No Purges in the Family
Oct 26, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
Late last week, National Public Radio came under scrutiny for the controversial firing of their longtime analyst, Juan Williams, over remarks he had made while guesting on Fox News. While political pundits and personalities on both the right and the left seemed to find common ground on the issue (both Whoopie Goldberg and Bill O’ Reilly called the firing “ridiculous”) a few rightwing bloggers—recalling that NPR had last year “suggested” to correspondent Mara Liasson that she reconsider her association with the cable news network—wondered if the publicly-funded radio outlet was conducting a covert “purge” of Fox-affiliated employees.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but “purge” is a strong, dramatic word; considered through the lens of history, it should be used with care. Unless a writer wants to be greeted in the morning with dozens of emails containing Richard J. Hofstadter’s 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” he or she should either be ready to produce evidence that a co-ordinated conspiracy of cleansing is afoot, or find another word.
The Associated Press, for instance, should have perhaps thought twice about this headline, which appeared over the weekend: “Catholic Bloggers Aim to Purge Dissenters.”
Had they omitted “purge,” however, readers would nevertheless have encountered words like “enraged,” “dissecting,” and “hunting,” as the AP’s Rachel Zoll painted a harrowing picture of the conservative Catholic blogosphere, using broad strokes. A reader unfamiliar with religion-focused blogs could be excused for taking from the article a vision of more traditionally-minded Catholics as demons disguised as haloed saints, their red, bifurcated tails just showing beneath their snow-white robes as they thrust out the Flaming Finger of Faith and cry “Heresy! Heresy!”
In fairness to Zoll, she did quote John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who seems sympathetic to the portrait—it was he who invented the term “Taliban Catholicism”—but also mentioned that “liberals can fit the mindset, too . . . [S]ome left-leaning Catholics are outraged by any exercise of church authority.”
So, it seems we have a Catholic blogosphere riddled with vengeful self-appointed guardians and the anti-authority raspberry-blowers who call names and make faces at them. Zoll’s piece borders on caricature, but we should think seriously about it, because it marks the state of the Body of Christ, and not becomingly.
Caricature can be cruel—it is the bigot’s most-effective weapon—but it only works when the cartoon retains some recognizable elements of the subject, which, sadly, it does here.
Yes, there are extreme Catholic bloggers, “progressive” and “conservative,” who tread recklessly upon their fellow Catholics, and whose motto should read ego usus a blog quod ego sum fortis utor is. Yes, there are a handful of extreme Catholic bloggers to whom Jesus might say, “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy. . .’.”
And, because they are extreme types, they will each assume that that line is meant for the “others”—the ones against whom they burnish the swords of righteousness; the ones they lampoon, often, unto snotty incoherence.
In fact, the line is meant for every one of us writing in the Catholic blogosphere, for no one manages perfect charity all the time. I am too cognizant of my own failings to believe I have any business drumming anyone else out of the church and I would venture that most Catholic bloggers, either “progressive” or “conservative,” feel similarly.
We add to the broken body of Christ when we try to judge who is the “better sort” of Catholic, or who is doing damage to that body. We all do impressive jobs of bringing “scandal” to the church by our very passionate need to see things “made right” (as we see it) and by the ways in which we indict each other’s imperfections.
See how these Christians love one another, making lists and assigning labels to the nefarious “others.” What an odd, ungenerous thing to do. Better, I think, to actually correspond with an individual one believes to be in error. To become acquainted with the person one has publicly named a “heretic” or a “yahoo” is to admit that “other” into a shared humanity, which should be the very least Christians can do for each other.
That carries a risk, though. Actual dialogue with an “other” might not only soften one’s edge, it may actually affect one’s own cherished point of view in surprising ways. To engage is to say you are willing to be a little bit open, and to be open is to be vulnerable. Entrenchment feels so much safer, but is ultimately so limiting.
But perhaps that is agreeable for some. Comfy in autonomous little empires or enclaves, it becomes very easy to disassociate from the “others”—to feel vindicated in one’s wrath, or entitled to judgment, especially if our sites are little echo chambers where, like the New Yorker's Pauline Kael (said to have been baffled that Nixon won the presidency, because no one she knew voted for him) we are unexposed to opposing views and “everyone we know” thinks exactly as we do. All 100 or so regulars at our favorite websites.
