Ah well...I won't be tuning in. Based on the last show CAL is not interested in dialogue. In fact CAF itself is pretty biased against traditionalist. Not even sure why they have a dedicated sub forum for it. Anyway...I'll just look forward to when they have a show dedicated to the danger that the liberals and modernists pose to the Church. You know.... prompt the Pelosi, Biden, nuns on a bus types to call in. They are going to have a show like that right? Right?
Perfectly legitimate question right? Then we get to post # 9.Then post # 12. Then post # 17 really gets the thread off the rails. Why is that allowed? Always seems to be the same members too. It's especially prevalent when a thread pops up about Vatican II. You can always count on the same members to come in and derail a Vatican II thread.
Your right. I posted to your blog earlier in the day and at that point he was not banned. My apologies. To tell you the truth I am surprised it took this long for her/his banning. She/he has been skirting an the edges of Catholic teaching for awhile. But still look at how the thread develops. You do not see that post # 9 has nothing to do with the OP's question? It was posted to oppose a traditional love of Latin as were other following posts including the banned poster. The thread develops into something totally different than what the OP intended. That happens quite a bit in the trad forum.
Btw....you never addressed my question. Can we expect a CAL show specifically aimed at liberal and/or 'mad modernists'? Why call out just one end of the 'danger to the Church' spectrum?
It is odd to me that you object to a person opposing traditional love of Latin, as if that is against the forum rules but somehow the moderators are overlooking this breach and indulging the more "liberal" members of the CAFs.
The entire culture of any forum, johnny, is for people to post an opinion...and for those who oppose this opinion to offer their apologia for their contrary viewpoint.
Again, I am mystified that this thread you referred to me is an example of some egregious breakdown in dialogue.
It seems to be a perfectly satisfactory example of dialogue on the CAFs, with a touch of "you can't be a liberal Catholic and spout things against the Catholic Church or you will be banned!" to enhance my point.
Ah well...I won't be tuning in. Based on the last show CAL is not interested in dialogue. In fact CAF itself is pretty biased against traditionalist. Not even sure why they have a dedicated sub forum for it. Anyway...I'll just look forward to when they have a show dedicated to the danger that the liberals and modernists pose to the Church. You know.... prompt the Pelosi, Biden, nuns on a bus types to call in. They are going to have a show like that right? Right?
ReplyDeleteIf the traditionalists could post with charity, their threads wouldn't be removed.
DeleteIt's just, as I limned in the above GIF, most of their posts prompt the above response.
They just don't seem to be able to follow the forum rules.
Maybe or maybe they get sabotaged a little. Look at this thread and how it develops or should I say breaks down....
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=808054
Perfectly legitimate question right? Then we get to post # 9.Then post # 12. Then post # 17 really gets the thread off the rails. Why is that allowed? Always seems to be the same members too. It's especially prevalent when a thread pops up about Vatican II. You can always count on the same members to come in and derail a Vatican II thread.
I am mystified as to why you use this thread as an example of how the CAFs are biased against Traditionalists?
DeleteIt appears that a Catholic poster on the thread who is decidedly NOT a Traditionalist, was banned of late.
This seems to support the argument that the CAFs does indeed nourish a culture of equity and non-discrimination against charitable Traditionalists.
Your right. I posted to your blog earlier in the day and at that point he was not banned. My apologies. To tell you the truth I am surprised it took this long for her/his banning. She/he has been skirting an the edges of Catholic teaching for awhile. But still look at how the thread develops. You do not see that post # 9 has nothing to do with the OP's question? It was posted to oppose a traditional love of Latin as were other following posts including the banned poster. The thread develops into something totally different than what the OP intended. That happens quite a bit in the trad forum.
ReplyDeleteBtw....you never addressed my question. Can we expect a CAL show specifically aimed at liberal and/or 'mad modernists'? Why call out just one end of the 'danger to the Church' spectrum?
It is odd to me that you object to a person opposing traditional love of Latin, as if that is against the forum rules but somehow the moderators are overlooking this breach and indulging the more "liberal" members of the CAFs.
DeleteThe entire culture of any forum, johnny, is for people to post an opinion...and for those who oppose this opinion to offer their apologia for their contrary viewpoint.
Again, I am mystified that this thread you referred to me is an example of some egregious breakdown in dialogue.
It seems to be a perfectly satisfactory example of dialogue on the CAFs, with a touch of "you can't be a liberal Catholic and spout things against the Catholic Church or you will be banned!" to enhance my point.
Regarding CAL shows discussing the other end of the spectrum, well, I am listening to one right now, and it was aired just a few weeks ago:
Deletehttp://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/crisis-in-the-american-church-8490
So, again, it appears as if you are holding an untenable position regarding the alleged biases at Catholic Answers.