OK gang. I’ve said many times: I appreciate all of the passion that everyone brings to the site. That said, it’s time for a new approach to the comment section; or better stated, a reminder.
I don’t want to police the comments here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I think having a space for a free exchange among those who love the Catholic faith, wherein each person is accountable for whatever he or she happens to say, is of great value.
I realize that comments relative to a given blog post will often spark other equally important conversations unrelated to the topic of the post. That, my friends, is why I went to the trouble and expense (and not a little of each) of creating the Forum.
So, from this point forward here’s how we’re going to proceed.
If, in the comment area, you feel moved to initiate a new, even if somewhat related, topic (and let’s be honest, the commenters here are plenty intelligent enough to know what that means) take it to the Forum and invite those who are interested to join you there. You may even choose to start the Forum topic first and then link it in the comment area. I’ve added a link to the Forum in the right hand margin as a reminder and to make it easy to get there.
I’m going to need your help making a go of this. I’m not inclined to create moderators, but I would ask that you please kindly call each other to account when necessary.
Here’s why I think this is important:
In any given month, there are nearly 20,000 unique visitors to this blog, with only a small fraction commenting.
Based on private emails I receive from time to time, I can tell you that some of these visitors are slowly discovering that their inheritance was stolen (and some of them are priests and religious.) I suspect that a decent number of these folks have questions to ask, or even challenges to level to the points being raised, and yet they dare not comment for fear of being shot on sight based on the civil war that often breaks out in the combox on unrelated topics.
These in-family squabbles can be expected to happen; they’re a sign that we’re not lukewarm and they can even bring about some good, but I don’t want them in the comment section on topics unrelated to the post. (To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that the Forum is a free-for-all.)
If we can’t make this “light moderation” approach work, this site will end up being nothing more than a place for the choir to rant, which isn’t worth the effort. In the end, we might find that this simply isn’t feasible, but I still happen to believe it can work if you’re willing. We’ll see.
Thanks in advance for making it happen. I appreciate all of you.
Honestly, I think the blog comments should be eliminated and all discussion moved to the forums. If Dante were writing Inferno today, comboxes would get their own circle of hell (and a deep one at that).
Another consideration would be requiring comments to be made using a Facebook account. I know this option presents its own set of problems, but my observation is that this arrangement dramatically reduces the incendiary nature of (most) comments. The rhetoric level goes from grade school playground to middle school cafeteria, but at least it’s an improvement.
Another option would be a comment system that allows up/down votes to highlight the helpful comments while burying the garbage. I know I’ve seen such systems is use, but I don’t know anything beyond that.
I offer these thoughts with the caveat that I know nothing about the technical limitation of this platform, and that I’m the fifth smartest person living in my own house, behind my wife and three cats.
A forum also provides the benefit of having threads that don’t have to dwindle to nothing over time. It’s even possible that forums threads will eventually come up on websearches, which can result in new comments to a forum thread that is quite old. (A person can subscribe to get notifications of new activity.)
–
–
For instance, here is a comment from Matthew that will never get dated:
===================
https://akacatholic.com/topic/early-church-fathers/#post-3741
–
As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
===================
–
–
Here is a list of the current topics under “All Things Catholic”. Anybody can jump in and start new topics.
–
2014 Synod on the Family: Instrumentum Laboris
–
On the Cost of Catholic Internet Apostolates
–
Bishop Paprocki: Tabernacles Should Return To Sanctuaries
–
The awe of Almighty God
–
Early Church Fathers
–
Early Church Fathers
–
What Bible do you read?
–
On an Autonomous Latin Rite Church
–
what is the Faith?
–
Canonizations
–
Neo-Catholics are the Catholic equivalent to Protestant Fundamentalists
–
Praying with non-Catholics
–
Dr. William Marshner on Vatican I and Vatican II
–
From Catholic to Modernist
–
On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture
Dear Oatmeal,
Point taken on how devilish things can get, however we’re glad Louie is willing to keep the setup as easy as it is, and really hope his guidelines fix the problems he mentioned.
—
Being relatively new here ourselves, we assumed we had no choice but to delve into those in-depth topics that really would do better in a Forum, so it’s a relief to think things may stay more on topic in the future.
—–
In essence that gives Louie a chance to start one public forum with each blog, with a comment section that can benefit anyone who logs on for years to come.
That thought should help all of us who post there, to demonstrate how we put our Faith and the Church’s solid teachings, into practice, both in word, and deed–i.e. the manner in which we express our words.
