AmP quoted first in NCR article on Catholic blogging

This article ("No blog is an island -- A guide to the Catholic blogosphere") was published on the 19th, but I didn't notice it until now. I don't really keep track of the National Catholic Reporter, except for John Allen.

Let me say at the outset that I bear no ill will towards its author, Patrick Gallagher, with whom I enjoyed a fruitful correspondence as he wrote the article. I do, however, have some substantial disagreements with his assessment of the Catholic blogosphere, and I have made no secret about my opinion of NCR's editorial bias in general.

One of my first disagreements: Catholic blogs certainly have more than a "modest" impact. Bishops read them. You read them. The service that Catholic blogs provide indirectly, if not directly, serves the life of the Church and our common service to the truth as internet witnesses and active participants in the battlefield of ideas.

One of my biggest disagreements with the article:

"A majority of Catholic blogs are “traditional” or “orthodox,” resisting changes in the church since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and seeking a restoration of pre-Vatican II liturgy, architecture and common devotions."

Especially considering the next lines refer to me and this blog, I can't help presume I'm being described above:

Frequently, these blogs are also politically conservative. Thomas Peters of “The American Papist,” a blog celebrating the pope and reporting on and analyzing Vatican happenings, speaks for many of these bloggers when he says, “I blog because I believe that the truth is fundamentally on our side.”

There's plenty to respond to here, so I'll take it point-by-point, in order:

• "traditional" and "orthodox" do not mean rejecting Vatican II, it means (at minimum) rejecting the false implementation of Vatican II which were contrary to its letter and spirit. It means embracing V2.
• "traditional" and "orthodox" Catholics may seek a "restoration of pre-Vatican II liturgy, architecture and common devotions" because in many cases they were falsely tossed aside in the first place and as a result the authentic continuity that was always intended to remain was severed. And you know who else seems to favor a restoration of these forgotten treasures? Pope Benedict XVI.
• While it is true that the majority of positions and candidates I find myself admiring, and which I believe represent in general a more prudent application of Catholic social teaching than the alternatives, could be descibed as "conservative," I dislike this straitjacket term and generally find that it ends up confusing more than enlightening my readers. But this isn't a major sticking point.
• My full response when asked "Why do you blog" was this: "I blog because I believe that truth is fundamentally on our side. Whether one is providing information or debating contrary views, blogging is a wonderful way of testifying to the truths of the faith. It also puts you in touch with a wider audience of Catholics, Christians and non-Christians. Online "communities" have been made possible by the Internet, and this new territory urgently needs missionaries. If I can serve it that capacity, so much the better." I think that sounds a bit more full and less "triumphalist." But oh well, I don't retreat from the claims made in my first statement in the least, because it's not "my" truth, it's the deposit of faith.

I'll leave-off commenting on the rest of the article. Overall I wasn't displeased with the treatment, but I'd hope that readers poke around themselves to create their own informed opinions about Catholic blogging.

And to all the new folks visiting - you're most welcome here.