John:

I wanted to take this opportunity and to use this puclic forum to offer my sincere apology to you and to the rest of the readers for my recent behavior in this forum. I submitted posts that were intended to provoke you to anger and to bring you humiliation. It was behavior that was sinful, selfish, immature, and not at all befitting a Catholic man. I am sending a copy of this post to your email so that you can be sure that it comes from me and is sincere. Please forgive me, and please pray for me.

If the Moderator would be kind enough to delete the threads in question, I would be deeply appreciative.

-- jake (jake1remove@pngusa.net), August 11, 2003

Answers

-- (top@top.top), August 11, 2003.

God Bless you Jake...

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), August 12, 2003.

tryan,

since you are so obviously our impish little imposter, please give up the charade. you know you posted that to make trouble and nobody is falling for it.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 13, 2003.

Jmj

Little paul, there you go again making false claims. Prove I am the imposter! By the way, I am not!

God Bless!

-- Tryan Guess (noemail@none.com), August 13, 2003.

I just wanted to say, "WHAT A SHAME!!!" Here jake has offered a very humble, sincere, well-written apology........without even the slightest acknowledgement of it on this thread from the person it was directed to.

I was taught growing up, and I teach my children the same, that when someone offers you a sincere apology, you swallow your pride and accept it. Also, that you should forgive immediately, regardless of an apology or not. It takes a lot for someone to be able to keep pride and human dignity in check to the point of admitting wrongdoing and offering an apology, especially when the person they are apologizing to has wronged them many times, and has never offered even a hint of admittance of wrongdoing.

By not acknowledging or accepting a well meant apology, one is showing pride, arrogance, hypocrisy, hardness of heart, hatefulness, ill will, self-love instead of a love for Christ, an unforgiving attitude, a most ungentlemanlike demeanor, and plain old bad manners. I would be mortified if my children acted in such a manner.

All I can say, John, is "SHAME ON YOU!" May Christ and His Holy Mother instill in you generosity of spirit.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 14, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks for your opinions, Isabel. I don't agree with any of them, though.

There are some things that you don't seem to understand. Perhaps you have not read a key item I have stated in the past. You see, there are certain people whom I consider not to have a right to post here -- and I have mentioned their names publicly. Therefore, when they do leave messages (even if addressed to me), it follows that I cannot reply, because I believe that their messages should be deleted even before I have a chance to read them.

Isabel, since your re-admission here, I can't recall that you have renewed the habit of breaking forum rules. And so, I think that you have a right to post here, and I don't mind replying to you and letting you know the following things ...
(1) I thought that Jake did a noble thing by apologizing to the forum and asking that his recent posts be deleted, but ...
(2) I believe that he should have done this via a private message to the Moderator, rather than through a forum thread, and ...
(3) I have every attention of responding privately (and favorably) to his e-mailed apology if I begin to feel assured (with the passage of time) that his "conversion of heart" is sincere and permanent.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 14, 2003.

CORRECTION: "(3) I have every intention ...

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 14, 2003.

"I thought that Jake did a noble thing by apologizing to the forum and asking that his recent posts be deleted, but... I believe that he should have done this via a private message to the Moderator, rather than through a forum thread..."

John, he didn't apologize to the forum.

He apologized to you.

He didn't say recent posts, he said the ones in question.

I want to see something genuine take place here on your part, John. It'll be the glue that holds me away from this forum.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 14, 2003.

I think it's ironic that you want John to answer when something is addressed to him, but suddenly have amnesia concerning Jake, Emerald's etc. not answering Paul's question. What is it Isabel, should people be held to the same standards, or are things just a travesty when *some* people do them?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 14, 2003.

I think it's ironic that you want John to answer when something is addressed to him, but suddenly have amnesia concerning Jake, Emerald's etc. not answering Paul's question.

I honestly have no clue what question you are talking about.

What is it Isabel, should people be held to the same standards, or are things just a travesty when *some* people do them?

Maybe if I had an idea over what question you are referring, I could better answer your question. Now, if it was a just a question left unanswered.......well, there is a world of difference between not answering a question and refusing to accept an apology in a gentlemanlike manner. There was no question here that John had to answer. It would, however, have been more becoming of a Catholic man to acknowledge and accept an apology. (I sure can't imagine a saint behaving in such a manner.) By not doing so, he exhibits many, if not all, of the characteristics listed above.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 14, 2003.

Isabel,

Sorry, I remembered you as being pretty sharp. The thread I'm refering to was: MODERATOR -- notice of material to delete

Paul's post was on August 11, 2003, your response on the thread was August 12th. You DIRECTLY responded to his post, so I'm rather suprised you don't remember (I do believe you, just shocked).

, if it was a just a question left unanswered.......well, there is a world of difference between not answering a question and refusing to accept an apology in a gentlemanlike manner.

I'd also like to point out that when you posted here, John had not responded to the thread at all. Therefore you don't KNOW he was refusing to accept his apology, all you KNEW was that he hadn't answered. Again, you seem to hold people you like to different standards than people you don't. Small wonder you can't see your way back from the LeFebrist schismatics.

(I sure can't imagine a saint behaving in such a manner.)

I can't imagine a saint leaving the Church for some schismatic sect.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 14, 2003.

oops.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 14, 2003.

Paul's post was on August 11, 2003, .......You DIRECTLY responded to his post, so I'm rather suprised you don't remember

Aaahhh, you mean the post left by paul? You see, you wrote 'Paul' and not 'paul', and as there is a difference and I don't remember 'Paul' asking for anything from them, then I was understandably a little confused. That in no way diminishes my level of 'sharpness'..... lol.

But that was actually a request for a declaration, not a question. And because one may answer differently than the answer he was looking for to his 'request for declaration' does not necessarily amount to schism. Therefore, the request is bogus.

I'd also like to point out that when you posted here, John had not responded to the thread at all. Therefore you don't KNOW he was refusing to accept his apology, all you KNEW was that he hadn't answered.

Give me a break, Frank. You know, as well as I, that John is present on this forum everyday. And you know as well as I, that he would, out of curiosity if nothing else, read a thread directed to him. You know, as well as I, that he certainly saw it, but refused to acknowledge it. No, I can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have no desire to, because I know that you are quite sure he saw too, as well as I am. So let's not scrape the bottom of the bowl with ridiculous arguments when we know better.

Again, you seem to hold people you like to different standards than people you don't.

Not at all. Had John posted a similar apology to jake or Emerald, and neither of them acknowledged it, you had better believe I would have admonished them, as well. They would have deserved it. But.....we all know John has never and will never post an apology for all the childish, ridiculous, scandalous, uncharitable and unfounded name-calling that he resorts to, so I guess we'll never know. Although, I feel quite sure they would accept his apology with open arms in a Catholic and gentlemanlike manner.

Small wonder you can't see your way back from the LeFebrist schismatics.

lol. I'll leave that one be.

I can't imagine a saint leaving the Church for some schismatic sect.

Whew! Neither can I. Good thing none of us have done that, or we'd never even have the chance to become one. But on the same token, I sure can't imagine a saint caving in when the Deposit of Faith is being compromised.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), August 14, 2003.

i have tried my irrelevant, humble best to sit on the fence, but these words ring a very loud bell. maybe its time for me to stand up and be counted. maybe time is running short. maybe i am a fool. but sometimes......

to wit:-

"childish, ridiculous, scandalous, uncharitable and unfounded name- calling "

or maybe i should just use the word:-

"bully"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 14, 2003.

LOL! guilty until proven innocent, huh Isabel? I hope you're not a judge!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 14, 2003.

Hello all,

Here's my peculiar take on things...

Isabel writes:

"But.....we all know John has never and will never post an apology for all the childish, ridiculous, scandalous, uncharitable and unfounded name-calling that he resorts to, so I guess we'll never know."

See, Isabel, we can find something to agree on! I do believe that Jake is just as guilty of such behavior, as I've written in the past.

John, on the other thread, you wrote,

"I forgive you for forgetting that I have to be me. I can't be 'another you.'"

My anonymous defender already mentioned this line; but I'd like to add my own response. I don't want you to be another "Mateo." I expect you to be another Jesus Christ. That's who we're supposed to be emulating. That's yet another reason I love the Jesuits--their detractors labelled them as "Jesuitos" or "Little Jesuses." What a great thing to be called!

Yesterday, the Honduran Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga offered the daily Mass at EWTN. The gospel reading (Matthew 18:15-20) concerned "brotherly correction." He commented (paraphrasing), "Our eyes look outward, so we can see the faults of others, but it is difficult to see our own."

