Should Catholics Blog?
A truly beautiful answer to prayer.
I'm off to confession!
It was nice meeting you all.
******************************************
R. J. Stove
Melbourne, Australia
Blogging. By now every Catholic, even if he leads as hermetic an existence as did Saint Bruno, must know about it. Blogs (short, of course, for “weblogs”) have now become the preferred method for communication among Catholics in the English-speaking world, more especially in America. It seems every second Catholic one meets has a blog, from the staunchest traditionalist to the most oafish lesbian eucharistic minister.
Amy Welborn’s blog (the work of a mildly conservative Novus Ordo wife, mother and debunker of The Da Vinci Code) is these days probably the most famous blog by any Catholic in the world. Some traditionalist blogs are Radtrad.blogspot.com, Distributism.blogspot.com, Inillotempore.com/blog, and Confiteminidomino.blogspot.com. This last is unusual in two respects: its founder is (a) Australian and (b) a priest, the Dominican Father Ephraem Chifley. Lay Americans run the overwhelming majority of Catholic blogs.
Allied to the blogging phenomenon is the Internet discussion group phenomenon, which is not quite the same thing, but which overlaps sufficiently with blogging per se to be discussed alongside it. (A great many members of Catholic discussion groups submit commentary to blogs.) Perhaps the most prominent of traditionalist Internet discussion groups is Angelqueen.org. Another, less acerbic in general spirit, is the Laudate Dominum forum. Distributism.blogspot.com exists specifically to uphold – and apply to modern political crises – the Chesterbelloc tradition.
Amid all this activity, much of it by Catholics who are personally estimable, the question arises. Should Catholics be blogging at all?
This essay argues that, for the most part, they should not; that lay blogs (and I include here Internet discussion groups as well as blogs proper) actually represent a graver objective peril to the Catholic soul than does the television set, which at least seldom presents even the façade of interactivity; and above all, that however noble specific bloggers’ intentions are, far too much blogging is incompatible with a sensus Catholicus. The reasons for such apparently bizarre conclusions are explained below.
At the risk of obscene self-indulgence, perhaps an autobiographical note is in order. I used to be among blogs’ most enthusiastic defenders, for the same general reasons that I refused to weep, wail, and rend the raiment at the Internet’s arrival. The mainstream print media’s intellectual and moral sleaze would in itself have inclined me towards defenses of blogging, even if so many good Catholics had not become part- or full-time bloggers themselves. I rejoiced at the speed with which blogs could transmit Vatican media releases and official traditionalist pronouncements halfway around the world before the conventional Fourth Estate’s secular-humanist ignoramuses even got their boots on.
Furthermore, unlike many of my fellow right-wing Catholics, I lack in my temperament even the smallest particle of the Luddite. To be a Luddite, I soon realized, is to be a Manichean. Not on the agenda. We are called upon to be Catholics; we are not called upon to be the Amish. For these reasons I would occasionally submit a comment upon others’ blogs (primarily but not always Catholic), though I had not the faintest desire to be a blogger myself.
These days I consider my former lenience regarding lay Catholic blogs to be spiritually and ethically unconscionable. Why has my attitude changed? Because lay Catholic blogs have become as prone as any other post-lapsarian human endeavor to laws of unintended consequences. I shall continue to consult a very few even-tempered Catholic blogs, notably Distributism.blogspot.com, for international news information which I cannot get elsewhere (but which I need). Concerning the rest, I can only pray that most of them – including blogs by traditionalists – will close down, and that those responsible for them will direct their energies to more sensible fields.
Barring a miracle, there would seem to be five factors now at work to corrupt any hopes that the average lay Catholic can be a good Catholic and a diligent blogger. One could argue that these factors are mere undesirable accretions to blogging, rather than intrinsic to the blog genre; but in practice most bloggers can no more avoid them than most Communists can avoid mass murder. The factors are:
i. Addiction, with all its dangers;
ii. Pseudonymity, with all its dangers;
iii. Encouraging smart-aleck soundbites rather than hard, detailed, historically scrupulous reasoning;
iv.Related to (iii), a general degrading of language, and of the writer’s role as language’s custodian (not to say as breadwinner);
v. De facto anticlericalism.
Let us take (i) first.
