Why do people judge others so harshly?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SilverLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The quote was actually from Pope Benedict XVI -it was from the Lenten message from this year. (I note this to differentiate between what he wrote prior to being Pope)…
No problem here I just used the old habit of calling a pope by his last name. Different countries/cultures different habits.:o
…But the articles noted below address the whole question of judging. (from Msgr Pope)

The term “judging” here (the quote and the articles) refers to what Jesus refers to as “judge not”. Not other uses of the term…
As 99.99% of the times I completely agree with Msgr Pope. I can count only one time when I disagreed with him and it was about details.🙂
…Other uses would yes be involved in fraternal correction -of the kind Pope Benedict XVI refers too.
I completely agree with you; however, my impression is that quite a few people play on a single derogatory aspect of the word to generalize it to all the other aspects of forming a judgement. That is a very common logical fallacy that I often see here on CAF, and it is a trick to take any authority away from any appropriate form of judgement.
 
I completely agree with you; however, my impression is that quite a few people play on a single derogatory aspect of the word to generalize it to all the other aspects of forming a judgement. That is a very common logical fallacy that I often see here on CAF, and it is a trick to take any authority away from any appropriate form of judgement.
Yes unfortunately some collapse the meanings.

Indeed:

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
  • of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
  • of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
 
No, its more complicated than that. One has to know and understand the Church’s position entirely, and then one has to knowingly take a position that denies that authority, and then one has to be told to cease taking the position they are taking. You can be heterodox without being a heretic and the Church.
OK, let’s say I’m wrong here (which I concede is very possible). We can simply swap out “heretic” with “proto-heretic” or “dissenter” or “rebel” or something along those lines and it doesn’t really change the thrust of what I’m saying. I’m accusing many-to-most Catholics of being poor Catholics, not of possessing a peculiar canonical status, after all.
My objection is that the sort of people who enter into discussions in order to confidently bellow “I am right and you are wrong. [Insert snarky sarcastic comment about “typical dumb liberal”] :rolleyes:” do not make for an enjoyable discussion.
OK, but I don’t know of anyone doing anything like that. I certainly don’t do it, and I’m one of the less patient ones around here. And at any rate, yet-another-thread-on-contraception (out of like 1,000) when people still haven’t learned anything or recovered from the hurt feelings caused by the last 999 isn’t exactly enjoyable either.

But, whatever. I don’t confidently bellow anything. When a Catholic attacks the Church, its shepherds, or its teachings, I simply state the truth and try to explain it. When that fails I remind them they have an obligation to give assent to the Church’s teachings even when they cannot understand their basis. And when people harden their hearts against these claims, I usually walk away. I do this all the time here.

Sometimes I lose my temper and say something nasty. I usually get warnings from the mods when that happens. I haven’t done that in this thread to my knowledge.

People lose their tempers sometimes. It happens. It happens to me more often because I’ve got a bit of a bad temper (which itself requires a long story). My point in responding to you the first time was to clarify that it isn’t hatred or pride, as you claim, that drives me and some other posters to criticize, for instance, cafeteria Catholics. It’s sorrow, anger, and frustration at those who attack the Church in harsh terms – usually so they can rationalize their own decisions to sin – when they owe it a debt of loyalty and obedience. That’s my mother they’re attacking, after all.
It was obviously hyperbole? In a post where you called the beliefs of a great many people to be evil nonsense?
I was talking about the “true religion” of cafeteria Catholics bit. Again, obviously that’s hyperbole – given that liberalism is not a religion in anything but the loosest metaphorical sense.

Yes, the rationale employed by, for instance, pro-contraceptives or pro-gay “marriage” dissenters from the magisterium of the Church is both evil and nonsensical. It is not good and it is lacking reason.

I don’t know what you want of me. People who obstinately refuse to give full assent of faith to the teachings of the Church, even when the rationale for it is explained to them repeatedly, even when they admit that their consciences are well-formed on the topic, aren’t entitled to my respect of their beliefs. Their beliefs are literally, at that point, beneath respect. That’s why I generally disengage from them when they refuse to repent of their errors. It’s also why I occasionally lose my temper and snap at them.
It wasn’t.
Well, sorry. I was talking about Catholics, not Protestants.

