Author Topic: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why? (Read 4142 times)

Tallinn Trad · « **Reply #30 on:** November 10, 2019, 07:07:36 PM »

The point is that people don't know what they don't know. Probably anyone in a position of teaching or leadership should have some sort of spiritual director, but especially new converts/reverts. No matter how sincere they are, they need oversight from someone who can see their blind spots. I think that in itself is a good measure for prudence.

Thanks for this. Just what I was wanting as the basis for a conversation

A head of a lay Catholic apostolate can and should have a spiritual director because right or wrong Voris/Taylor Marshall/ Jimmy Akin are seen as something of a guru, by their followers.

A forum poster cannot have a spiritual Dir, however as it is completely impractical and forum posters almost never acquire guru status in the way media figures do. Their opinions influence far less people.

So, perhaps, we should be MORE forgiving of forum posters who are not asking for donations or funding a "retreat at sea" in the caribbean and supporting a middle class lifestyle from their guru status, than self-appointed talking heads of the new trad catholic media who can give 1000s of people a good or bum steer while simultaneously earning a reasonable living from it

Jaynek · « **Reply #31 on:** November 10, 2019, 07:13:18 PM »

Quote from: Tallinn Trad on November 10, 2019, 05:38:13 PM

JayneK

How is it that the other posters were able to judge Gregg for being a "judgmental jerk", despite that, from his posting history, he has always gone to TLM mass and is married with 7 children? Gregg is an anonymous internet poster, like the rest of us, who has no media company or platform of his own. And yet, Gregg was NOT justified to judge Michael Voris as being unsuitable to run a very public lay preaching and teaching media company, without being labelled an uncharitable or judgmental jerk for expressing that view on a forum.

If Gregg had simply said that Michael Voris is unsuitable to run a lay teaching and preaching company, I think that Gregg would have gotten a different reaction. People respond to things like tone and writing style. If someone comes across as harsh and abrasive, then it is not surprising if some people think he is a jerk. And if someone claims to be a better person than another, then it is not surprising if some people think he is judgmental.

Quote from: Tallinn Trad on November 10, 2019, 05:38:13 PM

How is a long term practicing catholic father of 7 not "better" than someone who commits sodomy for two decades?

I am a long term practicing Catholic mother of 7. I am not prepared to say that I am a better person than any sinner you can name, no matter what he is done. Only God knows how culpable people are for the sins we commit. We only know about how bad sins are objectively. We can compare one sin against another sin, but we cannot compare one sinner against another sinner. A person might commit a worse sin but be less culpable for it than a person who committed a lesser sin. For example, I have so many blessings in my life and have been given so many opportunities to learn what is right, I have far less excuse to sin than people without such blessings and opportunities. I am receiving all the graces from regularly attending a traditional Mass. When I sin, I do so in spite of all those graces. That adds to the gravity of my sins.

Quote from: Tallinn Trad on November 10, 2019, 05:38:13 PM

I hear phrases like "there but for the grace of God go I", but the undeniable truth is that Marcel Lefebvre was a better man than Joseph Stalin. If Marcel Lefebvre judged himself to be "better than Stalin" in the 1940s, why would it be wrong? It is the truth after all. I don't see how holding a view that is true can ever be wrong, or arrogant.

If Marcel Lefebvre thought he was a worse sinner that Stalin, or about the same, I would question his sanity. Pious sounding platitudes cannot trump the objective truth. Everyone posting regularly on this forum is "better" than Jeffrey Epstein or the Head of Planned Parenthood. That last sentence is hardly a wildly presumptous statement.gmental and lacking in charity".

I would not be surprised if Archbishop Lefebvre did think of himself among the worst of sinners. I say that because I suspect that he is a Saint and that seems to be a pretty usual way for Saints to think. There are many examples of Saints saying such things about about themselves. It seems that the more people grow in holiness that the more they understand how far short they fall of meeting God's standards and how much they depend on God's grace. "There but for the grace of God go I" is not a pious platitude. It is an important spiritual truth.

