Catholic blogging

I have trouble defining republicans as traditionalist Catholics, as traditionally Roman Catholics in these shores have been Democrats, whether Irish (pre-Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Admiral Haig) or HIspanics, and the Republicans our oppressors.

As recorded in the 1979 book "John F. Kennedy: Catholic and Humanist" by Albert Menendez we read that President Kennedy in one of his final addresses, after recognizing the several hierarchy seated alongside him, told the CYO banquet that he was relieved to have met some nuns on the way into the luxury hotel, as he most often found nuns to be Democrats while bishops tended to be republicans.

Traditionally Roman Catholics in these Americas are Democratic; thus we may err in calling traditionalists those of other, more oppressive, political stripes.

How is that Fr Zuhlsdorf's fault? He seems to be aware that his orthodoxy often attracts the crazies on the right occasionally, Just as NCR attracts the crazies on the left. His outliers are falling off the boat just as much as NCR's outliers are.

Similar to y'all, WDTPRS has instituted a system to weed out trolls, spammers, and people who are out of their minds. Your difference is not operational, it is ideological.

You are right in saying that most Catholic blogs slant right (as far as those terms apply to orthodox Catholics). There could be many reasons for that, and I am no expert in why. However, I read a number of Catholic blogs and I can say few are guided by blind or hateful ideologues. I do notice that the few left leaning Catholic blogs are proportioanlly more likely to be "falling off the boat" of orthodoxy, though I suspect their counterparts on the right make up the difference with sheer number. That is, while a much greater percentage of left-leaning Catholics online are dissenters, the conservative presence is larger by enough that its smaller (though not "small") percentage of radicals equal or perhaps exceed the leftist dissenters.

Also, on the whole, "traditionalist" might not be the best term, especially if WDTPRS and similar Catholic blogs are the topic. "Traditionalist" implies radical separatist people on the far right blinded by nostalgia. Fr Zuhlsdorf and his readers may, in general, have a more traditional aesthetic preference than some, but that does not make them "traditionalists" per se.

And the question is, "WHY do Catholic blogs slant to the 'right?'" Perhaps because most of the "mainstream media" and the NCR are so far "left."

Fr. Z seems to have the nutty idea that his vocation consists of directing his rad-trad readers to various Catholic online polls in order to heavily, and artificially, weigh them in "their" direction. What a strange idea of "ministry" he has. It would be utterly hilarious if his views weren't so terrifying.

No, really: WDTPRS really is utterly hilarious. Fr Z has found his niche, and God bless him for it: he doesn't seem to be in a parish of any sort, and we all might wonder how much his notion of the presbyterate would conform to saints like Fr Damien, or John Vianney, or the doctors like Ambrose or Augustine or Chrysostom.

That said, it is important to realize that there are four classes of internet Catholics, regardless of ideology (a suspect notion that might be better left for another day's comment).

First, there are bloggers, who, for whatever reason, put themselves on the line with real names and addresses.

Second, there are commentators who don't blog, but want to join the fun on someone else's talking points. That's okay, as far as it goes. Some of these people get a little more hepped up than group one. And sometimes we get out of hand.

Third, there are anonymous people who read and don't comment, and I suspect they are the wisest of the four groups of us.

Last, you have anonymous folks who may or may not have cute little handles, and who, I suspect, would be embarrassed if their spouse, confessor, or seminary dean were to read what they write.

Rock's comments are spot on.