Access to #FilialCorrection Crimethink webpage blocked in the Vatican

crimethink_posterUPDATE: See comments, below, for possible alternative explanations involving filters.

As reported by Corriere, the Vatican spokesman said: “nessun blocco, la notizia e falsa”… “ma figuratevi se facciano questo per una lettera di sessanta persone”.  Also the head of the Vatican Communications office denied the block.

The Italian news agency ANSA reports that the Vatican internet office has blocked access to the site with the Filial Correction from any devices provided by the Vatican City State.


The Secretariat for Communications of the Holy See has blocked access to the web page that adheres to an initiative that accuses the Pope of here, connected to what he wrote in “Amorislaetitia”.  From the Vatican’s computers you can no longer go to the page in question, in any language.  Outside the Vatican, however, the page is accessible.

“Access to the web page that you are trying to visit has been blocked in accord with institutional security policies.”

No Badthink or Crimethink!

It’s Doubleplusungood.

Be submissive. The speakwrite registers all your oldspeak and malquotes. You will be remanded to joycamp until you have been either rectified or your status changes to Unperson.

Commentmodqueue is listening.


I was out tonight with a Polish priest.  He quipped, “What is this? North Korea?”


This is a screenshot.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Throwing a Nutty, You must be joking! and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Michael_Haz says:

    One must not question Jesuitthink, even when it sounds much like Protestantthink.

  2. says:

    What is the Vatican trying to prove? I think their concerns should be addressed. There is something about this Pope that doesn’t set well with me. He has my radar on high alert. There needs to be a good house cleaning at the Vatican. Something just isn’t right there and hasn’t been for quite awhile. I keep remembering different warnings that the Blessed Mother gave to us.

  3. jfk03 says:

    From Bolivarian Revolution to Bergoglian Revolution!

  4. Mike says:

    Wasn’t it supposed to have been traditionalists who were the ones with the ‘bunker mentality’?

  5. mattg says:

    I’m hoping that is from a satire site. If Jesuitthink is real, and being enforced by the organs of the State–God help us.

    Would it be wrong to pray for his abdication?

  6. Windswept House says:

    Reminds me of Lois Lerner in the previous administration. She didn’t have to be told what to do, she knew what to do.

  7. Charles E Flynn says:

    From Vatican denies blocking webpage for ‘filial correction’ of Pope Francis:

    While the homepage was not blocked, reports claimed, attempts to access the sign-up form redirected to a page that read: “Access to the webpage you are trying to visit has been blocked in accord with institutional security policies.”

    The Vatican has denied the claims, saying that some of the computers available for journalists and authorized personnel in the Vatican press office have filters that regulate navigation. “On some computers in the press room, as in any company, there are filters that are automatically triggered for various online content, from pornography to malware to advertising,” Greg Burke, the Director of the Holy See Press Office, explained.

    One of these filters, Burke explained, blocks pages “that request personal information, in order to avoid unwanted operations.”

    This is why, on some of the computers in the press office, one can visit the homepage and navigate within it, but not sign the correction, because “the form requires personal information.”

  8. Kathleen10 says:

    Fascists. What are they worried about? Anybody on the inside is obviously in their camp. Weird.
    He’s making the Vatican walls the new Iron Curtain. We need President Trump to demand he “tear down this wall!”. Maybe we can use it for our southern border.
    I bet there is some scrambling and scurrying going on in St. Peter’s, these days. One can almost hear squeaks.

  9. JARay says:

    Clearly the “filial correction” is getting through.

  10. Benedict Joseph says:

    Is it possible that “Correctio Filialis,” diminished and dismissed with quips from a wide range of wisdom figures, might have yanked a nerve somewhere?
    Could it be that it has been found disturbing?
    Undermining of a certain perspective?
    Even threatening to a certain cohort?
    The wisdom, the faith and reason, the love of the faith that radiates from “Correctio Filialis” will not be snuffed out under a bushel basket, no matter the effort to do so.
    It has a steel all its own.
    Dinner is on the table.

  11. Andrew says:

    “Outside the Vatican, however, the page is accessible.”

    So you have to walk across the S. Angelo Bridge to read the document on the internet? A book called “building a bridge” comes to mind.

  12. lsclerkin says:

    Your Eminences Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Brandmuller,
    We’re waiting.

  13. asciiduck says:

    The Vatican released a statement saying the site was caught in an automated content filter. This is entirely plausible and actually extremely likely, as most anyone who has worked in IT will tell you. New websites, and even well established wevsites, can get caught and blocked without anyone in the organization being any the wiser.

  14. majuscule says:

    Someone is desperate.

    This gives me great hope.

  15. Benedictus says:

    This is interesting. It seems you can have homosexual orgies, cocaine parties, without any hindrance (, but the filial correction is censured.

  16. Sonshine135 says:

    The 1984 references are very apt. I am really wondering if the world did end on September 23rd, and I am now in some double secret probation Twilight Zone. The whole world seems to be convulsing.

  17. ce lathrop says:

    This is the price you pay for unacceptable ecclesiology.

  18. Helier says:

    It occurred to me earlier, that the dismissal of Professor Josef Seifert may well have been the last straw here, triggering this watershed event if you will. Prof. Seifert is clearly not alone, he simply brought a new (and terrifying,) angle on the issue to light.
    Also, the filial correction, is not a fraternal one. Perhaps this will form the foundation upon which furthering of the fraternal correction can be made? Brick by brick? I know I’m out of my depth there – but just a thought to consider :-)

  19. marcelus says:

    Absolutely naive.,And strange,. These people have asked for a blessing fro the same man they accusse of being a heretic! Would you ask Fr Martin for instance for a blessing?

