Daily Archives: March 5, 2009

Von Balthasar: "Blog On!"

Every now and again people ask the question “Why do Catholics blog?” In particular, why do amateur Catholics (like your blogmeister) blog? After all, on what authority do they take up their pen (umm… keyboard?) and take it upon themselves to be apologists for the Catholic faith? In this interview with Ignatius Insight, Gil Bailie gives a reason from von Balthasar:

At an earlier stage of our present crisis, Hans Urs von Balthasar, pointing to “the confusion of clerics and theologians,” insisted that lay Catholics “have the absolute duty to care for the condition of Catholicity,” adding with emphasis, “by protest if need be.” For a Catholic sensibility, of course, protest is always a last resort, and there are today enough signs of episcopal and clerical revitalization to make even less justified. But the lay Catholic’s obligation—in proportion to his or her respective gifts and competence—to “care for the condition of Catholicity” remains.

As distressing as our current situation can seem, we must keep before us the injunction we receive from the First Letter of Peter, that we must always be prepared to account for the hope we have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15) [see the banner of this blog!]. We must realize how hopeless a Christless world was and is and always will be. Christianity spread through the ancient world precisely because of the hope it gave to a pagan world desperate for it. At the very moment when civil order seemed to be dissolving, Christians—St. Augustine prominent among them—awakened a hope unlike anything the classical world had known. In the 21st century, under similar circumstances, it will fall to Christianity to supply a hope capable of filling the vacuum left by the naïve optimism of the modern era and the hollow nihilism of postmodern one.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Why comments on this blog is (generally) unmoderated


I was listening to an America Magazine Podcast on which Deacon Greg Kandra was talking about his blog “The Deacon’s Bench”.

One of the things they talked about was “to moderate or not to moderate?” Both the America magazine blog and Deacon Kandra’s blog are moderated – because some people fell below the standard of what could be termed “polite online conversation”.

I don’t have moderation of comments on this blog – although on one or two occasions where I thought the poster was out of line, I removed the comment. (Once or twice in three years isn’t what I would call “moderating”, however.)

In part, this is because I haven’t found the need for it. In part, it is because of the culture of Sentire Cum Ecclesia.

What I mean by that is that we have – you and me together, dear Reader – created an atmosphere here of chummy too-and-froing, and of respect for one another no matter what “POV” we might present.

I like stimulating argument. I dislike being in a conversation where everyone agrees with one another. SCE is a place where you cannot express a point of view and think that you don’t have to back it up with reason.

I like to imagine SCE as an after dinner conversation at my place over port and cheese. Of course, since it is my place, I get to decide what we talk about, but I am happy to sit back and listen to where you guys want to take the conversation.

But I dislike rudeness. If you are rude on this blog, you are either being rude to me as your host, or to my friends – ie. to those who come to read and comment on this blog.

So just a word of warning: If you are rude, you won’t get invited back for any more port and cheese at Sentire Cum Ecclesia.

Now is that bottle stuck to the table, or could someone pour me another glass?

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized