Banned from Catholic Answers: Happy to have a Blog
yesterday, I get this message from the Catholic Answers Forum moderator warning me about an infraction I committed. The message stated…
He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...
Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…
Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…
Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…
So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…
Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…
I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.
Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.
Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.
Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...
By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).
CM
23 comments:
-
MannyAmbanlocRosario said...
-
You're banned at CAF.
BARM is almost exclusively Tagalog now.
Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.
-
Churchmouse said...
-
You're banned at CAF.
BARM is almost exclusively Tagalog now.
Gee...now I have no where to go :-)
Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.
Jim's been after me for awhile to become a contributor. However, I have a hard enough time finding "thought" time to use on my own blog. As soon as I can lessen my load (in life), maybe I can do both, that is if the invitation is still open.
As always, nice hearing from you Tinubos.
CM
-
PRmerger said...
-
Well! Churchmouse! PRmerger here from the CAFs. Imagine my surprise
that I stumbled over your blog, 6 months later, almost by chance...
(I was surfing the CAFs tonight and came across a "sticky" note about banning/suspensions...and decided to do a google search to see if anyone outside the CAFs had posted comments about having been banned by the mods, and, voila, your blog popped up!)
I enjoyed your sly reference to our discussions about spelling/grammar...(refusal/refussal)
(NB: Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Boniface XVI)
Now, I won't comment on your banning, lest my membership on the CAFs be questioned by the mods--and I LOVE being on the CAFs way too much to risk it, even way out here in the blogosphere...but I will say I am sorry that you were banned.
Good luck in your search for Truth. If you seek, you shall find.
Your Sis in Christ,
-PR
-
Churchmouse said...
-
Hi PR! Nice of you to stop by. See where searching the WWW lands you :)
Pope Boniface??? I didn't realize I called him that (considering that I know he's Benedict). I guess much is to be said for proofreading :).
Yes, I pray that we ALL can come to the Truth of God's Word through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
Peace,
CM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I was locked out for life for being "impatient". Which was asking if
there was an update four days after being told they would look into why I
got banned for citing two antisemitic threads.
Boss is:
Catholic Answers
President: Karl Keating..................... (619) 387-7200
2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon 92020
-
Nathan Wagar said...
-
I am truly sorry about how your situation was handled. I came upon this
while dialoguing with PadreJ off-forum, who was also banned from CAF for
a seemingly trivial (if not non-existent) reason. I hope that you do
not let this incident reflect poorly upon all Catholics. Catholic
Answers are a prominent movement within the Catholic Church, but they
are not The Church, no matter how strongly some members may present
themselves as such. Have a Blessed week.
-
Anonymous said...
-
wow it looks like loads of people get banned, and the admins are out of
control over there. They produced one lying post I saw that said only
like 12 or so people were banned at any time. Not likely. Catholic
Answer forums are really an embarassment to the Church.
-
Churchmouse said...
-
Nathan and Anonymous,
I don't fault Catholics for the actions of a CAF moderator. Heck, I don't even fault Catholic Answers. To this day I see it as the actions of a lone gun with an itchy trigger finger. The rules, seemingly, are left to the interpretation of the moderator and, in this case, the moderator seems to take some liberties that are, probably, unbeknownst to the forum powers-that-be. If anything, CAF needs to pay more attention to those they appoint as moderators. Yet, through all the smoke, I know that no one is to blame but those with who take liberties with the authority given them. It's not a religious thing, but rather a personal action from someone who didn't like what I said even though I meant no disrespect. I'm a Protestant. Surely, he shouldn't expect me to behave as if I wasn't.
Thanks for the words of fairness and support.
Peace,
CM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I was posting in Christian Discussion forum a couple months ago when
they tossed out all the Catholics, JWs, and Mormons. They give their
site a name as broad as "Christian" but all must bow to the bent
Protestant and Baptist doctrines, shutting out many other Christians.
