Pope criticises ‘legalism’ after cardinals’ request for clarification

By Staff Reporter at Catholic Herald

Pope Francis during his weekly general audience at St. Peter's Square on Wednesday (PA)

Pope Francis during his weekly general audience at St. Peter’s Square on Wednesday (PA)

The Pope spoke out after a letter from four cardinals asked for clarification of Amoris Laetitia

The debate over Amoris Laetitia has intensified, after Pope Francis suggested that some responses do not understand the document.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, partially translated by La Stampa, the Pope criticised “a certain legalism.” He said that responses to Amoris Laetitia exemplified this, and that some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”.

The Pope added: “The Council told us this, but historians say that a century needs to pass before a Council is properly assimilated into the body of the Church… we are half way.”

It comes after four senior cardinals asked the Pope to clarify Amoris Laetitia. In a letter to the Pope, Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner submitted five “dubia” – a traditional way of asking for clarification.

The cardinals asked the Pope whether certain Church teachings about Communion and the moral law, which Amoris Laetitia discusses ambiguously, are still valid.

These included the doctrine that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion unless living as brother and sister, and the doctrine that some acts are intrinsically wrong.

The submission of “dubia” invites a yes-or-no answer. In this case, it was a question of whether the Pope thought some teachings, especially Catholic doctrine on the moral law, should still be regarded as true.

The letter was sent in September, but the Pope has not replied. The cardinals said they took this as an invitation to publish the letter and let the debate continue in public.

In an interview with the Vatican journalist Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke said that if the Pope remained silent, it might be necessary to issue a “formal act of correction of a serious error”.

Pentin told EWTN yesterday: “I do understand, from sources within [the Pope’s residence] Santa Marta, that the Pope is not happy at all, that he’s quite at his…boiling with rage.” Fr Antonio Spadaro, an associate of the Pope, has dismissed these reports.

This weekend, the Pope will officially appoint new cardinals at a meeting known as a consistory. However, he has cancelled the usual pre-consistory session where cardinals raise issues of concern. No reason has been given, but there is speculation that other cardinals might have wanted to ask about the dubia.

Cardinal-designate Joseph Tobin, who will be created a cardinal at the consistory, told the Tablet that he thought the four cardinals’ letter was “at best naive”.

Meanwhile, two American archbishops have clashed over implementation of Amoris Laetitia.

Archbishop Charles Chaput has issued guidelines for his own archdiocese of Philadelphia, in which he says that the divorced and remarried should be treated with mercy. He also restates the Church’s teaching that they may not receive Communion unless they endeavour to live as brother and sister.

In an interview with Catholic News Service, Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell criticised the guidelines, saying: “I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no.” Cardinal-designate Farrell said: “It is better to say to the couple, ‘Let’s work together and let’s walk together’ – as Pope Francis would say – ‘through this process and see how far we arrive.’”

The Catholic Church cannot react by “closing the doors before we even listen to the circumstances and the people,” the cardinal-designate said. “That’s not the way to go.”

In response, Archbishop Chaput told Catholic News Service: “I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion. This makes sense because individual circumstances are often complex. Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues.

“The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Pope criticises ‘legalism’ after cardinals’ request for clarification

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    Well, he’s right about legalism up to a point — but up to that point only, and no further.

    Christ is the Fulfillment of the Law, and to love Him is to love the Law. We cannot love the Law only for its own sake of course, or turn the Law into a false god as the Muslims have, but the implicit accusation therein is hardly applicable to these Cardinals.

  2. kathleen says:

    The debate over Amoris Laetitia has intensified, after Pope Francis suggested that some responses do not understand the document.

    Well, yes, the Pope’s dead right there! “Some” (read most) do not understand those fuzzy passages in AL that seem to be saying two things at the same time.
    That’s the whole point!
    That’s why the Four Cardinals have presented him with a dubia asking him to give straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to five core questions that would then clear up all the misunderstandings that have followed the publication of his Exhortation.

    He said that …. some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”

    “Issues”, such as obedience (or not) to the Divine Law, are “black and white”; we all know that! (It is something even little children learning the catechism in school are taught!) It is this wavering form of Relativism Pope Francis appears to promote, with no clear lines between what is sinful and what is permissible, that is so greatly disturbing, coming as it is from Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

    “Discernment”, is man’s way of understanding, under a well-formed conscience* in line with Catholic teaching, what is sinful and offends God, to then repent, fall on God’s loving mercy, and thus amend his life.

