Yes, yes, yes we must have imprimaturs for each and every blog. For the USA, a subcomittee of the Bishops Conference -staffed by former ICEL employees?-should rule on all blogs-within one month of the blog being submitted. More importantly, they should compile an Index Of Forbidden Blogs, with pain of excommunication laetae sententiae for accessing same, with an exception if a teenager logs on to an adult’s computer. The NSA can be subcontracted to monitor all blogs. Question-will the fee for a Nihil Obstat be less than that for an Imprimatur?

While I understand what Matthew is saying, and agree with most of his points, I still worry about the “Easter Only” Catholic who really doesn’t know much of his/her faith.

They could, in an attempt to learn more (a good thing,) stumble across many of these really heretical “Catholic” web sites, and think they are deepening their faith (a bad thing.)

For example, someone years ago recommended National Catholic Register to me in a conversation.  By the time I went to look it up, the name was not as chrystal clear as it was in the conversation.  I first stumbled upon National Catholic Reporter, thinking it was the one recommended!  I took all of 3 seconds to realize that I must be one the wrong site, but…what about the person who really doesn’t have any foundation?  They wouldn’t know that what they were reading there is heresy. 

So…maybe not an imprimatur but how about a simple “approved list,” or something of that nature?

A classic online question, Matthew. One that many have grappled with these many online years!

My question: what’s a blog? what’s a website? what’s a newspaper? what’s a magazine? what’s a book? Just because it allows “comments” doesn’t mean a blogger is exempt from his or her bishop’s scrutiny. May we all respect what our dear brother bishops have to teach us about authenticity and truth, no matter the medium we choose to use for publishing. As Kathy above points out, there is much confusion.

Also, with EWTN’s recent purchase of this NCR, what will become of editorial insight here? What role does the local bishop play in the commentary made here? Again, most well-meaning Catholics want to know. Or do they? I must confess: I am not sure the average pew Catholic really cares like you and I do.

Finally, there is a difference between a lay Catholic blog and one done by a diocesan priest or religious sister since each has different authority over the work that is done. It’s easy for us who are lay to blog and tweet and update away while many priests and sisters cannot.

This discussion will always prevail but I believe, just as with new media from the past, our brother bishops will find a wise way!

Peace to your day, Matthew!

BTW, I do find it interesting that donations to this NCR are still directed to Circle Media: http://www.ncregister.com/info/donation_levels A mistake by webmaster I suppose?

Good idea, methinks, Kathy16670. Perhaps “approved list” is too binary thus discouraging good, articulate, inwardly-faithful Catholics inculpably damaged by “Catholic” educators in their own parishes but alert enough to become cleansed by being placed in an intermediate, tentative category such as “problematic”
Hopefully, commenters here can develop a shot list-of-categories designed to help such Catholics via thoughtfully worded descriptions in whatever form the non-binary “category list” finally takes. A brief note per each category can give specific links to other trusted sites which a nice, volunteer “watchdog” group suggests would help such problematic Catholic bloggers.
Then, output should gradually improve – to everyone’s benefit!

Kathy, you have a point, but although the situation you describe is regrettable, trying to apply the imprimatur to web content seems not only impractical but impossible.  If every single person employed by the Catholic Church in any capacity stopped what they were doing and began to monitor or review web content, it still couldn’t be done.  I am not saying it should be done, I am just pointing out that even if it seemed like an ideal thing to do, it would still be impossible.  But we have to trust that the Holy Spirit is also working to lead persons of goodwill to discern between truth and falsehood…eventually.

Good discussion by the author, BTW.

Thanks for the article

Matthew: 
Thank you so much for pointing out the complete practical impossibility of having blog imprimatures.  Blog posts and Facebook pages are just part of the multi-faceted mission of the Church to a world that the Index never envisioned.

For one thing, there are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world in nearly every country on the planet and speaking most of the 6,800 languages currently spoken on our planet.  The majority (65%) are no longer in the west but in the global south - Africa, South America, Asia.  And the majority have access or will soon have access in some form to the new media. 

Much more effective - in our time - is to seriously focus on evangelizing and forming our own so that they can distinguish between the real and the bogus or the sloppy or the clueless.  Lay people are intended, anointed, and called to be the primary apostles to the world and the marketplace outside the Church.  A place where there are few rule books and where the apostolic skill of discernment is essential.  Apostles are sent to bear the good news where it hasn’t yet been proclaimed.

In any case, most of us articulate unintentional (material) heresies all the time which only the most profound and scrupulous theologians would notice. That’s because to completely articulate all that the Church has taught on a given topic requires so much mastery, detail and fine distinctions that normal conversation or preaching or teaching would be impossible.  My co-founder (a Dominican who channels St. Thomas and Bl. John Paul II) was told this in his homiletics class as a OP student:  “You’ll have a material heresy in almost every homily you preach.  The deal is that you should know which one it is.”