Quote from: Tallinn Trad on November 10, 2019, 05:38:13 PM

I ask because this really touches on the crux of my question. Where does prudential judgment stop and judgmentalism begin? And how would the Church, in the future, stop itself being infiltrated by sodomites, Jєωs, freemasons, communists and other enemies able to damage it, unless a judgment was taken to exclude such people early on. Which by the standards of those defending Voris against those "judging" him would be labelled "too judgmental and lacking in charity".

Prudential judgement is a matter of practical decisions in specific circuмstances. Deciding whether or not to support an "apostolate" run by Michael Voris is a prudential judgment. One ought to weight all the factors when coming to a decision about whether to subscribe to a service or make a donation. That is not being judgmental.

Judging somebody's worth as a person or the state of his soul is being judgmental. These are not judgments that we have any business making because they belong to God alone.

Meg · « **Reply #32 on:** November 10, 2019, 08:07:19 PM »

That thread on Suscipe Domine, regarding Michael Voris, reminds me little bit of the tranny fiasco on Fisheaters years ago, which I participated in. I was against trannyism on the forum. I think the term "judgmental" was used to describe my attitude towards transgenders, not surprisingly.

I don't see anything wrong in what Greg writes on the thread. He seems rather reasonable, in a Greg sort of way:

In post #395, he writes:

"I don't want to stone him to death.

I just want him to not publicly teach the Faith. That seems reasonable and prudent, given his background, his covering up that background for a decade and his twenty year history as an active participant in the very same cancer he is loudly complaining is destroying the church.

If the Church were being destroyed by dramatic irony, metaphor, puns, parody, litotes and satire, would you want me repenting and becoming a public face of Catholicism? I put it to you that that would be a terrible and dangerous mistake.

Repentant sodomites in the past were disappeared into monasteries. Today in these enlightened and merciful times, I'd be happy with Michael Voris becoming anything EXCEPT a public face of Catholicism.

It's not really comparable to stoning a prostitute to death."

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #33 on:** November 10, 2019, 08:42:55 PM »

Gregg nailed it.

Nadir · « **Reply #34 on:** November 10, 2019, 09:14:18 PM »

Can nobody get his name right?
It's ggreg.

Hi, ggreg, if you are tuned in. :cheers:

donkath · « **Reply #35 on:** November 10, 2019, 09:41:26 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on November 10, 2019, 07:13:18 PM

If Gregg had simply said that Michael Voris is unsuitable to run a lay teaching and preaching company, I think that Gregg would have gotten a different reaction. People respond to things like tone and writing style. If someone comes across as harsh and abrasive, then it is not surprising if some people think he is a jerk. And if someone claims to be a better person than another, then it is not surprising if some people think he is judgmental.

I am a long term practicing Catholic mother of 7. I am not prepared to say that I am a better person than any sinner you can name, no matter what he is done. Only God knows how culpable people are for the sins we commit. We only know about how bad sins are objectively. We can compare one sin against another sin, but we cannot compare one sinner against another sinner. A person might commit a worse sin but be less culpable for it than a person who committed a lesser sin. For example, I have so many blessings in my life and have been given so many opportunities to learn what is right, I have far less excuse to sin than people without such blessings and opportunities. I am receiving all the graces from regularly attending a traditional Mass. When I sin, I do so in spite of all those graces. That adds to the gravity of my sins.

I would not be surprised if Archbishop Lefebvre did think of himself among the worst of sinners. I say that because I suspect that he is a Saint and that seems to be a pretty usual way for Saints to think. There are many examples of Saints saying such things about about themselves. It seems that the more people grow in holiness that the more they understand how far short they fall of meeting God's standards and how much they depend on God's grace. "There but for the grace of God go I" is not a pious platitude. It is an important spiritual truth.

Prudential judgement is a matter of practical decisions in specific circuмstances. Deciding whether or not to support an "apostolate" run by Michael Voris is a prudential judgment. One ought to weight all the factors when coming to a decision about whether to subscribe to a service or make a donation. That is not being judgmental.

Judging somebody's worth as a person or the state of his soul is being judgmental. These are not judgments that we have any business making because they belong to God alone.

Jaynek's post says it all. I was about to respond with the following, but her post does it so much better.

Quote

I ask because this really touches on the crux of my question. Where does prudential judgment stop and judgmentalism begin? And how would the Church, in the future, stop itself being infiltrated by sodomites, Jєωs, freemasons, communists and other enemies able to damage it, unless a judgment was taken to exclude such people early on. Which by the standards of those defending Voris against those "judging" him would be labelled "too judgmental and lacking in charity".

Judging people is not the same as making judgements about statements. I guess the best way to do this is to forget who said what and concentrate solely on what was said - then address what was said. How many of us can be truly objective?
If we deem someone as being a better person it has nothing to do with salvation. I suspect, however, that the question was asked with the intention of trying to discern who to believe is teaching the truth; which priest? which Bishop? etc.

I think the following passages in Scripture are well worth pondering:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.(Jeremiah 31-34) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.(John 4 : 23)

..

poche · « **Reply #36 on:** November 10, 2019, 11:05:29 PM »

I think we should welcome anyone who loves the Catholic Tradition.
:) :) :)

claudel · « **Reply #37 on:** November 10, 2019, 11:36:08 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on November 10, 2019, 09:14:18 PM

Can nobody get his name right? It's ggreg.

Hi, ggreg, if you are tuned in.

Seconded!

Quote from: donkath on November 10, 2019, 09:41:26 PM

Jaynek's post says it all.

All too true, alas! It says that she abnegates her responsibility as a Catholic adult to make an intellectual and moral assessment of the genuineness of the repentance of someone who has practiced a particularly degraded form of sinful conduct for an extended period of time and who furthermore has shown no inclination to make the sort of thoroughgoing and proportionate public restitution one might reasonably expect from a truly repentant person in his situation.

Put slightly oversimply, Voris said, "Rather than wait to be outed by the local ordinary, I'm revealing tonight that I've been a practicing queer for years. Now here are the latest headlines." To which Jayne replied, "Who am I to judge?"

This endless prattling about judgmentalism—a bullying term beloved of people who consider the sight of a rightly formed conscience an imposition on their own (im)moral conformity with the tenets of contemporary society—confuses the sin of detraction with the virtues of prudence and justice, whether culpably or otherwise, and muttonheadedly equates the differing actions proper to these opposed moral categories. In this instance, readers are called upon to forgo the use of their wits and all their moral instincts, as if informed skepticism about Voris's bona fides is in some way equivalent to denouncing the man's conduct and revealing his checkered past and dubious present to people on the other side of the planet, people who know nothing whatsoever of him or his public and private activities. The latter behavior alone ought to be regarded as improper and sinful, whereas the former is appropriate and may even be essential in certain circuмstances—for example, to protect the innocent, the uninformed, or the unwary.

Tallinn Trad · « **Reply #38 on:** November 11, 2019, 02:39:10 AM »

How harsh and abrasive does this sound to modern Catholics, even then conservative minded ones?

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church".

Or a women getting pregnant out of wedlock who in the past, in a Catholic town, would have been treated as a shameful thing. Or kicking all of the Jєωs out of Spain. That seems very harsh to modern era Catholics. Expelling an entire population of people.

When making judgments about people, is it reasonable, is it right, to consider how our Catholic forefathers would have judged them? We are self-labelled as traditionalists after all.

Perhaps we don't need to go back that far. If in 1982 if one of the founders of a major trad newspaper, say Christian Order or The Remnant, had revealed that prior to his reversion during the second Vatican council he had been a swinger from after WW2 to '69, would our respective fathers and grandfathers have said, "oh well, forgive and forget"?

Is this fair as a principle? Does "Traditionalism" imply this? Would a Catholic of the Vendee brought to earth see us as a Catholic? Would we see them as a harsh and abrasive jerk?

Tallinn Trad · « **Reply #39 on:** November 11, 2019, 05:23:05 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on November 10, 2019, 07:13:18 PM

"There but for the grace of God go I" is not a pious platitude. It is an important spiritual truth.

The source is actually an English Protestant reformer who was burnt at the stake by the Catholic Mary Tudor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bradford

Rather curious that a Catholic church today, reformed at Vatican II, with a huge input from protestants has this as a new super-doctrine.

Judgment versus charity must surely be far more nuanced than this or we could never avoid bad actors.