Again, I'm not asking you to be another me, I'm asking you to be perfect (the vocation of all Christians):

Matthew 5:43-48 -- "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."

If I or any Christian sees an absence of virtue or a presence of vice, our love should inspire us to correct our brother. It's not a competition, though. We're all slugging it out against sin and temptation.

I believe you and Jake have educated yourselves on matters of faith. And though each of your arguments may support the propogation of your beliefs to others, your attitudes propogate the opposite. If I were uneducated in matters of faith, your attitude would likely push me away from the Faith, just as Jake's attitude pushes me away from his position. For this reason, it's no surpise that Protestants and non-Christians so easily pluck away the faithful with coffee, donuts, and a big smile.

It's 2003, and the marketing department for the Catholic Church is practically nonexistent. But every single Catholic must be in the marketing department. We don't have to replace the Faith with a mere smile; but the Faith isn't complete without the smile!

1 Corinthians 13:1-2 -- "If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing."

John, here's St. Paul speaking to us, and I think he speaks to you in particular. You have a gift, John. I don't want you to apologize to anyone--I want you to speak with love. I hope you choose to abandon your previous denial (that you need this correction). The facts are in front of us: I believe that many here are convinced that you have a broad and deep understanding of the faith. Yet, where's the JFG fan-club? Of course, I'm not saying that that should be your goal (Our Lord didn't have a lot of fans in Jerusalem at the end of His life). But all of us Catholics want champions of the Faith, ya know?

And so when you see others correct you, you can point fingers at irrelevant things. Just to cite a couple random examples: you can say that "anonymous" is criticizing you because she needs to "strike back" for being mistreated in real life. You can say that I can't make objective judgments about Islam because I'm an Arab. But, as "useless turkey" Emerald would say, such statements are specious.

So, as for Isabel's accusations of you:

childish--Yes, namecalling is childish and works against the respect that one should attain considering your knowledge of the faith.

ridiculous--Yes, it is foolish to use name-calling because it actually works against what you are fighting for. A "resounding gong."

scandalous--Yes, it is scandalous because you are attempting to put forth Christian Truth by a sinful means.

uncharitable--Yes, excessive name-calling is uncharitable (sinful).

unfounded--When you call them things like "less-than- worthless," you deny the Gospel Truth that each of us are infinitely valuable (despite our sins and vices) in the eyes of God.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 14, 2003.

im sorry, isabel, but i must side with frank and john on this one.

it very well could be that jake was trying to provoke john into a fight, as he admitted, and then planned all along for a trumped up public appology to make john look bad. fair enough, but if that was the plan all along then jake doesnt really want forgiveness because he has no plan to change.

therefore it is wise of john to wait and be assured that this apology at least constitutes an intention to change on jakes part such that he does not try to provoke anger out of others...

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 14, 2003.

Duh...I meant to comment on the Jake's apology...

Though I can't read Jake's heart, the history between him and John make reconciliation difficult. The cynic in me sees that it is a real possibility that the use of a public apology as a way to grandstand to the forumites. I pray that I'm wrong, but I certainly don't blame John for being suspicious of such an apology.

I would agree with John that such apologies are best made in private.

In general I do believe that interpersonal harmony between contributors with differing viewpoints will be beneficial for us all.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 15, 2003.

Note to lurkers and new visitors to the forum:

The behavior of the regulars on this thread is *not* Christ-like and Catholic. The true Catholic teaching on forgiviness doesn't take a 'wait-and-see' attitude. It stresses forgiveness instantly irregardless of what a person's motivations are for seeking forgivness and/or future actions the person seeking forgiveness may take. Suspicion is rooted in Pride, a deadly sin, and has no place in *true* Catholic forgivness. It stresses that if a person has hurt - or attempted to hurt - someone publicly, than it leads to reason that the apology should be made publicly as an amends to anyone else who may have been offended by the bad behavior, as well as privately. The examples shown by the regulars in this thread are poor and shameful and should neither be followed by anyone or interpreted as what Holy Mother Church teaches.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), August 15, 2003.

The regulars of our forum give and take, sometimes without mercy. It's necessary to reprimand them --as well as their tormentors. With that much admitted, Regina ought to look interiorly and realise how pride governs her and her party.

Jesus Christ made many friends and followers among the lowly of Israel and even of some Samaritans & Romans. But His words were often rejected by the Scribes and the Pharisees. They were always trying to confound Him, or trap Him with sophistry. He knew them for what they truly were: enemies of the truth.

Pride lives on even in some Catholic hearts who reject the truth. Parisees still exist, even in our Church. We know them by their eagerness to point the finger; to accuse their brethren in the Church. They live in fetishism; with a strong aversion toward simplicity and trust in God. Their great fetish is the halo.

Regina ought to look into her own heart, and see how elitism rules there. It's sad to see her writing to the rest of us about pride. Let her reflect on humility, the most Christ-like virtue. Then, along with all of us, let her cultivate some; and stop looking down her nose at ''regular'' Catholics here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 15, 2003.

Regina,

Unfortunately, your post only adds to the appearance that this public apology was grandstanding.

Suspicion is not necessarily sinful--if it were sinful, you'd be opening yourself to scrutiny for many of your own actions and statements against the Catholic Church.

Suspicion often can be classified as "prudence," which is a virtue...duh. Further, inasmuch as Jake apologized to the forum, the mere mention of suspicion is neither sinful nor a rejection of the apology.

Let's let John and Jake work things out in private.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 15, 2003.

... AT THE RISK of sounding redundant........ from 1 Corinthians 13... .. "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, doesn't seek its own interests, not quick tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrong doing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, BELIEVES ALL THINGS {apologies???}, hopes all things, endures all things." theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 15, 2003.

If you're going to go for a swim, it's best not to chum the water.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 15, 2003.

...Gene.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 15, 2003.

what does 'chum' the water mean?

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), August 15, 2003.

"If you're going to go for a swim, it's best not to chum the water."

Isn't that one of Larry Flynt's campaign slogans?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 15, 2003.

Friends,
We are successful if only we lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at us.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 15, 2003.

If it is, I had absolutely no idea, honest to God.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 15, 2003.

We can't control each other! God made us all very different.

Its' Johns' right, and his only to respond to Jakes' apology thread if he "wants" too, or not. I don't see why he should be judged by his not posting back. Would people rather John be a "yes" man and do whatever the crowd wants or suggests?

If you think he will than you haven't even began to know John.

It is not like Miss Isabel was asking for Jakes' apology before it was made and then posted to question John after Jake posted his apology.

On another "note". One would have to admire Jake for apologising because, Jake wanted to, and than did it.[I haven't been able to find the pictures yet].

I think there both good men, and don't think this thread is a "barometer" for nothing except everyone elses' opinion.[And this is just my opinion.]

But, I would bet that they both pray for one another at times.

God bless Gordon(the performer) and Eddie Lauzon, and all the Canadians.

May the Lord watch over Miss Isabels' children, and keep Regina and Jake healthy to raise their children.

God bless John, and his family.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 15, 2003.

Mateo: Unfortunately, your post only adds to the appearance that this public apology was grandstanding.

How unfortunate you should see it that way. A public apology was offered because the actions being apologized for were committed publicly. And if you read the apology, it clearly states that the apology extends to the forum as well. So, no. No grandstanding. Just a public apology for offenses committed publicly. We wouldn't even be having this conversation now had John simply said something like, "I accept your apology. I think it's best that we keep our distance from one another for the sake of harmony."

Suspicion is not necessarily sinful--if it were sinful, you'd be opening yourself to scrutiny for many of your own actions and statements against the Catholic Church.

This isn't about me or *my* "statements and actions". This isn't about Neo vs. Trad, old mass vs. new mass, pre-Vat 2 vs. post-Vat 2, the SSPX, or any of the other things we've argued about(which I will never again discuss/debate on this forum). This is about the refusal of one to acknowledge, much less accept, an apology. This is about a person not accepting the apology unless a time comes when he feels his requirements for granting forgivness are met. This is about people, calling themselves Catholic, supporting such sinful actions and questioning the motives of and harboring suspicions of an honest apology, when we are clearly taught to just *forgive.*

Suspicion often can be classified as "prudence," which is a virtue...duh

True prudence, then, would compel us to accept the apology, forgive but then to simply avoid one another in the future so that any offenses don't get repeated. Some people just clash no matter what. Prudence dictates we can avoid those people we clash with, as long as we harbor no ill feelings toward them, speak only kindly of them, and include them in our prayers.

