[Faith Presses On]

There are a lot of objections in this thread to the posting of this article, as there have been to others that also call Catholicism into question in any way.

This isn’t a Catholic web site, though. As far as I know, it is perfectly within Free Republic’s terms of service to post articles that are critical of any church, or religion. That includes the Roman Catholic Church.

What *is* against Free Republic’s terms of service, though, are personal attacks. As the moderators frequently say, “discuss the issues and don’t make it personal.”

If the article itself is acceptable for posting according to Free Republic’s terms of service, then attacking a poster just for posting it, because it’s critical of a particular church or religion, violates the rule against personal attacks, in my opinion.

Those attacks consist of accusing the poster of posting the article out of hate for some other group, or some other evil motive, even though the person who attacks someone else just for posting an article critical of his group never is offended when the shoe is on the other foot and articles by his group that are critical of other groups are posted. *Those* articles are never seen as being posted out of hate or any evil motive.

This is a site for discussion that doesn’t identify with any particular Christian denomination or viewpoint, and if anyone here won’t accept that, and the legitimate posting of articles that happen to be critical of their beliefs, then they shouldn’t post here, in my opinion. There are usually sites run by their own group that they could use where their group is given preference. I used to post on Christianity.com’s forums and there were some limits on what could be posted, and that was perfectly right given that it’s a Christian site.

Here, being able to post should come down to accepting or not accepting the site’s rules, which allow such critical articles.

And I will single out Catholics here, too, because that’s primarily the group I see doing it. A

And, too, if you look at the articles tagged with the keywords “catholicbashing” and “protestantbashing,” the former is a far longer list, and includes articles such as:

“Faith: The Misunderstood Doctrine Chapter 7,” an excerpt from Man: The Dwelling Place of God, by A.W.Tozer (didn’t see anything in it directly about Catholicism, and there are other similar articles on Christianity also labeled “catholicbashing” )

“Pope: Catholics Don’t Have to Breed ‘Like Rabbits’,” from Newsmax

“Priest jailed for ‘systematic’ sexual abuse of boy” (RTE.com)

“Milwaukee Archdiocese Said To Be In Talks With Insurers” (Wisconsin Public Radio News)

“Large differences in “hookup culture” between Catholic/Secular college students and Evangelical ones” (The Aquila Report)

“Papal conclave: Anti-mafia police raid offices in diocese of frontrunner” (The Nigerian Tribune)

“Pope Benedict XVI says goodbye — to his red shoes” (The Washington Times)

“LA Cardinal Mahony ‘stripped of duties’ over sex abuse” (BBC)

“Priest sentenced for molesting girl, 11” (The Washington Post)

“Number of Austrian Catholics leaving church increase to a record high since 1945” (AP/Winnipeg Free Press)

These articles seem to be “Catholic bashing” only in that they are less than unskeptically adoring of Roman Catholicism. And while looking through the “catholicbashing” results, I even encountered this thread started by a Religion Moderator five years ago:

“Do NOT use keywords as slams on the Religion Forum.” It says, “Stop adding keywords to articles to slam others, e.g. catholicbashing, agendadrivenfreepers, moapc, catholicwhiners.”

I appreciate the different articles here, including the “anti-Catholic” ones, and have no problem with the fact that “anti-Protestant” articles can also be posted. The recent articles from a Protestant view on the history of the Roman Catholic papacy interest me. I know, though, that to post anything less than flattering of Roman Catholicism here is to be attacked. I posted two threads of my own in the last year that were such, with one pointing out that Catholic Charities provides secular mental health counseling (which promotes many antichristian beliefs as good and normal) and my concerns over Christianity on the Supreme Court being represented by five Catholics, and I was attacked merely for starting threads on these subjects.

But, again, according to the site’s description and rules, that’s precisely what it’s for. So accepting that, or not, is the issue here. To not accept it is to go back and reject the terms of service.

[metmom]

I did a keyword search for the keyword *catholicbashing* and found some threads posted that didn’t even reference Catholicism in them.

The Tozer threads are some.

Some of the other threads labels with that key word were posted by CATHOLICS themselves. (Who have been courtesy pinged.)

I know the RM can see who posts the keywords in the keyword field. Perhaps the RM could address this and the posters who are doing it.

Adding the keyword of *catholicbashing* to a thread that doesn’t even mention ANY denomination, much less Catholicism, but rather focuses on Christ, is just plain satanically motivated.

If focusing on Christ is considered Catholic bashing, then there’s a real serious problem within Catholicism.

Thank you, Faith Presses On, for bringing this to our attention.

It’s not a good reflection of Catholicism, to say the least.

[lastchance]

I had not meant to engage in any personal attacks. If such was implied my apologies. I know that heated discussion is to be expected unless the thread is a Caucus one. It is however tiring to have to correct the premise of an argument before one can address the errors arising from it.

I don’t expect Protestants to agree with each other on all points of doctrine let alone with Catholics. I totally respect where there is honest disagreement arising from a valid logical, theological, and historical difference in perspective over Scriptural passages or church practice. For example, The different views on Holy Communion. I respect too where common beliefs are held such as the Divinity of Christ.

I do expect Catholics and Protestants alike not to take quotes out of context or fail to reveal the conclusions an author may have met that supports or contradicts those quotes. I expect a person to be able to understand whether an argument for a certain point is the sole support given by the body being debated or if it is a minor consideration in light of all other evidence. I expect if one claims to be on the side of history they be able to produce arguments from history which are at least in veracity equal to the arguments of the other side.

I also think it important to examine the logic of a presumption. In this case it would be “If St. Peter did not establish the Church in Rome and if there was not a known early Bishopric as we know today does that invalidate the claim by the Catholic Church that St. Peter was First Pope being given primacy by Jesus Himself?” Are there writings from early Christian sources which support this teaching?

If a person is going to argue that St. Peter could not possibly be Pope because of “A” they better be sure that the argument proves what they want it to prove. Using passages from well respected historians out of context and without a full consideration of all the arguments put forth is not the way to do it.

Personally I think the best arguments non Catholics should give about the Papacy is a simple one, “They do not believe in it”. Why should they? Whether it is valid or not has no bearing on their current beliefs. The Papacy and its reach is an argument for the Reformation. It was a way to establish the legitimacy of Protestant churches independent of both Rome and the State. It no longer matters. The Pope holds no sway temporal or spiritual over non-Catholics. You get to follow your faith according to your conscience, which I think is a good thing.