Banned from that place...again

[Allan]

Funny I was actually about to come and post this anyway, and you've already started this thread for me!

I had an amusing experience today on "that place". A couple of months ago I posted a link to an article by Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, which explained why the traditional mass is superior to the novus ordo mass. My post was swiftly deleted without comment and I just let it go.

Today, some people were pointing out that if a traditional Catholic tries to defend themselves or the traditional Catholic faith, that they will receive "infractions", their posts deleted, and ultimately be banned. So I wrote a post mentioning how my post linking to Fr. Ripperger's article had been deleted.

Within 10 minutes, that post was deleted and I received an "infraction" for "discussing moderator actions"  

Hmmm.  My first inclination is to say who cares.  But my next inclination is to say "one for all and all for one".  Perhaps just once we should organize a response.  A plan could look like this:

Draft about 10 boiler plate posts pointing out evidence of moderator bias against traditional Catholics and Catholicism and the unequal application of moderation, with a common theme accusing them of intellectual cowardice, being against the Holy Father's will, etc.  basically attack their credibility.  Have about 50 or so of us create accounts and over the course of one week blitz the with these posts such that they can't possibly keep up with all the banning and deleting.

The goal is to ensure every user sees enough to know what is being done behind their backs to censor us.

Finally, get a Webpage up their with these posts slamming CAF for anti-traditional bias and censorship outing the mods is strong language, but using evidence to show what cowards they are.  Load it up with Google search terms and tags so the same people who find their way to CAF  will see the warning page too.  Perhaps we've shrugged off being kicked to the curb long enough. 

Sort of a "show the truth" campaign.  Or a "we're not going to be your prison b**** anymore" campaign.  A coordinated, concerted all out truth campaign, planned and executed properly.  I'm convinced that anytime a trad starts to make legitimate inroads in an argument they get kneecapped.

[jonbhorton]

Allan,

I don't know how organizing a campaign against what amounts to a business could conceivably include blatant breaking of their rules and still maintain any credibility.

Perhaps putting together a website on the anti-Tradition with examples would be a good thing, but it would have to be very carefully constructed as some of the arguments boil down to just preference.

It would require that documentation be flawless, and the intent is clearly maintained for the truth to be said. It would also need to be directed specifically at the forum, which is only a very small part of CA.

Most who would see it, would already know. Most who would need to see it, won't.

I like the thought, but I don't think flashmobbing the place is going to do anything but prove their (false) point.

[Allan]

I think what tipped my own scales on this was the sheer volume of stories about the rules being abused as cover to shut down any inroads tradition was making in an argument.  I'm sure some posts were truly inappropriate, but most seem to have been punished for nothing more than being right.

The problem is that CAF threads rank high in google searches so that innocent people wind up there to get answers.  They should at least have an opportunity to learn that they may not be getting all the "answers" there.

[jonbhorton]

Oh, yes that is definitely true. But there's also the fine line of what exactly can be enforced or excluded vs immutable doctrine, flexible directives, etc, and even what constitutes those things being themselves.

The international aspect of any major forum also presents a challenge. What flies in the US is unthinkable in other places and vice versa. Not everything applies universally or even concretely.

For example, I'm sure many here would just throw a hissy if they went into a Religious-run parish and the Brothers/Priests were doing something they don't experience in the TLM. Or if the priests refused to even consider celebrating the TLM, were they trained to. But both of those situations might, and should, find the Religious more correct than the visitor because they're doing it according to their Superior, Constitution, and Rule. If the Superior says no TLM for laity, there's just simply no TLM for the laity and it is fine. But those same priests might ONLY perform the TLM for their community per their Superior or Constitution, in communion with the Rule. Then bring in the added confusion of national indults, diocesan indults, and even special permissions for diocesan/secular/religious parishes, etc. Now apply that to people from all over the world discussing those flexible things under the assumption of universal immutability. Yikes.

So when people argue from the perspective of a particular SSPX or FSSP colloquial understanding and permission; African, British, French, American, et al dioceses,  or school of thought, such as Thomism, they might be right from the perspective they think they are arguing it from. In terms of the permissibility and applicability as it varies, they're just simply not aware that their particular experience and understanding isn't the entire norm or rule for the entire Church.

Tabernacle off to the side or in a small room? The horror you say!? Well, that's Benedictine. In a Benedictine run parish, that is totally legit. In the entire Church, I agree it's pretty bogus. The Tabernacle on the Altar? Franciscan. But if forced into the Benedictines, you could literally destroy their spirituality from the level of individual communities to the entirety of the Order by doing that. Not good. Or if Franciscans were forced into adopting the Benedictine method of Tabernacle placement, or any other such thing, it could and likely would place undue and injurious stress on the entire Order; if could render many donated locations of residence out of line with doctrine and liturgical law. Certainly the communities and Orders themselves might go back and forth as needed, but it's as needed for the community.

So it's much more complicated than it seems. Now add to that the discernment each moderator must have, his own political leanings, spiritual leanings, etc.

It can't be boiled down to "that's not truly Catholic", or anti-traditional inroads.

A lot of the issues are, as The Dude put it, just like your opinion, man. Everyone has one and we can all be one if you catch my drift.

[Allan]

I'm not sure any of that undermines my own motivation for suggesting a counter-attack; to wit: alert unsuspecting CAF users that perfectly proper and true "answers" to their questions are being witheld from them by unscrupulous and biased editors.  CAF is, in a way, a petri dish for what ails all places of learning - the exclusion of unpopulor or politically incorrect truths. 

[JayneK]

People who don't like the way that moderation is done on CAF should not post there.  When one joins one agrees to accept the rules.

[jonbhorton]

Yeah, but this place has an element of the other extreme too. Which is worse?

The site is solid. Obviously a forum is a place for opinion. The only exception to this on CAF that I can tell is the Apologetics Q&A subforum which is answered by trained apologists and priests. But anything else should be seen by any rational, thinking person as opinion. One should always dig deeper. There's tons of wrong answers to things on this forum too. But mainside is solid and from a more traditional perspective. CAF is the same thing, but phrased more in the language of the post-Vatican 2 style. Their mainside tracts section is a goldmine.

There are some folks on there that have a solid traditional understanding of doctrine and they correct many things.

Can't save the world bro. The best option is to try to present the doctrine with proof.

How about a sort of monitoring site where trends are studied and documented, and the most pressing issues of misunderstanding are answered in a non-confrontational manner. Could call it "CAF Gaffe: A Silly bus of errors", or keep the Silly Bus and rework it into a sort of made up "dear Apologist" theme so as not to alert the CAF staff when you post it. Then, go on CAF, participate kindly as you can, spread the link, and get em gushing about how wrong they all are.

That's free, I won't charge for that one.