Charlie's Perceptive Take

No problem at all. Another sign of the times is there's controversy and confusion in everything these days, even something benign like this.

I do love you coming to defend our little Drew, that has a big smile on my face. See you soon

 

View attachment 5057

 

Kev-

Do you have a link? I can't find it.

 

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...ministry-despite-denver-archdi/#view-comments

The comments are towards the top. Here's a relevant one:

“I’ll let Charlie speak for himself”
[...]
“Charlie does have to delete the really nasty posts. And yes of course he
allows some in order to explain why they are getting their posts deleted.”

Why does Charlie have to explain to the public comments that were made privately and about which no one would have known?

I think there is a failure to understand what I am doing, Mrs. Walton. I question Charlie’s motive (and/or the effect of) as to why he allows “nasty” comments.

You say posters sometime “insist” that Charlie oblige them and he does nothing more than oblige. Well, last time I checked my moral theology, giving a crack-addict their fix is hardly charitable, or merciful.

While addiction to crack is not the same as a nasty comment, the fundamental premise is still the same, namely charity and doing right by our neighbor—even when they ask to look like fools. Whatever happened to letting people save face? Is there no decency among men? When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on earth?

Now, to your point about insisting and privacy: if someone insists to Charlie that he/she wants his/her moderated comment to be made public, that’s a private request. Obliging the request makes public something that was private. He is under no obligation to approve nasty comments, contrary to some of his stated ideals for his web site.

Charlie has already admitted his willingness to kick people in the groin who kick him. Now you claimed earlier that you would not be hanging around Charlie’s place if you saw nastiness taking place from posters. Strange that you don’t seem to see Charlie’s apparent “eye for an eye” as being nasty. It certainly is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but apparently not so in Charlie’s gospel (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4).

“If you had claimed the above..then why are you complaining?”

I do not understand you. Please clarify.

“Better to delete than we the readers endure the abusive comments….”

Mrs. Walton, you HAVE endured abusive comments by the very fact that Charlie sometimes allows them. Again, I reiterate: Charlie need not oblige such requests. It’s uncharitable and comes across more as an attempt to keep the rest of you in line and not question him.

“Exactly Benedict! So I will leave you to your opinion and will remain prudent, as the good Archbishop has advised..”

Make sure to remain prudent on Archdiocesan property."

 

Fresh - Thanks for posting. I have read this. I remember Charlie had a rebuttal on his blog. I looked for the link but couldn't find it. But I do know it's there. Thanks again for posting.

 

Funny, peculiar, odd and queer. If there are sites or forums you don't like, just don't read them. So those who do can enjoy them, and not have to endure your frustration, self inflicted might I add should you exercise your free will to avoid or stand and fight in a verbal sense. I don't understand why you are posting this monotribe about Charlie. Are you worrying about other peoples inability to decide themselves. Are we somehow too stupid to choose what is acceptable or should we bow to your opinion, without regard for our own. I don't understand where you are coming from, or where you expect this type of post to lead. Have you considered coming to this site to spread confusion about another site might be considered rabble rousing. Just a thought. GRGRGR.

 

@FreshEggs.
As an example, I once used a Catholic Forum which I had to admit the only way forward was to walk away, shake the dust from my feet, and find a new Catholic forum to share my faith, and enjoy other peoples faith testimonies.

Now, on Padraig's forum, there is a great open Catholic world. It has the good, the bad and the ugly. But all are welcome. If I find a single member whom I recognise as from that other Catholic Forum. I can guarantee you, no one here will know. I will simply quietly block their posts so I can pretend they don't exist; but I would not get into a quarrel and impose my frustrations on everyone else. So why can't you do the same with Charlie, whom you seem to not like. Your choice! and it is not fair to be imposing your frustrations on this site.

 

Sorry Kevin. Sorry FreshEggs if I have misunderstood your motives.

 

I read it like Julia.

I think Charlie is entitled to screen his comments. It is his blog.

