Friday, February 26, 2016

Blocked By LifeSiteNews From Posting Comments

Apparently one can't offer much criticism of LifeSite in their comment boxes. I must have hurt someone's feelings.

A few days ago, I offered a comment on a story that LifeSite published.
For more than 10 years the Catholic Bishops took no decisive or effective action to curb the scandal of pseudo-catholic Trudeau. If they had, Trudeau quite possibly would not have been elected PM. This, along with euthanasia and other social evils on the burner, are therefore on the Bishops, especially on Ottawa Archbishop Prendergast. Why not make the case LifeSite? What/who are you protecting and why?
Steve Jalsevac responded:
You do not realize that Archbishop Prendergast has met with Trudeau. However, the bishop can only have any effect if Trudeau has some interest in his supposed Catholicism. Our understanding is that he could care less what the Church or the local bishop or even God thinks. He is an extremely shallow man with no sense of Catholicism or Christianity about him. Why don't you give it a try and see what how seriously Trudeau responds to any kind of Catholic faith argument.
However, in one respect you are correct. That is, if the bishops had been far more competent, courageous and faithful teachers over the past several decades our political situation would likely now be vastly better. Far too many Canadian bishops (not Prendergast and a good number of others) were essentially among the more dissident and disbelieving Catholic bishops in the world. Our entire nation is now enduring the fruits of this long time apostasy by its non-Catholic Catholic shepherds. Still, any who are doing their best to be faithful should have our encouragement and full support. They have been fighting against an overwhelming tide within the Church in the wrong direction.
So I assume he agreed with my comment overall, at least to some extent. He gave no indication that if I wasn't careful future comments might be blocked. I replied:
You keep defending Prendergast but he did nothing to address the scandal caused by Trudeau or to protect the Eucharist from desecration or to save Trudeau's soul. Any and all of these would have required some sort of public statement and discipline. All we got instead from the Archbishop was huff and puff. Is Justin Trudeau receiving Holy Communion at Mass, wherever, whenever he attends? We don't know, do we? And has LifeSite investigated that aspect of the continuing scandal? Not that anyone knows. But you'll put out a story like this on Trudeau and the Pride Parade. What's the point? It all goes back to the Bishops. That's where it starts and that's where it ends. Like I said "What/who are you protecting and why?"
Last evening I read another story from LifeSite and wanted to leave a comment. That's when I discovered that I had been blocked and my last comment hadn't been published. The latest comment I tried to post was as follows:
When Catholic Bishops don't say what they are commissioned by Christ to say, this is what inevitably happens in the culture: the prince of this world expands the culture of death. Why didn't Cardinal Collins (and the rest of our Bishops) speak the message of Christ to his flock?
I don't often post comments to LifeSite and not all my comments are critical. At times I support them financially. But they are a confused, hedz-in-the-sand bunch when it comes to defending certain favored Bishops, especially Archbishop Prendergast, whom I consider overall to be a hireling, unworthy Bishop. Is that too shocking a statement? Apparently so. Nobody has seriously countered any of my claims in the many posts I've compiled on the Catholic Governor of Ottawa, or for that matter, on the Catholic Governor of Toronto.

Am I so far off base as to be totally dismissed out of hand?


Doc Master J said...

You're not the only one who's been blocked by LifeSiteNews, ostensibly for arguing against Catholic viewpoints. On one hand, I can see their point, and that you were being perhaps unnecessarily combative after Steve at least somewhat acknowledged your point. On the other, they have proven to not be judicial in their blockings, as they offer no statement as to why they block a person, nor any kind of warning or second chance. I often feel they block a person for the slightest dissent, yet allow some unruly bias from their base, as long as its not confrontational to the site itself. If you look at their rules, though they are quite strict, not that it's necessarily to anyone's true advantage. I know I find it a lot harder to visit their site after being blocked. I certainly had considered donating as well. They seem to have overall quality articles, but they take their Disqus space too personally.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

You are asking? - Am I so far off base as to be totally dismissed out of hand?

I think that you are saying what should be said. You are doing it very articulately and respectfully.
It seems hat while the bishops are the problem, LifeSite has now made their own contribution to deepening it by banning you. I am very saddened by this. Lost respect for them.

Trudeau is very shallow, they admit it, but the bishops are responsible for not making an example of this caricature of a Catholic. Hard to say, who does more damage - the shallow narcissistic opportunist, the unbelieving compromised bishops, or the low-expectations misguided LifeSite.

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

Allow me to correct that exaggerated statement - It is quite clear the problem starts with the bishops, or rather - has started long ago.

Barona said...

Very sad to see that Lifesitenews no longer believes in debate on very serious issues of hierarchical failure. To censor those who have a different opinion is very sad.

Further, my understanding is that Lifesitenews is not a Catholic news agency. Thus, I am concerned why they are cherry picking whom to censor. I have read, over the years, a number of articles that are confusing and even erroneous (from a Catholic doctrinal perspective). It therefore seems that perhaps the censorship is not so much on Catholic doctrine, but on positions that might upset persons - for various reasons - connected to Lifesitenews? I always say: follow the money trail.

ELA said...

Doc Master J thanks for your insights. They seem to indicate a troublesome pattern, one that LifeSite needs to address if it is to achieve credibility as a "totally honest" news source.

Dorota, thanks for your perspective and encouragement.

ELA said...

