As if the bishops didn’t have enough to worry about. Now they are under attack from the bloggers.
Blogs-a word that combines "web" and "log"-are an electronic Hyde Park on the Internet. Bloggers use the power of the Web to create their own commentary journals-complete with electronic letters to the editor and links to other sites and articles.
In blogdom, there is a subdivision of Catholic writers and responders who offer a chorus of conversation. Turned on to this world by a relative, I’ve been surprised at the candor and knowledgeable stream of commentary I’ve read concerning church matters.
The Catholic blog world is, in some respects, analogous to the world of talk radio: while the conversation may often be spirited, and occasionally learned, it often runs the gamut of views from A to B. In other words, it leans strongly to the conservative, or, as some would prefer, the "orthodox" side of church discussion. For example, in Catholic blogdom, Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) is a group frequently seen as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, spouting reform while actually working to undercut church teaching in the realm of sexual morality.
In the past few months, bloggers have contributed long treatises on church architecture (the new cathedral in Los Angeles has taken some hard hits for its modernistic style), and there has been a spirited debate about Michael Rose’s controversial Goodbye, Good Men (Regnery) on the alleged moral laxity of U.S. seminary training.
There is a flavor of internecine warfare to some of the hotter arguments in Catholic blogdom, reminiscent of leftist writer Christopher Hitchens’s recent screeds on radical liberals who were soft on Stalin and are now said to be soft on terrorism.
It is a parochial world, a place where conservative Catholic bloggers are quick to defend writers such as Scott Hahn from attacks by other, even more conservative, writers, such as those who frequent the New Oxford Review. This is done without feeling the need to explain, for example, who Hahn-a convert from evangelical Christianity and a writer of works defending traditional Catholic teaching-is. For those unfamiliar with the tight world of Catholic "orthodoxy," a scorecard may be needed to follow some of the players.
Other arguments in current Catholic blogdom share a kind of rarefied air that is too heady for the average person in the pew. For example, there is an ongoing debate about whether Opus Dei is good or pernicious. One posting generated fifty-five comments. Pope John Paul II’s recent decision to expand the mysteries of the rosary to include more aspects of the life of Jesus-an issue perhaps closer to the heart of Catholic devotion-generated sixty-eight responses. Some correspondents complained that the pope was tinkering with tradition; one saw it as a necessary attempt to invoke the rosary against the forces of militant Islam.
Amy Welborn, a writer who has operated her own blog for over a year and whose site features some of the strongest give-and-take on Catholic matters, acknowledges the tilt in ideology. She attributes this to the fact that blogdom operates as a kind of alternative universe, where views not acceptable among censorious media elites can find the light of day. "People feel that liberal voices in Catholicism [Richard McBrien and Garry Wills, for example] are very well represented in the Catholic and secular media," Welborn said. She notes that while there have been some liberal-minded bloggers, most have simply lost interest or been unable to commit themselves to regular updating.
That’s not a problem with the Indiana-based Welborn. Her blog-titled In between Naps-is the best on Catholic concerns that I’ve run across. She is opinionated and freely admits to being annoyed at much of what passes for modern church music and architecture. Yet her blog features varied viewpoints and links to articles-including some from Commonweal and the New York Times-that don’t necessarily support her views. She occasionally tweaks her core readers, generating some angry responses, as when she referred to "the-more-orthodox-than-thou" diocese of Arlington, Virginia. She also provides some homespun touches, including pictures of her four children.
Not many Catholic bloggers have Welborn’s wit and subtlety. One opined recently that members of VOTF should sign loyalty oaths. Other important issues-such as war with Iraq-seem to generate little interest, perhaps because they represent a gulf between American conservative political views and a Vatican that is lining up against U.S. policy. In weeks of perusing Catholic blogs, I saw just one comment on impending war with Iraq, with the exception of the running commentary provided on Andrew Sullivan’s site. And I read nothing at all about how church teaching might be invoked on either side of the war discussion.
Some blogs fall into the area of the academically arcane, including intense arguments about baptism in the theology of the ancient church fathers. Others quickly fall into irrelevancy as the pace of events outruns their take on the news. Some are prime exemplars of the need for editors. Some bloggers joke about the role of blogs in filling the ego needs of prolific writers in search of an audience. Mark Shea candidly offers his blog’s purpose with a tongue-in-cheek mission statement: "So that no thought of mine, no matter how stupid, should ever go unpublished again."
One of the best-written blogs that delve into Catholic matters is Sullivan’s, the gay-British-political conservative-libertarian-church liberal who writes prolifically for an American audience. He is the only Catholic blogger I have run across who regularly questions church teaching. His writing extends so far afield, it hurdles the confines of the Catholic blog ghetto and should be seen as Sullivan’s own universe. Recently, church concerns have taken a backseat to his regular drumbeat in support of the proposed war on Iraq.
What strikes me about Catholic blogdom in recent months has been the palpable anger directed at the hierarchy. Bishops are frequently accused of lying and of being concerned primarily with covering their ecclesiastical posteriors. National Review author Rod Dreher, a frequent Catholic blogger, even wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal that put some blame for the hierarchy’s response to the scandals on John Paul II, generating wide comment, pro and con. Nonetheless, the pope is rarely a target, and is usually depicted as heroically above the fray.
In Catholic blogdom, the roots of the abuse scandal are generally said to lie in the toleration of dissent and a too-ready acceptance of homosexual behavior. An odd twist to the scandal surfaced a few weeks back when a priest who operated a popular site was himself among the accused in a recent listing compiled by the Baltimore archdiocese, generating expressions of confusion and consternation.
Welborn attributes people’s anger and disillusionment to the fact that there seems to be no jurisdiction-from the most conservative dioceses to the most liberal-that has not been tarred with the sex-abuse stigma. "It’s anger fueled by frustration," she says, noting that blogger correspondents feel they have little influence over the decisions of their local bishops-a frustration felt across the Catholic ideological spectrum. After months of tracking bloggerdom, I’m still struck by how palpable the anger remains. It’s a daily theme, whether it comes from the bloggers or their correspondents.
One of Welborn’s correspondents, responding to an article posted about a bishop objecting to VOTF meeting in his diocese, notes, "if the bishops had banned sex-abusing priests from church property years ago, they wouldn’t be dealing with VOTF today."
One can only conclude that if the bishops have lost the battle of blogdom-a place filled with Catholics who profess adherence to doctrine and uphold hierarchy-they may have even bigger credibility issues than anyone imagined.
