www.CatholicCulture.org


#1

Hi , I've spent some months looking at the good articles at CatholicCulture.org. It seems they are frequently asking for alot of money to keep going over there. Dont understand their costs? and when searching for past articles on their website, their search results will only return a small subset of the original commentaries/articles they have, even though they have been operating for some years. Seems like the father Dr. Mirus, his son and a Phil Lawler are running a 3 man operation over there and producing most of the commentaries/articles.

Gets me thinking that with all their requests for financial help to continue their existence, that at the same time they are squirreling away many of their articles from the public...for maybe future publication dollars??, to reduce storage costs??
Their archives are very crippled.

Something seems astray here.


#2

[quote="Sporaticus, post:1, topic:181629"]
Hi , I've spent some months looking at the good articles at CatholicCulture.org. It seems they are frequently asking for alot of money to keep going over there. Dont understand their costs? and when searching for past articles on their website, their search results will only return a small subset of the original commentaries/articles they have, even though they have been operating for some years. Seems like the father Dr. Mirus, his son and a Phil Lawler are running a 3 man operation over there and producing most of the commentaries/articles.

Gets me thinking that with all their requests for financial help to continue their existence, that at the same time they are squirreling away many of their articles from the public...for maybe future publication dollars??, to reduce storage costs??
Their archives are very crippled.

Something seems astray here.

[/quote]

Storage costs are hardly any additional expense at all.

From what I have seen, they give pretty good reviews about other websites. I certainly haven't looked at all of them, but the ones I have are pretty accurate.


#3

[quote="dmelosi, post:2, topic:181629"]

From what I have seen, they give pretty good reviews about other websites. I certainly haven't looked at all of them, but the ones I have are pretty accurate.

[/quote]

Well, it's one thing to review a website, it's another thing for a layman to determine "orthodoxy" in the way that they do - generally that should be reserved to a bishop or to whom he delegates his authority to because it amounts to a virtual Imprimatur / Nihil Obstat.

And it might be better if Dr. Mirus (he is listed as who does the reviews) had a theology degree, but he doesn't. So his concept of "orthodoxy" is based on... I'm not sure what exactly, but I think it comes down to if he likes a site or not.

As it stands, his opinion on websites is about as relevant as the guy three barstools down. Some people may agree with him, but others wouldn't, and their opinions would all have the same value.

I think, really, it is unfortunate he refers to "orthodoxy" (which implies he is reviewing their "Catholicness") and it would be better, and more honest, if he just reviewed the sites and spoke about what he saw as good and bad about them - all clearly expressed as his personal opinion.


#4

Working in and being involved in Catholic Radio and Catholic media we find www.CatholicCulture.org to be a great asset and to have a very disciplined and documented criteria for their writings and reviews.

Can anyone document where the site has not been Orthodox to Catholic teachings? Or has been in error?


#5

[quote="GratefulDad, post:4, topic:181629"]
Working in and being involved in Catholic Radio and Catholic media we find www.CatholicCulture.org to be a great asset and to have a very disciplined and documented criteria for their writings and reviews.

Can anyone document where the site has not been Orthodox to Catholic teachings? Or has been in error?

[/quote]

Sure. Here is an easy one:

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1442

The Franciscan Renewal Center, located in Scottsdale, Arizona, is a retreat center which encompasses counseling, various support groups, workshops, retreats for spiritual growth and personal development. The Center is recognized by the Diocese of Phoenix and is listed in the Catholic Directory.

This website is included in our database to provide an example of what may be found at many diocesan retreat centers. It serves as a warning that one should not assume that a retreat will be authentically Catholic simply because it is conducted in a diocesan approved facility.

So, this is a center recognized by lawful authority - the Diocese of Phoenix - and CatholicCulture has the chutzpah to determine what is "authentically Catholic".

I'm sorry, but I grew up learning that the person who gets to determine what is Catholic and what is not is the Ordinary.

Canon Law would seem to back up what I learned:

Can. 216 Since they participate in the mission of the Church, all the Christian faithful have the right to promote or sustain apostolic action even by their own undertakings, according to their own state and condition. Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

Is CatholicCulture "competent ecclesiastical authority"? I doubt it.

And that's the point. This is one website's opinion of who is faithful to the Church and who is not based on their vision of the Church and nothing more. It's not supposed to work that way. The Ordinaries and Rome get to determine what is authentically Catholic, not some laymen who set up a website.

