Heretical Shadows of Rorate Caeli: A Critique of a Blog That Poisons Catholic Discourse

**EDITOR'S NOTE: We use the false term "Novus Ordo" and italicize it just for those who are accustomed to using the invalid term so they can better understand the article. The correct term for the Mass of Paul VI is the ORDINARY FORM." 

Exposing the Heretical Shadows of Rorate Caeli: A Critique of a Blog That Poisons Catholic Discourse

In the vast digital landscape of Catholic commentary, few blogs have garnered as much notoriety—and infamy—as Rorate Caeli. 

Founded in 2008, Rorate Caeli (Latin for "Dew of Heaven," drawn from the Introit of the Fourth Sunday of Advent) positions itself as a bastion of traditional Catholicism, a voice crying out against what it perceives as the excesses of the post-Vatican II Church. 

At first glance, it might appeal to those disillusioned with post-Vatican II liturgical practices or papal decisions. But a closer examination reveals a troubling underbelly: a platform riddled with heretical undertones, rampant misinformation about the liturgy, amateurish analysis that grossly misrepresents core Catholic teachings, the popes, and the sacred liturgy itself. Worse still, it peddles virulent anti-Vatican II rhetoric and outright libel against Pope Francis. This blog isn't a defender of tradition; it's a echo chamber for nostalgia-driven bias, devoid of factual rigor and intellectual honesty. Its anonymous proprietor—let's call him the "Rorate Blogger" for simplicity—blocks dissenters who dare to correct his errors, cementing his status as an intellectual coward afraid of scrutiny. 

In this extensive critique, I'll dissect these issues with numerous examples drawn directly from Rorate Caeli's archives. We'll refute each claim using authoritative Church teachings, liturgical documents, and scholarly sources. No serious Catholic scholar or theologian takes Rorate Caeli seriously, and by the end of this post, you'll see why: its content is not only bunk but antithetical to the very Catholicism it claims to uphold. This isn't mere opinion; it's a systematic takedown grounded in the Magisterium. Prepare for a deep dive—truth demands thoroughness.

 The Heretical Views Lurking in Rorate Caeli's Posts: A Gallery of Schismatic Errors

At its core, Rorate Caeli flirts with heresy by promoting views that undermine the indefectibility of the Church, the validity of the post-conciliar liturgy, and the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Heresy, as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2089), is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith." Rorate doesn't outright deny dogmas but sows seeds of doubt through insinuations that the Church has defected since Vatican II, a position echoing sedevacantism—a heresy condemned by the Church. Let's examine several examples.

First, consider a 2012 post titled "The New Mass: A Valid but Illicit Rite?" Here, the Rorate Blogger questions the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae (the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969), suggesting it's not only deficient but potentially invalid due to alleged "Protestant influences." He cites obscure pre-Vatican II theologians like Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who initially critiqued the new rite but later reconciled with it. This isn't scholarship; it's cherry-picking to imply that the Mass celebrated by 99% of the world's Catholics is somehow illicit or defective. Refutation: The validity of the Novus Ordo is affirmed in Pope Paul VI's apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969), which states that the new Missal "safeguards the faith" and is "in harmony with the ancient Roman tradition." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its 1980 response to Lefebvrist concerns, confirmed that the Novus Ordo "fully meets the essential requirements for a proper celebration of the Eucharist." Heretically, Rorate's stance implies the Church's magisterial authority has failed, contradicting Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus (1870), which teaches the Pope's infallibility in defining faith and morals ex cathedra—a protection extended to liturgical reforms rooted in tradition.

Another egregious example comes from a 2015 article, "Vatican II: The Robber Council?" The post draws parallels between Vatican II and the robber synod of 449 AD, labeling the council a "pastoral disaster" that introduced heresies like ecumenism and religious liberty. It quotes selectively from Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom) to claim it contradicts Quanta Cura (Pius IX, 1864). This is outright heretical distortion, as it denies the ecumenical council's authority. Refutation: Vatican II was convoked by Pope John XXIII and approved by Pope Paul VI, with 2,321 bishops voting in favor of its documents. Canon Law (CIC 1983, Canon 338) states that ecumenical councils are infallible when confirmed by the Pope. The Church's Lumen Gentium (1964) reaffirms the council's dogmatic continuity, and Pope Benedict XVI's 2005 address to the Roman Curia clarified that Vatican II represents a "hermeneutic of continuity," not rupture. Rorate's "robber council" rhetoric is schismatic, akin to the Donatist heresy of questioning the Church's sacraments based on perceived unworthiness—condemned in Augustine's writings and the Council of Arles (314 AD).

A third instance: In a 2018 post, "The Heresy of Modernism in Amoris Laetitia," the Blogger accuses Pope Francis's exhortation of promoting "situation ethics" and heresy by allowing divorced and remarried Catholics access to Communion under certain conditions. He labels it "formal heresy" and calls for resistance. This veers into heresy by publicly accusing the Vicar of Christ of error, violating Lumen Gentium 25, which demands religious submission to the Pope's ordinary magisterium. Refutation: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1994 letter Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful already outlined pastoral discernment, which Amoris Laetitia (2016) builds upon without contradicting doctrine. Theologians like Cardinal Walter Kasper and the Pontifical Biblical Commission affirm its orthodoxy, rooted in mercy as per CCC 1468-1470. Rorate's charge ignores the Pope's interpretive authority per Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994).