It isn’t theological perfection that will transform our lives and the lives of others - it is the basic Gospel of Jesus Christ - even when we make mistakes articulating it.

Nice comment, Sherry.  Although I’m a little worried about your colleague who “channels” people…..j/k

Think of it as “mystical communion” :-}

Kathy 16670, there is a tremendous faux pas in your rationale. In fact whether one goes to church ‘Easter’ only, or daily or weekly, has nothing to do with knowledge. It does, however, have something to do with faith, or better put; mindless acquiescence. If spending 3 seconds on the Reporter is any indication, your instruction on new learning, realizing that truthfulness is independent of your thinking and wishes, and lies not where you would put it…the indication then would be a blog such as this ought to be only for those who do not think at all, and only want to see reflections and an echo of their indoctrinized beliefs.

@WPRjr,

I really could not disagree more!

Sincere, well meaning people could be lead astray.  Haven’t the 70’s taught us that?

There are websites that are regulated for content that is in line with Magisterial teaching, and the catechism.  What possible harm could there be in having an “approved list?”

I like Wm. Folger’s idea of also having a “problematic” list.

@ Sherry Weddell, you said…

“You’ll have a material heresy in almost every homily you preach.  The deal is that you should know which one it is.”

If you KNOW it’s heresy, you SHOULD NOT preach it!

I don’t know.  What I do know is that we’re about to be swamped by campaign messages, paid and un, from political “catholic” organizations assuring us that it’s OK to ignore those silly life and social issues etc. They will tell us, and the media will give them a big platform, that to be true to Catholic teaching we must vote to raise other people’s taxes because it’s an act of charity or something. Blogs and websites will be there launchpads for these messages, and they will have little do with concern for Catholic teaching….  it’s about the Catholic vote, period. I would appreciate some real clarity from sources people can trust on this issue, first and foremost our pastors.

There is no harm in having an approved list. The question is, why would you NOT want an approved list, unless you want it to appear as if anything goes on the Catholic blogosphere and thus undermine Pope John Paul II’s intention for using the internet as a way to evangelize.

Nancy:  How could you have an approved list?  What would you be approving?  The content of a blog is new from day to day, and how could they be evaluated?

Kathy, I’m guess Sheryl is talking about the heresies one doesn’t recognize.

You have to understand the function and “message” of an imprimatur.  It is not just a general “this is okay Catholicism” stamp. It is a specific statement - that this material may be used in instruction. 

Matthew is exactly right in his statement. I’d take it further - Catholic periodicals do not require imprimaturs. Why should blogs?

It’s just a ridiculous conversation.

I wish people would not demean these discussions by using words like “ridiculous”.  Obviously it is not ridiculous to the people who are having it.  Everyone is in a different place and has a different level of knowledge and we should be patient with each other.  I understand the temptation…but I don’t think it should be given in to.

The problem is our culture’s current spirit of disobedience to our church’s ecclesiastical superiors.  No doubt this spirit invades the blogosphere as well.  One blogger went as far to say:

“The Vatican has been wise not to assert its weight too strongly into the blogosphere and the web. Authority on the social web can not be asserted anyway. It must be earned. It must be consented to.”

No, Imprimaturs won’t protect the sheep from those in the blogosphere who knowingly or unknowingly subtly promote and support this cultural attitude of distrust and disobedience.  What we need are faithful Catholic bloggers who will promote a ‘Renewed Obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors’ and the Magisterium of our church instead of asserting their own authority.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=816

“Do Blogs Need Imprimaturs?”

In theory it would be fantastic! Then a reader wouldn’t have to waste time reading and then finding out in the middle of a blog that it is Catholic in name only (CINO)! 

Also, wouldn’t it be great to not spend money on a CINO print edition of magazines and newspapers? Some publications formerly in line with the magisterium have slipped by the wayside.

In many diocese, getting an imprimatur for a book is hard enough, let alone for a blog! Blogs change daily so you would technically need an imprimatur for each posting - definitely not doable.

@ Betty…you asked
How could you have an approved list?  What would you be approving?  The content of a blog is new from day to day, and how could they be evaluated?

I don’t think we are looking at this the same way.  At National Catholic Register, the AUTHORS who submit articles are in line with Catholic teaching.  Yes, there are some prudential judgement issues that we may disagree on (which is perfectly fine,) but none of the authors here (to my knowledge,) have written articles that are in defiance of Magisterial teaching.  *IF* one of them tried to post an article that was heretical, I believe there is a system in place that would prevent that article from being published onto this site (or in the paper.)  Because this site has a proven track record of fidelity to Magisterial teaching, and a “safegaurd system” in place, it would be put onto an “approved list.”  I am certainly not advocating that each comment in the combox be moderated!