Because the FRC can turn around and call "CatholicCulture" unorthodox or lacking fidelity. And who is right? We don't know because only the Ordinary can authoritatively say whether something is "Catholic" or not. Otherwise, it's just opinion, and should only be presented as such.

Based on the information offered in that review, I would agree with Dr. Mirus that what they do there is problematic, but that is my opinion. The Ordinary of Phoenix would seem to disagree, and while that is unfortunate, that's how it is.

It would be much different, as I stated, if Dr. Mirus et al. said "We see problems with this diocesean retreat because of X, Y, and Z" but they go too far, IMO, by saying it isn't "authentically Catholic" and speaking about its "Fidelity".

They do not have the authority, nor as far as I can tell the appropriate education (e.g., an STL) to determine such things. They are setting themselves up as a virtual "competent ecclesiastical authority" by making statements about the "Catholicness" of websites, etc., and I see this as an error and unorthodox especially with regard to Canon Law.


#6

I was under the impression that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a host of magisterial documents covering a huge span of topics were the common property of all of the people of the Church. Further, I thought that it was the right, the duty and the responsibility of the lay,religious and priestly members of the Church. If conformity with the Catechism and the Magisterium and the Pope doesn't define "authentically Catholic" what does? To compare the actions of individuals and organizations should be a matter of careful reasoning and common sense. Seems to me that this is what Karl Keating, Mother Angelica and Jeff Mirus have all three done in establishing and operating Catholic Answers, EWTN and Catholic Culture. As far as I could find out online none of the three have advanced degrees in theology. On the other hand, all three seem to be solidly in line with the Catechism and the Magisterium. Certainly all three have earned my trust!


#7

[quote="Hunho, post:6, topic:181629"]
I was under the impression that the Catechism of the Catholic Church and a host of magisterial documents covering a huge span of topics were the common property of all of the people of the Church.

[/quote]

? I didn't see anyone saying they weren't.

Further, I thought that it was the right, the duty and the responsibility of the lay,religious and priestly members of the Church.

The right, duty and responsibility to do what?

If conformity with the Catechism and the Magisterium and the Pope doesn't define "authentically Catholic" what does?

That's a good question. But Dr. Mirus' view does not completely conform with the Magisterium and the Pope. As I was pointing out, the Ordinary gets to say what is Catholic. That is what the Pope and the Magisterium say: the determination of what is Catholic is done by competent ecclesiastical authority.

By the very fact of stating what is Catholic and what is not ('authentically' is an irrelevant word, really), he has stepped outside his authority, an authority determined by the Pope who promulgated Canon Law, and the Magisterium of the Church.

Going back to the example: if an Ordinary, who is the competent ecclesiastical authority of his jurisdiction says "X is Catholic", and Dr. Mirus says "X is not Catholic" there seems to be a problem, doesn't there? The Church gives the authority to the Ordinary, not Dr. Mirus.

To compare the actions of individuals and organizations should be a matter of careful reasoning and common sense. Seems to me that this is what Karl Keating, Mother Angelica and Jeff Mirus have all three done in establishing and operating Catholic Answers, EWTN and Catholic Culture.

I thought we were talking about "Catholic Culture" not every apologetics organization under the sun. Let's stick with CatholicCulture which is not EWTN or CA.

As far as I could find out online none of the three have advanced degrees in theology.

That's not true. Colin Donovan of EWTN has an STL, they also have many others with advanced theology degrees on staff. Again, let's stick with CatholicCulture.

On the other hand, all three seem to be solidly in line with the Catechism and the Magisterium. Certainly all three have earned my trust!

They seem to be in your opinion. Yet there are many bishops that behave and run their dioceses in a somewhat opposite manner of above. They are in good standing with the Pope and with their fellow bishops.

Let's look at this obejectively. Where does the Magisterium say "centering prayer" is against Catholic teaching and not authentically Catholic? It doesn't. It says aspects of Eastern practices should not be melded into Catholicism. It never mentions centering prayer specifically. So, maybe some bishops think centering prayer is OK if monitored. Has Dr. Mirus ever visited that center? Does he know exactly how they practice centering prayer? If he did, he doesn't say so.

The CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, did not see fit to condemn "Centering prayer" by name as unCatholic. AFAIK, no proponents of it have been disciplined by the Church. So, according to the Magisterium, one is not unCatholic by the mere fact that they do "centering prayer" - they would have to do something more specific.

Yet, here Dr. Mirus condemns the site as not authentically Catholic for Centering Prayer.

I agree with Dr. Mirus that centering prayer is nonsense and dangerous, and probably for the same reasons he does. What I disagree with is that he takes it upon himself, with no advanced training, apparently in violation of Canon Law, to comment on the fidelity of other Catholics.

If I were to say to you, "You're a bad Catholic because of your post in this thread" you would be indignant, and rightfully so. It's not my place to say that. But if your pastor or bishop said that, it would mean something and you would think about it, wouldn't you?

Dr. Mirus is in effect going around calling people "bad Catholics" and "good Catholics" based on websites. He is questioning the fidelity of the website, and by extension, the fidelity of the people associated with the websites.

It is much, much different to do something like this, which is also on CatholicCulture:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6892&CFID=25760677&CFTOKEN=12884359

It describes the author's opinion that centering prayer is often if not always in violation of the CDF's guidelines. Look at his conclusion:

In any case, I've tried to isolate some of their more questionable emphases and to show, in light of the Vatican's recent document, why these are potentially dangerous for Christians. Whether they intend it or not, it's just too easy to come away from the writings of Father Pennington and Abbot Keating with a false view of the Christian life in general and of Christian prayer in particular.

That is a fair conclusion. It is not "these are unfaithful Catholics, not authentic Catholics because they engage in centering prayer"

It's fine to trust his opinion, if you want, but he should stop judging the fidelity of other Catholics in the manner he is doing when he has no authority to do so. When he does that, he is, IMO, in error and engaging in a disasterous practice.


#8

[quote="FEQuis, post:7, topic:181629"]
It's fine to trust his opinion, if you want, but he should stop judging the fidelity of other Catholics in the manner he is doing when he has no authority to do so. When he does that, he is, IMO, in error and engaging in a disasterous practice.

[/quote]

Then I recommend that you send an email to Jeff Mirus at catholicculture.org and tell Dr. Mirus that you believe what he is doing on his website is "in error and engaging in a disasterous practice" and something which "he has no authority to do."


#9

[quote="Hunho, post:8, topic:181629"]
Then I recommend that you send an email to Jeff Mirus at catholicculture.org and tell Dr. Mirus that you believe what he is doing on his website is "in error and engaging in a disasterous practice" and something which "he has no authority to do."

[/quote]

I and others have in not so many words, and also have tried to correct errors in his reviews. He doesn't care. My impression is that he doesn't think he needs to answer for anything he writes which is also disasterous. I mean, he stands behind what he writes, which is laudable, but he doesn't seem to listen to opposing views.

I've also seen that site's tax-exempt tax filings, which are public records, and I concur with the OP that something is amiss there. I'm not claiming they are doing anything illegal, but most of the money going into CatholicCulture.org goes to his for-profit company that does the technical work for it. And, being in the software industry and running my own website, I can't figure out how to justify that website costing that much. I.e., over $100K per year.

He's stated in his fundraising e-mail that he never got paid a cent for cc.org - and that's true according to the filings I saw. But what he leaves out is that his company, where is son is also an officer, has gotten over $100K per year from it.

For example, in their (Trinity Communications) 2007 filing, they claim $227,510 in expenses. They break that down as follows:

$19937 - operation of CatholicCulture.org
$129283 for "provision of internet, etc. free of charge or at below mkt rates to like minded catholic orgs which exist to promote the catholic faith"
$78290 to operate www.cwnews.org

Where does $129283 go to? Trinity Consulting. Who owns Trinity Consulting? Jeff and Peter Mirus.

$73260 goes to "Domus Enterprises" Who is "Domus Enterprises"? Phil Lawler. What did he get $73260 for? According to the filing "website editorial".

So, between Jeff and Peter Mirus, and Phil Lawler, their businesses took in $202543 from catholicculture and cwnews - i.e., Trinity Communications - the people you give money to when you click the donate button.

Again, these are public records. Anyone can pull the 2007 filing for Trinity Communications and see what I did. In fact, I'm going to pull the 2008 filing soon to see what they did that year because according to the website, they needed even more money to "stay afloat" in 2008.

