Topic: Is OC.net anti-catholic in moderation?

[Peter J]

However, this is the Orthodox-Protestant discussion board. This is a place for dialogue about issues which are specific to Orthodoxy and the various Protestant communions. This is not a place to discuss issues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, or between Catholicism and Protestantism. If you wish to discuss those, you may use the Orthodox-Catholic board, which is designed for just that sort of discussion.

Good point.

There is a difference, though, between giving an opinion or sharing a perspective and proselytizing. It was the opinion of the moderation team that your post above was indeed proselytizing.

I don't want to enter into the argument about whether what lubeltri said is proselytism or not. But I do want to ask a different question: Why does it seem that some Catholic posters, such as lubeltri, get significantly less leeway on oc-net than certain other Catholic posters -- particularly the ultra-Latin, ultra-montane Catholics who take their own opinions and present them as "the Catholic position"?

To put my question another way, don't you think it's possible that you and the other moderators would have been willing to let lubeltri's post slide if he had said that St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is "vile", or that all ECs need to be Latinized, or that the pope is always right, or that all non-Catholics are going to hell, or any other such "Catholic" statements which make such wonderful fodder for anti-Catholic polemics?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
God bless,
Peter.

[FrChris]

Good point.

I don't want to enter into the argument about whether what lubeltri said is proselytism or not. But I do want to ask a different question: Why does it seem that some Catholic posters, such as lubeltri, get significantly less leeway on OC.net than certain other Catholic posters -- particularly the ultra-Latin, ultra-montane Catholics who take their own opinions and present them as "the Catholic position"?

To put my question another way, don't you think it's possible that you and the other moderators would have been willing to let lubeltri's post slide if he had said that St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is "vile", or that all ECs need to be Latinized, or that the pope is always right, or that all non-Catholics are going to hell, or any other such "Catholic" statements which make such wonderful fodder for anti-Catholic polemics?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
God bless,
Peter.

Actually, if you look at the logs of individuals who have been banned, the Orthodox posters outnumber the Catholic posters.

Many of our Top Posters have been banned, and are Orthodox. As it is right now, we still have reported posts calling for immediate disciplinary actions against several Catholic posters, which we are doing our best to moderate without having too heavy a hand.

+Fr Chris
Administrator

[GiC]

Good point.

I don't want to enter into the argument about whether what lubeltri said is proselytism or not. But I do want to ask a different question: Why does it seem that some Catholic posters, such as lubeltri, get significantly less leeway on oc-net than certain other Catholic posters -- particularly the ultra-Latin, ultra-montane Catholics who take their own opinions and present them as "the Catholic position"?

To put my question another way, don't you think it's possible that you and the other moderators would have been willing to let lubeltri's post slide if he had said that St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is "vile", or that all ECs need to be Latinized, or that the pope is always right, or that all non-Catholics are going to hell, or any other such "Catholic" statements which make such wonderful fodder for anti-Catholic polemics?

Thanks in advance for your reply.
God bless,
Peter.

In general Anastasios has gone to great length to ensure the freedom of expression for everyone on this board, be they non-christians, protestants, catholics, or we new-calendarist heretics.

Which is why I would assume that saying 'that St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is "vile", or that all ECs need to be Latinized, or that the pope is always right, or that all non-Catholics are going to hell', as have been presented, are allowed. I really don't think it's some grand conspiracy.

As for lubeltri, don't know there, it seemed as though he was just towing the party line. I'm still trying to figure this one out.

[Salpy]

In all fairness, PJ, if you look through the archives, you'll find instances of Orthodox members who were moderated for being too harsh or insulting toward Catholics.  I'm thinking of one Orthodox member in particular who was regularly warned and put on moderation for that.  He was eventually banned, although it may have been for a different reason. 

[Peter J]

Hi all,

First, I want to apologize for using the phrase "anti-Catholic", which seems to have led to some confusion. (I.e. when I mentioned "'Catholic' statements which make such wonderful fodder for anti-Catholic polemics", without giving sufficient thought to the connotation that might have.) I didn't mean to suggest that the moderation of oc-net is anti-Catholic.

In general Anastasios has gone to great length to ensure the freedom of expression for everyone on this board, be they non-christians, protestants, catholics, or we new-calendarist heretics.

