Res et Explicatio for AD 9-7-2009

Monday, September 7, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Buckle Up! Because here are today’s Top Picks in the world of Catholicism:

1. Sadly most of us will miss the Catholic Report blog run by Dave Hartline.  Due to pleasant new circumstances of a new member of the family, Dave will be rolling back some of his extra-curricular activities to attend to his growing family.  In addition Dave will be the newest contributor to the American Catholic website and joining our family of writers.

2. Since First Things began gobbling up good bloggers such as Spengler, Wesley J. Smith, and Elizabeth Scalia and adding writers such as the American Catholic’s own Christopher Blosser, Jay Anderson, and Joseph Bottum under the First Thoughts blog, their website has gotten a WHOLE lot better.  Many interesting stories and newsbites all neatly marketed in a spiffy new look.

I suggest you all check it out here.

Continue reading...

One Response to Res et Explicatio for AD 9-7-2009

Res et Explicatio for AD 8-7-2009

Friday, August 7, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Buckle Up! Because here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York commended President Obama and the Democratic Party efforts inArchbishopDolan reforming Health Care.  He said this during the Knights of Columbus Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.  But his Grace gave this caveat that if reform…

“…leads to the destruction of life, then we say it’s no longer health care at all – it’s unhealthy care and we can’t be part of that.”

To accentuate this sentiment and as a warning to well meaning Catholics, Cardinal Levada explained that those that want to reform health care at any cost:

“[W]e do not build heaven on earth, we simply prepare the site to welcome the new Jerusalem which comes from God.”

2. Catholic convert Joe Eszterhas of Hollywood screenwriting fame, will be writing the screenplay for a movie aboutVirgen of Guadelupethe Virgin of Guadalupe.  Though no director nor a green light has been given on the go ahead of this movie project, the fact that Joe Eszterhas is writing the screenplay is newsworthy in itself because of the author himself is enough to get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Continue reading...

One Response to Res et Explicatio for AD 8-7-2009

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 4-22-2009

Wednesday, April 22, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. The HOT rumor of the day is that “Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, is in Washington today (Tuesday) for an unannounced meeting at the White House.”

Is he personally visiting with President Obama to offer his sincere apologies for rescinding the invitation to speak at the commencement?  Rescind the honorary law degree?  Ask for a job after he gets fired?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Phil Lawler of Catholic World News received a report from a reliable source of Fr. Jenkin’s unannounced visit to the White House and they cannot confirm this report yet.

In other news, this past Monday Fr. Jenkins expressed his profound pride in honoring the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.

2. Have you seen Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s updated and revised blog?  It is awesome!

3. Even though the 2012 U.S. presidential elections are three years away we can dream and speculate who we would like to run for office between either a Democratic or Republican candidate (or even a legitimate third party candidate).  One name that has become quite intriguing to me is the former U.S. Representative from Georgia, Newt Gingrich.  His mea culpa of his previous marriages, his incredible intellect, speaking skills, and his recent conversion to our beautiful Catholic faith makes him my favorite for now.

Continue reading...

77 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 4-22-2009

  • Newt Gingrich has a hundred ideas a day, at least three of which are sound! Bright guy but he would be a disaster as a candidate. Too many skeletons, too many bitter ex-wives and a tendency not to be trusted within the party. I could imagine him as a possible veep, but I don’t think he will ever be elected to the top job.

    In regard to Hitler, rumors constantly swirled during the War that he planned to imprison Pius and set up a puppet papacy. Wiser heads in the Third Reich realized this would be a disaster for them, and Hitler in his saner moments agreed, but the risk was real enough at the time. Hitler often spoke of “settling accounts” with the Church after the war, and I could easily imagine him in a moment of high anger deciding not to wait.

  • That is frightening to hear about “settling accounts”. If Hitler had won the war it may have well been one of the darkest periods for the Church since the French Revolution.

  • Because of your excellent points on Mr. Gingrich I still have inadequate information to be completely convinced of his candidacy.

    I’m still distraught over Senator Brownback’s support of Governor Sebelius so I don’t have anyone as of now that I really like.

    I hear from insiders of the Baton Rouge political scene that Governor Jindal so far has ‘mixed reviews’ on his performance, so I’m hesitant to jump on that bandwagon.

    And Governor Palin’s appointment of a pro-choice judge to the Alaska State Supreme Court has made my stomach turn.

  • To answer the question headline of one of the related posts:

    “Should Pope Pius XII Become a Saint?”

    Yes!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler%27s_Pope

  • As Donald said Gingrich is an ideas guy, but he is saddled with too much baggage. This is the land of second chances, but the presidency isn’t a second chance job.

    Tito,

    I’d recommend you do some more research before you let your stomach turn. This non-issue was debunked a while back. Alaska Supreme Court Justices, unlike the US Supreme Court, are not chosen by the executive branch. In Alaska the state Judiciary Council submits nominees to the governor who has to pick one of the nominated individuals. A previous governor fought this requirement and lost. Unless the Alaska state constitution is modified the process will remain as is.

  • In regard to Hitler here are some of his diatribes against the Church contained in his “Table Talk” compiled following the war from notes taken at the time he spoke:

    ‘The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life’s final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then Will the life of the German native be guaranteed once and for all.”

    “The evil that’s gnawing our vitals is our priests, of both creeds. I can’t at present give them the answer they’ve been asking for, but it will cost them nothing to wait. It’s all written down in my big book. The time will come when I’ll settle my account with them, and I’ll go straight to the point.”

    “I don’t know which should be considered the more dangerous: the minister of religion who play-acts at patriotism, or the man who openly opposes the State. The fact remains that it’s their maneuvers that have led me to my decision. They’ve only got to keep at it, they’ll hear from me, all right. I shan’t let myself be hampered by juridical scruples. Only necessity has legal force. In less than ten years from now, things will have quite another look, I can promise them.”

    “We shan’t be able to go on evading the religious problem much longer. If anyone thinks it’s really essential to build the life of human society on a foundation of lies, well, in my estimation, such a society is not worth preserving. If’ on the other hand, one believes that truth is the indispensable foundation, then conscience bids one intervene in the name of truth, and exterminate the lie.”

    “Once the war is over we will put a swift end to the Concordat. It will give me the greatest personal pleasure to point out to the Church all those occasions on which it has broken the terms of it. One need only recall the close cooperation between the Church and the murderers of Heydrich. Catholic priests not only allowed them to hide in a church on the outskirts of Prague, but even allowed them to entrench themselves in the sanctuary of the altar.”

    “The fact that I remain silent in public over Church affairs is not in the least misunderstood by the sly foxes of the Catholic Church, and I am quite sure that a man like the Bishop von Galen knows full well that after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing. And, if he does not succeed in getting himself transferred in the meanwhile to the Collegium Germanium in Rome, he may rest assured that in the balancing of our accounts, no “T” will remain uncrossed, no “I” undotted!”

  • LargeBill,

    Thanks for that bit of information. I was unaware of how Alaska politics works.

    Henry Karlson,

    No personal attacks and insults will be tolerated anymore. You are given your first warning before being placed on moderation.

  • Tito:

    I’m no insider but I do live in Baton Rouge. For my view, Jindal still has a lot of respect for his handling of Gustav as well as telling Obama to keep some of the money and being one of the first to do so.

    However, Louisiana does face a budget deficit (our problem is the oil revenues have gone down, just like Alaska) and there have been cuts, which rarely make one popular. Not to mention he did a pretty poor job in the response to Obama.

  • Michael,

    I do not doubt what you are saying is true. I like Mr. Jindal very much and I have heard many, many good things about him. I am just being cautious in my praise since he is a neophyte.

    I don’t want to get excited about someone with so little experience, especially after watching President Obama create one disaster after another in his “on the job training”.

  • Henry Karlson,

    You are hereby placed on indefinite moderation until you have a change of heart.

    [ed.-in fairness to Henry, I have edited out my accurate adjectives]

  • “Even though the 2012 U.S. presidential elections…”

    2012?

    Isn’t the world supposed to end in 2012?

  • “Henry Karlson…May God help you in your struggles [ed.].”

    Is this the very same Henry Karlson who authored a series on ‘lies’ at the blog Vox Nova?

    [ed.-sorry e., in fairness to Henry, I edited out my accurate adjectives]

  • Phillip et al,

    We’ve received numerous complaints from many of our good readers of the ‘distractions’ that people like Karlson have become to constructive debates and engagement in dialogue.

    The final straw came when we were being accused of tolerating insults and hate speech at the expense of good Catholics and dialogue.

    I have seen across the Catholic blogosphere these same culprits use their political agenda to cloud their Catholic sense of being because of their hate towards orthodoxy in general and Pope Benedict specifically.

    Many, many well meaning Catholics have been patient and charitable in tolerating these malcontents in their comboxes and we here at American Catholic have decided to draw a line in the sand against such hate speech.

    Henry Karlson exemplifies the liberal extremists who disguise themselves as Catholics to push President Obama’s agenda of abortion on demand. [conservative extremists can be just as awful. There is a distinction between liberals and liberal extremists. I count many friends with center-left leanings as good friends and model Catholics that I myself strive to be to follow in their footsteps.]

    The TIDE IS TURNING against them and they know it. Hundreds of seminarians are more orthodox than their predecessors. Orthodox parishes are thriving while the Spirit of Vatican II churches are shrinking in number.

    They know their days are numbered and they are frantically attacking anyone and anything that is bringing the Church closer to Christ.

    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

  • e.,

    Yes. That’s if you follow Mayan paganism.

    In reality what it really means is ‘time will reset itself’. Like when you jump forward in Spring or turn back the clock in the Fall.

    Many people take it to mean something more sinister.

    But we as Catholics do not know the time nor the place of His return.

  • Tito,

    Thanks for the info!

    On the other matter, I’m fairly disappointed at Karlson’s behaviour. I never knew he could sink so low.

  • Now I’m just curious. What did he say?

  • When the world ends is unknown, though if the Saints draft well enough to win the Superbowl this year, it will most certainly end in Feb. 2010. 😉

    Tito:

    This is true, though Jindal does have more experience than Obama (House of Reps for I think 3 years).

    Donald:

    Thanks for the Hitler quotes; they are very chilling and important to keep in mind.

    Joe:

    I just finished that book. It was very convincing that Pius has been unfairly marginalized and should in fact be canonized. I hope that when he is sainted, the calumny against him will subside and he will be honored as a “righteous Gentile.”

  • Perhaps: “Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.”

    Or even just, “Ni!”

  • Darwin,

    Now those are fighting words.

    Tito,

    Okay, just saying ouch.

  • Michael D.,

    I have a soft spot for people like Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, and Bobby Jindal. I love hearing and reading about conversion stories. These stories fill me with inspiration and joy while simultaneously they motivate me to turn closer to God.

    Though they have many flaws I am reminded of Jesus’ mission that he came for these sinners so they may have eternal life. This particular passage is very soothing and I reflect on it right before the consecration during Mass.

    Just awe-inspiring!

  • I know I’ll regret this, but part of me just cannot let this [ed.-your lies will not be tolerated] pass. I would advise Tito Edwards to get a better handle on the term “liberal” [ed.-I said liberal extremist] before he throws it around (hint: it’s not what Limbaugh and Hannity say it is). For the record, Henry Karlson is one of the most conservative people [ed.-I view Catholicism as to whether one adheres to the teachings or as one who does not] I have ever met. He had a deep love of the traditional faith [ed.-in the many insults that Henry has given me through the years, not once has he ever mentioned his love of Catholicism, Jesus, or the Church], and he has described himself as a monarchist. He does not fit in well with the American political debate, because both sides in that partisan divide are heavily influenced by liberalism (and that includes your hero, Mr. Gingrich [ed.-I said I favor him. Much different than hero. Another lie from a Vox Nova contributor, par for the course]).

    Liberalism as manifested in politics neatly always boils down to the individual over the community, the focus on individual rights over the common good, the satisfaction of individual wants and needs. The US constitution is a deeply liberal document (I’m being descriptive, not pejorative). A second dimension of liberalism is a utopian approach to society, and both sides of the US debate share this zeal, especially when it comes to the role of the US and its institutions.

    On the left, liberalism manifests itself by insisting on the right to satisfy one and all sexual needs, by the right to marry whoever one wishes, by placing one’s rights above those of the unborn, by belief in a that all the ils of society that can be guided by good government.

    On the right, liberalism manifests itself as belief in the virtues of individuals maximizing utility in the free market, as an emphasis on keeping government off one’s back, on the right to own guns without restriction, on the right to consume as much material goods as one wishes regardless of its effect on the planet, and as a belief in the ability of the United States to impose democracy on the world through the barrel of a gun or the door of a torture chamber.