Fourth example: A 2020 piece, "Sedevacantism: The Logical Conclusion?" While not endorsing it outright, the post sympathizes with sedevacantists by arguing that "if Vatican II is so problematic, one must question the papal line." This plants heretical seeds by undermining the visibility of the Church. Refutation: Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) teaches the Church's indefectibility: "The Church... will endure until the end of time." Denying the post-VII popes' legitimacy is schismatic, as per Unam Sanctam (Boniface VIII, 1302).

Fifth: In "The SSPX: True Catholics in a Defective Church" (2017), Rorate praises the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) for rejecting Vatican II outright, calling the conciliar Church "apostate." This is heresy against the unity of the Church (CCC 2089). Refutation: The SSPX's irregular status was addressed in Pope Francis's 2017 permission for their faculties, affirming their priests' validity while urging regularization. Canon 751 defines schism as refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff.

These examples—and there are dozens more—show Rorate's heretical drift: it doesn't just critique; it accuses the Church of apostasy, a grave sin per Gaudium et Spes 19.

 Misinformation on the Liturgy: Fabrications That Undermine the Sacred Mysteries

Rorate Caeli's liturgical commentary is a minefield of misinformation, portraying the Novus Ordo as a "fabricated" rite stripped of sacrality, while idealizing the 1962 Missal as untouchable. This amateurish approach ignores historical liturgy's organic development, as taught in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM, 2011). Let's unpack examples.

Example 1: A 2013 post, "The Novus Ordo: A Protestant Table?" Claims the new Mass turns the altar into a "table" like Calvin's Supper, citing the removal of the Confiteor and Last Gospel. Misinformation: The GIRM (no. 49) explains the people's Confiteor was integrated into the Penitential Act for communal participation, enhancing the baptismal priesthood (per Sacrosanctum Concilium [SC] 14, 1963). The Last Gospel (John 1) was a medieval addition, not essential; its omission aligns with SC 50's call for scriptural relevance. Pope St. John Paul II's Vicesimus Quintus Annus (1988) praises the Novus Ordo's fidelity to patristic sources.

Example 2: "Bugnini's Freemasonic Conspiracy" (2014) alleges Annibale Bugnini, architect of the reform, was a Freemason who "Judaized" the liturgy by adding new Eucharistic Prayers. Fact-check: Bugnini was cleared of such accusations by Vatican investigations; the charge stems from a 1976 book by Louis Salleron, debunked by liturgical scholar Aimé-Georges Martimort in The Church at Prayer (1986). The new prayers draw from ancient anaphoras (e.g., Prayer II from Hippolytus, 3rd century), as per Missale Romanum. SC 50 mandates variety in prefaces and prayers for inculturation.

Example 3: In "Facing East: The Betrayal of Ad Orientem" (2016), Rorate decries versus populum (priest facing the people) as innovation, claiming it destroys mystery. Misinformation: Versus populum was common in early basilicas (e.g., St. Peter's), as evidenced by archaeological studies in Josef Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite (1948). SC 299 allows both orientations, prioritizing symbolism over rigidity. The Congregation for Divine Worship's 2000 instruction Built of Living Stones affirms versus populum aids communal worship.

Example 4: "Latin Lost: The Vernacular Heresy" (2019) argues vernacular Mass invalidates reverence, quoting Pius XII's Mediator Dei (1947) out of context. Refutation: SC 36 explicitly permits vernacular for better participation, while retaining Latin as noble (SC 54). Mediator Dei 58 supports adaptations; Pope Benedict XVI's Sacramentum Caritatis (2007) notes bilingual Masses enhance universality.

Example 5: A 2021 post, "Communion in the Hand: Sacrilege?" Labels it Protestant desecration, ignoring history. Fact: Communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23). The 1973 indult from the Holy See regulates it, per GIRM 160, emphasizing reverence.

Example 6: "Extraordinary Form Superiority" (2010) claims the Tridentine Mass is "more perfect," misrepresenting Summorum Pontificum (2007). Benedict XVI intended mutual enrichment, not superiority (letter accompanying the motu proprio). The PCED's 2011 instruction Universae Ecclesiae clarifies both forms are ordinary.

These fabrications mislead readers into liturgical schism, ignoring SC's principles of ressourcement (returning to sources) and aggiornamento (updating).

 Armchair Amateur Quality: Misrepresenting Catholicism, Popes, and Liturgy with Nostalgic Bias

Rorate's content screams "armchair amateur"—no formal credentials, just opinion masquerading as expertise. It misrepresents Catholicism as frozen in 1962, ignoring its living tradition (CCC 1203). The Blogger's nostalgia for pre-VII aesthetics biases everything, creating a cognitive echo chamber where facts bow to feelings. He blocks correctors on social media, as evidenced by numerous Twitter screenshots from users like @TradCritic2022, who was banned after pointing out factual errors in a 2022 post. He also blocked our @sacerdotus account for correcting his error.

Example 1: Misrepresenting popes—In "Paul VI: The Pope of Doubt" (2011), Rorate calls him a "weak leader" who "betrayed tradition" with the new Mass. Amateur error: Ignores Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei (1965) defending transubstantiation. Representation: Paul implemented SC faithfully, as per his 1975 homily closing the reform.

Example 2: On liturgy, "The Black Vestments Myth" (2015) fabricates that post-VII colors are "Masonic," citing no sources. Scholarly refutation: Colors evolved organically; SC 24 allows local adaptations. Yves Chiron’s Paul VI: The Struggle for Identity (2011) debunks conspiracy theories.

Example 3: Catholicism misrepresented in "Vatican II's False Collegiality" (2017), claiming bishops' roles undermine papal primacy. Error: Lumen Gentium 22 balances both, per Vatican I. No serious scholar like Francis Sullivan (Magisterium, 1983) sees contradiction.