    [Your comment smacks of Donatism. Asking a priest to do priestly things is good. Remember the story about how John Paul saved a fallen down priest by asking him to hear his confession? HERE]

  20. tzard says:

    I wonder whether someone’s trying to keep Pope Francis from reading the letter.

  21. NBW says:

    Who is in charge of Vatican Social media?? Hmmmm……

  22. rtjl says:

    You know what this means. This means LOVE!

  23. LarryW2LJ says:

    I thought “free thought” and the expression of ideas was what is espoused by all these so called “catholic” universities. I guess free thought and the expression of ideas only is allowed in one direction.

    And the Liberals and Progressives hold up the persecution of Galileo as one of the most shameful acts of the Church. Funny how they don’t mind resorting to similar tactics.

  24. kurtmasur says:

    Regardless of what happens, I only hope that this serves as a warning to Francis as to what happens if he tries to tamper with the Church’s doctrines and disciplines.

  25. Peter in Canberra says:

    choose cockup before conspiracy.
    If there is a plausible IT explanation I would run with that until further notice.
    I have seen enough IT cockups to believe it.

  26. Lurker 59 says:

    I work in IT and run the filters for my organization.

    Content filters are always behind and playing catchup for new websites.

    When you type text into a website, what you are typing into is a Form Field. Looks like this: . Most (All?) “Intelligent” filtering software cannot distinguish between a Form that requires personal information and a Form that doesn’t. Even if the filtering software allowed for the blocking any page that had a form field, that is pretty granular and would break the web locally as most web pages have a form filed somewhere.

    There is some confusion in the article and response as to how the Vatican is filtering content. The basic ways to this are at the IP Range Level, at the internal Domain Level, at the Device Level. Most organizations have multiple filters, one at each level. There is an automated functionality to content filtering, but much of it is by hand. If the Vatican is running on “yesterday’s technology tomorrow” then all the content filtering is by hand.

    But the more important point is that you only filter traffic that you don’t want certain people to access. Given that you cannot filter devices that use their cell modems, and many who work at the Vatican don’t live there and thus can easily access data offsite, the website is (was) being blocked from reaching who or whom?

  27. hwriggles4 says:

    This reminds me years ago when a deacon who moderated a singles group objected to a group of us getting together to pray the Rosary. Many of us left that group partially because we got tired on this particular deacon watering down. (It was the mid 1990s).

  28. donato2 says:

    The will to power in action.

  29. Cajetan says:

    The Vatican was at war with Eastasia: the Vatican had always been at war with Eastasia.

  30. MissBee says:

    I’m hoping it is, as asciiduck wrote, part of an IT security issue. The site might not be secure or might trigger their predefined network security protocols (not technical language here, but I think my point is made).


  31. sea the stars says:

    and yet correctiofilialis was not reported unreachable by anybody else, as far as we know, anywhere else in the outside world. except the Vatican?

  32. un-ionized says:

    Yes, definitely looks like a filtering problem.

  33. albizzi says:

    Who has been appointed consultant to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications which controls the Vatican’s Internet Services ?
    Fr James Martin…

  34. asciiduck says:

    sea the stars:

    LSN has published more details about the Vatican’s explaination

    This explanation makes complete sense. You will have more stringent filtering on networks that are accessed by visitors (like journalists). What’s more is the website collecting people’s information, over plain text, meaning no encryption to protect it. It’s not surprising that would run afoul an automated filter.

  35. Lurker 59 says:

    “On some computers in the press room,” [there are filters that block content] One of these filters, Burke explained, blocks pages “that request personal information, in order to avoid unwanted operations.”

    This makes no sense.

    1. Some press room computers are blocked some are not. Why the Press Poom and why is there a distinction? Between assigned User and universal User computers? From a security point of view, why allow assigned Users to access forms but not universal Users, or vice versa? What on earth does that protect?

    2. Of all of the places to prevent accessing websites with form fields, the Press Office???? That is an office where one is GUARANTEED to need to have the ability to access form fields. Consider how many form fields one encounters or has to enter personal information into when they are reading the news. Sign in screens, search forms, comment boxes, etc. Consider how much more if you were tasked with researching and creating the news.

    3. “Intelligent” Content Filters work by analyzing the HTML and looking for specific lines of text and/or code. If you look at the raw HTML code for the website, what is getting caught by the supposed filter? Clicking on the Signup Button generates a popup overlay element, not a page redirect. Blocking an element/object on a page doesn’t generate the Page Blocked screen. That screen is only generated when the filtering software catches a blocked URL and then redirects the Browser to the Blocked Screen URL instead of taking the User to the intended URL. Blocked in page elements tend to just not load — no notification. Notifications for blocked in page elements (which is what the SIGN UP is) require installed software.

    Personally, I suspect some of this is lost in translation. Press Officer is giving what he thinks the technology does and this, in turn, is simplified further by a Reporter stating what he thinks he heard.

    Also, no one has mentioned if the site is still blocked. Is it?

  36. eamonob says:

    LifeSiteNews has been slandering the Pope for months. What makes you think he approves of sinful behavior like that?

  37. Legisperitus says:

    Even if it was only a filtering glitch, the coverage has brought more attention to the Filial Correction, and that can only be doubleplusgood.

Comments are closed.