The Associated Press comes to the defense of Catholics? Not really.

Well, sort of—if by "Catholics" you mean those who publicly dissent from Church teaching. From the AP article, "Catholic bloggers aim to purge dissenters" (Oct. 25, 2010):

Pressure is on to change the Roman Catholic Church in America, but it's not coming from the usual liberal suspects. A new breed of theological conservatives has taken to blogs and YouTube to say the church isn't Catholic enough.

Enraged by dissent that they believe has gone unchecked for decades, and unafraid to say so in the starkest language, these activists are naming names and unsettling the church.

Oooh...how chilling! The mere mention of "starkest language" gives me chills. Wait, check that; I'm actually laughing with robust and hearty charity. Anyhow, as interesting as the topic is, the approach taken in the piece is not the sort that lends itself to substantive reporting. But, goodness, why should I complain? I'm sure the piece was written to balance out all of those Associated Press pieces reporting on those Catholic politicians, pundits, and periodicals, who live off of being called "Catholic" while outrightly denying, mocking, or even attacking the Magisterium and Church teaching. Yeah, that must be it.

John Allen, Vatican analyst for the National Catholic Reporter, has dubbed this trend "Taliban Catholicism." But he says it's not a strictly conservative phenomenon - liberals can fit the mindset, too, Allen says. Some left-leaning Catholics are outraged by any exercise of church authority.

Yes, "some"—as in nearly everyone who works for National "Catholic" Reporter (see, for example, this recent post). Finally, near the article's conclusion:

Catholic officials are struggling to come to terms with the bloggers and have organized several recent media conferences on the topic, the latest at the Vatican this month. The U.S. bishops' conference issued social media guidelines in July calling for Christian charity online.

Still, no one expects the Catholic blogosphere to change tone anytime soon. Many of the conservatives most active online had spent years raising the alarm about dissent on their own in their local dioceses without much effect. Now, they feel they are finally being heard online.

I think I understand: open dissent from clear and consistent Church teaching is about the centrality of the infallible individual conscience, the divine call for a more democratic Church, a gnostic-like sensitivity to the "spirit of Vatican II", and freedom from traditional and patriarchal structures of oppression, while criticism of such tired Sixties' styled-dissent is narrow-minded, politically-motivated, and accompanied by a disturbing "tone". As the past forty years or so indicate, the former has not been of substantial concern to a number of bishops, but the latter is suddenly now a grave and bothersome issue that demands calls for "charity" and change in "tone". Gotcha. This state of affairs actually lends creedence to the article's statement, "The [conservative] activists also say that since the 1970s, after the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, liberals have filled the bureaucracy of the church, hiding dissent from the bishops they serve."

For the record, my perfectly tuned remarks here are not meant as a carte blanche endorsement of all the "conservative" blogs mentioned (a couple of which I've never heard of), although I'll happily and publicly make known my support for Thomas "The American Papist" Peters, whose work I admire. Blogs are unruly and wildly diverse (even blogs that share core beliefs and principles), and I understand well that bloggers can indeed be uncharitable, harsh, and even grammatically unsound on occasion. Heck, I know that my grammar ain't always what it could and should be. But the simple fact is this: "conservative" Catholic blogs are no more harsh or nasty or caustic or filled with bad writing and poor arguments than are "liberal" Catholic blogs. Far from it.

There is one notion or description in the article that should be corrected, which is that of a "new breed of theological conservatives", as if these bloggers with the bad "tone" and the unabashed love for the Church have emerged suddenly and without warning in recent years from the deep recesses of the most dank, subterranean regions of  the earth with nary a strand of genetic code or a notarized family tree to give an account for their existence. Ever since the late 1960s, there has been a lively and important group of writers who produced works—mostly popular and even polemical—that criticized dissent in the Church and worked to expose heretics and heresies. A short (and hardly exhaustive list) would include books such as Trojan Horse in the City of God (1967) and The Devastated Vineyard (1973) by Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Decline and Fall of Radical Catholicism (1971) and Catholicism and Modernity (1979) by Dr. James Hitchcock, A Crisis of Truth (1982) by Ralph Martin, The Desolate City (1986) by Anne Roche Muggeridge, and The Battle for the American Church (1979), by Monsignor George A. Kelly. The latter is an especially invaluable guide to the wastelands of the 1970s, a thoroughly documented and vigorously argued work filled with an abundance of detail and insight. Near the conclusion of that book, Monsignor Kelly wrote:

The modern problem for the Church, as for the state, is not more input, shared responsibility, participation in decision-making, and consulation with those affected by official decisions. These are legitimate contemporary counterbalances to the sometimes arbitrary, thoughtless, or uninformed deicions of office-holders. The problem has become decision-making itself. Those constitutionally empowered to act in the name of society or the Church frequently do not act, and those citizens or religionists bound to compliance frequently do not comply , with no suitable remedy for the vacuum created. Both authority figures and subjects lose in the process, because society, if its necessary works are to be done or if it is to keep its unity, needs decisions and compliance. In Catholic affairs there is also the question of Christ's authority given to men to preach, to make disciples, and to govern the Church. Without authority, human or divine, there is political or ecclesiastical confusion. This becomes a highly desirable condition only for those who value confusion as  condition of liberty. (p. 482).