The Internet’s capacity for creating addicts is something that even the stupidest Panglossian social worker no longer attempts to deny. Every conscientious priest is aware of it; many a priest worries about it; some priests actually issue warnings to their flock about it. More priests should do so. Without the smallest effort, and even when one leads a life otherwise reasonably replete with interesting activities, one can spend ten or twelve hours on the Net per day. What honest Catholic would tolerate similar appeasement of the Great God Television? No honest Catholic on the face of this earth, we must devoutly hope.
Nevertheless, and very unfortunately, those traditionalists who understand with bitter precision TV’s menaces, usually appear entirely oblivious to the menaces of cyberspace, unless those menaces take such blatant forms as downloading porn. (That is a problem beyond this article’s scope.) We who have known what it is like to be an Internet addict – waiting with cold sweats, and with something like frenzy, for new developments on our preferred blog – wish to beg others: “Don’t go down that path. We’ve wasted months of our lives. We’ve committed the sin of sloth, which, as Evelyn Waugh once pointed out, is perfectly compatible with authorial profusion. Don’t you make the same error.”
But if only addiction’s problems were the sole, or even the worst, blogging hazards! Alas, they are among the least: which brings us to (ii). Every reader conversant with blogs’ comment sections – let alone with non-blog discussion fora – soon detects one fact above all that fills him, or that certainly should fill him, with dread. It is this: for every comment which comes from someone with the courage to sign his name, there are 100 which have been submitted under pseudonyms. If such deification of pseudonymity is not a coward’s charter, it is hard to think of what else it might be.
Screwtape himself could scarcely hope to devise a more effective method of instilling mutual hate than what blogs and discussion fora provide: an orgy of ad hominem invective where each participant is fighting in the dark against fellow guerrillas. Absent a full-time blog or forum moderator who will rigorously exclude such invective, and you can almost smell the witless malice oozing forth from your computer screen. When, moreover, flame wars break out online between those participants who simply want to be better Catholics, and those (they are invariably male) who want to turn every last discussion group into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion Fan Club, or the League For Calumniating Women Who Were Seen To Wear Trousers For One Day In 1959, the overwhelming temptation is to burst out “Enough already”.
From (ii), and to a lesser extent from (i), it will be clear that most blogging, by its very nature, sins against the intellect. Regrettably, an additional sin (or, if we want to be super-generous, potential sin) arises from the typical Internet text itself. As anyone knows who has striven to write it, Internet-specific prose does two things, and only two things, very well. It simplifies, thanks to hyperlinks, the sourcing of allegations; and it encourages the aphoristic. Even on the best screens, such prose is physically tiring to read. Long paragraphs are incomparably harder to understand onscreen than they are on the printed page. The constant temptation, then – as mentioned in point (iii) – is to dumb-down everything. Away with the subordinate clause. Hurl nuances into the rubbish-dump. Delete everything which requires reflection. Cultivate, at any price, the wisecrack. Sustained arguments are just too hard. Hit-and-run attacks are much more satisfying to arrange. As for correct spelling and grammar, well, who needs those? Write what you feel, baby. The egalitarian, democratic, and (therefore) deeply anti-Catholic implications of all this are, or at any rate they should be, obvious. Which makes it all the more shameful that one needs to spell them out; but even the better Catholic blogs and online fora tend to abound in orthography (to say nothing of syntax) which thirty years ago would have disgraced a ten-year-old.
And where, in all this, does the unlucky Catholic author – alluded to in (iv) – happen to fit? An author, that is, who does his best to proclaim orthodox dogma; who writes as well as he can; who has a track record of publication in sane periodicals; and who hopes (however optimistically) to earn enough by magazine-writing to prevent the telephone and the hot water from being cut off? It is plain that for any such author, the lay blogosphere means unmitigated calamity. Who will pay for his output, when the output of every self-educated pseudo-Catholic freak can be read online for nothing? Or was Rerum Novarum never meant to apply to the scribbling set? No-one is suggesting that the Catholic author, or any author, should be cosseted; we know from the Soviet Writers’ Union and similar rackets the hazards of such totalitarian seclusion. But does the concept of a living wage for honest work mean anything at all, or was Leo XIII on a magic-mushroom trip when he said that it did?