My beef with Protestants is a whole separate issue, but as I said above, my expectations of them are lower; I expect more of Catholics because they have a much fuller inheritance in the Church they’re attacking than do Protestants.
Ah, the old “You must have an evil motive for disagreeing with me” argument.
Nope, just inquiring. I think I got my answer, though.
So what, then, is the point of a forum? For a bunch of people to sit around talking about how happy they are that they don’t have to be around people who think differently than they do?
What is the point of this particular forum? I think it’s pretty implicit in the title: for people to seek answers consistent with the Catholic faith. This includes those curious about esoteric points of theology or mysticism, those who want to understand this or that teaching better, those on the outside looking in wishing to understand Catholicism better, or even just those wishing to talk about Catholic news, issues, relevant personal stories, etc. In other words, it is a forum for understanding and inquiry.

Note that my formulation above, to seek answers consistent with the Catholic faith, pretty clearly excludes those who deny those answers. It’s not that I’m against atheists or heretics/proto-heretics/whatever you want to call them posting here. It’s that I’m against them aggressively advertising their beliefs in an attempt to seduce faithful Catholics (often those that come here struggling with some difficulty) to apostasy, schism, or heresy.
 
No, I didn’t react with dogmatism. And I haven’t insisted that dogmatism is a bad thing; I’ve insisted that arrogance and nastiness are bad things. And I believe that you are intentionally taking an arrogant and nasty tone (something that you’ve acknowledged).
No, I’m not intentionally taking any tone. My natural writing style is very terse and aphoristic. I guess it can come off as snotty but I don’t know how to write any differently. Usually, also, I write very quickly (as I type very fast) and I don’t often reread what I type, so I guess that doesn’t help.

As I said above, whether or not we are reacting out of “arrogance and nastiness” is precisely what’s at issue here. I’m telling you we are reacting out of a deep and sincere love for the Church as a mother, and a desire to shield it from those who would deny it, attack it, and seduce others to similar evils in the process. And I think I’d know a thing or two about why I react the way I do to these kinds of provocations.
 
No, its more complicated than that. One has to know and understand the Church’s position entirely, and then one has to knowingly take a position that denies that authority, and then one has to be told to cease taking the position they are taking. You can be heterodox without being a heretic and the Church
Your statement just kinda dropped off there at the end. I think something’s missing?

Anyway, I did want to say that I agree with you and that some people need to read up on invincible ignorance. Determining whether Catholics are heretics is very serious and I have a feeling that it’s not something that we, as lay people, should be doing (I should say “trying to be doing” because it’s not our determination!)
Except in this case, the Church has quite clearly reserved for itself the right to say who is and who is not in heresy, something that it has the right to do. Unlike the government, which does not have the right to say that you cannot call someone a murderer.
:sad_yes: As I stated above, I have a feeling that it’s not something that we, as lay people, should be doing. I was once asked to sign a petition which was going to be presented to the bishop in the hope that a person would be excommunicated by the bishop. I didn’t sign it. It’s similar to the heresy charge - it’s not really our place to be doing things like that (“We have 5,000 signatures, Bishop, on this petition. So you should excommunicate this person!”) Really snarky.
My objection is that the sort of people who enter into discussions in order to confidently bellow “I am right and you are wrong. [Insert snarky sarcastic comment about “typical dumb liberal”] :rolleyes:” do not make for an enjoyable discussion.
Again, I agree. I just responded on another thread about this very thing.
 
So you concede that there are circumstances where such might not be “uncalled for”?

