The provocative title of this post obviously refers to the masterpiece which Saint Thomas penned against the Gentiles. Saint Thomas not only leveled a devastating critique but more importantly, he gave a beautiful exposition of the Catholic faith. So, I would like to take up the first part, a critique, against Catholic Bloggers and as a result, me.
Often Catholic Blogs are very much concerned with the latest “News” or the finer points of liturgical praxis and history. In fact, there is nothing wrong with a sensible desire to know what is happening in the world or to have care, concern and interest in the rubrics, ceremonies and external elements of the Sacraments.
However, there is one great danger to which Saint Paul alludes in his letter to the Collosians. The Holy Spirit writes through Saint Paul, “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?” (Cor 2:21-22) This sarcastical strike against the contentious agitators within the Christian community at Collosae is a reference to the Septuagint version of Isaiah 29:13 where the Holy Spirit writes through the prophet Isaiah, “And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips glorify me, but their heart is far from me, and they have feared me with the commandment and doctrines of men” (Is 29:13)
This deviation of the Jewish people of Isaiah’s time is the result of paying more attention to the human traditions associated with Judaism than to the Torah. How often we Christians are so wrapped up in the traditions of our history - neccessary and as important as they are! - that we forget to pay attention to the weightier matters of the law, like justice and mercy. How often we forget about the true Torah; the Torah in Person, Jesus Christ! I fear that blogs are producing a certain type of Catholic - whether a so-called “liberal” or “conservative” - who has the depth of dime and an eye for the contentious and “news worthy”. We are losing our ability to positively propose our faith to others in a coherent and synthetic manner as the great doctors and Saints of the Church have always done because of an unbelievable amount of ecclesiastical navel gazing.
If we spend more time on the blogs then we do with Sacred Scripture, the Catechism, the great Ecumenical Councils and Doctors of the Church, then something has gone seriously wrong.
I am not saying that blogs are in principal wrong or that someone must never read a blog; only that we need to have a purification and examination of conscience in the “Blogosphere”.
This is only my critique, so please feel free to disagree with me or set me straight in the comment box!
24 comments:
You are certainly opening yourself up to a lot of headaches with this one. Your blog is extremely well done (an obvious labor of love), with over a hundred "followers" and 135,000+ views and yet you want to draw attention to what you think is "wrong" with Catholic blogging. You are, whether intentionally or not, setting yourself, and by extension your blog, as having transcended the hubris of blogs that deal with finer points "liturgical praxis" or the vanity of blogs that concentrate on the "latest news." That is pretty lofty perch you settled on.
Frankly, I think you give blogs too much credit. I don’t they are “producing a certain type of Catholic – whether a so called liberal or conservative.” Blogs are just a projection, a representation of what already exists. There are “so called liberal and conservative” Catholics, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that there are blogs that present Catholicism through those lenses. I’ve never been a big fan for those terms when applied to Catholicism, and I’m guessing you aren’t either; in my mind, you either accept the teachings of the Church or you don’t. What blogs do produce is a place for discussion, much like the academies of ancient Greece or the universities of medieval Europe. Those places were proper for their times, but no longer. The world, certainly in the Western developed nations, has gone digital. The USCCB certainly recognized that in their most recent meeting in November saying, “The Catholic Church faces an urgent call to evangelize the new “digital continent” of social media…” You, me and all Catholic bloggers are responsible for that territory; it cannot be left up to priests to handle alone.
I’m not sure if you are endearing yourself to your fellow bloggers by accusing them of “having the depth of a dime.” Maybe you don’t care. That’s fine too, I guess, if you don’t. I certainly believe that Catholics in general, not just bloggers, need to spend more time “with Sacred Scripture, the Catechism, the great Ecumenical Councils and Doctors of the Church.” The laity have been poorly catechized for the past 40 years. Yes, Catholics do have responsibility for knowing their faith, but historically the faithful have simply relied on “what Father said” to serve as their catechesis. If what “Father” is saying is irrelevant or wrong, something that has been broken in sermons for a LONG time (see Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini #59), then it is no wonder the laity (along with some of their blogs) have wandered off the path. However, I would just say that it takes a variety of viewpoints (presumably all orthodox viewpoints) to effectively evangelize the world (to include wayward Catholics). For example, the three synoptic gospels all basically tell the same story, but from slightly different perspectives, each appealing to a slightly different audience. I think blogging can be considered in the same way. As long as the content is solidly Roman Catholic, what difference does it make if it treats the finer points of “liturgical praxis” or “current events?”
