Our last topic, the Church and the Rule of Law, was the occasion of some ill-tempered bickering – in which more than one person was involved. I was saddened by this, and indeed one contributor – concerned for the good name of the Blog, suggested that I should close the thread. Without question it damaged an important discussion.
The purpose of the Blog is to provide a forum for courteous and thoughtful discussion, focussed on the topic proposed, or its legitimate ramifications.
I have had to consider the possibility of closing the Blog altogether. I have no intention of presiding over a forum which could bring the Catholic name – and indeed my, and the Catholic Herald’s name – into disrepute. However I will take the provisional measure of simply trashing contributions which damage discussion. But I really should not have to do this.
You may express any view you wish about a topic or the view of any other contributor. But the rules of the Blog require you to do so courteously, to give your reasons and to eschew
personal remarks. If you feel that you have been insulted and are not able to ignore this, then email me and I will speak to the contributor concerned.
secondsightblogdotnet 
My apologies to you Quentin and to other participants of Secondsight if I have saddened you in any way, but after enduring personal attacks for a couple of years, I felt that I had to defend my dignity with return fire towards any person whom I considered was a perpetrator. I am sure that your shift in editorial stance Quentin will be beneficial to all bloggers and for Secondsight itself in the long-term. Thank you.
Unfortunately, Quentin, you made a rod for your own back by turning over the last thread to someone whose views you may or may not agree with but whose blogging style is almost certain to elicit vigorous responses. If you want SecondSight to be a nice back-slapping site for liberal critics of the Church, then so be it; I, for one will not bother to contrbute to it. But at least come clean about it.
Yes its a bit tricky for you Quentin. In the heat of it contributors forget that A) they are in the public domain and B) How sad and tawdry it all looks to the onlooker.
However it is the case that over time we all form a personal impression of one another and that will colour response-it is also part of what adds life to a blog. It would be good if there could be a kind of warning-like the way your contributions are in blue-if you could attach a warning marker as it were once a debate has gone off key. Personally I think about three off beam replies should be enough to merit a red flag as it were-anyone can get waspish once or twice during a brief exchange but after that it becomes deliberate sin or complete failure of self control.
It would be a shame to render the blog into an impersonal sharing of information however and I don’t think you would much like that yourself-there is a kind of learning curve on this blog that is overall quite helpful I think and one which would cease to be if you took out all the human interaction-in which case I might just as well read Scientific American or Philosophy Weekly
instead.
I believe the problem we have is on the one hand our love for the Church and the spiritual devoution we show for Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
the Real Presence of Jesus in the Taberacle and all the beliefs we have in our catholic up bringing, especially as mothers, the Rosary more so than males (not all males).
Mothers are the one that educate their children in the love of the Church and all Her Spiritual Gifts.
Count the number of men who go to daily Mass against women.
When my husband found all this-he became a Catholic, through devoution!
The Mystical Body of Christ meant nothing to him until then.
No understanding of this there will always be different thoughts-never the twain shall meet.
Devoution and intellectuality can and do survive together with charity.
This is a part of our catholic heritage.That does not make us blind to untruths, but makes us more aware of the Truths, and what is important..
The secular society does not want that and would like to destoy it.
By the way I do not confuse this with ‘superstitions.
Might I make a plea that some agreement is reached that postings should generally be on-topic and that pious ramblings, however sincere, do not add to the sum of human knowledge.
Paul Milligan.
We have to take everything into account when discussing the faith of the church.
Perhaps a lack of these ‘pious ramblings’ as you call them, is the biggest part of the problem,and why we are discussing it anyway.
A little more piety and humility would do a great service to us all.
“…We have to take everything into account when discussing the faith of the church…..”
I have to say that I agree with St Joseph here.
It is very easy to denigrate with such phrases as ‘pious ramblings’ but these are peoplke we are talking about with their own issues and concerns all tapping away on their keyboards for whatever reason none being above the other. If you examine this blog carefully you will see a small number of writers who do extremely well-never being drawn in, always courteous, always polite, invariably helpful…we respect them and try to emulate…but we are not them. Personally speaking I have come to the awareness that the one I need to control most is myself -let everyone else do their best and not classify others according to some controlling need of power disguised as ‘rationalism’ or ‘Staying on topic’ etc. Let the moderator moderate and the rest just try to put down the stones -regardless of their shape be it regular or jagged.!
Quentin,
Don’t give up in spite of the rather puerile responses we have had to endure. I fully support your intention to trash damaging contributions; not because I believe in censorship but because often they are totally irrelevant to the discussion in process.
Unfortunately, too many people conflate irrelevance with dissent.
Yikes, I have no wish to go through that mess but I hope that wasn’t my fault and apologise if it was….