We are not meant to agree with one another all the time—what a boring world that would be—and to disagree is not automatically to be rude or insulting. Civil disagreement and debate is a very good thing. Sometimes impassioned fury is fine, too, as long as we can keep the overt sneering and the consignment of our foes to various flames of woe to an absolute minimum.
We Catholics are a raucous family. In families, as within marriages, people will disagree on very important matters, but they can still speak of and to each other with charity, for the sake of abiding love.
If we who claim Christ cannot, then what the hell is the point?
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
Comments:
10.25.2010 | 9:39pm
J.J. Hayes says:
The weariness which overcomes me in thinking about the blogosphere. So many people calling each other Raqa ...but maybe some of us ought to look at why we write: Orwell pointed to four reasons people have for writing: sheer egoism, aesthetic enthusiasm, historical impulse, and political purpose. For those interested in such things the bigger question may be attaching the name Catholic to exercises in sheer egoism and political purpose . . .But I speak perhaps from my own ego, resentful that I would have to spend years being called a baby killer because I vote Democratic...and wonder if I can receive in a given diocese. Better to be out of the whole dang endless loop of judgment....
10.25.2010 | 10:58pm
Tony S. says:
I think it's pretty clear from the article that she did not do this: "the AP’s Rachel Zoll painted a harrowing picture of the conservative Catholic blogosphere." What she did was paint a fairly accurate picture of a particular group of conservative Catholic bloggers who are probably pretty happy about her "caricature." It seems to me she goes through a lot of trouble to describe this as an "activist" "trend" rather than as the norm in the Catholic blogosphere. Is she wrong?
The article is not about some lack of civility in the Catholic blogosphere. The article shows that diocesan spokesman are trying to avoid the relevant issues by turning it into a discussion about "civility" or conservative "politics." The article is about this particular group of bloggers. She even gives examples. One of the blogs named, the Boston Catholic Insider, even calls it an "excellent article." There are plenty examples of anti-Catholic bias in the media; this isn't one of them.
The article is not about some lack of civility in the Catholic blogosphere. The article shows that diocesan spokesman are trying to avoid the relevant issues by turning it into a discussion about "civility" or conservative "politics." The article is about this particular group of bloggers. She even gives examples. One of the blogs named, the Boston Catholic Insider, even calls it an "excellent article." There are plenty examples of anti-Catholic bias in the media; this isn't one of them.
10.26.2010 | 3:58am
Stuart Koehl says:
I have to say that there are a certain number of Catholic bloggers who seem insistent on being more Catholic than the Pope. Some are unreconstructed pre-conciliarists, verging on sedevacantism, who believe nothing good has happened in the Church since 1965. Others are simply ignorant of what Catholicism believes and teaches.
I run into this frequently because, as a Greek Catholic, I believe and espouse the unique liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and disciplines that are the Byzantine Tradition. At times, these differ in expression, and occasionally substance, from that of the Latin Church. As the majority of Catholics are only dimly aware (if at all) of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, this is no surprise. It is annoying, though, to be told that one is nothing more than "a Roman Catholic with a different Mass". We have more than enough trouble disabusing our Orthodox brothers of this error, so we really don't need problems with those in our own communion.
I run into this frequently because, as a Greek Catholic, I believe and espouse the unique liturgy, theology, spirituality, doctrine and disciplines that are the Byzantine Tradition. At times, these differ in expression, and occasionally substance, from that of the Latin Church. As the majority of Catholics are only dimly aware (if at all) of the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches, this is no surprise. It is annoying, though, to be told that one is nothing more than "a Roman Catholic with a different Mass". We have more than enough trouble disabusing our Orthodox brothers of this error, so we really don't need problems with those in our own communion.
10.26.2010 | 4:04am
Bangwell Putt says:
First Things magazine: A publication in which serious, deeply felt issues were discussed, sometimes as a printed debate between opposing parties, at other times in the correspondence section where letters and responses were printed. It really was civil (no quotes needed). It really was spirited. There was real disagreement within the boundaries of what was once known as good manners. I do not remember name calling. I do not remember publication of assertions unsupported by substantial argumentation. Many long-time readers expected - unrealistically - that the website would have the same characteristics. But standards have changed or more precisely been turned on their heads. What was once discouraged - personal insults, unsupported assertions, etc. - by all people of good will now is not only practiced but flaunted. Acceptance is not requested; it is demanded as a right. We no longer as a society accept responsibility for each other's well being. Within all areas of social interaction, it is all too common that we lack understanding of the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy by which, in not too long ago times, human weakness and vulnerabilty was clothed and protected with respect, mercy, and caritas. This was accepted by most citizens as a basic standard of behavior that was observed at the least in public discussion. - My comment is limited to the first things site. Elizabeth Scalia's short essay deals with issues beyond my restricted knowledge of blogs and will elicit less restricted comments.