Look, you don’t owe me an apology for being harsh. If anything, you owe me an apology for being harsh unfairly, because nothing I said was objectionable (but I don’t expect an apology because I don’t really care). That’s not the sin of “harshness” (which isn’t a sin); at worst, it’s just the sin of imprudence. I would appreciate also the tacit admission that harshness is in fact frequently required and has been frequently employed validly throughout history.
Wow. That *is *really harsh!
I don’t care to engage your soteriological errors. But you owe the saints more reverence than that. They are in Heaven (which makes them, by definition, better than you) and they are praying for you, and they’ve almost certainly done much more good in this world than you’ve managed.
How do you even make a statement like “they’ve almost certainly done much more good in this world than you’ve managed?” You don’t even know the person who posted! And you have no idea of the comparative amount of good that the poster and the saints have managed. For all you know, some saints in heaven have just entered after being in Purgatory for hundreds of years but that poster may not spend one single second in Purgatory but will go straight to heaven. Wow - so judgmental!
Re: nastiness, well, yes, that’s real, and I’ve done my share of it. Part of it is understandable frustration with heretics, and there are a good number of them on these forums: people who harden their hearts against the Church’s teachings and refuse to listen to reason, but who insist that the Church has gotten everything wrong and they alone are right. This is sinful: the sin of disobedience, the sin of pride, and the sin, worse, of scandal, given that other posters might be seduced by this error. Part of it is frustration with the moderators who tolerate this evil nonsense so long as it doesn’t offend against “charity” (by which they inevitably mean what mitex means, i.e., mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness – a conception of charity that does not, to my knowledge, have any root in anything the Church has taught, now or historically), and who punish the faithful and orthodox Catholics, often with bannings, for speaking out harshly against those evils. Part of it is the nuisance of having to deal with people who are unrepentantly ignorant of what the Church teaches and why it teaches it, and the willingness to subscribe to obviously meritless philosophical nonsense to justify their rebellions. And part of it is the feeling of being trapped here at CAF: the knowledge that we cannot walk away, though it would probably make us happier in the long run, because by doing so we would be surrendering to the evils presently scourging the Church.
This forum is open to people of all faiths, even non-Christians. Even pagans. Even atheists. Jesus died for everyone - not just Catholics. Non-Catholics have the right to post their views as long as they follow forum rules. They are not required to accept Church teaching as truth. Your comments about the moderators are extremely uncharitable and inappropriate (especially that bit about “mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness…”).
 
Wasn’t Mother Theresa the one judging the USA of being arrogant because they consider themselves that greatest and richest nation while they kept killing their own children in the womb?
Venerable (Blessed?) Mother Teresa was not infallible. Sometimes she said things that were uncharitable and absolutely wrong. So did Aquinas and Augustine. But I think you’re implying that she was a hypocrite. If that is so, we are probably all hypocrites.

And I agree with her about the people in the USA in a general sense, although I have to admit that I might be being a hypocrite by agreeing with her. I’ll have to think about this. It’s hard to not judge others!

I’ve read many quotes attributed to Mother Teresa. The context is left out (as it usually the case with quotes) so needed information is missing.

But if we say anything, even something said carelessly, we will be called on it eventually.
 
Grace & Peace!

I was reading Julian of Norwich this morning and came across the following which I feel supplements the Holy Father’s words on fraternal correction that were posted earlier in the thread:
When other men’s sins come to mind, the soul that wishes to be in repose shall flee from that as from the pain of hell, searching in God for remedy for help against it, for the beholding of other men’s sins makes, as it were, a thick mist before the eye of the soul, and we cannot for the time see the fairness of God (unless we can behold another’s sins with contrition with him, with compassion on him, and with holy desire to God for him, for without this it troubles and tempts and hinders the soul that beholds those sins).
Taking the Holy Father’s writing and using Julian as a supplement, we find that true Christian admonition:
  • is not accusatory;
  • is not recriminatory;
  • is gentle;
  • is characterized by love, understanding and forgiveness;
  • leads to an experience of mutuality by both the one admonishing and the one being admonished: a shared contrition, a shared compassion, and a shared holy desire for God.
It seems to me that if these points are not present in our fraternal correction (if we are erring, for instance, on the side of harshness against gentleness, or if we do not share the contrition of the one we are admonishing), then it seems that we have abandoned true Christian admonition for an exercise in the display of egotistical pride. What we are likely to be expressing is dogmatic moralism (as opposed to true faith), a sense of spiritual superiority (as opposed to true hope), a massaging of our own conviction that we ourselves are righteous over against the obvious unrighteousness of others (as opposed to true love). In other words, our correction will be little more than sin and a judgment against ourselves.

