I'm not writing any more about bishops

My grandmother always used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I think that's pretty ridiculous advice, actually, but when it comes to the official leaders of the Church, I'm going to follow it, at least on this blog. Starting now, I mean.

I started blogging in 2003, and for a couple of years my blog was basically what it has been in recent months -- occasional comments on the hierarchs of the Church and the people who too-uncritically follow them, and not much else.

I decided in the summer of 2005 to delete nearly everything and start fresh with a new direction. Instead of constantly writing about what I was against, I was going to write what I was for. I wanted to focus more on philosophy and theology and spirituality, and for a while I think I basically did that. But I feel like I've gotten sidetracked again.

I haven't decided that religious leaders don't need to be criticised for their failures. They most certainly do -- something Jesus demonstrated quite forcefully by his own example. There are a lot of terrific bloggers who do that well, far better than me, and I will continue to read them regularly. But I feel my own strengths lie elsewhere.

I haven't posted much lately, and it might be another week or so before I post again, mainly because it's nearing the end of the school year, which is a hectic time for any teacher. The summer will undoubtedly be a more productive period as far as my blog goes. I've already started a lengthy post (probably a series of posts) on the related subjects of authority and obedience, and I want to get back into writing more about faith development and evolutionary spirituality and good stuff like that.

More later.


Anonymous Terence Weldon said...

Sounds good to me. I started to feel the same way about the issues of child abuse. It wasn't that there was nothing to say - just that there was so much, coming from all sides, that it became hard to see what to add that could be useful.

A series on obedience and dissent would be great. I'm becoming more and more interested in pursuing the distinction between authentic "church" teaching (as in, accepted by the whole church, agreed by the senus fidelium), and what could be more usefully be described as mere Vatican teaching.

6:38 p.m.  
Blogger PrickliestPear said...


That's exactly it - I don't feel like I have much more to add to what others are already saying. At the same time, I don't want to suggest that I think it's any less important for those things to be said, because it's vitally important.

Regarding your second point, I think there is a valid distinction between teaching that comes from the magisterium and that which comes from elsewhere in the Church. I try to use the term "official Church teaching" when referring to that which comes from the magisterium (the "teaching office").

Having said that, I'm not sure if the sensus fidelium is really the most useful concept, as there seems to be very little that the whole Church really agrees on.

But there is an important distinction between the authentic ideals of the tradition and the official teachings of the magisterium, and that's a distinction I'm very interested in writing about.

12:31 a.m.  
Blogger crystal said...

I know what you mean, I think. Sometimes I feel all I'm doing is being bitter in my posts about the church hierarchy. I want to be on the record as disagreeing when they do something awful, but one could devote one's life to that :/

I look forward to your philosophy/theology posts.

6:47 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.