Post by Noelfitz on Apr 10, 2009 15:44:31 GMT
I
Recently there has been a campaign of vilification and character assassination against me. This is a serious accusation, but more despicable and malicious than this campaign is the attempt to initiate a conspiracy to ruin my good name and reputation and establish that I am dishonest and attempt to mislead and that as a phony or smug Pharisee I am not entitled to respect, reputation or value.
I make these considered claims in the utmost clear and unambiguous way. I want it to be understood that I consider the vile attacks on me completely reprehensible and despicable.
Slander and detraction have moral and ethical implications, while defamation and libel have legal consequences and one is entitled to defend one’s reputation and standing and to expect that the law will vindicate one’s good name.
I refer to the libels in the topic “When is a Catholic not a Catholic” in the Irish Catholics’ Forum started on 14 March. I attempt to live up to the motto in my signature “ In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas”. Thus I believe in unity in essentials, freedom in inessential and charity/love in all things. I do not intend to allow my wish to be charitable to be a licence for others to abuse me and hold me up to contempt. One has the right, even the obligation, to defend one’s good name and to claim that no one has the right to consider another unworthy of normal human respect. Everyone has the right not to be gratuitously insulted and libelled. One is entitled to legal redress if one is libelled.
II
I read in a post of 2 April:
“Does anyone else on thsi board have an opinion about Noelfitz? Does anyone else here think he is a phoney, or is he just a smug Pharisee who doesn't know how to think?”
This is a request for others on this board to insult me and join in posting in an attempt at character assassination. It is immortal and unethical to try to ruin a persons’ reputation. However it is more mean, cowardly and corrupt to encourage others to participate in blackening another’s character.
Thus I say to the person who libelled me that I demand your name, contact details and address, as this issue will be taken further and the possibility of legal action is being considered. I also demand a complete apology and retraction of your vile accusations.
Weasel words and partial apologies are not enough. One’s good name and reputation are vital to a person. Attempting to deprive a person of self-esteem and worth are serious offenses; hence the law protects a person. Your claim “I may have misjudged you” is totally inadequate and unacceptable. You wrote “Does anyone else here think he is a phoney”. This clearly says you consider me a phoney and you encourage others to associate themselves with this libel. A phoney is one who is without respect, integrity or truth. He is one who lies and is not a genuine person. It is not adequate to say “I find your postings so irritating.” Your libel has nothing to do with my views; it is my person that is being rubbished. It is not my views but by character that others are invited to insult by being asked to label me as a phoney or a smug Pharisee. You also say “I attacked you because I believed from your statements that you were another spoofer.” That is untrue you did not attack me because I was a spoofer. You attacked me because you consider me a phoney – a person of no worth. I also demand from you a complete vindication of my good name and character. It is totally beyond acceptable behaviour to try to destroy a person’s reputation and you are obliged to rectify the damage done.
Thus three things I demand from you:
1. your full name, address and other contact details
2. a complete retraction of your libel and a full and sincere apology for trying to ruin my character and get others to collaborate in this.
3. a vindication of my reputation.
III
To the Moderator I would say, you have been asleep at your job. You have allowed a person to libel another in the forum you moderate. You did not attempt to defend my good name or character. You did not object to the request for others to join in this malicious behaviour to defame me.
I have been a member here for much longer than the person who accused me. Never did you contact me or give me any indication that I was considered a phoney or a smug Pharisee. You made no effort to contact me or to refer to my behaviour in our forum. As you are the moderator, you have responsibility in this matter. Thus I want from you:
1. Your name and contact details.
2. A full retraction of the libel and a sincere apology.
3. A vindication of my reputation.
IV
To our Administrator, Michael G, I say that I regret most sincerely that things have reached this position. I have had 25 messages from you, in 2007 and 2008. They have all been warm, encouraging and positive. I appreciate your friendship, your commitment to the Church and to this forum. You have invested time and effort in this forum, as well as an appreciable amount of money. We were both participants years ago in a US round-table. When I heard you were starting this forum I wanted to help and encourage you fully and was pleased to be associated with it as it could have done great work for the Church. However when my character was attacked you did nothing. You allowed me to be insulted and libelled over a number of posts, culminating in being called a phoney. You did not object to the invitation to others to write in saying I am either a phoney or a smug Pharisee. As I have your name and contact details there is no need to give me them. I appreciate your integrity and loyalty, so I hope our friendship and mutual respect may continue. I am sure you did not agree with the libels, but you did nothing to protect my reputation.