Then there are websites like National Catholic Reporter.  It has a proven track record of advocating homosexual “marriage”, woman “priets,” etc.  It always runs heretical articles.  There is obviously no one trying to safeguard against heresy.  It would be put on the “prolematic” list.

And yes, there are hundreds of thousands of sites out there.  I am not suggesting some has to moderate them all.  Those with a proven track record of orthodoxy go on an “approved” list.  Those with a proven track record of heresy go on a “problematic” list.  All the rest…use your own discretion.

My last point: you said Sheryl is talking about the heresies one doesn’t recognize.

Sheryl’s quote is “My co-founder (a Dominican who channels St. Thomas and Bl. John Paul II) was told this in his homiletics class as a OP student:  “You’ll have a material heresy in almost every homily you preach.  The deal is that you should know which one it is.”       

I don’t understand what you mean.  How can you “know which one it is,” and yet “not recognize it?”

Kathy:  I’m not exactly sure what Sherry was trying to say but I assume she was referring to the “heresies” that we all pronounce by accident or ignorance because she used the word “material” heresy.  It was something a professor was saying in the context of a class, it’s hard to say what the context was.  In class they teach all the different heresies, so technically you ought to be able to recognize and name them but that doesn’t mean you always do.  I doubt he was referring to really ‘big’ things, if that makes sense.

The main difference with the Register is that it has an editor who screens everything.  Blogs are the work of individual writers.  Any publication only ends up being as “safe” as its editor(s). 

For what you are saying to be effective, you have to assume that people who are getting it right now always will get it right.  But that’s not much of a safeguard.  Think how much worse it would be if you had certain blogs on the ‘safe list’ and those bloggers eventually started getting off track.  It would be 10 times harder to convince their readers that what they had read there was not valid.  No, it would do harm, not good.

Betty, I would imagine that legitimate Catholic websites would *want* to be on the approved list.  Fear of LOOSING their “approved” status *could* keep them from creeping off into the heretical areas, wouldn’t you think?

Whether it would deter or not, the big picture is that at least an honest person trying to deepen their faith would have some kind of guide to help them know heresy from magisterial fidelity.

@ BarbaraKB…

Yes, that’s a typo. Thanks for pointing it out! We’ll get it fixed ASAP.

My take on this is that individual bloggers make efforts to be aware of the Church’s teaching. A good tool would be the Catholic Catechism.

All:  It is actually very difficult and takes lot of work and a fair amount of sophistication to preach short homilies or teachings that are meaningful to the non-theologically educated but yet don’t - at least accidently - distort some aspect of the Church’s teaching on a given topic.  It’s relatively easy to avoid the gross errors but there are so many fine distinctions made in Church teaching that would simply boggle the minds of most lay Catholics so you have to sum them up simply or skate over them because you’ve only got 10 or 15 minutes tops.  And so you can inadvertently “distort” the full teaching of the Church on the topic because it’s a 10 minute homily not a semester course on St. Thomas.  You need to know what you had to leave out or sum up simply or what you just didn’t mention because it would have required 30 minutes of detailed explanation.

Honest people trying to deepen their faith should turn first to things like the Bible, the catechism and magisterial documents available online - not to blogs.  Blog posts aren’t theological monographs - they are just quick and dirty thoughts most of the time.  Bishops and priests make up less than 0.04% (4/100ths of 1%) of the Catholic community.  414,000 bishops and priests are struggling to make the Mass and the sacraments available to 1,199,586,000 Catholics and we want to demand that, in addition,  they monitor tens of thousands of Catholics blogs in 6,000 languages, whose content changes hourly?

It’s time to calm down, regain our perspective, and take responsibility for our own formation.  The Church has made a number of wonderful resources available to us.

Sherry, you stated
Honest people trying to deepen their faith should turn first to things like the Bible, the catechism and magisterial documents available online - not to blogs.
Of course, I would agree with you, however it has not been my experience that “nominal” Catholics just beginning to want to find out more about their faith START there.  (Kind of like saying 4th Grade CCD students would get a better education if they started out with the High School curriculum.)

It’s also been my experience that people with a certain political “bent” will grasp at anything to “prove” that even though they think abortion is fine, they are “just as good a Catholic” as anyone else, and point to a rag like National Catholic Reporter as proof.  “It’s just one Catholic’s opinion against another Catholic’s opinion.”  Well…no it’s not.