Further, inasmuch as Jake apologized to the forum, the mere mention of suspicion is neither sinful nor a rejection of the apology.

Yes, it is. Questioning motives and harboring grudges cannot co- exsist with honest forgiveness. No one here allowed for the even the teeniest possibility that the apology was sincere and sought nothing more than forgivness.

And before I'm accused of being holier-than-thou, and to refute the suggestion that I'm looking down my nose at anyone, I'm just reiterating what I *thought* we were *all* taught on the subject of forgivness...

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), August 15, 2003.

Emerald,

I think Mateo was joking, at least I hope so. In any event I wouldn't believe you were trying to quote Flynt. OTOH if you WERE, bravo for the obscure reference, and double for Mateo's picking up on it.

Regina,

Before you get too upset, actually the first time I saw this thread I thought it was one of the many imposters just trying to troll for some posts, so I understand John's concern. I do agree that if Jake really posted this apology it should have been accepted graciously. I also agree that in charity one should accept at face value an apology, even if one isn't 100% sure it's meant, or lived up to. -- that shows the receiver's quality, the apologizer's is determined by their future actions. I'm sorry that Jake apologized and had it fall on deaf ears. You are right, that isn't very Christian.

OTOH, I also understand prudence. Jake didn't apologize for slandering the Catholic Church by posting an episcopalian beach mass and claiming it was Catholic, even when asked to do so. Perhaps you should remind your husband that this was at least as wrong as John's actions, and get him to apologize to the forum for it. From a prudence perspective, and having a long history of seeing the "mind games" here, maybe given that Jake doesn't apologize when he does bad things here, John just figured this was another game. In any event, it would be Christian of YOU to forgive John and drop it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 15, 2003.

Frank I do agree that if Jake really posted this apology it should have been accepted graciously. I also agree that in charity one should accept at face value an apology, even if one isn't 100% sure it's meant, or lived up to. -- that shows the receiver's quality, the apologizer's is determined by their future actions. I'm sorry that Jake apologized and had it fall on deaf ears. You are right, that isn't very Christian.

Thank you, Frank. Thank you so much for your honesty, and trying to see things from my perspective.

OTOH, I also understand prudence. Jake didn't apologize for slandering the Catholic Church by posting an episcopalian beach mass and claiming it was Catholic, even when asked to do so. Perhaps you should remind your husband that this was at least as wrong as John's actions, and get him to apologize to the forum for it.

When I read the thread which included the photo and the revelation that it wasn't a Catholic Mass, I should have said something *publicly*. I regret that I didn't do it, and I'm sorry it happened. I don't think jake will be posting here again (I know for a fact he hasn't lurked here since posting the apology), so I hope my apology for my silence throughout the incident counts for something. Obviously, I have no right to make an apology for him, and I'm not doing that now, but I do apologize for my own actions (or lack thereof - as the case was in that situation).

From a prudence perspective, and having a long history of seeing the "mind games" here, maybe given that Jake doesn't apologize when he does bad things here, John just figured this was another game.

But don't you see, Frank? We weren't playing "mind games." Not jake, not any of us. Back when we debated all the things I listed above in my post to Mateo, we quoted Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, the teachings of the perennial Magisterium to support our arguments. In all honesty, I fail to see how using these sound sources equates to playing "mind games," and I think it's unfortunate that you saw it that way. In any event, I personally won't be bothering the forum with discussion/debates about those things - now or in the future.

In any event, it would be Christian of YOU to forgive John and drop it.

How right you are! Thank you, Frank. Consider it done and dropped.

Very sincerely and with no under-handed motives, Regina

-- (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), August 15, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

Yes, it was just a random joke message.

See ya, chum! :-)

Mateo.

PS--Regina, Ditto everything Frank said. :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 15, 2003.

Jmj

As they say, "It's a free country," so (as long as you don't break the forum's rules) you folks can continue to debate this stuff. However, it is extremely boring to me, and I would consider it a waste of time for me to get involved in the debate, especially on a thread that I consider not to have a right to exist (as I mentioned last time).

I've noticed that there are genuinely important things for me to do with my life, both within and outside the forum. For example, I have enjoyed posting messages on substantive matters on other threads today. I suggest that everyone else get back to that kind of productive thing, because I think that (almost without exception) you didn't help each other (or me) with the many hundreds of words you posted since my last message. I'd go so far as to say that several of you really must have pleased the devil!

And so, I repeat that I would consider it a waste of time for me to comment further on the subject of the apology, etc.. I also won't get into specifics on people's opinions of how I post messages, whether I ought to change, whether I have or need "fans," etc.. I'll just say that, no matter how hard some may have tried, they did not succeed in convincing me that I was wrong or that I need to change. While some folks can put on airs of self-righteousness and can brazenly assume the mantle of my "spiritual director," the fact is that they are no better imitators of Jesus than anyone else is (your humble servant included).

Now having said all that general stuff, I want to bring up just one specific item here, because it is so mysterious to me.

Mateo, you wrote this: "And so when you see others correct you, you can point fingers at irrelevant things. Just to cite a couple random examples: you can say that "anonymous" is criticizing you because she needs to "strike back" for being mistreated in real life. You can say that I can't make objective judgments about Islam because I'm an Arab."

You are in no position to say that what I told "anonymous" was "irrelevant." It most certainly was relevant. But that is not really what I wanted to tell you about ...
This is the second or third time that you've made some such comment to me about "Islam ... Arab," and I've never had the slightest idea of what you are talking about. It seems to me that this goes back maybe even as much as two years (when you first came to the forum?), but the last time you brought it up was maybe a year ago. So, to see it again made my eyes bug out of my head, because it was a sign that you are holding a deep grudge against me. It AMAZES me how much this kind of thing goes on here! The "anonymous" person you defended is guilty of a holding a grudge too, but she is an amateur grudge-holder, compared to someone else! Why do you people do these things? Man, this concept of grudges is so foreign to me, so sickening when people can't let go and move on!

Well, anyway, I say again that I have no idea what you are talking about when you say, "You [John] can say that I [Mateo] can't make objective judgments about Islam because I'm an Arab." I would ask you to show me the thread wherein you allege that I said such a thing. I doubt that I said anything remotely like that, but if I'm wrong, then (depending on what I did say), I may need to apologize to you. I have a feeling that, if someone really made such a comment to/about you, it was not me, and you have slipped into a case of mistaken identity [maybe another "John"?].

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 15, 2003.

Mateo Regina, Ditto everything Frank said. :-)

Ditto to you everything I said to Frank.

Or something like that! :-)

-------

Hi, David,

Thanks for your kind words, sorry to not have replied to them sooner. Be assured of my prayers for you and your family!

-----

Now before someone starts calling for a group hug.....

;-)

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), August 15, 2003.

Hi John,

Ask and ye shall receive. I was able to track down your post--see April 13, 2002. Google is amazing!

Honestly, I couldn't care less that you made the comment--you'll just have to take my word that this never bothered me. My point is that you often make strange statements like this to attempt to neutralize dissent from your opinions at all costs. I'm not the first one to mention this, though it's up to your actions whether I am the last.

John writes: "While some folks can put on airs of self- righteousness and can brazenly assume the mantle of my "spiritual director..."

I do find it ironic that you simultaneously think that you can "brazenly assume the mantle" of other contributors' psychoanalyst. A double-standard?

John writes: "the fact is that they are no better imitators of Jesus than anyone else is (your humble servant included)"

John, this is a relativist statement. If you feel like correcting my behavior with Christian charity, have at it! But in the meantime, saying to God, "I sinned less than my neighbor," isn't going to get you into Heaven. Attempting to emulate our Lord is what we're all supposed to be doing. Also, your statement implies that no one but perfect people can correct others. If so, I doubt anyone would correct anyone else.

I offered you advice freely and in the spirit of charity, because I don't want you to be a "clashing cymbal." If you choose to continue shooting yourself in the foot with your emotional outbreaks and spats of name-calling, then, as you say, "It's a free country."

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 15, 2003.

I forgot, this statement was pretty funny:

"Why do you people do these things? Man, this concept of grudges is so foreign to me, so sickening when people can't let go and move on!"

Wheew, I'm glad you've never held a grudge against any moderator. LOL!

Humility... John, you're a poor sinner, just like the rest of us. :-)

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 15, 2003.

Regina,

First, I don't blame you for not speaking up on the prior thread, and if you feel you need to apologize anyway, apology accepted! I've said before that I've said uncharitable things here, and would ask for a blanket apology for MY behavior on any of the threads regarding the SSPX where I've gotten overly frustrated and taken it out in my posts. The church is not going to regain unity with everyone being unable to discuss things.

