Author Topic: Michael Hoffman (Read 6808 times)

Matthew · « **on:** February 02, 2013, 12:28:59 AM »

I received this e-mail the other day:

Quote from: Michael Hoffman

Dear Catholic Info.com

You are publishing statements at your website which are false, libelous and represent a possible threat to my life.

At this thread it is said that this writer is a "heretic blasphemer:"
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Michael-Hoffman-Protestant-Liberal-or-Blasphemer

The penalty for blasphemy in the Bible is death.

The falsehoods you are publishing are making this writer a target of violence.

I am neither a heretic nor a blasphemer.

Furthermore, I have never attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, my patron at Confirmation, what one of your contributors alleges.

This is legal notice that you are publishing false witness of a malicious and reckless type which constitutes actionable libel and tends to harm my livelihood and put my life in danger.

I ask that you cease and desist immediately.

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
[P.O. Box address redacted]

Sent by e-mail Jan. 28. 2013

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2013, 12:34:07 AM »

Feel free to critique Mr. Hoffman's public teachings and statements -- such discussion is critically important to the Traditional Catholic movement.

Otherwise, a man who teaches 95% truth might be able to slip in 5% error. God forbid!

No. Any public personage -- especially a blogger, author, or other teacher of men -- must be prone to criticism. No one is above the law, or above criticism.

And in the United States we have this thing called Freedom of Speech -- and Section 230 to protect Message Board owners from liability for what is posted by third parties:

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

That having been said, let's stick to a rational discussion of the FACTS and please avoid knee-jerk labeling and other emotional invective. It distracts from and takes away much of the force of the arguments.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** February 02, 2013, 12:37:10 AM »

I think it's comical how he talks about threats to his life.

Since when do we have gangs of Fundamentalists prowling the United States, dishing out Biblical justice left and right? :rolleyes:

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2013, 05:31:39 AM »

Who is this Hoffman character? Does he sell soap?

:reporter:

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2013, 11:22:53 AM »

Mr. Hoffman has some good advice and good information on the Jєωs and how they despise Christ and His followers.

I have read Judaism's Strange Gods and it is a book worth reading!

Diego · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2013, 11:49:28 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I think it's comical how he talks about threats to his life.

Since when do we have gangs of Fundamentalists prowling the United States, dishing out Biblical justice left and right? :rolleyes:

More like gangs of the ѕуηαgσgυє.

His wife and children have been threatened face-to-face while they were out in town. He has been threatened.

Recall too the arsons and bombings of others who have exposed the ѕуηαgσgυє.

There is nothing comical about the ѕуηαgσgυє's enforcers, so he takes his family's safety seriously—as do I and any decent Catholic man.

As to liability, I do not speak for Michael, but I suspect that the reckless third parties are the ones most at risk though one is well-advised to be completely clear of the legal blast zone. We all all well-advised to stick to arguing issues. Bait him at your own risk.

'nuff said.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2013, 12:31:41 PM »

Ok, Diego, I'll grant that someone who exposes the Jєωιѕн perfidy could be in danger of retribution by those same Jєωs.

But what in the name of St. Simon of Trent does that have to do with public critique of a public figure like Michael Hoffman? Or public discussion of his teachings? Is Michael Hoffman infallible now, just because he's arrayed himself against the Jєωs?

Are you saying that the roving gangs of Jєωιѕн Enforcers are going to leave Michael Hoffman alone -- unless a bunch of Trad Catholics talk about him on CathInfo, in which case they're going to "get him"? How is that rational? Is that how Logic works in your brain?

You seem to be implying that these Vigilante Jєωιѕн Gangs follow the advice of what a bunch of Trad Catholics say. You think they care what we think? We're their enemies, remember?

Are Michael Hoffman's teachings like the h0Ɩ0cαųst, where we can't publicly discuss or critique them? Are they like Dogmas of the Faith, where disagreement with even ONE of them makes us a condemned heretic?

You don't need to answer; you seem to be going on jingoism, "team spirit" and emotion on this one.

Diego · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:41:14 PM »

Matthew, I neither stated nor implied such a bizarre inference, only the bland facts. The illogical inference is not mine. You found it surprising, even amusing, that he had been threatened. The bland facts are that he and his family have been threatened by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan—period.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:53:24 PM »

Quote from: Diego

Matthew, I neither stated nor implied such a bizarre inference, only the bland facts. The illogical inference is not mine. You found it surprising, even amusing, that he had been threatened.

Yes you did, Diego. By agreeing with him.

I find it amusing, and a bit sad, that he is so paranoid. If I thought he were really in danger I wouldn't find it amusing at all.

Even if he had been threatened in the past, it has nothing to do with us.

Diego, let's take a hypothetical case. Say I was receiving death threats. I get on here and get all upset at YOU, because your user name begins with a D. I claim that it's because of your username that I'm being threatened.

You wouldn't find such ludicrous logic to be the least bit amusing?