You have a couple of Christianity's flakey offshoots, breakaways, and
tagalongs deciding who else is Christian. But Catholics have to
tolerate those people coming into a forum labeled specifically for
Catholics bashing our religion? Not.
Sorry, if these other so-called Christian sites can police their boards, so can CAF. Catholics are the oldest Christian religion--2,000 years old. We were here first. Get back in line.
-
Elizabeth Aviles said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
-
Churchmouse said...
-
To Anonymous,
Wow! Now THAT was a rant. With that attitude I can see you getting booted from any forum, Catholic, Protestant, or other. If you can just get past your biases for a moment, you will see that even some Catholics, on the CAF forum and in this combox, thought I got a bum deal from the CAF moderator. It isn't a matter of "policing" but of fairness. To compare your forum experience with mine is just a bad comparison overall.
As to the claims of being here "first"? Sorry, some, such as I, don't buy into the premise that the catholic church of yore is none other then the Church of Rome. As you can read here on my blog, purgatory is but one example of a heterodoxy, one such doctrine that cannot be traced to the early "catholic" church. So, your assumption is simplistic at best and proves nothing. How many times have I heard Roman Catholics make the bad assumption that "age = orthodoxy." Believing that "we were here first" means nothing to someone who doesn't believe that you were, let alone teaches doctrines at variance with the early church.
So, you can take your imaginary "line" and keep believing you "were here first." Newman would be proud! Yet, you'll find me following Christ wherever HE leads and not in some makeshift "line."
CM
-
Anonymous said...
-
churchmouse and Nathan,
Very much appreciate your comments, posts, and fairness. I was banned too, never given a reason, but that does not mean that there was not a violation of CAF rules.
The exchanges between Catholics, Orthodox and Prostestants are very beneficial in understanding one another and one's faith.
If CAF focused more on this goal, rather than trying to defend every particular teaching of the Catholic Church it would be a very good medium for representing the Catholic church in her attempts
for unity in the spirit of humility, truth and love.
Especially, in a day and hour when we need to encourage and uphold one another.
Peace, zarthan, byeveryword.
-
Anonymous said...
-
I can sympathize with being banned by the CA forum and I would agree, it
seems unfair. There are some moderators there who really do not seem
to want to give every poster a fair shake--and know that I am a very
faithful Catholic, so this is not about non-Catholics. It seems if one
even charitably disagrees there, if by chance the moderator has a
different personal viewpoint--and we're not even talking religious
belief here--they don't stand a chance. I now go to other forums. BTW,
please do check into things like Purgatory and other Catholic
beliefs--and remember no where does it say 'everything' is in the
Bible--many things are not! I suggest 'Reverend Know-It-All''s website,
as well as Relevant Radio to clear up any confusion
www.relevantradio.com (can listen online--grean Q&A shows). Thanks,
a happy Catholic (though not happy about CA forums)
-
Anonymous said...
-
CA has some absolutely lousy moderators who have over-sized heads and no
common sense. It's all about their personal beliefs--not a thing to do
with Catholic beliefs--in fact, they make the Church look bad and
misrepresent it.
Whoever runs CA should boot out some of the mods--the bad and arrogant ones--and allow someone with a brain who is courteous and respectful of others to take over (note some of the mods are really good, though).
These controlling airheads who are currently the mods (though not all are bad) should get a life. They can't tolerate anyone to disagree with their narrow little minds. What pitiful little 'Barney Fifes' these people are. Sheesh.
C'mon CA, you can do much better. There are many caring and faithful Catholics who could do the mods jobs 100% better!
-
Anonymous said...
-
I was banned from that forum...I could care less. The moderating is
horrible over there. They are clearly biased. If you conform with the
Church's position and denigrate someone that doesn't, you'll get a pass.
And if you respond in kind to that person but you might be perceived
are less conforming, bye bye! Those mods act in a very un-Catholic
fashion, and are a true embarrassment to the religion that they
reputedly support.
