Update: I’ve learned that the person who left the inflammatory and misdirected original comment (attributed to “a fan of Cleansing Fire”) is the same as Crown Vic and 2 other comments, using a total of 3 user names and 3 email addresses.
This blog is intended for reasonable discussion held in a civil manner. If you are unable to act with honesty, integrity, and civility, please express yourself somewhere else.
Comments for this thread are closed.
***********************************************************************************
A comment on this blog from a fan of Cleansing Fire (CF) prompted me to consider writing Posting Guidelines. Before writing those guidelines, I wanted to deal with that comment that was a verbal attack seemingly out of nowhere. I’ve since realized that would be a complete waste of time and energy.
Realizations
Before addressing the two sets of comments, I came to some realizations, and if this entire post seems strongly worded, it’s because it seems the only way to convey being serious. One is that this exchange of comments destroyed being able to take CF’s posts seriously again. As to their protests that I lack of sense of humor – how is that different than say South Park or Kathy Griffin saying that people who object simply “lack a sense of humor”?
A second was that some of the people involved with the exhange of comments are contributing to the messed up state of this diocese. They won’t be able to blame the bishop, the lay ecclesial whatevers, or the 1969 Missal – they themselves have contributed to the mess.
The third is that for a blog that equates itself with the Magisterium, yet is unwilling for a face-to-face discussion demonstrated that the blog is more heat than light. I’ve met people who are probably readers of CF and in person, they’re very nice people. (Ahem, this should read: I don’t know for sure that they are indeed readers of CF though because of the pseudonyms.) If there are people who read the patronizing, insulting comments directed to me (I sign my real name, so people do know who I am) and yet talk to me in person as if nothing happened, well, the only positive way to describe that is that it destroys trust.
Attack and Run
The first comment exchange is that CSL, a CF fan, posted a very self-righteous comment filled with accusations. I took her comment at face value and took it seriously enough to a write a detailed response. CSL’s reply was a dismissive tu quoque. No thought whatsoever put into either of her comments, just attack and run.
Indeed it wasn’t until afterwards when I went digging into the various DoR blogs that I realized that CSL accusing me of “bickering and pettiness” was apparently based on discussion on someone else’s blog ten days previous to my post and of which I was unaware of. In other words, CSL had nothing to back up her accusations and was simply shooting off her mouth.
Attack and Hide
The second comment exchange had to do with the constant disparagement of the Novus Ordo to which the protest came that they weren’t disparaging the Novus Ordo itself, only the liturgical abuses. The problem is that the comments were not about liturgical abuses but clearly did disparage the Novus Ordo itself: “The Novus Ordo is to blame….rotten times with the Novus Ordo… That makes it valid. It doesn’t make it good.”
Newsflash: denial is not a river in Egypt.
The other part of both set of comments were the personal attacks (“you lack spirituality” etc) that sounded very much like school yard taunts. That’s especially true when made by “Anonymous” and even those with pseudonyms and all of them sound tough, but no one yet has had the guts to make those comments to my face.
Needed: Spiritual Maturity
The work ahead requires, not schoolyard taunts, but spiritual maturity. I hope that people here shed their schoolyard ways and grow into maturity.
Under Her Mantle 
I must have missed something?
I’m not familiar of any reader at Cleansing Fire that goes by CSL? Has he/she posted at the blog before?
Wow. Looks like some feathers are significantly ruffled. I read Cleansing Fire and I think they’ve moved on, Mary Kay. Pretty vibrant there, too.
Dr. K, I have no idea who she is; she posted here as C.S.L. (at least she didn’t use Anonymous, I’ll grant her that). Whether or not she’s posted at CF, this is part of her post here:
“The opinions expressed over there at CF may be a little jaded sometimes,…”
It’s one thing to have a discussion on substance, but her “dump anger and run” especially since it was misdirected, doesn’t accomplish anything except to contribute to the escalated ambience in this diocese.
Crown Vic,
“ruffled feathers” is a secular based (as opposed to rooted in the Gospels) response that minimizes and trivializes what was said. It is precisely this trivialization of others that I don’t take CF seriously any more.
It is also an example of personalizing a comment rather than addressing the substance of the topic.
Yes, I knew when writing this post that CF had “moved on.” Unlike the knee-jerk comments directed to me, I wanted to put some thought into my response and that took time. Time that had to wait until after I took care of non-blog responsibilities.