    * And if good priests helping those in “irregular situations” discover the penitent does not have “a well-formed conscience” in line with the Divine Law, it would be up to the priest to instruct him in this way.

    Did we ever really believe we would get “black and white” responses from Pope Francis?
    That would have been just wishful thinking, I fear.

  3. John says:

    Kathleen@08:47 Why are you so hot and bothered about the document ? It doesn’t affect you.

  4. kathleen says:

    It affects every baptised Catholic, Mr Kehoe. Have you never heard of the “Communion of Saints” or the “Church Militant on Earth”? We are all members of the same One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and what affects one member, affects us all.

  5. John says:

    Kathleen@09.46. Not really. Sin, where there is sin, is necessarily personal. Another’s sin cannot be imputed to you or to me. I have heard a very long time ago of both the Communion of Saints and of the Church Militant. But have you ever heard of the ‘Forgiveness of Sins’ another article in the Creed which we must personally attend to in our own lives ? The Church Militant does not mean fighting with others, especially with the Pope as Vicar of Christ on earth, or ascribing faults to others; but rather with the task,each one of us has, of daily dealing with our own.

  6. kathleen says:

    But have you ever heard of the ‘Forgiveness of Sins’ another article in the Creed which we must personally attend to in our own lives ?

    Indeed, Mr Kehoe, we most certainly should. Hence our many articles published here on this important subject together with the Holy Sacrament of Confession.
    But we can only obtain that “forgiveness” of our sins from Christ’s abundant mercy if we have first repented of them, then to go forward with a firm purpose of amendment to not sin again. To the Disciples in Emmaus Jesus said, Repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” – (Luke 24:47).

    “Those who preach and teach mercy without repentance are deceivers, and are likely deceived themselves.” (Msgr. Charles Pope)

    The Church Militant (i.e., the Church on Earth) has a duty to uphold the teachings of Christ laid out in the Magisterium of His Holy Church. When error (or ambiguity that could lead to error) is taught, all members of the Church, not only Her ordained ministers, should speak out to seek a correction. Not to do so could be seen as a sin of omission.

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    @ kathleen

    Well, yes, the Pope’s dead right there! “Some” (read most) do not understand those fuzzy passages in AL that seem to be saying two things at the same time.

    That’s the whole point! That’s why the Four Cardinals have presented him with a dubia asking him to give straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to five core questions that would then clear up all the misunderstandings that have followed the publication of his Exhortation.

    The dubia of the four Cardinals go FAR beyond questions relative to the Exhortation alone, but they address substantive doctrinal matters of the current three Major Heresies : Modernism, Relativism, and Americanism (the so-called “liberation theology” is simply the most blatant manifestation of Americanism).

    Amoris Laetitia in and of itself is FAR less problematic than the questions raised by these Faithfully Orthodox Cardinals.

    “Issues”, such as obedience (or not) to the Divine Law, are “black and white”; we all know that

    Technically no, not always — theft for example is not always a mortal sin.

  8. JabbaPapa says:

    @ John

    Sin, where there is sin, is necessarily personal

    This doctrine has been formally denounced as heresy and anathema — the sins of adultery, blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, and many others are not simply “personal” ; and in fact, no sin at all is simply personal, because sin is defined as being that which brings spiritual harm, and to claim that one’s own actions cannot be spiritually harmful to others is pure nonsense and intrinsically evil doctrine.

  9. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 13:21

    Yes, I understand what you are saying here, and I do agree. Thank you for expounding the further reaching implications of the dubia that the four faithful Cardinals are asking Pope Francis to respond to.

    theft for example is not always a mortal sin.

    True. Perhaps not always “mortal”, but it is always a sin.

  10. John says:

    JabbaPapa @13.28. I’m sorry but for me to commit sin I must personally commit the sin. Nobody can commit it for me.
    Are you saying for, example, that Luther’s sin of heresy has spiritually contaminated you personally as a committed Catholic ?

  11. Toad says:

    “..to claim that one’s own actions cannot be spiritually harmful to others is pure nonsense and intrinsically evil doctrine.”
    No it isn’t.
    My sins can certainly hurt others mentally and even physically, but they can’t harm them spiritually.
    Anyway, that’s not what John is asserting, He (correct me if I’m wrong) is saying we can only be answerable for our own sins. Otherwise, it’s a raffle.
    Which seems obvious. (To me.)