Leo XIII. Ah yes, popes. Always a sticky subject when two or three bloggers are gathered together (One Angelqueen.org participant has memorably described the present Holy Father as “that S.O.B.”). There are a few conspicuous and welcome exceptions, but the blogosphere’s overall level of anticlericalism must be experienced to be believed. If some sadistic prelate wanted to make a case for the laity never being allowed to do anything, he need merely refer to many a traditionalist – to say nothing of many a conservative Novus Ordo – blog. (See the recent Oprah-like blog whining of one columnist, who is so upset by America’s Catholic sacerdotal scandals that he thinks he’ll join the Eastern Orthodox Church, so there.)
Any Martian reading such blogs would assume that tarring and feathering the entire clergy for sexual abuse was not only the most important task facing a Catholic in 2006, but also the most important task that has ever faced a Catholic anywhere at any time. Those who attempt to point out the sheer self-destructive fatuity of such antics – and their repulsive resemblance to Ku Klux Klan guttersniping, circa 1924, about satyriatic priests and nuns – will merely have their comments deleted without explanation. Some of us know whereof we speak. Blogs’ Americocentric nature merely exacerbates the problem. It is impossible to imagine a more effective, or pernicious, method than these blogs of spreading, among foreigners, the false but understandable belief that American Catholics are merely American Calvinists who get drunk.
There might, of course, be a virtue in the blogosphere which, unmentioned in the foregoing, counteracts the above list of palpable evils.
I know of no such virtue.
Dear RJ Stove: You offer
Dear RJ Stove:
You offer many supposedly negative characteristics of blog sites and many reasons why Catholics should avoid said sites. One question comes immediately to mind: What are you doing on a blog site? I had the feeling from your posting that blog sites are highly dangerous to your soul, a position I don't agress with. But if that's your take on things, I would think you'd keep as far away as possible.
I'll be interested to hear your response.
Kate
Personally Kate, I think
Personally Kate, I think this was just transfinitum's way to bail on this blog site and try to leave a little guilt in his wake.
Colkoch: You may be right.
Colkoch:
You may be right. I'm afraid my thoughts were less charitable. SOmething to do with the size of an ego and perhaps imagining himself to be impervious to the problems and temptations we regular souls are prone to.
IN reality, as with anything else, blogging is what you make it. You can become addicted and make it into a negative. You can be abusive and make it negative. OR you can use it moderately to interact with others in an honest, Godly way. The choice is ours to make.
One of the things I like about this site is that most of the people fall into the third category, bloggers who interact in an honest, Godly way. God bless you all.
Kate
"One of the things I like
"One of the things I like about this site is that most of the people fall into the third category, bloggers who interact in an honest, Godly way. God bless you all."
Ditto, and I appreciate and thank God that this is true.
I suggest that anyone here
I suggest that anyone here should click on the link to the blog "Shrine of the Holy Whapping" and scroll down to the entry for Nov. 15th on St. Charles Borromeo, then read the comments. I think you will notice that the level of discussion in those comments contradicts what the author is saying.
Cool Catholic blogs:
American Papist
The Cafeteria is Closed
Shrine of the Holy Whapping
If only it were oriented
If only it were oriented towards "the danger of blogging" this article would have value as a caveat.
When I joined the cafe I didn't know what to expect nor whether I would have anything to say. I used my real first name. I admire those who have self-identified but I feel no guilt for remaining in that mode. I promise all and myself that I will not use my anonymity to write anything I would not say to you personally. I will continue to stay who I am. I feel a certain disdain however for those who appear to 'cloak' themselves and spew. There is also a real danger of seriously ill or troubled individuals finding solace and outlet in their anonymity. I shudder at the possibility anything I may write may affect them.
While I have read Sr. Joan Chittister and John Allan's columns with fair regularity for some time the opportunity to share them with a range of experiences and perspectives has been of significant benefit to me. Exposing my opinions and sharing others has helped mold my thinking and for that I have benefited and am grateful.
Time spent on this blog, sometimes frustrating, is usually edifying for me. It has made me more conscious of my spirit and spirituality and led me to some revisiting and research I would otherwise not done. It is certainly more productive than watching TV or reading novels. I have learned a great deal about the personal journey of many who deeply respect what they see as the essence of Catholicism. Some very comfortable others feel alienated from it.