The hosting and storage costs for my website and forum come to less than $500 per year, and every time I check Alexa or Quantcast, my site has about the same or even more traffic as catholic culture. I can't figure out what they need all that money for.

I also can't figure out how someone can earn $70K+ per year writing editorials without an advanced theology degree.

Can you?


#10

[quote="FEQuis, post:9, topic:181629"]
For example, in their (Trinity Communications) 2007 filing, they claim $227,510 in expenses. They break that down as follows:

$19937 - operation of CatholicCulture.org
$129283 for "provision of internet, etc. free of charge or at below mkt rates to like minded catholic orgs which exist to promote the catholic faith"
$78290 to operate www.cwnews.org

Where does $129283 go to? Trinity Consulting. Who owns Trinity Consulting? Jeff and Peter Mirus.

$73260 goes to "Domus Enterprises" Who is "Domus Enterprises"? Phil Lawler. What did he get $73260 for? According to the filing "website editorial".

So, between Jeff and Peter Mirus, and Phil Lawler, their businesses took in $202543 from catholicculture and cwnews - i.e., Trinity Communications - the people you give money to when you click the donate button.

Again, these are public records. Anyone can pull the 2007 filing for Trinity Communications and see what I did. In fact, I'm going to pull the 2008 filing soon to see what they did that year because according to the website, they needed even more money to "stay afloat" in 2008.

[/quote]

Thanks for digging this up.
Qy: where & how do you look it up? I know there are sites that rate charities but none w/this detail.


#11

Hmmm, this is the second time today I'm posting about Catholic Culture's website reviews. :o

Anyway, I don't see why some get so upset about their web reviews. Catholic Culture (nor anyone I've ever seen) is purporting that their web reviews are any sort of official ecclesial condemnation (or approval, as the case may be). We're all intelligent people here. We can take them for what they are: the conclusions of a Catholic layperson. That doesn't meant they're not helpful, though (just as I might find Steve Greydanus' movie reviews helpful).

There are scads of Catholic websites out there. I certainly would want the bishops to waste their time on website reviews. So does that mean no one should dare attempt such a thing? Of course not. Simply because we're not official Church authorities doesn't mean we laypeople don't have obligations towards spreading the faith in the secular realm, or, in this case, evaluating a certain thing in light of Catholic teaching.

Even if I don't agree with Catholic Culture's reviews, I find them useful because they articulate specifics about what they find to be good or bad with a specific website. Sometimes the only negative is that the site uses Google Ads (which can turn up questionable ads), but this leads them to issue a yellow "caution" rating.

Whenever I encounter a new Catholic website, I always check there first just to see if it seems worth my time to look into it. I'd rather not waste a bunch of time on a site only to find out (after scrolling through pages and pages) that they disagree with certain moral teachings.

FEQuis did a lot of legwork on their financials. I won't pretend to know how much it costs to run the site, but I know that a lot of these types of things cost more money than I would think. I definitely would never presume ill will or selfish motives on behalf of the CC staff. I don't think that's a productive area of contemplation. We can give pluses or minues about the content of site, but we can't presume their motives are anything other than they say they are: "to advance the Catholic faith and support the formation of authentically Catholic culture."

(BTW, what website do you run FEQuis? I'm surprised to hear your site actually gets more hits than Catholic Culture as they are one of the top visited Catholic sites.)


#12

[quote="FEQuis, post:5, topic:181629"]
Sure. Here is an easy one:

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1442

So, this is a center recognized by lawful authority - the Diocese of Phoenix - and CatholicCulture has the chutzpah to determine what is "authentically Catholic".

I'm sorry, but I grew up learning that the person who gets to determine what is Catholic and what is not is the Ordinary.

[/quote]

I think the point is that you need to do your own research. Just because a organization runs a facility in a diocese and has the bishop's permission to do so doesn't mean that everything you find there will be consistent with Church teaching. I know that one of the big retreat centers in our diocese contracts out to other groups to run retreats and other programs there. Some of these are really off the wall. My favorite was one about 'searching for the Goddess'. Obviously, our rather conservative Archbishop hadn't approved that particular program. :D

Catholic Culture raises red flags of warning and for the most part, if you do a little research you will lfind that your own warning bells go off. They just save you a little time. :)

I have used the site quite a bit over the years and never found any wrong teaching on it.


