Blogger apostasy
Loss of faith
Sadly, it’s a new syndrome developing, which affects some bloggers, but more so Internet/blog surfers. It can happen to traditionalists, progressives, liberals, whatever type of Catholic you want to call yourself. Loss of faith is just a finger away. (That would be the middle finger.)
My opinion is that it takes hold of people who become too cerebral about the faith, or focus entirely upon the dogmatic, doctrinal aspects of the faith. It affects those who are especially focused upon liturgical rubrics, legalities, decorum, or theologies, etc. It is difficult to delineate or to generalize about who may be affected however. Conservatives or liberals could capitulate through intellectual pride - who knows? (The really evil apostates stay “catholic” and present their views as Catholic, twisting truth to suit their philosophies.)
Nevertheless, it really happens to people. I worked with a woman who was a radical traditionalist, quoting Popes from Pius X to Pius V, along with Conciliar decisions of the Council of Trent, verbatim. In her eyes, very few people today, including the Pope, were even Catholic. After a couple months of blogging (she discovered it from me!) and exposure to the Internet, she returned to her former religion, Wicca. What the hell happened? I saw it coming though, Internet or not, because her faith had been placed in externals, along with the celebrity and acceptance she initially found in being a convert from paganism - which wore off of course. (Well, there is more to the story than that, suffice it to say, she had a superficial faith.)
When the medium is the message.
I really believe people get in over their heads when it comes to liturgy and dogma, spirituality and religious life, not to mention all the “issues” bloggers get themselves embroiled in. Blogging exacerbates the situation sometimes. (Think about it, how many bloggers are “new” Catholics, or so-called “reverts” - I hate that term - without a great deal of experience in the faith, the Church, despite the fact they may have some education on the subject, or maybe even a ‘mystical’ experience of sorts under their belts.) I call it getting “over-Churched”, or “over-theologized”, over “spiritualized”, which contrasts fairly well in a culture that is “over-psychologized”, “intellectualized” and “liberalized”. It happens to people who know too much about a little sometimes - while having little or no experience in being “little”. (In a post on Abbey1, I call these Pusey blogs.)
You can take the devotion out of religion, which is what many people end up doing, but then religion becomes just another ideology that can be refuted along with all the other “isms” that float around out there. Especially when “religious” people betray their lack of devotion, which is essentially, a lack of charity - that really drives aspirants away! (I’m referring to the invective and argumentation that occurs in the comment section of many blogs. Bitches sometimes kill their own puppies.)
Verbosity.
You see, anyone may pontificate upon the truths of the faith and morals, or condemn those who don’t measure up to their standards - liberal or conservative - but without charity, everyone is just a sounding cymbal, a noisy gong, a Snoopy cartoon dialog no one can understand - or even cares to understand.
A noted priest (veddy conservative mind you - you would be shocked!) from St. Paul, once told me that some of the writings of John Paul II were a bunch of hot air - don’t be scandalized - he was referring to their verbosity, not the essential content. (He especially felt some of the documents from the USCCB were even more so.) If one can say that about Church documents, my Lord, how much more apt is it to describe our blogging?
We must begin to realize that our words, written in a weblog, or in the comment section of another, can drive a person to apostasy, or cause an innocent person seeking the truth to dismiss and turn away from the Catholic Church all together. Sticks and stones hurt, words can kill the spirit.
Scandalizing the little ones - it is so not a good thing. Mea culpa!
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Prayer is everything, and even “pious” blogging does not take the place of prayer and spiritual reading.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Bingo! Good summary of things. Focusing too much on the human element in the Church can make one very depressed, especially if you see yourselves as a “Traditionalist”. Because often as “trads” see ourselves on a little island to begin with, as if the whole world is against us, etc.. it lends itself to a bunker mentality.
You can also end up with “Religion Poisioning” by reading too much (either books, or Internet), and going over things in your head over and over again. Keep the Faith simple.
The medium of blogging can sort of detach you from the “real world”, if done too often. 1-2 posts a day seems to be all I can take before I get sick of it. I know which blogger you speak of, overall sounds like a nice guy, but he posts alot in a day. Perhaps just spending too much time on this thing.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Ken - great clarification to what I was trying to say - especially the religious poisoning thing. Right on the mark.
Elena - yes indeed! Pious blogging can not take the place of prayer or study - even lectio or meditation. That is such a good comment. I think it translates well into other venue, such as CCD, RCIA intruction, just as it would for homiletics amongst the clergy.
Thank you both for your contribution.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I agree. I’m a “revert” of sorts (I’m not fond of the term, either, and it doesn’t truly describe me…nothing does, maybe “nuts” would be proper).
When I was coming home, I found CA forums and did learn a lot there, but some of what I learned was a bit warped because of all the infighting between “factions” of faithful Catholics from different perspectives, as well as anti-Catholics, people with legitimate questions, people with ridiculous questions just looking to pick a fight, sanctimonious people, etc. The entire spectrum.