His message is given clearly:
Something intense is going to happen, get ready, try and help others, don't worry, help and direction on its way by late 2017.

This is the message.


( I don't know if Charlie sits around all day with not very much to do in between in between praying and giving talks, but chit chatting with people who want to change his message might be a bit tiresome.)

 

Probably just because of the name in the very title of this particular thread which of course, just as all of the other threads do, allows for information to flow outside of the desired limitations desired by some. Mark Mallett also had to write something finally that delineated where he differed from Charlie's take on some things. He said that he only wished that he would have done it sooner, hoping to have spared anyone from any confusion....esp. since so many claim his introduction as to how and why they even ended up on Charlie's site. He's been used "well" by Charlie!

Julia, also:
I can guarantee you, no one here will know. I will simply quietly block their posts so I can pretend they don't exist; but I would not get into a quarrel and impose my frustrations on everyone else.

I believe that that is just the point that some are making here re: Charlie's. Unlike yourself he does invite a quarrel by speaking to those he says disagree with him (often chiding them as being "vain") while having blocked them or suggesting that if they continue to be specific in perhaps their own founded disagreements they have no, at least comfortable, place there. They then do not get a fair and balanced opportunity to continue and simply go elsewhere or risk more condescension and suggested "uncharitableness" coming from the master of the "storm" and "rescue" crowd. And, Um, like those emphasized particular generalities there haven't already been noticed and noted now for probably decades by approved mystics, saints, scripture itself, and other "prophets" of the day....we've definitely been in a building storm for quite some time and people have been looking to the 100th anniversary of Fatima for something meaningful to happen for the faithful....so, hey, what better spot in history to begin an easily led rally??!

 

I was offering a different take on Charlie. I know a lot of people here value his commentary, but something about him and his mission seems...off. earthtoangels already listed a lot of what is off, so there's no need for me to repeat it.

 

I've taken a few days to come up with exactly I find troubling about Charlie.

Archbishop Aquila, despite not putting any restrictions on his presentations or warnings, urged extreme caution about them. And what does Charlie do? Write posts about "the sky is falling". He did it in April, and he's doing it again. The last time he did it, someone got upset and wrote about his fears and concerns on the Mystics of the Church site. Charlie then threw this commentary up on his own site and ridiculed the man's concerns.

I never saw any Church approved visionary doing or even suggesting things like this. It was arrogant, humiliating and meant to skewer. This is the same man who also said he would "kick people in the groin" and suggested the NC Register libeled him after the article on him was published.

"Though they have not crossed the line into legal libel, they have already laid a foundation for provable actual malice and reckless disregard should they allow their frenzy to prove I’m a dirty guy cause them to slip.

So talk as ugly as you want. But if, after talking ugly without following the most basic standards of ethics, you cross the line, I will act. That makes it easy for me. I only have to correct the occasional substantive error – and if it goes beyond that, I will leave it to the lawyers." ("Just One More Thing", May 1, 2016)

Charlie tries to explain this all away to people who say, "well, you don't act like the approved visionaries" by suggesting that he's different. He doesn't meet the conditions, but we should pay attention to him anyway.

That's not how it works. Sorry. This makes me not believe one word that comes from his pen.

 

One addendum. When you're 1000 percent convinced you're sent by God , and you run around to just about every site that's written about you to try and convince people of your authenticity ("I am truly sent by God to give you heart through these times..." - April 29, 2016), but the Church hasn't determined whether you are or not...that's also a BIG red flag. Once again, none of the authentic Church visionaries (and credible but still unapproved ones like Sr. Mildred Mary Neuzil) acted like this.

 

Not even one word?

So every single word he writes is in error?

I smell a rotten egg, ha, ha

 

Why rotten? Because I don't believe Charlie?

I don't, despite the world being in the mess it's in.