You also stated “we want to demand that, in addition, they [Bishops] monitor tens of thousands of Catholics blogs in 6,000 languages, whose content changes hourly?

I haven’t read any comment here that articulates anything anywhere near your above statement.  We can agree, it’s time to calm down.

Here’s a “for instance.”  It’s an “approved list” from Catholicity.com
http://www.catholicity.com/links/

Kathy, I don’t think that most bloggers would want to be on an ‘approved’ list, or even want for such a list to exist.  To make an analogy, I am a poet, and I have no desire for there to be an approved Catholic poets list or to be on it.  Now, the exception, I think would be blogs that were associated with institutions or persons that specifically want to be catechetical by nature, or support the transmission of doctrine in some direct way.  But most blogs are not like this.

Is it that you want there to be places on the internet that are ‘safe’ in the sense of doctrine?  I think blogs are not the best place to look for that.  Blogs by nature tend to be creative, personal, and very opinion-driven.

Betty,

I would think a starting point would for anyone who wanted to be on the approved list, could apply.

No one would be forced, it would be something people could try to achieve if they wanted it.

Dismayed - I was (as you know) the blogger who wrote that and you completely misunderstand it. I’m not sure why a charitable Catholic would not give somebody the benefit of the doubt, but instead implicate them as being “disobedient” to Church authority. But I’m sorry if there was some confusion when I said:

“The Vatican has been wise not to assert its weight too strongly into the blogosphere and the web. Authority on the social web can not be asserted anyway. It must be earned. It must be consented to.”

This is not at all referring to the Church’s teaching authority. That, of course, is valid regardless of social media of the culture. I was referring to a kind of practical authority that coincides with influence. The kind of authority that is influential can not be merely asserted in a free society. It must be earned. That’s what I was referring to. And I was commending Church leadership for their wisdom in how they wield their authority in order to maximize effectiveness.

I thank you for not misunderstanding me and accusing me of disobedience to the Church.

Matthew,

I appreciate your response, however, I find it clear as mud.  I have no idea what you mean by ‘practical authority.’  Furthermore, your assertion and apparent belief that the ultimate authority of Jesus Christ in our Church transmitted through it’s Magisterium “cannot be merely asserted in a free society,” deeply saddens and disturbs me.

Dismayed - There are different aspects to “authority.” In one sense it is a “right” or legitimate claim to exercise power. This, the Church surely has. But authority is also regarded as the actual power or ability to enforce or actually “influence” people with that legitimate claim to authority. This, in a free society of people with free will, must be wielded carefully in order to attain. And the Church has been wise in how it’s done that. That’s all I said.

This is common sense. If the Church came out and just demanded (i.e. asserted) that everyone do as we say. How effective would that be? People (and I’m speaking of people in general, particularly non-catholics and Catholics who are not strong in their faith) would lose respect for Church authority. Church authority (in terms of their actual ability to influence people) would be diminished. That’s the facts.

This is true in general, but it’s especially true and magnified in the world of social media where the world is more socially connected than ever before.

Instead, the Church must explain teaching, set examples of it, love people and be authentic representation of Jesus Christ. That, in this sense, earns influence to truly make a positive impact.

Nothing to get deeply saddened or disturbed about.

The critical phrase in Matthew’s response is “merely asserted”. 

Blogging is a global public activity and our blogs are read by all kinds of lurkers from all kinds of faith backgrounds or none.  (I’ve had huge readership from the Muslim world, for instance, on my blog.) The vast majority of people in the world do not understand the whole concept of revelation, much less the magisterial authority of the Church. 

For us to simply state “The Church teaches X Period”. is to be largely ineffective in speaking to marginal or lapsed Catholics, most of whom are not moved by arguments from authority, much less the 84% of the human race who isn’t Catholic. 

None of us are bishops here and we don’t have the authority or responsibility (unless it has been delegated to us in a certain setting by legitimate ecclesial authority) to formally teach on the behalf of the Church.  Even if we do teach on behalf of the Church in some settings (as I do), our blogs do not usually fall under that delegation.  (A diocesan or parish blog would be another matter.  I try to be very meticulous about what goes on at Intentional Disciples because it reflects the work of the Institute which is an apostolate of the Dominican Order.)

But most of our blogs are not the Vatican website nor a catechism nor are they supposed to be. My friend Mark Shea’s blog is just his own thing.  Mark is a wonderful, thoughtful and orthodox Catholics but it isn’t his job on his blog to make sure that everything writes there could have been lifted directly from the catechism.

We are lay apostles whose role is to evangelize and you do so in a pluralistic society as you do in the mission field - by making arguments and trying to remove impediments to belief, by sharing your own testimony and the testimony of others like the saints, by the joy, charity, and freedom that fills you and by your life. 