Which is why I would assume that saying 'that St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is "vile", or that all ECs need to be Latinized, or that the pope is always right, or that all non-Catholics are going to hell', as have been presented, are allowed. I really don't think it's some grand conspiracy.

Yes, but what sometimes (not always, certainly) happens is that the Orthodox on the board will respond with "Ah! So-and-so said it. That proves that it's The Catholic Position."

Actually, if you look at the logs of individuals who have been banned, the Orthodox posters outnumber the Catholic posters.

Many of our Top Posters have been banned, and are Orthodox. As it is right now, we still have reported posts calling for immediate disciplinary actions against several Catholic posters, which we are doing our best to moderate without having too heavy a hand.

+Fr Chris
Administrator

I think you're misunderstanding me a little. I'm not suggesting that there's a double standard between Orthodox posters and Catholic posters. Rather I'm wondering whether there's a (slight) double standard between, on the one hand, Catholics who post reasonable presentations of what the Catholic Church teaches, and, on the other hand, Catholics who post anti-Orthodox, triumphalistic, or otherwise unreasonable statements.

For example, supposing for the sake of argument that you guys are right and lubeltri's post was proselytizing, I really have to wonder whether it was any worse than (or even as bad as), e.g., saying that St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is "vile". But nobody brought up "proselytizing" in that case.

God bless,
Peter.

[ozgeorge]

I think you're misunderstanding me a little. I'm not suggesting that there's a double standard between Orthodox posters and Catholic posters. Rather I'm wondering whether there's a (slight) double standard between, on the one hand, Catholics who post reasonable presentations of what the Catholic Church teaches, and, on the other hand, Catholics who post anti-Orthodox, triumphalistic, or otherwise unreasonable statements.

PJ,
I think you need to seperate the issues here.
Firstly, it seems as if you think that Papist's views are seen as "prosyletizing"- they're not.
Secondly, the forum rule against prosyletizing was not put in place because of Catholics, but because of the behaviour early on of some Orthodox (one "traditionalist" group in particular). The rule applies accross the board to everyone.

[Fr. George]

I'm glad you folks are having this discussion - openness is what we're shooting for here, and it is definitely key to having a good site.

[GiC]

Yes, but what sometimes (not always, certainly) happens is that the Orthodox on the board will respond with "Ah! So-and-so said it. That proves that it's The Catholic Position."

It's all relative to what you can convince the other person to believe, that's why rhetoric is an art and not a science; and why I keep coming back here.

[Peter J]

it seems as if you think that Papist's views are seen as "prosyletizing"

Nope, just the opposite. The point I was making was that Papist's saying "St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is vile" isn't seen as proselytizing, and yet lubeltri's saying "Here's one thing I think is better about Catholicism than Orthodoxy ... " is seen as proselytizing.

[Veniamin]

Nope, just the opposite. The point I was making was that Papist's saying "St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is vile" isn't seen as proselytizing, and yet lubeltri's saying "Here's one thing I think is better about Catholicism than Orthodoxy ... " is seen as proselytizing.

Well, considering that lubeltri made that statement in direct response to someone who said he couldn't decide between Orthodoxy and RCism, it's not to hard to arrive at that conclusion.  Context matters.

[ozgeorge]

Nope, just the opposite. The point I was making was that Papist's saying "St. Greogry Palamas' philosophy is vile" isn't seen as proselytizing, and yet lubeltri's saying "Here's one thing I think is better about Catholicism than Orthodoxy ... " is seen as proselytizing.

Oh, I see. Sorry for misunderstanding.
But are you suggesting that Papist's posts should be seen as prosyletizing? Because I really don't think they are.
lubeltri, on the other hand, has been spoken to on several occasions by various moderators about his occasional posting style which is pretty obviously proselytizing dating back to September last year. I think the mistake you are making is assuming that one particular post has landed lubeltri in trouble. The fact is, warnings have been repeatedly issued. Placing a poster on moderated posts is not something we do lightly. It comes after repeated public and private warnings. I personally have gone in to bat for lubeltri, and in fact, I even temporarily locked a thread in preference to placing him on post moderation (see this Moderation Post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12854.msg177342.html#msg177342 ).
At some point, moderators have to draw the line and say "no more".

