Roman Catholic Subforum/Moderation

hinault

-Chris- wrote: »

FFS, the request was rejected in February after several months/pages of discussion.
Everyone can see that, it's blatantly obvious.

Trying to so obviously twist the facts in your favour and thereby change history, does a disservice to your argument and shows scant respect for the other posters here.

From our perspective it is immaterial when the request was rejected, Chris.

The fact that it took over 7 months for a decision to leave things the way they are is the point that I'm making.

Insect Overlord

hinault wrote: »

From our perspective it is immaterial when the request was rejected, Chris.

Then why keep beating the inaccurate "It was rejected a year ago!" drum?

hinault wrote: »

The fact that it took over 7 months for a decision to leave things the way they are is the point that I'm making.

There are other proposals running for longer than seven months. Patience comes in handy around here.

hinault

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Then why keep beating the inaccurate "It was rejected a year ago!" drum?

There are other proposals running for longer than seven months. Patience comes in handy around here.

I don't want to get in to a semantic argument here but from our perspective the fact is that the status quo has been maintained.
That is the central point as I see it.

Beruthiel

hinault wrote: »

The fact that it took over 7 months for a decision to leave things the way they are is the point that I'm making.

Exactly how long would you like the decision to take?

I've given you all the answers you need on this thread and you haven't replied to any of my comments.

-Chris-

hinault wrote: »

From our perspective it is immaterial when the request was rejected, Chris.

It's been asked before, and I'll ask it again - what's changed since the last decision was made on this by a boards.ie Administrator?
Has there been a dramatic change in the religious demographic of Christianity forum in the last 4 months? Have there been earth-shaking developments in the last 4 months that support the existing (and recent) decision be overturned?

hinault wrote: »

The fact that it took over 7 months for a decision to leave things the way they are is the point that I'm making.

OK, so you're not actually asking for a new forum, you're giving feedback on the length of the decision making process on boards.ie?
You should probably get the thread title changed then, because that's not with I'm reading in this thread...

Insect Overlord

hinault wrote: »

I don't want to get in to a semantic argument here but from our perspective the fact is that the status quo has been maintained.
That is the central point as I see it.

I'm not arguing semantics either. I'm just pointing out the farcical inconsistencies in your ideas.

What's wrong with the status quo anyway? Is there a reason why RC posters should be exempt from the same rules as everyone else?

looksee

hinault wrote: »

Let me answer your points.

I have no difficulty in discussing/interacting with fellow Christians in relation to subject matter that is common to the various strands of Christian belief and practice.
But it is futile and dishonest to suggest that Roman Catholicism is the same as
any of the Protestant denominations in terms of doctrine etc.
Sure there are areas where there is commonality but this is dwarfed by what makes each strand of belief distinct.

While I'm happy to engage in general discussions concerning issues like Ecumenism with fellow Christian members, there are plenty of issues that are RC specific which I would like to engage with my fellow RC members in a separate forum on Boards.

You haven't actually answered any of my points, just repeated yourself (again).

Nobody is arguing that RC-ism is the same as Protestant denominations in terms of doctrine. That difference is what makes it all the more interesting for open discussion.

If you want to discuss really obscure minutea, and there is no reason why you shouldn't, it wouldn't really be of any interest to non-RCs and if they threw in off-topic derailers you can report and ignore them. What happens when RCs disagree with you though? Is the forum only for RCs who agree totally with doctrine? How can you 'discuss' that? How do you define who is let in?

LoLth

Mod hat on

Ok enough.

Hinault, you havent answered anyone's questions nor have you presented any new argument for the need for a RC sub-forum besides the fact that you and a few mates want it.

where are these mates? why have they not posted here? Can you ask them to share their views please? Perhaps they would be more forthcoming with answers than you have been so far.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the request was rejected in February 2011. It has been linked to. all of your reasons are already in that thread and it got rejected.

Either come up with something new or accept that this discussion will have the same conclusion as the previous one and this thread will be closed.

You are currently running very close to the line of soapboxing/trolling (posting to get a rise without any intention of discussion or interaction). Please take a moment before your next response to think about what you are going to post and what you are trying to achieve with this thread.