As to the "Catholic" thing and "anticlericism" I believe that the purist concern is with lay people expressing themselves about their Church, peasants who really don't understand the profundity and complexity of their faith and the importance of orthodoxy and respect for authority. With regard to that I have two points to offer:
1. Christ came to us, to all of us and challenges us to know, love and follow Him. He did not come to just the theologians, the hyper-intelligent students of religion and the institutional hierarchy. With due respect to the teaching and regulatory roles,I must think, feel, search and find a personal level of spiritual and intellectual comfort with my brothers and sisters. The pietist who simply bows and follows is as deviant as I. We all trust that Christ understands and accepts us all in our strength and weakness.
2. My second point is a quote from Thomas Cahill's recently published "Mysteries of the Middle Ages",Doubleday.NY.2006,p317: "As the preceding chapter has demonstrated, it was not bishops but lay people who were responsible for the historic glories of Catholicism, given as gifts to the Western world. Of the great figures processing through this book, only a few, like Thomas Aquinas were ordained and only Gregory the Great was a member of the higher clergy. The historic role of the higher clergy is to be put in their place by men like Dante and women like Catherine of Sienna."
Dennis, your thinking
Dennis, your thinking parallels mine. I can agree with Mr. Stove that blogging represents certain dangers to the soul. The anonymity can lead us to be exceedingly uncharitable to one another. Because of the possibility of anonymity (which I think has to be respected), our agendas are often not out on the table. As a result, there's a constant temptation to engage in character assassination for reasons that remain murky, when we don't know each other personally in blog-world.
Still, I see many ecclesiological advantages to blogging. There's a way of reading Mr. Stove's argument that is alarming to me, because of its underlying ecclesiological assumptions. It implies that both the television set and the Internet represent "objective peril" to Catholic souls.
This imagination seems to me to picture Catholics in some kind of enswathing bubble, waiting for magisterial Truth to be thrust through the prophylactic walls that protect benighted lay Catholics from the evils of modernity and all its pomps and splendors, including t.v. and the Internet. Ms. Stove's statement implies that the initial promise of the Internet--"blogs could transmit Vatican media releases and official traditionalist pronouncements halfway around the world before the conventional Fourth Estate’s secular-humanist ignoramuses even got their boots on"--has not been fulfilled, as Catholics other than traditionalist ones have logged on and begun to post our opinions.
There's a way to read the statement as a condemnation not of blogging in general, but of blogging by lay Catholics who do not toe the traditionalist line--who are in pursuit of a truth we all seek together, along with the magisterium, and who are not waiting passively for the Truth to be handed down from above.
I wonder what precipitates this reaction now? I can't help but notice that Mr. Stove's statement reached us just after the time of the recent elections, in which traditionalist Catholics had much invested (as did those of us on the other end of the spectrum). I've wondered for some time if some of those who logged onto Catholic blogs entertaining wide discussion around the time the elections got heated were doing so to suggest that Catholics might vote only one way in the coming elections. I suspect there was a fear in some quarters that Catholics would not vote as uniformly "right" in this election as they have tended to do in previous ones.
Australia is now debating many of the same issues we're debating in this country. Unlike the U.S., however, Australian culture isn't radically influenced by groups such as the religious right. I wonder about Mr. Stove's interest in our American debates, when he's an Australian--and yet one editing an American conservative journal.... I'm interested in his apparent disdain for American culture, at the same time that he clearly wants to influence the direction of our culture.
In fact, I wonder about the media in general, vis-a-vis religious discussions these days. I notice that the mainstream media is shying away from reporting on the recent bishops' statement about contraception, as I suspected they would do. At the same time, some very influential secular publications are publishing articles that seem to be practically handfed to them by the bishops and their wealthy supporters--glowing articles about "countercultural" nuns wearing habits.
There are lots of articles hitting the mainstream media these days pointing out how wonderful religion is. I don't in any way deny that religion is wonderful. But I also see in any religious movement two faces--both a salvific and a demonic one. I find the mainstream media is often very hesitant to give room to voices that try to articulate the latter one, especially when those voices really do represent a countercultural option that refuses to deify our current socio-political arrangements.
Religion has strong political applications. Mr. Stove reminds us of this. I suspect that the attempt to shut down public lay discussion of controversial issues is as political in its motivation as it is religious. A lot of folks seem very frightened these days that the religious cat may get out of the bag in the political sphere, and we'll have another cultural phase in which the prophetic edge of religion has significant influence, as happened in the Civil Rights movement. There seems to be a lot of energy (and, I suspect, money) invested now in trying to keep American religious groups on a centrist, non-questioning path.
