Bishop Robert Barron has said that bishops should consider an official designation for Catholic teachers on social media. Barron is himself well known for his work promoting Catholic teaching online.
In an interview with the National Catholic Register last week, the auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles said he believes it is within the scope of a diocesan bishop’s authority to apply a vetting and recognition process for online teachers of the faith, similar to the mechanism Pope St. John Paul II developed in the 1990 apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae for colleges and universities.
“There are, to be blunt, a disconcerting number of such people on social media who are trading in hateful, divisive speech, often deeply at odds with the theology of the Church and who are, sadly, having a powerful impact on the people of God,” he said to the Register in a feature on social media that was published Jan. 24.
The bishops, said Barron, are “the shepherds of the Church, those entrusted with supervising the teaching office,” and they “can and should point out when people on social media are harming the Body of Christ.”
In order to combat online misinformation online from people claiming to represent what the Church teaches, Barron told the Register that perhaps he and his brother bishops could “introduce something like a mandatum for those who claim to teach the Catholic faith online, whereby a bishop affirms that the person is teaching within the full communion of the Church.”
While some websites denounced Barron’s suggestion as an attempt to “police” Catholics on social media, the bishop’s proposal was narrowly drawn to apply to those presenting themselves as teachers or Catholic theologians on social media.
The above comes from a Jan. 29 story on the website of the Catholic News Agency.
What a ego trip/power grab! Catholic guilt for those who dare comment on Catholic news, for SHAME Bishop Barron!!
On the contrary, Bishop Barron hit the nail right on the head! He names “such people on social media who are trading in hateful, divisive speech, often deeply at odds with the theology of the Church.” Nailed. It. Accurately. Barron’s words are not a “power-trip” at all but the words of a caring bishop who loves the Church and knows that the Devil wants division in the Church. High time these divisive people know what destruction they have wrought upon the Body of Christ. Kristin is wrong. Again.
jon, realize that the definition of so-called “hate speech” varies among people. Certainly I would not have YOU as the arbiter of MY free speech, nor should any Catholic media allow such interference.
Strange that you would accuse those who point out problems in the Church as they who cause them. YOU are wrong. Again.
On the contrary it it the good Bishop Barron and bishops like him who are the true and authentic arbiters of heresy and hate in the Church. And please, the cause of the problems in the Church is the Devil. It’s just sad that there are folks like my present interlocutor who seem to be willing dupes. Carry on.
Sticking with ALL my comments. jon, even after your barrage of posts, realize that neither you nor Bishop Barron can dissuade people from enjoying the freedom to speak their minds. Game.Set.Match.Done. Bye now!
When Pope Leo XIII wrote “Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae” condemning the heresy of “americanism”, he cautioned against the same willful action that Kristin just expressed and which Bishop Barron now warns about. Here are Leo’s words:
“These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.”
The freedom that Kristin says she and others enjoy comes with it responsibilities.
What, exactly, would constitute “Catholic teaching” online? Theoretically, if I were to correct some ill-informed statement about Catholicism on a public combox,(as I have done in the past) would that constitute “Catholic teaching”? This reminds me of statements from several Episcopalian higher-ups, back before my conversion, bemoaning the existence of the internet, since it just made the natives restless.
SouthCoast , I agree would this site among others providing a space for commentary pass muster with the hierarchy , also I believe that a lack of approval would be a selling point on certain sites.
Actually, it’s not a bad idea. However, if behavior is a guiding principle to be a Catholic theologian online, orthodox teaching would be an integral part of this designation.
Undoubtedly, there are some popular Catholic priests who would fail certification.
Bishop Barron has a point. Books addressing some aspect of the Catholic faith used to receive a nihil obstat indicating they were free from error. Additionally, the Conferece of Catholic bishops used to rate movies indicating which movies were worth watching and which were morally objectionable. Perhaps something similar could be applied to websites proclaiming they are teaching the Catholic faith. Taylor Marshall’s teaching would be worthy of a good review by the bishops. He is leading many people astray.
