Saturday, May 31, 2008

Comment #28

Here's the comment that was deleted... (a shorter version of one I tried to post yesterday)

I found Candy's church's website and it makes NO reference to having missionaries in Peru specifically ministering to Roman Catholics. There is an impressive list of missionaries they are supporting. I am sure Bro. O'Daniel is wondering where the writer got this information.

Is it out of bounds to find Candy's church on the web when she tried to keep it anonymous? Maybe. I think it skirts the line of acceptability.

Is it ok to pry into Candy's personal information (real life) because she published personal information about Elena? No.

Turning the other cheek and forgiveness are Christian virtues.

Eye for an eye? Not.


Unashamed said...

You know, I really AM sympathetic to those ladies - I think the anti-Catholic abuse that they have to suffer is despicable, and I applaud them for trying to educate the ignorant. But it's clear to me that Elena will brook no criticism, no matter how well deserved it is. The fact of the matter is, she is guilty of a number of the same transgressions that she accuses Candy of. I noticed that she has taken to deleting the comments that hit too close to home - but leaves her own rebuttals to them. And I'm thinking, isn't that what she has been condemning Candy for all this time???

Ironically, the criticisms that I have leveled have not been to show support for Candy (though it seems they've been perceived that way) but rather to point out inconsistencies in "editorial policy" if you will. I would think that for the sake of credibility they would want that blog to adhere to a higher standard, one of fairness and even-handedness. I'd think they'd want to avoid the appearance of petty "t*t for tat".

I'd love to tell them all this directly, but I suspect that my comments won't be appreciated.

Milehimama said...

I think that since Candy very often holds her church out to be a very good church that has influenced her views, as well as posting a pic of it (didn't she?), it is fair to contact the pastor of the church to see if he espouses the things Candy says.

Especially through e-mail - I might draw the line at bloggers showing up at the parsonage with a chip on their shoulder!

If someone claims a person or place is very influential about their views on a subject, and that person seems to promoting false information, there is nothing wrong with "checking the source".

For example, I think it is perfectly all right to research Jeremiah Wright's views, in light of Obama's calling him a "mentor" and attending his church. Obama TOLD us that the man's views influenced him greatly, we SHOULD check them out.

I don't see how this situation is any different.

I don't comment very often on either blog, so I have nothing to say re: missing comments.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, Elena's personal information is just not that hard to find. I'm not sure she even made an effort to hide who she is. I found her name, address, phone number, church, church address and the name of her priest. In about a minute and a half.

Would I post it online? Absolutely not!

Sue Bee said...

Just to be clear, I think Blogger ate my first comment, not Elena. I'll tell you what else I said in a minute.

Milehimama, I'm really on the fence as to whether it was right or wrong to find Candy's church and email her pastor. Obviously he is a big influence on her - and I was thinking of the Obama deal too. On the other hand, it seems like whoever did it was trying to prove they could out-smart Candy's attempts at keeping the information anonymous. KWIM?

My real beef is with what Unashamed rightly calls the petty t!t for tat. Those in the group who defend the breach of privacy on the grounds that Candy breached Elena's privacy first. What I call the "She did it first defense". I don't let my kids get away with it and I bet you moms don't either. As Ellen points out, (and Elena does too) Elena's personal information is easily obtained anyway. It wasn't a big deal, yet some are hanging on to it months later...

What I said the first time that I didn't say the second time:

I use to be an office manager for a mid-sized Lutheran church (500+ members, 2 pastors) that had a nice website, full of doctrine and our email addresses. We rarely got any email from anyone outside the congregation. But, this was 1997-2000. Maybe more people email pastors they don't know with theology questions these days.

I bet Candy's pastor was happy to answer the email but a little confused since his website doesn't mention sponsoring missionaries in Peru who minister specifically to Roman Catholics.

...the rest you read here.

I think this is the first time I've had a comment removed! I didn't think I was being all that harsh. Must have hit a nerve?!

Kelly said...

Honestly, I'm a little confused as to how it became such a huge mess. It was my impression that Elena put up the pastor's e-mail because she intends to write a rebuttal to some of his points. I thought the initial part was just a bit of background as to how she got the e-mail. Someone tracked down the church, e-mailed the pastor, and sent the response to Elena.

Elena never brought up Candy posting the picture of her house in the conversation, until someone (was it unashamed?) asked her what the difference was.

Elena wasn't the one who wrote to the pastor (I saw the e-mail). She didn't publish any of the information, and she didn't suggest people run over there. I really don't understand how this idea came about that Elena did this as some sort of retaliation.

On the other hand, I'm mystified as to why she deleted your comment, Sue Bee. I suspect she's going to take you off the blogroll, again! ;)

Unashamed said...

Let me see if I can provide some clarity Kelly.

I understand that Elena was not the one to contact the Pastor. I understand that there was no malice intended. However, it was clearly done by somebody in the VTC camp. If I were Candy, and I knew that someone I considered an adversary had tracked down my home church, I'd be freaked. And I think that Elena of all people should have been sensitive to that.

The 8th commandment: You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.

What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not tell lies about our neighbour, betray him, slander him, or hurt his reputation, but defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything in the kindest way.

The meaning of the commandment is clear - it's not enough to simply not cause our neighbour harm. We are also obligated to protect and defend our neighbour. This is what Elena failed to do.