But don't you see, Frank? We weren't playing "mind games." Not jake, not any of us. Back when we debated all the things I listed above in my post to Mateo, we quoted Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, the teachings of the perennial Magisterium to support our arguments

Sadly, I don't really think this is true, although I believe you are being honest and sincere.

I remember In "The Discoverers" a part about Christopher Columbus when he landed in South America he asked his staff where they thought they were, and said that he'd fine them some amount of Ducats and ***cut out their tongues*** if anyone didn't say "India". My point is that the world 1000 years ago was MUCH different than it was now, things said and written have to be read in understanding of this difference. While what prior Popes have said is definitely *true*, it only is in its original context and possibly only for the audience at the time. I think that someone has been searching the records of the church to support their position, but the result is NOT what I'd consider what the real church believes, and therefore not "True". Seeing that the mass HAS changed, I'd think this should be obvious to most. Regarding ecumenism, same thing, the church has always wanted us to reach out to others to bring them to the faith.

When Ed Richards does post after post of every ABUSE of the Church's mass (which we all agree is wrong too) how is this constructive? More importantly, how is is TRUE in showing a difference between the Tridentine and Novus ritesS? Rembember, he is showing ABUSES of Novus Ordo rite, not its normal practice. This is not "true" as I understand the word. (I also expect someone will try and cover one slander with another, saying EVERY mass is an aberration, etc., but hopefully this line will stop a further attack on the church from occurring.)

When Emerald posts 20 page rambling posts, and doesn't Change his subsequent posts in any way to acknowledge that he's really understood what's been said to him, is this "searching for truth"? I don't think so. Repeating yourself without change is just robotic. If you are unwilling to listen, it's hard to learn.

Jake I will leave out, as it's probably hard for you to be objective. :-) But my point should be clear, I don't think any of the SSPX people here are really LOOKING for the truth, they've decided they know it already and they aren't willing to really listen to anything else. This is not wise IMO. Christianity is on one hand very simple to understand, but on the other hand very HARD to live up to. It's very difficult to really follow Christ's example, and we need others to tell us when we've fallen off the path and don't see it ourselves. If we don't listen to anyone else, we're not making use of that opportunity and that could be very dangerous for us. Not listening also shows we've stopped searching for the True Path, and if we are arrogant enough to believe we've found it and can't fall off, we've fallen off Already, and are so far off, we can't see our way back.

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 16, 2003.

"My point is that the world 1000 years ago was MUCH different than it was now, things said and written have to be read in understanding of this difference. While what prior Popes have said is definitely *true*, it only is in its original context and possibly only for the audience at the time."

Oooh... now this is truly worthy of a 20 page supersillyazz think-piece. The potential here is phenomenal.

What you have here lies at the heart of all contentions. Anytime someone puts *stars* around the word truth, then we're on to something. Could we forego the stars and perhaps refer to it as the trooth?

But look, let me think about it first. After all, I *did* say I was leaving... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

Italics off. Wouldn't want to leave the thread leaning to the right.

Sorry I missed your joke, Mateo... lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

You could see a larger context if you tried, for:

''--While what prior Popes have said is definitely true, it only is in its original context and possibly only for the audience at the time.''

The way to see it is, ALL our Popes speak truth in a new context. We aren't qualified to run down the newer truth by appeals to the past. Truth doesn't contradict itself. It's been as if you hold the last four Popes incapable of understanding the older encyclicals correctly. You, of course have no problem. (Just as protestants ''know'' when they're right.)

Faith in the divine Wisdom is called for. Some of us have it, and some don't.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 16, 2003.

Someday I'll see as deeply as you, Eugene, and I will cease to be called one of the Elite.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

Please allow me to administer to you a spoonful of your own prescription, Eugene.

If you will, that is...

"...Regina ought to look interiorly and realise how pride governs her and her party."

This, in itself, is stepping way beyond your capacity. You have no capability of discerning that pride governs Regina... you have an opinion and an opinion only. Your opinion, in my opinion, is not the truth.

"Jesus Christ made many friends and followers among the lowly of Israel and even of some Samaritans & Romans. But His words were often rejected by the Scribes and the Pharisees. They were always trying to confound Him, or trap Him with sophistry. He knew them for what they truly were: enemies of the truth."

Let's just call it what it is, Eugene. You think that traditional Catholics are pharisees. I had to bang my head on the desk your several times here, but it finally came to me.

You have no business saying such things, or even thinking such things.

"Pride lives on even in some Catholic hearts who reject the truth."

Hidden premise: traditional Catholics reject the truth. Your premise is wrong, Eugene. I would, however, be more than happy to point out how many modern Catholics reject the truth.

I roundly reject, out of hand, your premise that traditional Catholics are pharisees who reject the truth. It is not at all well thought out.

"Parisees still exist, even in our Church. We know them by their eagerness to point the finger; to accuse their brethren in the Church."

Like calling them schismatics and heretics, sons of Beelzebub? People who reject the truth? Pharisees? If there's a mirror somewhere in your place there, I don't know, go stand in front of it?

"They live in fetishism; with a strong aversion toward simplicity and trust in God. Their great fetish is the halo."

Claim rejected.

"Regina ought to look into her own heart, and see how elitism rules there."

You'll lose this game, I swear it.

"It's sad to see her writing to the rest of us about pride. Let her reflect on humility, the most Christ-like virtue."

Go ye and do likewise.

"Then, along with all of us, let her cultivate some; and stop looking down her nose at ''regular'' Catholics here."

Stop looking down on traditionalist Catholics. As Frank says, "...if you are unwilling to listen, it's hard to learn."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 16, 2003.

Jmj

I'm even more disappointed in you, Mateo, than I was before. Though you found the thread I asked you to find, you didn't apologize for mischaracterizing what I said there -- and for letting your misinterpretation of my words cause you to hold a grudge for more than a year. Could it be ... could it be that you still don't realize how wrong you were? I hope so, because that would provide you with a (weak) excuse.

In that other thread, I wrote, in April of 2002:
"I am writing to say that I disagree very strongly with some things you [Mateo] have written above about Islam. ... I realize that your family roots are in an Eastern Catholic rite -- and that some people of your ethnic roots are probably Muslims -- so I imagine that this fact has an influence on how you feel and think and what you write on the subject. However, your rich background does not automatically make your statements correct. I believe that they are not correct."

Now let's compare that to the way in which you criticized me, above:
"You [John] can say that I [Mateo] can't make objective judgments about Islam because I'm an Arab."

Now look back and see that I did not say that you "can't make objective judgments about Islam." That is an unwarranted statement. Moreover, you also jumped to the conclusion that I was speaking of your relatives. (You assured me that none of them is a Moslem.) But I had not said anything about your relatives! Instead I spoke of people of your "ethnic roots" (having in mind others of your ancestors' nationality).

Therefore, Mateo, you misread my words in 2002 in two separate ways. Consequently, you got defensive and oversensitive, resulting in a grudge -- though I see that you don't admit that you hold one). Instead, you write, "Honestly, I couldn't care less that you made the comment -- you'll just have to take my word that this never bothered me." How in the world can I "take [your] word," when your actions show your word to be a lie or a self-delusion? If you really "couldn't [have] care[d] less," and if what I said "never bothered" you, you would not have remembered it to dredge it back up accusingly on this thread. (It would have slipped your mind.) Your whole approach to this is stunning to me. I didn't realize that you sometimes have trouble "owning up."

Mateo, you then wrote: "My point is that you often make strange statements like this to attempt to neutralize dissent from your opinions at all costs. I'm not the first one to mention this, though it's up to your actions whether I am the last."

This is NONSENSE.
First of all, as I have explained, I made no "strange statement" to you nor to the "anonymous" poster above.
Second, everyone and his uncle -- including you -- does what he can to "neutralize dissent from [his] opinions." The problem is not that I do strange or improper things, but that I succeed in "neutraliz[ing] dissent" when you don't want me to succeed (because you disagree with me). You are just speaking out of frustration now. I will pay no attention.

And please don't bother to say that I "often" do something. Having posted over 6,000 messages, I've probably "often" did everything that a person can do! If I messed up terribly just 1% of the time, that would be 60 times. Now 60 major foul-ups looks terrible, until you stop to think that I didn't foul up in a major way over 5,900 times!!! I have posted far more messages here than anyone else, meaning that I expose myself to criticism and ridicule more than anyone else, and I take a chance on erring more than anyone else. Instead of you (and especially others) attacking me all over the place, people ought to be giving me the benefit of the doubt, remembering the 95 to 99% of my messages that are good and unobjectionable.

