20 September 2016

The Catholic Herald

It seems to me a bit of a pity that the ability of what the CIC calls Christifideles to make their views known via the Internet, courtesy of the Catholic Herald, is, apparently, no more.

More important, however, than my personal 'seemings' and my subjective 'bits of a pity' are the right, and indeed duty, prescribed in Canon Law (vide Canonem 212), for Christifideles to make their necessitates et optata et sententias known to their pastors and to each other. A valuable forum for the the exercise of this ius et officium is being removed. The all-important Spirit of the Code of Canon Law is thus being gravely infringed. We really can't be having that, can we?

Surely we may with confidence expect our beloved Episcopal Conference to take steps to ensure the restoration of this or a similar forum; and to encourage clerics and laics alike to practise thereupon the fullest Parrhesia. Since the Catholic Herald mentions the enormous economic burden of providing this service, perhaps the Conference could make a financial contribution, saving an equivalent sum of money by effecting extensive economies in Eccleston Square.

Indeed, discussion about the nature of such economies could be the initial topic which a revived and revamped Internet Forum (Forum Interretiale Christifidelium) could open up for discussion by clerics and laics. In accordance with Canon 212, I would nominate for the First Big Wave of Major Chops all the Liturgy wallahs, especially the one who provided a misleading translation recently with regard to the ad Orientem question; and all the chaps (and chappettes) who deal with Inter-faith Relations, particularly the one who advised the bishops with regard to the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews; and all the Spokespersons, especially the one who made a statement a couple of years ago dissociating the Conference from Bishop Egan's reminder about the canonical provisions for refusing communion to legislators who legislate against Catholic morals. Oops: I nearly forgot to include the anonymous lady (or gentleman) who wrote the document I analysed in my recent "BUT ..." post. Clear 'em all out, sez I. Surely, such people precisely represent all the dangers Cardinal Mueller has had in mind when he has spoken over the years with such clarity and wisdom about the problems inherent in powerful 'Conference' bureaucracies. To His Eminence's words, with which I entirely concur, I will add my own humble ha'p'orth: that the mischief is increased when, as so often, these people make their utterances anonymously, thus, as dear Mr Baldwin put it, exercising power without responsibility, 'the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages'.

And the CBCEW could discontinue any subvention the Conference makes to ARCIC and other time-wasting bodies (I know you will all be able to nominate some).

We could save oodles of dosh.

But that's all just my own personal and deeply subjective and whimsical view. Please, in accordance with the Holy Father's wishes, use much Parrhesia in making your own suggestions.

9 comments:

Gillineau said...

It is to be expected. Their comment sections were apparently rather attractive to atheist nutters (tautology?) who made any discussion rather heavy going with their constant 'paedophile/ crusades/ Inquisition/ HIV/...' responses to anything vaguely defensive of the Faith.

Less internet is always a good thing.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"Less internet is always a good thing."

Er, no.

"It seems to me a bit of a pity that the ability of what the CIC calls Christifideles to make their views known via the Internet, courtesy of the Catholic Herald, is, apparently, no more."

It seems Bergoglio is less fond of bloggers than Ratzinger was.

Like Putin also is less fond of free speech than Gorby and Yeltsin were.

One certain Domiatian was also no fan of it. As Tacitus mentions in the opening of Agricola (yes, there was a time when that book was as yet within my Latin capacity).

IanW said...

Oh, I don't know. The Liturgy Office maintains a handy online liturgical calendar for the Novus Ordo. So my ha'p'orth would be to keep on that nice Fr Gunter, its part-time departmental secretary, supplement him with an intern to maintain the web page, and extend it to the Vetus Ordo. Money saved and service improved: win-win.

Prayerful said...

Ya, it seems like a troll trolling trolls trolling trolls sort of thing. Sometimes it's okay in the way deliberate stupidity can be amusing. It's more a weird brand of entertainment for the commenters who adopt this or political or religious pose, rather than some debate of principles. CH reduced the number of articles which take comments, or it seems so. It's obvious enough why.

GOR said...

While I studiously avoid most social media, the restriction of a certain one might be employed in such fora, namely: a limit on the characters used. Nothing is more off-putting in comment-land than long, ponderous and repetitive comments.

While brevity is the soul of wit, succinctness may be deemed its soul mate.

Tamquam said...

Ah, the acid tipped cyber-pen of Fr. Hunwicke, eminently satisfactory source for one's daily minimum requirement of dolor and delight. Good one, Father, you'll have me chuckling all day.

Thomas said...

I don't see where the enormous financial burden of running comes from. If you've got a web site (not very expensive), running a comments section on your posts costs you nothing more. What could cost some money is paying someone to monitor it and moderate it and weed out the trolls and the abusive and off-topic posts. (Alternatively have a sign-up service which you could easily ban people from if they break the simple ground rules). Is that such a financial burden in the grand scheme of things for a commercial publication? If you're paying someone to manage your web content anyway, and I presume they do have a small team, why not designate one to moderate comments. It might take a little time but not an enormous amount of money.

Pastor in Monte said...

I wonder whether pressure has been applied from On High. Such a thing is not unknown, as those who remember Alice Thomas Ellis will attest.

John Vasc said...

Vox populi must at all costs be stifled. I see Damian Thompson has written (in the Spectator) a curiously bitter 'good-riddance' diatribe against online commenters in general. One is reminded of La Fontaine's vulpine analogy:
"Mais, comme il n’y pouvait atteindre :
« Ils sont trop verts, dit-il, et bons pour des goujats. »
Fit-il pas mieux que de se plaindre ?