FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I owe some of you an apology..
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(09-24-2011, 02:47 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 01:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 12:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:44 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:40 AM)vakarian Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 05:28 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]AD has already silenced this case, lets move on shall we?  You were wrong, deal with it (though I should add that your attempts to defame the Holy Father for heresy etc., is quite disturbing).

Not nearly as disturbing as the borderline papalotry that several on this forum seem to display.

lol

Yes, because being too respectful toward the Holy Father would obviously be worse than attempting to slander him. You're just a model of Christian virtue, aren't you?

This appears to be a false dichotomy: if you point out that the pope says something against the faith, you are not being respectful.

That is what Vakarian means by papalotry.

We aren't talking about people pointing out statements of the Pope that go against the Faith, though. City Smurf said that attempts to defame the Pope were disturbing, and Vakarian replied that "papalotry" was more disturbing. In my opinion, being overly respectful and defensive when it comes to the Pope is obviously not nearly as disturbing as attempting to defame him.

I understand. But we're only talking about attempts to defame the pope because that is what theological criticisms are perceived as by those who think he is above criticism. Ggreg posted words from the pope that contradict Catholic theology, and when he defends the fact that this statement (and many others) is a contradiction, he is said to be making attempt to "defame the pope". We are then offered a false dichotomy in which any criticism of the pope is viewed as attempting to defame him. That is not fair and is the reason that those who engage in this tactic are often viewed as guilty of apparent papalotry.

We're talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope an heretic. I don't think anyone here would accuse you of defamation for making theological criticisms of the Pope's writings as a private theologian.
(09-24-2011, 03:08 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 02:47 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 01:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 12:35 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:44 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-23-2011, 01:40 AM)vakarian Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-22-2011, 05:28 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]AD has already silenced this case, lets move on shall we?  You were wrong, deal with it (though I should add that your attempts to defame the Holy Father for heresy etc., is quite disturbing).

Not nearly as disturbing as the borderline papalotry that several on this forum seem to display.

lol

Yes, because being too respectful toward the Holy Father would obviously be worse than attempting to slander him. You're just a model of Christian virtue, aren't you?

This appears to be a false dichotomy: if you point out that the pope says something against the faith, you are not being respectful.

That is what Vakarian means by papalotry.

We aren't talking about people pointing out statements of the Pope that go against the Faith, though. City Smurf said that attempts to defame the Pope were disturbing, and Vakarian replied that "papalotry" was more disturbing. In my opinion, being overly respectful and defensive when it comes to the Pope is obviously not nearly as disturbing as attempting to defame him.

I understand. But we're only talking about attempts to defame the pope because that is what theological criticisms are perceived as by those who think he is above criticism. Ggreg posted words from the pope that contradict Catholic theology, and when he defends the fact that this statement (and many others) is a contradiction, he is said to be making attempt to "defame the pope". We are then offered a false dichotomy in which any criticism of the pope is viewed as attempting to defame him. That is not fair and is the reason that those who engage in this tactic are often viewed as guilty of apparent papalotry.

We're talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope an heretic.

No, correct me if I'm wrong (I may have missed something), but we're not talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope a heretic. We're talking about defamation in this case because it is being assumed that the translation being used to label the Pope a heretic is a bad translation. That is the problem. Because of the lack of a translation that satisfies the naysayers, ill-will on the part of the poster who posted it is the default assumption. That is not fair.

I have seen that same translation from other sources (some published and edited) as well. That doesn't mean it is genuine, but I don't see how it is fair to presume that defamation is the intention when that presumption itself is based on a biased assumption.
(09-24-2011, 03:15 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]No, correct me if I'm wrong (I may have missed something), but we're not talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope a heretic. We're talking about defamation in this case because it is being assumed that the translation being used to label the Pope a heretic is a bad translation. That is the problem. Because of the lack of a translation that satisfies the naysayers, ill-will on the part of the poster who posted it is the default assumption. That is not fair.

I have seen that same translation from other sources (some published and edited) as well. That doesn't mean it is genuine, but I don't see how it is fair to presume that defamation is the intention when that presumption itself is based on a biased assumption.

I don't think anything is being assumed. A different translation of the same passage from an academic publisher has been posted, making the first translation posted here appear to be a deliberate attempt to cast the Pope in a bad light.
This seems to be what passes for proof that it is an authentically bad translation:
archdiocesan Wrote:Does anyone have the German of what Pope Benedict wrote? The only sources carrying this English translation (which must be unofficial, since the work has never been published in English) seem to be websites run by fruitcakes.

Bias right off the start. "Because one poster considers them fruitcakes, nothing they do or say should be considered as even potentially valid."

Any further critic is told to "shut up" because 'AD already handled it.'

AD handled nothing. He merely exposed his bias by generalizing all those (he listed some of them) who oppose his view as being dishonest translators.
(09-24-2011, 03:21 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:15 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]No, correct me if I'm wrong (I may have missed something), but we're not talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope a heretic. We're talking about defamation in this case because it is being assumed that the translation being used to label the Pope a heretic is a bad translation. That is the problem. Because of the lack of a translation that satisfies the naysayers, ill-will on the part of the poster who posted it is the default assumption. That is not fair.

I have seen that same translation from other sources (some published and edited) as well. That doesn't mean it is genuine, but I don't see how it is fair to presume that defamation is the intention when that presumption itself is based on a biased assumption.

