Saturday, April 29, 2006
Religious blogging
Today’s Washington Post article, Blogs Give Voice to the Dissenters in the Flock, by G. Jeffrey MacDonald of Religion News Service, broaches what should be an interesting subject. But Mr. MacDonald makes sure it isn’t by focusing on criticisms that just aren’t very interesting. As a Catholic, one that caught my eye was this:
“In the Diocese of Arlington, the Rev. Jim Tucker speculates in his blog about why Catholic bishops do not welcome disgruntled clerics from other denominations, a practice he describes as "an opportunity being terribly missed."
Wow - I was not aware that this was even an issue. I don’t know who the “Rev.” Jim Tucker is nor why I should care what he thinks. As a “Rev.” was he one of these “disgruntled ministers”? Does he really expect a Presbyterian minister to be able to walk right into a Catholic priesthood? Youth wants to know so I looked into it.
Well, turns out the “Rev.” is actually “Fr.” as in Catholic priest “Father” and, well, I‘ll let him explain in his own words:
“The post in question is a piece I wrote a year and a half ago on welcoming Episcopal clergy and parishes into the Roman Catholic Church. Reading back over it, I'm hard-pressed to find any dissent from official policies in it. If anything, it encourages greater zeal in utilizing the Pastoral Option, which is already an official Church policy. The newspaper article certainly doesn't misquote me or misreport the content of my post, but the context gets totally lost, a carefully crafted and balanced piece gets reduced to a handful of words, and the whole thing gets adduced as an illustration to support the author's thesis (which I actually think is fairly true) that blogs allow for greater criticism of previously unchallenged authorities. Of course, that Googled post from 2004 really doesn't have much to do with the thesis that this RNS author is advancing in April of 2006.” Dappled Things
Don’t know why the article’s author felt he had to go back two years to help make his point – esp. since he could have gone back just a few weeks ago to yours truly’s posting on Cardinal Mahoney: Maryland Conservatarian: Cardinal Mahoney is not the Church
“In the Diocese of Arlington, the Rev. Jim Tucker speculates in his blog about why Catholic bishops do not welcome disgruntled clerics from other denominations, a practice he describes as "an opportunity being terribly missed."
Wow - I was not aware that this was even an issue. I don’t know who the “Rev.” Jim Tucker is nor why I should care what he thinks. As a “Rev.” was he one of these “disgruntled ministers”? Does he really expect a Presbyterian minister to be able to walk right into a Catholic priesthood? Youth wants to know so I looked into it.
Well, turns out the “Rev.” is actually “Fr.” as in Catholic priest “Father” and, well, I‘ll let him explain in his own words:
“The post in question is a piece I wrote a year and a half ago on welcoming Episcopal clergy and parishes into the Roman Catholic Church. Reading back over it, I'm hard-pressed to find any dissent from official policies in it. If anything, it encourages greater zeal in utilizing the Pastoral Option, which is already an official Church policy. The newspaper article certainly doesn't misquote me or misreport the content of my post, but the context gets totally lost, a carefully crafted and balanced piece gets reduced to a handful of words, and the whole thing gets adduced as an illustration to support the author's thesis (which I actually think is fairly true) that blogs allow for greater criticism of previously unchallenged authorities. Of course, that Googled post from 2004 really doesn't have much to do with the thesis that this RNS author is advancing in April of 2006.” Dappled Things
Don’t know why the article’s author felt he had to go back two years to help make his point – esp. since he could have gone back just a few weeks ago to yours truly’s posting on Cardinal Mahoney: Maryland Conservatarian: Cardinal Mahoney is not the Church