    You need to understand these points. You need to understand that your politics are as liberal as a partisan Democrat, and have the exact same fault lines. But the problem is not really your politics– you are entitled (as are we all) to support who you think will do the least harm in the public square. Your problem is that your political error translates into how you see Catholicism, for you are quick to denounce any who do not share your politics (not your theology) [ed.-I am a Catholic first, political last] as somehow heterodox. Not that I want to get into a [ed.-typical liberal extremist always using vile language to prove a point. Such language will not be tolerated on AC] context, but I would safely bet that the average Vox Nova contributor agrees with the Church far more on the issues than the average contributor over here [ed.-an opinion emanating from a false Catholic such as yourself from Vox Nova, nice]. Your heterodoxy is against Republican party orthodoxy (liberalism of the right), not the faith. You really need to see the sharp difference between your politics and your faith– the former is deeply flawed, while the latter embodies the truth.

  • Henry Karlson exemplifies the liberal extremists who disguise themselves as Catholics to push President Obama’s agenda of abortion on demand.

    I do not think Henry is a liberal extremist, much less someone who is Catholic as a ‘disguise…to push President Obama’s agenda of abortion on demand.’ [ed.-inappropriate comments that do not deal with the posting will be deleted.]

  • Henry Karlson exemplifies the liberal extremists who disguise themselves as Catholics to push President Obama’s agenda of abortion on demand.

    Tito, Lord knows I have my disagreements with Henry, but I would beg to differ with your characterization of him in this manner.

  • A second dimension of liberalism is a utopian approach to society, and both sides of the US debate share this zeal, especially when it comes to the role of the US and its institutions.

    I have never encountered someone so intelligent who is nonetheless so completely ignorant of basic political theory. The idea that classical liberalism is in any way utopian is so wide of the mark that one wonders if you have even read an elementary book on political philosophy. The utopian strain is clearly prevalent in totalitarian systems, all of which are antithetical to classical liberalism and modern American conservatism.

    On the right, liberalism manifests itself as belief in the virtues of individuals maximizing utility in the free market, as an emphasis on keeping government off one’s back, on the right to own guns without restriction, on the right to consume as much material goods as one wishes regardless of its effect on the planet, and as a belief in the ability of the United States to impose democracy on the world through the barrel of a gun or the door of a torture chamber.

    Does this even resemble the actual beliefs of, well, anyone? Liberal or conservative. Also, while it is possible that a fetish for free market economics could have a utopian overtone, it’s sort of difficult to square that particular circle.

    Your problem is that your political error translates into how you see Catholicism, for you are quick to denounce any who do not share your politics (not your theology) as somehow heterodox.

    Unlike say, yourself? BTW, isn’t it curious that you boys at Vox Nova are all so cozy with one Gerald Naus now that he’s not a practicing Catholic but is a practicing leftist. I think your sudden coziness towards that particular individual reveals all too much your own blatant partisanship.

  • Paul:

    There is most certainly a utopian thread within classical liberalism. Locke and Rousseau view their states of nature as utopian (or close enough in Locke’s case). Now to be sure, it is much stronger in communism and fascism, but that is because building off the liberal tradition they came to the notion that science and the right amount of government will lead to an improve of society.

    Indeed, liberalism holds that man is always rational and tends to deny the notion that man is fallen and therefore doomed to imperfection. This failure to emphasize the fallen nature of man made it prone to the utopian direction that its descendants have taken it.

    Furthermore, while I agree that sometimes Naus is treated too sympathetically at VN, it’s not as if the “boys” at Vn (poor Katerina and RCM) never disagree. think it’s true that we have a tendency to downplay the faults of those who disagree with us less-whether they are our friends or usual allies. For more on that, see the McCain love-fest before November in conservative circles.

    Minion:

    I would point out that before Iraq, the other side was just as willing to promote democracy with guns and judging by Obama’s foreign policy that hasn’t changed a whole lot (see Israel, in a situation I know you sympathize with).

  • Labels are problematic over the Internet, for many reasons: as wannabe writers, we like to call attention to ourselves, we “say” things we wouldn’t normally “say” in a different medium, labeling is cheap and easy and we all tend to be lazy, ect.

    That said, I enjoy TAC and hope that our blogs will continue to comment mutually. We should also all leave labeling behind as much as possible – like name-calling, which is also too easy to do – and engage points and substance with counter points and substance.

  • Contrary to popular belief, ‘labels’ aren’t in themselves an injustice; indeed, many times they are a ‘must’.

    It is by such means that we call evil ‘evil’ and good ‘good’.

    The injustice comes in when certain individuals come to call evil ‘good’ and good ‘evil’ or would leave the rather impressionable public believing thus.

  • There is most certainly a utopian thread within classical liberalism. Locke and Rousseau

    I would reject the classification of Rossueau as a classical liberal. If he can labeled thusly, then the term has no meaning. And I have no brief for Locke, but I’m not quite comfortable branding him a utopian. Yes, his state of nature musings were idealistic, but at the same time he acknowledges the imperfections of such a state – after all, what else can justify the social contract other than the very imperfections of such a state?

    Indeed, liberalism holds that man is always rational and tends to deny the notion that man is fallen and therefore doomed to imperfection.

    What then of pretty much all of the Founding Fathers – men like Adams, Madison and Hamilton, in particular – who had a pretty good understanding of the fallen nature of mankind (If men were angels . . .) Unless you deem them to be outside of the classical liberal tradition, then it’s hard to justify that claim.

    That being said, there certainly is a utopian strain in some current of liberal thought, exemplified in the American sense by Thomas Jefferson. That I would not deny, and I’d enjoy the opportunity of hashing this argument out further one day, but perhaps we’ll save that for another day.

    . think it’s true that we have a tendency to downplay the faults of those who disagree with us less-whether they are our friends or usual allies.

    The Closed Cafeteria

  • I have to agree with Paul – ‘utopian’ is a poor choice of word to describe classical liberalism.

    If the state of nature is a utopia, why the need for government? Locke’s state of nature is no where near as chaotic and violent as Hobbes’, but to say it is utopian, I think, is a stretch. Government still comes along to fix the problems of the state of nature, which are ultimately the results of flaws in people and their ‘private judgment’. Perhaps this isn’t an explicit recognition of a fallen nature, but it still seems far from a utopian conception.

    Rousseau on the other hand is not really a liberal; he is more a classical republican following in the tradition of Machiavelli. Republicanism and liberalism might have some overlap, and I think they are co-parents of 19th century socialism, but they’re distinct enough that no one should confuse them.

    Finally, I think MM just mis-spoke; modern liberalism insofar as it has socialist parentage does have a Utopian streak. We do have to make the distinction between modern and classical liberalism.

  • John Henry,

    I do not think Henry is a liberal extremist, much less someone who is Catholic as a ‘disguise…to push President Obama’s agenda of abortion on demand.’ That is a very serious and uncharitable accusation, and, in my opinion, calumnious, particularly since Henry made it quite clear he could not vote for Obama. If a commenter left such an accusation on one of my threads, I would delete it.

    His whole point is to disrupt the discussion on the content of my post.

    Henry K. has failed over and over to show any prudence, charity, or any semblance of practicing his Catholicism. If you have witnessed this then he is an even worse person than I thought. Purposely showing one face while in another instance leading sheep to the slaughter.

    Anymore comments that doesn’t pertain to the original posting will be deleted from here on out.

  • Sorry, got cut off:

    The Closed Cafeteria Gerald was almost literally hounded by the Vox Novaites on a daily basis. Now that Gerald has done a 180, they are eminently more accepting of him. So they’re basically showing by their actions that it is more tolerable to be a heterodox, politically left quasi-Catholic than an orthodox, politically conservative Catholic.

    For more on that, see the McCain love-fest before November in conservative circles.

    Umm, if by “love fest” you mean the “hold your nose and vote for him because he’s better than Obama” thread that ran through such circles, then maybe you have a point.

  • Paul,

    My reasons for placing Henry Karlson on indefinite moderation. His goal as well as his cohorts are to do the same to unwitting Catholics here at AC.

  • We do have to make the distinction between modern and classical liberalism.

    Exactly. And even then I think we have to make distinctions within the world of classical liberalism itself.

  • Tony in regard to your definition of liberal, Tito is correct in regard to modern American usage. In the 19th century sense of the term I am a political liberal. In today’s usage in this country I am a conservative. However, in neither usage am I a statist or a socialist. In terms of economics and the role of the state in the economy that is the true dividing line between most of the contributors of American Catholic and most of the contributors of Vox Nova. The exceptions to this dividing line are not insignificant. For example, Blackadder as a libertarian makes me look Leftist on economic matters, and Joe, who is a contributor to both blogs, is a Distributist I believe. (Please correct me if I am mistaken Joe.) However I think in general the role of the state in society is the general line of division between the Left and the Right in contemporary America.

  • Well its like Robert Bork said, liberalism was a good idea when it was tempered with other ideas and forces that prevented its less desirable tendencies from running amok.

    But then, so was conservatism.

    Now we simply have shrillness.

  • I am a Distributist 🙂

    But more importantly, I just try to follow Catholic social teaching as best I can, regardless of where that puts me on the secular political map.

  • Paul,

    I think you are missing the connections. Liberalism and socialism are intimately related. The Church always tended to condemn both in the same breath – and here I think we can draw a very interesting parallel between Pius IX’s authoritarian hatred of liberalism and its socialist step-sister, and Leo XIII’s condemnation of both from an economic perspective.

    My point remains: both sides of the debate in the United States are deeply grounded in the liberal tradition. There are very few true conservative voices. It’s always been a pet peeve of mine that people use these terms inappropriately. And no, you can’t just lump a bunch of unconnected and often contradictory beliefs together– free market liberalism, huge spending on military, small spending on everything else, nationalism, traditionalist sexual norms, opposition to abortion — and ascribe any consistent political philosophy to it, let alone “conservative”.

  • “I am a Distributist.

    In other words, “Communist”.

  • I think you are missing the connections.

    Yes, MM, please lecture me about the genesis of political thought in America, and the various influences on it. This is just a topic way beyond my pay grade.

  • e., Joe is not a Communist. Joe and I do not see eye to eye on economics, but there is nothing of the Bolshevik about him.

  • Mr. McClarey,

    It’s just I don’t see how distributism, if actually implemented, would not ultimately end up being, in the end, “Communism”.

  • E,

    Seeing as how I don’t believe in a command economy, nationalization of the means of production, or violent class warfare, I’d have to be one strange communist.

    That, or you don’t know what the h**l you’re talking about, once again.

  • “It’s just I don’t see how distributism, if actually implemented, would not ultimately end up being, in the end, “Communism”.”

    How do you define communism?

  • e, I have my doubts how Distributism would work in the real world. However, as Joe has pointed out he disavows the characteristic elements of most Communist movements and I take him at his word.

  • Herr Hargrave,

    Yes, I do not find it (i.e., distributism) exceptionally inviting for the very fact that it will merely result in the same sort of tyrannical coercion by the State not unlike that infamously found in your so dearly beloved Marxist system.

  • John Henry & Christopher Blosser,

    Reflecting on my comments I see my error.

    Henry Karlson exemplifies the liberal extremists who disguise themselves as Catholics to push President Obama’s agenda of abortion on demand.

    Henry isn’t pushing for abortion on demand. I assume he isn’t for that matter.

    What I dislike are his distraction techniques of taking the discussion away from the intent of the post to something frivolous as to what the definition of “is” is (as an example).

    I’m sure he’s quite a decent human being, though he makes it hard for me to see that part of him.

  • Distributism does work in the real world. There are thousands of successful workers, consumers, housing and credit co-ops all over the world. I just think it needs to be spread further.

    It’s the ‘free market’ that no one can seem to agree upon – does it exist, is it an ideal, has it existed? What we’ve only ever had is either command economies, or varying degrees of state-capitalism.

    E,

    I’m not going to let you continue slandering me. Your comments are entirely without foundation, I have never advocated anything close to ‘tyrannical coercion’, I have made it clear more than once that Distributism is a voluntary system.

    If there is some thing I have said that makes you think otherwise, quote it, and we will discuss it.

    If you can’t do that, I’m going to start throwing out the garbage – by that I mean, your posts.

  • What’s interesting about several of the comments above is that Tito went overboard in attacking Henry, and then was immediately criticized himself by several other bloggers here.

    What a sharp contrast from the conduct at Vox Nova, where Michael I. gets away with all kinds of slanderous comments and no one disagrees; where Gerald openly dissents from the Magisterium but no one disagrees (far from it: Henry pretends to believe — but he couldn’t possibly be that dumb — that Gerald’s comments are all faithful to the Church’s teachings); where commenters like Digby and Mark D. and Kurt say even more outrageous things and are never called to account.

  • Joe,

    I must’ve gotten you confused with some petty tyrant who actually wanted to impose this incredibly idealistic Chester-belloc vision on the whole world regardless of what anybody else had to say about it and would compel entire societies and even nations to do so on the simple basis that he knew what was best for them on a grander scale.

  • e,

    That would involve an awful lot of confusion. Joe shows no signs of being a petty tyrant. Still, if we’ve cleared up any confusion, one hopes we can move on.

