Question on the Statement of Faith for OBOB

[benedictaoo]

David - question - what if a member is not deliberately bashing the Church - but promotes 'teaching' against the faith?
Not obviously - but doing so..?

and what if that someone is you, WA?

Yeah, those need to be allowed to discuss so they can iron out the errors they're promoting. IMO.

 

[Michie]

My only concern Michie, is who gets to decide that ? We have seen what mob rule can do. Behind the scenes some nefarious things often happen.

Ain't that the truth!

I think there is a pretty obvious difference though by what people post. Whether they flat out say it, which I respect more or the disingenous replies with the needles dripping from every post.

Regardless of what the Church teaches.

 

[Davidnic]

Alright. Unless something massively changes in the next hour, I will make the changes in the next day or so and alert staff to the slight adjustment.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So the results are:

• No, no change at all. 10 22.22%
• Yes, change it for both the general area and political subforum 32 71.11%
• Change it for just the general area 2 4.44%
• Change it for just the Political Subforum 3 6.67%

Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 45.

 

[Davidnic]

With switching your vote over, yep.

Whenever there is a poll like this I then check for sock accounts to make sure no one votes twice and then also check to make sure all votes are eligible. I know just about everyone who voted so it seems there is no Sock account issue.

Barring something really strange even the adjusted one is easily a majority by a sizable margin.

 

[Chany]

I'm fine with it in the political area only if there is a good way to move discussions from the general area to the political area and stricter rules about debating in the general area.

 

[Rhamiel]

so, if someone teaches agianst the teachings of the Catholic Church, we can report them?

 

[Chany]

so, if someone teaches agianst the teachings of the Catholic Church, we can report them?

I thought we always could.

 

[Rhamiel]

I thought we always could.

i thought so too
but i wanted to make sure

 

[Davidnic]

so, if someone teaches agianst the teachings of the Catholic Church, we can report them?

yep. Catholic or non-Catholic. No teaching against anything authoritative.

What the change will do is make consistent what has been common practice. It will also prevent people from being reported for defending Church teaching if they are non-Catholics.

It does not change the safe haven.

 

[Genersis]

I'm guessing this change only allows non-Catholic Christians to post here?

 

[MikeK]

I'm guessing this change only allows non-Catholic Christians to post here?

You guessed wrong. The only changes made were those specifically mentioned by the OP.

 

[Fantine]

I'm not quite sure how non-Catholics would be expected to know enough about Catholicism to know whether they are questioning authoritative teaching or not.

When I am in discussions with an orthodox Catholic, I often find them bringing up obscure points or 150 year-old encyclicals that are certainly not common knowledge, even among Catholics (and that leads me to feel skeptical about their accuracy).

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm not quite sure how non-Catholics would be expected to know enough about Catholicism to know whether they are questioning authoritative teaching or not.

Non-Catholics should probably ask if something is or not if they want to discuss it. I try to do that. If I ask and I'm told it isn't but then later someone points out that it is, I suppose I could be in trouble. I would hope, in that case, the moderators would see that I made posts in good faith that the people who told me something wasn't authoritative were correct.

Tricky situation I guess.

 

[Martinius]

I'm not quite sure how non-Catholics would be expected to know enough about Catholicism to know whether they are questioning authoritative teaching or not.

The same could be said for most Catholics, who have little real education in the teachings of the Church. So what we need to do is advise people to at least study the Catechism before posting on the OBOB forum, or "fact-check" their stuff before they click the "submit reply" button.

When I am in discussions with an orthodox Catholic, I often find them bringing up obscure points or 150 year-old encyclicals that are certainly not common knowledge, even among Catholics (and that leads me to feel skeptical about their accuracy).

Many, but not all, "orthodox" or "traditional" Catholics live (or would like to live) in the Church of some earlier times. For some it is the first half of the 20th century, for others it is the 19th century, and for some it is the Middle Ages. Today's Church and many of the theological ideas and encyclicals of popes from the past 60 years are an abomination to them.

I will give credit to OBOB and other Catholic forums, and the orthodox Catholics who post there, for leading me to learn more about my church. To understand what they were talking about, I had to find and read the documents, papal biographies and histories of the times that they were discussing. I learned about the Syllabus of Errors in the 19th century and attempts to quash "modernist" ideas and trends in the early 20th century. I read about the battle that the church waged (and lost) to retain sovereignty over secular states, and read all or portions of encyclicals by the Pius Popes and others, and learned what the Church has taught about the Bible and tradition, how that teaching has changed (even in my life time) and how it differs from how non-Catholics (and even many Catholics) perceive it.

My knowledge and understanding of many religious terms increased, and I learned what Arianism and Docetism were all about; what it meant to discuss hermeneutics and eschatology; the meaning of hypostases and latria; and what ontological and soteriology referred to.

Mostly I learned that Catholics themselves, including Popes and theologians, have vastly different ideas of what being "Catholic" means. And this is carried over into what being a "Christian" means, as I have been often amazed at the wide range of definitions that people use. That is one reason I use the term "disciple of Jesus" for my religion tag, for to say I am Catholic doesn't say where I am on the spectrum of Catholicism, and even more so with saying I am a Christian.

To forbid discussion and debate on critical issues and ideas is an indication (at least to me) that we are unsure of our position, that we fear questions and new ideas, that we dislike being challenged, that the foundation of our faith is built on sand, not on solid rock. We all know that no church, no person, can force us to accept a belief imposed on us externally. What we believe must be generated internally. Jesus was clear about that, yet the Church assumes it can force belief on people. The image I see the Catholic church projecting from this attitude, to its members and to the world, is of exclusionism, secrecy and fear, bordering on paranoia. It is not an attractive image; it does not adequately and properly reflect on what the Church is really about, and should be about.

The administrators of CF can do what they want with their forums; we are just guests here. They can certainly limit who can post and what they can post in a particular forum. But then I would ask that there be a place for those who are "shut out" to post ideas and hold discussions that are not acceptable on the OBOB forum. Ahh, but that was taken away as well.

The impression one must get from all this is that only certain, acceptable Catholics are welcome here. Very sad.

 

[Davidnic]

It was taken away because it was not used. When the closure was considered starting June 20th...It had four active threads in the last week and it would not have any for a month before that if it was not for a conservative Catholic who was debating one Liberal one. 6 threads that had gone over 15 posts in 100 days and those usually because of other Catholics coming in and debating. Debating which was allowed because, against CF policy the place had no Statement of Faith because there was never enough regular members to compose one.

379 threads in 5 years. 115 in 5 years with more than 15 replies.

75 threads in the last year. Only 20 with more than 15 replies. Again, most of those are debates between conservatives and liberals.

It existed for five years and had little use. So don't complain about the closure of a place that was almost never used.

20 threads in the last year with more than 15 replies. 115 in five years with more than 15 replies. And most of those because a conservative Catholic came in to debate.

Don't act like a vibrant used forum was removed. It was closed because it got almost no use, had no statement of faith and not enough members to write one.

And that was a trend for half a decade...not a week.

Since this thread and the poll are done, there is no reason to keep it open.