So, I urge all my readers to go over to go over to Cath News and take a look around.
If you see a story that you think needs a Catholic perspective put around it, or where others are pushing error and disobedience, try commenting on it. But save your comment! And if it doesn't get published, post it over here, so everyone can see what is going on over there.
Then come back here and tell us what you thought about Cath News' selection of stories for the day - were there one's that really had no business being there? Or one's they missed?
At the end of the day, I'll compile up a summary of the day's efforts.
***Tuesday on Cath News....
So to start with the positives, the stories included in today's Cath News really seemed to me quite a good mix, so they deserve kudos for that.
I particularly enjoyed the Broken Hill experience of a baby-priest from the Catholic Weekly for the good news story of the day, but there was also some good meat, in a story highlighting ethical issues around surrogacy, an update to resistance to Obamacare's assault of religious liberty in the US, as well as a story about persecution of Christians in Indonesia.
Once again very few comments of any colour, which is interesting.
On the negative side, those who do attempt to put the orthodox/conservative view are still getting bounced.
So five comments rejected that I know of so far on stories from yesterday - one of my own (sigh), and four from Matin!
If others have tried and failed, do post them here through the comments box...
On my own side, neither my Sunday or Monday night comments have appeared and no further correspondence received from Ms Hogan. Come on Cath News, do you really think it is a good strategy to just blacklist anyone who dares to criticise you?!
Because really, that would kind of be proving my point, wouldn't it...
Anyway, for the record here is my rejected comment, on the Opinion piece from the Tablet defending the US nuns:
To claim that the decision to insist on orthodoxy from religious women is just clericalism is disingenuous indeed.
No one doubts the great historical contribution of religious women in the US: what they are questioning is the state of things today.
Fr Lawrence appears to disparage the habit and clerical dress, yet these are great signs of witness and commitment: no one someone would treasure the sign they represent.
Similarly, just what does Fr Lawrence mean by 'the virus of perfectionism'?! Didn't Our Lord say Be ye perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect?
Above all though, we do need to affirm that celibacy or virginity for the sake of the Kingdom is in fact objectively a higher state of life. This is a defined teaching of the Church (at the Council of Trent) reaffirmed by Blessed Pope John Paul II in Perfectae Caritatis.
The life of Our Lord and Our Lady, he pointed out, provide a model of perfection that in no way belittles marriage: rather it points us to the ideal of chastity that we should follow appropriate to our state of life.
A model sorely lacking in this world where all too many clerics and religious have abandoned not only the dress that declares their commitment to the world, but also the commitment to authentic Catholic morality that goes along with it.
Here is Martin's on the same subject:
"So often these kinds of claims are just anachronistic.
In the 1950's when social approval was very high sure there was more of that danger. But today? The Church is constantly reviled in the mass media (The Drum 'Where Have All The Good TV Catholics Gone?) the subject of persistent legal attack by the the state.
It is much easier to argue that the same desire for social approval is just finding new expression with the LCWR- this time with an anxious willingness to dispense with Catholic identity.
The sisters in the US have behaved abysmally there is no other way to say it. Read who they invited to their national conference (google god and the machine lcwr) new age quack Barbara Marx Hubbard.
Wearing clerical dress today exposes one to possible abuse, yet also for this reason, to gratitude from members of the public who feel beaten into submission by anti-Catholicism. Religious today remark how often they're approached by the curious, the guilt ridden, those in crisis because of the 'signals of transcendence'.
Clearly in our context it is unarguably true that emphasising Catholic identity is much more likely to be a species of charity than not."
And here are Martin's other rejected comments:
On the Georgetown is being sued by the Exorcist film guy story:
Bad Catholic blog is excellent today - shows how marked the contrast is between Jesuit run Georgetown and Franciscan University Steubenville.
Poor Prof. Patrick Deneen, forced to leave his beloved university for Notre Dame to simply find a Catholic environment, laments the hideous decline of Georgetown in an article on line at First Things a few days ago.
The Melinda Gates story:
"Bill Gates' dad was a president of 'Planned Parenthood' (Planned Barrenhood). From its racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger beginnings to today with its domination of the Democratic Party - it is the very definition of an evil institution.
Abortion and contraception are potently anti-Christian as Patrick Fagan from the Family Research Council explains. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09H36.pdf
And exactly where an amazing Christian revolution is occuring [Jenkins: 'The Coming of Global Christianity'] - how do secularist internationalists respond? - in terror that their legacy will be swept away - they try and kill it at it's root.
There's no other word but abhorrent for Gates' monied support of the culture of death."
And finally on 'How Catholic are we'? and inclusiveness (yes that was indeed a shocker!):
To impress God's love, tenderness and mercy at the point of temptation and weakness, then His nature as 'a severe man who reaps where he does not sow' 'who casts body and soul into Hell' - Is to use a truth in the service of a lie.
We're dominated by liberalism, which uses the rhetoric of inclusiveness to legally dismantle competing non-liberal centres of authority, especially the Church with its exclusive and competing claims. This language in here is almost perfectly designed to mislead.
In the name of 'inclusivity' it is proposed marriage be abolished, the church's natural law moral philosophy deemed 'arbitrary prejudice' and as a body made similar to a racist organisation like the KKK in the public mind.
In THIS context to talk in the mode of the state when the life of the Church is imperilled is to talk 'peace, peace when there is no peace'.
“Woe to him whom this world charms from Gospel duty! Woe to him who seeks to pour oil upon the waters when God has brewed them into a gale! Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to appal! Woe to him whose good name is more to him than goodness! Woe to him who, in this world, courts not dishonor! Woe to him who would not be true, even though to be false were salvation! Yea, woe to him who as the great Pilot Paul has it, while preaching to others is himself a castaway!” Melville
Cath News must be reformed!