Of course, Matthew, like all orthodox bloggers, seeks always to reflect Church teaching accurately when he blogs.  But to “merely assert X” because it is authoritative Church teaching and then to act as though you are done, is to mistake the nature of the conversation in which you are engaged on a blog.  And it is a real conversation, not merely the delivery of catechetical information.

If going out into the virtual Agora to engage in the give and take of real conversation with badly formed Catholics, marginal believers, non-believers, New Agers, Muslims, or evangelical atheists or on-the outer edges of the spectrum folks bothers you, I’d stay away from blogging.  I’d stick to catechesis in an ecclesial setting.

Sherry,
You and I seem to be seeing the same problems, but *perhaps* have such a differing idea of how to solve them.  For example you stated above…
“For us to simply state “The Church teaches X Period”. is to be largely ineffective in speaking to marginal or lapsed Catholics, most of whom are not moved by arguments from authority,
I would agree with you, and that is precisely why I dismissed your advise that lapsed Catholics just starting to desire a deeper faith ” should turn first to things like the Bible, the catechism and magisterial documents available online.” It’s not going to happen, and if it does, it’s going to be ineffective.  A lapsed Catholic reading the Pope’s latest encyclical is like a baby trying to eat a steak.
The heart of the matter (for me,) is in your last 2 paragraphs…
Of course, Matthew, like all orthodox bloggers, seeks always to reflect Church teaching accurately when he blogs.  But to “merely assert X” because it is authoritative Church teaching and then to act as though you are done, is to mistake the nature of the conversation in which you are engaged on a blog.  And it is a real conversation, not merely the delivery of catechetical information.
I believe NC Register is a shoe in for an “approved list.”  Matthew is very orthodox! (As are all the authors here!)  I wouldn’t try and separate what they write in their article, from what they say in the combox.  It’s all conversation, and I haven’t read anything against Magisterial teaching from any of them.
I disagree with the notion that “catechetical information” is simply delivered.  Any good Cathecist (I’m thinking of a K-12 CCD, RCIA, or Prison Ministry type setting,) has got to be a mentor.  Dialog between Catecist and student is imperitive.  Not just dialog, but you have to truly CARE about them!  Want the best for them!  If it’s only one way, it’s not going anywhere.
If going out into the virtual Agora to engage in the give and take of real conversation with badly formed Catholics, marginal believers, non-believers, New Agers, Muslims, or evangelical atheists or on-the outer edges of the spectrum folks bothers you, I’d stay away from blogging.  I’d stick to catechesis in an ecclesial setting.
The reason I started commenting here at NCRegister is BECAUSE at work I routinely share my faith with badly formed Catholics, marginal believers, New Agers, atheists, and even one self described Pagan.  It gives me a chance at a “practice run through,” before having the conversation face to face with a co-worker.  I get a chance to hear what the “other side,” might be thinking, and so I will have the answer ready when the question comes.
However, with the badly formed Catholic, I routinely hear quotes from places like NC Reporter.  She has asked me why she cannot receive communion when the Eucharistic Minister brings communion to the sick Catholics.  I explain to her that since she has not attended Mass in a very long time (5-10 years,) she needs to meet with Fr, and go to confession first.  Then she will be properly disposed to receive communion when she attends Mass the following Sunday.  This co-worker sites articles she reads on rags like NCReporter that explain why Jesus meets EVERYONE where ever they are, including Protestants and lapsed Catholics, and people don’t need to go to confession anymore, etc. etc. etc.  She is a very nice person.  She truly is confused.  She is visiting sites that teach heresy, and call themselves Catholic.  She needs a way to navigate through.  Right now I’m the “bad guy,” because I’m telling her (quietly, gently, kindly,) she needs to change.  She doesn’t want to hear it.  She wants to cling to the messages she finds in these “pseudo Catholic” sites.
So, Sherry, it’s not because talking with people on the outer edges of the spectrum bother me, just the opposite.  I can see the benefit of clarity for ppl on the “outer edge of the spectrum” when they are truly looking for the truth. An “approved list” (even if there are only 20 sites on the list,) would give them an idea of where to start.

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for explaining.  When I was reading your comments, I intuited that that was where you are coming from.  Since there are organizations that present themselves as Catholic at the same time that they knowingly teach in opposition to the Magisterium, we often hear from people who either do not know or claim not to know the difference.  It could seem like having a list of warning about these institutions (or blogs) would be an effective way of setting the record straight.  I don’t think it would be, because of all of the factors that are mentioned by the other commentators, and for some other reasons as well.  But I encourage you in your conversations with your co-worker.  People hold onto their beliefs for a lot of reasons besides just that they are confused.  You might point your friend to an ‘approved list’ and she would find an article on the Reporter discrediting the approved list.  Then you would have gained nothing.  Please continue to have patience with her, the Holy Spirit has a way of bringing to light the errors that we believe.  She may revisit what you tell her years from now, and come to see the truth of it, when you are long and gone.  First she has to have a desire to deepen in her faith and seek God; when that comes to us we begin to be motivated to learn more and admit our errors.