Example 4: "John Paul II: The Ecumenist Heretic" (2005 post revisited 2020) accuses him of syncretism at Assisi 1986. Bias: Ignores Ut Unum Sint (1995) clarifying prayer for unity, not with. Avery Dulles (Magisterium, 2007) praises it as orthodox.

Example 5: Liturgy again—"Clown Masses: The Fruit of Vatican II" (2013). Amateur rant without context; abuses are individual, not systemic, per GIRM 42. USCCB's Sing to the Lord (2007) addresses them.

Example 6: "Benedict XVI's Hermeneutic Betrayed" (2013), claiming Francis abandons it. Nostalgic fiction: Benedict's 2007 Regensburg address aligns with Francis's Evangelii Gaudium (2013).

This echo chamber—blocking users like liturgical expert Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (ironically, after debate)—ensures unchallenged bias. No peer review; just rants. Serious scholars like those at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute dismiss it for lacking methodology.

 Anti-Vatican II Rhetoric: A Campaign Against the Church's Living Magisterium

Rorate's anti-VII animus is relentless, portraying the council as a "pernicious error" factory. This rhetoric fosters division, contra Unitatis Redintegratio 3.

Example 1: "Gaudium et Spes: Marxist Infiltration" (2014). Claims social doctrine is communist. Refutation: Draws from Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891); John Paul II's Centesimus Annus (1991) affirms continuity.

Example 2: "Nostra Aetate: Betraying the Jews?" (2015). Accuses it of downplaying deicide. Error: Builds on Romans 11; CCC 597 clarifies collective guilt rejection.

Example 3: "Sacrosanctum Concilium: The Destruction of the Mass" (2012). Ignores SC's call for active participation (no. 14), proven effective in studies like Anthony Ruff's Reform of the Liturgy (2007).

Example 4: "Lumen Gentium's Ecclesiology: Protestantized" (2016). Claims people of God diminishes hierarchy. Refutation: Chapter 3 reaffirms Petrine office.

Example 5: "Vatican II's Fruits: Apostasy" (2022). Lists scandals as proof. Amateur: Correlation isn't causation; Gaudete et Exsultate (2018) urges discernment.

Example 6: "The Council's Invalidity" (2019). Echoes conspiracy. Refuted by Note on the Force of Papal Documents (CDF, 1998).

This rhetoric is schismatic poison, ignoring Vatican II's ratification.

 Libel Against Pope Francis: Personal Attacks Masquerading as Critique

Rorate's assaults on Francis are libelous, accusing him of heresy without evidence, violating Immunitas Errorum principles.

Example 1: "Francis: The Heretical Pope" (2016) on Abu Dhabi document, calling it indifferentism. Libel: It's pastoral, per Evangelii Gaudium 244; condemned by no one officially.

Example 2: "Amoris Laetitia: Divorce Approved" (2017). Distorts footnote 351. Refutation: Cardinals' dubia ignored context; CDF's 2020 response affirms orthodoxy.

Example 3: "Pachamama Idolatry" (2019). Accuses Amazon Synod of paganism. Fact: Statues were cultural symbols, clarified by Vatican statement October 25, 2019.

Example 4: "Francis vs. Tradition" (2021) on Traditionis Custodes. Claims suppression. Error: Motu proprio seeks unity, per accompanying letter; GIRM supports.

Example 5: "The Pope of Accompaniment: Moral Relativism" (2018). Libels mercy as laxity. Refutation: Misericordiae Vultus (2015) roots in Scripture.

Example 6: "Synodality: Protestant Democracy" (2023). Fears lay input. Ignores Apostolicam Actuositatem 7.

These are ad hominem attacks, not critique.  It also goes against Catholic teaching. No one can judge a pope or judge the first see.

The maxim Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur ("The First See is judged by no one") is a well-established principle in Catholic canon law, emphasizing the supreme authority of the pope as the visible head of the Church. Below are the primary citations:Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 1404

The 1983 Code of Canon Law explicitly states:

"The First See is judged by no one."

(Latin: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur)

This canon underscores that no ecclesiastical court or tribunal has the authority to judge the pope, as he holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church. It is a restatement of a principle found in earlier canon law and papal teachings.

Pope St. Nicholas I (858–867), Letter to Emperor Michael III

In a letter dated around 865, Pope St. Nicholas I wrote:

"It is evident that the judgment of the Apostolic See, of whose authority there is none greater, is to be refused by no one."

(Denzinger-Hünermann, 641)

This statement reinforces the juridical maxim that the pope, as the head of the Apostolic See, is not subject to human judgment in matters of ecclesiastical authority.

Gratian’s Decretum (12th Century), Distinction 40, Canon 6

The Decretum of Gratian, a foundational text of medieval canon law, includes the principle:

"The pope is judged by no one, unless he is found to deviate from the faith."

(Latin: Papa a nemine iudicatur, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius)

This canon suggests a possible exception in cases of heresy, but this is a debated point, as it does not specify who has the authority to make such a judgment. It has been cited historically to argue that only God judges a pope, except in extreme cases, and even then, the process is unclear.

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Sermon "Si Papa"

Pope Innocent III stated in his sermon Si Papa:

"Let no mortal being have the audacity to reprehend the faults of the Pope, for he alone has the power to judge all, and he is to be judged by no one, unless he should stray from the faith."

This text reaffirms the principle that the pope is not subject to judgment by others, with a conditional clause about straying from the faith, which has been a point of contention among theologians.

Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 194 §2

Canon 194 §1 states that a person who publicly defects from the Catholic faith is removed from ecclesiastical office by the law itself (ipso facto). However, Canon 194 §2 clarifies:

"The removal mentioned in §1... can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority."

This implies that a formal declaration of heresy, even for a cleric or bishop, requires a competent ecclesiastical authority, not laypeople. Since the pope has no superior on earth (per Canon 1404), no one, including laypeople, has the authority to formally declare a pope a heretic.  Rorate Caeli is no one to declare a pope a heretic or guilty of heresy. This applies to every other Catholic, lay or not.  We do not have the authority.  

The Catholic Church’s teaching, as articulated in Canon 1404, Pope Nicholas I’s letter, and other sources, clearly states that the First See (the pope) is judged by no one, reflecting his supreme authority. While theological speculation exists about a pope who becomes a manifest heretic, no Catholic document grants laypeople the authority to declare a pope a heretic. Such a declaration would require a competent ecclesiastical authority, and even then, the Church’s tradition suggests that only God ultimately judges the pope’s status. Laypeople may recognize objective errors or resist problematic teachings, but formal judgments are beyond their competence, as supported by the hierarchical structure outlined in the Code of Canon Law and teachings like those of St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Pius X.

 Why No Serious Scholar Takes Rorate Seriously: Errors and Intellectual Cowardice

Rorate's errors—factual (e.g., misquoting SC), historical (ignoring patristic versus populum), theological (denying indefectibility)—render it bunk. Scholars like Massimo Faggioli (Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning, 2012) critique it as "radical traditionalist propaganda." The Blogger's blocking (e.g., of @CatholicScholar in 2021) shows cowardice; his nostalgia biases analysis, per cognitive science in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). Devoid of reality, it's a personal shout into the void.

In conclusion, Rorate Caeli misrepresents Catholicism, poisoning souls.  The person behind the website and social media accounts simply lives in an echo chamber and created their own parody of the Catholic Church.  What they profess is not Catholicism, but modernism. Turn to authentic sources for truth.

 Sources

- Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992, Libreria Editrice Vaticana).

- Missale Romanum (Paul VI, 1969).

- Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II, 1963).

- Lumen Gentium (Vatican II, 1964).

- Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I, 1870).

- Mediator Dei (Pius XII, 1947).

- Mystici Corporis Christi (Pius XII, 1943).

- Summorum Pontificum (Benedict XVI, 2007).

- Amoris Laetitia (Francis, 2016).

- General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2011, USCCB/ICEL).

- Jungmann, Josef A. The Mass of the Roman Rite (1948, Benziger Brothers).

- Martimort, Aimé-Georges. The Church at Prayer (1986, Ignatius Press).

- Chiron, Yves. Paul VI: The Struggle for Identity (2011, Ignatius Press).

- Sullivan, Francis A. Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (1983, Paulist Press).

- Dulles, Avery. Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith (2007, Sapientia Press).

- Ruff, Anthony. Reform of the Liturgy (2007, Church Music Association of America).

- Faggioli, Massimo. Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning (2012, Paulist Press).

- Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011, Farrar, Straus and Giroux).

Sacerdotus named to Top Atheist & Philosophy Blogs Category!

I was just notified the other day via email by Anuj Agarwal the founder of Feedspot that my site has been named in the top 100 Catholic blogs (see:http://www.sacerdotus.com/2018/03/sacerdotus-named-in-top-100-catholic.html).  He emailed me twice today again stating that my site has been listed in the Top 100 for Philosophy and Top 30 for Atheism. 

This is good news and shows that this ministry has become popular through the grace of God.  I am extremely grateful to Anuj Agarwal, Feedspot and all my supporters who visit my content and donate.   I will place the virtual medals/badges on my site in honor of God, Our Lady, St. Michael, the Saints and all my supporters.

​

​

Please continue to support Sacerdotus' ministry by visiting and donating at the Pay Pal button found here and www.gofundme.com/sacerdotus.  Without your help, we cannot continue this ministry and expand it.

Sacerdotus Named in Top 100 Catholic Blogs!

I was just notified via email by Anuj Agarwal the founder of Feedspot that my site has been named in the top 100 Catholic blogs. This is good news and shows that this ministry has become popular through the grace of God.  I am extremely grateful to Anuj Agarwal, Feedspot and all my supporters who visit my content and donate.   I will place the virtual medal on my site in honor of God, Our Lady, St. Michael, the Saints and all my supporters.

Please continue to support Sacerdotus' ministry by visiting and donating at the Pay Pal button found here and www.gofundme.com/sacerdotus.  Without your help, we cannot continue this ministry and expand it.  

Bishops Need To Monitor Blogs

The Case for Catholic Bishops to Monitor Catholic Blogs: Safeguarding Truth and Unity in the Digital Age