10.26.2010 | 7:25am
Tony says:
Elizabeth...I think your article is well-written, well-reasoned, and a much needed reminder not to let anger rule us. And I say this as a Catholic conservative.
10.26.2010 | 7:39am
MacGabhann says:
Mr Koehl,
Largely ignorant as I am about the Eastern Church I would be interested to know how that Church differs, “occasionally in substance,” from the Latin Church. Aside from the issue of the filioque, which I don’t understand, and which I have been told is one more of semantics than substance, in what other way of substance do the two Churches differ?
Largely ignorant as I am about the Eastern Church I would be interested to know how that Church differs, “occasionally in substance,” from the Latin Church. Aside from the issue of the filioque, which I don’t understand, and which I have been told is one more of semantics than substance, in what other way of substance do the two Churches differ?
10.26.2010 | 7:43am
KJoes says:
Bravo, Bangwell. Add to "personal insults" and "unsupported assertions" the hypocrisy of an essay that condemns "overt sneering," and "making lists and assigning labels to nefarious 'others'," by the author of such blog posts as this representative example.
:
:
10.26.2010 | 7:50am
Joe DeVet says:
The reason I use my own name commenting like this is to remind myself to say what I mean, but nothing which I would not wish to have myself or my name associated with, including uncivil invective.
Let's see if I can live up to that here.
I think there's a false dichotomy in this article--either engage people personally and have an exchange, OR comment publicly and impersonally about their errors in terms of Catholic orthodoxy. Rather than either/or, I do believe both practices have their place.
There are those who do flout the deposit of faith and morals which is authentic Catholic teaching, and do so publicly. SOMEBODY is engaging them, and they refuse to reform. Despite the dictum of some that we must not judge, as a matter of fact we must judge, and we do judge (including those who declare that we must never judge!) We do not evaluate the state of their consciences, but we must, and do, judge the objective moral content of their actions and their statements. We have to--else we unduly hinder ourselves in our efforts to raise the moral tone of the culture, and to pass on good morals to our kids.
Those who do flout Catholic faith and morals in public deserve to have their positions challenged and even rebuked in public also--with principled, straightforward statements of the truth of the matter. Avoiding ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and shrillness, but with straightforward, clear firmness.
Let's see if I can live up to that here.
I think there's a false dichotomy in this article--either engage people personally and have an exchange, OR comment publicly and impersonally about their errors in terms of Catholic orthodoxy. Rather than either/or, I do believe both practices have their place.
There are those who do flout the deposit of faith and morals which is authentic Catholic teaching, and do so publicly. SOMEBODY is engaging them, and they refuse to reform. Despite the dictum of some that we must not judge, as a matter of fact we must judge, and we do judge (including those who declare that we must never judge!) We do not evaluate the state of their consciences, but we must, and do, judge the objective moral content of their actions and their statements. We have to--else we unduly hinder ourselves in our efforts to raise the moral tone of the culture, and to pass on good morals to our kids.
Those who do flout Catholic faith and morals in public deserve to have their positions challenged and even rebuked in public also--with principled, straightforward statements of the truth of the matter. Avoiding ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and shrillness, but with straightforward, clear firmness.
10.26.2010 | 8:44am
Michael says:
Scalia’s article illustrates a common pattern in the moderate-seeming echo-chamber blog. First, the call to moderation. We must be more civil, especially to people in our “raucous Catholic family.”
I’m always happy to see such calls, and I agree with her points completely. I especially like these words: “To disagree is not automatically to be rude or insulting. Civil disagreement and debate is a very good thing. Sometimes impassioned fury is fine, too, as long as we can keep the overt sneering and the consignment of our foes to various flames of woe to an absolute minimum.”
But then comes the echo-chamber portion. You know you’re in an echo chamber when everything you hear confirms and enlarges what you already know.