The main issue I take with your post is that it seems to lump all Catholic bloggers together – those attempting to build up the Church and those who only claim to be Catholic while taking every opportunity to tear the Church down. By doing that, on YOUR CATHOLIC BLOG, it seems as if you are setting yourself apart, as someone better than the rest. Like I said, you may not have intended it to come off that way, but that was the feel I got from this post. Aside from that, I would just say, keep up the good work!
I think it is a very important thing to keep in mind that the Faith is not the "latest news" or towing a certain line (whatever that might be) seen as "Catholic" in a combox. In this way, the very easy access to so much information, what we do with it, how we handle the inherent confidential nature of one's own identity on the internet, etc. is a problem we must face-with Catholic blogs, but really, just with anything.
I think you make a good point. I have tried in recent months to spend more time in prayer and with Scripture as my blog has taken off. I know too well the pull of the world. So, I forced a holy woman to be my spiritual director, asked her advice, and she told me that if I do not give God first place, before anything else that day, then I have my priorities wrong. She suggested spending time with the Scriptures before reading anything else. I decided that I would not even allow myself to fire up the Mac until I had read the Scripture readings for that day.
I guess I could go on and on about my other resolutions to keep blogging in proper perspective, but instead I will just say thank you for this great post!
Christopher,
First, I apologize if I came off as arrogant or setting up the New Theological Movement on a utopian blog pedestal. That certainly was not my intent.
I put the line "So, I would like to take up the first part, a critique, against Catholic Bloggers and as a result, me.", specifically with the intent to make the critique of myself too.
I also said I didn't think that blogging was bad in principle, rather I was trying to highlight a danger of blogging from a specific reading of Saint Paul.
I hope that helps and I hope you know that I am very grateful for the good work that many bloggers do, not least of which the excellent Scriptural exegesis of our own Reginaldus which I think is a model of how to use the internet for the good.
Christopher,
I want to mention one more thing. I didn't accuse anyone of having the depth of a dime. I did say that I fear that blogs are producing Catholics with the depth of a dime because of the paucity of substance on many blogs. Fearing that something may become or could become the case is much different then making an accusation.
Pax et Bonum!
I have to say I find this kind of piece, allegedly including oneself but in practice clearly aimed at some nebulous, unspecified others from the lofty height of one's own theological superiority quite tiresome. And that's a pity as I was starting to enjoy this blog.
Of course it is true that one can get wrapped up in the superficial and over-focused on trivia. Blogs can certainly feed this tendancy, but in the end those of that frame of mind will find a way to feed it even in the absence of blogdom!
But here's the thing - even when they just give us subjects to pray about in the latest news, they are achieving something useful in my view. One can't possibly read in depth theological tomes all the time, but we do need reminders of the sacred breaking in constantly to remind of where our true focus should be. We do need reminders of Christian life should be and actually is. Of how liturgy should be and actually is conducted.
A little tolerance of diversity is I think called for.
Kate,
Thanks for your comments and remember I am only one contributor and my opinion on this matter is not necessarily reflective of the other contributors.
I will take yours and others comments to prayer as perhaps I haven't been open to other more valid perspectives.
Pax!
Campion,
Though this is your post (and hence your comment box), I wanted to just "chime in" and add my two cents (which is even less than a dime!).
Certainly, your post could be interpreted as a bit of an attack, it is a bit radical --- but heck, most of your post come at the issues from a radically different perspective than the norm (I am thinking of your recent post on the SSPX as an example).
Obviously, I am not quite so concerned about the dangers of blogging as you (but, hey, you are not as concerned about them as "Alphonsus"!).
