Catholic 'Answers'
(06-24-2014, 06:16 PM)phattonez Wrote:
(06-24-2014, 06:13 PM)austenbosten Wrote: CA Forums (not plain old Catholic Answers) is a disgrace to the word Catholic and answers.

Seriously, if you created an account as an atheist and declared that the Church should stop serving Communion because of people who are alcoholic and gluten intolerant...I'm sure the first Catholic telling them of the importance of Communion would get 'banned' for being "uncharitable"

and note....please stop calling CAF "neo-Catholic"; don't lump good apologists like Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples with the cryptic anti-Catholic CAF.

It's hard for me to reconcile the two. I love using the resources at Catholic Answers like their defense of the Church in the Galileo affair, the history of science in the Church, defense of Eucharistic arguments, etc. That forum, however, is miserable. I look in the past archives and you used to be able to have a good discussion. Now, however, everything is instantly silenced, and any mention of modernist elements in the Church, if criticized, is instantly deleted.

It's beyond miserable, it's downright sinful and wrong. There is still good fruit produced by Catholic Answers and Catholic Answers Live (that is when they aren't erroneously lumping sedevacantists with SSPX or people who prefer the Mass of St John XXIII), but CAF is just wrong.
My purely anecdotal sense is that it's become more fascistic in recent years?  Circa 2007-2009, when I last actually bothered posting there, it was much less so.
CAF attributes impeccability to the hierarchy: whatever 'the Church' permits is good because 'the Church' permits it. This is also a circular argument.

Conversely, whatever the Church does not expressly forbid, a Bishop can allow. I'd call this a legalistic attitude.

And: whatever a priest does in his ministry, which is not forbidden by the Church or by his Bishop, may not be criticised.

What CAF moderators will have to answer for is this: Are they hiding the truth in the cause of mere servility?

It is one thing to forbid insults to clergy. It's another to remove valid posts merely to promote an ideology. People go to the forum looking for answers i.e. the truth, not  anti-traditionalist special pleading. It is a queer subculture in the 'Traditional Catholicism' sub-forum: certain things 'may not be said'. And that list is long.

- Meanwhile, the Kings of Kings and Lord of Lords waits to be adored, thanked, propitated and petitioned with the pomp, beauty and solemnity due to Him.

[-] The following 1 user Likes Layman's post:
  • St.Eliza
Some background, from memory:

- Catholic Answers staff make quite a bit of money from their 'ministry'. This would be jeopardised if it became a hotbed of criticism.

- I think some people associated with it revealed their anti-trad outlook in an internet radio broadcast some years ago.

- It's the sort of place where the 'pro-multis' controversy was defended vigorously pro the status quo, until the new translation was issued. I expect the same will occur when the pre-55 missal is liberated and CITH is abrogated.

One good point: Brother JR was good at explaining the official position re. the novelties and how the Church generally operates, administratively. I learnt a lot from him in that respect. Trads expect things the Church simply can't do. It has to 'go through the proper channels'.
I was kicked off the forum in one week.  :LOL:

[-] The following 1 user Likes Pacman's post:
  • St.Eliza
I used to get warnings almost weekly to stop saying something, dozens of my topics have been locked for being controversial, even more of my posts have been deleted because of it. I've never been banned, and I still post occasionally today. 

One time (for a reaction more than anyhing) I asked if, hypothetically, the church now involved "high church, low church, broad church Catholics" in the same sense there are Anglicans. I know it's not good terminology, but all I proposed that the divisions within the Church seem to be heading this way. Not two shakes of a whiskey glass later was I accused of being "divisionist and obviously espousing that erroneous viewpoint".......

Not to mention I stated that I don't necessarily believe in such a viewpoint. It's like some posters just pick out every error regardless if you promote or are against it. Not all the posters on CAF are like that, I've met a few good and honest people who got banned eventually.

[-] The following 1 user Likes LoyalVIews's post:
  • St.Eliza

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)