[PeterTheAleut]

Oh, I see. Sorry for misunderstanding.
But are you suggesting that Papist's posts should be seen as prosyletizing? Because I really don't think they are.
lubeltri, on the other hand, has been spoken to on several occasions by various moderators about his occasional posting style which is pretty obviously proselytizing dating back to September last year. I think the mistake you are making is assuming that one particular post has landed lubeltri in trouble. The fact is, warnings have been repeatedly issued. Placing a poster on moderated posts is not something we do lightly. It comes after repeated public and private warnings. I personally have gone in to bat for lubeltri, and in fact, I even temporarily locked a thread in preference to placing him on post moderation (see this Moderation Post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12854.msg177342.html#msg177342 ).
At some point, moderators have to draw the line and say "no more".

Another part of the issue that we need to consider is that lubeltri didn't limit his advocacy of the Roman Catholic tradition to the Orthodox-Catholic board, or even to the more general Orthodox-Other Christian board, where this may actually be permitted.  Look at his posting history, and you'll see some of his subtle and not-so-subtle pro-Catholic pitches drawing complaints and warnings even in the Convert Issues and Faith Issues sections, not to mention the Orthodox-Protestant board of which Veniamin spoke.  (FWIW, the post to which ozgeorge linked us is located in the Faith board.)

[lubeltri]

I do admit to making mistakes in the past, but in this instance I did not intend at all to run afoul of forum rules. I saw a misunderstanding, and I wanted to clarify/correct it. That was my only intention.

"My Church thinks highly of your Church" was basically my message---not exactly the kind of thing a proselytizer usually says!

I just think I'd rather not participate here if I am to wear this yellow-hued scarlet letter, which I think is undeserved. If my intention was misunderstood, I apologize.

[lubeltri]

It doesn't mean I won't be back. But perhaps I need a break---that yellow circle is testing my charity, and it might be best to wait till it goes away.

[ozgeorge]

"My Church thinks highly of your Church" was basically my message---not exactly the kind of thing a proselytizer usually says!

Do you see how, at best, that might be seen as patronizing, and at worst, as an indication that you think the only credibility the Orthodox Church can have is if the Vatican endorses it?
Basically, you are telling an inquirer on an Orthodox-Protestant forum that they may choose Orthodoxy, because it is better than Protestantism as far as the only real arbiter of truth (the Vatican) is concerned. That's proselytism- whether consciously intended or not.

[GiC]

Do you see how, at best, that might be seen as patronizing, and at worst, as an indication that you think the only credibility the Orthodox Church can have is if the Vatican endorses it?
Basically, you are telling an inquirer on an Orthodox-Protestant forum that they may choose Orthodoxy, because it is better than Protestantism as far as the only real arbiter of truth (the Vatican) is concerned. That's proselytism- whether consciously intended or not.

Of course, George, we say similar things relative to Rome; I think it's more a sign of the civility we have, thank God, gained from the ecumenical movement than an attempt at proselytizing. In large part, this was the essence of the Balamand Agreement, which was approved not only by the Vatican but also by our own Most Holy Synod of the Great Church of Christ:

'15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.'

[ozgeorge]

It may surprise you to know, GIC, that the Balamand Agreement (which the RC Church has not adhered to anyway) does not actually form part of the OCnet forum rules.

[GiC]

It may surprise you to know, GIC, that the Balamand Agreement (which the RC Church has not adhered to anyway) does not actually form part of the OCnet forum rules.

Just thought I'd let you know what our Patriarch and his Synod had to say on the matter.

I never claimed that His All-Holiness had jurisdiction over OC.net...just over the Orthodox faithful.

[GiC]

(which the RC Church has not adhered to anyway)

Ah, so now the efficacy of the theological opinions of our Synod is dependent on the actions of the Church of Rome?

[lubeltri]

That's proselytism- whether consciously intended or not.

Well, all I can say is that it was not my intent. At the time I posted, I did not know it was in the Protestant board (arriving at the thread via Recent Posts section). I would gladly withdraw my comment---I just think the yellow scarlet letter was harsh.

[ozgeorge]

Well, all I can say is that it was not my intent. At the time I posted, I did not know it was in the Protestant board (arriving at the thread via Recent Posts section). I would gladly withdraw my comment---I just think the yellow scarlet letter was harsh.