Books concerning faith and morals are still required to be submitted to the diocese to receive the nihil obstat and imprimatur. Movies are still rated by CNS and the ratings are posted online or in some publications. One of the differences with websites is that content can be added after the assessment is given where with books and movies it can’t be. I think there should be something where errors are addressed. The USCCB has a committee on doctrine
http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/index.cfm. I don’t see how they could possible keep up with everything that is said online, though.
Mr. Robert, why don’t you tell us what specifically Taylor Marshall is teaching that is leading people astray. Making such claims without defending them is not too helpful, IMO. I ask this as I have listened to many of his Youtube videos and have read his book Infiltration, so I have some knowledge of where he stands. Still, I could use your expertise on the man, and thanks in advance.
care to explain your assessment of Taylor Marshall?
William Robert , I too would like specifics on DR.Taylor Marshall’s “leading people astray ” , he is a convert and a Thomistic Scholar who has written several books on the faith , on his YouTube program he has had priests ,fellow catholic writers among others discussing the faith and how to be better Catholics. Again how is he leading people astray ?, is this your opinion if so fine , give us some examples so we can all learn.
I think it was Truman who said, “If you can’t stand the heat, eliminate the competition.” Oh wait, that was Barron & Weigel. Sorry.
Mandatum is Latin for, “Oh no you di’n’t!” I looked it up.
Bishop Baron is trying to silence criticism. He is guilty of “hateful, divisive speech.”
Joel Fargo, with respect I would not call it hate speech from the bishop , it is more of a trial balloon / wishful thinking on his part . It does show I believe his mindset and hubris toward the laity and sites he does not approve of.I think he might label some sites as using hate speech fora negative effect among his fans , for some as media savvy as he is supposed to be why he thought this was a good idea much less plausible is a mystery.
It’s only a “mystery” to RickW because of a failure to remember that the clergy has the responsibility of guarding the Church against heresy and falsehoods. Barron’s words are not about showing “hubris” vis-a-vis the laity or about being “media savvy”—how ridiculous. It’s about the shepherd being mindful of the flock in his care. Wrap your minds away from secularism for a chance please.
Then Bishop Barron and his Inquisition should begin with vetting Pope Francis for his many theologically questionable statements like Hell not existing, as well as his many hateful statements about priests (e.g., talking too much–a classic case of psychological projection) and Catholics of one sort or another whom he disapproves and chastises.
Decent idea. It is a dogma of the faith that the Pope has both the supreme teaching authority and supreme jurisdiction over each and every Catholic. This includes the power of censoring heretical material, as we had with the Index of Forbidden Books. Since the Index is gone, and would never work in our digital age anyways, the bishops better start thinking of ways to control online information so as to protect the faithful from wolves who seek to pervert the faith. Having Catholic teachers and theologians be subject to the authority of their bishop is just common sense.
Hey “History Major’ – you fail. Do some thinking about why free speech is important, and where we as a nation would be without it.
Bishops controlling information will not protect you from “heretical material”, especially considering the situation in the Church today. Do not assume those in collar or miter are the good guys.
Sorry people, but do not fall for Kristin’s toxic anti-clericalism. I would rather assume that men who are anointed with the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel are the good guys. This is Scriptural Kristin, direct from St. Paul that the presbyters have an anointing that empowers them in their office. So now you’re contradicting Scripture too. Kristin. Is. Wong. Again.
Lest you forget jon, Judas was also an apostle, and definitively not a good guy. Scriptural. Boom!
Sorry but Kristin is wrong again. Scripturally wrong. Our Lord gave the final “sending out” (which in Greek is translated ‘apostle’) to his disciples after His resurrection. By that time Judas Iscariot was already dead. Check out John 20:21-22: “As the Father has sent me so I send you…then He breathed on them”…giving them the Holy Spirit. Judas was a disciple but he did not receive the Holy Spirit, therefore he was technically not an apostle. Folks do not fall for Kristin’s anti-episcopal rants. Kristin is corrected. Again. Boom!
Plus because Judas was already dead by the day of Pentecost, he was not only NOT an apostle but also didn’t have the Spirit. Only true apostles have the Holy Spirit which we Catholics believe is now granted to our bishops equipping them in their ministry. Folks please do not fall for Kristin’s misinformation and anti-bishop words. Very divisive.
