They Could Try The Blogosphere

One is tempted to say that progressive Catholicism is dead, but it’s not my temptation. Is print dead? Without diocesan subsidies, I suspect many diocesan organs would be going the way of Toronto’s Catholic New Times. Their last issue was dated today, ending a thirty-year run.

Progressive Catholic blogs, meanwhile, remain healthy.


About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Church News. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to They Could Try The Blogosphere

  1. Richard says:

    Hello Todd,

    I’m just curious, as I always am when these conversations about progressive Catholicism, conservative Catholicism, traditional Catholicism, and every other variation you can come up with take place.

    How would you define “progressive Catholicism”? How would you distinguish it from unqualified Catholicism, or for that matter other varieties of Catholicism?

  2. Brigid says:

    My definition would be: spending more time looking forward *with* the 2000+ years of Church wisdom rather than looking backward and longing for some supposed *better days* back there somewhere. Again, we are not dismissive of the 2000+ year history of Mother Church but we live in the “here and now” and actually want to work with that as a reality!

  3. Anne says:

    Amen Brigid…that’s what Vatican II and reform is about!

  4. Gavin says:

    So in other words, “progressive” = good, “conservative” = bad?

    Even with that definition, where would people like NCR fall? Certainly they have no regard for 2000 years of wisdom, and one could say they don’t really live in the “here and now”. At least politically, I tend to consider “progressive” as being rather radical. If it weren’t for that it identifies itself as such, I wouldn’t consider this blog “progressive”, but rather what its title says it is – sensible! There are plenty of elements in Catholicism that I’d consider progressive but not sensible, such as the female ordination crowd, but then again I’m not a “progressive” person. I consider myself more middle ground (in just about anything) – I think there’s wisdom in both angles. The “conservatives” are right that we badly need to restore what was lost, or at least what the council called for that never came about. The “progressives” have some wisdom to them that you can’t just go back to the days of the 1930s and that, as Anne said, you have to acknowledge that Vatican II really happened!

    The whole thing does strike me as rather like the political situation in America. If you listen to the Republicans, Democrats are baby-slaughtering commies and the GOP is run by God. On the other hand, if you ask a Democrat to define the parties, you’ll find out that Republicans are greedy rich war-mongering earth-destroying bullies and that Democrats are responsible for all that is good in the world. So while Brigid has her definition of progressive, I’m sure an SSPX member might have another…

  5. The Catholic New Times self-identifies as “progressive.” I suppose it’s anyone’s place and right to identify themselves, “I am ____.” Inappropriate would be the example of Republicans labelling Democrats and vice versa. Or something along the lines of what I see on most conservative Catholics blogs: the attempt to set up the silliest argument of an opposite and fire away from there. It’s why I’ve been banned in four or five places: they can’t stand sensible arguments and they don’t like when others confront unchristian behavior.

    I’ve been asked before what I mean by being progressive. I blogged a bit on it here:

  6. Progressive Catholic: a believer who thinks 655,000 dead Iraqis is a little bit more important that same-sex activities.

  7. Gavin says:

    So what makes a “progressive Catholic” any different from a homosexual peace activist? Just curious.

    On a less sarcastic note, the Iraq invasion is a matter of American policy. Sexual morality is a matter of, well, morals. Not that I agree at all with the invasion, but it seems to me that the Church has more of a right to speak on morals than on foreign policy. After all, there’s a couple words in the US Constitution just about that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s