I believe that both the Holy Father and Julian are encouraging us to see the sins of our brothers and sisters as a burden which we can bear and alleviate for each other through a mutual exercise of contrition, compassion and holy desire which is oriented toward the mercy and forgiveness of God in Christ.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

He endured the nails, the spitting,
Vinegar, and spear, and reed;
From that holy Body broken
Blood and water forth proceed;
Earth, and stars, and sky, and ocean
By that flood from stain are freed.
 
Grace & Peace!

I was reading Julian of Norwich this morning and came across the following which I feel supplements the Holy Father’s words on fraternal correction that were posted earlier in the thread:
When other men’s sins come to mind, the soul that wishes to be in repose shall flee from that as from the pain of hell, searching in God for remedy for help against it, for the beholding of other men’s sins makes, as it were, a thick mist before the eye of the soul, and we cannot for the time see the fairness of God (unless we can behold another’s sins with contrition with him, with compassion on him, and with holy desire to God for him, for without this it troubles and tempts and hinders the soul that beholds those sins).
Taking the Holy Father’s writing and using Julian as a supplement, we find that true Christian admonition:
  • is not accusatory;
  • is not recriminatory;
  • is gentle;
  • is characterized by love, understanding and forgiveness;
  • leads to an experience of mutuality by both the one admonishing and the one being admonished: a shared contrition, a shared compassion, and a shared holy desire for God.
It seems to me that if these points are not present in our fraternal correction (if we are erring, for instance, on the side of harshness against gentleness, or if we do not share the contrition of the one we are admonishing), then it seems that we have abandoned true Christian admonition for an exercise in the display of egotistical pride. What we are likely to be expressing is dogmatic moralism (as opposed to true faith), a sense of spiritual superiority (as opposed to true hope), a massaging of our own conviction that we ourselves are righteous over against the obvious unrighteousness of others (as opposed to true love). In other words, our correction will be little more than sin and a judgment against ourselves.

I believe that both the Holy Father and Julian are encouraging us to see the sins of our brothers and sisters as a burden which we can bear and alleviate for each other through a mutual exercise of contrition, compassion and holy desire which is oriented toward the mercy and forgiveness of God in Christ.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

He endured the nails, the spitting,
Vinegar, and spear, and reed;
From that holy Body broken
Blood and water forth proceed;
Earth, and stars, and sky, and ocean
By that flood from stain are freed.
That is beautifully said! But I do see a problem. I’ve been in a situation where I saw such arrogance, not to mention cruelty to others, that I did not know what to do. A forum member made fun of some Catholics. He did it many times. He would write things like: “Yea, Im Katlic. I ain’t got no problem wit that.” (that is paraphrasing). He strongly implied, using language like that, that people who performed a certain service for society were stupid, ignorant, and certainly inferior to him. I come from a family with a father who performed that service and hated it. He also had a B.A. but he obeyed his father and became trapped in a job he loathed. Yet he was ethical and honest and performed a service that is much needed and saves lives. I was very proud of him. As to the forum member, I admit that I first reacted with anger. Then, as the cruelty continued, I responded with charity. I explained that I was deeply hurt personally by what this person was posting. I said that he was my brother in Christ and that I loved him. I asked him to please stop being so cruel to me. He ignored my post and went right on doing what he had been doing. And as far as I know, he is still doing it.

This is *not *the only subject on which he showed cruelty. I was amazed at how many people he insulted and hurt; sometimes these were people who were obviously suffering and begging for help.

I reported him and of course, I don’t know if he received a warning. Moderator actions towards others aren’t my business. Maybe he has stopped or at least toned it down.

The point is that sometimes one reaches a point where it’s like casting pearls before swine. How do you determine when it’s time to give up and ignore that person (who may be hurting other people)? I pray for him because it seems that is all that I can do and I feel frustrated and fear for him.
 