#13

[quote="didymus, post:10, topic:181629"]
Thanks for digging this up.
Qy: where & how do you look it up? I know there are sites that rate charities but none w/this detail.

[/quote]

interesting, I typed the name of the site in here, and it gets blocked out as if it were a bad word.

www.guide star.org

But no space between guide and star. You can review any charities there, and for a fee get the IRS filings.


#14

[quote="Joe_5859, post:11, topic:181629"]

Anyway, I don't see why some get so upset about their web reviews. Catholic Culture (nor anyone I've ever seen) is purporting that their web reviews are any sort of official ecclesial condemnation (or approval, as the case may be). We're all intelligent people here. We can take them for what they are: the conclusions of a Catholic layperson. That doesn't meant they're not helpful, though (just as I might find Steve Greydanus' movie reviews helpful).

[/quote]

Well, Joe, put it this way. Based on your posts, I find you an unfaithful Catholic. You are not authentically Catholic because your argument flies in the face of the Canon Law I cited.

Actually, I don't, but that is the tone of the CC reviews. I'm hoping you'll get the point.

There are scads of Catholic websites out there. I certainly would want the bishops to waste their time on website reviews. So does that mean no one should dare attempt such a thing? Of course not. Simply because we're not official Church authorities doesn't mean we laypeople don't have obligations towards spreading the faith in the secular realm, or, in this case, evaluating a certain thing in light of Catholic teaching.

Well, the USCCB posts movie reviews, so I'm sure they could review a bunch of Catholic websites, at least as many as CC does.

But that's beside the point. Just because a bishop may be ignoring his responsibility does not give the laity the right to usurp his authority. We can't go around defrocking priests, scratching out the word Catholic on signs in front of churches, etc., can we?

And more concretely, it isn't being evaluated in the light of Catholic teaching, it is being evaluated against the vision that Catholic Culture has of how the Church should be, especially with regard to interpretation of the Second Vatican Council documents.

Even if I don't agree with Catholic Culture's reviews, I find them useful because they articulate specifics about what they find to be good or bad with a specific website. Sometimes the only negative is that the site uses Google Ads (which can turn up questionable ads), but this leads them to issue a yellow "caution" rating.

Whenever I encounter a new Catholic website, I always check there first just to see if it seems worth my time to look into it. I'd rather not waste a bunch of time on a site only to find out (after scrolling through pages and pages) that they disagree with certain moral teachings.

Well, sure, I find some of them good, too. And my quibble isn't with them doing their reviews, but their use of things like "fidelity" and "authentically Catholic".

In the first place, they have no authority to make such statements about individuals and organizations (though, they can surely say something like "not kneeling during the consecration is not authentically Catholic" because that is about an action, not a person or organization).

In the second place, their measuring stick is only their vision of Catholicism based on their interpretation of things. It is not a Magisterial measuring stick. So, they should be more careful with their terms.

So, sure, CC should review on. It's helpful and useful. But they need to lose this attitude that they can judge another person's or another organization's "fidelity" and that they can decide what is Catholic when in reality they are only deciding what fits in with their worldview of Catholic.

The financial stuff I'll reply to in another post, because that's really a separate issue and I don't want to confuse them.


#15

[quote="Joe_5859, post:11, topic:181629"]

FEQuis did a lot of legwork on their financials. I won't pretend to know how much it costs to run the site, but I know that a lot of these types of things cost more money than I would think. I definitely would never presume ill will or selfish motives on behalf of the CC staff. I don't think that's a productive area of contemplation. We can give pluses or minues about the content of site, but we can't presume their motives are anything other than they say they are: "to advance the Catholic faith and support the formation of authentically Catholic culture."

[/quote]

First, it wasn't a lot of legwork. I went to a website, looked them up, paid a few $'s for the convenience of getting their filing as a downloadble PDF instead of going to the IRS, and read it. Took a total of 30 minutes.

Second, I resent that you are saying I am implying anything about their motives. I am not. First, I made clear I do not think they are doing anything illegal. Which leaves a question of ethics. It seems there are three possibilities:

1) They really need all that to run the site.
2) They don't need all that, and they are doing something less than ethical.
3) They don't need all that, and they are terribly mismanaging their funds.

I don't believe 1 is the case for the reasons I've stated. My personal opinion is #3.