There is certainly room for diversity in this matter.
Thank you for your post ... it is good to have a bit of variety on the blog -- rather than always having my theoretical speculations, it is good for readers to have other perspectives (like yours and Iosephus').
Blessings to you, brother!
@Kate, Christopher, and other readers who did not like this post....
You can see that we here at NTM are a diverse crowd! But I can guarantee you that we are all truly seeking the Lord, and striving to do so with humility!
You should take Campion at his word when he says (in the article) that he includes himself in his critique.
Believe me, as a friend of his, I can tell you that he does not exempt himself (or me!) from this critique!
Quite frankly, Kate and Christopher, I think you are over-reacting a bit here ... Campion has not attacked anyone in particular, nor has he said that NTM is better than anything else. Certainly, he has not stated that every other blog is no good -- I myself regularly read Msgr. Pope's blog and also Catholic Phoenix (and I've never even been to Phoenix!) ...
Ultimately, all that Campion is hoping for is that Catholic Blogs stay centered on the faith, rather than on the personal whims of the blog author -- this is no easy task, and I am quite sure that I fail regularly, but we at NTM do try.
In any case, it would be quite arrogant (and foolish) to make a final judgment about Campion's intentions without waiting to read the second installment of his post (which he promised in the opening lines of this article)...
It'd be interesting if NTM did a weekly or monthly exposition on a Catechism passage using biblical verses and Church documents. :)
Thanks for your blog.
I've been reading for a very short time but I find you've got a good depth of Theology and thus far also a good group of commentors. It's a blessing to see that there are so many who read and respond from the depths of their faith.
The USCCB is right that Christians need to engage in dialogue through new social media. I'd argue that the church catholic needs a whole lot of avenues for ongoing conversations right now and as far as I can see into the future not just about news but about scripture, prayer, and Christian vocation in daily life.
We're living in a pre-Christian age in many nations. We are wise to strengthen our understanding of God's Word and our own traditions by listening to one another and having continued conversations seeking to better know Christ through faith.
pax
John
Campion,
After seeing your replies, I didn’t feel any need to reply. You provided some clarifications on your points, offered thanks, and said you would take everyone’s comments to prayer. To me, the issue was closed. Then Reginaldus piles on with his post addressed to Kate, me, and “others who did not like this post…” which spun me up and started an internal debate on whether to reply or not. Since you are reading this, you obviously know how the debate ended. I won’t address Reginaldus in this reply, but will save it for its own post. Please don’t feel like you need to prepare for battle in reading what follows; I’m only attempting to clarify what I wrote in my initial reply.
I realize that you may not have intended to “come off as arrogant or setting up the New Theological Movement on a utopian blog pedestal.” In my opening paragraph, I said, “You are, whether intentionally or not….” In my closing paragraph, I reiterated that point: “Like I said, you may not have intended it to come off that way, but that was the feel I got from this post.” I did, however, accuse you of “setting yourself, and by extension your blog, as having transcended” other blogs. In my mind, my comments were more focused on my impression of your post and not on your intent; I’m not in any position to comment on your intent. I can, however, offer my opinion/impression of your post based on your open invitation to have people disagree with you. Does that seem like I’m parsing words? Probably so. However, there seems to be a lot of that going on around here (more below).
I get that you were trying to include yourself in this reflection, but it didn’t really work as well as it could and I’ll tell you two reasons why I think that way. First, you, along with rest of the of the contributors at NTM, have elected to go in a very specific direction with your blog and it is spelled out quite clearly in your “about” section. I know when I come here that I’m not going to find some “saint of the day” post or a “Jesus is like Buddha” post, or anything silly like that. And why would I expect that from a bunch of guys with advanced degrees in theology? I wouldn’t. The potential problem I see with the attempt to include yourself in the fray of other Catholic bloggers is that your blog isn’t like everyone else’s, not even close. It’s a rare, good thing and anyone that spends more than five minutes on it knows that. Yesterday I said, your blog is “extremely well done (an obvious labor of love).” Your blog attempts to “positively propose our faith to others in a coherent and synthetic manner as the great doctors and Saints of the Church” because that is what you have decided to do. Other Catholic bloggers, who read this post, are left to wonder if they are guilty of “navel gazing” because their blog doesn’t read like yours. They don’t quote the Summa or the Patristic Fathers, but offer their faith to their readers in a way that makes sense to them. For example, a couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog post that dealt in part with Aquinas' and a theory of “Just Price" (II-II Q. 77 Art. 1); however, I worked it in with a story about my wife and I shopping for carpet. It’s probably not NTM material, but it works for me and for a lot of people that read it.