I got into blogging because of a good friend (who doesn’t blog much anymore but is ever faithful to God), and this took me away from CA, and has given me a more balanced perspective. For myself, I’ve grown while blogging, a parallel situation. My knowledge probably surpasses my faith (don’t take that out of context…I’m not an intellectual giant by any means). What I mean to indicate is that my journey has been intellectual as well as one of faith, but I do fear, as I (hopefuly) begin grad theolgy in earnest this fall, that I will become overwhlmed and lose it all.
It’s been documented…people overintellectualize the faith, both Catholic and Protestants, and become disillusioned.
I can see it happening here on the internet, we have seen people fall. While the internet can be a great thing, it can also be dangerous and speed such things along, providing knowledge at such a pace that the soul and intellect compete to stay even…and then a cog hits the wheel.
Prayer is so important…we can sit and blog about it all day long, but if we are not carrying out a conversation, blogging is, as you say, just a clanging gong. (From Cor. 12-13)
God bless you, Terry. Don’t quit blogging…take your retreats, but please don’t stop sharing your insights with us all.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I keep doign this, maybe the 4th or 5th time today! The first point I wanted to make I skipped!
I disagree with the priest who apparently felt that JP2 was verbose; I would argue it is an issue of style. My guess is that the priest in question is likely a fan of, if not the writing itself, then the writing style of Hemmingway. (Do you know the priest well enough to know that about him? Just curious).
JP2 is just very thorough, and looks at all issues from a spiral perspective, circling it, almost a lectio divino style of coming at an issue, very academic, very scholarly, trying to see it from all perspectives before wrapping it up and tying the bow.
Yes, he can be difficult to read at times, but his insights via this method are astounding. And, I tend to have the same kind of thought process as he does; people like us follow the scenic route, wheras some people are very direct and to the point. This is all well and good, but I’d argue that those who are in such a rush to go from point A to point B are missing a lot of what is in between and which is not necessarily just “cosmetic scenery”, but pertains to the meat of the subject. So I’d argue that JP2 is not so much verbose as thorough, and the priest who thought him verbose perhaps just has a taste for a different style of writing or presentation.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Thanks Julie, no, I don’t really intend to quit writing, but I was impressed today how our words can affect others, especially those who suffer and may be somewhat fragile due to personal suffering and circumstances we can’t be aware of.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Julie, all I can say is that the priest is a very solid, practical man, as well as a scholar in his own right…extremely loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium. I have no idea if he is a fan of Hemingway.
Not to scandalize anyone, another esteemed and knowledgeable priest explained to me that many encyclicals of the Popes, albeit the Holy Father’s thoughts and directives, are not entirely written by the Pope - although he signs off on them. This particular priest was able to distinguish what was written by the Pope and what was supplied by those who collaborated on the work. This would only surprise people unfamiliar with academic and ecclesial documents however.
The priest I referred to in the post is himself very devoted to JPII - I edited the post to say JPII’s writings, instead of encyclicals, if that helps you, I also added that he included - more specifically - documents from the USCCB.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Actually as I understand it, Fides et Ratio is commonly understood to have been largely written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and JP2 signed off on it both for his own work into it and to give it the authority of the Church. Not to diminish or plagiarize our current Pontiff in any way!
I’m not sure I’ve read any JP2 via the USCCB. Do you have any specific writings?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
A sterling post Terry. Awesome.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 am
Terry, since I seem to be the available target of this, I can only say that I’m offended that you would do this. F— you and your Catholic friends. It’s this kind of gossip that has me so disgusted in the first place.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 am
Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him and Thomas doubted Him. And these were friends of Jesus! How much more vigilant do we have to be in our spiritual life to not fall away? Even though I am still fairly new to blogging, I have learned a great deal about Catholicism. Everything in moderation, and remembering that blogging doesn’t fulfill my Sunday obligation nor replace saying a rosary! Blogging can’t be done in a vacuum. Thanks for another great post that causes me to do some reflection!
Oh, and I didn’t mention it earlier, but glad to hear you’re not quitting blogging and very sorry to hear your health isn’t so good. Will keep you in my prayers.
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 am
Jeffrey, One of the problems with blogging is that many people think that posts are directed at themselves, it seems to me you have had this impression more than once.
Why would I email you with messages of support and then post something you interpret as an attack?
I reference a woman I worked with, and by inference I was writing about a Catholic last year who left the Church to become Eastern Orthodox, and I also had two other trads in mind who have become sedevacantists. I did not name the people to avoid gossip.
Gosh! Quit being such a prig. And don’t ever use the F word with me.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 am
C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape told Wormwood to encourage the new convert to write a book about his experience! I think of that many times reading some Catholic blogs.
Present company excepted, however - this is a great blog and very spiritual, and without the lack of charity that is so common elsewhere.
