The word crusader speaks volumes as to the demeanour and agenda of the poster. He did not use that word here that I know of. Wonder why? I do. Perhaps he learned from past experience that other people reacted defensively when he used it. Perhaps he changed for the better. We do believe that better can change, don't we? I do.
I remember conversations with Terry on this subject. My own opinion was that he hurt his own cause by using that word. I believe Nancy held the same opinion. I'm not sure she thought that, it's been so long ago and my memory about it isn't the best. I start to forget some things when I think they've been resolved.
So that leaves me wondering if it was his idea not to use that word here, or maybe it was Nancy's. Does it matter? Not much since the fact is he didn't use it, not at this forum. How long, I ask, should we hold grudges and prejudices when apparently someone has changed and is no longer using words that stirred up prejudices and misinterpretations or fears and injuries in us in the past?
I never thought it was a "sin" for Terry to use that word although I thought it caused him a lot of grief. I was pleased then when he stopped using it. My hope, which I see now was vain, was that people could relate to him better. Apparently not. Instead of asking, "I wonder if he's changed this in order to please others, in order not to give them offense," you and others seem to have assumed the worst. By my lights, this falls short of Christian charity and the conviction that anyone can change for the better. I think (that's my opinion) Terry changed and did not use that word because his intention was not to offend. You failed to see that. While you did not say it when he was here; and that was a good thing. If we have reservations about someone, wondering if he's changed, it's always best to remain silent and to wait to see. I thank you for that; but I was flabbergasted that you wrote it after he left.
It leaves me thinking you gave a sigh of relief when he left, being convinced he was here to cause trouble.
But where are the facts? What evidence is there that he came here to cause trouble? Posting a link to a Catholic site? Is that a sin? I'll admit I didn't read it -- I can't say I even saw it if he did post a link. I tend to ignore some links, skipping over them. Perhaps I should read them, but sometimes I don't have the time. I don't feel guilty though. I don't feel obligated to read an article just because a member posts a link to it. I also didn't read the article Nancy gave a link to. I didn't have the time. But I also do not comment on links to articles I haven't read. Why should I? I'd have no clue what I was talking about.
I think however that we should realize that many Catholics prefer to give links or cite articles because of humility. They prefer to cite the words of others because they realize some people are better informed and less apt to misrepresent the Catholic Church's positions. I understand that; and I'll admit it remains something of a problem at times, since when a Catholic wants me to read an article, maybe I don't feel like it. If it's extremely long, I wonder why I should? Just because he wants me to? The best I can do in such cases is keep quiet. If I'm not willing to read the materials he says represents his views, then I can't comment on his views. That's just the way it is. I can get tired of those too.
I ask what did Terry do here at this site to warrant the reactions he received? I don't get it. He changed his name, as I discussed; but he did not try to deceive anyone about who he was -- and that would have annoyed me -- but he didn't do that. It looks to me as if people while pretending to welcome him were nevertheless nicely. Fake manners. "Let's all look like 'good' Christians by telling him he's welcome and then maybe some 'hero" will needle him enough to make him leave. But until then, let's keep up appearances of being fine Christians who are tolerant and charitable.
I don't know all the ins and outs of why he changed his name. In any case I saw it as a change for the better. I thought he was making an effort not to give offense when he meant no offense. Changing a name isn't that hard, isn't that demanding. So he did it. I interpreted that as being "Christian" on his part. Why give offense unnecessarily if you can avoid it by changing a name that annoys some people? I saw it as an improvement then on his part; and thus, I would never have asked him about the past when did use the "crusader" name. If I see someone changing in a way that seems to be improving by how I judge things, I refuse to discuss the past. It's irrelevant to me. If God can forget our sins, I can surely forget someone using a name in the past when he no longer uses that name. I thought he was trying to be friendly and conciliatory. The tragedy, in my opinion, is that too many people here could not forget the past when the name "Catholic Crusader" made some kind of impression on them.
I think we should forget the past or at least not bring it up when someone shows evidence of trying to be friendly and conciliatory. I am left asking myself, with some inner grief, how "Christian" is this forum? We all know what Jesus said about returning good for good and good for evil; but here I see neither Nancy nor Terry as doing anything wrong. It looks to me as if they received evil for trying to be good.
I do remind everyone too that if and when we forgive someone, it is impossible to remind them of the past. If someone offends me and we patch things up, may God strike me down dead before I would try to use his past as a way of manipulating now. That part of the past is dead. If I find it to my advantage to resurrect it, it means I want to profit from his past mistakes. Yes, God strike me down before allowing me to do that.
Oh, I am not perfect in this respect. I do still remember some things after I forgive people; but the very least I can do is not to talk about them. And believe it or not, it's true anyway. After a while as time goes by and I can see they've really changed, I actually start to forget some things. If I don't talk about them, don't resurrect them, the power of those memories starts to fade. I had a wonderful conversation one day with a close relative. Somehow the topic came up of a past problem between us; and I couldn't remember what it had been. She told me she had had a similar experience with someone else. You see though -- I'm not 100% perfect about that since I can recall there was a problem once. Someday I hope God removes that last trace of a memory also.
Try it, everyone. You may enjoy it. God really change our memories. If someone changes and is no longer doing the things that annoyed us in the past, resolve not to talk about them. Don't allow yourself to talk about them. We read that God will wipe away all tears . . . in the future -- and I think that's true -- but I think it's also true that God can wipe away some of them here and now. . . if we are willing to have it so and don't give unpleasant memories power by talking about them.
You have all probably known married couples who start off with a tiny disagreement -- almost completely unimportant. But they go from that to digging up the past, with both sides bringing up past hurts. Know what? All those past hurts were left unresolved. They're being resurrected. They can tell each other they forgave each other, but if something trivial here and now can make them resurrect those past hurts, it means they haven't experienced repentance and forgiveness; and that's a tragedy since odds are they love each but don't know how to express it. Before you know it, they could even start beating each other.
Yes, people who love each other can beat on each other. "I'll stop beating you when you tell me you were wrong, I was right, and how much you love me." Cain wanted God's approval but in a misguided way -- so much so, he killed Abel over it. Cain could have avoided that too if he had taken stock of how the wrong kind of words were coming from his mouth. When we speak rashly, perhaps God can reveal to us that something is wrong. He did that for Cain. Don't allow things to go further the way Cain did. It is better still to learn how to spot ideas that are better left unsaid, "taking every thought captive" before we speak.
I say this not to one person but to everyone. I am left wondering how Christian a site this is, how vain people's religion is.
James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.I do not think it my job to act as a priest examining everyone's conscience; but I do ask people to ask themselves if their religion is in vain, and if they might be deceiving themselves. Please ask yourselves if there are ways you can improve.
If I had any criticism of Terry or Nancy, it might be that they bothered to post after deciding to leave. Maybe it would have been better to leave without explanation. I don't know. I don't even know about my posting this. If it's taken the wrong way, then I made a mistake. I know that it's possible people will reject my words and not perceive my purpose. I would like to see some good come of this, have it be a learning experience out of which we all emerge better able to control our tongues by asking God to tame them since James in his epistle tells us we can't tame them ourselves.
I'll admit I feel grieved and disappointed. I think the members here could do better and should -- the day we say we are already perfect may be the day the Holy Spirit stops trying to teach us.