V
To others participating in this topic I want to thank you sincerely, as none of you supported the call to libel me and blacken my name by calling me either a phoney of a smug Pharisee. You showed good sense and decency in this. However I was disappointed that no one felt that the attempt to destroy my character and create a conspiracy against me did not merit a response.
“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out” (Martin Niemoeller).
VI
For my own part, I do not intend to defend my views or my character. In particular my views do not enter into this discussion; it is my character that was libelled. I have been in this forum since 2007 and have over 200 posts. Thus I am one of those who have contributed and participated most consistently over the years. The person who libelled and vilified me has only been here since Oct 2008. I have shown my loyalty to the Church and this forum, including writing to the Irish Times to get us support. I stand over all my posts. I have always tried to accept the views of others, while being faithful to the Church. I have always tried to be charitable. I did not mean this to give anyone permission to try to ruin my reputation. At times when there were few contributions I submitted a post that I thought was of interest and would generate discussion. Thus is not a justification of some of my posts, as justifications from me are not required.
Also there is no need for me to defend my character or reputation. Everyone has the right to his good name and character. To libel another is never justified. If anyone had evidence that I was a phoney or a sham the onus is on him or her to produce that, being prepared to face legal consequences for possible libel. Also it is impossible for me to vindicate my name. If I say I am not a phoney that can be interpreted as proof that I am one, since I, being a phoney, claim I am not. If I say I am a phoney I also prove I am one since, in truth, I do not consider myself as phoney.
It is very difficult now for me to contribute here as the libel that I am a phoney or a smug Pharisee means my views may be considered false, dishonest and hypocritical.
VI
I will go through the relevant posts in this topic to show how consistent the campaign of vilification against me was.
This forum is not anonymous. All of us are people with names. I do not hide behind a vague name. I have given my email address in my profile. I am not ashamed of whom I am or my views. The person who attacked be chose a more vague name, the same as used by a contributor to the current “Brandsma Review”. The excuse that one used a nom de plume when libelling another does acquit one of libel.
In my first post in this topic (17 Mar) I wrote:
“In reply to ezigboututu I would say that the Pope is not the head of the Church, Jesus Christ is. The Pope is Christ's vicar on earth.
The Catholic Church is the one, true, holy Church, made up of unholy people; Jesus came to call sinners.”
I stand over this and cannot see how it shows I am a phoney.
In another post on the same day I wrote:
“To me a Catholic is one who was baptized into the Catholic Church and believes (s)he is one.”
Again this is a view held by many. I do not see how it shows I am a phoney. What constitutes a Catholic is a difficult question, as can be seen from the discussion. One could consider a Catholic as a member of the Church. Reading the Papal Documents Mystici Corporis, Lumen Gentium or Gaudium et Spes may help.
In reply to my post the person who libelled me wrote:
“The problem with Noelfitz's definition is that it is utterly subjective”.
I accept this viewpoint and respect a reply to my opinion that is not an attack on my character.
On 19 Mar I wrote:
“However excommunication is an issue for me. I would like to have it discussed.”
This is true and expresses an honestly held view of mine.
On 19 Mar Myk wtote in reply to the person who attacked me and also a well known journalist:
“very unchristian name calling!”
This showed amazing insight when one considers developments.
On 29 Mar I wrote:
“The Church has been around for some time and is not too stupid. It would be silly to reject those who do not follow all the rules. There would be few Catholics left, as we are all sinners.”
Again I stand over this view. Being a sinner does not make one cease to be Catholic. This is not an unusual view. It is probably shared by most people. I see nothing phoney in it.
This elicited the reply:
“OK Neolfitz - by your logic hemingway and Hazelireland are really Catholics even though they have expressly apostatised, and there is nothing they can do to cease to be Catholics. What excludes people from the Church is not sin but impenitence. I may also suggest that you go away and learn something about thedifference between the visible and invisible Church, and Jesus' saying that "Not everyone who calls me "Lord, Lord" will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Alternately, you might go away and do something useful and leave this board to those who are genuinely interested in stating their position and discussing the issues, rather than spreading obfuscation and confusion as you do.”
