Posted on 05/01/2011 12:17:34 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
To begin, I must state that I do not know what it was that led to the banning of Verdugo from Free Republic. It is quite possible he said something absolutely outrageous. However, if this is the case, I am unaware of it. I also wish to state that I do not in the least dispute the right of Jim Robinson to ban anyone from this site--his private property--at any time for any reason. However, I believe the banning of Verdugo was an injustice and I wish to protest it.
I hope everyone who reads this will recall that my own views on many important issues were one hundred eighty degrees removed from those of Verdugo. Certainly as an ultra-right wing sedevacantist Roman Catholic his views on Jews, Israel, and the Middle East fit this description. Furthermore he was an apologist for Robert Sungenis, a man who has over the years become an out-and-out anti-Semite (Verdugo denied this). And he made the absolutely outrageous statement that the Jewish authorities who sentenced J*sus to death for blasphemy "knew" that he was actually "fulfilling messianic prophecy" but did so anyway.
Now, all that being said, I hope my protest against the banning of Verdugo will be accepted as exactly what it is. Despite my own profound disagreements with this poster I never once asked for him to be banned. In fact, I admired him for his dedication to his beliefs and his refusal to change them with the times.
In spite of his own obvious devotion to his religion, his "co-religionists" branded him an "anti-Catholic" and a "hater" (an outrageous falsehood) simply because the stated the obvious truth: that the Catholic Church has changed radically over the past several decades and does not teach what it once did on a variety of issues. This fact is so obvious that only someone willfully blind or willfully mendacious would deny it. Yet for simply stating this the Conciliar Catholics on this forum ganged up on him worse than they have on any Protestant critic and have caused him to be banned while bitter Protestant critics of Catholicism remain. Why is this?
I am aware that most of the Catholics on this forum, a couple of whom are allies of mine, define Catholicism strictly as a cult of personality concerning the reigning Pope. This papolatry is not Catholicism at all as traditionally defined. The fact remains that, however good and well-meaning their supporters may be, the past Popes since at least Pius XI (yes, I said XI) have been liberals. And this goes double for the current Pope and his immediate predecessor, both of whom were and have been remiss in their duties and promoters of extreme radicalism in Biblical and ecumenical matters.
While I am neither a sedevacantist Catholic nor the owner of this site I believe that sedevacantist Catholicism (though not its anti-Semitism) is a legitimate religious opinion for conservatives and feel that a very dangerous precedent has been set here. How long before other sedevacantist or traditionalist Catholics are banned from this forum? (I do not count the case of Catholic monarchists who have been banned because their political beliefs conflicted with the purpose of this web site.)
As I said, it is quite possible that Verdugo said something outrageously offensive and was banned for that reason. If this is the case I apologize for this vanity. But so far as I know he is gone simply because the conciliar Catholics on this forum formed a solid block against him, denying his identity as a Catholic and acting against him in a way they have not acted against any Protestant "bigot." If this perception of mine is correct, then Catholicism is truly gone round the bend. It is now defined exclusively in terms of modernism (especially in Biblical studies) and any Catholic who dares to dissent is now a "closet Protestant bigot."
Again, Jim Rob is the boss. I merely wish to register this protest. Having done this, I have nothing more to say on the matter.
It would be a bummer to be banned from Free Republic—as a conservative, I mean.
In the past, before I understood that “religious” “caucuses” were “exclusive,” and no criticism is allowed, I got in trouble a few times for harshly criticizing Catholicism, which I consider to be very unscriptural. At least I did not get banned.
The wife of my boss years ago spent many years in a convent but left when the leftward drift at the top of the Church became unavoidable.
When they began to do away with the Latin Mass, I will never forget the sadness in her face when she remarked “They’ve RUINED my Church.
She passed some years ago before the drift became a torrent.
For starters, if you wish to be respected, it would help not to exaggerate, distort, misrepresent. Branding your fellow Catholics on Free Republic as papalolaters and saying that they DEFINE Catholicism via personality cult of the present pope is a bit overwrought, dontcha think?
When you fairly and accurately represent the views of those you disagree with, perhaps we could begin to discuss l’affaire Verdugo. But let me give you a hint: you’re not alone in misrepresenting and caricaturing the views of those you oppose.
I’m so broke up over the banning of...of....of...anyway I just can’t go on, (sob).