You wrote: "I do find it ironic that you simultaneously think that you can 'brazenly assume the mantle' of other contributors' psychoanalyst. A double-standard?"

No "double-standard" at all. In the first place, I don't "psychoanalyze" others. Instead, I (rarely) make observations about what people do, sometimes following this up with speculation about why they do it. (Psychoanalysts do a lot more than that.) What I do is a very different action from your highly improper arrogating to yourself the role of spiritual director (without my asking you to do so). In this role, you think that you can judge me as a sinner and that you you can give me advice on how to be holy. Get yourself ordained first, and then sit in the confessional waiting for me to come for your help.

You then stated: "John writes: 'the fact is that they are no better imitators of Jesus than anyone else is (your humble servant included)' John, this is a relativist statement. If you feel like correcting my behavior with Christian charity, have at it! But in the meantime, saying to God, 'I sinned less than my neighbor,' isn't going to get you into Heaven."

I see that you continue to have trouble reading and comprehending what I write, as you did in April of 2002. Take another look at my words that you quoted. They do NOT say, "I sinned less than my neighbor," but rather that I sin no more than they do. There is a huge difference!

You wrote: "... your statement implies that no one but perfect people can correct others. If so, I doubt anyone would correct anyone else."

I know that we are permitted and even required to correct "our brethren" (Matthew 18). I saw the same Cardinal Maradiaga homily that you saw -- though I had already been living according to that gospel precept for many years. The problem is that you are not following it properly. In "correcting" me, you "threw the book at me," going into a mile-long harangue that went far beyond telling me what you perceived that I did wrongly, adding your quasi-pastoral advice, etc.. Your comments were partially wrong/unjustifiable and fully humiliating in a very public way -- contrary to what the gospel says to do the first time you choose to correct someone. And now you have done more of the same rubbish in your follow-up message. (That's why I am replying at length. I'm not going to tolerate this silently, lest you be encouraged to do still more of it, to me and to others.)

The worst thing of all about what you did is this: Some people have been harassing this forum for 1.5 years, and you have never lifted a finger to aid me in getting rid of them. Instead, you have been an "enabler." You have been overly tolerant. You have let evil-doers remain here to pound and pound away at orthodox Catholicism indefinitely. I don't know if it was because of an unfounded pride in your assumed ability to change people's thinking, but you have continued to engage them in debate, instead of helping me to persuade the moderator to ban them. I know for a fact that he would have banned them by now, if only a bunch of good Catholics had spoken up alongside me. But many "enablers" have remained completely silent, while others (like you) have continue the same useless debates with these schismo-heretical people, wasting precious time amusing folks who would not change their thinking and behavior even if Jesus himself appeared and told them to change!

So, now you see how your dagger is double-edged -- slicing me with your corrections/criticisms, and slashing me by not being my ally to clean up the forum. You were so wrapped up in finding my mistakes and criticizing me for them that you didn't even stop to think about whether they could be wholly or partly excused by the horrible conduct of those whom I took to task. If you had a better understanding of the reality of the situation here, you would have said little or nothing to me, but would have directed all or most of your criticisms/corrections at the culprits who have already drawn one at least fellow into schism -- and you would have joined me in persuading the moderator to ban them.

You wrote: "If you choose to continue shooting yourself in the foot with your emotional outbreaks and spats of name-calling, then, as you say, 'It's a free country.'"

This makes me raise again the subject of my many posts and how extremely rare it has been for me to get emotional and use epithets. Your comment falsely makes it seem as though I do it frequently. You ought to be more concerned about the fact that you NEVER get emotional and NEVER use epithets. I pointed out to you that Jesus, St. Paul, St. John the Baptist, St. Jerome, and many other saints and popes did EXACTLY what you bawl me out for doing. How did you react to my mentioning that? You totally ignored it, instead insisting that I was in the wrong and needed to imitate Jesus. How blind can a person be? Think about the fact that, in never getting emotional and telling evil-doing people what they are, you are either exhibiting gutlessness or a political correctness unbecoming of a Christian. I say again that you have been trying to get me to be like you -- but I could never be so abnormal. You approach these guys like a doormat at all times, and they continue to walk right over you. They are so out of touch with the reality of genuine Catholicism that they need to be AWAY from here, to stew in their isolation until the Holy Spirit can break through their "deafness." They will not come around to reality by being allowed to remain here.

Mateo, you then sarcastically stated: "I forgot, this statement was pretty funny: 'Why do you people do these things? Man, this concept of grudges is so foreign to me, so sickening when people can't let go and move on!' Wheew, I'm glad you've never held a grudge against any moderator."

I have "never held a grudge against any moderator." All the ways in which I was mistreated by moderators are in the past. If you have mistakenly thought that I am holding a grudge, it can only be due to the fact that people keep bringing up the subject, causing me to comment accordingly. (For example, "anonymous" said that I was banned earlier this year. I then explained that I was not "banned," but that she may have been led to believe that by the fact that my posts were deleted by a moderator on three days, after which I chose to depart until the environment improved. [By the way, another former moderator caused me even more grief across the span of two years, yet during that whole time -- and up to this very day -- I have prayed each morning for his healing. Some grudge!] So, kindly keep your snide remarks to yourself, lest they turn around and bite you again!

You closed with: "Humility... John, you're a poor sinner, just like the rest of us."

Another goofy comment! Mateo, I never said that I'm not "a poor sinner." If you had read everything I've posted here, you'd have seen me admitting my shortcomings many times. Now, please, just lay the hell off me for as long as you possibly can (permanently, I hope). If you can't do it out of charity and justice, then please do it because you can see that I won't take it lying down!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 16, 2003.

Frank: First, I don't blame you for not speaking up on the prior thread, and if you feel you need to apologize anyway, apology accepted!

Thank you kindly!

I've said before that I've said uncharitable things here, and would ask for a blanket apology for MY behavior on any of the threads regarding the SSPX where I've gotten overly frustrated and taken it out in my posts. The church is not going to regain unity with everyone being unable to discuss things.

Your apology is uneccessary, but I happily accept it!:-)

Hey, I understand. We are so passionate in our beliefs. When we think what (or who) we love is under attack, it's easy for our passion to spill over into something it shouldn't be - frustration, anger or what have you. I'm guilty of those things more so than you, which is why I've decided not to debate certain things here anymore. Firstly, that's what the majority wants, secondly I confess there are certain people (and their opinions)I'm better off steering clear of. So to practice a little "prudence" myself, I think its best if I leave it to Emerald and Isabel (if they so choose) to debate this stuff. They are so much better at it and defend our(Traditional) position(s) so much more charitably.

That's why I'm opting out of giving a rebuttal to the rest of your post. I will say I respectfully disagree, and, for me, it's best to leave it at that.

Pray for me and be assured of my prayers for you. :-)

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), August 16, 2003.

John,

Mateo and yourself are both holy Catholics in my opinion.(Not that it means much). I wish I were half the Catholic as either one of you guys.

I think that Mateo's mind was a "little" tainted about you 16-18 moths ago. I saw the thread that Mateo pulled up with "google", and for him to rember that shows that he must of taken something the wrong way.

I thought about it, knowing that both of you guys always try and help people so much, and I could only rember one thread that would make me think.

Do you guys rember Kathy? Rember her thread that she started"should Cardinal Law resign?

Well if you read a post from Chris B. posted April 18 2002 to John, I think you will see where this might have orginated from.

Actually, it was Chris Butler that was trying to "paint" John against Mateo.

I'll top for you, Mat.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 16, 2003.

My goodness, John. Quite a post. I'd like to respond, but it's pretty late. I'd like to respond tomorrow.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 17, 2003.

Jmj

Mateo, in my second-last message (on the 15th), I wrote:
"I've noticed that there are genuinely important things for me to do with my life, both within and outside the forum. For example, I have enjoyed posting messages on substantive matters on other threads today. I suggest that everyone else get back to that kind of productive thing ..."

So, please don't burden yourself or me by responding further on this thread. Almost every minute used for posting comments on this thread has been a waste of time. If you decide to contradict my latest message, I'll just contradict you back (because I know that I am right). As I say, it would be such a waste for us to continue (not to mention boring). Only the devil wants it.

