How do you deal with a betrayal of trust?

[RevCheesehead]

First, let me state that I asked, and got permission from Skinner to post this thread in our group.

By now, many of you know that two (or perhaps one person) DUers were banned. see Skinner's post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3176890

Both persona were "high-profile" religious advocates on DU, and at least one of these names posted in our group and the Catholics group.
While the banning of these individuals might not surprise some of you, for others, there may be a strong feeling of betrayal.

For me, I feel like one of the disciples, who sat in disbelief at hearing about Judas. I thought he was one of us. A bit of a hard-liner, to be sure, but still - part of the Body of Christ, and someone whom I was willing to trust.

So, what is going on here? What should we do, if anything? And will it affect how we relate to one another, and to the rest of DU?
Perhaps the bigger question is: what grace can be taken from this? How do we see and understand God working in this circumstance?

Feel free to post your thoughts here.

[lavenderdiva]

1. I would be interested to get your thoughts and insights on this subject

as I am dealing with this issue in my personal life.

Since I had limited interaction with the one/two individual/s in question, I can't say the whole incident today on DU has really affected me. It certainly won't impact my conversations with anyone here, or affect how I relate to anyone at DU. I think most of us here just want a forum where we can listen to other mostly like-minded people, and have a place to also be heard. I really appreciate the opportunity to share my viewpoint and learn from others.

In my personal life, my sister and her husband have continually betrayed my trust in them over the last 20 years. Some of the stuff they have pulled have been doozies. They are supposedly born-again fundies, but yet I can't reconcile their actions with their purported belief system. I am Christian and sometimes feel badly that I can't let them into my inner circle, but each time I do, they eventually do something stupid again, and I am hurt. I read an interesting book by Billy Graham's daughter saying that the act of forgiveness is really two-fold. There is the actual act of forgiveness, but there is also an act of reconciliation. The two don't necessarily have to coincide, as it were. Let's say you were bilked by your accountant. Would you, as a Christian need to forgive him? Yes. Would it be considered wise to reconcile with him, and have him continue doing your accounting? No. I don't know why a lot of Christians don't 'get' this. My in-laws, Christians as well, have for years, kept 'guilting' me over the distance I keep between my sister and myself. They think just because she is 'family', I should have a close relationship with her. I always take her calls and speak cordially with her, but she will not be part of my 'inner circle' of friends that I trust with personal information. There are no 'Hi, how are you doing, I was thinking of you' conversations. I do not call her, or in any way illicit a relationship from my end. I feel it is much healthier for me that way.

Anyway, RevCheesehead, am I doctrinally sound here? From what I've read (other than the Graham book), it seems that most Christian doctrine expects you, in the act of forgiveness, to completely welcome that person back into your fold. For the longest time, I have been wondering if my stance is hindering my relationship with God, and preventing Him from answering my prayers. What is your viewpoint and insight? I'd appreciate your input.

ps. I'm Methodist too! I just read that about you! :hi:

[mrgorth]

2. It sounds like

you need to be more cynical about the internet. There are some crazies out there. Here is part of out there. Dig?

[Bunny]

3. Very gracious post, Reverend.

I'm not a member of your group, but as someone who often tussled with the person in question, I wondered how you all would feel when he was revealed. You didn't deserve to be used in this manner.

Your response is that of a true Christian, I especially like this part:

Perhaps the bigger question is: what grace can be taken from this? How do we see and understand God working in this circumstance?

[cally]

4. I'm sorry you are feeling betrayed

To be honest, this poster never spoke for me about my beliefs so I never had a sense of closeness to him. He seemed rather judgmental and doctrinaire and frighteningly misogynistic.

I'm not shocked that CL was banned or a troll but I am shocked that he and Padraig are the same person. That just amazes me that someone would put so much effort to mislead others. I guess this just reinforces my belief that you have to careful of the internet and that piousness is easier in word than deed.