The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori is eliciting a great deal of fear, too, methinks....
William D. Lindsey
It seems that blogs are the
It seems that blogs are the ideal solution to GKChesterton's lomging for each man to have a personal magazine to keep him busy.
Clever and insightful, here
Clever and insightful, here today. I confess that this is how blogging has worked for me. Whether I've succumbed to temptation in fancying myself having a personal magazine, I have to leave to others to judge.
William D. Lindsey
Need I state where I stand
Need I state where I stand on the issue?:)
Cool Catholic blogs:
American Papist
The Cafeteria is Closed
Shrine of the Holy Whapping
Maybe they shouldn't blog
Maybe they shouldn't blog and gamble. Does this qualify for the $100 bet?
Angus McLaren, Reproductive Rituals, The Perception of Fertility in England form the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century (Methuen, London, 1984)
"Christianity propagated the idea that the child was sent by God and, unlike other religions, made few concessions to the social realities that justified the avoidance of pregnancy. If one had too many children it had to be viewed as a cross to bear. This doctrine did produce curious twist, condemning, for example, male masturbation as a sort of homicide, but defending female masturbation if employed for the purpose of completing intercourse by producing the necessary seed." pp. 148-149
Every reader conversant
Every reader conversant with blogs’ comment sections – let alone with non-blog discussion fora – soon detects one fact above all that fills him, or that certainly should fill him, with dread. It is this: for every comment which comes from someone with the courage to sign his name, there are 100 which have been submitted under pseudonyms. If such deification of pseudonymity is not a coward’s charter, it is hard to think of what else it might be.
I don't understand. Do I call you Mr. Transfinitum or may I call you Noel? Or are you R> J> Stove?
Remedy for Fear: 1/ use your
Remedy for Fear:
1/ use your own powers of reason and spiritual maturity to distinguish between *addiction* and informed dialogue;
2/ reject pseudonymity and SIGN YOUR REAL NAME. I notice on this site that it is the pseudonominous who employ invective and ad hominine attack. I suspect this is less the lure of addiction and occasional lack of courage than a deeply embedded character trait. This is not an artifact of the medium but a characteristic of the speaker, I fear. (And, by the way, isn't it interesting how personal responsibility is so easily shed by the most self-righteous? I.e., those naming 'sin' ...);
3/ address #2 and you address #3; immature &/or *bashing/slanging* is not as much a product of the *anti-intellectual* medium as it is an expression of a specific individual's intellect; as in: "The egalitarian, democratic, and (therefore) deeply anti-Catholic implications of all this are, or at any rate they should be, obvious. ..." Well, well ...
4/ Ambition-as-Linguistic Custodianship? Ah yes, here we have it. Entitlement writ large: "Poor me, no one pays me for my brilliance (in the blogosphere.) I am a victim and therefore entitled to defame, disregard, and play at 'discourse guardianship'; AND ... if you don't like me, I'll take my poison pen and go elsewhere." Dear, oh dear, oh dear ...
5/ "The egalitarian, democratic, and (therefore) deeply anti-Catholic implications of all this are, or at any rate they should be, obvious. ..." Anti-clericalism seems a little more directed than this 'difficulty' suggests. At any rate, thank you Bishop Gumbleton, Sr. Chittister, Father Dear, and Father Allen for enduring the uprising of the laity ;-)
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you." (Luke 11:9)
Dear Dr. Mc Coy. Although I
Dear Dr. Mc Coy. Although I agree with you that some may, perhaps, "hide" behind pseudonyms, saying much nastier things than pehaps they would if their real names were published, perhaps more valuable things would not also be said if pseudonyms could not be used.
Perhaps, it might have been best had the guidelines been, "at first" for "real names only". That might be a future consideration. It might also rule some of us out.
As I mentioned a week or two ago (perhaps you did not see it--this list is so difficult to track) several of us have valid professional reasons for using a pseudonym. Psychiatric clients with "transference" (a common phenomenon) when discovering something like this (their therapist's name on a sharing blog) have found a "transference gold mine" and it can interfere with their treatment goals and/or add considerably to their burden and resistance and time and expense. Thus unethical and irresponsible for some of us to use our names in situations like this. Therefore, in the interest of being able to "be oneself", a pseudonym helps in certain circumstances. Many people have multiple compelling reasons you may not have. In the interests of brevity, I have not even ennumerated all of them here.