Here’s how the echo chamber works to distort Scalia’s message of moderation and civility. Scalia wants Catholic bloggers to work for “civil disagreement.” And she takes to task “extreme Catholic bloggers, ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative,’ who tread recklessly upon their fellow Catholics.” But she doesn’t name names.
When Scalia chooses actual examples of incivility, of “purging,” however, they both come from the liberal media. The only people and institutions she mentions by name for their incivility are NPR and Rachel Zoll of AP. Scalia kind of quotes John Allen of National Catholic Reporter as a civil voice, but she’s suspicious of his term “Taliban Catholicism.”
Scalia caps off her analysis by giving an example of how living in an “echo chamber” can damage us, and the example just happens to be a liberal again—Pauline Kael in 1972.
As a result, readers can finish the article feeling good about their moderation and still walk away feeling that liberal media types are the biggest idiots on the planet.
The calls for moderation and for breaking out of the echo chamber end up being another way to keep readers in the echo chamber.
For Scalia to have succeeded in calling her “family” back in order, she would need to have brought in some actual examples of things that she has regretted saying, or that have appeared in First Things, or that have appeared on some other blog in the “family.” To call for the right to stop purging its members, you need examples of the right purging its members.
One side point: I hope you all read John Allen’s coverage of the sex abuse cover-up crisis last Lent in NCR. He did an excellent job of defending Pope Benedict. I was much more persuaded by his analysis than I was of any found in First Things.
I’m always happy to see such calls, and I agree with her points completely. I especially like these words: “To disagree is not automatically to be rude or insulting. Civil disagreement and debate is a very good thing. Sometimes impassioned fury is fine, too, as long as we can keep the overt sneering and the consignment of our foes to various flames of woe to an absolute minimum.”
But then comes the echo-chamber portion. You know you’re in an echo chamber when everything you hear confirms and enlarges what you already know.
Here’s how the echo chamber works to distort Scalia’s message of moderation and civility. Scalia wants Catholic bloggers to work for “civil disagreement.” And she takes to task “extreme Catholic bloggers, ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative,’ who tread recklessly upon their fellow Catholics.” But she doesn’t name names.
When Scalia chooses actual examples of incivility, of “purging,” however, they both come from the liberal media. The only people and institutions she mentions by name for their incivility are NPR and Rachel Zoll of AP. Scalia kind of quotes John Allen of National Catholic Reporter as a civil voice, but she’s suspicious of his term “Taliban Catholicism.”
Scalia caps off her analysis by giving an example of how living in an “echo chamber” can damage us, and the example just happens to be a liberal again—Pauline Kael in 1972.
As a result, readers can finish the article feeling good about their moderation and still walk away feeling that liberal media types are the biggest idiots on the planet.
The calls for moderation and for breaking out of the echo chamber end up being another way to keep readers in the echo chamber.
For Scalia to have succeeded in calling her “family” back in order, she would need to have brought in some actual examples of things that she has regretted saying, or that have appeared in First Things, or that have appeared on some other blog in the “family.” To call for the right to stop purging its members, you need examples of the right purging its members.
One side point: I hope you all read John Allen’s coverage of the sex abuse cover-up crisis last Lent in NCR. He did an excellent job of defending Pope Benedict. I was much more persuaded by his analysis than I was of any found in First Things.
10.26.2010 | 9:09am
Other says:
The blogosphere is indeed a safe, welcome haven for those who wish to separate from the "other" -- that is exactly why the most successful enterprises on the 'net involve some sort of depravity -- pornography, pedophilia, sexual predation, the more extreme sorts of bullying. The depraved start to feel a sort of normalcy when they can operate without being confronted by decent society.
I think the same thing goes for religious blogging (and it's not just Catholics, nor is is it just religious blogging, but that's the topic at hand). The more depraved of our instincts are allowed to run rampant, unchecked, are even approved of, encouraged by the like-minded.
Almost every Catholic blogger out there has some piece of scripture or quote from the CCC or by his or her favorite saint about how their blog is to be a beacon for the lost, no evil words are to fall from their lips (or fingertips, I suppose), blahblahblah. And they usually all end up falling into the same trap -- they weed out anyone who is "other", the like-minded link back and forth to each other, they parrot each other, falling into the me-tooism trap that is suffocating pretty much everything in this world. They carve out their niche, they turn themselves into a brand, they market to their target demographic...
It's all gotten pretty twisted, and maybe that's a good thing -- maybe we were better people when we knew less about each other, when there wasn't this instant familiarity, this quck intimacy. Maybe we were better people when we had to look each other in the eye and at least pretend to be polite.