(BTW, what website do you run FEQuis? I'm surprised to hear your site actually gets more hits than Catholic Culture as they are one of the top visited Catholic sites.)

fisheaters.com

FE = Fish Eaters Quis = QuisUtDeus - my screen name there.

Here are the current alexa rankings (lower is better):

FE: 95,801
CC: 88,965

And from quantcast (lower is better)

FE: 13,730
CC: 15,498

So, within some margin of error, they are pretty equivalent. During different times of year FE ranks better the CC (as you can see from quantcast) Anyhow, they are definitely not worth a difference of over $100K to run them.

Compare with the real heavyweights of Catholic websites (using Quantcast):

EWTN: 8,729
Catholic.com: 4,752

If you tell me catholic.com or EWTN take $100K per year to run, that makes more sense, but not for a website that is about the same ranking as mine and Vox's which costs about $500/yr to run. Even if one breaks it down to the $19000 entry specific to the website, it comes out a lot more for I'm not sure what exactly. And Vox didn't make $78K/yr for putting her opinion, which is expressed as such, on the webpages.


#16

[quote="Corki, post:12, topic:181629"]
I think the point is that you need to do your own research. Just because a organization runs a facility in a diocese and has the bishop's permission to do so doesn't mean that everything you find there will be consistent with Church teaching. I know that one of the big retreat centers in our diocese contracts out to other groups to run retreats and other programs there. Some of these are really off the wall. My favorite was one about 'searching for the Goddess'. Obviously, our rather conservative Archbishop hadn't approved that particular program. :D

[/quote]

Exactly, and you avoid those things like "searching for the Goddess" like the plague. Again, I don't have a problem with reviews and opinions. In fact, as I mentioned, I would probably agree with many if not most of them.

My problem is the way they are presented in terms of "fidelity", "orthodoxy", and "authentically Catholic".

Catholic Culture raises red flags of warning and for the most part, if you do a little research you will lfind that your own warning bells go off. They just save you a little time. :)

For people who share the same vision of the Church as CC, warning bells will go off. For people who may not, that isn't always the case.

And that's part of the problem: CC is really promoting a vision of the Church and their interpretation of Council Documents, the way the Pauline Mass should be, etc. rather than anything authoritative from the Church itself.

They say X is not authentically Catholic. X might say CC is not authentically Catholic, and I might say they both are not authentically Catholic. For the most part, when it comes to things introduced after and because of the Second Vatican Council it depends on a subjective interpretation of things precisely because the Magisterium has not given us an authoritative interpretation of many things.

I have used the site quite a bit over the years and never found any wrong teaching on it.

So, I'm assuming you don't buy the cite from Canon Law that says what is Catholic (and therefore not Catholic as well) can only be determined by competent authority?

Right there, if Canon Law starts not to matter, there's something wrong. And I'm not talking about a conversation in the basement after Mass where two people are complaining to each other "Oh, they took away the kneelers! That's unCatholic!" And I'm not talking about discussions like that on this forum. That would be silly and unreasonable to criticize because it is a discussion, not a public labeling.

I'm talking about going out with a pseudo-authority, including the name "Catholic" in one's domain, and stating that sites, organizations, and people lack fidelity which is what CC does.


#17

[quote="FEQuis, post:16, topic:181629"]

So, I'm assuming you don't buy the cite from Canon Law that says what is Catholic (and therefore not Catholic as well) can only be determined by competent authority?

Right there, if Canon Law starts not to matter, there's something wrong. And I'm not talking about a conversation in the basement after Mass where two people are complaining to each other "Oh, they took away the kneelers! That's unCatholic!" And I'm not talking about discussions like that on this forum. That would be silly and unreasonable to criticize because it is a discussion, not a public labeling.

I'm talking about going out with a pseudo-authority, including the name "Catholic" in one's domain, and stating that sites, organizations, and people lack fidelity which is what CC does.

