics defending the faith when points are made and questions raised. On these forums I’ve learned quite a bit about the faith by reading some very good, well thought out responses to questions raised.

Family forums
I see some very genuine Catholics helping each other out, and the odd non-catholic also offering their voices, more often than not in Charity and support. If you’re looking for a warm forum full of people supporting others, then go here (though out of respect, try to limit your “challenges” to the first group of forums).

News Forums:
I see Catholics letting loose their own personal opinions of happenings in the news.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

?

What has happened to good, old fashioned, and gentlemanly good manners?

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

I don’t believe your experience is typical.

I believe that strong defense of the Catholic faith is not only OK, but it is our duty as faithful Catholics.

I rarely see anything that is less than polite, however.

Can you cite a specific example?

 

[kalt]

Peter’s controversy on this forum is more political instead of proletysing, he was defending his version of Freemasonry which he claims is not anti-Catholic but which some members strongly disagree with on the basis of the dark anti-Catholic past of many Masonic lodges.

Well, if he wants to ensure that everyone can have a difference of opinion (on Freemasonry), he shouldn’t be trying to convince others that they are wrong. Right?

You can’t cry that others won’t let you believe what you want to in peace (they get mad about your view), while you’re here trying to convince them that what they believe is wrong.

Think about it, OP.

And his complaint doesn’t seem to be about politics, since he writes, “However, what I find hurtful, and most disturbing on what is, after all, a religious Christian forum, is that when any dissent from Catholic doctrine or opinion is expressed, it is greeted with aggression, including personal attacks on one’s integrity, on the automatic assumption that because a contributor might disagree, he or she is therefore, automatically, anti-Catholic.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

However, what I find hurtful, and most disturbing on what is, after all, a religious Christian forum, is that when any dissent from Catholic doctrine or opinion is expressed, it is greeted with aggression, including personal attacks on one’s integrity, on the automatic assumption that because a contributor might disagree, he or she is therefore, automatically, anti-Catholic.

This is against forum rules. You should report anyone who is uncharitable, rude, or making personal attacks immediately. The mods here are pretty strict about that, and are especially hard on Catholics.

Are we here to discuss and debate important issues of our time, or are we merely here on the understanding that we are not permitted to test, question, and yes, even change the opinions of others?

I haven’t read any of your posts, but coming here to change other people’s opinions,is not acceptable. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

 

[kalt]

OK, that explains a lot. I think we should all let this drop. We should let professionals deal with this and not engage in discussion here. Everyone is free to do as he pleases, of course, but I think out of love for a stranger, we should let this lie.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

First, the brain is not a muscle.

Second, the rules clearly state that the faith of the Catholics on these forums must be respected by the non-Catholics who post here. So, if by “change minds” you mean “to convince Catholics that the Catholic faith is wrong on some point of Doctrine”, you are being unreasonable in expecting Catholics not to respond strongly. You are here, apparently, to convince Catholics that their religion is wrong on some point or other, and you expect them to take this “lying down”. I think we’re to feisty a lot to meet your expectations of meek Catholics who don’t know their faith well enough to defend it, or who don’t love it enough to stand strong against false teachings proposed by quests on this forum.

“The Brain” as a “muscle” was benign humour.

This is a prime example of what I am trying to say to you. Unnecessarily rude and aggressive towards a guest.

Apparently, nobody is allowed to test, or question anything that a Catholic claims is doctrine, when in fact it may not be doctrine at all, but his or her’s misinterpretation of doctrine, or misunderstanding of doctrine, or deliberate misrepresentation of doctrine.

If you are not prepared to debate issues openly, intelligently, honestly and above all, politely, but fall back on tactics that can only be described as overt bullying, then you will never find out and this forum will be just a mutual admiration society, steeped in ignorance.

I repeat my analogy of the questioning child, and ask you kalt to deal with it, if you would be so kind?

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Well, if he wants to ensure that everyone can have a difference of opinion (on Freemasonry), he shouldn’t be trying to convince others that they are wrong. Right?

Don’t be surprised, here it comes ------- BUT -------- what if they are? How will they find out if you are not prepared to debate the issues?

And yes, the issues are political rather than doctrinal.

As a matter of fact, I have already stated that I agree wholeheartedly with the doctrine. It IS incompatible to be both a Moderns Freemason and a Roman Catholic,

Indeed it is incompatible to be a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim and a Moderns Freemason.

Cannot fault it.

It is, in my honest and humble opinion a question of interpretation, misunderstanding, and with one or two, wilful misrepresentation of the doctrine, and a word “Freemasonry”.

Religious Anglo-Saxon Free Masonre is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Perhaps if we called ourselves The Grand Kettle of Fish at York, and our members, Free Fellows of the Fish Kettle, we would not be having this conversation?

Is it the word that is banned, or what we are, what we do, and what we stand for?

It is certainly only the word that rings the bells and flashes the red lights on this forum.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

The Grand Lodge of All England does not accept the bogus doctrine known as “Recognition”. The Grand Lodge at York is a sovereign and independent body. It does not admit the existence of any superior authority, however styled. (SOURCE: Assembly of Free Masons at York, 10 December 2005)

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Christians become Free Masons, not Churches. St Patrick did not agree with you, and nor do I.