Thank you, David, for complimenting us and for bringing that other thread to Mateo's attention. (I posted a message there just now, to point back also to a June 5, 2002, message of mine to Mateo -- rejecting the erroneous claim made about me on April 18.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 17, 2003.

Yeah Mateo,

Only the Devil would suggest that you contradict John on anything. LOL!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 17, 2003.

A message from Bishop Fulton J. Sheen...

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches in the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church which is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and of never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth.

Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of GOD as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to GOD. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself The Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine."

-- Msgr (at the time of writing) Fulton J. Sheen D.D.. Preface to Radio Replies Volume #1, Fr. Leslie Rumble and Fr. Charles Carty, a Tan Book.

One of my so-called "schismatic" friends sent me the above. Now ain't that the trooth... dang. No, I mean, ain't that the TRUTH. Man, I almost deceived myself that time.

I must actually be a Catholic; after all, Fr. Mitch Pacwa gave me Holy Communion this morning. Gong Gong Gong!!! Hey, look, I'm putting $1 in the basket. Hey!!! lol.

It was at the Maronite Rite; it's probably been maybe the second or third time since January that we had to go somewhere other than the Tridentine Mass, based on circumstance.

The Maronite is o.k., but it seems to have undergone some sort of Novus-Ordo-ization of some kind or another, obviously. There were about 35 people there. I was going to ask him why there's someone over at ETWN who's claiming that the Jews can attain heaven while they yet actively deny Christ but I decided to let it go.

He gave a pretty good sermon about the salvation, and a bit about the Holy Ghost and about how he's been banned from Australia and New Zealand. I thought, you know, this Pacwa can't be so bad if he's been banned from a country and an entire continent. I can hang with that!

One thing for sure is that he knew that particular Eastern liturgy like the back of his hand.

But all in all, I wish I had been able to get to the Tridentine Mass to fulfill my obligation. Any kind of compromise, large or small, makes me think of infidelity.

Come on John, you've got to forgive Mateo. Look man, if I can put up with Frank and omg Paul, nay, yet whilst being "possessed" no less, I'm sure you can cut Mateo here some slack. j/k all.

I retain the balance of 19 pages.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 17, 2003.

"Only the Devil would suggest that you contradict John on anything. LOL!"

More monkey-shines from the peanut gallery, I see. Ah, if only all people who don't know how to read with comprehension would remain appropriately silent, instead of openly making fools of themselves! As folks who are capable of understanding English already know, I did not say or imply what the quoted sentence seeks to mock.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 17, 2003.

No, John, I just think you're funny.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 17, 2003.

I have posted an answer to John on the "Moderator - notice of material to delete" because I in fact was the anonymous poster that has been discussed on this thread. I did not think it was right to repeat the whole post on this thread, but simply to note that I had posted a reply explaining why I posted anonymously, and to let everyone know on this thread also that the accusations that John has made against me, namely that someone in my life has been mistreating me for years and years, and that I posted my original post out of a need to strike back because I'm being mistreated in real life ARE COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!

For the long version, please read the post on the other thread.

Thank you, Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

Frank, you "think [I'm] funny," do you?
Well, sorry to say, but many of us had the sad experience of coming to fear (in January) that you are "funny in the head."
Everything I have written on this thread has been "dead serious." There is nothing "funny" about it, so for you to say that you "think [I'm] funny" is an insult. Kindly stop making such remarks.

Carolyn, there's no point in anyone reading your rubbish on some other thread, because they won't find anything helpful to anyone there -- and they are sure to find plenty of inaccurate things instead (not to mention things that make you seem rather goofy). Even in the brief message above, you have falsely accused me of stating something "completely untrue" -- as though I had lied about you.

The fact is that I would never have said what I did on that other thread if you had not been my source of facts. You must have forgotten that, a long time ago, you mentioned how you were in an ongoing situation of being improperly treated in your private life. So you were either not being truthful when you mentioned that before, or you are not being truthful now. Either way, I really don't care, and all this arguing is a sordid pile of rubbish. Therefore, I ask the Moderator to delete THIS worthless thread too.

LET'S GET BACK TO DOING WHAT THIS FORUM IS FOR -- SPREADING THE orthodox CATHOLIC FAITH, SUPPORTING EACH OTHER WHEN IN DISTRESS, AND THE SUCH-LIKE. NO MORE OF THIS NONSENSE, WHICH SO PLEASES THE DEVIL!!!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

"for you to say that you "think [I'm] funny" is an insult. Kindly stop making such remarks."

Yes. Wouldn't want to say anything insulting, would we?

-- Jimminy Cricket (shame@on.you), August 18, 2003.

John,

Frank, you "think [I'm] funny," do you? Well, sorry to say, but many of us had the sad experience of coming to fear (in January) that

you are "funny in the head."

Everything I have written on this thread has been "dead serious." There is nothing "funny" about it, so for you to say that you "think [I'm] funny" is an insult. Kindly stop making such remarks

See! This is *exactly* what I meant. People (in this case me) can make a relatively benign comment to you, you respond with a DIRECT insult (saying I'm funny in the head) and don't even notice that YOUR conduct is EXACTLY like the conduct you are railing against. Many people have commented on this, and you haven't changed an iota, I'm sure because you assume you are 100% correct and everyone else is wrong about you. It used to be sad, but now it's funny. I think it's an improvement, well, that or a coping mechanism, in any event it's more enjoyable.

Hey John, I've got a REAL toughie for you. Try reading this without responding. I mean not even ONE line about how you're "honor bound" or "duty bound" or some nonsense like that to respond. See if you can do it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 18, 2003.

Hi John,

I'm going to reply because you've posted false statements that deserve correction. I've got a day job and some other extracurricular activities which keep me from "wasting my time here." Patience...

God bless all,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 18, 2003.

John,

The other thread has been deleted which is just fine. I'm sorry that you consider what I had to say rubbish.

Yes, I cried out for help and prayers at a time in my life where I was going through a difficult time. That was several years ago, and YOU must have forgotten that I also posted thank yous for the prayers, AND that the situation had greatly improved.

I repeat, for the record, I AM not being mistreated, and have not been mistreated for years and years.

I did not say that I had been mistreated for years and year in my long-ago post. The on-going situation was on-going at that time, and was resolved, and I noted such. I suggest that you inquire next time before you make such an assumption if you even SUSPECT that such a situation is still on-going. There is absolutely no way that you could be CERTAIN of such a thing, especially from a post made years ago. As such I had no need to strike out at you because I am being mistreated in my personal life. I am not.

I will not debate this with you, but I will not tolerate you saying these kinds of things about me.

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

Ahem.

-- Jimminy Cricket (shame@on.you), August 18, 2003.

MODERATOR,

this thread, hopefully meant as an appology, has degenerated into what we all have feared that it would... it has turned into a thread whose only purpose is to smear one another. this forum is no place for mud throwing or inappropriate grudges and as such this thread is no longer serving to this forum or to God. please delete it with all expediency.

yours in service of God,

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 18, 2003.

paul,

It also gives us an opportunity to be introspective, and improve ourselves. Why I may be improving as we post!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 18, 2003.

Jmj

Thank you, paul, for adding your voice to my request that the Moderator delete this thread.

Just in case he delays long enough, though, to allow Mateo to add his threatened -- uh, promised -- reply {;p], I want to ask Mateo to be careful with the words he uses. He just stated, "I'm going to reply because you've posted false statements that deserve correction."
To the average person, the word "false" implies "deliberately deceptive." I state that I am not guilty of such a thing. Please, Mateo, use a non-judgmental word like "incorrect" or "erroneous" if you mean that you are convinced I have made a mistake. (I realize that I myself may have slipped and inadvertently used the word "false" at times in the past. For those mistakes, I apologize now.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

John,

I merely meant the first dictionary definition of false:

Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.

Antonym: True.

Whoo. Seems like nit-picking...

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--Still busy, John, but your post is full of errors. Is that better?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 18, 2003.

At long last, here's my response. Enjoy!

Grudges

John, you've held grudges against many people. You seem to want to redefine the term "grudge" so that it applies to anyone but yourself. Your posts show that you hold grudges against moderators, against other Catholic posters, etc. It's not a "foreign concept" to you. I have specific instances of you exhibiting this "foreign concept" if you choose to remain in disbelief. The truth is out there.

It's humorous that you think that I am holding a grudge against you because of the Arab/Muslim/Middle Easterner generalization you made. Here are the facts:

1. I called your statement "specious." I didn't say you were breaking forum rules. I didn't say it was a sin. I didn't say you were possessed by the devil. I didn't call you names. I merely identified a particular habit you have of using faulty (specious) arguments. Such a statement is not a grudge; it's fact, identified by others here.