And, a couple of paragraphs later:

Speaking up to pastors, bishops, and Pope is commplace, as is defiance. Church officials rarely call in a recalcitrant priest or head of a dissenting Catholic organization for a stern warning or reprimand. Dissent from Catholic teaching, from liturgical or disciplinary norms by those who hold positions of trust, is publicly tolerated by high officials. For this reason alone, Catholic dissenters have acquired a role and power that normally would not be theirs. (p. 483).

That dissenting role and power has slowly, if not smoothly or steadily, waned and withered over the past couple of decades. It goes without saying that those who have been losing that power have not been happy; whereas they used to gin up discord and dissent with a flick of the pro-contraceptive whip, they now have to settle for faux ordinations of 85-year-old women who recount how they've longed to "be a priest" since they were little girls growing up during the Depression. Alas, serious damage was inflicted over the past few decades, and the rot is still very much present, although it is often covered over or tweaked to appear more respectable. But "news" pieces such as the one above are a good reminder of the various alignments and perceptions, challenges and confusions, that still exist and likely will until Christ returns and separates the sheep from the goats—following which, I suspect, the AP will run a story complaining about the "tone" encountered at the Last Judgment.

Related Ignatius  Insight Articles and Book Excerpts:

• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May
• Is Heresy Heretical? | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• On The Intellectual Needs of Ordinary People | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Conservative Bishops, Liberal Results | Dr. James Hitchcock
• Hans Küng Has a Religion the New York Times Can Love | Donna Steichen
• On Being Catholic American | Joseph A. Varacalli
• Pascal For Today | Peter Kreeft
• Unity, Plurality, and the Papacy | Hans Urs von Balthasar

Comments

[Todd Newbold]

Im chuckling also Carl. Just imagine if everyone could afford a computer and high speed internet, or even better - a 4G I-phone at 4G speed.

[matteo]

If we are to believe what the Taliban has done to girls and women in Afgahnistan then John Allen should think twice about the 'cute' term that he has coined.

[Ed Peters]

matteo read my mind, and indeed i came here to post the exact same point. Allen's adjective is very, very poorly chosen, it trivializes what the Taliban is really all about.

[Marcel LeJeune]

The AP certainly wishes this story were true.

[Tony S.]

I don't see what's wrong with the actual "news" here. Is the AP wrong about the intent and tone of these blogs? I've been reading (and appreciating) them for a while and I don't think so. Is the AP wrong to bring up the issue of tone in the first place? Well, tone is clearly a concern for both sides. The intentionally "stark" tone of the "theological conservatives" is set against the well-known unwillingness of the hierarchy (and mainstream Catholic journalists) to move beyond concerns over tone and toward actual confrontation. Who looks worse here? The conservative Catholics who strive for effective clarity or the media/public relations people who describe the effort as "Taliban Catholicism" or who avoid the issues and instead focus on an apparent "lack of civility" and publish guidelines (these latter, and not the report itself, seem to be the real focus of your comments).

Your objection to the description of the bloggers as "a new breed of theological conservatives" is a pretty trivial point when you consider the scope of the article. These blogs have indeed "suddenly emerged" and have become a presence on their own irrespective (in a "news" sense) of prior "speaking up" on the part of Catholic writers or parishioners. And that is due not just to the medium, but to the tone that provokes a response. As the reporter says, previous efforts seemed to have been "without much effect."

I think the article did a pretty good job distinguishing the apparent orthodox revival within the American hierarchy from the still-existent problems of diocesan bureaucracy.

[Marie]

The problem, in my opinion, is not the characterization of the conservative bloggers - they are combative. The problem is the implication that the other "side" for lack of a better term, is all sweetness and light and not guilty of divisiveness - as Carl points out in the irony (not seen by the AP writer, evidently) of the liberal journalist being the name-caller she quotes.

Liberal Catholics on the internet can be a vicious lot. Much of it is passive-aggressive sneering on lower-traffic websites, so who can blame Zoll for missing it. Read Vox Nova. Read the comments boxes at Commonweal. Read NCR - Michael Sean Winters' "Yahoo Watch" in which he labels fellow Catholics like Patrid Madrid and the Curt Jester as "Yahoos."

They'll know we are Christians, right?