As things stand, everything points to a NO answer. You want exclusion and seclusion based on religious beliefs. You are asking us to appoint a mod based on their religion as opposed to their ability to moderate. Should we do the same for women and men ratios as well? perhaps we need a more ethnically diverse mod squad and we should ask mods their nationality and ethnicity as well? You actually *want* us to introduce this when its the one thing Boards has always been trying to avoid. I'm not saying its always goign to be a no answer but its going to take a much more convincing argument than you have made so far to make it happen.

could I ask users not to respond to this thread until Hinaut has a chance to respond. He cant be expected to answer everyone if everyone keeps firing questions his way. In the interest of being fair, lets give the guy a chance to catch his breath and address the questions he has missed so far if they are relevant.

thanks

LoLth

hinault

LoLth wrote: »

Mod hat on

Ok enough.

Hinault, you havent answered anyone's questions nor have you presented any new argument for the need for a RC sub-forum besides the fact that you and a few mates want it.

where are these mates? why have they not posted here? Can you ask them to share their views please? Perhaps they would be more forthcoming with answers than you have been so far.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the request was rejected in February 2011. It has been linked to. all of your reasons are already in that thread and it got rejected.

Either come up with something new or accept that this discussion will have the same conclusion as the previous one and this thread will be closed.

You are currently running very close to the line of soapboxing/trolling (posting to get a rise without any intention of discussion or interaction). Please take a moment before your next response to think about what you are going to post and what you are trying to achieve with this thread.

As things stand, everything points to a NO answer. You want exclusion and seclusion based on religious beliefs. You are asking us to appoint a mod based on their religion as opposed to their ability to moderate. Should we do the same for women and men ratios as well? perhaps we need a more ethnically diverse mod squad and we should ask mods their nationality and ethnicity as well? You actually *want* us to introduce this when its the one thing Boards has always been trying to avoid. I'm not saying its always goign to be a no answer but its going to take a much more convincing argument than you have made so far to make it happen.

could I ask users not to respond to this thread until Hinaut has a chance to respond. He cant be expected to answer everyone if everyone keeps firing questions his way. In the interest of being fair, lets give the guy a chance to catch his breath and address the questions he has missed so far if they are relevant.

thanks

LoLth

A decision has been taken. It's a decision that I and several others members strongly disagree with. We think it's the wrong decision.
We believe that the reasons given for the creation of the subforum have merit.

In relation as to why the other posters who hold this same view have not posted, I need to remind you that they were banned on Monday for voicing opinions.
Whether that ban extends to here I am not sure.
But go to the Christianity forum and see the threads that are locked and the people who created them and perhaps you can PM them to ascertain why they want a RC subforum? (if they can respond to PM's???).

I don't think that there is any point in continuing on this conversation at this point.
We all know where we stand on this topic.

LoLth

so again there is the eponymous "we". They are your friends and colleagues, if you want them to post here to support your assertion that there is a need for an RC sub-forum then please ask them to do so.

From what I can tell, the ban is from the Christianity forum also, agian, if they have an issue with it, let htem take it to the Dispute resolution forum.

this , however, is feedback and so far your feedback has been:

not fair: users banned for spamming threads after being warned not to.

this is completely fair. they were warned, they opened multiple threads as some sort of protest, they got the consequences. Those users chose their course of action, the mods know tha tto be fair to all users they have to react in a particular way, the ban is entirely the user's own fault in this instance.

your second bit of feedback is: RC subforum is wanted.

As has already been demonstrated, this was discussed and refused already. you have no new reasons for the subforum other than "we want it". well, you cant have it unless you can provide a good enough reason and seeing as the reasons given before were not deemed enough to warrant a sub-forum, its going to have to be something new.

I don't think that there is any point in continuing on this conversation at this point.
We all know where we stand on this topic.

No. you know where we stand, you still havent expanded on your assertion of a need for a sub-forum. I am offering you, and the others from the Christianity forum an opportunity to have your say as openly and as honestly as you wish. If you see that as "pointless" then there's really nothign more I can do for you. I'm not going to create a sub forum just on the off chance that there may be a need for it in the future and i'm certianly not going to tell members of other faiths that they are not allowed access to it just on the desires of , from what I can tell, a handful of users who have already demonstrated that they are happy to cause disruption and detract from everyone else's community if they dont get their way. Currently the cause for a Roman Catholic sub-forum is on the back foot. here's your opportunity to get it taken seriously by engaging in an open and honest discussion. Throw up your hands now and say "forget it" and I can guarantee that any future suggestion for this subforum will have two failed prior threads to be pointed to a response.

hinault

LoLth wrote: »

so again there is the eponymous "we". They are your friends and colleagues, if you want them to post here to support your assertion that there is a need for an RC sub-forum then please ask them to do so.