  12. johnhenrycn says:

    I suppose it would technically be theft to pick an apple from a tree that doesn’t belong to you, but if you’re starving, would it be a sin? And of course we have the example of Jesus’ disciples picking heads of grain as they walked through the fields (presumably not their fields) on the Sabbath, for which He did not admonish them, either for stealing or for breaking the Sabbath.

  13. Roger says:

    Through Adam’s (Personal) Original Sin ALL MANKIND WAS EXCLUDED FROM HEAVEN.

    Through Blindly following the High Priests the Messiah was slain and as was Prophesied the Dispora and destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem followed. The Old Dispensation ended and was replaced by the New and the Faith passed to the Gentiles.

    The Forgiveness of Sin requires the putting On of the Sinless One Christ.

  14. JabbaPapa says:

    I’m sorry but for me to commit sin I must personally commit the sin

    And so you miss my point.

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    From my reading so far of the Pope’s new Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera, it seems to be his first genuinely brilliant Pontifical text, as well as being his genuinely doctrinal clarification regarding some questions regarding Adultery that have been raised by sundry clerics and commentators after the publication of Amoris Laetitia — he very clearly and very unambiguously places the proper Sacraments for these matters as being Confession/Reconciliation, and Last Rites. NOT Holy Communion. Including VERY explicitly a clear dogmatic, disciplinary, and pastoral focus on our Lord the Christ’s Request to the adulterous woman — Go, and sin no more.

    I’m sure that sundry Pope-bashers will find cause to hate this text and carry on with their bashing ways … but then these are people who found it in their hearts to express opprobrium against even Pope John Paul I ; it is hard to take seriously such willful despite.

  16. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Francis, Misericordia et Misera : 10. I invite priests once more to prepare carefully for the ministry of confession, which is a true priestly mission. I thank all of you from the heart for your ministry, and I ask you to be welcoming to all, witnesses of fatherly love whatever the gravity of the sin involved, attentive in helping penitents to reflect on the evil they have done, clear in presenting moral principles, willing to walk patiently beside the faithful on their penitential journey, far-sighted in discerning individual cases and generous in dispensing God’s forgiveness. Just as Jesus chose to remain silent in order to save the woman caught in adultery from the sentence of death, so every priest in the confessional should be open-hearted, since every penitent is a reminder that he himself is a sinner, but also a minister of mercy.

    I think there’s more than a hint of Cardinal Müller, possibly even the Pope Emeritus, in this text.

    11. … The Sacrament of Reconciliation must regain its central place in the Christian life. This requires priests capable of putting their lives at the service of the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18), in such a way that, while no sincerely repentant sinner is prevented from drawing near to the love of the Father who awaits his return, everyone is afforded the opportunity of experiencing the liberating power of forgiveness.

    There’s a disposition concerning the forgiveness of the Mortal Sin of Abortion which will make some people unhappy ; OTOH the Faculty of the Priests of the SSPX to validly and licitly hear Confession is extended until further notice.

    The English translation is fairly pedestrian — I’d advise the French to those who have it, or the Italian or Spanish to those who have mastered those languages.

    A powerful meditation about the genuine nature of the true Ecumenism :

    16. The Jubilee now ends and the Holy Door is closed. But the door of mercy of our heart continues to remain wide open. We have learned that God bends down to us (cf. Hos 11:4) so that we may imitate him in bending down to our brothers and sisters. The yearning of so many people to turn back to the house of the Father, who awaits their return, has also been awakened by heartfelt and generous testimonies to God’s love. The Holy Door that we have crossed in this Jubilee Year has set us on the path of charity, which we are called to travel daily with fidelity and joy. It is the road of mercy, on which we meet so many of our brothers and sisters who reach out for someone to take their hand and become a companion on the way.

    sorry, French :

    20. … La culture de la miséricorde s’élabore dans la prière assidue, dans l’ouverture docile à l’action de l’Esprit, dans la familiarité avec la vie des saints et dans la proximité concrète des pauvres. C’est un appel pressant à ne pas mal interpréter où il est déterminant de s’engager. La tentation de faire la « théorie de la miséricorde » est surmontée dans la mesure où celle-ci est notre vie quotidienne de participation et de partage. Nous ne devrons d’ailleurs jamais oublier les paroles de l’apôtre Paul racontant sa rencontre avec Pierre, Jacques et Jean, après sa conversion : il met en relief un aspect essentiel de sa mission et de toute la vie chrétienne : « Ils nous ont seulement demandé de nous souvenir des pauvres, ce que j’ai pris grand soin de faire » (Ga 2,10). Nous ne pouvons pas oublier les pauvres : c’est un appel plus que jamais d’actualité et qui s’impose dans son évidence évangélique.