Familiarity, after all, breeds contempt...
I think the same thing goes for religious blogging (and it's not just Catholics, nor is is it just religious blogging, but that's the topic at hand). The more depraved of our instincts are allowed to run rampant, unchecked, are even approved of, encouraged by the like-minded.
Almost every Catholic blogger out there has some piece of scripture or quote from the CCC or by his or her favorite saint about how their blog is to be a beacon for the lost, no evil words are to fall from their lips (or fingertips, I suppose), blahblahblah. And they usually all end up falling into the same trap -- they weed out anyone who is "other", the like-minded link back and forth to each other, they parrot each other, falling into the me-tooism trap that is suffocating pretty much everything in this world. They carve out their niche, they turn themselves into a brand, they market to their target demographic...
It's all gotten pretty twisted, and maybe that's a good thing -- maybe we were better people when we knew less about each other, when there wasn't this instant familiarity, this quck intimacy. Maybe we were better people when we had to look each other in the eye and at least pretend to be polite.
Familiarity, after all, breeds contempt...
10.26.2010 | 11:44am
Barbara says:
Not being familiar with any hateful, uncharitable Catholic bloggers, I had to check Michael Voris out.
His five-parter commenty at RealCatholicTV on Raymond (soon-to-be) Cardinal Burke's speech at the Human Life International Prayer Congress on October 9, 2010 entitled "Catholic Orthodoxy: Antidote Against the Culture of Death" is what has the dissidents in an uproar. http://www.hli.org/files/HE_Archbishop_Burke_Antidote_10_9_10.pdf
Voris did NOT advocate purging dissident bloggers. Neither did Burke. Burke's call for public repentance from people such as Pelosi and Biden, among others, is probably ONE reason someone sicced Zoll on Voris and orthodox/traditional Catholics. No Catholic funerals for that crowd, if Raymond Burke gets his way.
There must be a lot of gnashing of teeth in dissident circles - what if the Holy Father appoints and promotes even more men like Burke?
His five-parter commenty at RealCatholicTV on Raymond (soon-to-be) Cardinal Burke's speech at the Human Life International Prayer Congress on October 9, 2010 entitled "Catholic Orthodoxy: Antidote Against the Culture of Death" is what has the dissidents in an uproar. http://www.hli.org/files/HE_Archbishop_Burke_Antidote_10_9_10.pdf
Voris did NOT advocate purging dissident bloggers. Neither did Burke. Burke's call for public repentance from people such as Pelosi and Biden, among others, is probably ONE reason someone sicced Zoll on Voris and orthodox/traditional Catholics. No Catholic funerals for that crowd, if Raymond Burke gets his way.
There must be a lot of gnashing of teeth in dissident circles - what if the Holy Father appoints and promotes even more men like Burke?
10.26.2010 | 12:18pm
Tony S. says:
"Voris did NOT advocate purging dissident bloggers."
Barbara - where in the article does Zoll claim this is happening? The claim is that these bloggers are seeking to purge dissenting Catholics (and "Catholics-in-name-only") from diocesan bureaucracy: "staff of Catholic agencies," "top adviser [to O'Malley]," "nuns, priests, or bishops" - all people in positions of power. That is exactly what the bloggers themselves say they are trying to do. Again, this article is not about the Catholic blogosphere as a whole.
Barbara - where in the article does Zoll claim this is happening? The claim is that these bloggers are seeking to purge dissenting Catholics (and "Catholics-in-name-only") from diocesan bureaucracy: "staff of Catholic agencies," "top adviser [to O'Malley]," "nuns, priests, or bishops" - all people in positions of power. That is exactly what the bloggers themselves say they are trying to do. Again, this article is not about the Catholic blogosphere as a whole.
10.26.2010 | 3:31pm
Don Roberto says:
I concur with Mr. DeVet. Charity and acceptance are great, of course, but not to the point where it's our primary focus. To "quote" my "favorite saint," Elijah wasn't polite to the priests of Baal, nor did Jesus offer words of confort to Judas. From what I can tell, unfortunately, many of our fellow Catholics would be happier in one of the myriad protestant or new age sects that rise and fall with the whims and caprices of men, rather than humbly submitting to the firm anchor—the moral rock—offered by the Magisterium.