—–
For this, and all we’ve met here, we are very grateful.
Thanks, Louie.
—-
It’s easy for anyone to start a forum topic on anything that one chooses. Louie has encouraged anyone and everyone to do so.
–
I just started one, it is very similar to making a comment on a blog article:
https://akacatholic.com/topic/father-hesse-videosaudios-treasures-that-might-be-lost/
–
The main difference is that you also choose a “Topic Title”. Just go here:
https://akacatholic.com/forum/all-things/
then scroll to the bottom, type away then click Submit.
–
You can thank Louie for providing this site by starting a topic or replying to a topic today.
I did a quick test there on the forum, you *do not* have to always begin each blank line with a character (as is necessary here on the blog). You can just put a blank line between paragraphs and there will be a blank line appearing in the final result.
–
Like so: https://akacatholic.com/topic/father-hesse-videosaudios-treasures-that-might-be-lost/#post-4199
===================================================
I also just did a test to see if you can do bolding of text on the forum, in the same way that it’s done here on the blog. It turns out that you cannot.
–
Note: you create bold text here on the blog like so–> [b]bold text[/b]
except that you must replace those square brackets with angle brackets, they are to the right of the keyboard’s M key.
The policing of the forum should be a group effort.
——–
A common way in which blog posts get off-topic occurs when commenters attempt to perform a gate-keeping or Judas-goat function. By that I mean the gate-keeper recognizes that readers of the blog who become aware of, e.g., the apparent defection of the hierarchy, may then begin to question the legitimacy of the hierarchy. A typical issue that comes next in that progression is a consideration of sedevacantism.
——–
A commenter who already has decided that sedevacantism is a dead-end, or may even be advancing an institutional agenda that sedevacantism is a taboo subject for purely institutional reasons apart from the truth, will then attempt to steer thought in a particular direction – e.g. against sedevacantism. The gate-keeping commenter will take it upon himself to inject little hints here and there that those who become aware of the apparent defection of the hierarchy should never ever consider sedevacantism as an option. Typically these little hints are off-topic and inappropriate.
——–
Thus the gate-keeper performs a thought control function and makes sure that thought progression of other readers only proceeds in the direction preferred by the gatekeeper.
——–
For self-policing to work, those who have no agenda but who may nonetheless agree with the position of a gatekeeping commenter have to be prepared to call out the gatekeeper when it becomes clear that the gatekeeper has an agenda and is continually attempting to control thought. It shouldn’t only be those who have not reached a position where they agree with the gatekeeper or actually disagree with the gatekeeper who are forced to do the dirty work.
——–
Perhaps the easiest way to handle the situation is to anticipate that it will reoccur and to dedicate a permanent forum entry to contentious topics like sedevacantism, baptism of desire, implicit desire, invincible ignorance etc.
———
To inject a little levity, the forum entries can be named after those who typically trigger the disputes – the Dimond Bros corner (what are the Dimond Brothers absolutely wrong about?), the Fr. Cekada corner (is the New Mass valid? are NO orders valid? are Fr. Cekada’s orders valid?), and the SSPX corner (is the SSPX in schism? are their sacraments valid? is their recognize-and-resist position vis-a-vis the conciliar Church a Catholic position or a non-Catholic but an initially prudential position that should now be jettisoned?).
———
Having pre-existing forum entries will make it easy for those who like posts to stay on-topic to steer those who like to veer off to the forum.
Louie, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Perhaps, the comments should be limited to a few relevant sentences and not become a “Chat room” for the few.I say this with all respect.
I think Facebook is a scourge and I would advise no one to register on it.
I second that.
“A commenter who already has decided that sedevacantism is a dead-end, or may even be advancing an institutional agenda that sedevacantism is a taboo subject for purely institutional reasons apart from the truth, will then attempt to steer thought in a particular direction – e.g. against sedevacantism. The gate-keeping commenter will take it upon himself to inject little hints here and there that those who become aware of the apparent defection of the hierarchy should never ever consider sedevacantism as an option. Typically these little hints are off-topic and inappropriate.”
—–
Translation: It is sensible to bring sedevacantism into discussion at any time, since that is “natural”, but to shoot it down makes one a “gate-keeping commenter”? Do I have that correct? Seriously – this is far from an objective post.
—–
In fact, sedevacantism was not on-topic in any of the blog posts here. However, I personally welcome it being brought-up, since it provides the opportunity for its errors to be exposed. (As I’ve said before, there is a reason while every major leader of the Traditionalist movement has rejected it.)