  • e., not sure how you made that confusion, given Joe’s regular m.o. of proposing, not imposing.

  • I don’t particularly buy Newt’s “conversion”. Lets give it some time to see how it plays out.

    To be blunt I see no one in the field right now that is particularly appealing. I was a Paul supporter, and I don’t see any true “Old Right” guys coming into replace his voice in the Republican field. Its possible Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal or Gary Johnson might run, but a lot depends on the policy direction they advocate.

    I would be more optimistic about Republican chances today if they would renounce Bush foreign policies and return to being the party on non-intervention and diplomacy, as opposed to a party of blind militarism.

  • I would gladly and happily vote for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska if he were to run for President.

  • 1). I agree with MM about the confusions of political labels. The Australians have it correct: the U.S. center-right / libertarian infused economics and Wilsonian adventure-ism that passes for center-right (it’s not; Robert Taft was) should have it’s home in the Liberal Party.

    2). The American Conservative magazine / Pat Buchanan / Steve Sailer / Oakeshott – Scruton ect. is much more in line with what it means to be of the Right. This died more or less in the 70s as liberals upset with Lyndon Johnson’s statist projects – who never left their idealisms behind – came to dominate the political Right (the borderline ant-Semitic stuff from the “paleos” is based in truth – there were and are a lot of very sharp and active Jews who abandoned the Left.

    3). That said, ALL of our discourse and political activity is inescapably under the umbrella of Enlightenment liberalism. There is no other way – it was an earthquake.

  • Whoops – minor typos above. That’s annoying.

    And let it be on record that I have written “I agree with MM”.

    Ha!

    I strongly recommend getting ahold of some Oakeshott and Roger Scruton. The basic idea is that to be of the Right is a temperment, a sentiment against all totality and ideology, against all utopia, and for local community and family as the basic foundations of society. Any harm to these (including industrial capitalism and the “elevation” of markets over society) are to be opposed.

  • e.,
    Yes, I do not find it (i.e., distributism) exceptionally inviting for the very fact that it will merely result in the same sort of tyrannical coercion by the State not unlike that infamously found in your so dearly beloved Marxist system.

    I think the difference is that distributism is more of a free association model, rather than a state coercive model which would make it socialist. While Joe disavows the label socialist, he hasn’t found a state intervention he doesn’t like so, if his political views defined distributism, it would be very close to socialism, but I think that view is flawed.

    Anthony,

    I don’t particularly buy Newt’s “conversion”. Lets give it some time to see how it plays out.

    I see. Do we speak of everyone’s conversion the same way, or just Newt? Do you think he did it for political reasons??? Oh, yes, there’s a strong precedence for conservative Catholics as successful national candidates.

  • Hey Tito,

    I will end this discussion right now about liberalism…

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.htm

  • Bret, the Publisher’s Preface states, By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that “One religion is as good as another.”

    I don’t think that’s how liberalism is being used in the context of this combox.

  • Matt,

    “While Joe disavows the label socialist, he hasn’t found a state intervention he doesn’t like”

    This is another slander. On what do you basis this ridiculous claim? You first brought it up when I merely said I agreed with Obama’s ideas on clean energy and health care. Those are two ‘interventions’.

    Distributism has to do with property ownership. It doesn’t exclude government leadership on issues that affect the entire country. I evaluate each proposed ‘intervention’ on its individual merits.

    I am opposed, for instance, to gun control and a state monopoly on education. I am opposed to attempts to interfere with home schooling. I am opposed to big businesses forcing their way into small communities where they are not welcome. I am opposed to religious communities being forced to tolerate pornography and gay pride parades. These are only a few examples.

    In short I believe communities should be given a much wider range of freedom to determine their own standards, provided they don’t violate actual Constitutional rights of individuals and not made up ones (like the ‘right to privacy’ conjured up by the Blackmum court, or the ‘right to obscenity’ that is falsely derived from the first amendment). And I believe Distributism is the best economic base for a strong community, because it centers economic and political power at the local level and grants more people the opportunity to directly control their own lives, their own political and social environments.

    So I would call myself, in addition to being a Distributist, a communitarian. As for socialism, I stand with the Church: socialists have made some just demands. Yet it isn’t necessary to actually be a socialist to make those demands, and in becoming so, one professes agreement also with many other unjust demands.

    On the other hand, people such as yourself like to tar and feather people whose ideas sound unappealing to you with a negative label that some people will feel bound to reject without ever actually exploring the content of what is being proposed. It’s a cheap, dirty tactic, it smothers rational discourse and it feeds into the stupidity and hysteria of the mob.

  • I mean, Matt, you don’t even know me. I’ve only been here for a few weeks. And yet you have the bloody nerve to say I’ve ‘never met a government intervention’ I didn’t like, as if you’ve known me my whole life?

    Shame on you!

  • Matt,

    Your comments about Joe was unnecessary and in my view, entirely untrue. I personally find the majority of your comments to be condemning and not personable, or charitable in diction. Perhaps, it isn’t intentional. But, if you could, for the sake of civil dialogue, be more charitable toward others and consider your comments before posting, I’m sure everyone would be more appreciative. Thank you.

  • I don’t know a whole lot about Distributism, but from what I do know, it hardly seems communist. It’s more in line with the “conservative” ideals of individuals being self-sufficient instead of depending on someone else to provide them with a paycheck (be that the government or some mega-corporation). In other words, “give them a hand up, not a handout.”

    It’s also more in line with the very Catholic concept of subsidarity — doing things at the lowest level of societal organization that can handle it, e.g. the individual, family, parish, neighborhood, or community.

    I really wish more political conservatives would pick up on the idea of subsidarity. Instead of just constantly hammering on the notion that ALL government and taxes are bad, promote the idea of keeping government and taxation as localized (and as accountable) as possible instead of handing everything off to the state or the feds.

    As for GOP prospects for 2012, well, nobody’s perfect and conservatives had better stop expecting a “perfect” candidate. Beggars can’t be choosers and we’re pretty much beggars right now. Bear in mind, though, than inexperience is a problem that tends to get better with time. The longer Jindal, Palin, et al. stay in office the more experienced they become.

  • S.B.,

    Thank you for pointing the difference.

    Though I disagree that my comments went overboard, I do recognize the charitable correction from my fellow writers and combox buddies and understand to withdraw such comments since others deem them offensive.

    I want AC to be a forum of constructive and if possible positive dialogue on even the most contentious issues.

    Please do not hesitate to email any of us or post a comment in the combox if any one of us have crossed the line.

    Regardless of where anyone stands as a Catholic, we should all treat each other as brothers in Christ. I want AC to be welcome to those that care about helping the poor and the homeless as well as protecting life in all stages of life.

    We are all Catholics first, Americans of whatever political persuasion second.

    Sugar goes much farther than vinegar as they say.

  • I tried posting this on Fr. Longnecker’s website but couldn’t get signed into Word Press to do so, so I’ll summarize it here.

    Basically, Fr. argues that priestly celibacy was easier for men to live with years ago because many good Catholic men saw the life of a priest as being much easier and more secure than that of a married man who would have to support a wife and lots of kids (because they weren’t practicing birth control) and carefully save up to pay for everything the family needed (because it wasn’t as easy to borrow money then). Today, he says, marriage looks like a much better life because women work outside the home, most couples only have two kids, and they can own two cars, a house in the suburbs, and pay for everything on their credit cards.

    All that is true but I wanted to add some further observations.

    In those days (early Baby Boom era) just about any able-bodied man who was able to read and write (and even some who couldn’t) could usually find a manufacturing job at pretty good wages, and count on it to be there until he retired, at which point he could expect at least a small pension to live on. In many communities in the Midwest and Northeast such jobs were readily available, and men didn’t have to move out of town or very far away to find them. (I used to live in one such town in northern Illinois that had a large clock factory, which closed in the early 1980s, throwing the local economy into a tailspin that lasted well into the next decade.)

    Plus he could expect to have dinner on the table every night, and count on his wife to handle nearly all the details of child-rearing. A high school diploma was generally all that was needed to get a decent job; there was no need to go into debt for years or decades to get a college or professional degree. He could also continue to live near his parents, brothers, sisters, etc. and his children would grow up in close contact with them.

    Today any man who expects to be the sole support of a large family would pretty much have to obtain a college degree in a highly paid professional or technical field (incurring lots of debt in the process, unless he did a stint in the military first to get GI Bill benefits) and then, perhaps, move to a part of the country where his skills are needed (e.g. Silicon Valley), away from his family of origin (no siblings, grandparents, aunts or uncles around to help babysit the kids).

    And even after all that, he would have no confidence that his job would not disappear after the next boom-bust cycle, nor can he count on any kind of retirement security. Plus, he has to be prepared to pay his children’s way through college if they are to have any kind of decent living. And, since his wife works they have to worry more about finding decent child care and supervising their kids’ after school activities.

    So when you add it all up, I’m not so sure that marriage is an “easier” choice today.

  • Paul,

    Yes, I know your Ph.D topic was on early American political philosopy, and I am most assuredly not getting into that debate with you! However, you miss the big picture, the sense that what calls itself American conservatism is deeply deeply liberal. It is the same way that many constitutional legal experts (many of them brilliant) are mired so deeply in legal positivism that they miss the bigger natural law picture.

  • ou miss the big picture, the sense that what calls itself American conservatism is deeply deeply liberal.

    Actually, no, I haven’t denied that American conservatism is the stepchild in some ways of classical liberalism. In fact, I cherish the fact that conservatives are greater expositors of true liberalism than the people that we call liberal today – so, we actually agree to a point on this issue. My point of departure is your classification of classical liberalism as a utopian political ideology.

  • …the sense that what calls itself American conservatism is deeply deeply liberal.

    Umm, I think everyone gets that. However, we also understand there are contexts in which terms are used (as someone above pointed out). MM, you continually use the terms left and right. We give you enough credit to assume that you’re railing against the right, it’s not because you think they’re sympathetic to French monarchy or sitting on the right side of the National Constituent Assembly. Wouldn’t you think I looked either ignorant or like a condescending ass if I complained every time someone used the terms left and right outside of the context of the French Revolution?

  • Sorry for using a little hyperbole to illustrate why e. is confused about distributism, frankly I think a lot of people are a little hypersensitive.

    To be totally direct without any ‘license’. I have not ON THIS BLOG seen a discussion with Joe in which he did not defend government intervention into the economy which could be considered a socialist policy. If I have missed one, then please post it and I will stand corrected.

    My point is that distributism is not communism or socialism because it is not controlled by the state. The confusion comes because of what I stated above, we hear that distributism is good in the same breath as endorsement of government control of the economy and it’s easy to conclude that distributism is that… it is not.

    Joe: why not make some more posts on distributism as endorsed by champions like Chesterton and Belloc? This might alleviate the confusion, and further your cause.

  • Well, you have not see me on this blog argue once against government intervention policies, so I suppose there isn’t capitalist policy, I do like?

    I’m sure you see the point. Simply because I haven’t done so, doesn’t mean I despise every stripe of capitalism. Same case here. Though, I’d suggest two things: Either read up personally on distributism, ask Joe what he thinks of ‘this’ or ‘that’ idea you encounter. Or, surely, as Joe might, ask him to post on distributism (as you have done) and maybe he can clarify some things for you.

    Thanks Matt.

  • Eric,
    Well, you have not see me on this blog argue once against government intervention policies, so I suppose there isn’t capitalist policy, I do like?

    nor did I suggest this about Joe.

    I’m sure you see the point. Simply because I haven’t done so, doesn’t mean I despise every stripe of capitalism.

    Nor did I suggest this about Joe.

    I’m sure you see MY point, if the biggest defender of distributism is seen as a big defender of government intervention in economy, that some readers may get the mistaken notion that distributism is like socialism. I’m suggesting that that this conflation be disavowed.

    Same case here. Though, I’d suggest two things: Either read up personally on distributism, ask Joe what he thinks of ‘this’ or ‘that’ idea you encounter. Or, surely, as Joe might, ask him to post on distributism (as you have done) and maybe he can clarify some things for you.

    I have read about distributism thank you very much, I am well aware of it and that it is a morally good economic system and that it is not socialist or communist in it’s nature. I am not a huge proponent of it on a wide scale because I don’t really see how it could be implemented without massive personal conversions, I’d be delighted to hear and discuss more about how it could be done in the current milieu, I’ve suggested this before on this blog and again today.

  • “I see. Do we speak of everyone’s conversion the same way, or just Newt? Do you think he did it for political reasons??? Oh, yes, there’s a strong precedence for conservative Catholics as successful national candidates.”

    Matt,

    I certainly do not profess an ability to peer into any man’s soul. However, its worth noting Tony Blair made the leap and it hasn’t amounted to much. There were rumblings of a W. Bush conversion.

    My concern is mainly with Newt’s own rocky track record in Congress and as Speaker of the House. He comes from a brand of Republicanism that loves the State. He seems to try and waffle between constitutional convictions and political trendiness. In short, I don’t really know what to think of him.