I can see how such a non-judgmental doctrine is a positive boon to evil men. It allows them to give the appearance of contrition and humility and do enormous damage while anyone judging them is told not to because they "are a sinner too". Since everyone is a sinner the clear conclusion is that nobody can ever judge anyone else bad actor or not.

Jaynek · « **Reply #40 on:** November 11, 2019, 06:16:52 AM »

Quote from: Meg on November 10, 2019, 08:07:19 PM

That thread on Suscipe Domine, regarding Michael Voris, reminds me little bit of the tranny fiasco on Fisheaters years ago, which I participated in. I was against trannyism on the forum. I think the term "judgmental" was used to describe my attitude towards transgenders, not surprisingly.

Meg, in a current thread, you show that you do not even understand the problem with using the word "gαy" to describe sodomites. Your problem is inability to think clearly, not judgmentalism.

Tallinn Trad · « **Reply #41 on:** November 11, 2019, 06:34:49 AM »

The last post and a short drive got me thinking.

In 1500 it was acceptable to judge people and burn them at the stake for their religious views. Why? Because a large chunk of society was on your side and conscious to the threat to their soul from religious heresy. Today 99.999% of westerners would be against burning people at the stake. Radical Muslims still judge you and kill you for blasphemy and public apostacy (notably when suŕrounded by other muslim radicals).

In 1900, no monotheist denomination, Catholic or Protestant, Mormon or JV sect would have supported a preacher, teacher or writer who was a former ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Why, because sodomy was seen as disgusting by the vast majority of people in society. A sin that dare not speak its name.

In 2016 to 2019, Democratic voters see fit to judge Trump, Kavanaugh and fabricate false stories to remove them because 50% of US voters are on their side. If they were 10% they could not stand the backlash.

Most people today would still consider a former paedophile, who was contrite, to be a very poor choice for a school teacher or politician or philosopher. Because a majority of people still see pederasty and paedophilia as evil. Whereas they accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and even transɛҳuąƖism.

I think this is what it comes down to. Judgmentalism is really the 'sin" of calling out as evil, or an occasion of sin, what is seen as 'normal' by a majority. This is why asking women to wear skirts and cover their heads at mass is labelled judgmental. By going against the majority, a person is necessarily implying that their judgment is better than the group conscensus and people feel they are being judged and that the person must perceive themselves as morally superior to be making that call that something is wrong.

Those who defend Voris right to come out, carry on preaching and treat it like water under the bridge, (many praised him for his bravery), and say it has no reflection on his credibility as a Catholic pundit are not really thinking, "there but for the grace of God go I", but rather, I accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as just one of those things and if there are implications for Voris, then there must be implications for me and my sins. I don't want to face those, so I will defend Voris so I don't have to face them.

They don't say, there but for the grace of God go I, when it comes to pedophiles or nαzιs. You never hear people say that.

Sorry to use Michael Voris as an example, but he is an illustrative example, because he appointed himself and he is now sitting on panels with Bishop Schnider and Michael Matt and making all sorts of judgment and condemnations all the time about those to the left and the right of him.

Jaynek · « **Reply #42 on:** November 11, 2019, 06:49:49 AM »

Quote from: claudel on November 10, 2019, 11:36:08 PM

All too true, alas! It says that she abnegates her responsibility as a Catholic adult to make an intellectual and moral assessment of the genuineness of the repentance of someone who has practiced a particularly degraded form of sinful conduct for an extended period of time and who furthermore has shown no inclination to make the sort of thoroughgoing and proportionate public restitution one might reasonably expect from a truly repentant person in his situation.

Put slightly oversimply, Voris said, "Rather than wait to be outed by the local ordinary, I'm revealing tonight that I've been a practicing queer for years. Now here are the latest headlines." To which Jayne replied, "Who am I to judge?"

Catholics have no responsibility to make judgments about people's hearts or the state of their souls. It is not our job to decide if a conversion is sincere or contrition genuine. These things can only be known by God. He is the judge of such matters.

We judge, and yes, we have responsibility to so, words and actions on how they conform to truth revealed through Catholic teaching. In that thread, I said that I was more concerned about what Voris was teaching about the SSPX at the time than his past sins which he had turned away from. I was happy to judge that his condemnation of the SSPX was incorrect. I have no ability to read people's minds and hearts so I cannot judge those.

