I'm not critical of anyone who defends the faith well.
I'll admit my style is unique but I don't think it ineffective. I expect folk's rhetoric will match their personality and I do admit it is within the realm of possibility that some will not embrace my joy in arguing the faith. Scientists have discovered an "arguing" gene and genetic counselors have told me mine is the size of a Sacajaewan Golden Dollar so I really cannot be blamed.
I am certainly not solicitious of those that attack the faith. Your actions disprove that.
I have spent just as much time and energy on this forum defending the faith against schismatics over the last year as you have.
I don't keep a tally so I will concede that point. See, I can be as generous as the next guy :)
I also realize that the current massive crisis and multiple scandals have lead some folks recently into asking questions they never otherwise would have asked and drawing erroneous conclusions they never otherwise would have drawn. In other words, things have changed over the last 6 months.
Yes, they have, and schismatics using the atmosphere of uncertainity contributed to by the sexual abuse scandal as an occasion to attack decisions of the Pope regarding Communion in the Chaldean Communion makes sense to you? I see no connection but I do see some in the Crowd rushing to pile additonal burdens on the Cross this Pope bears so gracefully.
I'm not willing to paint every Catholic who enters the fray here as a hidden schismatic with a nefarious agenda. Nor am I. I singled out this gentleman because his very first post, I think, was to me and it was a non sequitur response to a post of mine linking to a site that warned readers that SSPX confessions are invalid. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked for a link to source his point and things took off from there. I know I didn't BEGIN my Freeper career by attacking The Magisterium on my very first day in my very first post, but, maybe you did. I highly doubt it though. And I cannot think of another Catholic Freeper who joined up and the very first post on the very first day attacked The Mgisterium. So, call me overly-suspicious if you desire. I think of myself as a perceptive realist.
First, its counterprioductive, and second, its ascribing motives and judgemental. It is called identifying what you see before you. It is calling a spade a spade.
Third, your approach is strong on vocab words, agreed bluster, Just a tip - next time try "Your rebarbative rhetoric is reprehensible. It is alliterative and memorable and slur, My complaints have been sourced, proven and unresponded to. I have repeatedly challenged your friend to produce any countervailing evidence and he hasn't but weak on wisdom and results I have already admitted a deficency in wisdom and I know mine doesn't even approach your manifested wisdom, so, I admit my weakness and play to my strength but by freeper mailbox is not without praise and encouragement from both participants and lurkers.
I can be thought of as a "Popeye" Catholic. I yam what I yam..and I do the best with what God has given me to Defend the Faith that I love. It appears I have been a disappointment to you. C'est le Vie. One can't please everyone :)
"I'll admit my style is unique but I don't think it ineffective."
The posters here who are responding to your style see you in a light that you don't see yourself. You could learn from them by trying to see yourself through their eyes.
"Yes, they have, and schismatics using the atmosphere of uncertainity contributed to by the sexual abuse scandal as an occasion to attack decisions of the Pope regarding Communion in the Chaldean Communion makes sense to you?"
For all your insults and ill-treatment, the poster in question didn't give an inch to you. How effective. Additionally, because you didn't take the time to engage the poster in a well-mannered way, you didn't even make clear why the Church is right, and the poster was wrong. How very effective.
On the other hand, Catholicguy, if you dig up the exchange between the poster and myself, you'll find that after a relatively short, polite, but fact-focused exchange, the poster in question conceded the point, that the Assyrian Church of the East is not heretical, thus vitiating his claim that our Holy Father had introduced intercommunion with a heretical rite.
Now, you may be right that at times the poster in question has posted aggressively. You may be right that we aren't required in natural justice to always treat him gently. But that really isn't the question. The question is whether or not we are using our gifts as best as we can, rather than how we want to use them.
All good Catholics here acknowlege your: knowledge; intelligence; wit; love of faith, Church, and the Holy Father.
We only wish that you would learn enough self-discipline to engage others in a way that serves them in charity, rather than in some other way, for who knows what reasons.
"...I do admit it is within the realm of possibility that some will not embrace my joy in arguing the faith."
Well, yes. In fact, posters walk away from you in bitterness and disgust, not because of what you have to say, but how you say it. Even when they may agree with you. That's just about the opposite of being effective.
I'm sure you have your supporters, though I wonder whether they might not be folks similarly inclined to argue in a like manner. I also wonder how many posts you receive from folks who started far from faith but who have been brought a little closer as a result of your words. Your words can be great fun if one is a member of the choir to which you're preaching. I doubt many outside the church (literally and figuratively) are so moved.
Let the scandal be the Cross of Christ, not your "style".
"Scientists have discovered an 'arguing' gene and genetic counselors have told me mine is the size of a Sacajaewan Golden Dollar so I really cannot be blamed."
I know that you're kidding, because such an argument would be beneath you. However, in light of the current conversation, I don't know if anyone other than you is laughing.
"My complaints have been sourced, proven and unresponded to. I have repeatedly challenged your friend to produce any countervailing evidence and he hasn't."
Many who are reading the exchange don't really care about your complaints being sourced, proven and unresponded to. Your style is so offensive, that little else comes through, and so folks have sympathy for the other guy, whether he's right or wrong. Many who are reading the exchange don't expect another poster to respond substantively to the substance that you mix with vitriol and insults. People believe, rightly, that no one should be expected to respond substantively in the face of such abuse.
Finally, with regard to your exchange, and then e-mail, to Colleen, I was a little surprised to find you act in such an ungentlemanly manner.
sitetest