    If I had to guess, he would have appealing rhetoric during a presidential run and then promptly keep this fat American Empire on its destructive trajectory once in office.

    How does it relate to his conversion? It doesn’t, and thats precisely the problem. I would expect a lot from a constitutionally conservative, Catholic president and I don’t think Newt’s really up to the burden.

  • Anthony,

    I certainly do not profess an ability to peer into any man’s soul. However, its worth noting Tony Blair made the leap and it hasn’t amounted to much.

    That’s a fair point, but there’s a big difference between Blair and Newt. So far as government policy is concerned, there is little that Newt is obliged to reform in order to be consistent with the Catholic faith, while perhaps in some case it ought to.

    There were rumblings of a W. Bush conversion.

    I’ve heard this too, and I would say the same as I did about Newt.

    My concern is mainly with Newt’s own rocky track record in Congress and as Speaker of the House. He comes from a brand of Republicanism that loves the State. He seems to try and waffle between constitutional convictions and political trendiness. In short, I don’t really know what to think of him.

    I would suggest his conversion to Catholicism should not change your healthy skepticism.

    If I had to guess, he would have appealing rhetoric during a presidential run

    I really doubt it would be all that popular of a move, especially among the evangelical base of the GOP. While they might be comfortable with a Catholic, it seems less likely they would really want one who was a recent defector from their own denomination.

    and then promptly keep this fat American Empire on its destructive trajectory once in office.

    How does it relate to his conversion? It doesn’t, and thats precisely the problem. I would expect a lot from a constitutionally conservative, Catholic president and I don’t think Newt’s really up to the burden.

    You’re right on this. I guess my main point is we need to carefully separate his faith conversion from any political expectations.

  • Joe & Matt:

    Yeah, right.

    This highly noble system of distributism of which you speak could never ultimately end up being an even distribution of property by force of law.

    Far be it for me to consider Chesterton’s ideas in this regard romantic (let alone, extremist) when, in fact, they are achievable and, what’s more, without any such coercion by the State.

  • GK Chesterton:“That economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists, roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.”

    I’m not sure that what Chesterton describes is accurate to the current situation here in the US. Small business ownership and stock ownership directly or via mutual funds held in 401k’s and pensions is incredibly broad here. While there is much wealth concentrated in a relatively small group, there is massive opportunity for independence here, far more so than any place.

    Derived from: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

    20% of US workers own their own business, or are employed at a firm with less than 5 workers.

    45% of US workers own their own business, or are at a firm with less than 100 workers.

    42% of US workers are employed at firms with more than 500 workers

    Keep in mind that many of those in the latter category are completely free and capable of becoming small business owners but find the safety of corporate life preferable however many of them do, including me.

    It would be interesting merge this with a study of stock ownership by those employed, as it would further move the “concentration” down.

    I don’t think there’s any of the more conservative poster’s here that would argue that more small business and more broadly distributed ownership of enterprise would be a good thing. We are the ones advocating for measures which have shown or can reasonably be demonstrated to aid people in building their own business or becoming owners of shares.

    To me, the change to broader ownership can only be done through coaxing, and leadership, not through coercion. Frankly much of it can be accomplished from the ground up, and I think you’ll find that within the conservative movement it largely has…Go Joe the Plumber!

    It’s actually my theory that preferential treatment by government is part of the reason that ownership concentrates in large corporations as much as it does. The complexity of government regulation makes economies of scale more significant than they ought to. Last summer’s law requiring testing of virtually every product intended for children is in the process of destroying virtually every small manufacturer in that market.

  • Matt,

    What government interventions or what have you have been proposed, that I agree with?

    I can only recall TWO things that I’ve said I agree with, when did the rest of this happen?

    Do you think I’m lying when I pointed out in an earlier post, right here on this thread, all of the government interventions I don’t agree with?

    You don’t seem to understand that the issue of Distributism is separate from the issue of government regulation. If we had an economy based on workers cooperatives, if the majority of firms were structured in just the way I think they ought to be, even then I would STILL be for government regulation and oversight. Why?

    First of all, because I’m a Catholic and I believe, as Pope Pius XI wrote, that the economy must be ordered and guided by an effective principle – an ethical principle, the common good. The economy exists to serve man and not the other way around. Government regulation of the economy is completely and wholly endorsed by CST and does not negate the principles of Distributism.

    Meanwhile economic liberalism – the idea that the economy should not be regulated, that each individual has unlimited economic freedom, that their cumulative efforts over time will generate the best economic result – has been unambiguously, clearly, condemned.

    The key as always is finding a balance – between economic anarchy and command economies. The most powerful economies the world has ever seen have existed because of extensive private-public collaboration. This ‘free market’ doesn’t even exist, it never has existed. We know that because its most ardent defenders, whenever markets are blamed for any problem, immediately step forward and declare, ‘that’s not the free market’. Ok, so where is it? What does it do? Nowhere and nothing.

    For me the choices are not ‘free market’ versus distributism, but rather economic oligarchy in a state-capitalist framework, or economic democracy in a distributist framework. The ‘free market’ isn’t an option, a totally deregulated economy isn’t an option and most of us do not proceed on the naive assumption that it is.

  • Pingback: Res & Explicatio for A.D. 4-29-2009 « The American Catholic

Google's Top 25 Catholic Websites

Monday, April 20, AD 2009

John Henry and myself are a bit of stats geeks and we’ve been trying to figure out the most accurate way to gauge the number of visits American Catholic has been receiving by our readers.  We use WordPress, Sitemeter, and Feedburner to see how we fare and I’ve entertained the possibility of using StatCounter to add to our curious habit.  Then John Henry mentioned Google Reader and how it keeps tabs of the number of subscribers each website and blog has.  That gave me the idea to add all of my favorite Catholic websites and see which ones have the most subscribers!

Now before you go and see who ranks where keep in mind that Google Reader only keeps track of Google account holders that add websites and/or blogs to their reader.  It doesn’t keep track of how many times a site is visited and not all websites such as the Vatican (and yes even a couple of blogs such as Catholic Report) don’t even offer an RSS or Atom feed to subscribe to.  If it’s any consolation Google Reader seems to be the most popular reader out there with Bloglines a close second.

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Google's Top 25 Catholic Websites

  • Pretty impressive.

    Speaking of google reader, I’m curious as to why some TAC posts are syndicated in their entirety on Google Reader, while others just publish an excerpt. Do each of you set your own syndication preferences for your posts?

    For the record, I like seeing the whole thing post.

  • Paul,

    That’s interesting that each author has a different length in syndication.

    I’ll have to look into that to see why.

    Thanks for the input!

  • Hmmmmm. Interesting methodology.

  • Google Reader only allows for subscribers to be measured. It doesn’t measure the number of visits.

    If I had the time on my hands and if all Catholic websites used Sitemeter or StatCounter, I would keep track of these visits but it would be a bear!

  • Looks like all the recent posts are being syndicated in full, so there may have been a blog-wide change.

  • We work fast!

    Or at least one of the other guys here at AC. ;~)

  • I’m not sure the Google reader subscriber numbers above are accurate; for instance, the Curt Jester has around 1,600 subscribers when I look at Google Reader.

  • What Michael I was pointing out is that the title of the post is itself dishonest. It doesn’t look at all the possible Catholic blogs, and use that to determine which are the 25 top ones (whatever source one uses to get the stats, though as John Henry points out, something is wrong here with the stats). What is dishonest is saying “Top 25” when what one means is “Top 25 of my favorites” which is not the same as “Top 25.”

  • As much as I love seeing AmP #2, in fairness I see:

    WDTPRS – 2,125 subscribers
    Whispers in the Loggia – 2,099 subscribers

    So you definitely need to check the rest of your stats too. :-/

  • EWTN, New Advent, and American Papist are correct; but WDTPRS has 2,125 subscribers;

    CCC and TAC are fine, Jimmy Akin should be 166; Conversion Diary should be 897; Whispers should be 2,099; Holy Smoke should be 221; Inside Catholic 147;

    And Henry’s point is correct; it’s not really a Top 25, because it doesn’t include all the Catholic blogs. This is more of a ranking of favorites as it’s currently set up.

  • Yeah, I was wondering when I didn’t see Vox Nova in the top 25.

  • Yeah, I was wondering when I didn’t see Vox Nova in the top 25.

    Are you surprised he didn’t include it, though? 😉

    Also interesting that Tito’s personal blog is somehow #19 (er — the second #18 out of five 18’s?) on the “top 25 Catholic blogs.”

    In short, nothing to see here.

  • I’m not much of one to put stock in these “top blogs” and “blog awards.” I think they tend toward vanity myself.

  • “I think they tend toward vanity myself.”

    Vanity?

    With numbers as low as these, even as regarding the top members in the list, I would hardly call these stats as actually being something to be particularly proud of considering the number of sites that comparatively enjoy exponentially more visitations.

    Pride such as that does not tend toward vanity but, more likely, lunacy.

  • ‘Interesting’ are the blogs that self-advertise on site for your vote…

  • As far as the total number of subscribers, it is a rolling average over a 30 day period. Which may explain why the numbers may not match up.

    I explained why I called it a top-25, so no, John Henry and Henry K. are completely and categorically wrong.

    It is the top 25 subscribers over a 30 day average.

    As far as Policraticus (a.k.a. the notorious Michael Deem), Henry K., and Michael I. are concerned, Vox Nova isn’t a Catholic blog. When you have three bloggers who voted for the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the United States and a fourth who is pro-abortion, then well their actions speak for themselves.

  • What source are you using for the thirty-day average?

  • Still far from perfect, and it would be a challenge to compile, but the technorati.com stats would be a better measure of a blog’s popularity (or more importantly, it’s credibility on a peer review basis).

    Of course there’s always the challenge of identifying what is a Catholic site. I can envision disputes over sites like Call to Action, Catholics for Free Choice, Catholics United and its front groups, etc.

    And as a refresh just bore out, that latter problem already surfaced. I think it’s best to go by self-identified as Catholic.

  • “Vox Nova isn’t a Catholic blog.”

    Given the extent of its content (and, in particular, its unyielding political support for a visciously pro-abort political figure), I hardly think not.

    In spite of a Catholic’s political leanings, I should think that one would nevertheless adhere to the moral principles as contained in traditional Catholic teaching, such as that regarding Life itself.

    To completely disregard this simply because of one’s political affiliations or leftest leanings merely testify to the apparent moral contradictions within the character of such individuals, that more likely than not would yield to the teachings of this world as opposed to that of Our Saviour Himself.

    The Defense of Life is nothing in comparison to the Defense of Moloch, from whom all good things come!

  • Still far from perfect, and it would be a challenge to compile, but the technorati.com stats would be a better measure of a blog’s popularity (or more importantly, it’s credibility on a peer review basis).

    Agreed. The google reader stats that Tito has seem to vary widely from what I see (not sure why), so Technorati may be a better source. And Poli’s right, of course, that rankings can be viewed primarily as about vanity (vanity of vanities, all things are…), although I’ve come across some good blogs via rankings.

    I think it’s best to go by self-identified as Catholic.

    Agreed.

  • John Henry et al,

    In Google Reader, click on the Navigation button. A drop-down menu will appear with a list of menu options separated into three modules (or boxes). In the first module (or box) you will see a menu option for trends. Click on trends and you will get something similar to the screen shot above. You will see two columns labeled Reading trends and Subscription trends. If you look on the right hand side where it says Subscription trends, there are three tabs under Subscription trends labeled Frequently Updated, Inactive, and Most obscure. Click on Most obscure. At the bottom of most obscure you can filter the top 10, 20, or 40 most obscure. I clicked on 40 and reversed the order. I may have misread what this means, but I interpreted it as over a 30 day average, eachRSS/Atom feed to a different Google Reader is a subscription.

    I will admit that I may have misread this. If I had, please explain this so I can understand what I’m reading. Outside of sending an email to the Google Reader help desk, I can’t find an explanation of what these labels and tabs mean.

    Thanks!

  • American Papist,

    I agree. There seems to be a variation in the number of subscribers amongst us.

    I’ll do more research, ie, email Google Reader help desk.

    This is far from being exact science.

    Et al,

    As far as ranking what is and is not Catholic it might be best to rank Catholic websites as far as self-identified Catholics.

  • My guess would be that number of subscriptions may be correlated highly to blog age as well as number of readers, which is the only explanation I can dream up for my personal blog showing more subscribers than The American Catholic, even though according to sitemeter visits I only have 20% as much traffic:

    Subscription Subscribers
    Pro Ecclesia 86
    The American Catholic 121
    DarwinCatholic 134
    Vox Nova 153
    Conversion Diary 262
    First Things 851
    American Papist 1,466
    Charlotte was Both 1,466
    WDTPRS? 2,125

    That, and the last time I’d logged into my Google Reader account was before American Catholic existed — which kind of underlines that the number of subscribers doesn’t necessarily tie to total traffic.