There are way too many red flags with this guy. Lack of humility, for one (a huge one). Something weird about his "angel", for another. I always thought it was strange that the "angel" said worse things than predicted would happen to people if he told them about a particular prediction. (Since when do holy angels of God act like that? That sounds like it came from somewhere else.) The going around on sites to assert his authenticity when the Church hasn't determined it (or even called for a second investigation to determine such). Plus the other red flags that earthtoangels already mentioned in this thread.

After 20 years of being sidetracked by seers and goofy predictions, I prefer to stick with the basics: Mass and daily prayer. Anything else is a distraction.

 

Rotten egg was a joke - only teasing.

I don't really care if you have a bee in your bonnet about Charlie.

 

Maybe Charlie was right .
He said Pope Francis would hit his stride. And maybe he has.

Pope Francis has promised not to slow down. That should keep liberals happy.


Pope vows he won’t be slowed down by ‘ultra-conservatives’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/07/03/pope-says-hes-not-looking-shoulder-ultra-conservatives/

 

I went to see Charlie Johnston earlier this year in Massachusetts. The talk was in a Lutheran Church; a previously scheduled Catholic venue canceled. Glenn Dellaire of the "Mystics of the Church" website was there, BTW. I went in to hear Charlie with some reservations. I came out unconvinced.

Charlie walked in ten minutes late, without apology or explanation. He spoke at length about his walking trip through the U.S. He was a good and entertaining speaker. He made his points on relying on God, taking the next right step. All good. At question and answer time, people of course wanted to know about the Storm, how bad it would be, how to prepare, what to tell their children. Here was the problem: Charlie gave a brief answer about the Storm, then referred the audience to his website, where it was all written down. A man asked how to prepare his children. Charlie gave him a good answer (don't remember the exact words). Later a woman asked about how to prepare her children, and Charlie told her I answered that earlier, and gave her a very short reply.

Most people there were supporters and knew his message. For those who didn't, however, it was hard to get information on the whole of Charlie's mission. I spoke to two older women who said they didn't go on the internet and couldn't look things up. They were looking for written materials, but none were available. They were somewhat frustrated.

Charlie presents himself as a former political consultant and journalist. Judging him on that basis, he didn't communicate his story clearly and professionally.

Charlie presents himself as a man with a mission from God, with a key role to play in salvation history, that of "sherpa." Presumably, God has equipped Charlie with all the graces he needs to fulfill this mission. I would think these would include charismatic graces related to teaching and exhortation. But I don't think his talk was "inspired" -- at least I didn't feel that. (I attended talks by Maria Esperanza, and in those I got a strong feeling of being in the presence of a holy person and of hearing inspired speech.)

Charlie is not the only person to have foretold problems with the next election. There is a woman in Maine who has said since 2012 that Obama would not leave office in a normal transition, and many have pointed to 2017 as a crucial year. Some of his past predictions haven't worked out ("last normal Christmas").

That's my 2 cents.

 

I personally believe that Charlie is a man of good faith, and I'm sure that the upcoming events he also predicted (Obama not finishing his term, Hillary and Trump not winning the presidential election), will perfectly fulfill. This will be a great, and probably definitive sign about his sincerity. Only few months of waiting remaining before the big events.

 

I've never been to any of Charlie's talks. I did, however, hear about a recent one where someone asked if the walking pilgrimage was his idea or if he was told to do it, and he said it was none of their business.

The "last normal Christmas" was yet another red flag. The way Charlie tried to explain away this apparently failed prophecy was unconvincing. Every point he brought up skewed to the far right (you won't be able to decorate your front lawn for Christmas any more because of secularists in the govt.).

I really think what's going on here is a overactive imagination at best or a demonic deception at worst. It parallels the Magdelena of the Cross situation in some ways. The being disguised itself as one from heaven, appeared to a young child, and carried out its mission over a long period of time. If that's indeed the case (50+ years is a long time for us, but nothing for Old Scratch and his cohorts!), this man needs all the prayers he can get.