—–
That said, further discussion here will be going off-topic – I suggest anyone interested in arguing in favor of the sedevacantist position start a forum thread, as Louie suggests in this post.
Indignus, thanks for being a voice of sanity in the comments on the previous post. 🙂 (I’d mail privately, but there’s no way to do that, it seems.)
Dear Catholic Thinker,
As Tiny Tim would say, “God bless us, every one” 🙂
I agree that sedevacantism is off-topic. That’s why I only argue about it when others – who know who they are – bring it up first.
Personally I would prefer that Mr. V have a separate entry for topics such as sedevacantism like “Contentious Issues”. If he did, I would start a topic right now, but the level of rancor often demonstrated on such issues may be off-putting to those who are not argumentative. Perhaps it is better to keep the annoying argumentative types in their own space.
Whew…the comments on that previous post were craaazy. Stick with the Pope folks and you’ll never go wrong. As St. Ambrose said, “Where Peter is, THERE is the Church”.
Ganganelli, your position needs to be far more nuanced to accurately reflect Catholic teaching.
—–
And, the SSPX do not reject communion with the supreme pontiff, which is indeed necessary for salvation.
—–
Perhaps you should start a thread in the Forum.
Hmm – I could have *sworn* it was actually the pro-sede camp that had breached the topic in nearly every case. I could be mistaken, but that’s my recollection. Anyway, the history is out there.
—–
As far as “rancor” goes, the Church has never shied away from ruffling feathers – well, until She climbed in bed with The World in 1965, anyway (not Her – only Her fallible churchmen). If someone does start such a topic in the Forum section, I will (at some point at least) join.
Perhaps I will.
@Ganganelli: The original agenda-driven gatekeeping commenter has arrived!
——
You remind me of a question I had about a hymn. Here it is, Faith of Our Fathers – written. of course, about the English Martyrs for Catholic marriage:
–
Faith of our fathers, living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;
O how our hearts beat high with joy
Whene’er we hear thy glorious Word!
–
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
–
Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.
–
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
–
Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach Thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.
–
Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.
–
Do you think Pope Francis ever whistles the tune to this hymn?
If the Holy Father knew this beautiful hymn, I’m certainly sure he would happily whistle to it.
You don’t think he might have some cognitive dissonance when doing so, especially in light of the upcoming “pastoral” synod on the family?
I don’t think so. I’ll give you the reason in my “15 year a trad” post in the forum.
Please. You spent thousands of words trying to convert people to the sedevacantist position in the comments yet you have no “agenda”?
—–
Anyone who holds a position on anything and believes in Truth has an agenda. If the Faith is not a hobby, it’s an agenda. “He who is not gathering scatters.”
Diabolical disorientation can fuel nearly unlimited cognitive dissonance, inside & outside the upper hierarchy.
“I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.”
Beyond doubt this verse refers to the Crucifixion: “Then Jesus told them, “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'”
—–
Then again, the modern pontiffs have indeed been “struck” in a sense, and the sheep are indeed scattered.
Third. I’m not joining Facebook.
I do agree with Cyprian upstairs, in that gate-keeping is usually the fly in the soup. By and large when Louie’s posts delve into issues of heirarchy I don’t see why sedevacantism should be some sort of untouchable. Who here would take an oath to VII? Or to Bergoglio’s phone-line-magisterium?
–
Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ – On Ist July, 1849………
–
https://akacatholic.com/topic/feast-of-the-most-precious-blood-of-our-lord-jesus-christ/
p.s. It’s a shame the forum topics list at the right hand of the forum page is so short, because, on occasion people have carried on a conversation or replied, but the ‘topic title’ has gotten disappeared by new topics pretty quickly. Plus for those of us who find that the email notification thing simply clogs up one’s email too quickly, is there a better way of seeing which conversations in the forum are on-going?
What you suggest seems rather important in light of Louie’s intentions, and if we understand Him correctly. We ourselves are often guilty of “writing a book” when less could be said. If the intention is to avoid the “chat-room mode” and leave room for the new person(s) to feel welcome to log-on and comment, then brevity would seem a charitable “must”, in general.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
It would be more Ganganelli’s place to make this comment, as your response was not addressed to us. But, in the interest of fairness to some of your critics, and an attempt to live up to your most recently praising us as a “voice of reason” may we gently suggest this one fraternal correction and leave you to work on it in the future? :
Ganganelli’s statement makes no mention of the SSPX, and would therefore only apply to anyone whose beliefs leave them not “sticking with” the Pope.