    Also, some disconnects on the numbers reported may have to do with different people having different feed addresses in there. I would assume that standard RSS feed and Atom feed (for instance) would both have different subscription counts because Google treats them as separate items.

  • DarwinCatholic,

    Also, some disconnects on the numbers reported may have to do with different people having different feed addresses in there. I would assume that standard RSS feed and Atom feed (for instance) would both have different subscription counts because Google treats them as separate items.

    You may have found the discrepancy. With the exception of one website, I used only RSS feeds. Maybe the RSS and Atom feeds are not counted together but separately.

    Again, this isn’t exact science.

  • Tito my friend you have far more patience with the Usual Suspects than I do!

  • Tito:

    While I strongly disagree with the decision to vote for Obama, the notion that Policratius isn’t Catholic is ridiculous and absurd. I often disagree with him, but there ought to be no question to a reasonable and charitable mind that he is Catholic. Furthermore, your use of his real name when he has chosen to go by a pseduonym is petty.

    Policratius:

    I agree. I hate it when Catholic blogs start begging its readers to go vote for awards.

  • Iafrate:

    Yeah, and you guys let Mark Defranicis troll around on your com-boxes. Both VN and A-C could probably use a stronger com-box policy, but as of right now they play by the same rules.

  • Who would’ve thought that something as innocuous as a topic on the top Catholic websites would’ve turned out to be so amazingly controversial?

    Even more spectacular is the seeming outrage as expressed by the notorious gang of detractors that hail from The Left bend.

    Sad, really.

  • Okay…maybe VN & Ac don’t playby the same rules since the Iafrate comment I responded to magically disappeared int he three seconds I wrote my last comment.

  • Michael Denton & Poli,

    By no means did I say that Poli is not Catholic. If that is how it came across I want to state that their blog, not themselves individually, is not Catholic per se.

    I was saying that Vox Nova isn’t necessarily a Catholic website due to certain contributors that dissent from Catholic teaching.

  • Donald,

    I am working on a project so I may have missed some comments that were derogatory towards me. Thank you for spotting them and rectifying the situation.

    I’ve been quite busy at work these last few weeks and so I haven’t posted anything so as not to distract myself from my work. I thought a seemingly innocuous posting on the top-25 Google Reader subscribers might have been fun and informative. I was even going to add dotCommonweal and Vox Nova, but I forgot to do so (I wanted to add them both since they both have a high number of subscribers and visits in St. blogs).

    Who would have thunk it that I would be attacked so viciously.

    Oh well.

  • I was saying that Vox Nova isn’t necessarily a Catholic website due to certain contributors that dissent from Catholic teaching.

    No, what you said was that VN is not a Catholic website.

  • No problem Tito. I thought the comments of the Catholic Anarchist and Mr. DeFrancisis were way across the line of personal insult. I have unapproved some of their comments, and I have sent Mr. DeFrancisis to moderation where I currently have the Catholic Anarchist.

    Gentlemen, my tolerance level of personal insult by either of you in any thread is now zero. I have received numerous inquiries as to why I tolerate either of you on this blog and I must say I can come up with no good answer. Tread lightly or I will go from moderating your comments to banning you entirely. First and last warning.

  • Donald,

    You continually allow Tito to make bald, uncharitable and false assertions. I call him on his behavior and you disbar my comments, making them seem worse than they actually are.

    Why do you protect Tito? Let him answer for his lack of charity and untruth.

  • Michael I.,

    Splitting hairs.

  • Mr. DeFrancisis you and the Catholic Anarchist have long baited Tito because you know that you can get a rise out of him. That is not the purpose of this blog and it ends today.

  • Mark,

    Those are straw man arguments.

    I made an opinion based on three bloggers who voted for President Obama and a fourth who is pro-abortion (or pro-choice, choose your poison).

    How can someone like Michael I. be lying if he has clearly and proudly been stating he voted for the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States?

  • I’m done responding to both Michael I. and Mr. DeFrancisis today.

    Enjoy the top-25 and the next rankings will include self-identified Catholics so as to end rabbit holes and straw.

  • Michael Denton, thank you for the kind words. To clarify I did not vote for Obama, and neither did the majority of Vox Nova contributors. In fact, the three who did vote for Obama were quite clear of their reasons, disavowing his abortion policies and hoping for a reduction in the number of abortions by way of his social policies. It is quite clear to me retrospectively that these members of Vox Nova made a poor judgment and were not correct in their predictions. But, in light of their clearly expressed reasons and faith commitments, I find nothing in our Catholic tradition to suggest that they are not genuine Catholics or that they committed grave sin.

    Now, I am not interested in getting into a war between blogs, be it over web traffic or who can boast of the best Catholic credentials. As the one who originated Vox Nova, I can testify to the strong Catholic faith of all its contributors, and I use as my gauge the teachings of the Church and participation in her sacramental life.

  • Comments are closed on this thread. I am also not interested in any war between blogs and I will take the steps necessary to eliminate the sources of friction.

  • Pingback: Technorati’s Top 25 Catholic Blogs « The American Catholic

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-30-2009

Monday, March 30, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. Please pray for Father Benedict Groeschel as he suffered a stroke last week.  For the story click here.

2. Jay Anderson is contemplating leaving blogging.  It seems he is being worn down by the grind of writing on politics and religion.  For the story click here.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-30-2009

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-20-2009

Friday, March 20, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1.  Seems like priests and their habits have been ruminating around the blogosphere as of late.  Now Fr. Z has followed up this with insight concerning those for and against this trend.

For the link click here.

2.  Speaking of religious, after enduring the many innovations following the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, vocations have rebounded:

“Nearly 70 percent of Catholic religious communities have seen a jump in vocation inquiries in the past year”

The vast majority of those entering the religious life are tradition-minded adults under the age of 40.

For the link click here.

Continue reading...

One Response to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-20-2009

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-16-2009

Monday, March 16, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. The Indian Catholic is reporting that Pope Benedict’s next encyclical will be on the global meltdown.

The Pope’s message fundamentally will be one of hope… …it will be filled also with truth about how false economic principles and moral ideals can lead mankind toward the abyss…”

For the link click here.

2. Communion in the hand, this recent innovation, is dissected by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf on his blog.  Fr. Z wants us to consider the following:

Consider the lack of care with which many receive, how they move the Host around and handle it.

Consider that often there is a more or less properly prepared EMHC also handling the Host.

Consider the condition of the skin of the palm.

Consider the few seconds after a person transfers the Host from palm to mouth.

Consider that the Host has been in contact not only with the palm, but the fingers of the other hand.

For the link click here.

Continue reading...

44 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-16-2009

  • Speaking of March Madness, congratulations goes out to Vox Nova for making the field of the Top 64 People Destroying our Culture. They meet Linda Ronstandt in the first round.

    And potentially match up against George Clooney or Mariah Carey if they make it to the second round. Who knew that a member of the St. Blogs circle had such pop culture pull?

  • I’ll take George Clooney over Mariah Carey. He should pull it off considering that he has the most Iraq War themed movie failures.

  • Who knew that a member of the St. Blogs circle had such pop culture pull?

    If only they did; I’d take the VN contributors over anyone else on that list as making positive contributions to the culture.

  • Yeah, throwing in VN is a fit of pique.

  • They probably should have said certain bloggers, so as not to paint JonathanJones and BA as part of that bunch.

  • I don’t think it’s a fair rap to accuse anyone on Vox Nova as “destroying the culture”. Honestly, if the differences between our writers and those on Vox Nova were the widest cultural and moral gaps we had in this country, we’d be in a very, very good place.

    But then, I don’t really think Mariah Carey and George Clooney are going to destroy our culture either. So I was just swinging with it as humor.

  • But then, I don’t really think Mariah Carey and George Clooney are going to destroy our culture either. So I was just swinging with it as humor.

    There’s an alternative way of looking at these things too: Without drawing any judgment on who should or shouldn’t be listed, or if a list should even be attempted (though I think this list is meant to be more of a humorous exercise), I’d say that these people are products of our culture more than they are an influence. Enough to make you weep…

  • They probably should have said certain bloggers, so as not to paint JonathanJones and BA as part of that bunch.

    Honestly, there isn’t anyone in ‘that bunch’ that I see as harmful to the culture. At the end of the day, they are practicing Catholics. I’m a practicing Catholic; we agree 90%-95% of the time on issues of significance, and where we disagree I’d generally like to hear more from them rather than less. My main frustration with VN is that unnecessarily antagonistic behavior by some contributors creates an environment in which a clear exchange of views is difficult. To be fair, it’s probably a problem with the architecture of blogs and blog comment sections rather than the contributors much of the time.

  • DC & JH,

    It’s a humorous post by CMR.

    But I’m not going to defend Catholics who deliberately mislead others away from the truth.

    You guys can cut hairs, I’ll stick to the truth.

  • I think the danger of Vox Nova is not their own impact on the culture, as their lack of appropriate response to the culture…. appeasement and permissiveness.

    Concurring with Tito that’s not ALL of them but perhaps most.

    I agree with DC that if the whole range of opinions represented between here and there were the whole range of the culture we really wouldn’t have a serious problem at all (at least not culturally)… unfortunately, the liberal Catholic approach is an enabler of the liberal secular approach.

  • 😉

    Tongue in cheek.

    I have no hair! lol

  • I would have sworn that the explosive issue for this post would have been communion in the hand or communion on the tongue.

  • Matt and Tito,

    You two can and do more to damage Catholic culture in your often faulty and wanting presentation of it in one post than V-N has done in its entire history.

    The examples are aplenty.

    Congratulations.

    Oh, I am saying this tongue in cheek.

  • They probably should have said certain bloggers, so as not to paint JonathanJones and BA as part of that bunch.

    It’s hard work being super cool. 🙂

  • Consider the lack of care with which many receive, how they move the Host around and handle it.

    Consider that often there is a more or less properly prepared EMHC also handling the Host.

    Consider the condition of the skin of the palm.

    Consider the few seconds after a person transfers the Host from palm to mouth.

    Consider that the Host has been in contact not only with the palm, but the fingers of the other hand.

    CONSIDER, THAT JESUS SAID “TAKE AND EAT.”

  • CONSIDER, THAT JESUS SAID “TAKE AND EAT.”

    🙂 That’s a pretty good one!

  • Interesting article here on the reception of communion:http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html.

    Catholic Anarchist, I believe that Christ at the Last Supper was giving communion to a room full of priests.

  • Catholic Anarchist, I believe that Christ at the Last Supper was giving communion to a room full of priests.

    I just don’t get this bizarre thinking. 1) No, Christ did not “give communion to a bunch of priests” at the Last Supper. 2) Are priests’ hands cleaner or holier or what? I don’t know what Tito is doing with his hands that makes his palms something of a threat to the host. What are you people talking about?

  • Communion in mouth recipients remind me of the “look at me, I am holier than thou” crowd…especially whenever they disrupt the flow of the communion line, with their insistence upon kneeling at reception.

  • “No, Christ did not “give communion to a bunch of priests” at the Last Supper.”

    You deny that the apostles were priests? Why am I not surprised.

    Priests hands are consecrated Catholic Anarchist and only priests are able to change the bread and wine into their body and blood. Of course this makes them different in regard to handling the body and blood.

    “with their insistence upon kneeling at reception.”

    Mr. DeFrancisis, when it comes to an efficient flowing of the communion line or allowing someone to pay traditional reverence to the Lord of the Universe, perhaps you could show some Christian charity.

  • Mr. McClarey,

    The current Mass already has its built in many practices to show reverence, as practiced in dioceses all across America.

    The insistence to go beyond the prescribed alternatives in one’s diocese is odd at best, whenever one kneels in cases in which this is not a prescribed option, and clearly works, inadvertantly or not, as a means to disrupt the communio that the Eucharistic sacrifice is to effect.

  • especially whenever they disrupt the flow of the communion line, with their insistence upon kneeling at reception.

    Maybe our expectations of how the communion line should flow (like a drive-through???) are wrong. Maybe if everyone knelt at communion, it wouldn’t feel like the holier than thou crowd is trying to set themselves apart. I don’t have strong feelings about the reception in hand/mouth debate, but sometimes I wish that the faithful could take an infinitessimally longer amount of time to show reverence and recall what is actually happening at that moment. Something about the rushed atmosphere just seems out of place.

  • I think it is a minor disruption at most Mr. DeFrancisis. I do not kneel myself, but I have only respect for those who do. I think the Pope agrees with me, judging from this:

    “Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

    Prot. n. 1322/02/L

    Rome, 1 July 2002

    Your Excellency,

    This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has recently received reports of members of the faithful in your Diocese being refused Holy Communion unless while standing to receive, as opposed to kneeling. The reports state that such a policy has been announced to parishioners. There were possible indications that such a phenomenon might be somewhat more widespread in the Diocese, but the Congregation is unable to verify whether such is the case. This Dicastery is confident that Your Excellency will be in a position to make a more reliable determination of the matter, and these complaints in any event provide an occasion for the Congregation to communicate the manner in which it habitually addresses this matter, with a request that you make this position known to any priests who may be in need of being thus informed.