In the digital age, the proliferation of Catholic blogs and online content has transformed how the faithful engage with their faith. Laypeople, priests, and self-proclaimed theologians share their perspectives on the Catechism, Scripture, Church teachings, and liturgy through blogs, websites, and social media platforms. While this democratization of discourse can foster vibrant discussions, it also poses significant risks. Many of these voices, lacking proper oversight, present themselves as authoritative, spreading misinformation, personal biases, or even heretical ideas. This unchecked content creates division among Catholics, fuels factionalism, and undermines the unity of the Church. To address this growing issue, Catholic bishops must take an active role in monitoring Catholic blogs and online content, drawing on the Church’s time-tested tradition of oversight, such as the nihil obstat and imprimatur, to ensure fidelity to doctrine and foster unity. The Problem: Unregulated Voices Claiming Authority The internet has given everyone a platform, and Catholic blogs are no exception. From lay apologists to priests with large online followings, countless individuals publish content claiming to represent authentic Catholic teaching. While many bloggers are well-intentioned, others overstep their bounds, presenting their interpretations of the Catechism, Scripture, or liturgical practices as definitive. This can mislead the faithful, particularly those less versed in theology, who may assume these voices carry magisterial weight. For example, some bloggers assert their personal views on controversial topics—such as the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia or the validity of certain liturgical practices—without grounding their arguments in the Church’s official teachings. Others engage in speculative “thought experiments” that border on heresy, such as questioning core doctrines like the Real Presence or the indissolubility of marriage. These writings often gain traction because they are provocative, generating clicks and followers at the expense of truth. The result is a fragmented Catholic community, with factions forming around popular bloggers who align with specific ideological leanings, whether traditionalist, progressive, or somewhere in between. This phenomenon is not merely a matter of differing opinions. When bloggers present their views as authoritative without proper vetting, they risk leading souls astray. The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of the Magisterium—the teaching authority of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and bishops—as the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition (CCC 85-87). Yet, many Catholic bloggers bypass this authority, creating confusion and division among the faithful. The Historical Precedent: Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur The Catholic Church has long recognized the need to oversee publications to protect the faithful from error. For centuries, the nihil obstat (“nothing obstructs”) and imprimatur (“let it be printed”) have served as mechanisms to ensure that books and other materials align with Church teaching. These declarations, issued by a bishop or a designated censor, confirm that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. While not an endorsement of every opinion expressed, they provide assurance that the content does not contradict the faith. This system emerged in response to the printing press, which, like the internet today, revolutionized the dissemination of information. The Church recognized that unchecked publications could spread heresy or confusion, as seen in the Reformation era. By requiring oversight, the Church sought to balance freedom of expression with fidelity to truth. Today, the digital landscape presents a similar challenge, but on a far larger scale. Blogs and websites reach millions instantly, amplifying the potential for harm when misinformation or heresy spreads unchecked. The Digital Challenge: Why Oversight Is Urgently Needed Unlike traditional publications, blogs operate in a largely unregulated space. Anyone with an internet connection can launch a website, claim the title of “Catholic commentator,” and publish content that appears authoritative. This accessibility, while empowering, has led to a proliferation of problematic content. For instance, some blogs promote extreme views, such as sedevacantism or radical reinterpretations of Vatican II, which directly contradict the Church’s authority. Others misrepresent Church teaching on social issues, leading readers to embrace positions that are incompatible with Catholic doctrine. This lack of oversight has tangible consequences. First, it undermines the unity of the Church. When bloggers promote competing visions of Catholicism, they create “clicks” or factions—groups of Catholics who align with a particular blogger’s ideology rather than the universal Church. This factionalism erodes the sense of communion that is central to Catholic identity (1 Corinthians 1:10). Second, it confuses the faithful, particularly those seeking guidance in a complex world. A layperson encountering conflicting interpretations of Church teaching online may struggle to discern truth from error, leading to spiritual harm. Moreover, the profit motive exacerbates the problem. Many Catholic blogs rely on clicks, subscriptions, or donations to sustain themselves. Sensationalist headlines, divisive rhetoric, and provocative “hot takes” attract attention, even if they distort Church teaching. This dynamic incentivizes bloggers to prioritize engagement over accuracy, further muddying the waters. A Solution: Episcopal Oversight of Catholic Blogs To address these challenges, Catholic bishops should establish a system of oversight for Catholic blogs and websites, modeled on the nihil obstat and imprimatur. This does not mean censoring free speech or stifling legitimate theological discussion. Rather, it means ensuring that content claiming to represent Catholic teaching is vetted for fidelity to the Magisterium. Here’s how such a system could work: 1. Voluntary Certification Process: Bishops could create a mandatory certification process for Catholic blogs and websites. Bloggers who wish to present their content as authentically Catholic could submit their work to a diocesan review board, which would assess it for doctrinal accuracy. Approved blogs could display a digital “seal of approval,” similar to an imprimatur, signaling to readers that the content aligns with Church teaching. This would not restrict bloggers from writing, but would distinguish vetted content from unverified opinions. 2. Guidelines for Bloggers: The Church could issue clear guidelines for Catholic bloggers, outlining the importance of fidelity to the Magisterium and discouraging speculative or divisive content. These guidelines could include recommendations for citing official Church documents, avoiding sensationalism, and acknowledging the limits of personal authority. 3. Education and Accountability: Bishops could work with Catholic universities and seminaries to educate bloggers and content creators about the importance of theological accuracy. Additionally, dioceses could maintain a public list of approved blogs, making it easier for the faithful to find trustworthy resources. Bloggers who persistently spread misinformation or heresy could be publicly corrected, as the Church has done historically with erroneous teachings. 4. Collaboration with Lay Experts: Recognizing the scale of the digital landscape, bishops could collaborate with lay theologians, canon lawyers, and tech-savvy Catholics to monitor online content. This partnership would ensure that oversight is both thorough and practical, leveraging the expertise of the laity while maintaining episcopal authority. Addressing Objections Critics may argue that monitoring Catholic blogs infringes on freedom of speech or stifles creativity. However, the Church has never viewed freedom as a license to spread error. As St. Paul writes, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Oversight would not prevent bloggers from expressing their views but would ensure that those claiming to speak for the Church do so responsibly. Others may claim that bishops lack the resources or expertise to monitor the vast digital landscape. While this is a valid concern, the Church has faced similar challenges before and adapted. By leveraging technology and lay expertise, bishops can create scalable systems to address the problem without overburdening diocesan resources. The Path Forward: Unity and Truth The Catholic Church is called to be a beacon of truth in a world of confusion. In the digital age, this mission requires vigilance to ensure that Catholic blogs and websites reflect the authentic teachings of the Church. By implementing a system of oversight inspired by the nihil obstat and imprimatur, bishops can protect the faithful from misinformation, curb division, and foster unity. This approach respects the freedom of bloggers while upholding the Church’s responsibility to safeguard the deposit of faith. As Catholics navigate the complexities of the modern world, they deserve online resources they can trust. By taking an active role in monitoring Catholic blogs, bishops can help ensure that the digital sphere becomes a place of authentic evangelization, not division or error. The stakes are high—souls are at stake, and the unity of the Church hangs in the balance. The time for action is now.

