Read Martin Blackshaw’s article below on his latest attempts to contribute to the blog of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, the former Transalpine Redemptorist monks…
Then click on ‘comments’ with your thoughts – is the priest in charge of that blog right to censor challenging views? Tell us why/why not…
I am one who has always agreed with the Church’s teaching that there should not be an absolute freedom of the press… There must be limits to what people can say in their writings, limits which preserve the Christian religion, morality, privacy and overall decency from the assaults of those who would undermine the order established by God.
In the days before Vatican II, this right-minded method of censoring was applied in almost every country. I say almost every country because we all know that Communist Russia and Nazi Germany had a different approach, which was to censor everything but the atheistic Party line.
After Vatican II, however, everything was turned on its head and this atheistic method of censoring, once favoured only by cold blooded killers like Stalin and Hitler, gradually gained the ascendancy in Christian Europe and the US.
Today, it has come to such a pass that all manner of attacks on Christianity are published widely in the press and media while any Christian response, greatly diminished, as it is post-Council, is effectively neutralised by editor censorship.
So much, then, for defending the truths of Christianity via the secular press and media. I don’t bother to waste the ink any more, for it is clear that sensationalism is the order of the day and truth is of little import, particularly divine truth.
What about the Catholic press, then? Surely its editors would be zealous to defend the truths of our divine religion? Not a chance!
It is said that there are none so illiberal as liberals and I can vouch for the veracity of this statement, particularly in the case of religious liberals. Of course religious liberals are really just Communists by any other name. They have the same revolutionary spirit and they have the same end in mind for Catholicism. The only difference between them and the aforementioned despots is that they mask their atheism behind a feigned religious zeal.
The bottom line is that today a Traditional Catholic is given no freedom whatever to challenge the multitudes of heretical and schismatic writings that appear week in and week out in any number of papers and magazines that claim allegiance to the Catholic Church.
As a result, Traditional Catholics have turned to such publications as The Remnant or The Angelus as a means of airing the true doctrines of the faith, or they have created blogs such as Catholic Truth as a medium for educating confused Catholics who, for decades, have had Conciliar liberalism bottle fed to them so that they no longer have even a basic grasp of the religion of their baptism.
Now, it is on this reasonably new medium called ‘Catholic blogging’ that I wish to concentrate. There are four main categories of Catholic blog sites. These are sedevacantist, traditional, liberal and conservative.
Of these four, the greatest surprise for me has been the censoring of the traditional (by which I mean SSPX) point of view by priest/moderators of conservative blogs.
There are conservative blogs, such as The Sensible Bond, whose lay moderator is quite at ease with a full blown debate in matters relating to the crisis in the Church. But the priest-run ones are different.
For example, Fr. Zuhlsdorf (Fr. Z) banned me from his blog over one year ago for simply mentioning the many public scandals of Pope John Paul II, such as his 1986 and 2002 gatherings of all religions at Assisi, his kissing of the Koran, his receiving the mark of a Hindu Goddess on his forehead and his visit to the Synagogue in Rome where he sat, head bowed, while his Jewish hosts sang a prayer of petition for the coming of the Messiah.
Why did he ban me for mentioning such obvious public scandals as these? He did so for two reasons. First, he was ordained by this Pope and, therefore, will not hear a word against him. And secondly, he just could not justify Pope John Paul’s actions in accordance with the teaching of the Church. The easy option, then, was to get rid of the problem by banning me from his blog. And he has maintained this ban for fear that I will challenge him once again for an answer.
And so this brings me to the point of my article, which is to highlight my most recent censoring by none other than the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, formerly known as the Transalpine Redemptorists.
The story goes something like this. I have been aware for some time that the Redemptorist Fathers who run this blog, not satisfied with the personal decision they made to reconcile with Rome, have been niggling at the SSPX as if to justify their own new position.
To be fair to them, they did receive some harsh treatment from certain elements when they made the rather sudden move for reconciliation. Some people just couldn’t handle the shock and disappointment of their apparent compromise with modernist Rome and consequently over-stepped the mark in communicating this to them, forgetting that they are consecrated souls of God who must always be treated with the respect their office demands. And so some comments posted on their blog simply had to be censured. It was the right thing to do. Now, as regards this niggling I referred to. The blog moderator began by advising the SSPX to follow his lead and reconcile with Rome, warning that to resist in the light of Summorum Pontificum was to move dangerously close to formal schism.
My response to that was to post comments to the effect that the SSPX’ resistance to modernism in Rome is not merely a question of the Mass, but a question also of doctrine. I mentioned the doctrines in question, but my comments were not posted.
I emailed the Father moderator about this censoring of my comments and he wrote back saying that he knew nothing of the matter and asked for dates and times of when I placed the comments. I supplied a rough idea, for I couldn’t be certain, but received no response from him and my lost comments never materialised. So I left it at that.