    The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

    In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

    Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and — if the complaint is verified — that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.

    Thanking Your Excellency for your attention to this matter and relying on your kind collaboration in its regard,

    Sincerely yours in Christ,

    Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez
    Prefect

    +Francesco Pio Tamburrino
    Archbishop Secretary”

  • Michael I/Mark D.

    Did you even click on the link that Tito posted? You are apparently unfamiliar with the FACT that the universal norm in the CATHOLIC Church is that communion is to be received on the tongue. The use of communion in the hand in the modern era was out of DISOBEDIENCE and as a result of a faulty theology. Ultimately, the Holy Father granted an indult for certain places were this illicit practice had developed, in the document granting this, the universal norm was defended despite permitting limited use of the alternate practice.

    Michael, do you adhere solely to Vatican II and Sacred Scripture? You throw out nearly 2000 years of the Church’s development of theology and discipline in favor of antiquarianism, and Vatican IIism. You are PRECISELY the sort that the Holy Father is warning to reform.

    There should be no mistake by any of the moderates here that Michael and Mark’s hostility towards traditional piety and reverence to the Blessed Sacrament is not a matter of personal preference but represents a serious theological flaw. They feel deeply threatened by the Holy Father’s steps towards a reform of the reform… their anger belies a deep fear.

    If Christ Himself in natural form were to stand there at the altar would not EVERY knee bend? Then why would we show any less reverence to His REAL Presence in the Sacrament?

  • Donald,

    Tamburrino? that old relic, why should Mark or Michael listen to him, isn’t he one of those hundred of year old bishops still clinging to the pre-Vatican II Church?

  • “There should be no mistake by any of the moderates here that Michael and Mark’s hostility towards traditional piety and reverence to the Blessed Sacrament is not a matter of personal preference but represents a serious theological flaw. They feel deeply threatened by the Holy Father’s steps towards a reform of the reform… their anger belies a deep fear.”

    Matt,

    I think you may have missed a doasage of your meds, as you are clearly frothing at the mouth in your assinine accusations. They deserve no further response.

  • Mark is right, Matt. You’ve gone over the line in judging our view toward “traditional” piety and in questioning our reverence for the Eucharist. So as Donald, but you, Matt, have become a caricature of yourself and of the supposed “moderates” you claim to represent. You’re a reactionary nut case.

  • Alright that is enough. This is Tito’s thread, but I will delete the next comment that insults anyone.

  • Donald – Have an equal hand, friend. God’s watching. Are you as willing to give witness to “true christian charity” in your dealings with Matt as you are will me?

  • As I stated Catholic Anarchist, I will delete the next insulting comment made.

  • Deleted your last comment Catholic Anarchist. I’m not a policeman, merely one of the posters on this blog who does not wish to see the comboxes devolve into endless, boring flinging of insults. I blog for fun. Reading back and forth insults is not fun.

  • Communion in mouth recipients remind me of the “look at me, I am holier than thou” crowd…especially whenever they disrupt the flow of the communion line, with their insistence upon kneeling at reception.

    Such love expressed here. Rest assured Mark, God knows what’s in our hearts. If people receive Our Lord kneeling because they think they can put themselves above you, the Lord will deal with that. If they’re doing it because they’re humbled in the presence of the Lord and at the thought of receiving this great Gift, I would guess He’s quite okay with it. Really, think about what you’re saying and griping about. I mean, even if a communicant is kneeling for what you consider to be self-righteous motives. How does it really affect you? Why would you want to let something like that disturb you so? And don’t say because you have to spend a few extra minutes in the Communion line, that will sound even worse.

  • Yeah, I get kick out of this. Seeing how the VN bloggers join the other 2% of Catholics who actually follow the Church’s teachings on Sexuality in our daily lives and our commitment to pro-life work and corporal works of mercy, yeah, we are DEFINITELY destroying our Culture. If you mean destroying the American individualism and culture of death, YEP! Guilty as charged and PROUD of it!

  • Rick,

    I am only speaking from personal experience, reflecting back on whenever I received by mouth and occasionally kneeled, in settings in which communion in the hand was the dominant practice.

  • If one did study 2000 years of history and Christian tradition, one would know how common communion by the hand actually was. And one would learn of other odd practices. I am sure Matt would be horrified if he learned about St Macrina and the eucharist.

    The problem is that those who say “it is not just the modern age,” while correct in stating that, ignore the whole 2000 years, when they judge what happens in the modern age. They also act like Martin Luther, who said “Well, the modern age gets it wrong, but let me show you how I read tradition.” No, the Church reads tradition, and we must understand the modern practices in relation to that.

    “IT started as an abuse.” So did many other things Romans do. Shall we mention the filioque?

  • Ok, since I am one-quarter Irish I will give myself a dispensation from abstinence from blogging for St. Patrick’s Day 🙂

    I was about 12 or 13 years old when communion in the hand (as well as face to face confession) started, and accepted it in good faith. I do it to this day simply because it’s what I’m used to, and because I’m kind of self-conscious about subjecting the priest or EM to my potentially virus or halitosis-contaminated breath. Then again, cold viruses allegedly spread faster through your hands than your breath anyway so I guess that argument is a wash.

    I personally feel the most dignified and least potentially disruptive way to show reverence before receiving the Eucharist is to bow slightly from the waist while the person in front of you is receiving. My daughter and I both do this. This shows reverence but doesn’t hold up the line or call attention to oneself.

    My daughter (13 and mildly autistic) always receives on the tongue. When she was going through instruction for First Communion they taught her how to do it both ways and she showed a marked preference for on the tongue, and that is how she does it — perhaps because her manual dexterity leaves something to be desired and she doesn’t want to take the chance of dropping or fumbling with the Host. So there are valid reasons for people to receive both ways.

    I suggest that we approach this the way St. Paul asked the early Christians to approach the question of whether or not to eat meat (purchased in the marketplace) that had been or may have been sacrificed to idols at the time of slaughter.

    St. Paul said that while eating such meat wasn’t wrong in itself (since the false gods to which it had been “sacrificed” really didn’t exist), it was better to refrain from eating such meat in the presence of “weaker brethren” who might be offended or scandalized by it. But he also told the latter group not to be overly judgmental of those whom they saw eating such meat. His point was that he did not want to see the Body of Christ torn apart on an issue that wasn’t a matter of faith or morals, just because one side wanted to prove itself “right.”

    There is also a passage in C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters that applies Paul’s approach to the differences in piety between High and Low Anglicans. Lewis (via Screwtape) says that if Anglicans took that approach, one might see “Low Church” people genuflecting and crossing themselves so their “High” bretheren won’t be tempted to irreverence, and “High Church” people abstaining from those gestures so their “Low” bretheren won’t be tempted to idolatry!

    Imagine a Church in which Catholics who prefer receiving kneeling and on the tongue instead receive standing and in the hand (perhaps offering it up as a penance) because they don’t want to distract or offend their “weaker” brethren — while, at the same time, those who normally receive in the hand decide to make the sacrifice of receiving on the tongue, or kneeling, so as not to offend or tempt to irreverence THEIR “weaker” brethren and sisteren. 🙂 Wouldn’t that be a lot better than bickering about it?

  • Thank you Elaine for your insightful comment. I am glad you gave yourself the “Saint Patrick’s blogging dispensation”. I have always loved the passage you cite from the Screwtape letter.

    My position is not to say that all Catholics should receive communion on the tongue, as I do, and kneeling, which I do not, but that they should be respected when they do so, just as no aspersions should be cast on those Catholics who receive communion in the hand, as my wife does.

    I would note that the norm at papal masses apparently is now kneeling and communion on the tongue, so I believe those Catholics who choose to receive God in that manner are in good company!

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm

    I have a son too who is autistic. Alas, I wish I could I could state his condition was mild, although there is nothing wrong with his manual dexterity. He too receives on the tongue. I am sure he is merely copying his old man, although he very much has a mind of his own on most things. Having him worship by me at Mass has added a great dimension to my own experience of the Mass, and I thank God for it.

  • I only receive on the tongue, mostly because my tradition uses a golden spoon for the distribution of communion, and I am used to it, even when I go to a Roman liturgy. It’s just easier not to get confused and to follow one practice. But again, distribution to the hand is not an abuse (it was when it was not approved discipline, at those times it was not; but before it was an abuse, it was not an abuse, and I think people should remember that, because it points something out about the whole matter).

    Sergius Bulgakov reminds us that Christ’s blood did fall upon the earth, and the tomb shows the ground took his body; as such, if Christ was able to distribute his graces to the earth, we might also use that to reflect upon many of the things being discussed here and now. His idea that the earth itself is the holy grail has all kinds of implications, from ecology to sacramentology and even soteriology; I think a reflection on it would help everyone.

  • “at those times” should have been “at other times times it was not” should have been deleted, but I generally write comments quickly without editing them, and I sometimes don’t delete everything I intended to as I change the way I am saying something.

  • Has anyone here read the document of Paul VI that granted the indult for communion on the hand in certain places? If you are serious about your faith, regardless of your communion practice, you ought to read it.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

    This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

  • Elaine,

    Thank you for your intervention, especially as it has affected me.

    The funny thing is, if we were to return across the board to kneelers and a communion rail at the altar and communion for everyone in such a way, I would be more than happy.

    As it is I actually regret the hodge podge of standing, kneeling, mouth and hand reception that occurs only because of the apparent discord it seems to express.

    And, yes, Donald, your examples prove that this apparent discord may be minor, in comparison to the good that the alternatives serve in individual cases.

    My bad.

  • Pingback: Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-18-2009 « The American Catholic

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-5-2009

Thursday, March 5, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Here we have today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. I discovered today that Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas was the only obstacle that would have prevented the nomination of Pro-Abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius  to be nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  President Barack Obama did not want to nominate Governor Sebelius without the support of Senator Brownback.  President Obama made a personal phone call to Senator Brownback last week to ensure his support, which would have pre-empted any problems with Governor Sebelius nomination in the Senate.  So Senator Brownback had the opportunity to strike a blow for the Pro-Life movement, but instead succumbed to worldly praise of his president.  Senator Brownback you have advanced Satan’s agenda of the increase in the murder of innocent children, shame on you!

Here is the link:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030405.html

2. Late last night His Excellency Most Reverend Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City was quoted by the archdiocesan blog, The Catholic Key Blog, that he is “concerned personally” for Pro-Abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.  He has also said that “she is a very bright and gifted leader“.  Archbishop Naumann has called her nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services “particularly troubling”.  He further goes on explaining the problems associated with her public stance by quoting the great film A Man for All Season, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul, but for Wales?”.

Here is the link: http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/03/archbishop-naumanns-column-on-sebelius.html

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-5-2009

  • 1. Brownback’s support of Sibelius- inexplicable. Inexcusable. Keep in mind. Always.

    2. Bravo Archbishop Naumann. Appears to be job requirement as Archbishop of KC- lay down smack on Sibelius. He does it well.

    3. So which bloody lab coat does Tiller the Killer wear at the confirmation party?>

  • Brownback is eyeing the KS governor’s mansion. With Sebellius in DC, his path is now clearer.

    What profiteth a man, indeed.

    Good news on all the other points.

  • Tito,

    Why don’t you use “et” for “and (&)”?

  • Mark,

    I was thinking of that, so I’ll be using “&” for now, then switch to “et” for next week.

    Good catch buddy.

    Tito

  • Actually, my bad, I think, as the font you chose appears to give an “E” blended with a “t”.

  • Mark,

    I just learned something new today, thanks!

    I went on Wikipedia to confirm what you said and I’m impressed.

    Cool.

  • Still trying to wrap my head around Brownback … American Papist speculates here:

    So what’s going on here? Politics.

    Brownback and Sebelius are home-state rivals from Kansas: she the pro-abortion governor, he one of their two pro-life senators. Speculation has been going for months that in 2010 Sebellius and Brownback could well collide for an elected office: either Sebellius challenging Brownback for his senate seat or Brownback trying to become Kansas governor.

    Brownback, therefore, can be personally relieved that it appears Sebelius will be “kicked upstairs” by this HHS nomination (presuming that all goes well). It saves him two worries.

    But I think it was a wrong move.

  • But I think it was a wrong move.

    Morally wrong, cowardly.

  • Tito,

    My friend, please I know it is hard but cut Senator Brownback a bit of slack, he has done more for the pro-life movement than any other senator I can think of.

    Just because Brownback is a Catholic though, doesn’t mean he can’t be pragmatic. Even the great Thomas More knew that sometimes you have to play politcs and pick your battles.

    No matter what Obama is going to pick a rabid pro-choicer for this spot. Even if Brownback and the whole of the Republican party drew a line in the sand and made this into an epic battle Obama would just keep picking pro-choicers until he got what he wanted.