“…vibrant…” So what are you trying to say?
It’s good that CF can put up 3 to 8 posts a day, but most people don’t have that time. CF does provide some good things to the DoR community. It’s the “top dog” mentality and self-appointed voice of DoR orthodoxy and in order to maintain those positions, invalidating everyone else (another secular-based rather than Gospel rooted action) that has lessen credibility. The “ruffled feathers” comment is the most recent example.
Again, I do not know who these people are. In fact, they may not even read the blog. It could just be that one spam poster trying to stir up trouble. I’ve scanned through many of the posts and so far I am not seeing these names. Then again, perhaps they posted anonymously at CF. I don’t know.
“It’s the “top dog” mentality and self-appointed voice of DoR orthodoxy and in order to maintain those positions, invalidating everyone else”
We’re just one blog of three laypersons, there is no intention to be any sort of voice or spokesperson for orthodoxy. The Church is that. We post news, opinions, and humor. It is just a blog after all. Who exactly appointed us this voice? By saying “self-appointed” you’re suggesting it is us 3 who are calling ourselves this. I certainly did not say or even suggest anything like that. As for a “top dog” mentality, we’ve been online more or less the same amount of time as your blog and several other new Rochester blogs, there is no way we could consider ourselves anything close to a top dog. There is no competition I would hope, we’re all in this thing together. Nobody should be seen as top dog.
Dr. K,
“one spam poster”
Er, I think you mean a troll. When I said she was a fan of CF, I didn’t mean that you knew who she was. I think it’s very likely that CSL is/was a lurker on CF.
But she’s not a troll in the usual sense because her words and phrasing are too similar to the CF comments, even using the word “bickering” which Gen used.
The only thing I agree with you is that there should be no competition. If I thought there was basis for discussion, I would respond to your question. How can I though, given the uncivil comments directed toward me and the unwillingness of CF to acknowledge their unacceptability.
Let me refresh your memory of comments addressed directly to me or later more generally:
– You lack spirituality
– You lack humility
– You lack a sense of humor
– You’re not authentically Catholic
– it’s okay to address you with patronizing
disrespect:
“if you’re a good little girl”
– You lack accurate perception
– You’re hostile
– You’re bickering
– You lack peace and happiness
– The puke of apostates
– Similar to vampires doused with holy water
– Whiny. What’s so funny about this one is that it was in reference to a comment that was in error.
Notice that none of these ad hominems addressed the points I raised. This all started when I objected to the consistent disparagement of the Novus Ordo. The response was that they addressing the liturgical abuses, not the Novus Ordo itself. However, those denials flied in the face of comments such as:
– The Novus Ordo is to blame.
– rotten time with the Novus Ordo
– defending the indefensible
and probably a few others.
It was at that point that I realized it was time to stop putting energy into “discussions” that were anything but discussion.
Those making the above comments might want to look at how they are contributing to the escalated environment in this diocese. I’ll put this whole situation in prayer.
Alright, I went back and looked for these items.
“You lack spirituality”,”You lack humility”,”You lack a sense of humor”,”if you’re a good little girl”,”You’re not authentically Catholic” <– These were all from one moron, Anon 7:50 P.M. I will remove this post. Those comments are unacceptable.
I can't find the rest of the items you listed. I tried searching the blog for the "Puke of the apostates" and "vampires doused with holy water" and couldn't find those. Where were these so I can remove them?
I do want to point this out: Isn't this post quoted below an ad hominem as well?
“Funny how dissing those who attend the TLM is hurtful, but dissing those who attend the Novus Ordo is somehow acceptable.
Put it down as reason 938 why I don’t attend the TLM. And consider the orthodox parishes not much better than the dissident ones.”
This is applying a generalization to those who attend the TLM or orthodox parishes.
There was a lot of garbage being said by everyone in that post. Most posts at Cleansing Fire, however, do not go in that direction thankfully.
Dr. K,
Thanks for removing the blatant one. That and the comment on my blog were the two worst. The rest of your comment deserves more response. I can’t this morning but will respond by the end of the weekend.
Dr. K,
The “vampires” comment was in “Sticks and Stones” which I think was posted Nov. 30. The “Sticks and Stones” post had a picture of Mother Angelica with the word “SHAME” underneath and this post:” Well, that’s been made perfectly plain in recent days, what with a sudden onslaught of anti-Cleansing Fire, anti-Magisterial, anti-Tradition posts by various people at various locations too diverse and too obscure to mention here.”