I don't think anything is being assumed. A different translation of the same passage from an academic publisher has been posted, making the first translation posted here appear to be a deliberate attempt to cast the Pope in a bad light.

That alternative translation was posted at 5:23 after ggreg made his last post at 5:20, which means that ggreg was basing his defense of the translation on the absence of any alternative translations available to him at the time.

With all due respect, if you're going to criticize others for defaming the pope, you should first be careful not to defame others yourself, as it seems you are doing.
(09-24-2011, 03:29 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:21 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:15 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]No, correct me if I'm wrong (I may have missed something), but we're not talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope a heretic. We're talking about defamation in this case because it is being assumed that the translation being used to label the Pope a heretic is a bad translation. That is the problem. Because of the lack of a translation that satisfies the naysayers, ill-will on the part of the poster who posted it is the default assumption. That is not fair.

I have seen that same translation from other sources (some published and edited) as well. That doesn't mean it is genuine, but I don't see how it is fair to presume that defamation is the intention when that presumption itself is based on a biased assumption.

I don't think anything is being assumed. A different translation of the same passage from an academic publisher has been posted, making the first translation posted here appear to be a deliberate attempt to cast the Pope in a bad light.

That alternative translation was posted at 5:23 after ggreg made his last post at 5:20, which means that ggreg was basing his defense of the translation on the absence of any alternative translations available to him at the time.

I admit I didn't notice that.

(09-24-2011, 03:29 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]With all due respect, if you're going to criticize others for defaming the pope, you should first be careful not to defame others yourself, as it seems you are doing.

I'm not sure how I've defamed anyone. I was criticizing the idea that being overly respectful toward the Pope is somehow worse than attempting to defame him. Of course, this makes me guilty of "papalotry," apparently.
(09-24-2011, 03:36 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:29 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:21 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:15 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]No, correct me if I'm wrong (I may have missed something), but we're not talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope a heretic. We're talking about defamation in this case because it is being assumed that the translation being used to label the Pope a heretic is a bad translation. That is the problem. Because of the lack of a translation that satisfies the naysayers, ill-will on the part of the poster who posted it is the default assumption. That is not fair.

I have seen that same translation from other sources (some published and edited) as well. That doesn't mean it is genuine, but I don't see how it is fair to presume that defamation is the intention when that presumption itself is based on a biased assumption.

I don't think anything is being assumed. A different translation of the same passage from an academic publisher has been posted, making the first translation posted here appear to be a deliberate attempt to cast the Pope in a bad light.

That alternative translation was posted at 5:23 after ggreg made his last post at 5:20, which means that ggreg was basing his defense of the translation on the absence of any alternative translations available to him at the time.

I admit I didn't notice that.

(09-24-2011, 03:29 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]With all due respect, if you're going to criticize others for defaming the pope, you should first be careful not to defame others yourself, as it seems you are doing.

I'm not sure how I've defamed anyone. I was criticizing the idea that being overly respectful toward the Pope is somehow worse than attempting to defame him. Of course, this makes me guilty of "papalotry," apparently.

I think that if benefit of doubt should be given to the pope, then the same benefit of doubt should be extended to anyone who would find a problem with what he says based on the information available to that person at the time.

Accusing someone of defaming another is an accusation of dishonesty, since it implies the intent to do so.

The presumption shouldn't be that such a person is trying to defame someone lest such an accusation commits the same offense it tries to excuse.

It is admirable to defend the pope, but it is not admirable to accuse someone else of defaming (which is sinful, if it is found to be true) the pope when such a person may have no intent to do so.
(09-24-2011, 03:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]I think that if benefit of doubt should be given to the pope, then the same benefit of doubt should be extended to anyone who would find a problem with what he says based on the information available to that person at the time.

The presumption shouldn't be that such a person is trying to defame someone lest such an accusation commits the same offense it tries to excuse.

I haven't accused anyone here of attempting to defame the Pope. Although, I do think it rather obvious that whoever translated the Pope's thoughts on Eucharistic adoration was attempting to make the Pope look heretical.
(09-24-2011, 03:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2011, 03:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]I think that if benefit of doubt should be given to the pope, then the same benefit of doubt should be extended to anyone who would find a problem with what he says based on the information available to that person at the time.

The presumption shouldn't be that such a person is trying to defame someone lest such an accusation commits the same offense it tries to excuse.

I haven't accused anyone here of attempting to defame the Pope. Although, I do think it rather obvious that whoever translated the Pope's thoughts on Eucharistic adoration was attempting to make the Pope look heretical.

But that's what the context of this conversation is all about: ggreg not knowingly using a bad translation. You said:
Crusading Philologist Wrote:
INP Wrote:I understand. But we're only talking about attempts to defame the pope because that is what theological criticisms are perceived as by those who think he is above criticism. Ggreg posted words from the pope that contradict Catholic theology, and when he defends the fact that this statement (and many others) is a contradiction, he is said to be making attempt to "defame the pope". We are then offered a false dichotomy in which any criticism of the pope is viewed as attempting to defame him. That is not fair and is the reason that those who engage in this tactic are often viewed as guilty of apparent papalotry.

We're talking about defamation in this case because a bad translation was being used to label the Pope an heretic.

Ggreg was the one who was using the bad translation to "label the Pope an heretic."

But it (presumably) didn't involve defamation because there is no clear indication that he intended to do so.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12