    As to people implying that Brownback just wants Sibelius out of the way so he can run for gov. She already is out of the way, she is in her final term by the laws of the state of KS. If she didn’t get this cabinet job though she planned to run (and probably win) Brownback’s old seat (as he has pledged to not run again for senate.)

    The fact that Brownback probably will end up as Gov. of KS in 2010 is a very good thing for the pro-life movement in that state but should not be misread as mere oportunism. Trust me, Sam Brownback would not sell his soul to be Gov. of KS.

    What he is doing is being smart and looking down the road, in 2010 do you want KS to have a pro-choice dem senator? The KS seat is one of the few the Republicans can probably hold based on current trajectories. Trust me you don’t want Obama to have a super-majority in the senate.

    Brownback has put it all on the line before for truth and justice, the fact that Catholics are turning on him so quick for this bothers me.

  • FD,

    My friend, please I know it is hard but cut Senator Brownback a bit of slack, he has done more for the pro-life movement than any other senator I can think of.

    he just undid it. We have to be non-partisan here and criticize soundly any politician who support the abortion lobby directly or by providing them cover like Brownback has done.

    Trust me, Sam Brownback would not sell his soul to be Gov. of KS.

    he already has. This IS mere political opportunism.

    Thomos More did not endorse evil, he did at times refuse to speak and condemn evil until the right time, that is NOT what Brownback is doing.

    Of course Obama will get his nominations through (at least the ones who aren’t scofflaws), what you’re missing is that when they get support from conservative Republicans it weakens our ability to oppose their evil policies, it also undermines the Church which is attacking this nomination, to have a Catholic endorse her.

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-4-2009

Wednesday, March 4, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Due to popular acclamation I’m returning back to using Latin in my column title (mostly).  I think I’ve settled on a format so thanks for bearing with me.  I’ve wanted to do this type of column for a while and I believe I found the right balance, now if I can only be consistent in my posting.  So here we have today’s Top Seven Picks in the Catholic world:

1. Catholic News Agency has reported that a coalition of American Catholics calling themselves Catholic Advocate led by Deal W. Hudson have created a website opposing President Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, pro-abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.  The website is called www.catholicsagainstsebelius.org.  Governor Kathleen Sebelius is a dissident Catholic notorious for her direct and explicit support of abortionist George Tiller “the Killer”, whose known for executing late term abortions of innocent children.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has met and counseled Governor Kathleen Sebelius on several occasions on her pro-abortion stance and has asked her to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.  However Governor Kathleen Sebelius has refused to obey and has openly opposed the good archbishop on these points.  Here is the link: http://www.catholicsagainstsebelius.org/

2. Kevin Knight (of New Advent) somehow found a little blurb buried in a long article that Newt Gingrich will soon convert to the Catholic faith as reported by the New York Times (7th paragraph on page 7 of the article ‘Newt. Again.’).

Updated: For a quick and eas(ier) read of the NY Times article go to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s blog here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/fmr-speaker-gingrich-to-become-catholic/

3. When I click on my browser to go to InsideCatholic.com their web page takes quite a long time to download relative to any other Catholic website or blog that I surf.  I don’t know if it’s all the links or dense code, but my best guess is that their Content Management System that they ar using, Joomla, may be the cause of the slowdown.  The second longest page in the Catholic web to download is Damian Thompson’s Holy Smoke, but you place the blame of the downloading delay to his employer London’s Daily Telegraph (which is the best english language newspaper in the world in my humble opinion).

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Res & Explicatio for A.D. 3-4-2009

  • So good news all around in spite of the lingering chest cold that I expected to lick Tuesday but caused me 1.5 hours of sleep and more time off Wednesday. catholicsagainstsibelius is good stuff. Best to remind our pro-abort friends and family- so you support someone who has a good friend generally known as Tiller The Killer? Her Jeremiah Wright, so to speak? Meanwhile, delighted to see news that Newt is swimming the Tiber. Always thought he was at least three to five years ahead of his time and that politics was too confining for his talents. Perhaps more like him will do the backstroke as well. Meanwhile let’s make life really miserable for La Sibelius. Might as well find some fun in these difficult times. Kaff, kaff.

  • I think Newt is sincere in his conversion.

    I also believe that he is probably the best man out there to represent the Republican party come 2012. He carries the baggage of leaving his 2nd wife while she was on her deathbed, but he has sincerely apologized for that. He certainly seems to have matured a lot since his days as Speaker of the House.

    I have a feeling that he is prepping for a run. But it’s only a feeling.

Amy Welborn's "Via Media"

Tuesday, March 3, AD 2009

Just a note that Amy Welborn has moved to a new blog:

I should probably give a prize to those who have been reading my blogs since 2001 – you certainly deserve it.

Yes, that’s “blogs.” In Between Naps, Open Book, Charlotte Was Both and now, in selling out to both The Man and the requirement, resolutely ignored before, to name a spiritually-oriented blog with a Latin phrase, I give you Via Media.

Here’s the story.

Pay her a visit.

Continue reading...

News & Notes for A.D. 3-3-2009

Tuesday, March 3, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

OK, I junked the whole Latin title since I figured it wasn’t coming across that well as to what I wanted to do with this bit.  So now I’m calling this particular column ‘News & Notes’ (for now).  Here is today’s Top Seven picks in the Catholic world:

1. A great new blog by Pat McNamara about Catholic history titled appropriately enough, McNamara’s Blog.  I’ve been thinking of starting something like this for the past three years, but never got around to it.  I’m happy to say that McNamara’s Blog has great short stories on famous and little known figures in Catholicism as well as stories on non-Catholics and how they interacted and viewed our beautiful Catholic faith.  Here is the link to McNamara’s Blog: http://irishcatholichumanist.blogspot.com/

Continue reading...

9 Responses to News & Notes for A.D. 3-3-2009

Res et Explicatio Anno Domine 3-2-2009

Monday, March 2, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

I’m still tinkering with the format of how I want to do this, mostly just the name of the post from here on out, so any more suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  Today I just want to share the Seven Hot Topics/Links of the day:

1.  I stumbled across the equivalent of the Catholic Netflix called Pius Media.  I haven’t subscribed to it (yet), but it will look familiar to many Netflix users.  Here is the link: http://piusmedia.com/

2.  Looking for the nearest Catholic book & gift store in your area?  Well there is a website that will do just that.  It’s called Catholic Store Finder.  So far it looks like it only conducts it searches in the United States.  Here is the link:  http://catholicstorefinder.com/

3.  Regular Guy Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? is blogging over at Southern Appeal it seems.

4.  I’ve touched on this before and I’ll go more in depth in a future posting, but for those serious Catholics that are looking to pursue their marriage vocation I would highly suggest Ave Maria Singles by Anthony Buono.  It isn’t cheap, but it sure is a highly professional and well done website.  Here is the link:  http://avemariasingles.com/

5.  For those ambitious bloggers and web designers that are looking to make their sites more ‘Catholic’, here is an interesting link called Catholic Desktops.  It’s been recommended by Thomas Peters of American Papist so it has a level of approval.  Here is the link:  http://www.catholicdesktops.com/index.html

6.  Finally figured out why my Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari browsers were unable to view video’s online.  I needed to upgrade my Adobe Flash Player.  Now I can watch BSG on Hulu without any issue!

7.  Speaking of Apple Safari, they have their new Safari 4 out and it is very neat.  The graphics have been smoothed out so you won’t get the ‘Mac’ feel on your PC, but their Top Sites feature is pretty snazzy.  Check it out.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Res et Explicatio Anno Domine 3-2-2009

Blogging in the Grudge-o-sphere

Monday, February 9, AD 2009

In the last four years I’ve learned a great deal about a host of topics, including my Catholic Faith, while blogging, reading other people’s blogs, and participating in comment box discussions. And yet there are some notable dangers that come with blogging as well.

A few months ago, I did myself no great credit in a combox discussion on a friend’s post. Someone against whom I carried paper left a comment I disagreed with, and rather than sticking with a basic refutation I went all out: questioned motives, brought up old arguments, put words in his mouth, the works. An hour or two later I got an email from my friend. “Wow. Next time tell us what you really think…”

But I knew I was right. I hit reply and was pouring out the reason I’d been 100% justified in behaving that way at 70wpm. A year and a half ago, this other blogger and said such-and-such. And when I’d pointed out his obvious errors, he’d said that. And then there was that other time. And remember when over on that other guy’s blog he’s said this in the comments? And…

I took a moment to stare at the paragraphs I’d written and realized this would sound a lot more appropriate coming out of my six-year-old as an explanation for why she’d hit another kid than coming out of a thirty-year-old man who fancies himself intellectual.

As bloggers we sometimes live by the word in rather the same way that a duelist lived by the sword. And slights which, when explained to anyone else, would immediately sound small and petty, fester and become long term rivalries.

Given the source of my recent embarrassment, I’ve tried to make it a rule to think how I would feel writing an explanation of my behavior in any given conversation to a disinterested party. Given my pride, this is a strong incentive to charity, or at least calmness. Naytheless, the temptation remains. I suspect that it is a built in feature (or bug) in an avocation such as blogging.

duty_calls
[Source]

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Blogging in the Grudge-o-sphere

  • I think I’ve deleted more comments without ever posting them than I have posted comments, all because I forced myself to stop and think, “Is this constructive? Is this charitable?” And yet, I know a few uncharitable remarks have slipped through my sensors. We seem to have this driving need to be right, and should anyone gainsay us, we take it as a personal affront.

    One of things I’ve found invaluable is to pay close attention to what people have to say, even if their comments seem to be filled with invectives that contribute little. Paying close attention to those who disagree with me, or hold a much different viewpoint, has actually helped me learn and grow (after the anger has cleared). To this, I have to extend special thanks to Michael Iafrate, for calling my attention to various errors I have committed, even if his means of communicating such errors is a little more abrasive than I’d prefer. I still don’t agree with him on a vast array of issues, but he has helped me learn by challenging me to make thoughtful and charitable responses.

    We need to be willing to accept criticism. We need to be willing to admit that we might be wrong from time to time, and we need to be introspective enough to realize when we are. When we start with the premise, “How could I be wrong on this issue, to have drawn such remarks?”, then we can start to formulate good responses. Because, as we argue out with ourselves our reasoning, we lay the blueprints for hopefully a strong argument, and if we still are convinced we are right, we at least have something intelligible to say in response.

  • This post only adds to the fire.

  • I’m sorry you feel that way, Mark. I don’t know, though, from your comment if you feel the post shouldn’t have been written at all, or if it was subtly offensive, or just missed the point. Frankly, DC’s frank admission of guilt in adding to the blogstorm now and then, with comments not quite thought out, is an important reminder to us all.

    I would like to know your thoughts specifically how the post adds to the fire. (Whether or not DC wants to hear it, I would. We’re always on the lookout for improving the quality of our blog.)

  • But…but…someone IS wrong on the internet…!

    All joking aside, a fine post.

  • I suspect that it is a built in feature (or bug) in an avocation such as blogging.

    I think that’s right. Alan Jacobs has a post up today about the limits of blogging, which I think is worthwhile. He points out that the infrastructure of blogs and comment threads is not very conducive to thoughtful, nuanced discussion. Ad hominems and sloganeering often become par for the course.

    It seems to me that this has a corrosive effect over time. I can think of many well-known bloggers who are almost unreadable at this point on certain topics. Like everything else, blogging has its benefits and its drawbacks. Here’s a link to Alan’s post:

    http://theamericanscene.com/2009/02/09/what-blogs-can-and-can-t-do

  • Blogs help us to see clearly the restlessness of our hearts.

  • One of the emotional/spiritual dangers of too much blogging, for me, has been exposure to a lot of the toxic comments people make, which start spilling over into my general attitude toward life and even, regrettably, into how I talk to my husband and daughter. This is especially true of newspaper website blogs, particularly those that aren’t well moderated.

    With Catholic blogs, the danger for me isn’t so much uncharity and viciousness as it is temptation to despair and discouragement. Of course there are a lot of very serious issues going on out there with regard to pro-life, marriage, lay movements (e.g. the Legionnaires of Christ scandal), etc. They deserve attention and I do not mean to minimize them.

    Likewise, Catholic bloggers who promote particular lay movements or private revelations, or things like homeschooling which are praiseworthy but which I do not myself have the means to participate in probably do not intend to sound “holier than thou,” or make me feel like a second-class Catholic for not participating in them, but I may take them that way.

Iudicium for 2-9-2009 AD

Monday, February 9, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!…

…when my Internet Explorer 8.0 browser is downloading one of my favorite websites, InsideCatholic.com, I notice it takes twice as long as most other websites to download.  Is it because there is a lot code that is being downloaded?  Does anyone else experience this same situation?…

…speaking of browsers, The American Catholic looks pretty neat on the Apple Safari 3.2 browser…

…came across a great tool to search for Catholic bookstores across the U.S.  It’s called Catholic Store Finder

…has anyone noticed that the homepage for New Advent has changed formats yet again?  It looks simple, spiffy, and sharp.  I like the layout and how the news is displayed.  Kevin Knight has done a pretty good job of transforming what seemed to be a passing hobby into a great Catholic news portal to complement PewSitter.com

…I enjoy watching the sci-fi series firefly and I have discovered that Firefox 3.0 is twice as fast, if not faster, at downloading streaming video than Internet Explorer 8.0 when viewing the series on Hulu

…if you still haven’t gotten your fix on Catholic news click here

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Iudicium for 2-9-2009 AD

  • “Salve AC readers!”