†
†
10.26.2010 | 3:57pm
mike says:
Good heavens! All you need to do is read the blogs sponsored by First Things to see how far to right this organization has become. When everything concerning Obama care is ridiculed continuously, or everyone on the left are deemed to be supporters of abortion, one can only see that all other national news organizations other than Fox News must be in bed with the Devil himself. If a similar thing happened to a liberal commentator the alarm on these blogs would be nonexistent. There is absolutely no give or take in discussing both liberal or conservative viewpoints. Everyone seems to be unable to look at issues from the other side.
10.26.2010 | 4:09pm
Richard says:
Thank you, Elizabeth. Beautifully stated, and food for thought.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
10.26.2010 | 5:58pm
Don Roberto says:
Well, Mike, I guess Elijah was a little quick to send those Baal worshippers to Sheol. And, gosh, maybe a little uptick in child sacrifice (from where it stands in this country alone at over one million per year) is okay if it will appease Baal, et al?
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
†
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
†
10.26.2010 | 8:10pm
Ken says:
“enraged,” “purge,” and “hunting" and "overt sneering" are very unfair as applied to much Catholic opinon on the Net, but they perfectly describe much of what I encountered from posters on your blog, and they describe a great deal more of what's posted on Gateway Pundit. Why no mention of either?
Sad.
Sad.
10.26.2010 | 8:43pm
Mike M. says:
mike, I agree with everything you say. A look through the FT archives gives plenty of evidence of high dudgeon and resentment at FT. (And how about this Celtic concurrence of Mikes?)
10.27.2010 | 1:23am
Don Guillermo says:
Elizabeth Scalia has mischaracterized the conservative Catholic blogosphere. In fact, "conservative Catholic" is a misnomer. Catholics accept all of the Church's magisterial teachings. Dissenting Catholics reject certain of those teachings. If they claim "conscience," then the conscience is ill-formed and needs to become well-formed. The truly pastoral priest endeavors in charity to correct an ill-formed conscience. Further, "conscience" properly applies to the prohibition on forcing a Catholic to violate magisterial teachings against his or her own conscience. This is meant as a safeguard to allow Catholics to give themselves fully to Christ in peace, rather than as a loophole for anti-Magisterium dissent. Obstinate, dissenting Catholics are, by definition, out of full communion with the Church. I cannot help but experience scandal because of them. Their presence in the Church causes error and confusion. Pope Benedict XVI has spoken and written of a smaller, more faithful Catholic Church in the future. Has not Holy Father intimated that the Church requires purification, even at the expense of numbers? There can only be unity in Truth. Anti-Magisterium dissent propounds falsehood. Catholics like myself are only asking that the Church walk its talk rather than deny reality and feign that true communion exists where, objectively, it is absent. We do not presume to judge anyone's soul of formal sin, but must recognize the material sinfulness of observable behavior when the material of the behavior is indeed sinful.
10.27.2010 | 3:39am
Ann says:
"The claim is that these bloggers are seeking to purge dissenting Catholics (and "Catholics-in-name-only") from diocesan bureaucracy: "staff of Catholic agencies," "top adviser [to O'Malley]," "nuns, priests, or bishops" - all people in positions of power. That is exactly what the bloggers themselves say they are trying to do"
And this would be a bad thing? No, it would not. "Dissenting Catholic" in this context is not referring to those who struggle privately with teachings but rather those who work actively and publicly to undermine and change Church teachings. And dissenters teach error and fail to teach the faith in ist entirety (look at the shabby treatment the Blessed Sacrament gets in CCD programs in "progressive" parishes). "Dissenters" promote women priests, disobedience to the Magisterium on abortion and artificial contraception and a "do whatever makes us feel good liturgy, who cares what the rubrics say"
I support removing these dissenters from positions of power and giving them the freedom to go to a denomination that is more to their liking. I would not "puge" them in the same sense that Stalin purged dissenters. The use of the word purge is itself inflammatory and a good example of what the author is supposedly decrying. Would you like a ittle hypocrisy anyone?
I am not surprised that dissenters find First Things a little hostile. The contributing writers and posters do not miss a chance to correct their fellows, both conservative and liberal. The truth hurts when you are preaching untruths. The blogs associated with First Things like Gateway Pundit do lean more conservative and unashamadely so. If dissenters are uncomfortable with what is posted there then I wouldn't go there. I do not think the purpose of Gateway Pundit is so much a dialogue with others of difffering opinions but rather a place for the like minded to get information. The com boxes are little rough at times. Reminds meof the com boxes at National Catholic Reporter when they are discussing "conservatives". Hypocrisy anyone?
