The Cafeteria is now open…
Warning: Some of the food may be tainted…
And the proprietor may be too busy trying to reinvent himself to care. But hey, decide for yourself - his comment on the new-old Cafeteria here: “Thankfully, my blog isn’t rated on the site you cite 
I consider my blog a personal rather than a Catholic blog with claim to orthodoxy (TM). Admittedly, ex post, the blog title was a bad idea. It was meant as a bon mot re: Ratzinger. Apparently, on the internet the accusation of ‘Cafeteria Catholic’ is ubiquitous. In my defense, I was a pup when I started. I hadn’t even known how far out some people are, Frequently, they have a lot in common, regardless of whether they’d be viewed as ‘left’ or ‘right’. Dislike for democracy and individual rights, for example.” - Vox Nova
His latest post here seems to confirm my earlier observations here.
I have to believe he really would like to change the name of his blog, but as he commented to me once: “My blog’s really a personal opinion blog on many topics, not a ‘Catholic blog’ per se. With 2+ million visitors, it’s more popular than ever.” And what assurance does he have all of those people would follow him to a new site? Especially since it was the uber-Catholics who made him so popular (and contributed to his support) in the first place?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
You know there’s something not quite right about all this and I cannot put my finger on it - somebody has said something that doesn’t ‘fit’ - it’ll come to me…
2 million visitors ? That would take me till october 2129 !!!
There must be something to his blog - I’m not going to say I can really see it as I’ve been reticent to really get involved in the whole thing after a few discussions I’ve been a little disconcerted with some of the threaders…not exactly fascist with a small f , but sometimes terrifying forms of ideology which only claims to be sub-catholicism when it wouldn’t know what catholicism was if it bit them on the bum…
Still ? If it’s what people want ? he’s popular when many who are more thoughtful, incisive and orthodox are not…
April 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The blog you cite isn’t my favorite one to read; for various reasons. But I actually ended up feeling sorry for him today, for the lambasting he got on one of his posts (the one on gay issues, of course.) That always seems to draw more heat than light.
I have felt that perhaps he shouldn’t have attempted the type of blog that he writes quite so early in his life as a Catholic. It isn’t unusual for converts to still be sorting through things for several years. (It isn’t unusual for cradle Catholics to still be sorting through things, either!) It’s unfortunate for him to have painted himself into quite the corner that he did. You don’t have to be a “rad-trad” to be a faithful Catholic, and maybe he doesn’t really fit that niche. But you’re right that one can care too much about the approval of others and the numbers of people reading a blog.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
GA is a bit daft IMHO.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Sometimes it takes having one’s own children to wake-up a man to the reality today’s children are living and what is crashing around them. Many of his statements he shared in the tone of “facts” were not.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Let me clarify my “daft” statement. I really didn’t intend that to be mean. GA just needs a bit more Catholic seasoning, so to speak.
Paul Priest - I’ve wondered about that 2 million figure, too.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Dear Adrienne and Paul Priest,
CC has been linked via Catholic World News’ Diogenes.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 am
GA has a good heart and is on the right track (meaning he cares deeply about his Catholic faith). I’ve met him; spent some time with him. Give the guy a break. If you feel he isn’t representing the Church’s teachings on a particular issue, then dialogue with him and educate him. Don’t imply he’s not faithful or “open for business” when he may not be.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 am
I hope he doesn’t equate number of visitors with success—-God’s idea of success is not the same as man’s.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 am
In fairness, the two million figure is quite possible. He mentioned once that the average hits per day is 2500 and it’s been up for about two years.
That may seem like a lot, and for a Catholic blog, it is. But there are a lot of non-Catholic blogs out there that get far more. Another reminder that not many people read Catholic blogs, which is why none of us should take it all too seriously.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Don’t get me wrong, I believe he is a good guy - and I like his blog - I also find it entertaining. He is correct to identify it as “not Catholic per se”. He’s honest and upfront about that now.
And yes - 2 million visitors is very probable and pales compared to the stats of other bloggers who are not Catholic, as Jeffrey points out. I just find it interesting that stats seem to be relied upon as a barometer of Catholic ‘correctness’ or Catholic thought, when in actuality, a blog is simply one person’s opinion - or most likely in Gerald’s case, his wife’s psychology. As I pointed out in a prevous post, some of his views surrounding the SSA issue are based in contemporary psychology and not in Church teaching. (Clinical psychological opinion is not doctrine.)
I often post about the fact that so-called Catholic weblogs, unless written by a priest whose theology and doctrinal statements are in accord with the Magisterium, should be read with caution when the subject matter deals with faith and morals. Such faithful priests are in my sidebar, although there are many more out there.
So yeah - I’m neither attacking Gerald nor am I revealing anything not already known to his readers. And yes, I often make a post out of what I’d otherwise comment on in someone’s post. (I rarely, if ever, go back to someone’s blog to see if they responded to my comment. I say what I say and move on, just as I do with my own posts. I say what I say, and move on. If I decide I made a mistake or don’t like how or what I said, I remove the post.)
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
2.1m visitors isn’t indicative of ‘orthodoxy’ but of popularity. One can’t fake Sitemeter stats. yesterday, there were 5675 visitors and 15641 page views, for example.
Anywho. I was advocating equal rights. The state cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. That the ideal is a man married to a woman is obvious, from simple anatomy. The state does not discriminate in housing, why should/how could it in adoption.
I oppose the Church insofar as bishops support campaigns to have stupidly-named ‘defense of marriage’ amendments, campaign against civil unions, and so forth. Campaigning against equality is generally not a good idea. The state has no business to talk about the ’sanctity’ of marriage, as Bush does - and I am a libertarian-conservative - the state can’t tell gays that they are ‘unholy’. Churches can, sure. A church should be able to decide who to marry, certainly. Anyway, gay adoption already exists pretty much everywhere in the USA and civil unions or whatever it’ll be called aren’t far behind.
Cheers from the Palace Hotel in…yes…San Francisco. Off to the second Red Sox game now.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
He’s rather wobbly on SSA as it relates to Church teaching, so the title is misleading, but he readily admits he’s “just” a layman; I never got the impression he intended for anyone to think he’s dishing out Church teaching (a little cafeteria lingo, eh?).
Melody and pml,
I’m interested in seeing how his opinion moves as he gets older and has kids, too.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Wow. I hadn’t realised just how much of a disordered mess the whole blogging thing could be. Maybe a sign that we should all remind ourselves about the problems which the internet poses.