Is serious theological discussion prudent on public forums?

[Insanis]

Whether or not this forum has much semi-scholary posting on it or not, I have been considering the issue of having any serious nuanced discussions on forums, which are loosely defined, includes things like Facebook, reddit, Internet forums, Youtube, and other such platform where individuals can interact.

It seems that without a control over who can participate, and in some cases, who can even view the discussions, some serious theological discussions are possibly quite imprudent.

Even a good discussion between two people can be scandalous to observers if it is concerning a topic that requires previous formation and understanding.

And even for topics that are not sensitive in themselves, it may be seen as inordinate to details that "don't matter" by others (you know, angels dancing on a head of a pin accusations), even if the discussion is perfectly ordered.

[Michael Wilson]

Where else can we have a serious discussion, pray tell?

[Insanis]

Where else can we have a serious discussion, pray tell?

What do you mean?

Are you responding to the title or what I wrote in the post?

If you are responding to the title, the post explains the question. If you are responding to the post, I'm not sure why you think public forums of those kinds are the only means to discuss these things.

Is it hard to imagine talking to people in person, on private forums, or with otherwise private correspondence?

The issue of prudence is not resolved with "where well else should it be done?". 

[Michael Wilson]

I'm stating that the question on the O.P. Should rather be "Where else but on a trad Cath forum can one have a serious theological discussion"?  I don't know of any other place where I can engage on the Catholic theological discussions that we have here; "Prudent"? Of course; why would it be imprudent to engage in a serious discussion on the Catholic faith?

[Miriam_M]

The ideal -- an ideal long vanished in the Catholic Church -- would be the following:

(1) No need for lay theological discussion because clergy provided whatever level of theological knowledge a lay person sought, beyond the clear truths of the faith universally elucidated by virtually all Catholic priests, good priests and bad priests, as well as by consecrated religious in charge of catechesis.  Such priests were products of traditional seminaries and convents where theology was not invented and dissent was not tolerated.

(2) Enough individual priests populating parishes that answering individual theological questions was abundantly available by appointment -- occasional, ongoing, or only once. Priests were accessible.

(3) Non-confusing published material on Catholic theology.  Most of the stuff that has been published since the Council bears little resemblance to abiding Catholic systematic theology for those of us who have studied that.  If one has not the educational background with which to sort that material, trying to make sense of modern theology is not a promising task.

(4) When items 1, 2, and 3 were operative, it was not only not necessary for any lay person to compete with true (ordained) authorities, it was also in itself a sign of disobedience and rebellion.  Anyone who tried to published unauthorized content, in any existing manner of communication, was curtailed by church authorities, roundly. There were explicit rules about publishing any material under a Catholic identifier.  The default position was that it was not permitted, and to do so, one needed approval of the See.

The council ushered in a radically unrecognizable era in the Church, shattering authority on the practical level and inviting spiritual, moral, liturgical, and intellectual chaos into the realm of sacred theology. Today, even catechesis is (a) not uniform, (b) inconsistent in length, (c) not usually followed by examination, except for converts and children associated with traditional apostolates, (d) often even heterodox. 

In short, the faithful who came of age after the Council, unless they had unusual parents who brought them to authentic sources, were robbed of the faith.  However, it goes beyond theology, because in order to understand traditional theology, it is essential to understand the philosophy upon which that theology is based.  In Tradition, theology and philosophy work hand in glove.

Discussion forums provide information and updates on traditional resources that were once only in print and sometimes are now also electronic. Often, posters publish these.  There are a lot of doctrinal and other theological errors on discussion forums; however, in selected cases there are proportionally more theologically knowledgeable people on a forum than in certain Catholic parishes, including the pastors of such parishes.

The only cautionary note is that I've seen a tendency on discussion forums to rely on guessing and to substitute guessing and opinion for the traditional body of doctrine.  For some people, this tendency appears to be a combination of laziness, frustration, and impatience. 

So I would say that it is not imprudent to have theological discussions on electronic forums but that it is imprudent to assume that there are shortcuts to the more complex kinds of questions that the Fathers and Doctors and other esteemed churchmen already tackled centuries ago. The true sources of theological truth -- such as we may know them with our limited brains -- are contained within the existing deposit of faith.

[Insanis]

I'm stating that the question on the O.P. Should rather be "Where else but on a trad Cath forum can one have a serious theological discussion"?  I don't know of any other place where I can engage on the Catholic theological discussions that we have here; "Prudent"?

You can see some of the difficulty, if discussions about the prudence of discussions has issues on public forums.

Of course; why would it be imprudent to engage in a serious discussion on the Catholic faith?

That is an interesting question, but it is another topic, isn't it?

This thread wasn't questioning whether it was appropriate for any discussions on theology or any serious discussions.

It was about the prudence of discussing certain topics in uncontrolled public environments (not just on a specific form of Internet forum, but all of them).

Some discussions might be imprudent to discuss "in public", which is what the OP was about. It was not about all theology.

Prudence is one of the cardinal virtues, and it is very important. Certainly, the general discussion of theology is not imprudent, because prudence is about the actual details of the situation. The fact that some theological and doctrinal discussion is prudent doesn't mean it all is.

