Monday, August 6, 2018


Over the years I have contemplated disabling the comments on my blog because of spam comments, vile content and vulgar language. Name calling is particularly juvenile and one would hope that Catholics here would not follow the ways of the world in this regard as modeled by the current president, but would follow Jesus' teachings.

I do moderate comments but in a rush I sometimes make poor judgement calls on posting or I quickly scan and post things that a more thorough reading would not be posted.

Please follow my guidelines about appropriate content for comments and comment on what is said and avoid inflammatory rhetoric about the person writing the comment. If your comment is not posted or deleted it has to do with accusations towards others or name calling or outright inappropriate content.


Julian Barkin said...

Yeah father in particular Fr Kavanaugh gets slandered and calumniated on here. Gotta admit I don’t share his liberal views, but I find it unfair, particularly from Radicals on here, that insult him. Might want to make it more rigorous against comments specifically mentioning him, who is still an Alter Christus. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. The name calling, ad hominem and repetitive insults seen here often make substantive discussions impossible.

DJR said...

Father, you have allowed your blog to be dominated by one person, who posts long screeds of sometimes irrelevant material containing many non sequiturs and who accuses people he disagrees with of being "satanic," et cetera, ad nauseam.

This has been the case for several years and has caused the discussion here to descend to the level of grade schoolers. Perhaps you might want to consider blocking some of the comments.

Gene said...

Kavanaugh loves being a pariah...he sets himself up for it. Besides, a little ad hominem makes things fun.

ByzRC said...

Father - While I appreciate the necessary action you are taking; at the same time, DJR's point also has merit.

Anonymous said...

"Wastin' away again here in Pariah-ville….
Lookin for my lost green maniple..."

TJM said...

DJR - bingo!

John Nolan said...

'Argumentum ad hominem' as defined by John Locke is 'to press a man with the Consequences of his own Principles and Concessions'. For example, if I take someone to task for making statements which contradict each other, I am employing an 'ad hominem' argument - it applies to the individual in question and does not argue a general principle. (Acknowledgements to Fr John Hunwicke who pointed this out some time ago).

It does not mean making a personal attack on an individual. Those who use it in this way demonstrate the truth of the adage which paraphrases Alexander Pope, viz. 'a little Latin is a dangerous thing'. It makes the speaker seem erudite whereas in actuality he is anything but.

When, however, someone posts as 'Anonymous' (usually for the purpose of trolling), then he sets himself up to be insulted, since an insult must needs be addressed to an individual or a defined group.

TJM said...

Anonymous, when you find your lost green maniple you might also recover your Catholic Faith

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. McD, I hope you won't disable the comments. I get so much out of many of the comments made here, and would miss not seeing them. Sometimes it's the various points of view that help me to learn more about the issues actually facing the Church.

I understand why and agree you should use your editorial privilege to delete comments you think are inappropriate.

But thanks for this blog and the things you post.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Inasmuch as maniples have nothing to do with faith, I suspect you are mistaken.

Yes, ad hominem arguments are personal attacks, John Locke notwithstanding. "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,..."

TJM said...

Kavanaugh, I guess to the faithless the maniple means nothing:

Prayer said when the maniple is put on: "Merear, Domine, portare manipulum fletus et doloris; ut cum exsultatione recipiam mercedem laboris" (May I deserve, O Lord, to bear the maniple of weeping and sorrow in order that I may joyfully reap the reward of my labors).

John Nolan said...


The usage of 'argumentum ad hominem' which you quote would appear to date only from the end of the 20th century; Chambers (1964) gives only the classic definition: 'an appeal to the known prepossessions or previous admissions of an opponent'.

Since 'argumentum' in Latin means 'argument, proof, appeal, evidence' but not 'attack', I suspect that the comparatively recent definition you quote is based on ignorance.

So by all means stick to your definition, and I shall stick to the correct one.

Anonymous said...

No, the more recent definition is not based on ignorance.

Words and phrases have meanings that change over time. Your preference for the 15th or 17th or 19th century meaning/definition does not make it the best or the only or the acceptable definition.

Stick with what you want, but "Tis fartuous to bethink yond thy definitions art at each moment the most wondrous!" -Shakespeare