Do you remember a similar thing which happened in a post of yours in the Covert forum? Do you remember me pm-ing you about it after I had to split your post from the thread and move it to Orthodox-Catholic Discussion? Do you remember promising me you would be more careful in future?

[lubeltri]

Do you remember a similar thing which happened in a post of yours in the Covert forum? Do you remember me pm-ing you about it after I had to split your post from the thread and move it to Orthodox-Catholic Discussion? Do you remember promising me you would be more careful in future?

Yes, I remember. I guess I won't use the Recent Posts feature anymore, to make sure.

[ozgeorge]

Yes, I remember.

So you see, this is not so much a "punishment" as a medicine- kinda like the Orthodox view of harmatia and it's correction.
Post Moderation is self limiting in time. After a while, you will drop down to "Warned" and then that will go as well.

[PeterTheAleut]

I never claimed that His All-Holiness had jurisdiction over OC.net...just over the Orthodox faithful.

And even that's debatable, but that's something we've already debated elsewhere.

[lubeltri]

So you see, this is not so much a "punishment" as a medicine- kinda like the Orthodox view of harmatia and it's correction.
Post Moderation is self limiting in time. After a while, you will drop down to "Warned" and then that will go as well.

So if I just don't post for a while, it will eventually go away?

[ozgeorge]

So if I just don't post for a while, it will eventually go away?

It makes no difference whether you post or don't post. The time limit is in numbers of days, not amount of activity.

[FrChris]

Ozgeorge is right...eventually your 'badge' will go away.

However, it will be replaced with an even higher level of discipline if you continue to ignore what we ask you to do.

+Fr Chris
Administrator

[GiC]

And even that's debatable, but that's something we've already debated elsewhere.

Oh, I'm aware that that was a controversial statement.

But ozgeorge is under the Oecumenical Throne, so my point was valid in any case.

[GiC]

I would gladly withdraw my comment---I just think the yellow scarlet letter was harsh.

The problem is in your pserspective lubeltri, the value of symbols is relative to cultural and philosophical norms. You need to learn to buck these social norms and accept a 'scarlet letter', be it a red 'A' or a yellow dot as a badge of honour.

Heck, one of the greatest posters of all time on this board, the venerable TomS, got a red one.

[Peter J]

"My Church thinks highly of your Church" was basically my message---not exactly the kind of thing a proselytizer usually says!

Do you see how, at best, that might be seen as patronizing, and at worst, as an indication that you think the only credibility the Orthodox Church can have is if the Vatican endorses it?
Basically, you are telling an inquirer on an Orthodox-Protestant forum that they may choose Orthodoxy, because it is better than Protestantism as far as the only real arbiter of truth (the Vatican) is concerned. That's proselytism- whether consciously intended or not.

ozgeorge,

I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from -- at least in a general way. I strongly dislike the "We're both right, except that you're wrong" type of rhetoric, and I have to admit that I see a lot of that among my fellow Catholics. (I mentioned on a recent thread, though I don't recall which one, that I don't blame Orthodox for disliking "The Filioque: What is at stake?" by Cardinal Dulles.) Certainly you're right to be cautious with regard to such rhetoric.

But moving from the general to the specific, i.e. the post that you're responding to, I must say that your above statements strike me as cynical rather than simply cautious: I just don't see how you could infer so much just from someone saying "My Church thinks highly of your Church".

God bless,
Peter.

[PeterTheAleut]

But moving from the general to the specific, i.e. the post that you're responding to, I must say that your above statements strike me as cynical rather than simply cautious: I just don't see how you could infer so much just from someone saying "My Church thinks highly of your Church".

Which may hold water, if ozgeorge was the ONLY person who inferred this and saw this as offensive...

[GiC]

Which may hold water, if ozgeorge was the ONLY person who inferred this and saw this as offensive...

Were the others part of the Old Calendarist movement? In general they're the only ones that find ecumenism offensive.

[PeterTheAleut]

Were the others part of the Old Calendarist movement? In general they're the only ones that find ecumenism offensive.

The Old Calendarist movement, with its objection to ecumenism, has nothing to do with this discussion of an RC poster fishing in our pond.  If you're trying to sidetrack this discussion by stirring things up a bit, you might want to do that somewhere else.

