Starting next Monday, July 26, anyone leaving a comment cannot use Anonymous, Anon, or the same name as another commenter.
If you want anonymity, you may choose a pseudonym (Lucy of La Habra, Mary from Monterey), as long as it is not close to another commenter’s choice. Those comments signed Anonymous, Anon will not be approved.
Note: we discourage and will often delete the use of all-capital letters (SHAME) and exclamation points (SHAME!) in the comments.
Very wise decision.
You mean like “USCCB!”
Thank you for this.
Yay! Thanks for making this happen.
But I really truly identify as anonymous….
Or, maybe you have an identity and you’re just trapped in the body of an anonymous?
Just name that identity and everyone will (be required to) call you that.
It will be easier to follow discussions with much less misunderstanding than with a dozen different anonymouses commenting.
Spell check doesn’t like anonymouses or anonymouss. That shows how bad having more than one is.
People haven’t called me that since high school when I walked down the hall and people said “Look at that.”
What about Anon99 ?
Perhaps QAnon should be banned to.
A welcome change!
What’s the pic? Is that Fr. Serra’s garage for his horse at one of the missions?
That’s okay. This site is so dominated by Trads that the comments have become little more than a shouting match against anything modern in the Church.
I wouldn’t sign my name to such a hateful comment, either. Interestingly, it seems that the “modernists” throw lots of ad hominem attacks at the “trads”, which are not reciprocated.
“Anonymouses,” a new word, I like it!
No, it is not new. You must be knew, (Laugher.) but welcome. We were joking about “Anonymouses” way back, perhaps before 2015.
Correction: you must be “new”, not “knew”.
What does that tell you? Everything “modern” is not always good.
This website is attracting very immature, smart-aleck, egotistical, unnecessarily mean and combative “know-it-all” writers, “too big for their britches,” highly disrespectful of the Church and of their fellow Catholics in the pews– constantly casting ridiculous, prejudicial, petty, egotistical judgments on everyone and everything. I think the Moderator should consider refusing to print the posts of these people.
Or, might all who post reflect on what they post, stay on topic, be accurate, considerate, respectful and refrain from name-calling?
And, might we not be too sensitive of good-natured humor, even a little satire?
(Sometimes humor is a tool to relieve the stress of serious situations.)
The world is full of conflicting and competing ideas and we often find that in the Church as well.
We’re probably all adults here. And, we can learn some things, even from those with whom we disagree on some other things.
Let’s cling to Christ and love and respect one another. We’re all in need of on-going conversion.
No. There are too many horribly rude, inconsiderate, thoughtless posters. Such people learned nothing of Christianity sitting in a church. No “Christ-like” good manners at all! Their Catholic grandparents’ generation was much better.
I cannot tell if you’re the same Anon. as 6:05 a.m. (part of the problem), but do you really think it’s too much to ask people to exercise some restraint and refrain from name-calling and making caricatures of one another? Can’t we have some respect for one another?
And, I can’t tell if you agree with me and are being satirical because both (on one?) Anon.s tend to lean toward name-calling (“egotistical,” “smart-aleck,” “horribly rude,” “thoughtless,” etc.).
Anonymity often has people “saying” things that they would never say face-to-face or if they could be identified. That’s a problem with broader social media as well.
Here, you can pick a pseudonym (and stick with it) and that’s virtually the same as posting anonymously. There are some legitimate reasons for anonymity. Yet, even then, can’t we be more respectful?
Deacon Anderson– I am the same poster, “Anon.,” both times. I am an elderly Catholic. I do not use social media. The good standards that we once had in America, of a decent, civilized society of good manners and good morals has been destroyed. And Catholics in the Church are often no better. I just got an email today, from a student pro-life organization, who are advertising s new campaign– and requesting donations. Their new campaign slogan contained a horrific obscene word. I was so upset! I emailed thir leader about it, and told them to “unsubscribe” me. I do not allow such filth in any emails or regular mail sent to me! These college kids are destroying the pro-life cause– they all need a good and decent education in good manners and Christian Morals, to start off with! I do need a good “moniker,” but want privacy, respect, and safety. I do not want to use my name, as you do. There is far too much shocking, Satanic bullying, disrespect, violence, selfishness and diabolic egotism in today’s society– not many good, decent “practicing Catholic Christians” in our Church anymore! I do not think it is a good idea, any longer, to try expressing my opinions on a Catholic website– even this one! I do not do this anywhere else– perhaps I should just give up completely. And not try to figure out a good “moniker,” then.
