Reblog: Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.

This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor

Praying For The Pope

I have very recently published a post in which I have stated that is very much like Pollyanna to think that if we pray really hard the Pope will, well, discover Catholicism. In opposition to this, I stressed the importance of doing more than praying for miracles, that is: to act without waiting for the miracle to happen first.

It goes without saying that this does not mean that we should not pray for the Pope. We pray for the Pope because it is our duty as Catholics to do so, because we are aware of the importance of the Papacy and because we wish salvation to everyone, even Francis. At the same time, we do not allow the prayer to be an excuse for not acting, at least as much as our little sphere of influence allows.

I say this as it appears to me my words have been misunderstood or misconstrued, and I would not want anyone to be misled. I have reread the post, and it seems to me the meaning is rather clear; therefore, the text will not be amended.

M

 

The Wife, The Head And The Sand

There is an article on Catholic.org that well exemplifies both the confusion reigning in the head of many, and the fact that sanity is slowly becoming mainstream.

The author of this article calls himself a conservative, but he ignores what conservatism is all about: Conservation. Permanence. Tradition. Doing things now as they were made before; because permanence is good, and goodness must be conserved.

The attempt to minimise the Unholy Father’s continued scandal becomes the condemnation of those who condemn the scandal. The desperate attempt to ask a Christian to please bend over backward and give Francis’ words an orthodox meaning simply ignores that vast part of the planet – as Francis all too well knows – will simply use his words for what they mean. The assumption that Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted but almost never defends them with a word is witness of a state of pure denial. The condemnation of the scandal of a Pope saying “who am I to judge” completely ignores the enormous subversive impact of such a statement, and becomes an excuse to even accuse of hypocrisy those who are so scandalised; which, unavoidably, extends to sixty generations of Christians.

This man is simply refusing to look at a reality staring him in the face, and twists himself in the most intricate ways in order to avoid to see the brutal truth in front of him.

Not so his wife. Her argument is brutally simple. Look around you, man.

The Unholy Father has now thrown such a vast quantity of rubbish on sound Catholicism, that even the wives of the Pollyannas (this one isn’t an extreme Pollyanna, but he is one all right) do not need to give them any more than the simplest of answers:

“How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?”

This one is a smart woman and, I am sure, a very good wife; the good tree, and all that.

We need more people like her.

Particularly if they write on Catholic outlets.

M

 

Pollyanning The Evidence

Francis has been Pope for almost two years now. His questionable or heretical statements are countless (see my “The Francis Papers” section above, still incomplete). He makes continuous references to the uselessness of the Law if it does nor “serve” his purposes, criticises “excessive doctrinal security”, undermines the Truth in every possible way.

Cardinal Baldisseri has recently confirmed that the disgraceful Relatio post disceptationem was seen and approved by Francis himself before publication. The “radical Neo-Pagan” ideology reflected in the document (Bishop Schneider himself called it that way) is, therefore, directly attributed to Francis. Result? We now officially have a radical Neo-Pagan Pope.

After all this, it is no less than astonishing that there should be blog and forum commenters thick enough to even criticise Cardinal Burke for giving a public warning to the Pope. A Pope who is responsible for massive heretical activity by admission of his own closest collaborators, and continues to echo heretical sentiments in pretty much everything he does not read from a statement written by Catholics, should not be warned about the extremely grave consequences of plunging the Church into the gravest crisis since John XXII!

It beggars belief. It truly does. It is even more stupid than claiming Hitler should not have been warned about the consequences of invading Poland.

When, in addition to this, the saintly Cardinal is even accused of protagonism, I wonder whether not stupidity or naïveté, but outright evil intentions are at play.

One of the things I have noticed since the explosion of Internet fora (and then blogs) is that these places attract the sort of commenter whom no one takes seriously in life, because the written and “published” word and the impossibility to see the person behind them lend a sort of primary facie credibility to the nonsense they write; as if they were the result of serious reflection rather than the last dumb observation of a dumb man. On the Internet, no one knows your friends call you “idiot John”.

This is also the reason why I cancel, at times, comments from newcomers which, because of their evident stupidity, do not deserve publication. Commenting on this blog requires some IQ standards, below which entrance will be denied.

Whenever you read comments on blogs and fora, reflect that if someone might be an idiot he very probably is, and much dumber than he manages to let it seem on the Internet.

I call bullshit on this.

Long live Cardinal Burke. May the Lord sustain him in his battle.

M

Edited with BlogPad Pro

Extreme Pollyan-Ing: The Naked Emperor Has A Brilliant Strategy!

 

Oh come on! He is “carefully gauging the reactions”…

Dear readers,

a new champion of Pollyannism has appeared on the scene. Or if he was there, I was not aware of him. The blogosphere is a big place, you know.