Yesterday I saw, sadly, that Kathy Shaidle of Relapsed Catholic is planning to get married outside the Church because her fiance needs an annulment and she is disillusioned about the Kennedy-Rausch thing. Apparently she is serious and not inclined to change her mind.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
Thanks commenters for responding to this post.
Just so you can understand my point in referencing a priest who voiced a criticism of various documents I should clarify the statement for you:
1) The priest(s) were NOT being disrespectful to the thoughts of the Holy Father - perhaps his academic style, or the volumes he produced.
2)My reference to the USCCB was regarding documents or statements put out by the Bishops of this conference and/or their committees.
3) I do not remember which specific writings of either JPII, the USCCB we we were discussing - it may have been 1 or 2 years ago. In addition it was just a general statement on my part, to punctuate a point.
4) I offered this example to contrast the fact that if people can be critical of official/non-official documents - NOT CHURCH TEACHING - how much more can they be critical of the hot air some of us bloggers blow around - AND I WAS USING MYSELF AS THE PRIME EXAMPLE - HENCE THE MEA CULPA AT THE END.
I am so extremely sorry I did not make this clearer in the original post which had nothing to do with JPII and his fan club, nor the USCCB.
NOT EVEN JEFFREY SMITH.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Robin - I have to re-read Screwtape Letters again - its been years since I read it. I forgot about the passage you mention - one could do an entire post about that.
Sorry about Relapsed Catholic - it could happen to any of us. I should write about the Kennedy annulment thing, I’m old enough to remember a few things that family bought themselves out of.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Sorry this is off topic, but I posted a few days ago about the K-R annulment, then heard more about it on Relevant Radio. From what I heard on Drew Mariani, from a canon lawyer, is that the annulment never happened. I only caught parts of the conversation because the signal was bad in the car, but the gist was the annulment was given the OK in Boston, but when it made it to Rome, it was denied. No reversal ever happened is what I got from it. Instead of me explaining it poorly, check out
Canon Law Blog I’m not sure what to believe because it is all very involved. Raymond Arroyo on EWTN even said the words, “annulment reversed,” so it seems more is needed to get the complete picture or a full understanding.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Swissmiss, I heard the same thing. I would encourage everyone to check out the post on Ed Peters’ blog.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
In keeping with the off-topci theme (sorry Ter!)… When I went through it I was told by the Tribunal that my ex would be contacted up to 3 times so he could tell his side of the story. I had to get witnesses that knew him as well as me. Then after all that plus submitting a lengthy, detailed questionaire, having a lengthy, detailed and at times embarrassing interview with my own priest (not his fault, it was the questions) and finally getting the decision from the local Tribunal - then - and only then - was it sent to the national one. This process took about a year. No stone was left unturned.
Maybe Kennedy jumped the gun thinking he only needed one decision at the local level to marry in the Church.
In any case I wonder why Rauch even cares as she is not Catholic.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Angie! I love going off topic - especially with this post!
Anyway - jumping in with your question why Rauch would make a big deal of this - knowing women whose husbands got an annulment, to them it is a huge insult - because they considered the marriage real and intact. A former co-worker’s husband got their marriage annuled, how, no one knows, but she sure considered that her marriage had been real, especially after 3 kids. Talk about bitter!
Divorce is one thing, to say there was no marriage in the first place is another matter all together.
Anyway - that is why I think Rauch would care, plus, if you are non-Catholic, it’s always fun to win - heck, even when you’re Catholic. And it couldn’t happen to a better family, whose members have been Catholic in name only.
Thanks Hon!
June 24th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“A noted priest (veddy conservative mind you - you would be shocked!) from St. Paul, once told me that some of the writings of John Paul II were a bunch of hot air - don’t be scandalized - he was referring to their verbosity, not the essential content. (He especially felt some of the documents from the USCCB were even more so.) If one can say that about Church documents, my Lord, how much more apt is it to describe our blogging?”
Verbosity is a problem for most writers. In grade school I would look up big words in the dictionary to fill out my “themes.” And of course I would write large.
But when you get to be an adult, for many of us, especially those like me who like to toss off letters to the editor of newspapers, brevity is the main requirement.
They only have so much space so if you want to get published, start eliminating those adjectives and adverbs and redundant clauses!.
I also took a course in fiction writing at a local writing group here called the “Loft.” It was an interesting experience to have 8 or 9 people take my 50 page chapter home and chop it up.
Rather than bemoan the fact that my creation was mutilated, I could easily see how much it had been improved. And I still had the ability to re-insert phrases that held a particular meaning for me.
I recommend that for other writers.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Okay Ray - let’s take this outside - I know I’m verbose and just as filled with hot air - wanna make somethin’ of it?
Seriously, I took a couple of classes at the Loft too! I hope you weren’t in it - my novel was horrible. Maybe you were though, were you the one who wrote about that ruby thing - which was kind of a rip off of the Purloined Letter or Raiders of the Lost Ark?
Mine was kind of a coming of age romance novel. Oh! I am laughing so hard now.