Today the pithily perspicacious Fr H looks at the Synod’s (“walking together”) notion about developing ways to certify Catholic blogs to avoid “fake news”.
He wrote along the lines of what I wrote HERE. He also wrote:
We seem to have come a long way from those broad sunlit uplands when Benedict XVI (remember him? The ‘Rat’, the ‘Inquisitor’, the ‘Panzer Cardinal’? Yes, that one) encouraged blogging, and especially clerical bloggers. Now, the era of the boors and the bullies. [It’s the age of the Hoopers. Indeed, it’s the age of the Hooper/Blanche Hybrid, but with none of the charm or insight and all of the perversion.]
Shall we, in a few years’ time, discover that we have Diocesan, National, and Worldwide systems for closing down free discussion in the Church? After all, the Synod will have “called for it”, won’t it?
“Synodality” sounds so democratic, modern, open and free. What’s not to like? And this Synod has concluded with the usual flurry of synthetic Bergoglian rhetoric about the Holy Spirit. In such liberated and happy times, don’t you need to be paranoid to be suspicious?
Don’t you believe it. Bullies are bullies are bullies.
Perhaps it is too early and, as yet, unfair, to bring in the image of Perón.
In my above-mentioned post I said:
If they want to know the meaning of total, unrestricted and asymetrical warfare just try that. They won’t know what hit them.
Can you imagine what the reaction would be in the blogosphere and through other media were there to develop such an initiative in the Church? To certify (censor) Catholic sites?
I didn’t pull that image of “unrestricted and asymetrical warfare” out of the blue. Years ago I read a book by a couple of Chinese colonels about how they could take down the USA. The book has become an important resource. It describes a way of fighting with limited resources a much greater power. US HERE – UK HERE
I bring this up because such an effort would be a waste of time and energy, highly divisive, and a complete failure.
Loading ...
What manner of men are so cement-headed they fail to realize the consequences of their own actions, nor where we are in time. This is not 1970. They think they can control the conversation, not realizing it is so revealing and offensive that they would even try. Talk about tone deaf responses.
But, we are hearing the US Feds have sent a letter to Bp. DiNardo, instructing him to inform ALL the US diocese to not be foolish and tamper with records and such. A full investigation is coming.
Do these men realize, as sobering a moment as this is, realizing this is going to be far reaching, over international borders and into other nations and right up to and including this Vatican and this papacy, that we are extremely satisfied to hear it? Indeed, it is what we have asked for. How terrible do you have to abuse the faith and the people that this would be the case.
There’s no stopping this, and once again, we see that God writes straight with crooked lines. If not for this pope, boys and young men would continue to be abused and our church would continue to operate like a racketeering operation and we would continue to finance it. We didn’t know what was going on and now we do. Like fools he and his cabal were destructive AND arrogant, which may turn out to be their undoing. There appears to be a world of hurt coming, like the SMD, and while it will effect most of us profoundly it will have a very negative impact on them and may very well bring a close to this particular era of misery. It may blow the whole thing up, but that seems preferable to the schizophrenic church we have now. The church can’t continue like this, we are in schism even though no bishop has the courage to say it. It doesn’t change the reality.
These men believed they were untouchable, but nobody can touch you like the feds.
This post gave me a thought: As far as I know, Jesus Christ never told his accusers or questioners or doubters to be quiet. He always answered them. Pope Benedict XVI, following the example of Our Lord, did the same. He might give a book-length answer, but answer he did. Pontius Pilate, on the other hand, washed his hands.
Aren’t clericalism and “synodality” essentially the same thing?
This might actually be a useful thing. If a site gets banned by the Vatican then we know it probably has good information on it. Conversely if approved then we know it is probably just fluff and not worth reading.
Perhaps they can get together with the IETF (the people that run the Internet) and develop new certificates so that your browser will display a little angel with a halo next to the URL (similar to the padlock for secure sites) for the “good” sites and a red devil with a pitchfork if you go to one of the baddies like Fr Z, Rorate, Church Militant, etc. I’m sure they could work something out.
Were there to be a Bergoglian seal of approval it would serve only to indicate which sites are reliable and which are not. I believe the Domus Sanctae Marthae would find it counterproductive to their enterprise. Readers, on the other hand, would be spared wasted time, aggravation and scandal. Maybe we should give it a try?
Pingback: Tech Lords and Freedom of Speech – The American Catholic