They're members of the site who share my point of view as regards a RC subforum as instanced by the fact their attempts to discuss this matter were terminated and that they were banned.

As I replied to you directly earlier today - I don't know whether those posters have access to be able to reply.
If you're so concerned about their views as you claim to be - you can PM each of the banned users to ascertain their point of view.
All you have to do is go to the Christianity thread, see the 8 locked threads,
list the usernames and PM them.

LoLth wrote: »

No. you know where we stand, you still havent expanded on your assertion of a need for a sub-forum. I am offering you, and the others from the Christianity forum an opportunity to have your say as openly and as honestly as you wish. If you see that as "pointless" then there's really nothign more I can do for you. I'm not going to create a sub forum just on the off chance that there may be a need for it in the future and i'm certianly not going to tell members of other faiths that they are not allowed access to it just on the desires of , from what I can tell, a handful of users who have already demonstrated that they are happy to cause disruption and detract from everyone else's community if they dont get their way. Currently the cause for a Roman Catholic sub-forum is on the back foot. here's your opportunity to get it taken seriously by engaging in an open and honest discussion. Throw up your hands now and say "forget it" and I can guarantee that any future suggestion for this subforum will have two failed prior threads to be pointed to a response.

Yesterday I listed the reasons why I think a RC subforum is required.
What is the point in my listing the same reasons again and again?
As I stated earlier today, a decision has been taken regardless of the reasons I put forward.

All of which is old ground which I told you earlier today.
Why do you now insist on asking the same questions while not accepting the answers anyhow?

This really is a pointless conversation.


For the record these were the reasons I listed yesterday for the creation of a subforum.

hinault wrote: »

There are several.

First of all, prefix for threads asking for RC views only in the Christianity Forum appear to be ignored by the respondees.
I'll grant you that it is impossible to police who can/can't respond to a post on an open forum but in a restricted forum, there can be restricted access.

Second as a RC, it would be great to be able to discuss issues here on Boards with my fellow RC's in a designated area of Boards.

Third within the Christianity forum, several threads have become little more than slagging matches between the proponents of different Protestant denomination and their RC counterparts.
The result of which the moderators had to create a combined thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056276995
The OP clearly shows that there was deliberate goading on both sides of the theological divide.
To remove the need for the overworked moderators at Christianity, a separate RC forum would help the moderators in their workload and it would allows RC's to discuss issues with likeminded posters.

We all know where we stand on this issue.

And I repeat, for the second time, it is pointless us continuing this conversation.

Fanny Cradock

hinault wrote: »

A decision has been taken. It's a decision that I and several others members strongly disagree with. We think it's the wrong decision.
We believe that the reasons given for the creation of the subforum have merit.

In relation as to why the other posters who hold this same view have not posted, I need to remind you that they were banned on Monday for voicing opinions.
Whether that ban extends to here I am not sure.
But go to the Christianity forum and see the threads that are locked and the people who created them and perhaps you can PM them to ascertain why they want a RC subforum? (if they can respond to PM's???).

I don't think that there is any point in continuing on this conversation at this point.
We all know where we stand on this topic.

To reiterate something I've stated a couple of times in the past. The bans will not be lifted - at least not by me. Of course, the people in question can make their case on DR if they think I acted disproportionately.

Onto other matters. I object to a RC only forum for the same reasons I have stated in previous Forum Requests threads. All of that is on record for anyone to read. But you seem to be missing something here, hinault. Whatever about my personal opinions on the wisdom of a RC forum, I don't get to make decisions on the viability of any new forum, nor does PDN. You are confusing my personal opinions with an authoritative proclamation.

While I can voice my thoughts on the issue of a RC forum -- as I have done in the past -- it isn't clear to me if my opinion carries any extra weight with the people who actually do make these decisions. That I can close threads, issue infractions and have my name appear in bold is, as far as I am aware, an irrelevance when it comes to new forums. I tried to explain this in the various threads that appeared again and again. I also tried to explain this in the 20 or so PMs that I spent HOURS replying to. Apparently none of you guys were interested in listening what with the frenzy of outraged spamming going on. The various protesters may as well have spammed the Wanderly Wagon forum and the result would have been the same. I don't make the decisions with respect to new forums.