Wow. That *is *really harsh!
With due respect, I don’t see anything even remotely harsh in that quoted text. Please clarify.
How do you even make a statement like “they’ve almost certainly done much more good in this world than you’ve managed?” You don’t even know the person who posted!
Well, for one thing, the saints are in Heaven, so that’s pretty good evidence; they have undergone theosis. For another, a requirement of sainthood is worldly holiness culminating in the performance of miracles. By definition, it is impossible for mitex, being outside the Church, to achieve sainthood, at least this side of the grave, because he lacks the holiness and the graces which the sacraments alone can confer. So, as the philosophers say, QED.
And you have no idea of the comparative amount of good that the poster and the saints have managed. For all you know, some saints in heaven have just entered after being in Purgatory for hundreds of years but that poster may not spend one single second in Purgatory but will go straight to heaven. Wow - so judgmental!
Even the least saint in Heaven is greater than the greatest person on Earth. Christ Himself tells us as much:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 11:11[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, it hardly goes without saying since it has been said dozens of times here already – you are using “judgmental” inappropriately. I am scolding mitex for his impiety toward the saints. Chastising sinners is a spiritual work of mercy. That is not condemned. What is condemned is (a) hypocritical judgment, i.e., refusing to judge a sin in oneself that one readily judges in others, and (b) condemnation, i.e., the presumption of damning one to Hell. Given that I’m neither presuming to consign mitex to Hell nor am I myself exhibiting irreverence toward the saints, the charge doesn’t really stick.

The saints deserve our reverence. They’re saints, after all. It’s wrong to deny them the reverence which is due them.
This forum is open to people of all faiths, even non-Christians. Even pagans. Even atheists. Jesus died for everyone - not just Catholics. Non-Catholics have the right to post their views as long as they follow forum rules. They are not required to accept Church teaching as truth. Your comments about the moderators are extremely uncharitable and inappropriate (especially that bit about “mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness…”).
That doesn’t mean I have to like it when people try to seduce struggling Catholics to denial of their faith, whether in the form of rebellion, apostasy, or schism. The fact that the rules presently allow it also doesn’t prohibit me from saying that the rules ought not to allow it.

I don’t see how my calling what is expected of us “mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness” is either uncharitable or inappropriate, given that that’s apparently exactly what is expected of us. And it’s not unreasonable for me to suppose, given that many saints and even Christ Himself have been harsh with unrepentant sinners, that they would have been banned from these forums if those rules were applied rigorously. And so it’s not unreasonable for me to conclude that the guidelines re: “charity” in posting do not, in fact, have a solid basis in Catholic moral teachings or the examples set by Christ or the saints. Rather I suspect they are just standard forum posting rules. Given that we aren’t trying to be just another forum for the free exchange of ideas but are supposed to have a preferential option for Catholicism, I don’t like those rules, and I don’t have to like them.

Frankly, I think it’s out-and-out revolting to say that men like St. Nicholas are “barbarians.” It’s extreme impiety. The man is a saint, and the actions which were derided as “barbaric” earned him the special love, merit, and reward of Christ and Mary both – who restored him to his bishopric after he was imprisoned and defrocked for breaking the nose of a heretic at the Council of Nicaea. You can call this “judgmentalism,” but if this is your standard then you have to admit that the standard itself is set up against Christ, Mary, and the saints. And the irony is that whether or not such a thing is wrong in the first place is the object of the conversation you’re trying to shut down with accusations of “judgmentalism.”

There’s nothing wrong whatsoever for calling people out for saying something impious. Sometimes I go too far and I already acknowledge that’s a problem and probably even a sin. What I’m saying is that given the circumstances, such extremism is understandable – and it can be understood and explained without uncharitable references to arrogance or pride. Rather, it’s a function of our great and enduring love for the Church and a desire to shield it from those who would stab it in the back.
 