Quote from: Diego

The bland facts are that he and his family have been threatened by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan—period.

The bland facts are that the animosity between the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan and Michael Hoffman has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER to do with the membership of CathInfo.

What does it have to do with us? Tell me.

Diego · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2013, 02:23:51 PM »

I responded to a very narrow point, your disbelieving amusement at the mention that Michael cares for his (and his family's) safety.

I "agreed" that actual events give him just cause for concern for his safety.

The rest is your inference, not mine.

Michael is known to me and some others here. We know him to be a sincere practicing Catholic, a courageous sincere practicing Catholic.

He is is neither impeccable nor infallible. I am neither impeccable nor infallible. You are neither impeccable nor infallible.

While I agree with him on most issues, he holds opinio tolerata with which I am free in Catholic liberty to disagree. While you and he may agree with me on most issues, I hold opinion tolerata with which you and he are free in Catholic liberty to diagree. We may agree with you on most issues, but you hold opinio tolerata with which we are free in Catholic liberty to disagree.

To his most vocal detractors, calumniators, and any wannabe Grand Inquisitors here I respectfully suggest: Go garden, make babies, play ball with your children, write your own book on the ѕуηαgσgυє's crimes against humanity, but get a hobby other than proctoscoping Michael Hoffman.

Discuss issues all you want. Have you known me to be shy of that? BUT bait Michael at your own peril.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2013, 02:25:07 PM »

Quote from: Tales of Hoffman

This is legal notice that you are publishing false witness of a malicious and reckless type which constitutes actionable libel and tends to harm my livelihood...

I suppose if somebody's livelihood significantly depended upon his books and articles being read by sincere Catholics, having one's blasphemous and liberal comments pointed out to said orthodox Catholics -- who are disgusted by such things -- would seem to threaten one's livelihood. Since such livelihood is based on the key audience being misinformed to their own detriment, however, I would be required to ignore true public information that harms the brethren in order to protect it. That dog won't hunt. Any harm to Mr Hoffman's pocketbook should be considered self-inflicted. Nobody is owed a false reputation in spite of continuously damaging public statements or acts to the contrary.

I am sure that if Mr Hoffman made a formal public abjuration and apology in reparation for the scandal of his words and statements, his key audience would be amenable and his livelihood would be more secure.

alaric · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2013, 04:15:03 PM »

Do you guys really believe this is the real Michael Hoffman in that email?

We need more proof that just some anonymous email.

Dellery · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2013, 05:46:11 AM »

Quote from: Diego

I responded to a very narrow point, your disbelieving amusement at the mention that Michael cares for his (and his family's) safety.

I "agreed" that actual events give him just cause for concern for his safety.

The rest is your inference, not mine.

Michael is known to me and some others here. We know him to be a sincere practicing Catholic, a courageous sincere practicing Catholic.

He is is neither impeccable nor infallible. I am neither impeccable nor infallible. You are neither impeccable nor infallible.

While I agree with him on most issues, he holds opinio tolerata with which I am free in Catholic liberty to disagree. While you and he may agree with me on most issues, I hold opinion tolerata with which you and he are free in Catholic liberty to diagree. We may agree with you on most issues, but you hold opinio tolerata with which we are free in Catholic liberty to disagree.

To his most vocal detractors, calumniators, and any wannabe Grand Inquisitors here I respectfully suggest: Go garden, make babies, play ball with your children, write your own book on the ѕуηαgσgυє's crimes against humanity, but get a hobby other than proctoscoping Michael Hoffman.

Discuss issues all you want. Have you known me to be shy of that? BUT bait Michael at your own peril.

This is not the issue here though, the issue is his blasphemous words against the Saints. Apparently Mr. Hoffman objects to his quotes being pasted on forums, probably out of respect to proper context -- quite understandable, so here is the direct link to his blog post that contains the comments in question: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/06/killing-repressing-and-imprisoning.html The issue clearly never was about a so-called disagreement, but about the way in which Hoffman has refereed to some Saints. Deceptive arguments will not help your esteemed author, all they do is throw your motives into question.

Diego · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2013, 10:14:54 AM »

Quote

While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Francisco Suárez as "any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.

Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of man is God".
It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: "Away with God".
It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has conquered, O Galilaean".
Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm

Debate the facts. None of you have the authority or competence to engage in your ridiculously non-canonical interpretation of blasphemy.

How many of the attackers have engaged in "blasphemy" against "Blessed" Wojtyla and "Saint" Escriva? Is one a blasphemer who notes St. Augustine's licentiousness?

Hypocrites and muddled thinkers. Attack the argument, not the man.

Like the one who damns a man for criticizing popes while reserving the right to himself of deposing popes, you are a gaggle of double-minded honking geese.

Quote

The double-minded man is inconstant in all his ways. -James 1:8

Dellery · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2013, 11:18:57 AM »

Quote

1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.

Diego, I think you may have missed this part in bold.