[/quote]

I would never say that I "don't buy" anything in Canon Law. :eek:

Catholic culture does not claim any magisterial authority. I certainly haven't read every single entry on the CC site but most of the time, their "measuring stick" is the Cathecism and other authoritative Church documents. I don't think they overstep in interpretation any more than when I, as a catechist, discuss with my high school CCE students how to apply Church teaching to various "real life" situations. We have "Catholic" in our name too. ;)


#18

[quote="Corki, post:17, topic:181629"]
I would never say that I "don't buy" anything in Canon Law. :eek:

Catholic culture does not claim any magisterial authority. I certainly haven't read every single entry on the CC site but most of the time, their "measuring stick" is the Cathecism and other authoritative Church documents. I don't think they overstep in interpretation any more than when I, as a catechist, discuss with my high school CCE students how to apply Church teaching to various "real life" situations. We have "Catholic" in our name too. ;)

[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are kind of sidestepping the issue.

If you give a fer-instance real life situation to educate, that's a lot different than taking an actual person or organization, naming them by name, and calling them "unfaithful", isn't it?

It's one thing to teach the Catechism. It's another thing to interpret the Catechism and use it as a ruler to determine the orthodoxy or fidelity of an individual or organization. That is the function of the Ordinary.

If not, we wouldn't have tribunals, jurisdictions, etc., would we?

For example, Bp. Bruskewicz once excommunicated certain groups of people in his diocese. His actions show what they were doing was not only unCatholic, it was worthy of excommunication.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm

The Church creates the ruler, the bishop does the measuring, at least when it comes to judging real life people and organizations, their fidelity, etc. If we start doing the measuring, it won't be long before we start creating the ruler, and in some cases I think that's already happened.


#19

[quote="FEQuis, post:14, topic:181629"]
Well, Joe, put it this way. Based on your posts, I find you an unfaithful Catholic. You are not authentically Catholic because your argument flies in the face of the Canon Law I cited.

Actually, I don't, but that is the tone of the CC reviews. I'm hoping you'll get the point.

[/quote]

You're first paragraph really raised my heartrate a notch. :eek: I was about ready to report your post. I don't know that I approve of that method of making your point, but the point is taken. :o

Thanks for elaborating. I see what you're getting at. That they should adjust the language they use to sound less authoritative is a fair criticism.

I don't know that I'd want to see the USCCB doing website reviews, though. If they did it like they do the movie reviews, it would still just be a layperson doing the reviews, only the media would constantly be asserting it as a unified declaration of all the U.S. Bishops. :p


#20

[quote="FEQuis, post:15, topic:181629"]
First, it wasn't a lot of legwork. I went to a website, looked them up, paid a few $'s for the convenience of getting their filing as a downloadble PDF instead of going to the IRS, and read it. Took a total of 30 minutes.

[/quote]

Well, I guess I should say it would have taken me a lot of legwork. :o

[quote="FEQuis, post:15, topic:181629"]
Second, I resent that you are saying I am implying anything about their motives. I am not. First, I made clear I do not think they are doing anything illegal. Which leaves a question of ethics. It seems there are three possibilities:

1) They really need all that to run the site.
2) They don't need all that, and they are doing something less than ethical.
3) They don't need all that, and they are terribly mismanaging their funds.

I don't believe 1 is the case for the reasons I've stated. My personal opinion is #3.

[/quote]

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply anything about you in particular. I see now how my post could come off that way.

So you're not judging their motives, just saying they are probably fiscally incompetent. ;)

[quote="FEQuis, post:15, topic:181629"]
fisheaters.com

FE = Fish Eaters Quis = QuisUtDeus - my screen name there.

[/quote]

So that's the site. :) Yes, now I understand your assertion about having a comparable number of hits. I have seen your site on the same list of top visited Catholic sites.

[quote="FEQuis, post:15, topic:181629"]
If you tell me catholic.com or EWTN take $100K per year to run, that makes more sense, but not for a website that is about the same ranking as mine and Vox's which costs about $500/yr to run. Even if one breaks it down to the $19000 entry specific to the website, it comes out a lot more for I'm not sure what exactly. And Vox didn't make $78K/yr for putting her opinion, which is expressed as such, on the webpages.

[/quote]

I just toss this out there to consider (keeping in mind that I have no experience in running a website and minimal understanding of the financial figures you posted :o) but would part of that difference have to do with obtaining publishing rights? Their library contains some contemporary articles that were first published elsewhere. Would they have to pay to put those on their site?

Another possibility might be staff (unless that's a different line item). If they had 4 more employees making $25K a year, that would be the difference right there. Of course, then you might question whether they need more employees, which I suppose goes back to suspecting they mismanage money.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.