First of all you cannot put “the bloggers” into one box, they are all different people and have different positions. If the blogger is preaching according to the magisterium they should be convinced of the own righteousness and if they live by their beliefs they will not dispise anyone.
I agree with this, but I think the point is that there’s a lot of despising and self-righteousness being communicated via these blogs, and/or assuming of the functions of others (lay assuming clerical functions of discernment and correction; not to mention divine discernment of fidelity, sincerity, and lack thereof).
None of us has any way of determining what proportion of such vehement blog-creators and contributors have personally approached the clergy members whose positions trouble them, asking them first to clarify a vague, confusing, ambiguous, even duplicitous-sounding message, let alone a practice. My guess, given my reading of other kinds of blogs, is that very often these people (1) have in fact never approached these authority figures to determine answers, (2) are assuming an awful lot of specifics that cannot be derived from vague indicators, such as (as another poster mentioned) a letter or statement intended as pastoral, not doctrinal. Pastoral communications have the character of being positive, welcoming, inclusive, and general. Usually they are not summaries of systematic theology.
I think these blogs reflect a couple of things:
(1) the anxiety created by varieties of messages that seem to flourish in the Church, but may be exaggerated by assumptions of the faithful and silence from clergy.
(2) the sheer multiplication of modern communication modes, combined with the prominent influence of secular messages and the attempt of the church to filter, clarify, and resist as appropriate. The speed of modern communication is far greater than any bureuacracy (including the church) can handle.
Do you think that bishops are on the 'net 24/7, reading this stuff? (Blogs and forums) If in fact they are doing their jobs, that’s not what they are doing. They still may not be informed enough about lay distress, and in that sense they should indeed make it their job to become informed. My “issue” with the hierarchy is that, like other members of bureaucracies (politicians, educational administrators, etc.), they spend too much time maintaining the bureaucracy vs. getting out more to the people each of those functions serve.
I’ll keep saying this, as I’ve said on other threads: I strongly support the right of Catholic laity to have clear messages communicated from their pastors and their bishops. That doesn’t mean a persecution message: it just means that silence and passivity frustrate the laity in light of overtly confusing doctrinal messages that in the recent and distant past have inappropriately co-existed with appropriately welcoming parishes.
So, for example, the laity have a right to know what “All are Welcome” means. That may sound petty of me, but the fact is that many returning Catholics do not understand what it means, and that has not been made clear to these returning Catholics. In some parishes, in some time periods, All Are Welcome meant all are welcome to receive sacraments in any particular state whatsoever. It also meant, All theologies are welcome. Some of those church members still are under that illusion. That’s clear from what I just saw a few weeks ago in a local parish.
All are welcome means come-as-you-are to God (and to your parish), not come as you are (necessarily) to the sacraments. Priests and bishops may think that’s self-evident, but it is not.
But if they were communicated with directly (not on blogs), they would quickly see how non-self-evident it is, and how the liaty are asking for clear restatements of doctrine, without compromising pastoral roles. There are many ways of handling this. For example, in one local parish there used to be a regular group for newly returning Catholics (or those contemplating returning). The point of the group — led by a priest – was not to Enable any old person to return with an invented theology; it was to clarify what the Church’s teachings were and were not, so that discernment could follow. In fact what happened was that 90% of those in these groups did return, but they returned being very clear where the boundaries were, so the group provided an excellent service.
Be very clear, though, that the return was made possible largely by the welcoming, pastoral character of this priest, who is known for his approachability. It was not aided by any Laying Down the Law message, despite the clarification. What the bishops, therefore, have to consider in their role is church membership, not just doctrinal adherence. They have to integrate their role as teachers with their role as shepherds. That can be a balancing act. Across the country overall, church attendance is down vs. 12months ago. In our parish it is down 22%.
What these blogs represent is frustration. But I don’t think that their multiplicity, let alone their strident tone, solves the problems that have resulted in their existence.
. I think the article is missing the point: Catholic bloggers don’t want to “purge” dissent, they want to correct it! I would love if every Catholic baptized into the Church with any such incompatible views as pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, etc. would recant their anti-Catholic views and follow the Church. That would make my day.