2. If I've got a grudge against you, you'll kindly explain why I've spent most (if not all) of my comments (those directed toward you) in complimenting particular posts you have made.

3. In this thread you have written to me: "You ought to be more concerned about the fact that you NEVER get emotional and NEVER use epithets." OK, John, at least you admit that I don't get emotional when I post. It easily follows that chances are, I'm not getting emotional when I post something to you. Once again, no sign of a grudge.

I present this clear evidence to the jury and rest my case. My client is innocent.

The Magician

Magicians successfully execute tricks by diverting the audience's attention from where the action is. Your trick is this: you have a horrible habit of name-calling; it is a mark of shame and it is an embarrassment for faithful Catholics. I called you on it. And, like a magician, you're waving your right hand (the grudge accusation) to hide what's in your left hand (your un-Christian behavior).

You don't seem to think that 15 instances of name-calling in the course of one or two posts is excessive. Well, it is excessive.

If I remember correctly (I think some of the old "moderator's rules" threads have disappeared), the forum rules allow Catholics to use name-calling against non-Catholics and non-Catholic religion, though non-Catholics may not use name-calling against the Church. Though we've all seen our share of anti-Catholic nastiness, such a one- sided policy has the potential (if abused) to make Catholics out to be hypocrites. By abuse, I'm referring to those who lean on mean- spirited name-calling as a weapon. I believe it is obvious when people start being abusive in their name-calling, and, John, you are certainly not the first person whom I've criticized for this behavior. You're also not the first to cling to such behavior when it is pointed out.

This is why I never claimed that your name-calling broke the forum rules (I don't know what the current rules are). But, I maintain that your behavior is un-Christian and will turn away many more souls than your knowledge attracts (i.e. you are a resounding gong, as St. Paul writes).

Meaningless nuances

Commenting on your 1-1/2 year old post, you try to paint my accusation false because I didn't get every detail right. John, all in all, I'd say that my memory of your 1-1/2 year-old statement is pretty good, considering it means so little to me. I find it funny that you complain that I said "relatives" instead of "ancestors." As if my ancestors aren't my relatives. As if you can make a false generalization about my ethnic background and then say, "Hey, I'm just slandering your ethnic group, not you!" Could one say, "Irish tend to be drunks; but hey, you're not."? Boy, that makes me feel better.

Secondly, your being upset with me (even blaming me for falsely accusing you!) for merely forgetting the details of your old post contrasts against your previous assertion that you didn't even write such a thing. Does the following statement sound familiar:

"I doubt that I said anything remotely like that, but if I'm wrong, then (depending on what I did say), I may need to apologize to you. I have a feeling that, if someone really made such a comment to/about you, it was not me, and you have slipped into a case of mistaken identity."

Hmmm...

You write:

"Consequently, you got defensive and oversensitive..."

Remember, John, you wrote in the same post that my problem is that I am not emotional! You're not being too consistent in your accusations. Defensive and oversensitive...would that be like someone explaining the difference between the terms "false" and "erroneous?" Where does that register on the sensitivity scale? You get my point.

You write:

"And please don't bother to say that I "often" do something. Having posted over 6,000 messages, I've probably "often" did everything that a person can do! If I messed up terribly just 1% of the time, that would be 60 times. Now 60 major foul-ups looks terrible, until you stop to think that I didn't foul up in a major way over 5,900 times!!! I have posted far more messages here than anyone else, meaning that I expose myself to criticism and ridicule more than anyone else, and I take a chance on erring more than anyone else. Instead of you (and especially others) attacking me all over the place, people ought to be giving me the benefit of the doubt, remembering the 95 to 99% of my messages that are good and unobjectionable."

This sounds like an interesting line are argument. If a husband came to his wife and said, "Honey, this year I cheated on you three days this year out of 365 days. But, hey don't worry, that's only 1% cheating. I was 99% faithful!" Let's ignore the numbers; the issue isn't how often that you "messed up." It's the fact that you defend your "mess-ups" by saying "I'm just being me." I'm glad that while you've got 95-99% good and unobjectionable posts, you admit 1%- 5% bad and objectionable posts. Once again, if I have posted something which reflects badly on me, feel free to correct me. I'm not going to divide it by my total number of posts (~1300) and give a percentage. I'll probably do my best to fight such accusations off (sound familiar?). I may or may be wrong. And whether I admit my mistake, if I made a mistake I'll see it and be a better person because of the correction. And I'll try to amend my behavior in the future.

Psychoanalysis and Spiritual Direction

You write:

"I don't "psychoanalyze" others. Instead, I (rarely) make observations about what people do, sometimes following this up with speculation about why they do it. (Psychoanalysts do a lot more than that.)"

Well, I'm not saying you are a professional psychoanalyst. I know you're not sending her a bill for services rendered. You're acting like you are one, though; and you admit it in your last statement.

Then you write:

"What I do is a very different action from your highly improper arrogating to yourself the role of spiritual director (without my asking you to do so). In this role, you think that you can judge me as a sinner and that you can give me advice on how to be holy. Get yourself ordained first, and then sit in the confessional waiting for me to come for your help."

What's funny about this statement is that I distinctly remember people attempting to discredit you by saying that you should not give advice because you aren't ordained, you aren't a canon lawyer, etc.

I'm as free to give unsolicited advice as you are. What percentage of your 6000 posts were you "arrogating to yourself the role of a spiritual director?"

To be direct, I have never "arrogated" such a role as you falsely accuse. In fact, I am quite sure that you know that I am not ordained. I expect that you already know that I have no title allowing me to provide professional spiritual direction. I have never pretended to hold any title other than "Catholic believer." But, the forum does not demand that contributors be ordained priests, religious, or accredited spiritual directors. I have merely contributed posts to this forum with my opinions and my understanding of the Catholic Faith.

You write:

"You [that's Mateo] then stated: "John writes: 'the fact is that they are no better imitators of Jesus than anyone else is (your humble servant included)' John, this is a relativist statement. If you feel like correcting my behavior with Christian charity, have at it! But in the meantime, saying to God, 'I sinned less than my neighbor,' isn't going to get you into Heaven."

I see that you continue to have trouble reading and comprehending what I write, as you did in April of 2002. Take another look at my words that you quoted. They do NOT say, "I sinned less than my neighbor," but rather that I sin no more than they do. There is a huge difference!"

John, any nuance of your statement is still relativistic. We aren't going to be judged relative to our neighbors holiness. When I was a kid and brought home a test with a bad grade, I used to try to justify my "C" by telling my parents that the majority of kids scored a "C" or lower. The excuse didn't work for me back then, and it's not working for you now.

You write:

"The problem is that you are not following it properly. In "correcting" me, you "threw the book at me," going into a mile- long harangue that went far beyond telling me what you perceived that I did wrongly, adding your quasi-pastoral advice, etc.. Your comments were partially wrong/unjustifiable and fully humiliating in a very public way -- contrary to what the gospel says to do the first time you choose to correct someone. And now you have done more of the same rubbish in your follow-up message. (That's why I am replying at length. I'm not going to tolerate this silently, lest you be encouraged to do still more of it, to me and to others.)"

John, the advice was given in charity. The advice was neither "partially wrong" nor "unjustifiable." If it is a "mile- long harangue," it's only that way because I knew that you would look for any hole in a less-defined explanation of my "correction" at you. Your response only confirmed the necessity of such detail. You write that my post was "humiliating." I didn't mean it to humiliate you; but I've seen you name-calling and contributing to the forum with un-Christian posts. As you say, "I'm not going to tolerate this silently, lest you be encouraged to do still more of it, to me and to others." I couldn't have said it better myself.

You write:

"The worst thing of all about what you did is this: Some people have been harassing this forum for 1.5 years, and you have never lifted a finger to aid me in getting rid of them. Instead, you have been an "enabler." You have been overly tolerant. You have let evil- doers remain here to pound and pound away at orthodox Catholicism indefinitely. I don't know if it was because of an unfounded pride in your assumed ability to change people's thinking, but you have continued to engage them in debate, instead of helping me to persuade the moderator to ban them. I know for a fact that he would have banned them by now, if only a bunch of good Catholics had spoken up alongside me. But many "enablers" have remained completely silent, while others (like you) have continue the same useless debates with these schismo-heretical people, wasting precious time amusing folks who would not change their thinking and behavior even if Jesus himself appeared and told them to change!"