    21. … Voici venu le temps de la miséricorde. Chaque journée de notre route est marquée par la présence de Dieu qui guide nos pas avec la force de la grâce que l’Esprit répand dans le cœur pour le modeler et le rendre capable d’aimer. Voici venu le temps de la miséricorde pour tous et pour chacun, pour que personne ne puisse penser être étranger à la proximité de Dieu et à la puissance de sa tendresse. Voici venu le temps de la miséricorde pour que ceux qui sont faibles et sans défense, loin et seuls, puissent accueillir la présence de frères et sœurs qui les tireront du besoin. Voici venu le temps de la miséricorde pour que les pauvres sentent se poser sur eux le regard respectueux mais attentif de ceux qui, ayant vaincu l’indifférence, découvrent l’essentiel de la vie. Voici venu le temps de la miséricorde pour que tout pécheur ne se lasse jamais de demander pardon et sente la main du Père qui accueille toujours et serre contre lui.

    (the English of §20 is ghastly, and whilst that part of §21 is OK in English, the French is just too good not to quote)

    The Pope establishes a World Day for the Poor on the 33rd Sunday of Ordinary time.

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Francis : For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.

    For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.

  18. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 12:29

    If that is so, Jabba – that Misericordia et Misera is the Pope’s “genuinely doctrinal clarification regarding some questions raised … of Amoris Laetitia” – Catholics will surely be delighted to hear it. I haven’t read it yet myself, but I intend to do so. (The passages you quote are very fine… and yes, perhaps with ‘a touch’ from those other great members of the Church.)

    However, this begs the question: why then does the Pope not respond to the questions put to him in the dubia from four of his Cardinals? It shouldn’t be a big deal for him, if what you say is true. What, therefore, is keeping him from allaying the confusion that has stemmed from those dubious parts of AL by rewriting them (making another “genuinely doctrinal clarification”) to make them unambiguous once and for all, and irrefutably in line with Catholic doctrine?

    OTOH the Faculty of the Priests of the SSPX to validly and licitly hear Confession is extended until further notice.

    This is truly excellent news! (EWTN’s radio programme, ‘Morning Glory’ gave out the news this morning as soon as it was announced!) For anyone who has ever been to Confession with a priest from the SSPX can attest, they are the most attentive and compassionate priests you could ever find, as well as being insightful and helpful for penitents to make a sincere purpose of amendment to overcome persistent weakness to certain sins.

  19. JabbaPapa says:

    However, this begs the question: why then does the Pope not respond to the questions put to him in the dubia from four of his Cardinals? It shouldn’t be a big deal for him, if what you say is true.

    kathleen, those five dubia are extremely difficult theological questions that it would be wrong to respond to in any sort of hasty manner. One-word yes or no responses simply would not do them justice.

  20. kathleen says:

    One-word yes or no responses simply would not do them justice.

    But have they not been constructed so that only a one-word response is necessary?

    Knowing how Pope Francis tends to rattle on interminably – perhaps causing even more uncertainty as a result – the four wise Cardinals probably formed their questions in the dubia in this way to avoid that possibility.

  21. JabbaPapa says:

    But have they not been constructed so that only a one-word response is necessary?

    No.

    The extensive theological footnotes to the questions require extensive theological explanations in response.

  22. johnhenrycn says:

    JP (14:14) says – ” …those five dubia are extremely difficult theological questions that it would be wrong to respond to in any sort of hasty manner. One-word yes or no responses simply would not do them justice.”

    That’s reasonable enough. Would that PF had taken that approach before sending a very brief and very quickly written reply to the Argentine bishops’ question regarding proper interpretation of his obscure but explosive footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia wherein he praised said bishops for correctly understanding that said fn permits reception of Holy Communion by persons still in a state of mortal sin in some cases before ending his very brief and very quickly written reply with “there are no other interpretations” possible of Amoris Laetitia,chapter VIII. Indeed, there is some well founded speculation that he wrote his reply before he received their question!

  23. JabbaPapa says:

    well founded speculation

    AKA crass Modernism.

    Moderator: Jabba, kindly rewrite the first part of your post without littering it with bad language or it will not be published at all.

