Is combox censoring a lie?

Comments are the very air we bloggers breathe. It shows that there is someone out there who reads and, occasionally cares. I do not look for bouquets, that is not my purpose in blogging; I do expect brickbats as I hold fast to the view that, in an universal church you will get a wide range of views (at least on matters non doctrinal).
I am trying also to keep an air of humility here (and it's hard!)  over the fact that, quite often we verily thrive on a little lively debate, of being slapped down from time to time; it is, I think, a very traditionalist outlook and in my earlier, formative years I remember my six brothers and sisters holding forth on faith matters and this being a very essential part of understanding and at the same time accepting the stance taken by others. It may be one reason why Liberal Catholics accuse us Traditionalists of being 'right wing' or 'extreme', they do not have the benefit of a background of homespun apologetics (among many other things).

I allow every comment in my combox except blasphemous or ones rudely disrespectful to God or His people; I am sure that 99.9% of Catholic bloggers do the same.
Ergo, I expect the same in return. A polite comment from me to a fellow blogger should be published. If it is not, it constitutes a lie because that person is shielding their readers from full exposure to the truth of comments expressing an opposing view.

It also indicates a rather appalling lack of belief in themselves. They must be terribly insecure individuals if they cannot stomach a little opposition.
And what impression does it leave their faithful readers with? Ah, perhaps we get to the nub; the impression must be that the blogger concerned is wonderful, enlightening and entertaining because - you see.....no one ever contradicts them!

So, come on Auntie...you keep doing this to me.....try a little honesty for a change!

Labels and a censoring of honest comments

Left Footer has been speaking out against the labels that most of us grasp at so quickly in today's society....'racist'  'nazi',  'right winger', 'left winger', 'liberal', 'modernist' and so on.
They are convenient tags for the indolent or those who wish to savage idly. I am as guilty as the next person, after all, what label does a 'modern' Catholic wish to be known by? Or, for that matter, how does a 'traditionalist' wish to be classified?
I can hear the scraping of chairs and the rush for the mogadon right now...."We are all Catholics" you were about to shout at me, and this is, of course the case.
But we are all Catholics with a very distinct variance in colours and we do need a polite way of referring to each other so that we do not cause offence.




Auntie Joanna doyenne of chintzy Catholicism



I am a tad offended by that most lovable of characters, that matron of Catholic chintziness, dear old Auntie Joanna herself. That is a signal for an avalanche of comment stating that only an 'beep' extremist could make such a comment about such a dearly beloved member of the laity but, hang on to your keyboards...here's my side of the story.

I have a confession to make, I do take an occasional peek at Auntie J's blog. It is not quite my cup of gin but she does have a certain cosy chugginess about her that makes it like sitting down before a roaring fire eating buttered crumpets and quaffing gallons of Earl Grey and reading The Universe.
Recently, I was bold enough to make a comment (actually it was my second in about 6 weeks). I was slightly miffed (you see how easy it is to drop into character here?) by the following piece in which she referred, in a  rather perjorative fashion to "Lefebvrists) by which I assume she means followers of the Society of St Pius X. Now, I am not a "follower" of the SSPX as such. They have been vital friends to me in the past and, if I was stuck for a Sunday Mass I would certainly go to one of theirs with no qualms and complete legitimacy in the eyes of the Church.
We do know, do we not, that the Holy Father is making massive moves in order to bring about a full reconciliation with these souls? We do appreciate that Catholic unity, even above Christian unity, is a goal for which we all should strive, do we not?
Well, those are my beliefs anyway and so, in a temperate manner I responded to Auntie J but....some few days later....has she published my comments?...has she? Dim as they say in Wales meaning No, she damn well has not.

You may judge her piece for yourself, my highlights are in red (the parts I object to)
here it is.....

Monday, December 13, 2010

The Holy Father...

...talking to Peter Seewald in the new book mentions in particular one of the New Movements in the Church : the Heralds of the Gospel. I was struck by this - because they have a London base not far from where I live, and I have had some contact with them, and they are splendid! In fact, just as I was settling down to read the book, they had been on my mind as I want to invite them to take part in one of the projects I am planning for the New Year. So it was particular delight to get their latest magazine - which came with a covering letter noting with joy the special mention given to them by the Pope in the new book!

BTW, Lefevbrists will not want to read the book, as it reveals the quiet wisdom of the Pope on significant issues where they will be at variance with him and with the Church. They will also not like an authoritative document now published: Verbum Domini, the Pope's new post-Synodical Exhortation on the Word of God. It quotes Vatican II extensively, highlights strongly the importance of the Church's friendship and dialogue with the Jews, emphasises the rich abundance of Scripture now offered to the faithful at Sunday Mass and gives good advice on how this is to be honoured in the liturgy, speaks well of ecumenical initiatives, and highlights modern saints (Teresa of Calcutta, Edith Stein, Josemaria Escriva) alongside older ones. Watch out for attempts to rubbish this document or belittle its authority. Meanwhile, get a copy and read it yourself - it's inspirational, and full of practical advice ( praying with the Scriptures, how to improve the standard of reading at Mass, importance of each family having a Bible, need to see the Scriptures as belonging to the Church, avoidence of fundamentalist interpretations.)

ends/.......................

Now this is not the end of the world you will appreciate but I did think it worth picking up on, hence my comment to her.

If I had been abusive or insulting in my comment then by all means censor it but I think that bloggers should have an obligation to feature a comment even if it is critical or presenting a view that one disagrees with. Mrs Bogle's post carries a great deal of innuendo with it, not what one expects at afternoon tea in the Shires. I am firmly of the belief that a large percentage of LMS members are also closet SSPXers! The audience of those who might be dubbed "Lefebvrists" may be larger than one thinks.

That's my rant over with, now back to the label issue.

Since starting this blog some 6 or 7 weeks ago, I have been called the following: extremist/fundamentalist/right winger/bigot and you may mix any or all of these to obtain the longer epithets!

How then would I describe myself? Well, as it says on the tin "Orthodox" That's a good and polite and honest appraisal of my stance. But where does that leave those at the other end of the scale? Unorthodox? Not quite so complimentary.

Any suggestions as to how we can label each other will be gratefully received.

Many years ago when starting out on my career in the Education sector I observed two sets of lecturers away from College on a training day. They were split into Groups A and B by the organisers. This produced an objection: Group B felt second rate, they wanted another designation.

Someone suggested Groups 1 and 2 only to receive the same comment. The wrangling continued for nearly three hours until they settled on a suitably non discriminatory name for each Group.

What had they settled for ? Pixies and Elves!!!!!!

Is this a style that we could possibly adopt?

Yours

Puck