An apostle of Our Lord is one who is sent out by Him and who is empowered by the Holy Spirit. Judas was already dead when Our Lord sent out the remaining disciples after His resurrection (check Matthew 28 and John 20:21-22). Likewise Judas was not at Pentecost. Judas was a disciple until he betrayed Our Lord but he was NOT “sent out” at the Great Commission nor did he receive the Holy Spirit. And one needs both: the commission and the Spirit. All bishops of the Church has this. So sorry to say but Kristin is wrong. Again. Boom!
jon – your continuing mischaracterizing of my comments is unnecessary
Consider, of the 12 selected as apostles, one was a betrayer. One in twelve, not great odds, and those chosen by Christ himself who by His choice, shows that not all who are selected are worthy. That is not anti-clerical, it is simply making a connection between bad apples, then and now. Crunch!
Sorry but Kristin is clearly still mistaken. In matters involving faith and morals bishops have the duty to call out heresy. This is not them “controlling information” but a duty and their calling. Plus the Magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit when teaching about faith and morals: when calling out heresies. This is Catholic dogma. People like Kristin for example are not so protected from heresies when commenting on blogs. Crunch! Boom!
Additionally, Judas was NEVER “chosen as an apostle” because he never was one and he never received the Holy Spirit. He was called as one of the original twelve disciples, but he didn’t stay on, did he. I can’t believe I have to teach basic catechism here, and to one who routinely blasts the Church and her ministers.
Kristin is right and Jon is wrong on the disciple/apostle question, unless he wants to challenge scripture directly:
“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles; Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Lk 6:13-16; see also Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:13-19)
I should really thank Anonymous for helping to make my point to refute Kristin. Even though Our Lord had intended to “send out” Judas with the Eleven and even called Judas as such as recorded in Scripture, in the end Judas wasn’t “sent out” because in the end Judas didn’t receive the Great Commission, and being “sent out” is what “apostle” means. Most importantly Judas didn’t receive the Holy Spirit: it is the anointing of the Spirit that makes the apostle, people, not solely the “title” or the designation. The bishops of the Church have all received the Spirit’s anointing, and so to despise, deride, and demonize their words as Kristin just did with Bishop Barron veers very close to the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. This is why the routine mockery of bishops and priests here is wrong. So I go back to the point I made several posts ago: that our bishops—the successors of the 12 actually sent out—have the guidance of the Spirit. Carry on.
Kristin don’t even bother with jon, he is blind to the corruption in the Church he will not admit that anything is wrong and the by default all those in miters and collars are good.
Using the old and tired mantra of “the Church is corrupt” as a backdoor to disobedience to the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, a backdoor to the denigration and mockery of Vatican II and the Ordinary Form, a backdoor to disobedience and disrespect for the sacraments of the Church in particular to the ministry of those who hold Holy Orders (that’s bishops and priests for you Protestants out there), is totally wrong AND corrupt, and something which I intend to call out.
I would kindly refer you to paragraphs 23 and 24 of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical entitled Libertas.
Some excerpts (read the aforementioned paragraphs for context since distinctions abound):
“We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice.”
“The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak.”
“From this it follows, as is evident, that the liberty of which We have been speaking is greatly opposed to reason, and tends absolutely to pervert men’s minds, in as much as it claims for itself the right of teaching whatever it pleases – a liberty which the State cannot grant without failing in its duty.”
History Major , you make your points well and respectfully that some posters could learn from , I agree that in theory bishops and the hierarchy should guard against heresy, as far as bishops controlling the narrative and teaching I don’t think that they can or should , at least for this current crop of prelates. First as you mentioned in the digital age somethings would not work, also our current bishops and cardinals are not consistent in their views, actionsand teaching so interpretation is open to who you appeal to . “Wolves seeking to pervert the faith ” is for me problematic who is the wolf ? I think james martin is perverting the faith for his own ends , his bishop and superiors seem to support him . I am not alone in my belief that the church has damaged it’s moral authority though various scandals , which will get worse and drive more faithful out , this idea by this bishop is not helping, the church cannot control the teaching in it’s own schools and universities and they want to try to influence the net ? , bad idea on many levels, looking forward to your response.