[GiC]

The Old Calendarist movement, with its objection to ecumenism, has nothing to do with this discussion of an RC poster fishing in our pond.  If you're trying to sidetrack this discussion by stirring things up a bit, you might want to do that somewhere else.

Nah, I figure I'll get into more trouble if I do it here.

You didn't really expect me to brush off censorship as though it were no big deal did you? Surely you've been around here longer than that.

I just always figured that the Orthodox Church was strong enough to survive open discussions with those of other faiths; but I'm probably wrong, without censorship and propaganda the Church would probably fall to pieces.

[trifecta]

Glad that lubeltri is back! 

As one who often posts on a fundamentalist board,
I know how he feels.

I think we should give grace to those who don't agree
with the Orthodox faith but are generally polite.

We all deserve the privilege of being cranky now and then.
 

My 2 one hundredths of a dollar.

[Jakub]

RC poster fishing in our pond.

Really ? Never seen that no fishing sign, I've been doing it for years, guess I better change that dern home made fly and git some from the brothers out Wyoming way...

Pax etc etc


ps-if a license is needed do I get a senior/aarp discount ?

[Fr. George]

Really ? Never seen that no fishing sign, I've been doing it for years, guess I better change that dern home made fly and git some from the brothers out Wyoming way...

That's cause there is no "No Fishing" sign... We'll let you stick around, as long as you're willing to pay the exorbitant fees and tributes!

ps-if a license is needed do I get a senior/aarp discount ? 

And a long-time member discount.  That should take the fee down from $1,000 USD to $999.98 USD.  One penny for the AARP, one for the long-time member; we had to give you your $0.02 back so you could give it in a thread somewhere!

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I split and moved the little discussion about St. Gregory that wasn't directly referring to the style of OC.net's moderation to this thread:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14322.msg205899.html

-- Friul

[Jakub]

cleveland,

I shall let all know that you are a charitable saint ...  

james

[Peter J]

Truthfully, I still don't understand why someone simply saying "My Church thinks highly of your Church" is proselytizing, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to explain it to me. But since two (at least) of the moderators feel that it is, I guess I'll just have to be more careful with my posts than I have been heretofore.

[GiC]

Truthfully, I still don't understand why someone simply saying "My Church thinks highly of your Church" is proselytizing, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to explain it to me. But since two (at least) of the moderators feel that it is, I guess I'll just have to be more careful with my posts than I have been heretofore.

Eh, keep pushing for the explination...I'd like to hear it too.

Of course, you can always expect me to be a thron in the side whenever the issue of censorship comes up.

(And most other times as well. )

[Veniamin]

Eh, keep pushing for the explination...I'd like to hear it too.

Of course, you can always expect me to be a thron in the side whenever the issue of censorship comes up.

(And most other times as well. )

More like a metal stake in the...well, not the side.

[ozgeorge]

Truthfully, I still don't understand why someone simply saying "My Church thinks highly of your Church" is proselytizing, and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to explain it to me. But since two (at least) of the moderators feel that it is, I guess I'll just have to be more careful with my posts than I have been heretofore.

I think the mistake you are making is assuming that one particular post has landed lubeltri in trouble. The fact is, warnings have been repeatedly issued. Placing a poster on moderated posts is not something we do lightly. It comes after repeated public and private warnings. I personally have gone in to bat for lubeltri, and in fact, I even temporarily locked a thread in preference to placing him on post moderation (see this Moderation Post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12854.msg177342.html#msg177342 ).
At some point, moderators have to draw the line and say "no more".

[Peter J]

"My Church thinks highly of your Church" was basically my message---not exactly the kind of thing a proselytizer usually says!

Do you see how, at best, that might be seen as patronizing, and at worst, as an indication that you think the only credibility the Orthodox Church can have is if the Vatican endorses it?
Basically, you are telling an inquirer on an Orthodox-Protestant forum that they may choose Orthodoxy, because it is better than Protestantism as far as the only real arbiter of truth (the Vatican) is concerned. That's proselytism- whether consciously intended or not.

[Peter J]

But moving from the general to the specific, i.e. the post that you're responding to, I must say that your above statements strike me as cynical rather than simply cautious: I just don't see how you could infer so much just from someone saying "My Church thinks highly of your Church".

Which may hold water, if ozgeorge was the ONLY person who inferred this and saw this as offensive...