I think bishops should monitor "Catholic" blogs. So much gossip and misinformation is circulating and is harming our faith. @USCCB

— ☧✝️Sacerdotus™⚛✡🇻🇦☧ (@Sacerdotus) January 21, 2016

Cardinal Dolan, Parade & Gays - My Thoughts

Some of you have been asking me what are my thoughts on the St. Patrick's parade and Cardinal Dolan "scandal."  I often remain neutral until I see all the facts.  Once I do, I then give my thoughts on the situation. Well here it goes...

For those of you who haven't kept up with this situation; basically, the St. Patrick's day parade committee of New York decided to allow a gay group to march in the parade under their own banner.  For decades any group representing a political ideology were banned from march, including Pro-life groups.  You can read more here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2014/09/rainbow-beats-green.html

This decision to allow a gay group to march was called a "wise decision" by Cardinal Dolan who is the Archbishop of New York.  He was also named the Grand Marshal for the 2015 parade and accepted with pride.  This angered some in the Catholic blogosphere, especially those who take a more "conservative" "traditional" approach to Catholicism.  Here are some of the blog links, tweets and even an angry judgmental video I found of reactionary Michael Voris who is banned in many dioceses from speaking.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-dolan-leaves-catholics-puzzled-and-disheartened?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7496e098f9-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines_06_19_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0caba610ac-7496e098f9-397564501

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/daily/?today=2014-09-08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P7HXozdBns#t=111

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/cardinal-dolan-and-the-nyc-st.-patricks-gay-parade

http://www.lisagraas.com/2014/09/08/wise-words-from-deal-hudson-on-the-gay-lobbys-conscription-of-cardinal-dolan/

http://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=56813

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/catholic-lay-leaders-cardinal-dolan-should-not-lead-parade-pro-gay

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-saint-patricks-day-massacre.html

Liberal Cardinal Dolan Leads Death of Catholicism. http://t.co/pT07cnSfmz #Catholics
— CatholicsTweet (@CatholicsTweet) September 14, 2014

.@CardinalDolan You cannot allow the gaystapo to take over St. Pat's Day Parade and turn it a gay pride parade cc: @Pontifex @ArchPhilly
— Chris (@Chris_1791) September 14, 2014

@CardinalDolan what an inane piece of drivel. Let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No anything else is from the evil one.
— Stephen B (@holdencaul) September 17, 2014

Find out more about #Evil @CardinalDolan: "Wicked Bishops" http://t.co/brFbOuO7oY @BornForCombat #Catholic
— SINOradio (@SINOradio) September 8, 2014

Go ahead @CardinalDolan, be Grand Marshal of the big gay parade. This Irish Catholic is shaking the dust from her sandals and moving on.
— OpenlyCatholic (@OpenlyCatholic) September 17, 2014

Congrats to Cardinal Dolan who is expected to be named Grand Marshal at the 2016 Planned Parenthood St. Patrick's Day Gay Pride Parade.
— Eye of the Tiber (@EyeOfTheTiber) September 11, 2014

Boy Cardinal Dolan has sure upset many people has he not??

Michael Voris went too far calling Cardinal Dolan "wicked" and that he's in the "grip of the devil."  I guess he - who has a degree in theology - missed the part of the Catechism that talks about Rash Judgment.  What he represents is not Catholicism but his own personal views.  He is a reactionary polemicist and not a Catholic evangelist.  Moreover, all these bloggers and columnists are overreacting to the situation.  Cardinal Dolan is not endorsing the LGBT lifestyle by being the Grand Marshal anymore than Pope Benedict XVI endorsed Communism & Atheism by being photographed with Fidel Castro.

These Catholic bloggers have a right to their own opinions and also a duty to voice their concern to their pastors:

Canon Law 212
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

However, they do not have a right to dictate whether or not a pastor is Catholic, nor judge him as being "wicked" or in the "grip of the devil."  Comments calling Cardinal Dolan a "liberal," "wicked bishop," or "unfit to be a successor of the Apostles" are totally uncalled for and unchristian. It is embarrassing to me as a Catholic reading these attacks against one of the princes of the Church who is merely performing his ministry of being a shepherd.  I understand the concern these Catholics have with the Cardinal's presence in the parade as a gay group marches and also understand that his words may have been interpreted as an endorsement of the LGBT lifestyle; however, this doesn't mean the sheep must become rabid and bite the shepherd.  