Continued...
Part 2 of 2.
Secondly, and I’m offering you this as an analogy from just some of things I learned from my vocation as a husband: you can’t say you’re sorry while pointing out the other person’s faults. The other person is not going to hear the apology. I also learned that if I want my wife to know when I was sincerely speaking about my feelings to start sentences with the pronoun “I.” I’ll try to apply these lessons to this situation. You rage on about what is wrong with Catholic blogging for several paragraphs and the only reference to how this applies to you is to end one sentence with, “…and as a result, me” and throw in a couple "we Christians." It has the effect of saying, “I’m sorry, but you are wrong too!” That’s not much of an apology. Your post did not read like a reflection or have the conviction of one because you didn’t talk about you and your feelings. If you rewrote this post, speaking from your heart, about how you are tempted to spend too much time “navel gazing,” or reading blogs instead of scripture, then people would be left wondering, “Do I do that?” The way it is currently put together, your “reflection” gets lost behind, what some interpret, as finger pointing. I hope my analogy is clear. My apologies if it is not.
Lastly, I’ll concede to the ever so slight distinction between “fearing that something may become or could become the case” and an actual accusation. It’s a real parsing of words, I think. To those well versed in Thomism that distinction may appear quite clear; however, I think it would be lost on most. Case in point: blogging has been around a long time. Do you think the potential for some Catholics to develop the depth of a dime has been actualized? I’m sure we can agree it has. And if it has, what happens if I’m the one who has the depth of a dime and I’ve read your blog? How am I suppose to feel when a fellow Catholic, a transitional deacon, someone that is going to be a priest and hear confessions, believes that because of excessive blog reading I have become someone who only has the depth of a dime. What will you say in the confessional if someone comes to you and says, "forgive me Father, I skipped Mass yesterday but I read a lot of Catholic blogs to make up for it." Will you accuse them of having the depth of a dime? I doubt it. So why do it here? The difference, I think, is you are trying to hide behind ambiguity. You say, "I did specifically mention any one" or “I didn’t actually accuse anyone” and that’s true, but the effect of being vague is like using a shotgun instead of a sniper rifle. It hits everyone it is pointed at, in this case – Catholic bloggers and blog readers.
I liked your post and you should have been able to figure as much when I told you to keep up the good work at the end. I hold no ill will towards you or NTM. I’ll keep coming back.
Reginaldus,
I’m not sure what to make of you. I was hoping to find an email option on NTM to avoid posting this because I don’t have any interest in turning this thread into a battleground. However, I feel you were really off base in your comments to me which was really at the core of the internal “debate” I mentioned in my reply to Campion. Your address to “other readers who did not like this post” is sort of vague and safe, like Campion’s post, but unlike Campion, you do make a point of calling Kate and I out by name so that is the only reason I’m taking the time to bother to reply to you.
You tell your Campion that his post “could be interpreted as a bit of an attack, it is a bit radical,” but then tell me, 10 minutes later, I’m “over-reacting” for interpreting that way. Well, that is a bit of a double standard. I offered a critique, one that he asked for with his final line: “…so please feel free to disagree with me or set me straight in the comment box!” I basically agreed with his premise, but his approach to the subject was poor.
