[mockingbyrd]

The confusion most likely comes from the fact that while you said that #169 was worthy of condemnation, you actually did not condemn it. Perhaps there was the private encouragement to the poster to not post such scandalous material, but as it occurred in a public forum, there ought to be public condemnation of it as well. Silence often indicates consent, or at least is interpreted as such.

To refer to John Paul the Great as an anti-Christ is certainly calumny and I believe every Catholic is required to defend the reputation of this man of God. If not because of the sanctity of the man himself, out of respect for his position as Vicar of Christ. He brought no shame to his role as Shepherd of the Church, he followed God clearly and honorably and brought no disgrace to the office. To imply otherwise, is to intentionally distort the truth. We are called to admonish the sinner, counsel the doubtful, instruct the ignorant and bear wrongs patiently. If such statements are made publicly then they ought to be addressed publicly, so that they do not mislead others.

[Pyro7480]

The confusion most likely comes from the fact that while you said that #169 was worthy of condemnation, you actually did not condemn it.

No, I think the "confusion" started earlier than that. Referring to the Pope as an anti-Christ is a calumny.