This is where the insults begin. The superior attitude adopted and the attempt to bully me and put me down are mean and small minded. The insulting suggestion that I am ignorant and should not be participating in this forum shows contempt and arrogance. The malicious attempt to bully me and show me up as ignorant and not suitable to be here should have set off warning bells. Bullying is not acceptable behaviour. Bullies when people stand up to them show themselves as cowards. I ask the one who libelled me to show courage, integrity and honesty by giving me his name and contact details to facilitate my legal claims and search for redress. The remark “you might go away and do something useful and leave this board to those who are genuinely interested in stating their position and discussing the issues, rather than spreading obfuscation and confusion as you do” shows despicable insulting and unacceptable behaviour and total disdain for others by the person who attacked me rather than saying anything about me.
On 30 Mar the following appeared “
“In response to our atheist posters, who are honest and straightforward in a way that I believe Noelfitz is not” .
This was a direct attach on my integrity and honesty and not my views. Unfortunately, as I was trying to exercise restraint and charity I wrote on Mar 31:
“*********
You wrote:
n response to our atheist posters, who are honest and straightforward in a way that I believe Noelfitz is not
This is a bit harsh.
Would you like to give examples?
However you may be correct.
“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion”
Yesterday I was at a conference organised by the International Centre for Newman Studies to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Rahner's death at age 80 March 30, 1984, Rahner's thought was nuanced, developed over time and is not systematically described in his voluminous writings. Ratzinger and Rahner were very close initially, but in later days drifted apart.
Rahner's views deserve careful consideration.”
I may have been in error in not defending my reputation firmly.
The reply came:
“Very well, then Noelfitz - let's see you outline Rahner's views and why you admire them.”
This again is a put down and implied insult, insinuating my attacker’s knowledge of Rahner and my ignorance.
This post was followed by some others not very relevant to the personal attack on me.
However I next read:
“As you may be aware, this board has been infested in the past by such posters as Gabriel and Royalosiodhchain (both now happily expelled) who had no real interest in discussion but deliberately set out to spread confusion by producing ridiculous misstatements of Catholic doctrine. It is possible that you are not in fact one of these people, apperances to the contrary, but are merely a liberal Catholic of the sort who is simultaneously smug and confused.”
Here you again insult me. However the accusations of possibly “producing ridiculous misstatements of Catholic doctrine” and being merely merely a liberal Catholic of the sort who is simultaneously smug and confused.” Are not as serious as branding me a phoney and of trying to get others to join in your libels.
I think it is worthwhile again to reread your post in full:
Noelfitz:
Perhaps the Net with its anonymous posting naturally breeds mistrust, since we don't really know each other. As you may be aware, this board has been infested in the past by such posters as Gabriel and Royalosiodhchain (both now happily expelled) who had no real interest in discussion but deliberately set out to spread confusion by producing ridiculous misstatements of Catholic doctrine. It is possible that you are not in fact one of these people, apperances to the contrary, but are merely a liberal Catholic of the sort who is simultaneously smug and confused.
My objection to your posts is that they do not really deal with "various sides of an issue" as you put it. You do not put forward reasons for your own positions, or discuss why you think others' views are mistaken; you simply lump down "What about X"? as if the people you are criticising could be assumed never to have considered X at all, or as if X was so self-evident that no argument need be put forward in its defence. For example, I put forward a reasoned criticism of Rahner's "anonymous Christian" theory, which you appear to think is unfair to Rahner. If you were prepared to discuss what you think are Rahner's positive achievements or why you think criticisms of him are unfair, you would give an opportunity for other participants on this board to learn from you; instead you simply proclaim that Rahner is "very complicated" and engage in name-dropping, as if to say that we need not bother our innocent little heads about matters which can only be properly understood by such great intellects as yourself. Please spare us the smugness and condescension.
