I’ve been having an interesting discussion today at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex. RP might say I’m acting as sort of a shield for Father Tom Doyle, the priest who sounded some of the early warning bells for the bishops on sex predators among the clergy.

I’m often struck when mainstream Catholicism reaches out to the blogosphere. Visitors to the St Blog’s bring a useful non-internet perspective. Sadly, this is too often dismissed out of hand, especially by some Catholic conservatives, when internet “traditions” are transgressed, usually unknowingly.

Doyle is not a favorite among some of St Blog’s conservatives, and I suggested that charity might be lacking in David’s and shelray’s approach to him, especially in their labelling his e-mail to them under the heading of “dissent.” I asked where the dissent was, but have yet to give an answer other than more “Aha!” links and a vague sense of connection with a certain Mr Sipe who espouses some notions a bit farther into the fringe than Doyle.

Doyle did take some time to respond to the folks at CLS. And the bloggers there showed the guts to actually print his e-mail unedited. In part:

I read with great interest the remarks attached to the review but also much of the other information that I was able to find on the blog page. I found much of it interesting and personally enlightening. But I was also struck by a tone that saddened me and it is this: a significant lack of charity manifested by many who disagree with the ideas or writings of others, especially the so-called ‘liberal” or critical people. In my many years in the priesthood I have gone through many phases and perhaps the most painful one has been facing the fact that many of us have sacrificed charity, a core Christian virtue, for our concepts of orthodoxy.

I see David has posted under “theology” a new thread examining “St Blog’s, Orthodoxy, and Charity.” I still think they’re missing the boat, so let’s give it a try here and see where it takes us.

“Truth” is an important virtue for conservatives. It’s really important for everybody, but it serves as a sort of special mantle for certain people. And that’s a good thing, because we need good and faithful truthsayers.

 

Yet sometimes, what is really personal interpretation passes too easily for truth. David mentions some well-defined terms, and begins to discuss them intelligently. We have concepts such as charity, authority, scandal, and spiritual leadership. All good and needful things.

Yet embedded in the advocacy of good things are aspects which are far from actual truth or orthodoxy. Is VOTF really “anti-Catholic,” as the CLS folks say, or is it just inconvenient? Does one VOTF “anti-Catholic” ruin it for the whole group? It seems to me that there’s a very high burden of proof upon CLS to include an interpretation in the firmament of “truth.” It sure looks like personal opinion to me.

 

Are Doyle’s criticisms of bishops really “merciless,” a term the CLS folks have used twice today? Is every “faithful” bishop really the target of “caricature?” Every one? Every criticism a targeting? Is linking the institutional aspects of celibacy to the sex abuse and cover-up issues misguided, or does it truly give scandal? I suspect these guys have been around the block, as have many St Bloggers–and I seriously doubt that mature Catholics are “scandalized” by theories and musings. This “faithful” Catholic blogger sure knows how to turn up the heat and maintain it on a particular bishop or two. Is this a “reasonable” expression of orthodoxy and truth? Or is there some vendetta laced into an otherwise well-intentioned outrage?

More often, human behavior itself is the source of scandal, not an intellectualization of issues facing the Church. I’ve know many Catholics–parishioners, long-time friends, and minsitry colleagues who wander into St Blog’s only to leave “scandalized” by the tone–not unlike Tom Doyle.

One example from the “shield,” if I may: a long-time church organist told me she was scandalized by this popular site.  It wasn’t because she was a groupie or even a shield. She is a long-time advocate of classical music, organ repertoire, chant, and hymnody and has been a member of the American Guild of Organists for ages. She felt relieved none of her colleagues were among the listed supporters of the site. She termed it a professional embarassment.

 

Is strong and vociferous and well-intentioned input an important witness to the “truth?” Or does such input imply one must be a signatory to particular truths or particular criticisms of the “right” bishops by the “right” people? It was suggested to me today–no surprise–that I’m the one who needs a corrective:

Perhaps you will not see this but it seems to me that your comments consistently succumb to the fault of which you wish to accuse me.

Probably true to at laeast a small degree. I wouldn’t think to deny it. Does any taint of personal fault in this regard negate any possibility of being listened to?

 

Regardless of how these gentlemen got to the point at which they now stand, they clearly believe that they are in the right. It will take the Holy Spirit to convince them otherwise. I will pray for them and I hope that you will too.

I leave it for readers here to see how this conclusion fits with the recent CLS post I linked. It’s almost a kind of gnosticism to see people suggest that a certain “secret virtue” is in place among faithful Catholics–the notion that “true believers” of some sort exist who have managed to avoid the pitfalls of their own ego and blindness and can render judgment on what constitutes truth, dissent, and orthodoxy.

To tell you the honest truth, I probably should pray for David and shelray, but it’s more likely I’ll forget. Which isn’t to say that if they were my parishioners or neighbors I wouldn’t be disinclined to hoist a beer, pray with them, or shoot the breeze about politics or even religion.

There’s a lot of soul-searching going on these days over civility and related approaches to interpersonal relationships. And the blogosphere is under increasing scrutiny–as we should be. That’s a very good thing. But I think some of us will still miss the boat on it occasionally. And occasional people will miss the boat on it a lot.

But before we accomplish some kind of civil and catholic discourse on these otherwise vital issues, it seems like we have a long way to go. The expectation is that among Christians, we will be among the best examples. When we lack that consistent good example, I fear we’ll instead be a source of scandal for non-believers and non-internet folks alike. I just hope that point doesn’t get missed.

Any suggestions? Please post, if you would.