And this would be a bad thing? No, it would not. "Dissenting Catholic" in this context is not referring to those who struggle privately with teachings but rather those who work actively and publicly to undermine and change Church teachings. And dissenters teach error and fail to teach the faith in ist entirety (look at the shabby treatment the Blessed Sacrament gets in CCD programs in "progressive" parishes). "Dissenters" promote women priests, disobedience to the Magisterium on abortion and artificial contraception and a "do whatever makes us feel good liturgy, who cares what the rubrics say"
I support removing these dissenters from positions of power and giving them the freedom to go to a denomination that is more to their liking. I would not "puge" them in the same sense that Stalin purged dissenters. The use of the word purge is itself inflammatory and a good example of what the author is supposedly decrying. Would you like a ittle hypocrisy anyone?
I am not surprised that dissenters find First Things a little hostile. The contributing writers and posters do not miss a chance to correct their fellows, both conservative and liberal. The truth hurts when you are preaching untruths. The blogs associated with First Things like Gateway Pundit do lean more conservative and unashamadely so. If dissenters are uncomfortable with what is posted there then I wouldn't go there. I do not think the purpose of Gateway Pundit is so much a dialogue with others of difffering opinions but rather a place for the like minded to get information. The com boxes are little rough at times. Reminds meof the com boxes at National Catholic Reporter when they are discussing "conservatives". Hypocrisy anyone?
10.27.2010 | 10:10am
Tony S. says:
Ann,
"And this would be a bad thing?"
I did not say it would be a bad thing. No one did. I applaud the efforts of most of the blogs mentioned in the article. My aim in responding to Barbara was to point out that this article is not a good example of media bias against the Catholic Church. The author makes no judgment about the "purge" and is, in fact, at pains to show the relevance of such an effort when most of the rest of the media thinks the liberals should be the ones complaining about the Church (therefore misunderstanding the rise of these particular blogs). Maybe the article's headline is a little much, but the article itself is very fair and accurate. All the bias comes from John Allen and the bureaucracy of the relevant diocese. Should the reporter not have talked to them? No, she's just doing her job.
"The use of the word purge is itself inflammatory and a good example of what the author is supposedly decrying."
I assume the author you are referring to is the author of the AP piece. She is not "decrying" anything. Not that it would make a difference (because it isn't that inflammatory), but she doesn't use the word "purge" in the article. She isn't doing what you think she's doing.
"And this would be a bad thing?"
I did not say it would be a bad thing. No one did. I applaud the efforts of most of the blogs mentioned in the article. My aim in responding to Barbara was to point out that this article is not a good example of media bias against the Catholic Church. The author makes no judgment about the "purge" and is, in fact, at pains to show the relevance of such an effort when most of the rest of the media thinks the liberals should be the ones complaining about the Church (therefore misunderstanding the rise of these particular blogs). Maybe the article's headline is a little much, but the article itself is very fair and accurate. All the bias comes from John Allen and the bureaucracy of the relevant diocese. Should the reporter not have talked to them? No, she's just doing her job.
"The use of the word purge is itself inflammatory and a good example of what the author is supposedly decrying."
I assume the author you are referring to is the author of the AP piece. She is not "decrying" anything. Not that it would make a difference (because it isn't that inflammatory), but she doesn't use the word "purge" in the article. She isn't doing what you think she's doing.
10.27.2010 | 11:38am
Emily says:
Don Roberto says:
"Charity and acceptance are great, of course, but not to the point where it's our primary focus."
If charity isn't our primary focus, what is?
"Charity and acceptance are great, of course, but not to the point where it's our primary focus."
If charity isn't our primary focus, what is?
10.28.2010 | 6:06am
C. says:
A couple of points:
1) The bloggers in question are for the most part not traditionalists.
2) In fact, our family does purge. See 1 Corinthians 5.
1) The bloggers in question are for the most part not traditionalists.
2) In fact, our family does purge. See 1 Corinthians 5.
10.28.2010 | 5:57pm
Carol McKinley says:
I have been very open with my struggle (and ultimate surrender) to the teachings of the Church on contraception and the discipline of celibacy.