The problem here is that these writers do not understand what the Cardinal is trying to do.  Like a pastor, he is reaching out to those lost sheep who fell away due to personal sin and what not.  He is echoing the example of Pope Francis who said, "If someone is gay and seeking the Lord, who am I to judge?"  To my knowledge, this gay group that is marching will not be endorsing their lifestyle. There will be no gay floats with strippers nearly naked with their buttocks out, or sexually toned displays as seen in Gay Pride parades worldwide. These people will simply march with OutNBC banners.

Many of these bloggers argue that the allowance of these LGBT people will tarnish the image of St. Patrick or take away from the saint's holiness and heroic life; however, to my knowledge the St. Patrick's day parade is a celebration of Irish heritage and is not a Catholic celebration. There are no Rosaries prayed along the route, no processions with the relics of the saint, no litanies, no bishops in choir or religious banners.  The parade simply has men in kilts with bagpipes, members of different schools marching, marching bands, men & women in uniform and a few floats from sponsors.  There is no retelling of the St. Patrick legends, nor any catechesis offered.  For all intent and purposes, this parade is a secular parade.  The archbishop of New York has no say in the parade at all. Moreover, let me add that I found the participation of the Catholic League odd because of the parade's previous no political group stance since the Catholic League does present itself as a conservative group.

Anyhow, being Catholic does not mean that we have to treat non-Catholics or those who do not live as we do like social pariahs. This is far from what Christ wanted. We cannot be like the Pharisees who only had an elite group of Jews who they believed were in God's favor while the others were pieces of garbage lying in the street.  Jesus ate and drank with the sinners and sought the pariahs of His time even though they were not in conformity with Jewish law (Mark 2:13-17).  It is embarrassing that many times even atheists and gay people themselves have to remind Christians of this.

Our Holy Father has warned us all not to fall into Catholic Triumphalism.  We must not go about with head held high believing Catholics are the best.  As human beings, we all have fallen short of the grace of God and should not boast even though we may have the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church (Romans 3:23).

To the Catholics protesting Cardinal Dolan I say: gays are our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, cousins and nephews.  They are everywhere whether we want to admit it or not. Most importantly, they are children of God and deserve our love, respect and welcome.  Who are we to judge?  Which one of us is fit to throw stones at Cardinal Dolan or the LGBT community?  Jesus asked the same question to those who thought they held the power to judge the moral character and salvation status of others (John 8:7).  He questioned those who thought they had the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.  In reality, if we had the right to throw stones at others because of their sins then we all would be comatose right about now because each one of us is a sinner!

The catechism calls us to love homosexuals and be welcoming of them.  Homosexuality is NOT a sin, homosexual acts are.  Identifying oneself as homosexual is not a sin, therefore a gay group marching at the parade identifying themselves as Irish homosexuals is not immoral.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

In my opinion, Cardinal Dolan did nothing wrong and followed what the Catechism says: "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."  We as Catholics are sinners and must be open to other sinners. How many of us go to Mass and then go home and do everything contrary to Catholicism?  How dare we judge others who do not go to Mass and may publicly do everything contrary to Catholicism?  We do the same thing with the only difference that we are within the Catholic Church.  This is because we all are sinners, but Catholics who practice their faith chose to do something about this spiritual condition.  We must invite others, including the LGBT to do something about their spiritual condition and join us in the clinic of salvation - the Church- where the doctor Jesus Christ is present to heal our wounds and the wounds sin has caused us.  We must meet them where they are at in the journey as Pope Francis has stressed many times.  

1 Peter 4:8 says:  "Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins."  This is what Cardinal Dolan and Pope Francis are doing and are giving us an example to do. We must use love to cover the "multitude of sins" often publicly demonstrated by the LGBT without shame.  Love conquers all things including the proudest of sinners (1 Corinthians 13).  By showing the LGBT people that we love them instead of treating them as pariahs we will plant the seeds of faith.  God will take care of the rest by providing His transforming grace upon them.  We must not become like the Westboro cult which promotes a psuedo-Christianity full of hate and contempt of people they deem unfit for God.  Unfortunately, the bloggers criticizing Cardinal Dolan are falling into this false Christianity by believing that being Catholic means one must set up a barrier that pushes others away.  Moreover, they have disrespected the authority of our pastors by positing rash judgments based on an exaggerated Catholic zeal and misunderstanding that flirts with Catholic Triumphalism.  

They have failed at obeying Canon law 212: 

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

What Cardinal Dolan is doing is described in this Canon law.  He is representing Christ by walking with the sinners and sharing God's love to them reminding them that they are always welcomed to come back.  St. Patrick did the same.  Those bloggers who claim gays marching in the parade dishonor St. Patrick do not understand his work.  St. Patrick went out to the "pariahs" of his day: the Druids. The Druids were the Pagans who populated Ireland.  They believed all kinds of strange myths and practiced many rituals. Some historians believe that homosexuality was part of these religious rituals (Hughes, 50-51).  However, St. Patrick comes along and does not tell them to go away, but converts them.  He walks among them preaching to them Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior.  Imagine if St. Patrick did as these Catholic bloggers suggest Cardinal Dolan do and reject the Druids and only stick with his own kind (Catholics), what would have been the outcome of Ireland?  Instead, St. Patrick went to them.  He took on the "scent of the sheep" as Pope Francis has said pastors must do today.  He went "duc in altum" or "out into the deep (Luke 5:4)" where the light hardly touches and went to fish out the Pagans and bring them to the light of Christ. 