One would think that anyone who seeks always to reflect Church teaching accurately, does so because they believe.

@Sherry:

Your advise is well taken, thank you for correcting my erroneous presupposition that a blog on the National Catholic Register would provide catechesis in an ecclesial setting.

In response to your previous post:

Posted by Sherry Weddell on Saturday, May 21, 2011 8:51 PM (EDT):
All:  It is actually very difficult and takes lot of work and a fair amount of sophistication to preach short homilies…

Can I ask when you were ordained and how long you have been preaching homilies on your blog?

@Matthew,

Thanks for pointing out common sense and the facts. Let me see if I understand?

One, Holy, Practically Catholic and Apostolic Church…no, that doesn’t sound quite right.

One, Holy, Relatively Catholic and Apostolic Church…no, that doesn’t sound quite right either.

Sorry, I’ll have to stick with the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Dismayed,

I think you are being very unfair to the writers here.  I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your last comment to Matthew, but at least I can tell you are trying to use irony to point a finger at him…and yet there isn’t anything to point a finger at him for.
My guess is you are missing the point.  The Register is a newspaper, not a catechism book.  They don’t put imprimaturs on newspapers.  Just like they don’t put them on biology books, greeting cards, or religious goods catalogues.  Does that mean the authors of those publications are heretics or don’t care about the Catholic faith?

Dismayed: 

I learned what the challenges are for priests and preaching because I’ve spent the last 16 years collaborating closely with Dominicans. 

I know what it is like to teach at both a high popular level and to teach seminaries, priests, diocesan and parish staff etc from having done so in 103 dioceses over the past 16 years.  And because I teach lots of other people how to teach at a high popular level because we have teams of teachers around the US and in other countries.  And because I have written a number of formation resources for lay Catholics that are used all over the world.

Mark Shea’s blog is not on the Register.  He writes individual articles for them upon request.

I think blogs that are hosted by priests or other religious fugures who portray to teach Catholic doctrine must not be anonymous bloggers. This could potentially be very harmful for the faithful as anybody can portrqay themselves as being ‘online priests’ for example, and teach false doctrine and lead astray the faithful. Anonymity or pseudonimity should not be allowed for priests.

If it is true that for The Vatican authenticity is critical, then why is it not clear that only authentic Catholic Doctrine should be allowed in the public forum?

Matthew:

Thank you for your common sense.  The notion that the Church exists to micromanage every conversation in every pub in the world (which is, virtually speaking, what blogs are) is something that only somebody who has not the slightest conception of Catholic and Christian liberty is about.  The people in this thread who are insisting on the preposterous notion that the Church drop everything and start policing blogs are victims of a hyper-legalism that really doesn’t believe in human liberty at all, nor does it trust that God came to found a kingdom in Christ, not a Police Surveillance State. Happily, their delusions of a micromanaged Theological Police State will simply never come to pass because a) the Church is not mad and b) what they want is simply not possible in this world.

To Mark,

You said

“The people in this thread who are insisting on the preposterous notion that the Church drop everything and start policing blogs are victims of a hyper-legalism that really doesn’t believe in human liberty at all,”

I really haven’t heard anyone here insist that the Church start policing all blogs.  I agree, that IS preposterous.  All I’ve heard here is that it would be nice to have an “approved list.” (And so I am guessing your comment is directed at me.)

However, to play the “devils advocate” (pun intended,)to use your same logic, I don’t see imprimaturs used for books as “Police Surveillance State,” nor do I believe that the Church has to drop everything and start policing every book ever written, to see if it deserves the imprimatur (since that is not how the system works.)

The Church exists to protect The Deposit of Faith, and thus for all who will come to believe in The Word of God as He Has revealed Himself to His Church in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium.

Kathy- The subject is blogs, I think you are referring more to websites with your “approved list”. You could never make an approved list of blogs, because they are ever changing and numerous. What if one you approved then posted something contrary to the Church? THat could be more damaging that not having an approved list.

But as Mark said, the Church would not interfere with liberty in that way. Nor are their resources to do so.

Nancy: Yes, yes and yes. But the Church doesn’t protect the Faith by interrupting conversations in pubs and coffee shops. And that’s closer to what blogs are then books. And blogs aren’t designed to teach the faith in most cases, so an imprimatur isn’t even relevant.