Similarly, when you declare that excommunication should never be resorted to under any circumstances you simply proclaim that this is more Christian, with the implication that you have some sort of direct line to Jesus which exempts you from explaining why it is any more Christian than (let us say) such bright ideas as the view that anyone who wishes to be a priest has a right to be ordained and once ordained have an automatic right to their reputation whatever crimes or misdeeds they may commit, or the view that everyone ought to ahve sex with anyone who asks them (a view which was actually put forward by some wooolly-minded or unscrupulous DH Lawrence fans during the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and whose consequences in practice contributd to the rise fo the radical feministmovement). Has no-one ever told you that it is not possible to have communion with someone who excludes themselves from communionwith you, and that excommunicatioon is only the formalisation of something which the excommuncate themselves has already perpetrated?
You seem to think, or at least insinuate, that "optimism" is always good and "pessimism" is always bad; surely ths depends on the circumstances. Your view would require us to side with the court prophets agaisnt Jeremiah, for example.
You regularly resort to word-play to make a statement and then run away from it, as you did in your "sex with a condom" exchange recently. THis sort of behaviour does not spread understanding, but obfuscation.
Does anyone else on thsi board have an opinion about Noelfitz? Does anyone else here think he is a phoney, or is he just a smug Pharisee who doesn't know how to think?”
I replied in a polite and non-confrontational way. This elicited from you completely unacceptable weasel words.
VII
Thus I write with the utmost sincerity and clarity that I have been insulted, humiliated, held up for contempt and ridiculed in this forum. There has been a despicable and illegal, attempt to destroy my name and reputation and portray me as a worthless person of no value. As I have been seriouisly libelled I intend to pursue the matter further and am considering legal action
Thus I demand to know the name and address of the person who libelled me and tried to destroy my character and encouraged others to do so. I expect for him a full and sincere apology and a complete retraction of the libel. I also demand from him a clear vindication of my reputation.
I also want from those who have responsibility here in this forum and answer as to why they allowed such malicious attacks to occur. I also want their contact details, as they may be responsible by neglect for the attempts to destroy my character.
I thank those who did not reply to the request to call me a phoney or a smug Pharisee. I regret that no one felt it was worth while defend my reputation.
Until these issues are resolved this forum is without moral or ethical standards and is an insult to the Irish Catholic Church. It can not contribute in any positive way to Catholicism in Ireland.
Recently there has been a campaign of vilification and character assassination against me. This is a serious accusation, but more despicable and malicious than this campaign is the attempt to initiate a conspiracy to ruin my good name and reputation and establish that I am dishonest and attempt to mislead and that as a phony or smug Pharisee I am not entitled to respect, reputation or value.
I make these considered claims in the utmost clear and unambiguous way. I want it to be understood that I consider the vile attacks on me completely reprehensible and despicable.
Slander and detraction have moral and ethical implications, while defamation and libel have legal consequences and one is entitled to defend one’s reputation and standing and to expect that the law will vindicate one’s good name.
I refer to the libels in the topic “When is a Catholic not a Catholic” in the Irish Catholics’ Forum started on 14 March. I attempt to live up to the motto in my signature “ In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas”. Thus I believe in unity in essentials, freedom in inessential and charity/love in all things. I do not intend to allow my wish to be charitable to be a licence for others to abuse me and hold me up to contempt. One has the right, even the obligation, to defend one’s good name and to claim that no one has the right to consider another unworthy of normal human respect. Everyone has the right not to be gratuitously insulted and libelled. One is entitled to legal redress if one is libelled.
II
I read in a post of 2 April:
“Does anyone else on thsi board have an opinion about Noelfitz? Does anyone else here think he is a phoney, or is he just a smug Pharisee who doesn't know how to think?”
This is a request for others on this board to insult me and join in posting in an attempt at character assassination. It is immortal and unethical to try to ruin a persons’ reputation. However it is more mean, cowardly and corrupt to encourage others to participate in blackening another’s character.
Thus I say to the person who libelled me that I demand your name, contact details and address, as this issue will be taken further and the possibility of legal action is being considered. I also demand a complete apology and retraction of your vile accusations.