Your answer implies you automatically assumed it was directed right at you or rather against the SSPX. Right or wrong, provocative or not, it more accurately was directed at those who doubt the validity of the Papacy, which, as you point out, does not include you or the SSPX.
—–
We don’t want to inhibit your passion, and have seen many instances where your verbal opponent gives it right back to you with no objections, which as Louie pointed out, isn’t always a bad thing. But if you watch your initial statements, they can set the tone as either a reasoned response or an attack, and that may be of help to you, with more sensitive folks.
Hope this helps.
It would probably be better to have a “Recent Posts” or “Recent Comments” list instead of a “Recent Topics” list, so as to better keep track of responses.
–
With that being said, I think we shouldn’t expect too much in the way of functionality from this forum. It simply can’t handle features that you would normally find on something php-based. And setting up and maintaining one of those can take more time than Louie is probably willing/able to invest at the moment.
Our current Pope may very well whistle along with this hymn, but ironically, more likely at a Protestant, ecumenical gathering:—–
Reverend Father Frederick William Faber, C.O. .. Oratorian priest, theologian, hymn writer (1814-1863) was a noted English hymn writer and theologian, who converted (1847) from Anglicanism to the Catholic priesthood.
—–
His best-known work is Faith of Our Fathers. Though he was a Roman Catholic writing for fellow Catholics at that point, many of his hymns today are sung by Protestant congregations.
(meant as response to #8 above, obviously)
Maybe ‘most recent comments’ would serve things better, in that case.
IF,
—–
Thank you for your comment.
—–
G. didn’t mention the SSPX in this post, but I’m sure even he would agree that it was they, among others, he was speaking of, since he’s been explicit in that regard in many previous posts.
—–
There isn’t anything at all uncharitable or inappropriate in my response. Nor were any inferences made.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
If your underlying assumption was base on confirmed past experience which we have not been around to witness, then our observation was mistaken, and we humbly apologize. Ganganelli may want to weigh in on that. We hope you won’t toss out the suggested caution that accompanied it, as it helps us all to examine how we come across to others, as part of the virtue you mentioned.
God Bless
unrelated P.S.
Our family is praying for yours as you await the upcoming blessed event of the birth of your youngest child. It helped us when we were at that stage in our marriage, worried about all that was going on in the Church and the world, and how it would affect them, to recall that Catholic parenting is more about populating Heaven than earth, and more reliant on God’s Providence than our abilities-even though for now, we live in both “worlds”.
I left Facebook about two years ago and will not ever rejoin. I agree that it is a blight on society.
Well, it seems now you are wrapped-up in a battle involving name-calling in the forum. 🙂
—–
Of course, that does not mean your peace is necessarily gone.
—–
But, again, peace in something subjective (obviously) and does not necessarily anything regarding objective truths. It may exist due to ignorance, or even a deception of the heart.
—–
As for me, I found great, great peace, and joy, upon discovering the Tridentine Mass around six years ago. I marveled at the depth & beauty of its prayers and the incredible clarity and beauty inherent in the way it made so apparent the Catholic truths of the Mass: the making-present of the single Sacrifice of Calvary, an immolation of a Divine Victim, by the Divine Priest Himself. And I began to realize that the way in which these critical, beautiful truths are deliberately subjugated – according to its very creators! – in the Novus Ordo Rite is nothing less than diabolical. In fact, it is one of satan’s greatest triumphs over the Church. Yet, of course, he will not win; he cannot win. The approved, Apostolic Latin Rite – along with the other Rites of Mass with Apostolic origins that convey, not suppress, Catholic doctrine, live on, and one day we know full-well that that that “banal, on-the-spot” work of human hands will be relegated to the dustbin.
—–
You spelled-out not long ago in one of your comments the reason for your position: you said you simply cannot believe that a pope could be infected by modernism, and that to believe such a thing would destroy your faith, more or less. Firstly, if, as you now claim, a pope’s non-official statements and teachings are irrelevant, why is this such a difficulty? Secondly, the answer to this problem is to understand that the Spirit is still protecting His Church, in several ways, one of them being the fact that the faithful have been bound to no errors, nor will they be. This is enough to prevent the loss of peace in the soul regarding this terrible crisis.
—–
God bless.
IF,
—–
Isn’t it incredible that we are allowed to participate in the process that results in the creation of an immortal soul that can give glory to the Blessed Trinity for eternity? It boggles the mind.
—–
A sincere thank-you for the prayers. My wife has had some difficult pregnancies in the past (our first was born at 25 weeks – doing great now); they are appreciated.