    You have been warned about this before.

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    Don’t always be an idiot. I won’t bother linking to the many reputable writers and bloggers whose opinions and observations are far more credible than your rants and who put paid to your pompous pronouncements.

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    Well, yes. Quite. Feel free to also strike my fifth word at 17:34.

    Mod: Thank you, JH. Done.

  26. JabbaPapa says:

    You have been warned about this before

    Then please warn jh about his continual personal attacks.

    Mod: There was no ‘personal attack’ in JH’s post at 15.14 to warrant your ugly outburst.

    Besides, our request is that you refrain AT ALL TIMES from using bad language as this reflects badly not only on you but on our blog. It may also upset some of our readers.

  27. JabbaPapa says:

    Mod: Thank you, JH. Done.

    Or why not just remove any *b____y bad language from my post in the same manner ?

    Mod: JH’s comment was in response to your wholly unacceptable one and it had one deletion at his request. Yours would have required multiple deletions and we all have busy lives to lead.
    This a Catholic blog, not a nursery school.

    Is it OK to characterise those idiots at the so-called “Remnant” as being “pompous” “ranters”, to use a jh-ism ?

    Mod: You should know. After all, you’ve repeatedly characterised the traditional Catholics at The Remnant, Rorate Caeli etc. in an outspoken and insulting manner yourself.

  28. JabbaPapa says:

    … let alone wondering why directly disprovable slanders against the Roman Pontiff and certain Bishops in Argentina is somehow “ok” …

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    If the moderators in here are unaware of the continual stream of insult, ad hominem, and general trolling that jh has been directing at me personally over the past couple of months in particular, then they simply have not been doing their job properly.

    [edited]

  30. JabbaPapa says:

    Mod: You should know. After all, you’ve repeatedly characterised the traditional Catholics at The Remnant, Rorate Caeli etc. in an outspoken and insulting manner yourself.

    I have never directed any personal insults against any member of this forum.

    Why is it somehow OK for jh to do so ?

  31. kathleen says:

    Jabba,
    I only logged in again quite late last night and did not see the parts that were deleted by the moderator in your exchange with JH. All I can say is that I know the moderators try to be impartial and as tolerant as common decency permits – hence so many of John Kehoe’s snarky remarks, and Toad’s repetitive nonsense and teasing, making it through onto the blog! However, swearing and over-the-top insults, cannot be ‘approved’.

    If you feel JH has been ‘trolling’ against you and wonder why this was allowed to stand, I can only guess that the moderators thought you, with the strong hostility you have shown towards some Catholic groups, would be more than capable of holding your own and giving as good as you get!

    The moderators do honestly try to be fair, so please be understanding.

  32. JabbaPapa says:

    dear kathleen, thank you for your response — but the truth is that jh’s trolling has been directed against me personally for several years now, across multiple forums ; and his DIRECT insults have been facilitated by a certain failure to recognise that my objections to certain “catholic” extremists do not lack validity within the very Nature of the Catholicity of the Faith.

    I do recognise that the work of moderation is difficult, but I also know, from similar experience, that such communities as this one are destroyed whenever someone in control seeks to impose whichever ideology.

    I have no “strong hostility towards some Catholic groups“, even though the idiots of the so-called “Remnant” are idiots, but I do certainly refuse to accept any and all schismatic and sectarian ideologies as belonging to the Faith.

    And if I’m to be perfectly honest in terms of your moderation strategy, getting rid of all of the men is suicidal.

  33. JabbaPapa says:

    Plus — the opprobrium directed against dear toad has become VERY exaggerated.

  34. mmvc says:

    …even though the idiots of the so-called “Remnant” are idiots

    For pity’s sake, stop!

    How can you hope to be respected and taken seriously when you doggedly display such disrespect to fellow Catholics? Don’t you realise that every time you vent like this, you might be upsetting our readers and team members? You may recall that Kathleen has previously written about her positive encounter with these good and inspiring people on the Chartres pilgrimage.

    It IS possible to be civil about people whose views you don’t share. Try it. It’s never too late to learn…

  35. JabbaPapa says:

    It IS possible to be civil about people whose views you don’t share. Try it. It’s never too late to learn…

    Then please impose upon jh to do so.

    I am not guilty of incivility towards this community.

    Try it. It’s never too late to learn…

    Why not try not patronising me.