Deacon Anderson– It is really scary, to read about the controversy surrounding tracing the use of immoral websites,, apps, etc., among Catholic clerics. Especially since the filthy case of Msgr. Burrill, former USCCB General Secretary! And it seems that some think Burrill “had a right to privacy,” with his horrible, filthy, Satanic gay sex activities, irresponsibly breaking his holy vows! Why must these websites, apps, etc. even exist, and why are they “legal?” Where are the strict laws we used to have, protecting the public from dangerous, immoral filth?? Where is the training in good manners, Christian Morals, and a good Moral Conscience? Why is it so “easy” for Anericans of today, to “fall” into a horrible criminal life in the “gutter,” of extremely low, destructive, Satanic filth?? And whom can we really trust, amongst our clergy– and what about members of the USCCB?? Why was Burrill appointed to serve as their General Secretary??
See how it goes. You can always change back.
I really enjoy anonymous comments because you focus on what is said, not on what was said by the poster before. I think it keeps down the personal attacks.
I have been guilty too. YFC, Bohemond, Bob One, jon, Kevin T. Anne TE. You have kind of an impression of who they are (probably inaccurate) and you react to that in addition to the latest comment.
There is someone who now is calling a person Linda Marie because years ago someone with that name posted here. (Maybe it is she; maybe not)
It becomes more of a forum than a comment section and that is kind of annoying.
People who have posted on here for a long time often recognize a person’s style of writing when he starts to change his name or post anonymously. I admit I have done that a few times to get across a point but should not have, and I am sure the administrator and editors recognize that. I have been posting longer that the person called “Jon”. I am trying to stay off the computer, but my mailbox is constantly filled with mail from politicians and businesses. I delete, unsubscribe, and it all comes back. I hate modern, robotic media. I think it has done horrible damage to the world. Too much info too fast.
Oh, and folks-remember to fill in the “name” box in first to avoid typing out a really long message and having it go to waste. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve accidentally done that on other sites whose comment section had similar rules.
People: I have been commenting in this blog on-and-off for well over 10 years, and I can tell you that the names of the folks I debated here 10 years ago are no longer seen. In fact, the names of commentators here change it seems every 2-3 years. Sometimes I notice that a name gradually drops off soon after I’ve established and announced that they have “lost their credibility”. Also, some names just gradually disappear when they’re called out rightfully for being heretical, hateful, or dissentful. Or maybe they just assume a different name after being called out. Who knows? You can figure out from that why I am so “popular” here.
My name however, after all this time, has remained the same. In spite of being falsely described as a “homosexualist”, “hater,” “bully,” “gay,” “liberal,” “left-wing,” “feminist”, “queer,” and all sorts of other things, I have kept my name, because I know that those descriptions are flat wrong. They’re made by people who don’t care for the truth plainly spoken. And so they malign (just as Trump is maligned by the left-wing media to keep people from listening to him). Some folks here call forthrightness and frankness as being rude, but not when they speak here about the Pope or the bishops which they do with venom and hate.
You give yourself far too much credit.
That may be true, but if I were indeed even partly responsible for the defections and the name-changes, that is not a minor thing to boast about.
jon, I want to thank you for your posts. I probably will not post here anymore after today so I want to tell you that I find you to be faithful and loyal to the Church. Your posts have helped me.
Where ya goin?
Jon, I do not know if the editor will post this, but I will tell you flat our why I do not trust you.
#1. You have the same name as a person who used to push “same-sex” marriages here in California.
#2. You always manage to chastise some good priests and bishops, but you never seem able to chastise some bad priests, such as Fr. James Martin, who refuses to call certain serious sins, sins, and McCarrick, who did horrific damage to the Church.