OK, John, you're going to have to do me a favor and take back this whole paragraph. Do you really believe what you are writing? Ask yourself. Ask Jake and Ed and Regina and Isabel and even Emerald! I'll give you the opportunity to take this statement back. If you can't retract this false (erroneous?), baseless statement, let me know and I'd be happy to give you a few threads to sway your opinion.

You write:

"So, now you see how your dagger is double-edged -- slicing me with your corrections/criticisms, and slashing me by not being my ally to clean up the forum. You were so wrapped up in finding my mistakes and criticizing me for them that you didn't even stop to think about whether they could be wholly or partly excused by the horrible conduct of those whom I took to task. If you had a better understanding of the reality of the situation here, you would have said little or nothing to me, but would have directed all or most of your criticisms/corrections at the culprits who have already drawn one at least fellow into schism -- and you would have joined me in persuading the moderator to ban

them. "

John, I have sided with you when you side with the Catholic Faith. I cannot in good conscience side with you when you abandon Christian virtue in order to defend the Faith. In this forum, I've been critical of name-calling coming from atheists, new-agers, Protestants, schismatics, unorthodox Catholics, and orthodox Catholics. I feel that abandoning name-calling isn't merely appeasing political correctness. Instead, it encourages healthy debate/dialog and attracts visitors to stick around. We've all seen the posts in which people state they are leaving because the mean- spiritedness that comes from things like name-calling.

You write:

"You [Mateo] wrote: "If you choose to continue shooting yourself in the foot with your emotional outbreaks and spats of name-calling, then, as you say, 'It's a free country.'"

This makes me raise again the subject of my many posts and how extremely rare it has been for me to get emotional and use epithets. Your comment falsely makes it seem as though I do it frequently."

John, are you so interested in discrediting me that you label my comment "false" simply because you choose to interpret something that I neither said nor inferred? Yikes! This is foul play!

You write:

"You ought to be more concerned about the fact that you NEVER get emotional and NEVER use epithets. I pointed out to you that Jesus, St. Paul, St. John the Baptist, St. Jerome, and many other saints and popes did EXACTLY what you bawl me out for doing. How did you react to my mentioning that? You totally ignored it,"

John, I call a spade a spade. I seldom call people names (though some people believe that "schismatic" or "protestant" is name- calling). But, if you want to get technical, it is your excessive use of name calling that is in question. Fifteen times in a couple posts? That is excessive and counter-productive. And I stand by my conclusion--such excesses lack charity.

You write:

"How blind can a person be? Think about the fact that, in never getting emotional and telling evil-doing people what they are, you are either exhibiting gutlessness or a political correctness unbecoming of a Christian. I say again that you have been trying to get me to be like you -- but I could never be so abnormal. You approach these guys like a doormat at all times, and they continue to walk right over you."

Hahaha. John, do you want to take this false statement back, too? Do you really need me to prove that I have directly confronted schismatics' errors?

You write:

"They are so out of touch with the reality of genuine Catholicism that they need to be AWAY from here, to stew in their isolation until the Holy Spirit can break through their "deafness." They will not come around to reality by being allowed to remain here."

You are preaching to the choir. I have written repeatedly that if someone breaks the forum rules, the moderator should enforce those rules by some substantial action--a deletion of posts or banning. Neither I nor your have the authority to decide--it ain't our forum, despite the number of posts each of us have contributed. I can only cite what I believe to be prohibited by forum rules. It's all up to the moderator after that.

You write:

"I have "never held a grudge against any moderator." All the ways in which I was mistreated by moderators are in the past. If you have mistakenly thought that I am holding a grudge, it can only be due to the fact that people keep bringing up the subject, causing me to comment accordingly."

Previous threads show your statement to be inaccurate. You have not needed prompting to bring up the subject of your "mistreatment."

And you close with:

"Now, please, just lay the hell off me for as long as you possibly can (permanently, I hope). If you can't do it out of charity and justice, then please do it because you can see that I won't take it lying down!"

If you can make some simple admissions and retract the false statements that you made, I'd be happy to "lay off" you. It's just that I have a problem being silent when people throw me so many falsehoods.

God bless you all,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 19, 2003.

Sunshine (Carolyn),

While the boys here (me included) scurry around and quote Church documents and Bible verses, the ladies here have always been the examples of virtue. Faith, hope, charity. You ladies really can live your faith!

Ever since I first saw your nickname (Sunshine), it has always brought a smile to my face to see you post. You are really a kindhearted person, and deserve nothing but peace and happiness. I'm glad to hear that you're doing well.

God bless you and your family!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 19, 2003.

Mateo takes down Gecik; and justifiably and rightfully so, I might add.

I might also add that I am no more worthy than Gecik or Mateo.

Also, I might add that Jake has all of my respect for following the narrow path and understanding his own Catholicism.

Add also, that I am more guilty than Gecik, and no less worthy of salvation than Gecik, and one with Jake in wormhood.

And the good Catholic women of the forum are good, but are also in need of the grace of God through His Catholic Church.

John Gecik, one can never, in this lifetime, experience the laud of his fellow man (or woman... lol!) via his Catholic Faith. The Faith demands that you seek the opposite.

The Faith will always set you at emnity with the world, and plunge you into discord with your neighbor, because since the beginning the world has hated Christ.

There can be no reward in the here-and-now for the excercise of our Catholicism. Expect no less than crucifixion!

Accept marginalization, because in marginalization and defeat and humility, you will find your salvation.

This is the Cross of Christ.

I love you as a brother in Christ, John Gecik.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Mateo.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote to you:
"... please don't burden yourself or me by responding further on this thread. Almost every minute used for posting comments on this thread has been a waste of time. If you decide to contradict my latest message, I'll just contradict you back (because I know that I am right). As I say, it would be such a waste for us to continue (not to mention boring). Only the devil wants [us to continue]."

I also wrote:
"If you can't [lay off me] out of charity and justice, then please do it because you can see that I won't take [your abuse] lying down!"

On a later day, I had a change of heart, writing:
"... all this arguing is a sordid pile of rubbish. ... Let's get back to doing what this forum is for -- spreading the orthodox Catholic faith, supporting each other when in distress, and the such-like. No more of this nonsense, which so pleases the devil!!!"

Unfortunately, none of these things I said kept you from appeasing your ego by seeking again to "win" this argument. I'm not sure which is true -- that you are the "alpha male" type who can't sleep at night unless he is at the top of the pecking order -- or that you are an extremely insecure person who needs to have victory to maintain his sanity. I've seen this dire need to win in you too many dozens of times (without a single case of accepting defeat) to be mistaken.

I think that everyone (except perhaps you) knows that I could take your last message to me, break it into pieces, and refute it. It is simply loaded with factual errors, unjust comments, attempts to defend the indefensible, non-sequiturs, etc.. Needless to say, you have not persuaded me to change one iota. On not even one point did you overcome my previous arguments -- though you certainly thought you did, given the supercilious air that could be "read between the lines" and the self-satisfied smirk that your choice of sarcastic words would lead anyone to believe you bore while entering your insubstantial comments. (Many are the times I have witnessed this overly self-assured arrogance from you when others were the victims of it. I should have spoken up sooner, because these faults of yours are far worse than tossing out an emotional, frank epithet on occasion.)

Previously I said that "I'll just contradict you back" and "I won't take [your abuse] lying down". But I've changed my mind. I am not going to contradict you one error at a time, and I will take your abuse lying down, without defending against each insult. I will let you and other readers believe each thing you said, even though they are wrong or unjust. I will do this for one noble reason and one sad, but necessary, reason.

The first reason is the one I quoted above (i.e., so that we can stop wasting time and "get back to doing what this forum is for"). The second reason is my gradual and shocked realization, as I read this thread, that you are incapable of benefiting from any reply that anyone would give you. To benefit would require certain gifts that you lack (some in the area of intellect, some in the area of character/virtue).

Mateo, you are welcome to bask in what you wrongly imagine is a victory. I will turn my attention to substantive matters instead.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

Dear Mateo,

Thank you so very much for your kind words to me! I appreciate what you said very much. I do try very hard to live my faith, but I have my moments just like everyone does, and (obviously!) I lose my temper from time to time.

I admire that you've been able to say to John what was on my heart, but say it so well and so charitably. It is obvious that you are not out to win or any such thing, but that you were truly trying to speak the truth in love (charity) in an effort to correct a fellow Catholic Christian brother.

You are a good and kind person who has both the knowledge and the wisdom to be a mighty advocate for Christ!

Carolyn

-- Carolyn (ck_sunshine@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.