-
Blackie said...
-
To accuse someone of sophistry is the same as accusing them of lying.
Look up the definition in a dictionary. If you accused someone of that
to their face you'd likely catch a mouth full of knuckles, so how is it
not insulting to Catholics (on their own forum no less!) to have you
make such a remark about Pope Benedict XVI?
As for all of you that have been banned and badmouth the CAF mods and admins...I've been a member there since November of 2004 and have seen every sort of anti-Catholic attack attack dog that has come along. Some of you have about zero concept of either Christian charity or common civility and the moderation at CAF has prevented it from sinking to chaotic trash levels of CARM and Yahoo's boards.
Oh yeah ChurchMouse...this is "the other CM". That's right...Church Militant from CAF.
-
PeaceByJesus said...
-
Yes, sophistry is deceit as in "subtly deceptive reasoning or
argumentation," (merriam-webster), which also abounds in Roman
Catholicism, and which has made use of substantial forgeries.
However, neither pointing out as sophistry such things as exaggerated Prot. claims of deaths by the Inquisitions, nor attempts to minimize it does not itself mean one is showing contempt for the faith, versus contempt for sophistry.
But it is my experience that RCs are more prone to attack the motive or integrity of any anything that even implicitly impugns their church, even statistics .
-
david ruiz said...
-
Just got banned today, after almost two years, and they let me say
pretty much anything, but with charity-how else could one approach them.
Forgot to put quotes on a quotation.got suspended. Then a buddy at work
joined, just to check it out( same computer)and i couldn't help but
help him out with some threads.Got caught and am banned now, for
suspension circumvention. Enjoyed it ,learned a lot, but was very
addicted. Hi PRmerger-enjoyed the journey. Sorry I wasn't more careful.
Blessings
-
Yeshua ha mashiack deciple said...
-
there is ALWAYS 2 sides to the story not saying that you are lying but
I'm sure there's more to it than what you are saying. I'm a recent
convert from Baptist to Catholic from much studying the New Testament...
and it's amazing how many lies I was told about the Catholic Church
growing up. pray and Trust in Christ because Christ leads those who love
him into all truth!!! :-)
-
PeaceByJesus said...
-
I have no idea of what the lies were, but there are so many unScriptural
things Rome has taught (from sanctioning the torture of theological
dissidents to hindering Biblical literacy, etc.) but changed on, and
does teach (from praying to the departed to purgatory, to declaring
herself assuredly infallible etc.) that no lies are necessary.
And Rome herself has made use of extensive forgeries (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html) to provide what Scripture does not.
What the basis (Scripture, etc.) for your assurance that Rome is the one true church?
-
Ranger Bill said...
-
When I frist found Catholic Answers several years ago, I was elated. At
last a place to go for answers to tough questions. Well I've asked
several question over the years and have never gotten a answer! I have
one now. What is the feeling toward "One World Order"? I heard that our
Pope is in favor of it. Could I get an answer or reply please. You can
also contact me at poetranger234@hotmail.com "God Bless"
-
PeaceByJesus said...
-
Well, Rome has spoken many things, much of is open to some
interpretation and some change, one example being sanction by papal
bull etc., of torture to extract confessions from theological
opponents, while another pope later on (after Rome lost her use of the
sword of men) utterly forbade it.
As regards a OWO, of course she is in favor of it, as this would be consistent with her history, as Rome claims universal jurisdiction and of coercive power over her own.
And as can no longer do so as before, she writes appeals which leave (true to form) are somewhat vague and provides much that supports a OWO:
ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE
67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago...
such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties..
They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order,..as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.”
-
Anonymous said...
-
Limerickman here :
I'm a CAF member.
CAF moderators are a trigger happy bunch.
I've exchanged messages with a moderator called Robert Bay.
Robert Bay likes to throw his weight around on CAF website.
No comments:
Post a Comment