I just fired Winchester

[dUSt]

Well, I can't remember why I made Benedictus phishy, but it was for some reason. I don't assign that label lightly, and I usually communicate it to the member through the warning system. So, if nobody remembers why, I guess I'll remove it.

[Ash Wednesday]

Well, I can't remember why I made Benedictus phishy, but it was for some reason. I don't assign that label lightly, and I usually communicate it to the member through the warning system. So, if nobody remembers why, I guess I'll remove it.

Thanks for clarifying the process for us!

Sounds like maybe it was one of those fluke things. 

[veritasluxmea]

Well, I can't remember why I made Benedictus phishy, but it was for some reason. I don't assign that label lightly, and I usually communicate it to the member through the warning system. So, if nobody remembers why, I guess I'll remove it.

Ok, I remember. You didn't give it out lightly and it wasn't a fluke. Ben directly contradicted Church teachings in several threads on the same topic, both in Open Mike and later in Debate Table. I'd like to give him a chance to explain himself (maybe it was all just a huge misunderstanding, or he's developed since then) so I'll let him have his say in the other thread. 

[dUSt]

Ok, I remember. You didn't give it out lightly and it wasn't a fluke. Ben directly contradicted Church teachings in several threads on the same topic, both in Open Mike and later in Debate Table. I'd like to give him a chance to explain himself (maybe it was all just a huge misunderstanding, or he's developed since then) so I'll let him have his say in the other thread. 

If you remember the topic or can provide a link it would be super helpful in eliminating my paranoia of early onset Alzheimers. 

[Nihil Obstat]

The Phishy tag has been, and IMO should continue to be used to identify those posters who, while not claiming to be Catholic, do claim to understand Catholic teaching yet actually misrepresent it. Prime examples being Reyb and Dairy Queen.

[veritasluxmea]

If you remember the topic or can provide a link it would be super helpful in eliminating my paranoia of early onset Alzheimers. 

Ok. You're fine. It started here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/135984-where-i39ve-been-and-where-i39m-at/ 

and ended up overflowing to this lovely gem (ugh reading how people confuse natural law and nature hurt. This thread was painful to dig up): 

and ended here (another painful read):

There were two issues of confusion: One, was that Ben (appeared to be) supported a dissenting Jesuit priest who had incorrect theories/beliefs on sexuality. FP was "out front" in confronting him about it, and then later I jumped in, but FP and myself weren't the only one who was confused by what Ben had posted. Second, it looked like Ben thought you can change your sex/gender by having reassignment surgery and/or suffering from gender identity disorder. Before given the phisy label though... it should have been pointed out to him and he should have had some time to explain himself. 

Anyways it looks like you cleared up in that other thread! Reading over Ben's past posts it does look like Ben was simply being unclear in his recommendations. 

 

[Norseman82]

Wow this was fun to read, but it must be pretty embarrassing for you all having all that dirty laundry in public.

 

"We need it every 5-10 years.  Clears out the bad blood" - Pete Clemenza, "The Godfather"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69IvMs--aKA

[Benedictus]

@veritasluxmea Yes, I think the last thread link was the one that caused this.  It was over a year ago but you'll see on page 6 though, of the last link you gave, FP apologised to me regarding that conversation, or at least part of it. I also said plenty of times that my personal position was with the church. It maybe got lost in the flow of posts.  I do think though that compassion and respecting people is important and that applied specifically to the first or second link when I felt it better to take the apporach I did. Horses for courses. The area I think probably wasn't addressed well, if it was addressed at all, was natural law. Since then I've found Fr. John Hollowell very useful. Check him out.

Anyway, I don't think I supported any specific theorist or priest, as far as I can see, although various people were mentioned as part of the scope of those threads. Sometimes you can't dodge certain people if they appear alot in academic fields, whether you agree with them or not. A couple of the academics, at least two mentioned, are covered in units in a fair few Catholic seminaries.

But by looking at the threads I can see how dealing with secular analysis alongside theological questions probably gives the wrong impression. Not everyone sees the intentions of posts and people the same way. Fair enough. I like taking different views and using them to expand a debate as it's how I work out thoughts and build a stronger faith in what I believe. Others, so it seems, don't like doing that.  That's fine. I've largely given up doing that through online public forums now anyway, partly as I have been asked to do so by superiors but also because I'm practically more occupied with my novitiate placements and stuff now.

@dUSt I didn't get a warning message but I would have accepted an objective ticking off if it was thought necessary at the time

 

[Winchester]

I am the topic here, you imbeciles. Focus.

[Gabriela]

@veritasluxmea Yes, I think the last thread link was the one that caused this.  It was over a year ago but you'll see on page 6 though, of the last link you gave, FP apologised to me regarding that conversation, or at least part of it. I also said plenty of times that my personal position was with the church. It maybe got lost in the flow of posts.  I do think though that compassion and respecting people is important and that applied specifically to the first or second link when I felt it better to take the apporach I did. Horses for courses. The area I think probably wasn't addressed well, if it was addressed at all, was natural law. Since then I've found Fr. John Hollowell very useful. Check him out.

Anyway, I don't think I supported any specific theorist or priest, as far as I can see, although various people were mentioned as part of the scope of those threads. Sometimes you can't dodge certain people if they appear alot in academic fields, whether you agree with them or not. A couple of the academics, at least two mentioned, are covered in units in a fair few Catholic seminaries.

But by looking at the threads I can see how dealing with secular analysis alongside theological questions probably gives the wrong impression. Not everyone sees the intentions of posts and people the same way. Fair enough. I like taking different views and using them to expand a debate as it's how I work out thoughts and build a stronger faith in what I believe. Others, so it seems, don't like doing that.  That's fine. I've largely given up doing that through online public forums now anyway, partly as I have been asked to do so by superiors but also because I'm practically more occupied with my novitiate placements and stuff now.

@dUSt I didn't get a warning message but I would have accepted an objective ticking off if it was thought necessary at the time

 

 

Well, I'm glad it's been cleared up, and I apologize that I thought you were branded "phishy" because of sedevacantist tendencies. I must have had you confused with someone else!

[Benedictus]

[Didacus]

Dust - you are the son-of-a-great, no dispute here.  

 

I really liked Winchester so I don't think I should say much more.   

[Laudate_Dominum]

Winchester is a hero. This is insane.

[Ash Wednesday]

 

I really liked Winchester so I don't think I should say much more.   

 

Winchester is a hero. This is insane.

Is he dead?

Last I checked, Winnie is still here and cursing like a St. Louis Blues fan.

[PhuturePriest]

Some thoughts I had while reading this thread:

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the llamas of drama!

It's nice to know that I am still mentioned, even despite my gaping absence. 

It is not so nice to read past threads (which are too close to the present for comfort) wherein I was very aggressive and acted like a hat fitted upon a backside. But oh well. Personal growth and maturity and all that jazz.

Anyway, I must put my mighty fetus foot down on this. Everyone, be nice. You're not allowed to have drama without me. I thought that was implied when I left for the internship. If you can't contain yourself, at the very least message me so I may view the drama as it's happening, rather than looking at its aftermath like a traveler walking through a bombed out city.