I am most desirous to safeguard the principle that those who exercise authority in the Church through teaching should be subordinated to those whom God has instituted to exercise the teaching authority of the Church. Just as the bishops only have authority insofar as they are subordinated to the authority of the Pope, so too lay teachers only have authority (in their teaching of the faith) insofar as they are subordinated to the teaching authority of their bishop, who as ordinary is the head of the diocese. My support for this idea is on the level of principles. It just makes sense that there should be no lay person in any diocese who participates in the teaching power of the Church in contradiction to the legitimate authority of the bishop. Though, how a bishop should handle such cases is a matter of prudence and is best left up to him.
(2 / 2) As to the effectiveness of our bishops, I am reluctant to make any sweeping claims. Who knows if the reason why some have not acted in areas where they have authority is precisely because their authority is being undermined by powerful groups of laity. One would have to take it on a case by case, dioceses by diocese, basis and that would involve information that we simply do not have. This lack of information is worth keeping in mind since we often focus on the negatives with regards to our bishops and ignore the good that they do.
It might be useful if, instead of issuing any mandatum, bishops could write specifically what they hear or read from blogs to be “at odds with the theology of the Church.” They could voice their judgments in the public arena, and also personally to those authors of the blogs they find offensive. That would foster dialogue with the bloggers and could build bridges between the parties. The one strategy I deem to be a complete failure is for the bishops to insist upon bloggers to be subject to their authority, because, as I see it, the bishops themselves have not all proven themselves either theologically astute or morally sound. The perception of and evidence of corruption within their ranks, as well as at the Vatican, is exactly what is driving blogs deemed offensive. Dealing decisively and swiftly with any corruption, the bishops would then render these blogs docile, and would benefit both sides and the church at large.
A secular comparison: Two dietary supplement companies claim their product successfully treats arthritis. One company admits that their claim “has not been verified by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration”. The other company is silent on the matter, to which the FDA publicly proclaims that the company has not been approved by them for arthritis treatment.
Is it the FDA that is out of line?
Oh for goodness sake this idea is ridiculous and would be impossible to effect.
A voice of reason, such a pleasure :)
Divisive & Hateful Speech:
“you shall NOT eat of the fruit of the Tree”
Caring & Compassionate Speech:
“surely you will NOT die”
Funny but sad. Thanks Helen.
With all due respect to Bishop Barron, why not start the vetting in your own camp? Just for starters, how about vetting the orthodoxy of the speakers at the LA Religious Ed Congress? For years, the LA Congress, self-described as ‘the nation’s largest gathering of Roman Catholics’ has featured heretical speakers who promote views that are entirely at odds with Catholic teaching. And what about parishes in your own diocese? Sadly, there are many unorthodox practices and speakers that go ‘unchecked’ by your authority right here in parishes in the LA Diocese. Why not exercise your teaching authority as Bishop where it can actually make a difference?
It appears extremely hypocritical that our bishops would attempt to now vet Catholic voices on the internet while back home in their own camp heretical voices and questionable practices continue unchecked and as if they have been give a complete pass.
Probably not ‘their’ best choice to have Bp Barron announce this.
Not only has he reared his own controversies / ambiguities / ramblings / generalities,
he also “has a few dogs in this fight”.
His WordofFire site is in direct competition with Catholic websites
for their monthly memberships fees, fund-raising/donations and products.
Besides monthly membership fees, he sells Books, Videos, CDs, Instructional DVDs,
tee shirts, hats, etc.
A Bishop who charges for parish instruction series videos and even grade school catechesis “enrichment” instruction videos !!!
Evangelism doesn’t come cheap.
James , Amen ! greed and control , also do you think that with this proposal a monopoly of sorts is what is intended ?, this is a unworkable idea but shows his thinking on those who he disagrees with. With all the problems that the church is facing this daydream is not a solution, if he could do this it would take time away from his movie reviews on his YouTube site.