I addressed Campion’s lack of specificity in my reply to him so I won’t belabor it here. However, I would say that in a sense it would have been more helpful if he had picked on someone. If he wanted it to be a reflection, then he should have picked on himself a little bit more. If it is possible for his post to be interpreted as an attack, a point you concede, then what happens if 10 people reply negatively to it? What about 50? 100? 1000? How many people do you think would be comforted by the reply, “He didn’t attack anyone in particular?” Heck, if he had pointed someone out or truly made it a reflection by talking about himself then it takes the stress off everyone else. Instead he just went after Catholic blogging in general which means Catholic bloggers (and those that read them) may interpret his remarks as being directed towards them. I described this lumping together as the “main issue” I took with his post.
I’m not sure how you can wish for blogging to not be about the “whims of the blog author.” That is blogging’s greatest attribute (and largest flaw). Any person can sit down and write anything they want. Obviously, Campion sat down and wrote about what he was thinking/feeling. I got what he was basically trying to say and I, too, wish that all Catholic blogs were imprimatur ready. They’re not. I tried to succinctly capture that in my first post that I felt his approach could be interpreted badly. It appears I failed in my initial attempt and you feel I attacked him, NTM, or both and felt the need to provide some additional defense. I hope my second, more comprehensive, approach will clarify my position to him.
Finally, and this is my “main issue” with your contribution, I’m not sure how you can claim to be striving forward with “humility” and then throw labels like “arrogant” and “foolish” at me (and Kate). You provided the only attacking I’ve seen in this whole thread. I didn’t see a “promise” of a second installment. Campion said that Summa Contra Gentiles was a “devastating critique” and a “beautiful exposition of the Catholic faith” and that he “would like to take up the first part, a critique, against Catholic Bloggers….” There is no promise, or even a mention, of a second installment. So you misread that and called me “arrogant and foolish.” Go ahead and dissect it if you want to and tell me that you didn’t call me foolish and arrogant but were referring to my final judging of Campion’s intentions as arrogant and foolish; I would fully expect that. However, similar to what I said to Campion, if I said to someone, “You are acting like a jerk” and they take offense, they will likely not be impressed by my careful distinction: “I didn’t say you were a jerk, just that you were acting like one.”
Amen, brother.
I don't know what to make of so-called "Catholic" blogs which consist mainly of angry posts "denouncing" the "errors" of the World and the "heretics" in our Church and doing it without much charity.
Christ said, "Peace I leave you, my peace I give you". I suspect that for some Catholic bloggers, their Catholicism has become an ideology rather than a relationship of love. A few prayers badly said and rushed through doesn't cut it.
And if you go to Mass and pray your rosary every day and spend the rest of the day being angry about the state of the World and the Church, then your prayer has been pretty superficial. Authentic prayer effects certain changes in the Christian - namely: peace, joy, patience (the fruits of the spirit). Where this is lacking, I have to wonder where one's prayer life is at.
When I notice myself getting sucked into the negativity and pessimism, there is one explanation: I have not been praying, or at least praying well.
And when I pray well, I become positive and optimistic - a man of Christian hope and love.
Dear Campion,
Thanks for this. This is the first time I've been on your blog, following a link in a friend's facebook status.
In a similar vein, you might be interested to read this post in a similar vein which I also recently came across (by a very talented, young Canadian theologian):
http://vox-nova.com/2011/01/01/10-comman%e2%80%a6-er-suggestions-for-a-better-catholic-blogosphere-in-2011/
Seems to me that some of the comments on this blog illustrate another potential pitfall of "Catholic blogging"--falling into contentious arguments and apparently lacking even basic charity and good will towards others, i.e., giving others the benefit of the doubt and assuming the best, instead of the worst, in their intentions.
This of course is a symptom of written discussions in general, amplified by the virtual nature of the dialog, and not just Catholics, but I think we should strive to be better, especially the presumably more reflective types who are doing the blogging/commenting.
Campion has a good point.. something I've mused on a lot myself. There is a further danger, once recognizing and avoiding the less laudable temptations of blogging (and related online social activities), namely getting a sense of superiority about this recognition. I don't think Campion falls into that with this post, but I would say we must ever be on our guard against that primal temptation to pride.
