One a number of threads I have found myself criticised in ways I felt were inappropriate. I tried to think of an analogy concerning the difference from honest criticism which is an essential part of learning to dishonest criticism which is based on the ego of the person criticising.
If we were entrusted to prepare a meal for the king. Our life itself was at stake because the king was suspicious and paranoid of being poisoned.
We both go to examine the meal when it is laid out on the kings table. I would taste each dish and check that the cutlery and glass were in their proper places. I would make sure that the food was tasty, prepared and presented well and unpoisoned.
Then the critic comes. An honest critic would do exactly as I have done study the entire meal taste the dishes and examine the presentation of the meal. If he found a dirty fork he would comment on the fork so that it could be replaced but pass the meal.
A dishonest critic cares nothing for the meal but is only interested in finding an error. A crack in a dish they will yell and scream about the crack but never taste the meal. They will condemn everything based on the crack they found.
In the meantime you have been complaining to the king for two years or twenty years that the china must be replace and you specifically placed the dish with the crack directly in front of the king so that it would be seen to assist the king to recognise his need to replace the china.
You explain to both critics your reason for placing the crack in front of the king and you accept responsibility for the kings reaction the honest critic will recognise that based on your explanation the crack is actually place in an intelligent position to achieve the end you have in mind. The dishonest critic continues to scream about the crack and wants your head cut off in the process.
This form of criticism is exactly the type that has lead to all the cisms in the church. One sentence one phrase one law is pulled out from the rest and criticised until it is shown as error because they never allow anyone to see the big picture. It is true with misunderstandings from the bible as well as church teaching. They never admit to paradox which explains two laws that seem to be opposite. Two ideas that seem to clash so they condemn everything.
The crack in the plate is real life. It has been pointed out to all the people who are the kings that it needs to be replaced. Until the person the king sees for themselves the need to replace the china their way of life there will not be change. When demonstrating one need it is a writers privilege to use contrast and stark reality as a background to show in a greater light a different reality.
The only real intention of the critics who only see the crack and do not judge the entire meal is one their fear of being held responsible and the other is their ego to promote their role as critic to the king even if it costs the lives of many honest cooks the cooks are the saints and lovers of the eternal truths. Some may even have the desire to eliminate one cook to promote another who will poison the king.
If any critics here believe there are no cracks in the dishes in our cultures and societies they are asleep. Pointing out the cracks also has purpose. I think it is very unfortunate that anyone must explain these concepts to other catholic people. But here honestly there are both honest and dishonest critics.