I'm not Catholic. I thought I made that clear.
I wanted you to know, just in case, you get banned, I’ll be there with the same sincerity arguing in your favor about how unfair . . . . what were we talking about?
I am just headed out the door and can’t even give the OP the due diligence of careful reading but I agree with your first paragraph: I also protest and too believe it is the site’s right to ban anyone. Most or many of Vedugu’s expressed opinions on post Vatican II changes in the Church are my opinions also.
My impression is that he didn’t get banned because of his opinions as such, but because he was a bigger pain in the butt than habanero chilis.
No, you didn’t make it clear. What you did make clear was how to exaggerate and caricature. Why don’t you and Verdugo start your own site?
It’s been my experience, in my short time, that there is robably more freedom to speak freely here than most sites.
If you get banned here, than you either said something very damaging about somebody or something or that you went way beyond bad taste and, therefore, it was probably very well deserved.
I have absolutely no idea how I have offended you, but let me state this just one more time: I do not share Verdugo's religious beliefs. I am a Noachide, he is an ultra right wing sedevacantist Catholic. I merely protest if his banning was the result of the campaign against him by conciliar Catholics on this forum because he dared to state the obvious.
I did not agree with Verdugo, but I respected him. I'm getting the distinct impression that if I knew you from Adam I would have any respect for you.
Good day.
If you get banned here, than you either said something very damaging about somebody or something or that you went way beyond bad taste and, therefore, it was probably very well deserved.
This has certainly been my experience, and it is quite possible that he did indeed say something completely beyond the pale. However, all I know is that conciliar Catholics ganged up on him with a solid front which they haven't shown against anyone else on this forum, denying his legitimacy as a Catholic and calling him a "hater" of that religion, merely because he stated the obvious: that the Church has changed radically.
Thank you for your very fair observations on the situation.
I think we were discussing my Mexican/Scots neighbor with his kilts and sombrero......or something. Maybe his haggis pinata...?
I suspect it was more how he was saying it.
I have seen people here totally discount the person of an opposing viewpoint and say things in ways that were meant to be offensive, more than just straight up.
The most Christ like man I've known in my 68 years is a Jew. He walks the walk 24/7, with a smile on his face and love in his heart.
I've learned to avoid the religion forum, all it does is raise my blood pressure.
I wouldn't mind a bit if JimRob shut it down until everyone learns to respect other Freepers.
I was part of the last thread that he was involved in.
He posted an article relating to purgatory and made the statement that babies before they were baptised did not go to heaven, because they lack baptism...I dont recall where he said such babies would go?. A couple of Catholic ladies related that they had pre-baptism infant deaths and that he was being hurtful...especially during Lent. Verdugo continued to be insensitive and demand that one or more of these ladies answer his questions. The thread got deleted and he was banned. Dont know the particulars if it was in relation to those one or more ladies or him popping off to someone else. Beeline posted Verdugos previous statement that all the ‘the last 5 Popes should be excommunicated’, oh yeah but he’s not a Sedevacantist. Maybe the moderator had his fill of dealing with a schizoid...’I’m not a sedevacantist but the last 5 Popes should be excommunicated’. But you can all figure what probably happened, probably in relation to the ladies and their lost babies. Someone like Tax-Chick or Markbsnr might know more or know someone in that thread who knows more. I’m glad he was banned...the guy is a wrong headed ,first-class jerk operating under the assumption that he was evangelizing.
and this was the last thread —pulled:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2708852/posts?page=76#76
That's what Limbo is for. But according to Aquinas, the niche for unbaptized infants is not a bad place (we traditionalists still believe in Limbo, just like we still believe in the literal devil).
Wikipedia: (Views of other Saints described as well)
Saint Thomas Aquinas described the Limbo of Infants as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been had they been baptized. He argued that this was a reward of natural happiness for natural virtue; a reward of supernatural happiness for merely natural virtue would be inappropriate since, due to original sin, unbaptized children lack the necessary supernatural grace.
Verdugo should have had the sense to not push the issue in the presence of still-grieving mothers.
Maybe infants in Limbo will end up in Heaven some 'day'; that's what I have always suspected.
Limbo is an old and discarded theory in the Church.
Its like mentioning air as ‘ether’ or maggots appearing in meat through ‘spontaneous generation’. If you have a science background than those quoted words will make sense...the history of science and discarded theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.