I agree that some awful, abusive posts have appeared here. I hope mine have not been among the ones you noted.
Shootingstar, I, for one,
Shootingstar, I, for one, have found yuor comments on all threads enlightening, healing, compassionate--never abusive.
William D. Lindsey
Me too! *star*
Me too! *star* shines!!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
Thank you *star*. Yes, I
Thank you *star*. Yes, I have been given the opportunity to re-examine my reaction to Mr. Stove's article re: Should Catholics Blog, on account of you’re and others' corrections of some of my initial assumptions. (My own Australian citizenship - I have dual US/Australian citizenship - makes me overly reactive, I fear, to the clever conservatism of my Aussie comrades.)
As in all matters, NOTHING is written in stone and, thanks be to God, we have language to help us discover new ways of seeing. I think your advice regarding the utility of pseudonomynous dialogue is compelling insofar as you point out the possible secondary effects of public speech. However, I think this utility is very narrow in scope, whatever its necessity. In short, I agree that public speaking has liabilities that must be considered.
Several other things occur to me as I continue to engage my (provisional) commitment to personal identity:
* The Public-Private Divide.
The general social and therefore communal ('corporate spiritual'?) context within which we live our lives together seems to me, these days and in the location of our particular society to foster certain unfortunate public-private dichotomies. On the one hand, we feel entitled to "privacy" that goes far beyond a simple protection from interference from the sovereign state (i.e., the basis of classical liberal ideology). We "protect" our bank accounts; our reputations; our domestic arrangements (‘a man’s home is his castle' ...); indeed, our 'core' identities within a sphere of relatively self-determined Privacy (depending on how privileged or not one is; poor people have very little privacy). On the other hand, we feel, simultaneously, entitled to certain public personal enhancements, like, for example, "free speech" in the public domain; safe streets; profit-making in the marketplace (always at someone others' expense) and unimpeded expression of our (other) identity(ies).
This split seems to be to be very different from the lessons Jesus teaches us regarding a public-private coherence. Jesus encourages us to both recognize and share our life with our neighbor; He encourages truth-speaking without regard for locale; He teaches a public way of loving rather than a private affection; and He is an exemplar of public risk-taking (unto His death.) All this suggests to me a kind of 'choice calculus' that compels reducing the space between public and private differences (even utilitarian ones) as we all LIVE INTO the authentic identity of being Christ's own.
Nevertheless, the tension, for us all, between courage and prudence exists. I think it is a good tension when it brings us into closer proximity to self-examination and humility.
* The Manner of Truth-saying
The way we speak, I believe, even *virtually* (in webspace) constitutes REAL experience. This particular Christian obligation is, to me, a matter far beyond simple ethics (e.g., telling the truth; being respectful; listening with as much compassion as one expects to be heard, etc.) I continue to try to work this out for myself. For example, I know there is a different narrative mode between preaching a sermon and engaging my dinner guests in lively dispute. But, increasingly, I seem to experience a greater personal sensitivity to what is said (HOW I listen) and what I say with regard to discerning God's purpose for me and those with whom I live my life in a very daily and mundane way.
What I seem to be coming to is that speech acts carry a far greater weight than I would ever have thought in my naivety. Speech is not as fleeting as one might suppose. Our words have resonance, not least within our own hearts. I seem to discover this more as I practice spoken prayer throughout the day, even if it is in a gentle quiet voice. The vibration of the words make experience, no less than my reception of others' words make experience.
This resonance is a fundamental part of my developing identity, I discover - not as a dependency (i.e., seeking flattery or praise can be as false an 'identity' quest as any other insecurity), but as an encounter with the greater Human Voice.
So, thanks, again, *star* for giving me pause.
God's peace to you.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
Dr. McCoy, your posts are
Dr. McCoy, your posts are always so rich, that it takes me time to digest them. You make me see in new ways, and those ways sometimes surprise me. I'm afraid that translates into bumbling responses, since I am still feeling my way along as I think through and respond to some of your postings.
