Alternatives to Rorate Caeli?
(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: We'll see if this bears out in time. All I see in this admonishment is to keep things dignified and civil, with particular respect for Benedict and his office. On the face this seems very Catholic. Maybe you're reading more into this than what is there. Time will tell.

It has already, the past week being a good example. On the face of it, it does seem like a normal admonishment and indeed I read it as such but their comments on it and those of others illuminated the issue. Simply put they have already blocked many comments that were charitable for the mere fact they didn't fit their view.

(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Another bad principle. Truthful is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Sometimes we must keep silent. Detraction is wrong. The virtue of honesty is not alone. It is with other virtues like prudence.

No truthful is always right, one must be charitable in the way that truth is conveyed and yes one must be prudent, for example there was a thread on here with a serious mistake made by the pope, a shocking one, now I have not gone and told xyz people about it simply because it would scandalise them and in the circumstances is unnecessary. However in the case of the blog the facts at issue are already widely known, one cannot therefore be guilty of 'detraction' vis a vis the fact the events spoken of are public and well known.

Frankly though this is all unnecessary you are elucidating principles but not dealing with the concrete facts, namely that the comments at Rorate were not bad nor were they uncharitable (most of the time) nor did detraction come into it. Of course you wouldn't know this as by your own admission you didn't really take part, which of course begs the question as to why you are even commenting?

(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Before an open, truthful, and charitable discussion of the problems, we make a judgement of what is charitable and truthful to speak. Is RC making anymore request than this? Are they actually making a request of readers to participate in purposeful ignorance of the state of the Church? The post from yesterday had a re-link to SSPX's response to the Vatican. Hardly denial. []
Indeed and neither you nor I can presume anything else than that most people on RC had these principles in mind, till it is clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. Again this is what makes it so puzzling their news items repulse the very people they seem so keen to attract via their comment moderation.

(02-01-2012, 08:09 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: Well, yes, you are right. Some people can never be helped, and we need to accept that in those cases. But at least you have things covered well on your end. At least their error will not be confirmed by anything you have said or done. And the bees to honey analogy does not mean "nice", it means "appropriate" or in biblical language, "in due season". Check out Sirach 20.

Speaking the truth if one does so charitably and prudently only confirms someone in error if they are obstinate, in which case they are culpable and not you.

However as I said earlier I see no reason to continue this debate by your own admission you know little about the situation and thus are not fit to comment.

Messages In This Thread
Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by alphonsusjr - 01-31-2012, 09:28 PM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by DrBombay - 01-31-2012, 11:15 PM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by Spooky - 01-31-2012, 11:53 PM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by Jacob - 02-01-2012, 10:40 AM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by maldon - 02-01-2012, 10:59 AM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by OldMan - 02-01-2012, 03:12 PM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by Spooky - 02-01-2012, 06:23 PM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by TrentCath - 02-01-2012, 08:52 PM
Re: Alternatives to Rorate Caeli? - by Scotus - 02-02-2012, 11:45 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)