Barona, you are on to something when you said, "perhaps the censorship is not so much on Catholic doctrine, but on positions that might upset persons - for various reasons - connected to Lifesitenews? I always say: follow the money trail."
Perhaps LifeSite is compromised by its connection with Campaign Life Coalition and Jim Hughes. Is purity of Catholic thought and tradition made subservient to political strategy and perhaps even to the bias of one supreme leader? Does CLC strategy forbid the possibility of holding Bishops fully accountable? Look at last year's revelations by LifeSite about the obstructionism of Canada's Bishops. Why were they silent for so long? What else are they selectively editing? What other stories requiring investigative journalism will they purposely not undertake?

John Laws said...

Without Abp. P's support, the March for Life would shut down. There's a substantial cash flow dependent on this friendly connection. Given that the Jesuits in Ottawa have been in full-on rebellion, P's leadership has always been compromised. This can't be addressed so long as the Jesuits control the diocese.

Also, LifeSiteNews and its associates are multiply connected to the Medjugorje millieu. More rebellious religious. More money-influence. The older generation of orthodox Catholic pro-lifers once held the line on these influences. Attrition decided the outcome of that struggle. The JP II generation shares JP II's shortcomings and blindnesses.

ELA said...

John, revealing connections indeed. Like Barona said, follow the money trail. The Jesuit rebellion in Ottawa explains a great deal. In fact, the Jesuit rebellion in the larger context explains a host of compromises everywhere. The Medjugorje factor in relation to LifeSite I wasn't aware of at all. What or who explains the origin of that I wonder?
In any case I sure touched a soft spot whenever I brought up AB Prendergast. But I sense a similar reaction when I criticize Cardinal Collins.

Janet said...

I also discovered this morning that I am blocked by the site. It is rather painful to bear, since I have been a very active pro-life supporter for decades, on the front lines early and late, and a financial contributor as well. I do not think I have ever been disrespectful, at least not crude with disagreement, as I personally don't think flaming language is helpful.

Here's the comment they would not allow, regarding the recent interview Benedict gave about the inevitability of the situation we are in. It will make me feel better to put it here, if you don't mind. It mentions that I have been blocked as well by Rorate Caeli. Me, a mild-mannered English teacher!

How will Rorate Caeli spin THIS interview, one must ask, to keep promoting the man--and the Council? First, young Ratzinger assists the very forces of evil at the Council as aide to Conger. They he spends a pontificate whitewashing it and throwing the traditional mass into the desperate wager, encouraging it in parishes openly practicing the most blatantly heretical protestantism, and now he faces eternity arguing it was all inevitable. Here is the same modus operandi with which he dealt with homosexuality, as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He gave lip service to all the traditional objections to homosexuality, and then countered them with the assertion that homosexuality is inborn. It is the same argument he gives here: inevitability. We must accept the inborn and the inevitable. That's the only argument you need no matter how many paragraphs you set up restating the traditional teaching. (You can read more about the development of his acceptance of homosexuality here: Joseph Ratzinger gave us the exaggerated respect for the civil rights of sin, and now it will destroy us school by school and hospital by hospital.

Rorate Caeli blocks me but at least I can repeat it here: stop promoting the post-Vatican II popes, stop making Francis into the only bad guy, they all collaborated. Repudiate them, repudiate Francis, and above all fight the Council with all your heart. Stop drinking the koolaid.

ELA said...

Thanks for your comment. I don't share your conviction re "fight the Council with all your heart" although wherever the words of the Council seem to compromise the pre-Vatican II Magisterium I am extremely cautious. I am not a sedevacantist but I sympathize greatly with the SSPX predicament. Regarding Pope Benedict XVI he is in my opinion the greatest of post Vatican II popes but still deeply affected by modernism. The hierarchy of the Church today is extremely compromised and generally speaking has given up confidence in absolute truth.
I have read some of your blog postings and have bookmarked your site. I will visit from time to time. I think you have followed me on twitter. I have reciprocated.

Janet said...

I've been reviewing comments from Weston to see where he's coming from, and I'm pretty sure now I am blocked from lifesitenews because of my comments regarding Vatican II. Even here, protesting my exclusion, I managed to say it. But the thing is, I'm a poet. I'm a real, published, working poet, the books are right here to my left on the bookshelf if you want the link, I'll take a photo. I have a particularly sensitive relation to language, God made me that way. And Vatican II is language poison. It worked the same way as the Synod, and we recently saw the process, which is one of innuendo and loaded words, just like advertising. In Vatican II it was managed that we accepted our defeat in the prettiest of pretty words without openly contradicting the teaching of the ages (except in several key spots--google Gleize Ocariz). That's what has happened and where we are now, and only a repudiation of that language will neutralize the effect of the poison bits in us, in our people. The devil has thrown up all this rabbit wire, but we must repudiate it. Don't quibble, give us that liberty to free ourselves from a linguistic net that is drowning us in the depths of hell. Hate the Council! Demand it be 'clarified' of its sweet, syrupy poison.

John Laws said...

Hi Janet,

Your grave sin, according to the LifeSiteNews editorial cannon was "most blatantly heretical protestantism". That's blasphemy to CLC/The Interim/LifeSiteNews -- an offense worthy of eternal damnation. After Fr. de Valk left (was gently pushed out), many orthodox Catholics followed him out the door. This left the organization in the hands of Evangelicals and neo-Catholics who are craven to protestant opinion. You're looking at leadership who are lukewarm to the faith and who give ecumenism pride of place (they call it "ecumenism of the trenches"). As you would expect, it isn't working out very well. I don't think they're very happy with Voris-scurge-of-Luther, either.