Claire, yes, I have to admit the difference between “blog” and “website” gets a little fuzzy to me sometimes!

However, to keep in the narrow definition of “blog,” wouldn’t you think that Thomas Peter’s Blog could go on an approved list?  How about Amy Welborn’s new blog? Fr. Longnecker’s “Standing On My Head?” Fr. John Trigilio’s “Black Biretta?”  These are blogs in the “strict sense,” that could be approved.

Before we get too worried, a disclaimer could be issued.  It could say something like “content on the below listed blogs have proven to be unproblematic during the time period of X to X.  Despite our best efforts to screen and regularly review our links, it’s obviously not possible for us to be responsible for changes in content. Use your best judgment and be careful out there.”

I honestly cannot understand why anyone would object to such a thing, and so that is why I believe we have two very different things in mind.  What I have in mind would not interfere with anyones liberty, nor would Bishops have to monitor tens of thousands of blogs.

These are blogs in the “strict sense,” that could be approved

Approved by whom?

I honestly cannot understand why anyone would object to such a thing

I can.  All it boils down to is some self-anointed popinjay trying to micromanage what other people should read and talk about.  It’s been tried before on the internet and was, deservedly, an abject failure.  Often what winds up happening is some doofus decides that a blog or website is rendered ritually impure because it links the “wrong” sort of people.  By that measure, St. Thomas would be given a yellow light rating because he constantly cites a Muslim and a pagan philosopher.

No thanks.  I don’t need a self-appointed censor telling me who I can and can’t read or link with the threat of being declared ritually impure if I don’t confine myself to the doofus’ circle of what he considers “safe”.

Much of this is superfluous. Does anyone rightfully think that s/he
requires a writ or stamp as to what to read. Whither goes ones education and duty to decide for oneself. If one subscribes to a censor, the wish then is a total need to read only what affirms thinking and opinions already held. Thusly, why then read at all, no new learning is possible…simply join a support group.

I have been reading a large number of “Catholic” blogs lately; researching and gathering material to post on my own web site [some would call it a blog.] After an almost life-long interest and study of things “Catholic”, I’m 79 this year, I say that there is one “Catholicism” per “Catholic.” In my youth [twenties] I held the view many on this site hold, i.e., I surrendered to the promise of always being “right” because the Church is always right. It’s idolatry! My advice- put the Word of God in the scriptures in the place some of you have put the Church leadership, magisterium,etc. and learn its message.

Sacred Scripture exists in relationship to Sacred Tradition and The Teaching of The Magisterium.

Mark, one would think that those who recognize authentic Catholic teaching when they see and hear it, could not be clueless to begin with;)

“Do Blogs Need Imprimaturs?”

Absolutely. Otherwise you get some ill-educated if zealous Catholic confusing his (or her !) theological obsessions and opinions with what the CC allows, or teaches, or insists is Divinely revealed. Those who have no expertise in theology, no understanding of it, no appreciation of how it relates to Catholic teaching, no understanding of Biblical exegesis past & present, are simply not competent to talk about these things with any authority. And they have no business to set up as an “alternative magisterium”  - however “faithful” they may say they are. In the nature of the case, they are the people who are least able to say that, because no man is a good judge in his own case. The Bishops - *not* us laity -  are the ones with authority to teach - self-appointed guardians of the Faith, who are answerable to nobody, have none.

“Posted by LOL! on Saturday, May 21, 2011 1:34 PM (EDT):

“Do Blogs Need Imprimaturs?”

In theory it would be fantastic! Then a reader wouldn’t have to waste time reading and then finding out in the middle of a blog that it is Catholic in name only (CINO)!

## The Church does not separate Catholics in this detestable fashion. Schismatics do, notoriously. Benedict XV rebuked the very tendency amost a century ago. If a Christian is not out of communion with Rome, he is Catholic. Whether or not he *approves* of others - or, they of him. To make this distinction is to think as Fundamentalism does; it’s a way of thinking opposed to Catholicism, with a very different notion of the Church.

Thanks a lot Matthew Warner for your intelligence.  It’s very enlightening and very informative.  In my own opinion, I can easily sense which of the many blogs owners who claimed to be “catholics” are REAL CATHOLICS.  Anything that a blogger has to say which contradicts that of the teachings of the Church or anyone who interprets the Bible and the Catechism without with dissent are NOT real catholics.

We live in the Information Age and it’s not that hard for us now to recognize which is Catholic and which is not.  By their tones, you will know them. 

It’s not a problem in third world countries like the Philippines but it’s common in America where even nuns and priests have the nerves to publish in their blog their dissenting views. 