Weasel words and partial apologies are not enough. One’s good name and reputation are vital to a person. Attempting to deprive a person of self-esteem and worth are serious offenses; hence the law protects a person. Your claim “I may have misjudged you” is totally inadequate and unacceptable. You wrote “Does anyone else here think he is a phoney”. This clearly says you consider me a phoney and you encourage others to associate themselves with this libel. A phoney is one who is without respect, integrity or truth. He is one who lies and is not a genuine person. It is not adequate to say “I find your postings so irritating.” Your libel has nothing to do with my views; it is my person that is being rubbished. It is not my views but by character that others are invited to insult by being asked to label me as a phoney or a smug Pharisee. You also say “I attacked you because I believed from your statements that you were another spoofer.” That is untrue you did not attack me because I was a spoofer. You attacked me because you consider me a phoney – a person of no worth. I also demand from you a complete vindication of my good name and character. It is totally beyond acceptable behaviour to try to destroy a person’s reputation and you are obliged to rectify the damage done.
Thus three things I demand from you:
1. your full name, address and other contact details
2. a complete retraction of your libel and a full and sincere apology for trying to ruin my character and get others to collaborate in this.
3. a vindication of my reputation.
III
To the Moderator I would say, you have been asleep at your job. You have allowed a person to libel another in the forum you moderate. You did not attempt to defend my good name or character. You did not object to the request for others to join in this malicious behaviour to defame me.
I have been a member here for much longer than the person who accused me. Never did you contact me or give me any indication that I was considered a phoney or a smug Pharisee. You made no effort to contact me or to refer to my behaviour in our forum. As you are the moderator, you have responsibility in this matter. Thus I want from you:
1. Your name and contact details.
2. A full retraction of the libel and a sincere apology.
3. A vindication of my reputation.
IV
To our Administrator, Michael G, I say that I regret most sincerely that things have reached this position. I have had 25 messages from you, in 2007 and 2008. They have all been warm, encouraging and positive. I appreciate your friendship, your commitment to the Church and to this forum. You have invested time and effort in this forum, as well as an appreciable amount of money. We were both participants years ago in a US round-table. When I heard you were starting this forum I wanted to help and encourage you fully and was pleased to be associated with it as it could have done great work for the Church. However when my character was attacked you did nothing. You allowed me to be insulted and libelled over a number of posts, culminating in being called a phoney. You did not object to the invitation to others to write in saying I am either a phoney or a smug Pharisee. As I have your name and contact details there is no need to give me them. I appreciate your integrity and loyalty, so I hope our friendship and mutual respect may continue. I am sure you did not agree with the libels, but you did nothing to protect my reputation.
V
To others participating in this topic I want to thank you sincerely, as none of you supported the call to libel me and blacken my name by calling me either a phoney of a smug Pharisee. You showed good sense and decency in this. However I was disappointed that no one felt that the attempt to destroy my character and create a conspiracy against me did not merit a response.
“When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out” (Martin Niemoeller).
VI
For my own part, I do not intend to defend my views or my character. In particular my views do not enter into this discussion; it is my character that was libelled. I have been in this forum since 2007 and have over 200 posts. Thus I am one of those who have contributed and participated most consistently over the years. The person who libelled and vilified me has only been here since Oct 2008. I have shown my loyalty to the Church and this forum, including writing to the Irish Times to get us support. I stand over all my posts. I have always tried to accept the views of others, while being faithful to the Church. I have always tried to be charitable. I did not mean this to give anyone permission to try to ruin my reputation. At times when there were few contributions I submitted a post that I thought was of interest and would generate discussion. Thus is not a justification of some of my posts, as justifications from me are not required.
Also there is no need for me to defend my character or reputation. Everyone has the right to his good name and character. To libel another is never justified. If anyone had evidence that I was a phoney or a sham the onus is on him or her to produce that, being prepared to face legal consequences for possible libel. Also it is impossible for me to vindicate my name. If I say I am not a phoney that can be interpreted as proof that I am one, since I, being a phoney, claim I am not. If I say I am a phoney I also prove I am one since, in truth, I do not consider myself as phoney.
It is very difficult now for me to contribute here as the libel that I am a phoney or a smug Pharisee means my views may be considered false, dishonest and hypocritical.
VI
I will go through the relevant posts in this topic to show how consistent the campaign of vilification against me was.
This forum is not anonymous. All of us are people with names. I do not hide behind a vague name. I have given my email address in my profile. I am not ashamed of whom I am or my views. The person who attacked be chose a more vague name, the same as used by a contributor to the current “Brandsma Review”. The excuse that one used a nom de plume when libelling another does acquit one of libel.