With due respect, I don’t see anything even remotely harsh in that quoted text. Please clarify.
With all due respect, your tone appears arrogant and you appear to have no problem insulting those who do not agree with you.
Well, for one thing, the saints are in Heaven, so that’s pretty good evidence; they have undergone theosis.
Yes, the saints are in heaven. And even the worst sinner on earth can repent and atone and be purged of imperfections in Purgatory. It’s not good evidence; it’s mediocre at best. No; I’m wrong. It’s weak at best.
For another, a requirement of sainthood is worldly holiness culminating in the performance of miracles.
Not always. The performing of miracles is part of the usual process for canonization (although that can be bypassed by the Pope). Are you really saying that the only people in heaven are those who have been canonized? :eek:
By definition, it is impossible for mitex, being outside the Church, to achieve sainthood, at least this side of the grave, because he lacks the holiness and the graces which the sacraments alone can confer. So, as the philosophers say, QED.
And there ya go. YOU have decided that mitex will not be able to enter heaven. YOU have said it is impossible. And by doing that, you are placing yourself above God. It is not your decision and the Church has never taught that any particular person who has died has gone to hell. Never. The Church has a list - a canon. And that is it.
Even the least saint in Heaven is greater than the greatest person on Earth. Christ Himself tells us as much:
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 11:11[/BIBLEDRB]
Which has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Also, it hardly goes without saying since it has been said dozens of times here already – you are using “judgmental” inappropriately.
Please provide the post numbers where it has been said dozens of times that I am using “judgmental” inappropriately. I am eagerly waiting for this! I have seen it once - in this post. Dozens of times? Really?
I am scolding mitex for his impiety toward the saints. Chastising sinners is a spiritual work of mercy. That is not condemned. What is condemned is (a) hypocritical judgment, i.e., refusing to judge a sin in oneself that one readily judges in others, and (b) condemnation, i.e., the presumption of damning one to Hell. Given that I’m neither presuming to consign mitex to Hell nor am I myself exhibiting irreverence toward the saints, the charge doesn’t really stick.
You are scolding him? Well, that is a very good way to turn someone away from the Church. If I had run into you when I joined this forum, with the fear I had, I would have run away from the Church as fast as I could have run. You admit that the presumption of damning one to hell is condemned yet that is exactly what you done to the other poster. As stated above, you have said it is impossible for him to achieve sainthood. There are only three places to go after death: hell, Purgatory, heaven. Those who go to Purgatory also go to heaven. You’ve damned mitex and that is condemned. You are condemning yourself with your own words! Why can’t you see this?

You also seem to subscribe to the heresy of Feeneyism, but that is for another thread.
The saints deserve our reverence. They’re saints, after all. It’s wrong to deny them the reverence which is due them.
Yes, you are correct that the saints deserve our reverence. But no person, not even a Catholic, is required to pray to Mary or have any special regard for her and she is Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint that is there. If one loves Jesus and tries his best to be the kind of person he believes Jesus wants him to be he is showing reverence to the saints in heaven and to his brothers and sisters on earth - hopefully, future saints.

It is also wrong to believe that a mere human being (not being omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) has the ability and the right to tell another human being that he cannot enter heaven. That is in God’s realm - not ours.
That doesn’t mean I have to like it when people try to seduce struggling Catholics to denial of their faith, whether in the form of rebellion, apostasy, or schism. The fact that the rules presently allow it also doesn’t prohibit me from saying that the rules ought not to allow it.
Who is struggling here? You? :confused: If you don’t like the rules, then please feel free to start up your own forum and then you can determine what is appropriate.

-----continued in next post----
 
-----continution of last post-----
I don’t see how my calling what is expected of us “mere cow-eyed, round-the-clock niceness” is either uncharitable or inappropriate, given that that’s apparently exactly what is expected of us. And it’s not unreasonable for me to suppose, given that many saints and even Christ Himself have been harsh with unrepentant sinners, that they would have been banned from these forums if those rules were applied rigorously. And so it’s not unreasonable for me to conclude that the guidelines re: “charity” in posting do not, in fact, have a solid basis in Catholic moral teachings or the examples set by Christ or the saints. Rather I suspect they are just standard forum posting rules. Given that we aren’t trying to be just another forum for the free exchange of ideas but are supposed to have a preferential option for Catholicism, I don’t like those rules, and I don’t have to like them.
Please clarify what you mean by “we aren’t trying to be another forum for the free exchange…” Are you identifying yourself as CAF? Karl Keating might have a problem with that.