#3. I suspect you have posted anonymously on this website, or encouraged others to do so.
Anne TE is wrong on all counts. Firstly I have never pushed for same-sex marriage in California; I have never chastised priests and bishops, instead I have castigated commenters here for criticizing the popes and the bishops, and I have always used my name.
Jon, your words in the past speak for themselves. Saying any priest is wrong when he is right under a particular article, or being silent about some priests who are definitely wrong, speaks for itself. When did you ever come on here to defend Pope emeritus Benedict XVI when he was right? When have you ever come on here to defend Bishop Strickland when he was right, or Archbishop Cordileone, and so forth? When did you com on here to say Fr. James Martin was ever wrong? Your silence speaks volumes.
Again, Anne TE is wrong. Not only are her accusations without ground, but they’re also baffling. And get a hold of this: I am not only being wrongly being accused of saying something I never said (like saying that a priest is wrong “under a particular article”) but I am also being accused when I don’t post a comment. How laughably baffling is that? Dear Anne TE, one of the names for the devil is “the accuser.” You mustn’t let the mood or the spirit of the accuser get to you; plus, you must let go of your anger. Life is short.
Jon, you have accused many people over the years of being wrong. Your just accused Cardinal Burke of misinterpretation, you accuse Dan, Ronnie, Steve, and many others of being wrong. You accused me of being wrong several years ago when I mentioned that I refused to be involved in a Hindu prayer at a mass for St. John Paul II when on a Catholic liturgy committee after talking to two uninvolved priest from other Catholic churches. You are the accuser.
And those priests I talked to Jon, were not Traditional Latin Mass priests, one served the post Vatican II Mass at that time, and the other was bi ritual (Eastern and Roman Catholic Rite). Both served the post Vatican II rites. Most of us try to ignore you because you so obnoxius.
I daresay I am so sorry for Anne TE because she seems to be angry and all for naught. Dear Anne TE, I was not accusing dear Cardinal Burke, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting several times, of heresy, unfaithfulness, malice, nor contempt for the Pope (although many here have accused the Pope and several bishops of those very things, which is more than unbecoming for a Catholic to do). No Anne TE, I pointed out the dear Cardinal’s simple misinterpretation of the Pope’s words. Frankly knowing how much His Eminence loves His Holiness, he would never suggest that the Pope meant that the Mass itself causes division. And the Pope never wrote that in his motu propio. His Eminence if he had read my comment would have appreciated my gentle correction, which I began by saying “with all respect” to the Cardinal. That is way more than what many people say here when they thrash Pope Francis.
And as for the rest of the things you wrote (your Hindu prayer, your bi-ritual priest friends), I can’t reply to any of them, because, frankly they make no sense to me. Sorry. You may be mixing me up with another “Jon”. In any case, I am not here to earn your trust nor anybody else’s. I am here to give my two cents when I deem appropriate and to correct, when appropriate. Honestly Anne TE, the manner in which I correct people here is far, far gentler than the manner with which you people correct and castigate the anointed ministers of the Church—that is the Pope, the bishops, and the priests.
Well, we did not anticipate that someone would steal the name of a long time poster and then they can’t get their posts on.
I don’t believe this is the Real Anne TE.
Getting in my last anonymous comment…
Well, honestly, and I mean this in the most sincere way: I can’t figure why anyone would go through the trouble pretending to be her.
Jon, it was me. Anne TE., and you were the one who accuse me of being wrong about not okaying the Hindu prayer. I am hoping that you just forgot about it. I posted the comment right after the Pachamama incident when you were defending the pope’s actions concerning the idol in the Vatican Gardens, and I said it was wrong. I then brought up the fact that I had been asked to okay a Hindu prayer at a Catholic church when on a liturgy committee and refused to do so. We got into an argument about it, and a poster with the name” NOT MY MAMA” defended me.
Unless you can identify the article and post the link here, I must say you got the wrong “Jon.” I have not commented at length about the “Pachamama incident” here and a bit unlikely I’d say anything about Hindu prayers.
I always thought “Anonymous” was a troll anyway.