    You mean “Salvete”! 😉 You are addressing more than one person.

  • Alan,

    Thanks!

    Would you know how to say “News and analysis for” in Latin?

    I’m looking for the correct wording thus far.

    🙂

  • Hi Tito,

    I’m no expert – I suspect for some of this, you’re stuck with neologisms to convey exactly what you mean, but perhaps there is help. The Finnish News in Latin site uses nuntii for “news”, from the word nuntius: that announces, making known, informing. So, at least there is recent precedent there. That’s one option.

    For “analysis”, I think someone said that iudicium pertained more to an official legal opinion, and I think they’re right. Perhaps cogitatio might work better, plural cogitationes, which would go more to considerations or thoughtful reflections about something.

    I don’t know if you need to literally transcribe “for” in this case. Keep it simple – just give the date, A.D.

    I don’t know if my suggestions are any better than what you have. You may want to track down a Latinist 😉

  • Firefox Rules

  • You could try Res & Explicatio.

  • At the risk of sounding “modern”, might I suggest that you could just, you know, keep it in plain English and save a lot of trouble. Not to discourage anyone from appreciating the beauty of a very ancient and most enlightened language as Latin surely is! Sometimes the most eloquent things are the most simple.

  • Res et Explicatio…

    That sounds cool.

    Alan,

    I was thinking the same as well. I’m still experimenting, but I like ‘Res et Explicatio’. This’ll keep on changing until I get it right.

    More suggestions will be appreciated!

    Tito

  • BTW, Tito. As I recall you were working on learning a bit of Latin. Listen to your tutor first of all, of course, but to this day I still swear by my tiny Collins Gem Latin Dictionary. The thing is tiny and you can get one used for a few cents:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/000470763X

    But it’s an incredibly good small Latin dictionary. In fact, I only ever used it except when I needed to go consult Lewis & Short.

  • Darwin,

    I’m using, as a beginners book, “Latin for Americans” by Ullman. If I progress, I’ll probably get a better textbook than that one (I heard there is one, but the name escapes me).

Adfero et Iudicium for 2-6-2009 AD

Friday, February 6, AD 2009

Adfero et Iudicium, it’s my attempt at Latin for “News & Analysis”.  If anyone knows the correct translation, please leave me a comment.  Some highlights around the Catholic blogosphere, or St. Blogs as some would say, so here we go…

Fidei Defensor made a rare appearance on the American Catholic, he used to blog on College Catholic & Custos Fidei

…Speaking of American Catholic we’ve added some new blogs and sites on our sidebar:

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Adfero et Iudicium for 2-6-2009 AD

  • Tito

    [censured by A.C.] is one of the big sins.

    [Ed.-slander and calumny will not be tolerated, this is your first and last warning]

  • Henry Karlson,

    I need an explanation to what you are referring to.

  • Oh I see what you did, Tito. You changed the text. How ingenious.

  • I’m not sure what the comments above refer to, but I will say it’s not uncommon for people to edit their posts within the first several hours if they think the original was uncharitable. For example, last week MM edited a post after I and Zippy commented that we didn’t think it was appropriate. After he addressed our objections, we asked him to delete the comments because they were no longer relevant to the post.

    Setting aside for the moment longer-term disagreements, does your objection still apply to the post?

  • Henry,

    instead of being the pot calling the kettle black by casting out accusations of sin, why don’t you propose that the person in question is not a dissident. The last I heard, “dissident” does not carry any canonical or moral connotation, and I’m not sure it even is necessarily pejorative. Now you’ve destroyed the possibility of a reasonable discussion about this particular question.

  • John Henry:

    [censured for uncharitableness]

  • Tito is s guest contributor I read.

    Do not guest posts get proofed or edited before they go up under the A-C banner?

    I would think that A-C, as a purportedly respectable blog,would not be happy with such loose dispersions of “dissidence” donning its pages?

    I know readers like Tito and Matt McDonald obviously enjoy that thing, as evidenced above. But is this what A-C wants to amount to?

    I know there are some really good posts here and there, mixed in with this unfortunate level of intellectuality. I do not yet know what to make of this enterprise…

  • Well, I am glad he removed the link. Tito and I have had conversations previously about his descriptions of VN. Suffice it to say, I think we disagree. I understand your concerns, and I will continue to express disagreements with Tito if/when they arise.

    That said, this is his thread and he is free to monitor it as he pleases. As you are undoubtedly aware from VN, substantial latitude has to be provided to each contributor in this regard. I’ve had my share of editing disagreements on a number of blogs, including yours, but, ultimately, each contributor is responsible for their own threads and moderation.

  • Mark,

    It’s a collaborative enterprise, and there is no practical distinction between ‘guest’ contributors and regular contributors, other than frequency of posting. My understanding is that Tito put the blog together, and invited all of the contributors (I came a bit later as I am a rookie blogger). It is only due to an excess of modesty that Tito lists himself as a guest contributor. I agree that there is an unevenness in the quality of our posts; at least, I certainly feel that way about my own posting. We all work at it however. Hopefully it can be of service to our readers.

  • John Henry

    [censured for uncharitableness]

  • JH,

    You are correct. I too will try to improve on the consistency and quality of my comments here.

    IMHO, btw, the quality of posting in general has been rising steadily here.

    Just don’t mention Sarah Palin. 😉

  • Henry,

    Tito has now allowed you to make your point repeatedly. Anyone reading this thread can judge the issue for themselves, and I think this is a fair enough resolution under the circumstances.

    MM,

    I am glad to hear you can converse with most of us (14 out of 15 isn’t bad!).Please dispense with the ‘I can only pray for,’ line. You rightly object when people use it on you. Kindly extend the same courtesy you ask for to others.

  • Adfero et Iudicium, it’s my attempt at Latin for “News & Analysis”. If anyone knows the correct translation, please leave me a comment.

    iudicium, -i which you’ve used here is a term generally refering to a legal analysis, or legal judgement. I’m not sure if it’s exactly the word you’d want, but I’d advise you to keep the title because you have a visual pun of sorts with ludicrum, a joke, gag or skit. Given the nature of the world, much news is also a joke, so I kind of like it so long as you stick with the sans-serif font.

    Adfero is more problematic, however, because it’s a first person singular verb, but you’re using it as if it were a noun. “I bring news” rather than “news”.

    Of course, it’s easier to criticize than to create. I’d have to sit down with my trusty Latin dictionary to come up with a good “news and analysis” title in Latin.

  • Taking a little time off from blogging today I see now what Henry K. was referring to in his original post. John Henry hit the nail on the head explaining correctly that some of us here at A.C. do some editing after the initial posting.

    What originally was an attempt at humor was taken out of context.

    Henry K. I’ve always defended you in the past because you seemed the most sincere of the center-left group over at VN, I hope this remains true still. MM, you are who you are.

    Prudence seems to be lacking in the comments. Justice is no where to be found by the comments made towards my character. Fortitude is in short supply. Temperance we can all really use.

    Seeing that we are well versed in our faith we’ve failed our Lord in practicing these cardinal virtues towards each other. How are we to evangelize and bring others into the fold if we continue on this path of the self-destruction of our souls? Who wants to be a Catholic when the allegedly most well-informed and instructed on the faith,

    [if we know our faith, we know we should be charitable towards each other; not throwing baseless accusations]

    you two and I, come out swinging at every real and perceived transgression?

    Faith, hope, and charity become weak due to the poor application of these virtues mentioned above. Our moral foundation is undermined by the actions we have exhibited day in and day out.

    We can all do better, if not for us, at least for Him.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • Darwin,

    Thanks for tips.

    I was thinking of using novus for news, but wasn’t sure if I was misreading the dictionary or not.

    What essentially want the title to say is “News and analysis for “.

    So anymore suggestions will be appreciated!

    Tito

  • I’ve deleted two uncharitable comments.

    To be fair to Henry K. & MM, I was poking fun at MM’s SUV posting over at VN. If Henry K. would have taken the time to be prudent and read the entire sentence instead of stopping at “dissident”, he would have understood that I was joking about the SUV posting of MM. I wasn’t trying to be vicious as Henry K (& MM) were insinuating.

    Their perception of intended malice would have been justified if the intent was there. It wasn’t.

    Enough said.

  • Michael,

    Enough.

    One more time you’re on probation… again.

  • Tito, thanks for the shout out, the comments may be rare now a days but trust me I am an avid reader and I think this blog is great, keep up the good work!

  • Henry K.,

    You need to grow up. I deleted another uncharitable comment of yours.

  • Tito – I merely asked you to defend your statement that Henry took your initial post “out of context.” Does that deserve censure? And are the rest of you American Catholics in agreement?

  • Michael,

    The discussion is over.

    I thank you for your concern.

  • So you won’t defend your statement?

  • Michael,

    Tito cast an aspersion at Vox Nova with humorous intent and removed it when he realized it was causing offense instead. Your dogged outrage over this would be a little more believable if you didn’t constantly question other people’s commitment to Catholicism, not merely humorously, but insisting that you’re merely making an observation of fact.

    My advice is: chill.

    You’ve not been injured, and indeed you’ve received rather less than you routinely dish out. Keeping it up is only going to make you look petty at this point.

  • Darwin – I’m not “outraged.” I simply asked Tito a question.

  • Oh grow up already. Iafrate has made a practical living out of insulting people, and now he sheds crocodile tears.

    This is the most embarrassing thread I have ever seen. It’s like almost everyone involved is a ten-year old.

  • Well, I am glad he removed the link. Tito and I have had conversations previously about his descriptions of VN. Suffice it to say, I think we disagree.

    [censured for uncharitableness]

  • full moon tonight???

Mark Shea's 'Change' He Can Believe In

Wednesday, January 28, AD 2009

sand-dollar

Apparently Mark Shea, one of the Catholic Blogosphere’s sage’s, has gotten caught up in all the hoopla surrounding President Obama’s ascension inauguration.  He has succumbed to change.  After six years and eight months of staying faithful to what I believe to be the Sand Dollar template that Blogger offers, Mr. Mark Shea decided to change, in the spirit of bipartisanship, the template he uses for his blog (Catholic and Enjoying It!) from Sand Dollar to Minima Lefty.

Mark Shea, a proficient blogger, writer, and apologist.  An insightful and sometimes provocative Catholic with his interminable style of debating has shocked, shocked I tell you, the Catholic blogosphere with this switch to Minima Lefty!  In one bold stroke Mark Shea has decided to thumb his nose in the face of traditionalists.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Mark Shea's 'Change' He Can Believe In

  • Sad but true.
    So is the the Mark of Scripture, or the Shea of history?

    This could be debated in the bolgosphere fo eternity. 😉

  • Good to see you my favorite New Zealander!

  • Yeah. How ya doing.

  • Walter I left a question for you over at unreasonable faith, I am curious as to what you may say. Thank you

  • I capitulated to all the people who have been demanding I enter the New Millennium with a blog that actually cooperated with RSS feeds and such. Every ten years I try to catch up.

  • Mark,

    That makes a lot of sense. I remember asking a silly question on how to create a link to a post of yours. I’m sure you’ll have less of those questions with this particular template allowing for such things (among other questions).

    I remember finally purchasing a cell phone. Yeah I caught up. Now I’m reconsidering and thinking of getting a land-line again and chucking my cell phone.

    The simple life is very relaxing.

  • Hi Don.

    Happy to be here 🙂

  • At least Bugs stays. And welcome to our NZ Peep Don To The K. Some Pacific warmth in these cold Americano days.

  • Phillip 😆

    Well, that’s the mentality of crims, isn’t it?

    I’ve gotta say, we do get some doozies here.
    But the latest wasn’t too funny – young hard working man was accidently shot by police who were actually aiming for a “P” (pure methamphetamine) crazed idiot who had stolen 4 cars, crashed them, and was taking pot shots at pursuing police with a .22 sawn off, and at the time was about to shoot a driver of a small truck after he had pranged his last car – that’s when the cops shot at him -the young man was behind, and in the line of fire – very sad.

    But we are an environmentally friendly, safe, and people freindly country – right? Just ask the Dutch Govt. after a Dutch tourist was raped in a remote tourist caravan park. Keep to the towns.

    So much for my little rant.

    But great to be here 🙂

  • Don, in my criminal defense work I often have to strain to keep a straight face in court. Criminals are rarely masterminds. Often their explanation to me is that they were drunk or on drugs. My stock response: “Good! I would hate to think you would do such a stupid thing stone cold sober!”