Here, what strikes me (and I hope this isn't parenthetical to what you're saying) is the potential blogs create for lay Christians to engage in public theology. Public theology seems to me to be difficult, because it always probes that boundary between private and public. Which means it's risky to engage in. Church authorities seldom discipline anyone for writing an earth-shaking new article about Origen. They do when folks begin to talk about contraception, abortion, or homosexuality, though.
Public theology also seems to me problematic (but in a good way) precisely for the reasons you suggest: what we say on blogs like this can have tremendous consequences, some of them unforeseen, when who knows who might log in to read our words. That means we bear great responsibility for writing them.
Even with that concern in mind, I think that there are distinct advantages to blog discussions of public theological issues--and from what you say, I know you agree with this conclusion. There are two views of the church at work in the discussion on this thread.
One seems to me to picture the laity as not very well-informed masses who need the Truth handed down to them, and who are in grave danger when theological issues are discussed in a public way. The other seems to me to envision the truth as the goal of the pilgrimage we all share as the people of God. This ecclesiology imagines that we are all in it together pursuing the truth, and none of us has the privileged perspective. Though talking publicly and openly has its dangers, it seems to me worth entertaining the risks, when so much is at stake in the end.
Thanks for provoking me to think with your brilliant commentary!
William D. Lindsey
Amen, Bill! Thank you for
Amen, Bill! Thank you for the kind words. I, too, feel immeasurably enriched by sharing authentic dialogue with other seekers. Thanks, too, for putting the case for genuine speech so clearly and succinctly: "Public Theology"! What a terrific way to describe what we are trying to do together here on this site. I would love to explore this further.
I wonder how you would define the attributes of this kind of theology. My perspective leads me to believe that a Public Theology is expressed in a distinct personal voice informed by a community identity (i.e., we speak as Christians on this Christian site despite the problematic determination regarding "who" has legitimate claims to speak thus.) For me, the voice also is scripture-oriented and prayerfully considered. The dialogue is, I think, less intended to rebut or deny than to break open the lived truth of the Gospel message of Christ through sharing a kind of narrative tension that informs our discovery of God-among-us. When we do encounter disagreement or confusion we can all or any one of us accept correction without anger of embarrassment because what we all seem to seek is the transformation of heart and spirit that brings us closer to God and each other as the Body of Christ.
These are the surfaces of my mind today. I would love to know others' deeper consideration.
What always enlightens me in these kinds of discussions is the way that each person’s real, lived experience creates an amazing texture of understanding. I really like your tag for our community endeavor on this site. Public Theologians! Amen, amen!!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
I like your idea of
I like your idea of situating public theology in a dialogue of lived struggle with faith, within the context of a faith community, Dr. McCoy.
This definition assumes that we're all in it together; that we all care passionately about the central convictions of our faith; that we share a common faith texts whose "narrative tensions" (to use your wonderful phrase) we're probing together, as we struggle to relate the central convictions of our faith to everyday existence.
Your definition leaves room for argument and disagreement, but it bounds the discussion with communal norms. I think immediately of how Jewish tradition is an extended, multi-century argument about scripture and Talmud, in which Jewish thinkers keep on mulling over the narrative tensions of their core texts and convictions. And they do so passionately and with delight in discovering nuances and tensions that haven't been seen before now. I believe you yourself have pointed us to the Midrashic tradition of Judaism as a model for our public discourse.
Of course, as I use that analogy, I also think immediately of how Jewish tradition has been male-dominated until the fairly recent future. When we do focus on those narrative tensions, they sometimes explode the very community boundaries we've presupposed, and let inside new groups who have entirely new perspectives on our shared convictions and our scriptures--and every bit as much of a right to claim a home among us and an investment in reading the scriptures as we do.
That process of exploding the communal boundaries to let inside always new groups of believers-interpreters seems to me quintessentially catholic in the best sense of that word.
William D. Lindsey
"Public theology"... I
"Public theology"... I think this is one of the main points of disagreement. Not necessarily who has the authority (although that is part of it), but whether this site is for "public theology" or "public catechesis." It seems that some people on the site view these as two very different things and others see them as one and the same. If it is catechesis, it is looking at the current official doctrine (although a few people on here don't necessarily want to look at post Vatican II doctrine). If it is theology, it takes into mind a much broader spectrum, including scripture, tradition, history, reason, etc...
The public theology / public
The public theology / public catechesis distinction you offer is very helpful, for me, *1to7*. Thank you. This is a very useful clarification.