[elshiva]

5. OMG! Padraig and CL!

Oh dear! RevCheesehead, please continue to pray for them. I know Padraig wanted us to pray for a relative who joined the military, but they need prayer. Lurking can be a serious problem. As a mentally ill person, I fear for their sanity. Please pray.

[RevCheesehead]

6. yes, indeed.

Actually, it seems CL and Paddy are the same person. Be sure to read all of Skinner's thread in the Lounge - it gives some details about what happened.

I feel sorry for Tony - or whatever his name is. Clearly, there's something going on there. I didn't really know him, but I just took him at his word (ministerial hazard/gift). I hope and pray that others are not terribly hurt by what's happened.

[murielm99]

7. While I know better than to trust everyone on the Internet(s),

I am a bit upset by it. Clearly, someone with enough time on his hands to create multiple Internet personalities should be using his imaginative gift in better ways.

I defended CL in General Discussion, when his Catholicism was being mocked. He seemed sincere about his faith.

He comforted me over the loss of my dog, a loss this is still raw and painful. He seemed sincere about that, too.

Maybe the pettiness and the duplicity that we saw magnified in him is present in all of us to some degree. But there could be some sincerity in some of his better sentiments, too. We can pray for him, and try to clean up our own lives.

[Princess Turandot]

8. I confess to being relieved..

because many of his/their views & positions didn't make sense to me.
The 'gay'-'devout Catholic'-'anti-birth control' etc etc was just a little too 'precious' to the point that it seemed like a parody to me. For example, I know there are a small number of people here who will defend almost to their death, the 'right' of a pharmacist to not fill bc prescriptions, but for one guy to start many threads on the same topic which got hundreds of responses, half of which were his,just was a little too much over the top.

In my past experiences with trolls like this, they've usually turned out to be young teen-age boys with too much time on their hands but that probably wasn't the case here, given the writing style. I guess 'they' got some feeling of superiority by effectively mocking people who agreed with their posts, and by causing heart-burn to those people who did not and who took them seriously.

As a liberal Catholic, I felt his posts often re-reinforced anti-Christian stereotypes, particularly in their repetitive rigidity. I'm glad this avatar of him has departed.I hope they caught all of them!

[RevCheesehead]

9. I agree, Princess.

Some of the "hard-line" stuff didn't make sense to me, especially when coupled with his pro-homosexual stance. How does a "devout" Catholic reconcile being pro-gay, yet anti-women's issues? That was one issue I was willing to challenge him on - but thankfully, that doesn't seem necessary anymore.

(please note: I use "devout" as I would "fundamentalist" in this situation, and am in no way making blanket statements about Catholic doctrine, dogma, or personal beliefs.)

[Princess Turandot]

10. I guess the contrast for me was that there are DU'ers who have more..

conservative views on abortion, the Terry Schiavo fiasco etc.
Most of them post their views and while they may come back to debate a specific response,I've never seen any of them start and continue repetitive divisive posts. And that's what the 1 or 2 of them were doing. That crazy post dredging up John Adams or one of the other founding fathers (the plagiarized essay) was so over the top, especially after the so many threads on the topic. It just seemed off to me, I guess. I virtually never responded to either of them, except once or twice on the pharmacist posts.

Maybe you can call them 'Paulist Catholics'.'Catechism Catholics'?
On the other hand, I know some pretty decent Sisters who would not fall into that category and doubt that they believe they sin where they don't follow Church doctrine to the letter. The Mel Gibson crowd has been called 'Traditional Catholics' but as far as I'm concerned, you can be a disobedient Catholic but deciding the Vatican no longer has authority over the Church for the last 60 some years, sort of makes you no longer a Catholic. Free will only takes you so far!

Added: it is very sad when someone takes joy in abusing the trust of people. I think though that it happens on line more than in person, since no matter how many times you may write to someone, without voice or facial nuances, a lot remains unknown. I think the internet provides a fantasy arena for some people who would not dare act the way they do online, in person. And it doesn't even have to be abt sex!