What I find most disturbing, is that our goals were twisted to imply we only want people in the pews who assent to the teachings of the Church. When in reality, our objectives are about getting people in teaching roles to either teach the interpretation of the Catholic faith and if they refuse, to replace them with somebody who does.
It is either deliberately being twisted or egos with low self-esteem trolling the internet pounced on this opportunity to make other people look uncharitable to replenish their own vanity.
We are a fight for the soul of our Church with those don't see the Church as a provider of sound teaching for salvation, but a place to provide others with fuzzy feelings - ultimately to make them feel good about themselves. At the price of other people's salvation.
This mortal creation is a counterfeit church that we are not going to hand off to the next generation.
All we care about at this point in time is gumming up and clamming up unsound teaching. This is the flare across the bow. Going forward, when priests and Bishops offer poison to souls, it will be publicly journaled in Boston (and other places).
It is the most effective tool we have to silence dissent at this time. When dissent is silenced, our children can't hear it and that is all we care about at this point in time in the history of the Church.
Line up and take your places. Stay, go, throw barbs and insults at those of us doing it. Knock yourselves out.
When we stand up to those barbs and insults and we keep on holding priests and bishops accountable for the souls they are accountable for, a hundred more will have the courage to do it with us. And so on and so forth.
They wanted us to "Arise in Christ", well congratulations. Here we are.
What I find most disturbing, is that our goals were twisted to imply we only want people in the pews who assent to the teachings of the Church. When in reality, our objectives are about getting people in teaching roles to either teach the interpretation of the Catholic faith and if they refuse, to replace them with somebody who does.
It is either deliberately being twisted or egos with low self-esteem trolling the internet pounced on this opportunity to make other people look uncharitable to replenish their own vanity.
We are a fight for the soul of our Church with those don't see the Church as a provider of sound teaching for salvation, but a place to provide others with fuzzy feelings - ultimately to make them feel good about themselves. At the price of other people's salvation.
This mortal creation is a counterfeit church that we are not going to hand off to the next generation.
All we care about at this point in time is gumming up and clamming up unsound teaching. This is the flare across the bow. Going forward, when priests and Bishops offer poison to souls, it will be publicly journaled in Boston (and other places).
It is the most effective tool we have to silence dissent at this time. When dissent is silenced, our children can't hear it and that is all we care about at this point in time in the history of the Church.
Line up and take your places. Stay, go, throw barbs and insults at those of us doing it. Knock yourselves out.
When we stand up to those barbs and insults and we keep on holding priests and bishops accountable for the souls they are accountable for, a hundred more will have the courage to do it with us. And so on and so forth.
They wanted us to "Arise in Christ", well congratulations. Here we are.
10.30.2010 | 5:19pm
Lynne says:
Thank you Carol for all that you and the other Boston bloggers have been doing... I'll bet no one's ever accused *you* of being lukewarm... Having those running the dioceses follow the teachings of the Church, what a concept!
12.3.2010 | 6:27am
Bob q2612a says:
First Things magazine: A publication in which serious, deeply felt issues were discussed, sometimes as a printed debate between opposing parties, at other times in the correspondence section where letters and responses were printed. It really was civil (no quotes needed). It really was spirited. There was real disagreement within the boundaries of what was once known as good manners. I do not remember name calling. I do not remember publication of assertions unsupported by substantial argumentation. Many long-time readers expected - unrealistically - that the website would have the same characteristics. But standards have changed or more precisely been turned on their heads. What was once discouraged - personal insults, unsupported assertions, etc. - by all people of good will now is not only practiced but flaunted. Acceptance is not requested; it is demanded as a right. We no longer as a society accept responsibility for each other's well being. Within all areas of social interaction, it is all too common that we lack understanding of the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy by which, in not too long ago times, human weakness and vulnerabilty was clothed and protected with respect, mercy, and caritas. This was accepted by most citizens as a basic standard of behavior that was observed at the least in public discussion. - My comment is limited to the first things site. Elizabeth Scalia's short essay deals with issues beyond my restricted knowledge of blogs and will elicit less restricted comments. Im always happy to see such calls, and I agree with her points completely. I especially like these words: To disagree is not automatically to be rude or insulting. Civil disagreement and debate is a very good thing. Sometimes impassioned fury is fine, too, as long as we can keep the overt sneering and the consignment of our foes to various flames of woe to an absolute minimum.