And that's not even mentioning the damage these people do in real life and who they exclude in the name of inclusion, who they refuse to tolerate in the name of tolerance.

[Tony S.]

Marie, you're absolutely right. I just think that pointing out a media bias backfires in this situation. The article - once understood as concerned with a particular subset of Catholic conservative bloggers who are, at this moment, particularly newsworthy (because they're rising in prominence) - is really pretty good.

There certainly is a difference in that the reporter adds a couple adjectives (and, again, I don't think they misrepresent the subject) to the conservative bloggers without adding anything comparable to represent their opposition, but it's almost enough to let Allen and the public relations people speak for themselves. I don't think it's a reporters job to point out the irony. And, if it is, I think this sentence from the article does a pretty good job: "Some left-leaning Catholics are outraged by any exercise of church authority."

I just read Elizabeth Scalia's comments at First Things and I think she makes the same mistake that Olson has made, that is, she assumes the article is about conservative Catholic bloggers in general - or about "civility in the blogosphere" - when it is really about this particular group that has risen in prominence and that has a particular aim. These blogs are more like Damian Thompson and Splintered Sunrise. And why not publicize their efforts? We tend to rely too much on someone like John Allen for our insider information.

[Tony S.]

For what it's worth, the Boston Catholic Insider, one of the blogs mentioned by the report, calls it an "excellent article."

[Carl E. Olson]

There certainly is a difference in that the reporter adds a couple adjectives (and, again, I don't think they misrepresent the subject) to the conservative bloggers without adding anything comparable to represent their opposition, but it's almost enough to let Allen and the public relations people speak for themselves.

A good point, Tony, and I don't disagree. My initial reaction and post may have been a bit touchy, but I also don't think you will ever see an MSM piece that actually focuses fully on how dissenting Catholics, such as those at National "Catholic" Reporter, continually abuse the name "Catholic" to promote ideas, actions, and beliefs directly opposed to Church teaching. How often are there news pieces about the nasty, harsh, and arrogant language used by dissenters against Church teaching? Mocking loyal Catholics? Attacking the Holy Father? And so forth.

That said, it could be that you are more "glass half full" and I am more "glass half empty" (as I sometimes am when it comes to the media) in our reading of the piece. And so I do appreciate your reading of it, as it is often tempting to lay into nearly any and every MSM piece about orthodox Catholics.

Your objection to the description of the bloggers as "a new breed of theological conservatives" is a pretty trivial point when you consider the scope of the article. These blogs have indeed "suddenly emerged" and have become a presence on their own irrespective (in a "news" sense) of prior "speaking up" on the part of Catholic writers or parishioners.

I'm not sure about that at all. But, then, perhaps my experience as a blogger is different from those interviewed, as I am in my forties and was learning about these various clashes before the internet became a major factor. Despite being a somewhat prolific blogger (eight years, around 8,000 posts or so), I still have a certain (nostalgic?) love for books over the internet, as wonderful as the latter can be (and as good as it's been to me). What I do think is beyond reasonable dispute is that apologists and defenders of the Faith, no matter their preferred medium, would do well to study and learn from folks such as Dr. Hitchcock and Mgr. Kelly, who combined polemical excellence with scholarly chops and exemplary writing, setting a high bar for the rest of us to match.

[Tony S.]

"What I do think is beyond reasonable dispute is that apologists and defenders of the Faith, no matter their preferred medium, would do well to study and learn from folks such as Dr. Hitchcock and Mgr. Kelly, who combined polemical excellence with scholarly chops and exemplary writing, setting a high bar for the rest of us to match."

Yeah, I can't argue with that - or with a love for books over the internet. Sadly, if you want something done these days, the internet seems to be the place to go.

[Pamela]

The only thing I would like to add to the discussion is this; I often wonder if the bishops, or anyone else complaining about the 'tone' of conservative Catholics, has ever read the Bible. Would they tell Saint Paul to watch his tone when he says people who "do such things are worthy of DEATH?" Or even Jesus, when He calls people a "generation of vipers"? When did speaking the truth become hateful? I don't recall Jesus ever candy coating the truth, yet today, Catholic writers must tiptoe around the truth so as not to offend heretics. Got it. Clearly, from the writings of the Church Fathers, and Scripture itself, hard hitting, Truth telling Catholics are not 'a new breed'. Keep it up folks!

[Jeff L.]

I am in full agreement with your analysis of the A.P. article. If you are not familiar with RealCatholicTV.com then I really must recommend Michael Voris' lay apostolate to you. I am a subscriber to Real Catholic TV and I have found the instructional materials on Apologetics, Church History, Catechesis, and... well... all of it thoroughly loyal to the Magisterium and excellent for the education and growth of the Catholic faithful.