You don’t have to like the rules. I dislike some of them myself. But when I became a member I agreed to follow those rules and I intend to do my best to do so. If you want to see bad moderation take a trip to CARM if you haven’t been there already.
Frankly, I think it’s out-and-out revolting to say that men like St. Nicholas are “barbarians.” It’s extreme impiety. The man is a saint, and the actions which were derided as “barbaric” earned him the special love, merit, and reward of Christ and Mary both – who restored him to his bishopric after he was imprisoned and defrocked for breaking the nose of a heretic at the Council of Nicaea. You can call this “judgmentalism,” but if this is your standard then you have to admit that the standard itself is set up against Christ, Mary, and the saints. And the irony is that whether or not such a thing is wrong in the first place is the object of the conversation you’re trying to shut down with accusations of “judgmentalism.”
I apologize but I smiled when reading this. It’s because within the last few days I posted in another thread about that little incident and I posted that I hoped sweet St. Nicholas did not hurt his hand badly. But he was not a saint when he punched (was it Arius?) in the face. And he really was wrong to do so. Jesus told us to love our enemies and to slug someone is understandable when one is under great pressure and trying to defend Holy Mother Church, but it was wrong. And I have a feeling that St. Nicholas would agree with me. Did Jesus and Mary personally restore Nicholas to his position? Or was it the Church? Please do not tell me that the standard is set up against Christ, Mary, and the saints because it is not. I’m tired of posting Scripture regarding judgment; I’ve done it so many times. So I will post only one passage:

And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? ** Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.**
[Matthew 7:3-5, Douay-Rheims, bolding and underlining added by this poster for emphasis]
There’s nothing wrong whatsoever for calling people out for saying something impious. Sometimes I go too far and I already acknowledge that’s a problem and probably even a sin. What I’m saying is that given the circumstances, such extremism is understandable – and it can be understood and explained without uncharitable references to arrogance or pride. Rather, it’s a function of our great and enduring love for the Church and a desire to shield it from those who would stab it in the back.
It is understandable. That does not make it appropriate, saintly, holy, reverent, or Christ-like. It is wrong.
 
ADDENDUM TO MY LAST POST:

Episcopalians have a valid baptism - they are members of God’s Church - without the fullness of truth. One does not have to be a formal member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Even if one is not baptised with water and using the Trinitarian formula that does not necessarily mean that he (or she) will not enter heaven. There is baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

I would also like to post the following from the CCC:

#846 (referring to "Outside the Church there is no salvation) :How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

#847:* This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.*

#848: Although in ways known to Himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

And:

#1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

[Underlining and italics added for emphasis by this poster; italics are also used in the CCC - please refer to the sections quoted above]

I apologize for taking the thread off-topic. I felt that it was important to post this. I also apologize for my own lack of charity and for discussing other posters instead of the topics, both on- and off-topic. I will remain on-topic from now on, try to become and remain charitable, and discuss only topics, not posters.
 
I have never seen any such thing here on CAF. People have disagreements, people debate topics, but I have never seen anyone declare hatred for another forum member. Can you please link to any post that states “I hate you because you believe something I do not?” Are you sure you are not interpreting strong debate of beliefs as hatred? Disagreeing with someone is not hatred, you know.
Posts like that are not seen because they are removed by the moderators. Members are often banned for extreme lack of charity.
 
I have seen people decide they hate somone just because they believe something the other does not. It is shocking sometimes and hard to read.
Pride. It is the hardest sin to admit and the most difficult one to overcome. I think anyone who thinks they are not prideful and judgemental are in denial. I’ve seen terrible amounts of pride in people condemning others for pride. Usually people work around their pride by claiming a certain sin doesn’t matter or isn’t that important. They then go around and judge those as being prideful and arrogant who have not followed their own work around solution to pride. Little do they know that they’re committing the very same sin they’re condemning others of committing.

It shouldn’t be so shocking. There is no one on the planet who is not guilty of being arrogant and prideful. Just look at how common gossip is!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top