The question of whether it is prudent for a new convert/revert to be in a position of teaching or responsibility, is something that must make judgments about, at least to the extent that we decide to support the person's business. Questioning the genuineness of a person's repentance is making judgments about what is known to God alone.

Your "oversimplification" of that thread goes beyond oversimplifying to being inaccurate. If you wish to comment on something that I said, it would be better to quote me than to make things up.

Meg · « **Reply #43 on:** November 11, 2019, 07:32:39 AM »

Quote from: Tallinn Trad on November 11, 2019, 06:34:49 AM

Most people today would still consider a former paedophile, who was contrite, to be a very poor choice for a school teacher or politician or philosopher. Because a majority of people still see pederasty and paedophilia as evil. Whereas they accept ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and even transɛҳuąƖism.

True. And one of the problems with ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is that pedophilia is sometimes (though not always) a factor. The majority of sɛҳuąƖ abuse victims by priests have been boys, which shows that there is a direct correlation between ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and pedophilia, though not all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are pedophiles. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is intrinsically disordered.

And there's the problem, too (Fr. Ripperger mentioned this in a talk he gave on why ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men should not be ordained), in that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, if they are ordained, will be less likely to correct their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ peers in a direct manner. Voris has been guilty of this, in that he will interview active ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, but rarely correct them about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

Since ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are not supposed to be ordained to the priesthood, why is it then okay for them to have an apostolate were they are teaching the Faith?

Jaynek · « **Reply #44 on:** November 11, 2019, 07:51:03 AM »

Quote from: Tallinn Trad on November 11, 2019, 06:34:49 AM

I think this is what it comes down to. Judgmentalism is really the 'sin" of calling out as evil, or an occasion of sin, what is seen as 'normal' by a majority. This is why asking women to wear skirts and cover their heads at mass is labelled judgmental. By going against the majority, a person is necessarily implying that their judgment is better than the group conscensus and people feel they are being judged and that the person must perceive themselves as morally superior to be making that call that something is wrong.

Greg explicitly said that he considered himself to be a better person than Michael Voris. Greg, who says that he has never been tempted by the sin of sodomy, sees that as a reason to see himself as better than a person who committed it and repented.

How is not committing sins that one has never been tempted to commit a virtue? It requires no moral strength nor devotion to God. Probably most people, even non-Christians, do not commit sins that they have not been tempted to. Every day (presumably) we pray "lead us not into temptation" when we pray the Pater Noster. When God answers that prayer, should we congratulate ourselves on what good people we are for not being tempted or thank Him for answering our prayers?

There is a huge difference between judging oneself as better than others and judging how words and actions conform to the truth of Catholic teaching. People in that thread were not objecting to what Greg said because they compromise on Catholic teaching on sodomy. Many made statements in that thread which showed they recognize its seriousness. In addition, a large proportion of the posters there left or were banned from Fisheaters for their opposition to its owner's way of handling a member "coming out" as transsɛҳuąƖ.

Quote

They don't say, there but for the grace of God go I, when it comes to pedophiles or nαzιs. You never hear people say that.

On this forum, you will be able to hear (see) quite a few people say that nαzιs were not evil. We have posters who can explain that nαzιs have been misrepresented and misunderstood and were actually great patriots for Germany. So, that does not really work well here as an example of universally accepted ultimate evil.

So let's just stick with pedophiles. As I understand it, usually people turn out that way because horrible things have happened to them to make them so twisted and perverted. It does not lessen the objective evil of their sinful actions to say that I do not know how I would have turned out if such horrible things had happened to me. It is not a denial of the evil to be thankful to God that I did not have such horrible things happen to me when I was a child. There is no reason that we could not say "there but for the grace of God, go I" about them.

Author Topic: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why? (Read 4142 times)

Tallinn Trad

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Jaynek

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Meg

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Clemens Maria

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Nadir

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

donkath

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

poche

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

claudel

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Tallinn Trad

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Tallinn Trad

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Jaynek

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Tallinn Trad

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Jaynek

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Meg

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?

Jaynek

Re: High profile, newcomers to Tradition, what is the correct response and why?