Tear me up, now, will ya? ;)
@Christopher,
I have obviously misread or misinterpreted your initial comments -- I took them as a significant personal attack on a very good friend of mine (Campion)...you did present him as setting himself on a lofty perch looking down with disgust on all others [I hope you can see why this would upset me].
However, I see from your latest comments that you had not intended to caricature him to so great an extent as I thought.
What bothered me most about your comments (and Kate's) is that you do not take Campion at his word. You ignore the fact that he included himself and this blog in his critique. Thus, as I see it, you made him to be a liar.
Campion is radical, he is extreme, he is zealous; but he is most certainly not a liar, he most certainly does not set himself on a perch looking down on others [perhaps I have a problem with that, but not Campion].
That is why I said your comments were "over-reaching" and "arrogant" and even "foolish" ...
So, no, I will not "dissect" my statement and say that I was not calling you foolish...I was. I will not try to change the meaning of my earlier comment -- it is clear to all what I meant.
You went too far when you did not take Campion at his word, that is why I responded so harshly.
However, all that being said, I can see that my response was, in fact, too harsh. I can see that you did not mean your critique against Campion's character to be taken so intensely. Indeed, perhaps you did not even fully intend to be attacking Campion's character at all...
Therefore, rather than trying to deny what I have said in my previous comment, rather than trying to change its meaning; instead I offer my apologies for coming on too strong. I did not mean so much to attack you personally, as to defend the character of my friend.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN SO NEGATIVELY in my comment on 5:37pm -- specifically, I should not have said you were arrogant and foolish ... I should have chosen different words.
Regarding whether or not there is a second post coming ... I guess we will have to wait and see, as I read Campion's opening lines, it seems to me that another part is coming...
Finally, regarding your own blog -- I really liked your post about St. Thomas, Just Price, and Carpeting (not to mention family heir-looms). I only glanced through the rest of your blog -- it seems to me to be a very worthy endeavor, contributing nicely to the diversity of the Catholic blogosphere.
Not that my own comments are worth much, certainly my opinion is worth very little -- but for the little it is worth (at most 2 cents and much less than a dime), I very much enjoyed reading that particular post; and it gives me a good opportunity to go back and read the relevant passages of the Summa.
Christopher, I hope that you receive this comment in the spirit with which I write it -- I mean it as an attempt at reconciliation. I know that I can be difficult, I know that my comments can often be too aggressive and biting; please forgive me.
Christmas blessings to you, on this last day of Christmastide!
Great post, I agree with you 100%!
God bless you.
Christopher,
First, I am sorry for anything that I said which was insensitive, sinful or in anyway uncharitable.
I would say, though, that I was not "raging" about other blogs for paragraphs and then including myself in the critique only at the end. I mentioned myself in the first paragraph concerning the critique and I don't think anyone could reasonably take that paragraph to be raging.
Anyway, Christopher, you are right; I need to be more careful with my words and make sure that I am attempting to say the truth in love.
Pax et Bonum!
Reginaldus - On taking people at their word, I really do think your accusations quite unfair and over the top.
It makes me feel that this blog after all is just another of those where personal attacks, rather than attention to the issues, are the norm. And that's why I've dropped it from the blog list on my own blog (to which I had only just added it) for the moment at any rate, notwithstanding some of the useful content here.
When one reads a post one is entitled to read the sub-text as well as the text. After all, how many liberal pieces have we all read that assert error and then say something like "but I'm a committed catholic" - should we take them at their word too?
Frankly the Church has never taken this approach in its approach to the analysis of texts, preferring to parse what is said and what it actually implies.
And I pretty much agree with Christopher on why the piece did in fact imply that this blog was different from all the rest.
There is a basic principle at stake here that is worth considering if you want to avoid being misunderstood: be specific and give examples of exactly what it is that you are addressing. I would suggest that St Thomas' summations of the objections provides a useful model!
Ok Kate, you want specifics...
You mention "personal attacks" ...
In your first comment (Jan 4th, 6:48am) you said that Campion was insincere -- "allegedly including oneself but in practice clearly aimed at some nebulous, unspecified others from the lofty height of one's own theological superiority."