The next thing I heard was that the Redemptorists had posted on their blog a piece claiming that the ‘state of necessity,” declared by Archbishop Lefebvre to exist in the Church, and maintained by Bishop Fellay, to be now unjustifiable in light of Summorum Pontificum, and also claiming that SSPX marriages and confessions are not valid.
This was particularly irritating given that these very Redemptorists had operated for more than twenty years claiming “state of emergency” and administering the sacraments in the same way they now claim the SSPX are doing invalidly.
One comment on their blog calmed my irritation, however. I cannot recall the name of the person who asked the question, but it was basically to the effect that if freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass was the only obstacle for them to declaring the ‘state of emergency’ in the Church at an end, then why didn’t they declare the same when Pope John Paul II provided the Mass on request back in 1981?
It’s a good question. I mean, the Fraternity of St. Peter and a number of other institutions in the Church have been celebrating the Tridentine Mass for nigh on thirty years now. Anyway, I left it there and made no comment on their blog. Then, I was informed by the editor of this blog that the Redemptorists had posted a thread in defence of Pope Liberius, the 4th century Pope said to have excommunicated St. Athanasius and put his name to a semi-heretical Arian document.
I went to the blog to have a look and I took an immediate interest when I noted that in the introduction to the thread, the writer mentions that he determined to look into the case of Liberius as a result of an SSPX person drawing parallels between St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre.
So, for me, there were two matters for debate here. One was the case of Pope Liberius and the other was the significance for the SSPX, if any, of parallels between that period in history and our own.
The case for or against Pope Liberius is not really worth entering into here at this point in time. Suffice it to say, the history of the period (4th century) is rather vague and thin on hard evidence. What the Redemptorist blog piece has done is presented the thesis of a certain Fr. Rorhbacher, a very traditional and eminent historian of the 19th century.
Fr. Rorhbacher, having studied the case in depth, reached the conclusion that Pope Liberius never did excommunicate St. Athanasius and never signed any heretical documents. He claimed that far from being a sinner, he was held as a saint, which conclusion the Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay now support. They even offer proof that the name of Liberius was listed in the Roman Martyrology for 1200 years before being removed in the 16th century by Baronius as a precaution against the attacks of Protestants on his good name.
At first I pointed out to them that while Fr. Rorhbacher’s thesis puts forward a good case for Liberius, there are equally-strong thesis’ in the Church declaring against him. Indeed, St. Jerome himself appears to have written against Liberius.
Then I noted that Liberius was declared a saint by the Eastern Catholics, and not in the usual Latin tradition. I also question the removal of his name from the Roman Martyrology and asked how it was possible that the Church could capitulate to Protestant pressure in this way and also continue to omit his name from the Martyrology for the next 400 years. It didn’t make sense.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I pointed out that regardless of whether or not Liberius was guilty as charged, the Church has always held that he more than made up for any fall due to human weakness before his death. It is certain, for example, that Liberius was against Arianism and initially defended St. Athanasius to the point that he was exiled for two years by the Emperor Constantius II. Then, after his alleged fall under pressure from this Emperor, he repented, reinstated St. Athanasius and once more took up the cause against this heresy. So the likelihood is that Liberius is now amongst the Blessed in heaven.
This having been said, I was at pains to point out in my comments on this Redemptorist blog that the parallel drawn between Liberius Vs St. Athanasius and John Paul II Vs Archbishop Lefebvre is nonsense.
Why? Because even if Liberius did excommunicate St. Athanasius and sign some kind of semi-heretical document, he did so under duress. The Vatican II Popes, on the otherhand, appear to have adopted certain personal doctrinal positions not consistent with Church teaching and have allowed these to spread throughout the Church by conviction.
This was the point I made, naming religious liberty, religious freedom, ecumenism and all the resultant scandals of a Lutheran-leaning new Mass, various interfaith and ecumenical outrages and other ingredients that have combined to bring about the present crisis in the Church today.
Needless to say, these comments were censored not once, but twice. They were not posted on the Redemptorist blog. Only a last word from the Father moderator was posted accusing me (falsely) of undermining their attempt to restore the good name of Pope Liberius.
So you see, censoring difficult questions in not something restricted to liberal Catholics. It is also the way of those ‘conservative’ priest/moderators who basically cannot answer them in any objective and convincing manner. ‘If in doubt, boot him out,’ would appear to be the method they have adopted.
There are only two justifiable reasons for censoring anyone on a Catholic blog. These are abuse and aggression. Even if a blogger is greatly in error in his statements and conclusions, it is incumbent upon priest/moderators above all to publish their comments and refute them accordingly. This is called correcting in all charity.
This banishing and/or censoring of uncomfortable questions can hardly be construed as either charitable or objective. It leads me to wonder how comfortable these priests are with their own positions.