I wonder if there is the possibility of a 'public' catechesis insofar as the education to faith for the Roman Catholic faithful is prescribed in a very different way than in the Reformed churches. I can see where an inter-denominational dialogue regarding public theology provides for a fruitful discourse, but differences among Reformed and Roman Catholic Christians regarding a 'correct' catechesis may be too intractable to promote a shared sense of discovery.
I wonder, would most Roman Catholics feel that a ‘public theology’ (as the shared seeking demonstrated on the site) impacts catechesis in an unfortunate manner? If so, my initial approach to discussion re: a Christian Midrash is misplaced.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
Isn't there already a good
Isn't there already a good deal of interdenominational religious education happening? Some RC parishes use one of the lectionary based programs from the Episcopal publishing houses and some parishes use a Lutheran program. And, locally Lutherans, Methodists, and other cooperate with RC's in summer "vacation bible schools". I notice also that there is a lot more cooperation between theological scholars from various Protestant and RC schools that was typical before Vatican II. The Catholic Lutheran dialogue seems to be a sign there is more that we share in common than what seperates us. Since those conversations are ongoing I'd assume there is going to be some more areas of agreement coming when both parties find the right words.
I studied with Jesuits,
I studied with Jesuits, Caphucins, UCC folk, UU, Lutherans and Quakers at my seminary in Cambridge, Mass (EDS). The Boston Theological Institute, of which my and other seminaries are part, is at great place for rigorous and open-minded study. Most of the seminaries in the Cambridge area have faculty from other denominations teaching on their staff. So, yes, *bow* there is a rising sophistication of discourse.
Liturgically, of course, both the Reformed churches and the Roman Catholics may share in common, The Revised Common Lectionary, and therefore read common lections during most of the ecclesiastical year.
I believe, however, that as important as finding the right words is, finding the right hearts may be crucial. There will remain a faction of 'love it or leave it' folk from some denominations that will work persistently to impede unity in the Body of Christ. In this case we all rely on God's own grace to move hearts (and mountains of ego and insecurity.) In the meantime, isn't it a striking grace that we have sites like this one to break open the word of God in our shared communities!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
Just out of curiosity, as
Just out of curiosity, as the Anglican/Episcopalian lectionary is not the same as the Catholic, how do those parishes manage to use the Episcopalian lectionary programs with a Catholic lectionary?
Yes there is greater cooperation, unfortunatley some times at the cost of clarity. (I learned my faith by defending it to my Fundamentalist and other Protestant friends, so I know the value of interaction with our seperated brethren, and yes how to get along with them.)
I hope that I have not
I hope that I have not "employed invective and ad hominine attack," but I also feel the need to stay anonymous. This is not to attack others without recourse, but because in working for the Catholic Church, I wish to be able to freely express my opinion about a number of issues. Some of these opinions would quickly get me fired if known by Church officials. I share them openly with people I trust, and anonymously on blogs.
Gotcha. This is a good
Gotcha. This is a good corrective. Thanks!!!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
Me too, my handle is readily
Me too, my handle is readily recognizable to family and friends, but not to my clients. I feel the need to keep it that way and make an effort to write with the idea of my friends in mind. I like to think all of you are my friends, and since some of my friends are traditional conservatives I value the tradcons because they have helped me with my own tradcons.
Ditto: asabove.
Ditto: asabove. Thanks!!!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Ephesians (5:15-16)
"Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil. So do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. "
Thank you. It is a privilege
Thank you. It is a privilege and a pleasure to encounter and have a discourse with you and all of the other participants.
We Must Not Confuse What Is Essential In The Church With That Which Is Mutable, No Matter How Ancient It May Be
This forum does take on the
This forum does take on the characteristics of a masquerade party at times. Regardless , I will remain masked.
We Must Not Confuse What Is Essential In The Church With That Which Is Mutable, No Matter How Ancient It May Be
"I know of no such
"I know of no such virtue."
I can think of one. I've made close off line friends with some of my fellow bloggers, and I treasure that gift.
Thank you all! This has
Thank you all! This has been an enjoyable 'read'! Colkoch, I, too, have found several friends through blogs and discussion groups...and SO much food for thought. Yes, the dangers of the internet are certainly there, but what a great gift it is!! There are abuses in so many other pursuits, as well! ;o)