The 8 threads started about additional moderators and new forums were locked because -
A) the Christianity forum is about Christianity, not organisational matters relating to Boards
the message was not being headed. If I locked the first thread because it was not suitable for the Christianity forum then I'm going to lock the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th.

People received bans because they ignored in thread warnings and even a special thread I started to outline the futility of spamming the forum.

hinault

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To reiterate something I've stated a couple of times in the past. The bans will not be lifted - at least not by me. Of course, the people in question can make their case on DR if they think I acted disproportionately.

Onto other matters. I object to a RC only forum for the same reasons I have stated in previous Forum Requests threads. All of that is on record for anyone to read. But you seem to be missing something here, hinault. Whatever about my personal opinions on the wisdom of a RC forum, I don't get to make decisions on the viability of any new forum, nor does PDN. You are confusing my personal opinions with an authoritative proclamation.

While I can voice my thoughts on the issue of a RC forum -- as I have done in the past -- it isn't clear to me if my opinion carries any extra weight with the people who actually do make these decisions. That I can close threads, issue infractions and have my name appear in bold is, as far as I am aware, an irrelevance when it comes to new forums. I tried to explain this in the various threads that appeared again and again. I also tried to explain this in the 20 or so PMs that I spent HOURS replying to. Apparently none of you guys were interested in listening what with the frenzy of outraged spamming going on. The various protesters may as well have spammed the Wanderly Wagon forum and the result would have been the same. I don't make the decisions with respect to new forums.

The 8 threads started about additional moderators and new forums were locked because -
A) the Christianity forum is about Christianity, not organisational matters relating to Boards
the message was not being headed. If I locked the first thread because it was not suitable for the Christianity forum then I'm going to lock the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th.

People received bans because they ignored in thread warnings and even a special thread I started to outline the futility of spamming the forum.

You took the action you saw fit to take, FC.
I think that this is a separate discussion with respect.

I raised the issue of the creation of a RC subforum here in the Feedback section.
The reason for raising the issue of a RC subforum here is because the
issue could not be discussed in the Christianity Forum on Monday.

For the record, I told you directly on Monday that I accepted your assurances that neither you or PDN were responsible for creating subforums or the appointment of moderators. I accept those assurances.

hinault

Folks, I'm out of this discussion from here on.

lmaopml

I am actually amazed that you have been left to post here all on your own hinault, and some of those who were involved seem to be elsewhere on boards talking *&I!....madness!

Anyway, I wasn't online at the time and from what I can ascertain Fanny was within his rights to close those threads and ban people who were not listening to reason at the time.

I'm not for an RC only forum - although I saw somebody mention some kind of 'group' thing on boards that people can set up???? Don't know much about that tbh, but it could be an alternative?

The mods on the Christianity forum do a reasonable job on possibly one of the hardest forums on boards to moderate. I, like yourself hinault have been frustrated at times, but not to the extent that I would like to see Christianity have another schism I think it would probably kill off both forums by splitting it.

Anyway, as for another day to day mod for Christianity, whether they are RC or no - that perhaps could have been a good idea. Although I don't know if we have our 'quota' already? I don't know if a request for that has been somewhat hijacked by the actions of a few rebels without a cause.

Fair play hinault, at least you bothered going the proper route.

LoLth

just for completion's sake:

There are several.

First of all, prefix for threads asking for RC views only in the Christianity Forum appear to be ignored by the respondees.
I'll grant you that it is impossible to police who can/can't respond to a post on an open forum but in a restricted forum, there can be restricted access.

the issue of posters ignoring title requests is a mix between a moderation issue and whether or not the title request is valid. for example posting "RC responses only: arent all X believer stupid" would not be ok but "RC responses only please: what exactly is the divine mystery" would be ok and someone else posting "in X church we define it as ...." would be off topic as the thread is specifically concerning the RC definition. now whether it is off topic enough towarrant mod action is again a moderation issue.

Second as a RC, it would be great to be able to discuss issues here on Boards with my fellow RC's in a designated area of Boards.

it would be great but is it necessary. is there no other alternative? does it go against the established ethos of the forums and if so, is it worth discarding that ethos or rule in light of the request? If RC get a subforum, then the floodgates are open for every organised religion to demand a sub-forum of their own regardless of whether or not people think they are valid beliefs or not. religion is religion.