That is what this thread was about, which I tried to express in the OP.

[Insanis]

So I would say that it is not imprudent to have theological discussions on electronic forums but that it is imprudent to assume that there are shortcuts to the more complex kinds of questions that the Fathers and Doctors and other esteemed churchmen already tackled centuries ago. The true sources of theological truth -- such as we may know them with our limited brains -- are contained within the existing deposit of faith.

That is all well and good, but the question was more about the prudence of individual subjects and discussions in the wider context of public forums, which includes any public platform where the control over who sees what is limited or non-existent and the participants are self-selected without any control.

Prudence governs everything we do, so the question of prudence is not usually about whether something is in itself good or not. There is no prudent way to do anything bad.

Of course; why would it be imprudent to engage in a serious discussion on the Catholic faith?

Prudence is all about doing good things. The question isn't whether serious theological discussion is good or not. That isn't a matter of prudence.

The fact that such things are good (or at least, not bad in themselves), means that prudence needs to govern them.

And anybody who doesn't appreciate prudence should be very careful: the measure of whether something is good or not is not whether it is good in themselves, but also the details of exactly how it was done.

After all, if someone asked whether married people should engage in the marital act or not, we'd all say "yes".

But if someone asked about prudence in doing that in various different circumstances, nobody in their right mind say "why would it be imprudent if it is good?".

But that is, essentially, what has happened here. There is definitely a time and place and a manner for doing good things, and sensitive things require more examination.

And that leads back to the original question about particular serious theological discussions.

[Jayne]

While it is not as noticeable here, there was a very obvious problem on the, now defunct, Catholic Answers forum.  The typical pattern there was questions or topics usually received multiple responses, some correct and others not.  Anybody asking a question had to already know enough about the subject to be able to recognize which of the answers were the correct ones.  Since people do not know what they do not know, they could easily make mistakes.

I experienced this personally when I started posting on Fisheaters forum.  Since I have an MDiv degree, I assumed that I had an above average understanding of Catholicism.  When other posters disagreed with me, I figured that meant they must be wrong.  I did not understand, at first, that my education was deficient. I needed to re-examine everything that I had learned to see how it measured up to traditional Catholic teaching, but I saw myself as a person capable of explaining Catholicism to others and did so.  I was a high volume poster so I was generating a lot of posts on that forum that probably should not have been written.

On the other hand, discussions on forums helped me to understand, eventually, that my education had a lot of modernist influence and that I needed to relearn a lot of things.

[james03]

The ideal -- an ideal long vanished in the Catholic Church -- would be the following:

A statement based on prudence.

One merely has to look at the utter catastrophe in Latin America to see what happens when no one is professing the Truth.  Protestants are having a field day down there, even Mormons.  That bears repeating: Mormons, I say again, Mormons, are dragging Catholics into their heretical sect in Latin America.

So if the Church remains silent, only talking about "accompaniment", or worse, her prelates are teaching heresy, then it is left to the laity to do what they can to save souls.  So it is very prudent to create forums so that Catholics can learn about their Faith.

[Insanis]

So it is very prudent to create forums so that Catholics can learn about their Faith.

Prudence is about the individual acts, not the general.

Every good thing is governed by prudence.

Also, the thread is not about the narrow topic of forums: read the OP. It is about "public forums" in general, not particular forum software.

Here is a refresher on Prudence. It is clear that most of the responses here do not seem to appreciate how it governs good things, and asking whether something is prudent or not is about the individual circumstances, not whether the act is in itself good or not. There is no prudent way to do bad things.

[james03]

It is better to say a good act is the application of prudence.

So K. observed the complete collapse in the teaching ministry of the Church and accepted this truth (which was an act of prudence).  The application of prudence was his act of creating this subforum.

Those who participate in the discussions have the same observation, that there is rampant error among Catholics, or that they themselves don't know something and have questions.  The application of prudence is in either providing information (which, as Miriam points out, should include cites), or in coming on here and asking their question.

As far as other places like Facebook, I have no experience with it so can't give an opinion.

[Prayerful]

None or almost none of us are priests with advanced theological degrees. We have to feel our way in the dark, for there is no one of sources, but sifting them is hard. Lay gurus can be a problem, but laymen like Patrick Omlor or Michael Davies made an effort when most priests went mad. We can correct each others mistakes as we go along.

[andy]

I think you all complicate the matter. The recipe is very simple: in order to have a serious theological discussion (regardless a medium) you need a qualified participants first. So it is either a well educated priest or a lay person appointed by the Church (e.g. lay seminary teachers). And I do not think any of members here meet this requirement.

There is no room for discussion for laity. The Church does not discuss, the Church teaches. We listen. All we can do is to self-study though. Or go to the school, get a degree in the theology and if excellent, try to get an official position within Church.

There is nothing worse than a moralist, a self-appointed armchair "theologian" who shares his or her wisdom and whoever disagrees or opposes becomes automatically a heretic

[Insanis]

Prudence is all about the individual circumstances, doing good things in the proper way.

Sometimes, the prudent thing to do is withdraw and let others go their own way.

[Aulef]

No, it is not. Neither laity without proper training is.