The following current partial list of Faiths and Churches have either banned or condemned the Moderns system of Freemasonry:

The Céli Dé Celtic Christian Church; The Roman Catholic Church; The Russian Orthodox Church; Synod Anglican Church of England; Synod Australian Anglican Church; Methodist Church of England; Wesleyan Methodist Church; General Association of Regular Baptist Churches; Orthodox Presbyterian Church; Presbyterian Church of Ireland; Reformed Presbyterian Church; Presbyterian Church in America; Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland; The Church of Scotland; Free Church of Scotland; Baptist Union of Scotland; The Salvation Army; Assemblies of God; The Evangelical Lutheran Synod; Lutheran Church Missouri Synod; Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; Church of the Nazarene; Evangelical Mennonite Church; Grace Brethren; Christian Reformed Church in America; Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America; the entire World of Islam.

The Roman Catholic Church ex-communicates Moderns Freemasons. The world of Islam sequesters all rights, assets and properties, imprisons and executes Moderns Freemasons.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Fortunately you do not speak on behalf of The Roman Catholic Church and have demonstrated that you have little or no real knowledge of the history of The Celtic Christian Church or its relationship with Rome.

It’s that trip to the Vatican Library for you I am afraid. When it is open, we send our local representative who is Professor of Divinity at a major Italian University.

Why was the Vatican totally silent in respect of Freemasonry prior to 1738?

I believe that this is the fourth time of asking Jharek. You refuse to answer because you do not know, and you cannot bring yourself to admit it because that would be an admission that you are guessing. The answer is in Rome.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

It is, in my honest and humble opinion a question of interpretation, misunderstanding, and with one or two, wilful misrepresentation of the doctrine, and a word “Freemasonry”.

Religious Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Perhaps if we called ourselves The Grand Kettle of Fish at York, and our members, Free Fellows of the Fish Kettle, we would not be having this conversation?

Is it the word that is banned, or what we are, what we do, and what we stand for?

It is certainly only the word that rings the bells and flashes the red lights on this forum.

I make that two questions Jharek. You are very good at asking them but very poor at answering them.

 

[PJM]

=PeterClatworthy;6187244]I am not a Roman Catholic, and so I regard myself, very much, as a self-invited guest on this discussion forum.

I feel so strongly about what has happened in the short time that I have been here that I wanted, please, to ask you for your candid opinions.

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

This is my experience.

I believe that the internet provides us with a unique opportunity, and it is also important, to debate and discuss the issues that affect us. I realise that these issues may be sensitive, or even controversial. Accepted. I also accept that strong views may have to be expressed, on both sides of a debate.

However, what I find hurtful, and most disturbing on what is, after all, a religious Christian forum, is that when any dissent from Catholic doctrine or opinion is expressed, it is greeted with aggression, including personal attacks on one’s integrity, on the automatic assumption that because a contributor might disagree, he or she is therefore, automatically, anti-Catholic.

Disagreeing with one of your children does not make you anti-child. You can disagree out of love, or simply respect for that child and its undoubted right to politely express a contra point of view, or both.

God gave us a brain. It is the most complex and amazing muscle. He would not have done so if He had not wanted us to think for ourselves.

Are we here to discuss and debate important issues of our time, or are we merely here on the understanding that we are not permitted to test, question, and yes, even change the opinions of others?

Am I alone, or do others here feel similarly?

Surely if we already agree on ever issue in advance, and any reasoned and politely expressed opposition is stifled, or rejected without due consideration, then those who remain will be bored to tears, and ill-educated that we live in a diverse world where it is necessary to pursuade others, rather than to simply bully them into submission?

What has happened to good, old fashioned, and gentlemanly good manners?

Is it just me?

Am I being unreasonable?

***Hi Peter,

I am truly and deeply moved by your perspective and conerns, howerver, at ROOT here is the issue of "the [singular as there can only be ONE per issue] TRUTH.

Yes the Forum is for debate and discussion; but is it also not the place to share THE TRUTH? And is it not the proper place to defend [with charity] but nevertheless aggresively, ones Faith especially when grounded in The Truth, when one’s beliefs are misunderstood ot misrepresented??

It seems your asking us to walk a very fine line, that I suspect cannot always be done:shrug:

I have often corrected members for lack of charity, and try to maintain fairness, while defending truth. Simply explaining truth seems to have little effect.

I support my positions with the Bible and other verifiable resources.

Love and prayers,

Pat***

 

[PeterClatworthy]

***Hi Peter,

I am truly and deeply moved by your perspective and conerns, howerver, at ROOT here is the issue of "the [singular as there can only be ONE per issue] TRUTH.

Yes the Forum is for debate and discussion; but is it also not the place to share THE TRUTH? And is it not the proper place to defend [with charity] but nevertheless aggresively, ones Faith especially when grounded in The Truth, when one’s beliefs are misunderstood ot misrepresented??

It seems your asking us to walk a very fine line, that I suspect cannot always be done:shrug:

I have often corrected members for lack of charity, and try to maintain fairness, while defending truth. Simply explaining truth seems to have little effect.

I support my positions with the Bible and other verifiable resources.

Love and prayers,

Pat***

Ohhhh. I do agree with you. Thank you very much for your kindness and courtesy. God Bless you, and keep you. You have made my day.