In my first post in this topic (17 Mar) I wrote:
“In reply to ezigboututu I would say that the Pope is not the head of the Church, Jesus Christ is. The Pope is Christ's vicar on earth.
The Catholic Church is the one, true, holy Church, made up of unholy people; Jesus came to call sinners.”
I stand over this and cannot see how it shows I am a phoney.
In another post on the same day I wrote:
“To me a Catholic is one who was baptized into the Catholic Church and believes (s)he is one.”
Again this is a view held by many. I do not see how it shows I am a phoney. What constitutes a Catholic is a difficult question, as can be seen from the discussion. One could consider a Catholic as a member of the Church. Reading the Papal Documents Mystici Corporis, Lumen Gentium or Gaudium et Spes may help.
In reply to my post the person who libelled me wrote:
“The problem with Noelfitz's definition is that it is utterly subjective”.
I accept this viewpoint and respect a reply to my opinion that is not an attack on my character.
On 19 Mar I wrote:
“However excommunication is an issue for me. I would like to have it discussed.”
This is true and expresses an honestly held view of mine.
On 19 Mar Myk wtote in reply to the person who attacked me and also a well known journalist:
“very unchristian name calling!”
This showed amazing insight when one considers developments.
On 29 Mar I wrote:
“The Church has been around for some time and is not too stupid. It would be silly to reject those who do not follow all the rules. There would be few Catholics left, as we are all sinners.”
Again I stand over this view. Being a sinner does not make one cease to be Catholic. This is not an unusual view. It is probably shared by most people. I see nothing phoney in it.
This elicited the reply:
“OK Neolfitz - by your logic hemingway and Hazelireland are really Catholics even though they have expressly apostatised, and there is nothing they can do to cease to be Catholics. What excludes people from the Church is not sin but impenitence. I may also suggest that you go away and learn something about thedifference between the visible and invisible Church, and Jesus' saying that "Not everyone who calls me "Lord, Lord" will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Alternately, you might go away and do something useful and leave this board to those who are genuinely interested in stating their position and discussing the issues, rather than spreading obfuscation and confusion as you do.”
This is where the insults begin. The superior attitude adopted and the attempt to bully me and put me down are mean and small minded. The insulting suggestion that I am ignorant and should not be participating in this forum shows contempt and arrogance. The malicious attempt to bully me and show me up as ignorant and not suitable to be here should have set off warning bells. Bullying is not acceptable behaviour. Bullies when people stand up to them show themselves as cowards. I ask the one who libelled me to show courage, integrity and honesty by giving me his name and contact details to facilitate my legal claims and search for redress. The remark “you might go away and do something useful and leave this board to those who are genuinely interested in stating their position and discussing the issues, rather than spreading obfuscation and confusion as you do” shows despicable insulting and unacceptable behaviour and total disdain for others by the person who attacked me rather than saying anything about me.
On 30 Mar the following appeared “
“In response to our atheist posters, who are honest and straightforward in a way that I believe Noelfitz is not” .
This was a direct attach on my integrity and honesty and not my views. Unfortunately, as I was trying to exercise restraint and charity I wrote on Mar 31:
“*********
You wrote:
n response to our atheist posters, who are honest and straightforward in a way that I believe Noelfitz is not
This is a bit harsh.
Would you like to give examples?
However you may be correct.
“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion”
Yesterday I was at a conference organised by the International Centre for Newman Studies to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Rahner's death at age 80 March 30, 1984, Rahner's thought was nuanced, developed over time and is not systematically described in his voluminous writings. Ratzinger and Rahner were very close initially, but in later days drifted apart.
Rahner's views deserve careful consideration.”
I may have been in error in not defending my reputation firmly.
The reply came:
“Very well, then Noelfitz - let's see you outline Rahner's views and why you admire them.”
This again is a put down and implied insult, insinuating my attacker’s knowledge of Rahner and my ignorance.
This post was followed by some others not very relevant to the personal attack on me.