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    And the Catholicity of the Faith continues meanwhile NOT to be determined by the radically extremist opinions of those so-called “Remnant” idiots.

  37. JabbaPapa says:

    One of them lives within walking distance of where I live, and I would, all things being equal, confront his errors personally — but all things are not equal, and he is in his 90s, and so I could not at all impose myself.

    But I do wish that people in here could pay more attention to the Roman Pontiff’s warnings against ideology …

  38. mmvc says:

    Jabba @ 15.50

    Please stop this side-stepping.

    Your bizarre juxtaposition of some perceived unresolved longterm issue with JH over the blogosphere, with your crass insults towards the people at The Remnant (yes, that IS the name of their blog. Deal with it!) is frankly getting ridiculous.

    It’s beginning to sound a bit like blackmail too: if you don’t intervene and come down on JH like a ton of bricks, I jolly well won’t stop bashing traditional blogs like The Remnant, Rorate Caeli etc.

    Perhaps the solution for you might be to find a forum or two which JH doesn’t frequent.

    As was pointed out to you yesterday, this isn’t a kindergarten.

  39. JabbaPapa says:

    kindergarten

    Right, and never mind the direct insult, eh ?

    Perhaps the solution for you might be to find a forum or two which JH doesn’t frequent

    Is your plan seriously to alienate everyone ? Or just me ?

    It’s beginning to sound a bit like blackmail too: if you don’t intervene and come down on JH like a ton of bricks, I jolly well won’t stop bashing traditional blogs like The Remnant, Rorate Caeli etc.

    Rubbish.

    Requesting that certain individuals refrain from direct personal insults does not constitute a “ton of bricks”.

    And what “blackmail” ??? I will NOT start suddenly admiring various schismatic or sectarian or reactionary internet locations should you do this or that. The suggestion that I might is quite frankly insulting.

  40. mmvc says:

    I will NOT start suddenly admiring various schismatic or sectarian or reactionary internet locations

    Nobody expects you to do that. Civility is all that is asked of you.

    Requesting that certain individuals refrain from direct personal insults does not constitute a “ton of bricks”.

    No, but the way you’ve been going on about this, one might be forgiven for a touch of hyperbole.

    Given that your differences with JH go way beyond this blog and this particular instance, we can’t be expected to sort out your issues and intervene every time you deem yourself to be a victim of trolling or whatever other grievance you might have. There might be willing mediators/moderators on other blogs but not here. None of us have the time nor the energy to supervise, assess, adjudicate, or resolve all the heated or boisterous combox exchanges, misunderstandings, teases or tussles that occur in the course of running a blog. Swearing, foul language and repeated insults at other Catholic bloggers who are not in a position to respond, will not be tolerated.

    Is your plan seriously to alienate everyone ? Or just me ?

    No plan to alienate anyone at all.

    kindergarten

    Right, and never mind the direct insult, eh ?

    Not an insult, just an observation. Adults are normally expected to behave with more dignity. They should also require less supervision.

  41. mmvc says:

    I am not prepared to waste any more time on this discussion, Jabba.
    Please let’s move on in a spirit of charity. Everyone.

    God bless.

  42. JabbaPapa says:

    Civility is all that is asked of you

    And civility is all I expect. It has not been guaranteed, but the opposite has been tolerated.

    Adults are normally expected to behave with more dignity. They should also require less supervision.

    And again — and just FYI my disagreements with your positions do not justify your attempts to dump your own “ton of bricks”.

    we can’t be expected us to sort out your issues and intervene every time you deem yourself to be a victim of trolling or whatever other grievance you might have

    OK, but you can certainly be expected to stop treating it like one-way traffic of my personal “responsibility” after the first time that I respond to his non-stop insults.

  43. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 14:15 yesterday

    And if I’m to be perfectly honest in terms of your moderation strategy, getting rid of all of the men is suicidal.

    “Getting rid of all the men”??? Nobody wants to do that; it would be a terrible loss to any blog!😉 I don’t know where you got that idea from, Jabba…. Was it the little tiff between our Brother Burrito and JH the other day, that prompted BB to bid us farewell? We hope he will be back with us again soon.

    Plus — the opprobrium directed against dear toad has become VERY exaggerated.

    There’s no “opprobrium” involved in any of this – that’s the truth. We are more than tolerant in approving the majority of Toad’s mocking, teasing and offensive comments, but we draw the line at open blasphemy! (I think Toad even understands that himself, although he might pretend not to.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s