I just fired Winchester

[Benedictus]

phishy tag is not supposed to be for non-Catholics. That is what the "cordial non-Catholic" label is for. If someone says they are Catholic but tells people that abortion is OK, or that Pope Francis isn't a real pope, then someone who doesn't know the Catholic faith is going to get confused. That's why the labels are there. Everyone, moderators and users alike, can flag someone up as being "phishy" but dUSt is the one who ultimately assigns or changes the labels so any questions about them is best directed to him.

Also, and this is for everyone: the Religious tag is not meant to be assigned to someone just entering an order. Ideally it should be nominated once someone has taken their vows and has remained a nun for some time. 

 

The process is a bit random and it should be clear as part of the rules. At the moment it depends who you annoy in a debate and if they ask for the tag to be used. If the system was explained early on then the tag shouldn't be needed. But I can't see how anyone can debate in the current situation.

The content of a post is clear to all whether that person is on board with something. They don't need a tag to highlight the obvious. Also, simply because a person has views on one issue doesn't mean they are somehow phisy with regards everything they believe as a Catholic. If you're going to 'mark' people out then you should warn, explain and have a process of how it's applied and removed.

[Ash Wednesday]

I can't say I really agree with your assessment of the labels themselves, you seem to underestimate the ability for confusion to take place. But I think your suggestion that they be designated through a more clear warning process is a good one, and should be taken on board.

[Gabriela]

The process is a bit random and it should be clear as part of the rules. At the moment it depends who you annoy in a debate and if they ask for the tag to be used. If the system was explained early on then the tag shouldn't be needed. But I can't see how anyone can debate in the current situation.

The content of a post is clear to all whether that person is on board with something. They don't need a tag to highlight the obvious. Also, simply because a person has views on one issue doesn't mean they are somehow phisy with regards everything they believe as a Catholic. If you're going to 'mark' people out then you should warn, explain and have a process of how it's applied and removed.

No one is given the "phishy" tag simply for stating an opinion on an issue that the Church does not have clear teaching on. One only gets a "phishy" tag for repeatedly contradicting Church teaching. As Catholics, we conform our "opinions" to Church teaching when She gives a clear statement on a matter.

If you don't conform your opinion to that teaching, then you deserve the "phishy" tag. That's what it's for. And we have A LOT of lurkers and passers-by on Phatmass, who may not know enough about Church teaching to understand when someone labeled "Catholic" is stating opinions in line with the Church, and when they're not. Catholicism isn't the kind of religion where anyone who calls themselves "Catholic" can declare that their opinions are Catholic because they, as a person, are Catholic. But a lot of people think it works that way. So tagging people who choose to give themselves the "Catholic" label as "phishy" if they don't actually espouse Catholic teaching helps to make matters clear for the less well-catechized among us.

If I'm not mistaken, you got the "phishy" tag because you came off clearly in several posts as a sedevacantist. If you were given it erroneously, why don't you just clarify matters?

Edited September 6, 2015 by Gabriela

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think that it would make sense to help people understand why they're getting a "phishy" tag if they are. This would be for their own benefit too so that they would understand how their view might not be like the Church teaching. It can help them.

[veritasluxmea]

No one is given the "phishy" tag simply for stating an opinion on an issue that the Church does not have clear teaching on. One only gets a "phishy" tag for repeatedly contradicting Church teaching. As Catholics, we conform our "opinions" to Church teaching when She gives a clear statement on a matter.

If you don't conform your opinion to that teaching, then you deserve the "phishy" tag. That's what it's for.

This. This is what the tag is used for. I agree that a clear warning process- including proving where the person is contradicting the Church- is needed. 

Edited September 6, 2015 by veritasluxmea

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think in some cases the person might not know they're opposing the Church and that's where the explanation can help them. If they know, then maybe explaining the Church teaching more clearly can help? I mean they might change their mind if they see this is really doctrine and what it means. They can come back to the Church teaching. If though they still disagree well then the phishy tag is appropriate. 

[Ash Wednesday]

I think in some cases the person might not know they're opposing the Church and that's where the explanation can help them. If they know, then maybe explaining the Church teaching more clearly can help? I mean they might change their mind if they see this is really doctrine and what it means. They can come back to the Church teaching. If though they still disagree well then the phishy tag is appropriate. 

There have been some instances of this, where people simply didn't fully understand a doctrine and others were able to help them out. In those cases I haven't seen someone get the tag. Usually when they do get "phished", a poster knows full and well where the Church stands on something and they just disagree with it anyway in a persistent manner, at least that is how the process should be. The label really isn't meant to be given out lightly.

[Benedictus]

No one is given the "phishy" tag simply for stating an opinion on an issue that the Church does not have clear teaching on. One only gets a "phishy" tag for repeatedly contradicting Church teaching. As Catholics, we conform our "opinions" to Church teaching when She gives a clear statement on a matter.

If you don't conform your opinion to that teaching, then you deserve the "phishy" tag. That's what it's for. And we have A LOT of lurkers and passers-by on Phatmass, who may not know enough about Church teaching to understand when someone labeled "Catholic" is stating opinions in line with the Church, and when they're not. Catholicism isn't the kind of religion where anyone who calls themselves "Catholic" can declare that their opinions are Catholic because they, as a person, are Catholic. But a lot of people think it works that way. So tagging people who choose to give themselves the "Catholic" label as "phishy" if they don't actually espouse Catholic teaching helps to make matters clear for the less well-catechized among us.

If I'm not mistaken, you got the "phishy" tag because you came off clearly in several posts as a sedevacantist. If you were given it erroneously, why don't you just clarify matters?

No, I'm definately not a sedevacantist. I was never told why, but was left to assume. I think Miles asked for it after he got rattled in a debate, but I could be wrong.  I've never had a warning in my phatmass life. There have been plenty of debates back, so it could have been because i disagreed with an opinion or someone misunderstood my position on certain issues (deemed them as unCatholic etc). It happens on forums to people I guess.  But nobody thought it proper to tell me personally.  I didn't really expect much better from some people on here after that, so I just put it down to forum drama and power trips.

I see debate as an exercise in taking different positions and then defending those points until a clear consensus comes out. Of course, the Catholic view should win. That or the person should study more However, other people see debates simply as a means to defend their own views. I made the error of thinking people would give fair treatment and argue varying positions when I shouldn't have. For that reason I don't bother with debates so much on here now (and I don't think I'm alone as the debate board often gets supressed to death) because people often assume too much about the beliefs and practices of the other person or use it to be snarky. I only mention this now because of recent events (even though I wasn't involved in those posts) because I can see why certain people have got fed up with how certain things have played out here. I think we all know other people have left before because of similar stuff too

[Ash Wednesday]

Benedictus, you should not have been given the label without explanation. Hopefully, more clarity or formality to the process will avoid that from happening in the future.

[Winchester]

This thread is off topic.

[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!