However I next read:
“As you may be aware, this board has been infested in the past by such posters as Gabriel and Royalosiodhchain (both now happily expelled) who had no real interest in discussion but deliberately set out to spread confusion by producing ridiculous misstatements of Catholic doctrine. It is possible that you are not in fact one of these people, apperances to the contrary, but are merely a liberal Catholic of the sort who is simultaneously smug and confused.”
Here you again insult me. However the accusations of possibly “producing ridiculous misstatements of Catholic doctrine” and being merely merely a liberal Catholic of the sort who is simultaneously smug and confused.” Are not as serious as branding me a phoney and of trying to get others to join in your libels.
I think it is worthwhile again to reread your post in full:
Noelfitz:
Perhaps the Net with its anonymous posting naturally breeds mistrust, since we don't really know each other. As you may be aware, this board has been infested in the past by such posters as Gabriel and Royalosiodhchain (both now happily expelled) who had no real interest in discussion but deliberately set out to spread confusion by producing ridiculous misstatements of Catholic doctrine. It is possible that you are not in fact one of these people, apperances to the contrary, but are merely a liberal Catholic of the sort who is simultaneously smug and confused.
My objection to your posts is that they do not really deal with "various sides of an issue" as you put it. You do not put forward reasons for your own positions, or discuss why you think others' views are mistaken; you simply lump down "What about X"? as if the people you are criticising could be assumed never to have considered X at all, or as if X was so self-evident that no argument need be put forward in its defence. For example, I put forward a reasoned criticism of Rahner's "anonymous Christian" theory, which you appear to think is unfair to Rahner. If you were prepared to discuss what you think are Rahner's positive achievements or why you think criticisms of him are unfair, you would give an opportunity for other participants on this board to learn from you; instead you simply proclaim that Rahner is "very complicated" and engage in name-dropping, as if to say that we need not bother our innocent little heads about matters which can only be properly understood by such great intellects as yourself. Please spare us the smugness and condescension.
Similarly, when you declare that excommunication should never be resorted to under any circumstances you simply proclaim that this is more Christian, with the implication that you have some sort of direct line to Jesus which exempts you from explaining why it is any more Christian than (let us say) such bright ideas as the view that anyone who wishes to be a priest has a right to be ordained and once ordained have an automatic right to their reputation whatever crimes or misdeeds they may commit, or the view that everyone ought to ahve sex with anyone who asks them (a view which was actually put forward by some wooolly-minded or unscrupulous DH Lawrence fans during the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and whose consequences in practice contributd to the rise fo the radical feministmovement). Has no-one ever told you that it is not possible to have communion with someone who excludes themselves from communionwith you, and that excommunicatioon is only the formalisation of something which the excommuncate themselves has already perpetrated?
You seem to think, or at least insinuate, that "optimism" is always good and "pessimism" is always bad; surely ths depends on the circumstances. Your view would require us to side with the court prophets agaisnt Jeremiah, for example.
You regularly resort to word-play to make a statement and then run away from it, as you did in your "sex with a condom" exchange recently. THis sort of behaviour does not spread understanding, but obfuscation.
Does anyone else on thsi board have an opinion about Noelfitz? Does anyone else here think he is a phoney, or is he just a smug Pharisee who doesn't know how to think?”
I replied in a polite and non-confrontational way. This elicited from you completely unacceptable weasel words.
VII
Thus I write with the utmost sincerity and clarity that I have been insulted, humiliated, held up for contempt and ridiculed in this forum. There has been a despicable and illegal, attempt to destroy my name and reputation and portray me as a worthless person of no value. As I have been seriouisly libelled I intend to pursue the matter further and am considering legal action
Thus I demand to know the name and address of the person who libelled me and tried to destroy my character and encouraged others to do so. I expect for him a full and sincere apology and a complete retraction of the libel. I also demand from him a clear vindication of my reputation.
I also want from those who have responsibility here in this forum and answer as to why they allowed such malicious attacks to occur. I also want their contact details, as they may be responsible by neglect for the attempts to destroy my character.
I thank those who did not reply to the request to call me a phoney or a smug Pharisee. I regret that no one felt it was worth while defend my reputation.
Until these issues are resolved this forum is without moral or ethical standards and is an insult to the Irish Catholic Church. It can not contribute in any positive way to Catholicism in Ireland.