Third within the Christianity forum, several threads have become little more than slagging matches between the proponents of different Protestant denomination and their RC counterparts.
The result of which the moderators had to create a combined thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056276995
The OP clearly shows that there was deliberate goading on both sides of the theological divide.
To remove the need for the overworked moderators at Christianity, a separate RC forum would help the moderators in their workload and it would allows RC's to discuss issues with likeminded posters.

then the posts should be reported and not responded to, turn the other cheek so to speak. it takes two to hold a slagging match, if its just one then its abuse and we have rules to deal with that situation.


I'm not going to chase down posters who cause trouble just because they get told no. if its important to them, then let them make their opinion heard and here is the opportunity for that. One of the posters that started one of the threads actually posted that they never post in Christianity anyway... he actually only posted because a mod asked people not to.

The bans imposed were 7 day forum level bans. the users are fully capable of posting here and responding to PMs.

and while you did post some reasons you havent posted the one thing that could make your request hold any water: whats changed since the last request for this forum was rejected? what is there that wasnt said the last time? is there something the admins missed that could make the difference.

however, you dont see any point in answering any questions or continuing the discussion which is a tad disappointing as you have been offered a place for your concerns and now you are choosing not to make use of it.

I admit, I'm against the idea of a sub-forum for Roman catholic discussion but I am open to discussion and , if you convince me I would certainly present your arguments to the other admins. its up to you.

Donatello

There is a need for a Catholic forum/sub-forum.

Catholics need a place were they can discuss matters between themselves without sniping and interference. We can't discuss fine points or serious issues without clampits coming in and disrupting proceedings with endless rabbit holes, and it always happens.

How many Catholic threads are allowed to descend to slagging matches about sex abuse?

It's really tiresome. If it's not sex abuse it's some other thing like the wealth of the Vatican, Crusades, bad Popes, etc....

We used to be able to have Catholic only thread titles, but that was taken from us.

I would advocate either the return of Catholic-only threads, strictly enforced (which they weren't before) or else a separate Catholic forum/sub-forum.

As a separate issue, I think there is a need for a Catholic moderator to balance it out. There needs to be that balance and equality.

We're all supposed to be banging on about eqaulity/diversity/pluralism/tolerance, but in this case, it seems diversity for some, Vatican flags for others. :pac:

We need a Catholic mod on the Christianity forum as a short term remedy.

I should state that I didn't know where this discussion was taking place. I had a look yesterday I believe, and am responding now. I thank hinault for his(/her?) excellent work on this thread.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Just out interest why was the "catholic only/catholic themed responses" gotten rid of?

Insect Overlord

How would practising Catholicism make someone a better moderator?

Orim

Donatello wrote: »

There is a need for a Catholic forum/sub-forum.

Catholics need a place were they can discuss matters between themselves without sniping and interference. We can't discuss fine points or serious issues without clampits coming in and disrupting proceedings with endless rabbit holes, and it always happens.

How many Catholic threads are allowed to descend to slagging matches about sex abuse?

It's really tiresome. If it's not sex abuse it's some other thing like the wealth of the Vatican, Crusades, bad Popes, etc....

Report the posts if they're off-topic. A conversation about the communion shouldn't have it and should be dealt with as off-topic.

We used to be able to have Catholic only thread titles, but that was taken from us.

I would advocate either the return of Catholic-only threads, strictly enforced (which they weren't before) or else a separate Catholic forum/sub-forum.

Again report the posts. Also in what way was it taken away?

As a separate issue, I think there is a need for a Catholic moderator to balance it out. There needs to be that balance and equality.

We're all supposed to be banging on about eqaulity/diversity/pluralism/tolerance, but in this case, it seems diversity for some, Vatican flags for others. :pac:

We need a Catholic mod on the Christianity forum as a short term remedy.

I should state that I didn't know where this discussion was taking place. I had a look yesterday I believe, and am responding now. I thank hinault for his(/her?) excellent work on this thread.

What exactly is a Catholic mod going to do? They can only enforce the charter and the rules and their demonination doesn't affect this.

Seems like you want a catholic mod to go old testament on anyone that's not Catholic or even those that aren't catholic enough.

Also seriously make a group (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/group.php?) There seems to be only a small group that want this so a group should be perfect. Even if it's not perfect, if it takes off then it gives you some kind of backing to your forum request.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

As a separate issue, I think there is a need for a Catholic moderator to balance it out. There needs to be that balance and equality.

Answer me this:

Can you state one thing which a Catholic moderator can do which a non-Catholic moderator can't do?

In which areas are non-Catholic moderators deficient in comparison to Catholic moderators?