You said that Campion (and his post) are "tiresome".
You implied (though you didn't have the guts to actually say it) that Campion has no tolerance of diversity.
Then you turn around and say that my "accusations" are "unfair" and "over the top" ... all I said was that you are arrogant (and perhaps foolish)... How is my judgment any harsher than the one you passed on Campion? (at least I said it in two words rather than in numerous innuedos)
I certainly agree that specificity is important...I also think that Campion's first post could have been more specific.
I have (in this comment) been very specific, I have given examples. I hope that you can see clearly why I wrote what I wrote, and also why I am perplexed that you and Christopher can't take what you dish out...
As I have already stated (in my reply to Christopher), I do regret that I used those particular words (especially "foolish"), since I think that they were too harsh. For that I am truly sorry. I could have made the same point without such strong language.
By the way, I took a look at your "Saints will arise" blog -- it is very very good! I will start looking at it regularly.
Though I am diocesan, I have a great devotion to the Benedictine Office (and I am very sad that we diocesans are not allowed to pray it ... since the 1961 Roman Breviary is a sorry substitute for the Breviary of Trent, which is closer to Benedict's Office).
Blessings to you!
Reginaldus – Firstly, glad you like my blog.
But on your specific examples, they are in fact not ‘ad hominems’ but ad argumendum, going to the substance of what is being said in the post.
My comment was not that Campion was tiresome for example, but that the post fell into what I consider to be a rather tiresome genre of very generalized attacks on blogdom (a term I prefer in referring to the subset of the blogosphere that claims Christian objectives), albeit one that usually comes from non-bloggers.
Campion suggested that most blogs ‘have the depth of a dime’, pointing to reporting of the latest “News” or the finer points of liturgical praxis and history as possible danger areas. Areas your own blog explicitly stays away from in the main, consistent with its stated focus on considered theological content.
In this light, Campion’s inclusion of himself in the critique came off to me at least (and evidently to some others) as something of a fig leaf, and yes, intolerant of a certain style of (other) blog.
Now it would be easy to prove me wrong – by for example showing your solidarity with other bloggers and including a list of blogs you regularly read or recommend, as most of us do.
I’m certainly not suggesting that all blogs, or even most, are worth reading regularly. There are certain problems with many and I suspect from his oblique references I would actually largely agree with Campion on a list of the problem type of posts.
And I don’t disagree with the need for a renewed effort to making blogdom better.
But I do think most bloggers are motivated by the right reasons, and do on the whole make a positive contribution, and it is better to show solidarity with them and make concrete suggestions for improvement rather than contribute to the (hopefully dying) anti-blogdom in general genre.
And I commend this post to you on this subject:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/04/blogging-news-for-low-week.html
and the links to it.
Kate,
Thank you for joining in the discussion...I don't suppose that we are going to see eye to eye on the issue of what blogs ought to be doing. I will admit that I probably have too high of standards for blogs (in regards to theological precision).
In any case, I truly do hope that you feel welcome to read and contribute here at NTM. I can see that you are indeed sincere and that you did not mean your comment as an ad hominem attack against Campion -- this is why I reacted a bit too strongly, Campion is a good friend of mine and I don't take too kindly to those who accuse him of insincerity. However, I see that this was not your intent.
Yes, there is no doubt about it -- there is great room for diversity among Catholic blogs.
In regards to your "Saints will arise" blog, I am adding it to my regular bookmarks (which are very few, as I only read two or three blogs). You are providing a great service by expounding upon the traditional Benedictine Office...your post on Holy Family, for example, was quite enlightening to me. I hope to consult your blog somewhat regularly.
Please do feel free to continue to comment here at NTM...and know that I do not mean any of my comments as a personal attack, I hope to seek the truth above all else.
Peace and blessings to you in Christ!
Post a Comment
If you want your comment to be published: Use a name or pseudonym, and keep it short (generally, less than 100 words), to the point, and civil.
All comments must be approved by a blog-administrator. If your comment is deleted, please don't take it personally.