As a side note, “sudden onslaught” by people and locations too diverse and “obscure” – by backtracking and checking, the only two blogs that I found were mine and another person in the DoR – calling DoR blogs “obscure” and the generally boastful tone probably were factors in my impression of “top dog” behavior.
That backtracking was how I discovered that CSL’s comment calling me bickering and petty was actually in response to a discussion on another blog ten days previous. In re-reading comments, I had the impression that several people misdirected their comments.
If the phrases “puke of apostates” and “vampires doused with holy water” had been addressed to blatant liturgical abuse, I would have considered it as venting, part of the generally high frustration here. But the person writing the commented admitted that he (or she) had not read what was in question, but simply took CF’s word for it.
“I do want to point this out: Isn’t this post quoted below an ad hominem as well?”
Well, no. According to dictionary.com, an ad hominem is “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.” I did not make a personal attack on either the TLM or people attending the TLM. I did make the assertion that there is a double standard in comments about the two forms of Mass. That assertion that has not been countered, but people did make personal attacks.
My second comment about not (usually) attending the TLM was spoken in frustration. Venting, just like the multitude of other comments on DoR blogs that are venting. If I’m jumped on for making one comment – one comment – compared to the who knows how many on the other side: then you’re holding me to a higher standard than the others.
I stand by my comment that the orthodox parishes aren’t much better than the dissident ones. Tirades against Vatican II are a distraction to worship and give me just as much of a headache as dissent does. In addition, none of the Latin rite parishes I’ve gone to in this diocese are 100% compliant with the rubrics. Obviously, some are much smaller potatoes than others. And no, I’m not going to be more specific than that on a public blog.
I appreciate your civility Dr. K and wish that all discussions could be as civil.
I can’t really comment on what these people were trying to say, or who they were directing these things towards. Again, this could be all the same person, I don’t know.
It’s your call whether or not you want to post anymore, but I hope the craziness of these reader comments will not sour you on stopping by to read the blog posts. Thanks for the info.
Gen, thanks for responding. The more that is clarified this time around, the less to clarify the next time there’s a misunderstanding.
“the “sudden onslought”(sic) I referenced wasn’t directed at anyone in particular.”
I didn’t say you did. I used the phrase “sudden onslaught” as a cue for Dr. K to know which paragraph I meant. The reason I “backtracked and checked” was to ascertain what happened.
I was responding to the comments that were directed specifically to me and to the comment left on the blog. That you received “a barrage of emails” may explain your use of the word “onslaught” but is irrelevant to anything I said as I was addressing the comments directed specifically to me and to the comment left on my blog.
“the fixin’s of a large misunderstanding”
The only “misunderstanding” were the people who made inappropriate comments when they didn’t know which blog was referred to.
“I really hope we can just put all this behind us.”
So do I. It could have ended much earlier if the over-the-top comments had been acknowledged when I first brought them up rather than my having to raise the topic several times.
The rest of your comment is written in such stilted language and so generalized that it’s difficult to know what you’re saying. After wading through it, dressing up your comment in formal language hasn’t changed anything.
If you wish a genuine discussion – unlike the rest of this comment – it would be helpful to be more specific. For instance, when I made a point, I used specific examples so that the other person could read the same thing and then respond. See the above discussion between Dr K and me. Indeed, one of my “posting guidelines” is to give a clear reference.
In other words, dressing up your comment in formal language only makes whatever point you’re trying to make obscure rather than understandable.
“Blogging isn’t about “us.” It is about “Her,” as in the Divinely mandated “Her” of the Holy Catholic Church.”
Then why do you allow your commenters to be so disparaging toward others?
“To let these few detractors divert the attention of this blog….”
Okay, I finally got a shovel to wade through some of this. The bottom line of at least the first part of that sentence is that you find it perfectly acceptable that the comments are rude, insulting, and disparaging. Apparently my giving you the benefit of the doubt was mistaken.
Actually, the entire sentence is a good example of doubletalk and using a lot of words to be as plain as mud.
It would not be a good use of my time to go through the rest of your comment. I wish you well in your spiritual journey. Everyone is indeed on a journey of spiritual growth. Anyone who thinks he or she knows all there is to the spiritual life soon learns differently.