When Elena became aware that a reader had tracked down Candy's church and contacted her pastor (which, I'm sorry, I interpret as a gross invasion of privacy) she was obligated under this commandment to DEFEND Candy's right to privacy. She could have admonished the reader to be more sensitive. Instead she chose to make the incident public and use it for apologetics purposes.

I want to reiterate: I am NOT against you ladies. But some of the stuff on the blog lately has caused you all to lose credibility in my eyes. It just seems bitter and vindictive. And I'm sympathetic to you for goodness sake! What kind of light do you think your less-than-sympathetic readers see you in? To be honest with you, my impression is that Elena is more concerned with being right and having the last word than defending the Catholic faith. I am, however, willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Unashamed said...

Oh, and PS, she's deleted my comments on a number of occasions now.

Kelly said...

Thank you, unashamed, that was actually very helpful. I didn't get that at all from what you posted at VtoC.

And I have never perceived you or Sue Bee as adversaries.

Sue Bee said...

I was up late blog-reading, then praying a bit...

Unashamed, you were right to alert Candy of what happened. As you said, if it happened to me I would freak out too. I'm sorry I didn't even think of it that way.

Kelly - Blondie & Elena both bring up the first "incident" in their comments to the post, not Unashamed or I.

Unashamed, MotherofMany (I think) and I have been censored for disagreeing - which doesn't violate any of the commenting rules. Yet Perplexity's comment on "Candy Unetched" stands.

BTW, since when is commenting on Candy's picture apologetics?

Milehimama said...

I guess maybe I *do* have a different view of emailing pastors. I have done that several times, based on websites. Often I'll be talking to a friend or some such and they'll mention something their pastor said or praise a sermon or something, and I'll email the church to ask for a copy.

I also spent a lot of time researching the Word of Faith movement and emailing churches to get a better grip on the finer points of doctrine as practiced in their church. It's kind of a "go to the source" thing - just like I would hope people researching Catholicism would open a catechism. Except when each church is their own denomination, there is no book to go to, to see how they interpret a particular Scripture.

Sue Bee said...

And there are so many pastors with blogs nowadays, it is fairly easy to find one of any denomination (except Amish) and read his thoughts. Some are heavy on theology, others more devotional in nature. Many post their sermons - sometimes as podcasts. They are informative and often entertaining--for geeks like us that enjoy reading sermons! :-)

Elena said...

I am sorry Sue Bee, and Unashamed that the church/pastor/e-mail thing upset you.

I truly did get an e-mail from a reader. I did not solicit it (I did forward a copy to Kelly).

To give you a glimpse into the workings (or lack thereof) of my mind, my first thought was "Great! Now I can find out what Candy's pastor really thinks and see how compelling his argument is." Never once did it cross my mind that this was any sort of breach of confidentiality. All of this information was readily provided by Candy who it seemed to me was moving in a new direction on her blog. (BTW Sue, my comment on her lack of etching was a positive one and meant to be complimentary. If you go through our archives I have complimented Candy on several occasions.)

This also was not an eye for an eye situation. My interests were purely motivated by theology, apologetics and exegesis.

You both told me you thought it was skirting the line. I got it. I don't think I needed to read it two or three more times in increasingly stronger terms. If you both really had that much of a problem with it, you could have e-mailed me! My e-mail is readily available. Isn't there a biblical mandate about speaking to someone privately first?

I'm going through a bit of a tough time right now, and yea, maybe I am a little touchy about criticism. However, I don't think I was wrong to remove posts that were overly critical (IMO) and had nothing to do with the topic at hand (which was regarding the comments of the pastor!) But hey- that's why I'm taking a break! (Incidentally I think I had mainly very positive things to say about his reply even though I disagree with it!)

Anyway, lesson learned. After 4 years of blogging and commenting there is still much to know. I guess that's what keeps it fresh and new.

No hard feelings, onward and upward as my mom would say!

Now where's that Marguerita -

Sue Bee said...


Unashamed & I put on our referee hats, blew the whistle and called a foul. Perhaps, once too many times...but we did get your attention!

No hard feelings.

Enjoy your Marguerita. :-)

candyisascrazyasitgets said...

so let me get this straight. It is okay for the "regulars" to look up private information, but for a new comer then "take it else where." I mean looking up her church and emailing her pastor is a far cry from googling her website name or prayzgod name and finding out her name and information about her husband. Heck if you go to the links that her husband provides on her webpage you can find him incredibly easy. it is like the third or fourth site when searched. when she makes claims that the truth is easy to find (i.e. hubby has been inducted into the inventor's hall of fame) well I will research it and find out if she is telling the truth. I think blogging as a farce to people is wrong and unChristian.

Sue Bee said...

so let me get this straight. It is okay for the "regulars" to look up private information, but for a new comer then "take it else where."

We were discussing whether or not it is okay to look up private information. The comments regarding what state she lives (or does not live in) and her husband’s accomplishments were gossip.

Heck if you go to the links that her husband provides on her webpage you can find him incredibly easy. it is like the third or fourth site when searched.

Just because you *can* do something does not mean you *should* do something.

when she makes claims that the truth is easy to find (i.e. hubby has been inducted into the inventor's hall of fame) well I will research it and find out if she is telling the truth. I think blogging as a farce to people is wrong and unChristian.

These are issues you have to take up with Candy. Bringing them to the attention of others is being deliberating defamatory. Blogging in order to spread gossip is also wrong and un-Christian. It is the intention not the veracity that defines what gossip.