Nodin

gvn wrote: »

...........

In which areas are non-Catholic moderators deficient in comparison to Catholic moderators?

They can't transubstantiate posts?

strobe

Orim wrote: »

Also seriously make a group (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/group.php?) There seems to be only a small group that want this so a group should be perfect. Even if it's not perfect, if it takes off then it gives you some kind of backing to your forum request.

This seems like the perfect solution. Never heard of the groups before but from what I can see one would satisfy what Hinualt and Donatello and co want to a tee.

What is a social group?

A social group is a group of people usually with a particular interest or something else in common. It provides a way of communicating between members as well as sharing photos or other images.

You can get to the list through 'Group Memberships' section on your public profile (?).

The Social Groups list page displays all groups that have been created. You can list the groups by the number of members, messages or pictures, the group name, when the group was created or by the date of the most recent message posted. You can use the controls provided to search for a group.

How do I join a group?

To join a group, click the group title then click 'Join Group'. When you have joined a group, its name will be shown in your public profile. You must be a logged-in, registered member to join groups.

Can I create my own social group?

As a registered member, you can create your own social group. Go to the groups page and click 'Create A New Group'. Complete the title and description for your group then select the type. There are three types of groups:

Public - open to everyone. There is no restriction on who can join or who can post messages to it

Invite Only - require an invitation to be sent to join them. Invitations can only be sent by the group creator or forum moderators and administrators. Invitations are sent by clicking 'Pending & Invited Members' at the bottom of the page for that individual group

Moderated - open to everyone to join but messages need to be moderated before they will appear. They are moderated by the group creator and the site moderators and administrators

Open up the Social Groups page and click on Create New Group.

There is your Catholic only, Catholic moderated forum right there essentially lads. From what I can see the only difference between a group and a forum is the groups don't have a thanks button or youtube embedding. But you can start threads, make posts etc.

Overheal

As a separate issue, I think there is a need for a Catholic moderator to balance it out. There needs to be that balance and equality.

We're all supposed to be banging on about eqaulity/diversity/pluralism/tolerance, but in this case, it seems diversity for some, Vatican flags for others.

We need a Catholic mod on the Christianity forum as a short term remedy.

It's already been made pretty clear on more than a few occassions - not just in this thread - that moderators aren't chosen by gender, race, religion, political or sports team affiliations. It's useless to keep asking for a moderator as such.

lmaopml

The group thing sounds really good? I was aware there was such a thing but never really looked into it too much, or bothered looking at how it works...Thanks!

So fellow Catholics, what do you reckon? Hinault for mod of our new group, start small and all that stuff?

Maybe set up a thread on Christianity to see what other Catholics think?

Keylem

El Weirdo wrote: »

That's no reason to bombard the forum with threads like children.

The first post I can see was made at 7.41am by Keylem and was edited by PDN at 7.57am explaining why it was closed.

There was no need for the other 8 threads. Any bans were completely justified.

I posted a topic about The Crime Of Being Catholic in that thread that was closed. I added that we wanted a sub-forum for Catholics, as there are some who would derail the thread, as has often happened- why was the topic itself deleted , it was a fair enough topic to encourage a discussion about trying to live the Catholic Faith in a secular world?!

Orim

Presumably because it was posted during the spamming of the forum and was mentioned the request for the subforum.

I'm sure if the topic of being Catholic/Christian/Religious in a secular world was to come up now then it could lead to a fruitful conversation.

Fanny Cradock

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Just out interest why was the "catholic only/catholic themed responses" gotten rid of?

I don't quite know. But we are not allowed to create any Christian only/ Christian spirited response type posts.

Doctor DooM

Keylem wrote: »

I posted a topic about The Crime Of Being Catholic in that thread that was closed. I added that we wanted a sub-forum for Catholics, as there are some who would derail the thread, as has often happened- why was the topic itself deleted , it was a fair enough topic to encourage a discussion about trying to live the Catholic Faith in a secular world?!

By definition, it is not a crime to be catholic in a secular world.

That statement is indicitive of the weird sense of priviledge people seem to have about this situation.

Keylem

Doctor DooM wrote: »

By definition, it is not a crime to be catholic in a secular world.

That statement is indicitive of the weird sense of priviledge people seem to have about this situation.

It's not just about being Catholic, it's about living your Faith, including in the workplace. Catholicism is not just for Sunday worship, it's a way of life!