Please visit my blog at catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com

God bless you and your family as well. Pray for Pope Benedict while visiting Bosnia. To Jesus Christ be praised.

An Imprimatur would be difficult to enforce, and would not allow bloggers to respond in a timely manner.
All Catholic bloggers and resonders must adhere to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
CCC - ” 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth. “
There is also an entire section on use of the Media.
When any of us sees an error, we must PUBLICALLY CORRECT it, according to the teachings of the Magisterium in the “CCC 2nd Ed”.
We must not let purposeful or accidental errors stand.

The only way a blog would “need” an imprimatur is if its sole purpose (and that means SOLE purpose) is to teach the Catholic faith in some aspect. If it’s a private blog written by a Catholic, anyone with more than one functioning brain cell in his head will realize that some things may creep into discussion that are not doctrinal or magisterial in nature. You don’t even have to be a clued-in Catholic to realize that.

Secondly, there seems to be some kind of fear out here that people are going to read blogs written by ostensibly Catholic people and get the wrong idea about what the Church teaches. WELL…then…if they’re truly seeking, they’ll go to MANY sources to hear the truth. If they’re REALLY seeking to get back to their faith, they could always…I don’t know…er…maybe try going to a parish priest and asking some questions?  Or find a handy compendium of the Catechism, which is accessible and readable by anyone who can read a blog? Or…

I know…radical ideas, those. (!)

When people go on the Web, they already KNOW that much of what’s on it is exaggeration, cockeyed opinion, or just plain poppycock. Why, then, is there a fear that that common sense will desert them just because the subject is Catholicism or the writer claims to be Catholic? Would they not approach a Catholic blog with the same skepticism and grain of salt that they approach, say, Wikipedia? If you spend enough time on the Web weighing all the merits of the information you encounter, but then claim that you found authentic Catholic teaching by only going to a single BLOG…you’re either disingenuous or you think your listener’s pretty naive. Neither instance reflects a person being honestly misled by a blog, only one who found something that happens to agree with what they want to believe anyway, and they proceeded accordingly.

As far as the idea of an “approved” list goes? NO. NO. and NO AGAIN. Every religious organization I have ever witnessed that tries to get into “approving” anything—whether it’s publications, Web sites, or media programming—opens a Pandora’s box that has ramifications FAR beyond merely trying to “protect” anyone. Blogs are the back fences and barstools and common areas of conversation. No one needs to approve or disapprove of them—we merely need to approach them for what they are, and not try to distill from them what they cannot possibly be.

JB

I see a lot com-box posts that tell a person “you are teaching outside of the Church if you say x, because the catechism does not say x.” It would be nice, IMO, if such posters would state under the authority of which specific bishop they make that claim, or at least whether or not they accept the following as true:
***
As to doctrine
The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught), in contrast with the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church), which consists of the pope and the bishops. When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church (cap. xii et sq., lib. V, tit. vii, “de haereticis”). Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics. But in their private capacity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority.

Janny, you said The only way a blog would “need” an imprimatur is if its sole purpose (and that means SOLE purpose) is to teach the Catholic faith in some aspect. If it’s a private blog written by a Catholic, anyone with more than one functioning brain cell in his head will realize that some things may creep into discussion that are not doctrinal or magisterial in nature. You don’t even have to be a clued-in Catholic to realize that.

Let’s take your statement, and insert the word book, and see what that looks like…

The only way a book would “need” an imprimatur is if its sole purpose (and that means SOLE purpose) is to teach the Catholic faith in some aspect. If it’s a private book written by a Catholic, anyone with more than one functioning brain cell in his head will realize that some things may creep into discussion that are not doctrinal or magisterial in nature. You don’t even have to be a clued-in Catholic to realize that.

Ah…yeah.  And that is how imprimaturs work.  Not every Catholic book author wants or requests and imprimatur. If for a specific reason he/she wants one, then they apply.  All others do not.

I have not come across one single comment here that says “every Catholic blog in the universe needs to be monitored, to make sure something doesn’t creep in.”

I do appreciate your kind and gentle spirit, however.  (And yes, even those of us with one functioning brain cell can guess that’s sarcasm.)

Kathy 16670…ah yes the ‘imprimatur’ perfect need for the mindlessly obedient unable to think for self.

I hope not….check our laity brotherhood blog out just in case

Sanctuaryhouse.tumblr.com

If I understand the process right, you can’t really have an impramatur for a blog unless someone authorized to grant impramaturs reads everything daily. A particular article might get that if the blogger/journalist gets that info. I know Catholic Answers has impramaturs at the bottom of some of their specific tracts.

I think it’s prudent for bloggers to therefore link to Church documents to support their points.