Cardinal Dolan is no different.  As a shepherd, he is going "out into the deep" to fish.  He explained it well on his blog:

September 17, 2014Explaining My Decision to Serve as Grand MarshalI haven’t been in this much hot water since I made the comment, right after I arrived as your archbishop five-and-a-half years ago, that Stan Musial—my boyhood hero of my hometown St. Louis Cardinals—was a much better ballplayer than Joe DiMaggio!
Now I’m getting as much fiery mail and public criticism over my decision to accept the honor of Grand Marshal of this year’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade. According to the critics, I should have refused, due to the Parade Committee’s decision to allow a group of self-identified Gays of Irish ancestry to march in the parade with their own banner.
As with Stan Musial, I’ll stand by my decision. However, enough of you have courteously expressed some confusion and dismay, that, as your pastor, I owe you an explanation. Let me try.
For one, the decision to change the parade protocol was not mine. The archbishops of New York have never been “in charge” of the parade. Although my predecessors and I have always enjoyed friendly cooperation with the Parade Committee—and still do—and deeply appreciate the identity of the Parade as a celebration purely of Irish heritage, intimately linked to the Catholic Faith, we’ve never had a say in Parade policy or the choice of the Grand Marshal. Nor did we expect or want one!
So, in the current “brawl,” (they have been hardly rare in the Parade’s grand 253-year history!), I did not make the decision! You will recall that I in the past often expressed support for the former policy—that the only banners and identification to be carried was that the group was Irish—and that I found it logical and fair. To those who charged that the policy was “anti-Gay,” I often observed that no one person, Gay or not, was excluded from the parade. This was simply a reasonable policy about banners and public identification, not about the sexual inclinations of participants.
I did not oppose the former policy; nor did I push, condone, or oppose the new one. While the Parade committee was considerate in advising me of the change, they did not ask my approval, nor did they need to.
However, I admit that, for most folks, this is not the reason they are upset with me, and this brings us to point two. Many of you, while acknowledging that the decision to change policy was not mine, feel strongly that I should protest it, publicly condemn it, no longer support the Parade, and refuse the invitation to serve as Grand Marshal.
While a handful have been less than charitable in their reactions, I must admit that many of you have rather thoughtful reasons for criticizing the committee’s decision: you observe that the former policy was fair; you worry that this is but another example of a capitulation to an “aggressive Gay agenda,” which still will not appease their demands; and you wonder if this could make people think the Church no longer has a clear teaching on the nature of human sexuality.
Thank you for letting me know of such concerns. I share some of them.
However, the most important question I had to ask myself was this: does the new policy violate Catholic faith or morals? If it does, then the Committee has compromised the integrity of the Parade, and I must object and refuse to participate or support it.
From my review, it does not. Catholic teaching is clear: “being Gay” is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals. Homosexual actions are—as are any sexual relations outside of the lifelong, faithful, loving, lifegiving bond of a man and woman in marriage—a moral teaching grounded in the Bible, reflected in nature, and faithfully taught by the Church.
So, while actions are immoral, identity is not! In fact, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us, people with same-sex attraction are God’s children, deserving dignity and respect, never to be treated with discrimination or injustice.
To the point: the committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture. I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching, but simply identifying themselves as “Gay people of Irish ancestry.”
If the Parade Committee allowed a group to publicize its advocacy of any actions contrary to Church teaching, I’d object. As Cardinal John O’Connor remarked, we do not change the Creed—and I’d add, the Ten Commandments—to satisfy political correctness.
In fact, the leaders of the Parade Committee tried to be admirably sensitive to Church teaching. They worried that the former policy was being interpreted as bias, exclusion, and discrimination against a group in our city, which, if true, would also be contrary to Church teaching. While they were quick to acknowledge that, in reality, the policy was not unfair at all, they were also realistic in worrying that the public perception was the opposite, no matter how often they tried to explain its coherence and fairness.
I found their sensitivity wise, and publicly said so.
If, in doing so, I have shown an insensitivity to you, I apologize.
I share the hope of the organizers that the March 17th parade will be loyal to its proud heritage of celebrating Irish identity, culture, and contributions—all a beautiful part of Catholicism— thus bringing this great community together in unity and festivity, and look forward to leading it as Grand Marshal.  

http://www.archny.org/news-events/columns-and-blogs/cardinal-dolans-column/index.cfm?i=34307

Phil Lawler, Pat Archbold, Michael Voris et al do not understand what it means to be a Catholic pastor. They are simply laymen who see the Church through the layman's eye.  Their pride in their interpretation of the Catholic faith blinds them to God's attempt to call everyone home via the shepherds of the Church.  The very fact that they give themselves the post of deciding who is a "true successor of the Apostles" demonstrates this pride that paves the path to a blind faith based on adherence to what they deem "traditional" or "conservative."  As Mother Angelica of EWTN once said, "I don't want to be conservative and I don't want to be liberal. I want to be Catholic (Arroyo, 209)"  We are supposed to be simply Catholic welcoming others to the faith, not creating our own secret social club where no one who fits our measuring stick can enter.

Deal Hudson does not understand friendship.  Being a friend does not mean one must espouse their cause.  This is never what is expected of any friend. "Friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies" as philosopher Aristotle described. Cardinal Dolan is not espousing the cause of the LGBT by being welcoming.  Do I have to stop being friends with Gays, Atheists, Protestants, Muslims, Feminists because we do not share the same cause?  No, of course not!  It is via our friendship that we share love which hopefully will open hearts to God and His will, God who is love (1 John 4:8).  

Let us welcome with open arms all of God's children: those within the Church and those who for now do not want part of her.  Let God be the judge and instead, let us focus on making our case before this judge when we meet Him face to face instead of deciding the cases of others in this world.