I didn't like the attacks on His Holiness either. But, to be fair, perception of warranted or unwarranted criticism is very subjective. As I see it, this forum takes a stance of preferring to sway the erring with rational argument rather than just censor opinions. I would support more censorship in many places, but I can respect the way things are done here. Other forums that have employed heavy-handed censorship have tended to stifle or skew discussion, which has rather defeated the purpose of having an online forum.I've noticed that many of our posters who are the quickest to defend His Holiness or another canonical bishop against charges of heresy are also the quickest to publicly charge our Old Calendarists with schism. This gives us two options if we are to remain fair and balanced:
I'm sure that either policy will be unacceptable to many on this forum, but each would at least be a balanced approach that shows no favoritism toward one side or the other. The moderator team on this forum has historically tended to defend free speech and be very slow to censor unpopular criticism, especially if it doesn't violate any other forum rules, so you would be right to anticipate that we would favor the latter option provided above.
- We can prohibit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists. If the Old Calendarists are forbidden to charge New Calendarist clergy of heresy, so also would our New Calendarists be prohibited from calling our Old Calendarists schismatics. However, I don't think our New Calendarists would like that option, which leads to the next alternative.
- We can permit all criticism of sitting hierarchs, be they New Calendarists or Old Calendarists, provided the criticism does not violate other forum rules. If our New Calendarists can charge Old Calendarists with schism, so also will our Old Calendarists be permitted to call our New Calendarist clergy heretics.
There is a third alternative:
Charges of heresy must be supported by verifiable evidence, and not hearsay or personal opinion. In the absence of cogent evidence, decisive action must be taken against the poster who made the allegation. Much ado is made here of the need to properly cite written sources of quotes, reports or articles, so why balk at insisting the same be done for allegations as grave as heresy? Bearing false witness, and all that.
It seems that the MO is to strain the easy gnats of omitting hierarchical titles, but to swallow the difficult camels of defamatory and public accusations.
And linking the permission of allegations of heresy with a recoiling of calling Old Calendarists schismatics is false, a sop, and dishonest. The two matters are entirely separate and unrelated.