If, for the sake of argument, I were to agree that sinkspur were a wolf, from my perspective, you aren't crying "wolf", you're just shouting nasty stuff at the wolf.
I find it fascinating that you have chosen to be an advocate for a liberal dissenter. As a lurker, I’ve been reading his posts long before I became active at FR and I stand by my assessment.
He has stated that he will no longer post to me. I am delighted and will not post to him either. However, if he once again criticizes, maligns, disparages, attacks, dissents from, objects to or in any way impugns the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, all bets are off.
Nevertheless, I was hoping you would address the post that I directly made to YOU (see the quotes in post #59) and not the one I made to someone else.
BTW: I made the following post a week or so ago from Fr. Salvany's book Liberalism is a Sin.
St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a "race of vipers"; Jesus Christ, Our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchres, a perverse and adulterous generation." St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretians as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same Apostle calls Elymas the magician a "seducer, full of guile and deceit, a child of the devil, and enemy of all justice."The Fathers of the Church exercised the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the Faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in his letters, "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf."
The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent attacks against William of St. Amour, and his disciples; "Enemies of God, ministers of the devil, members of antichrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!"
Did St. Francis de Sales, purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? With the enemies of the Faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration. Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful, according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his _Introduction to the Devout Life_, he expresses himself again: 'If the declared enemies of God and of the Church, ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry 'wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."
Good morning to you, too.
I don't think of myself as an "advocate" for sinkspur. I do view him as a friend. However, even if I disliked sinkspur, I still don't think I'd approve of some of the language directed his way.
I notice that in most of the quotes that you provide of saintly persons castigating heretics & such, for the most part, the harsh words are directed at groups of people, not usually at individuals.
But even still, look at your quote from St. Francis de Sales, "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful,..."
I also notice this from the Catholic Catechism:
"2478 To avoid rash judgement, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable inerpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. Adn if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."
In my own view, you have failed this task on this thread, regarding sinkspur. I believe that he posted something which was ambiguous in meaning, and that you gave the worst interpretation, rather than a favorable one. When he made clear what he had said, it was clear that a favorable interpretation would have been the right one. Yet, in later posts, you accused him of first lying, and then backing off his lies, when what seems to have happened, at least in my view, is that he clarified a previously-ambiguous post.
You seem to have failed St. Francis' test, as well as that of the Catechism. That isn't crying "wolf", it's just calling the "wolf" names.
As to the rest from your post #59, I did answer you. Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you didn't take seriously my invitation to search out the recommended material.
sitetest