The “Witness” is a blog with the probably good intention of being a “Witness for the Faith”. In the sense of “good, traditional, Catholic fellowship”. Which is very fine in itself.

It is, I allow myself to say, a tad less good when the witness for the the faith covers, or sanctions, or approves of a behaviour that is the exact contrary of the “good, traditional Catholic fellowship” it claims to support. Because you see: if it ain’t traditional, it can’t be good.

Now: the said blog starts from the last disgraceful interview (I use the word advisedly: if you talk with a journalist for an hour with the intent of having your thoughts published it is a damn interview and the entire world – bar the Pollyannas and Father Lombardi; and I have my strong doubts on the latter – knows it) and comes out with this piece of profound Sunday Machiavellian thinking 

What does the Pope get out of this? The answer is in the flurry of reaction to the Scalfari interview. As he watches the curial functionaries running about reacting to this leak he gains some very critical intelligence. The Pope is usually surrounded by a coterie of careerists and sycophants whose job it is to mediate the Pope’s relations with the world at large. Essentially they are to make sure there are no surprises. By carefully gauging the reaction to the Scalfari leaks he can determine which of those he can trust.

This might have been written in a highly sarcastic tone, in the “eye of the Tiber”-style. If it were true, it would be brilliant satire. Unfortunately, I have the impression the author of the words means what he has written. Let’s hope not, of course; but there is not much ground for optimism. 

Now, this is a new and brilliant argument.

Following it, one would suggest to the Pope that he should be found in a “gay” sauna, stark nakkid and obviously intoxicated, together with Monsignor Ricca and some of his, well, gay companions; and procced to be photographed whilst singing Argentinian sea-shanties, and dancing the tango with the said “gay” men whilst wearing a red nose. 

A great reaction would ensue.

At this point, Francis would (cough) “gain some very critical intelligence”. “By carefully gauging the reaction to the Scalfari leaks he can determine which of those he can trust”.

Lord, give me strenght…

I have already reported about an astonishing piece of extreme Pollyannism, but I wonder whether this one should not take the biscuit.

So: a Pope would confuse one billion plus Catholics every, say, eighteen hours in order to see which ones among the careerists and sycophants around him is to be trusted. He certainly can’t believe those who don’t criticise him are not careerists and sycophants. Actually, common sense says that he should suspect them first. So it can only be about selecting the worst among the bad.

I wonder what some bloggers drink in the morning (kool-aid, is the answer; with Francis flavour). I try to criticise other Catholic bloggers as little as possible, or to do it only when the example that should not be followed is extreme.

This here is beyond extreme.

It is parody.

It is involuntary Monthy Phyton humour of the most Monthy Phyton-esque kind.

Actually, it is a pity Monthy Phyton aren’t around anymore: they would have such a field day with the Pollyannas…

Papolatry is among us. Keep your eyes open and your brains switched on, because the number of the Papolaters isn’t going to decrease anytime soon.

—

If it smells very badly, it’s brown and comes from a cow I am sorry to burst your bubble, but you are in front of a load of bullshit. Even if the cow is ever so white, and ever so humble. 

Trying to call this bullshit something else just doesn’t wash, because the stink is there.

The Bard would probably say this:

Bullshit, by any other name, still stinks as badly.

Mundabor

 

 

FFI: Pollyanna Speaks!

 

 

I received this on my postbox from Pollyanna. I publish without comment.

———-

Dear Mundabor,

As we all know, our Holy Father has been unjustly slandered in the matter of the FFI. It has now emerged that on 10 June there was a big meeting between Francis, the evil Father Volpi, and several dozen Friars. I would like here to defend our wonderful Holy Father from the unjust accusations that will be moved against him. My position is proved by the following points.

1. Pope Francis has received the Friars. How won-der-ful this is! He is full of caring solicitude for his sheep!

2. Father Volpi, the evil friar who keeps Francis in the dark about the persecution of the FFI, was also there. This I found a bit strange, but I think it was because our wonderful Holy Father is so nice to everyone!

3. It is reported that the Holy Father was well informed about everything, and discussed the situation with the Friars during one and a half hours. This is wrong! Slanderous! Evil! The Holy Father cannot be informed about the persecution! It just can’t be! He would nevah evah be an accomplice in their persecution! Don’t you know that the Holy Spirit picked him up very personally, and whispered straight in the ear of every Cardinal: “yep, Bergoglio it is”?

No. It is obvious that Father Volpi has deceived our humble and good-natured Holy Father into believing that he knows everything, whilst persecuting the Friars all the time behind his back!

4. It is very obvious that many are leaving or about to leave the Order, and particularly the news of the 20 seminarians who have decided to leave “before it’s too late” is distressing. I am sure Father Volpi was distracting the Holy Father whilst the Friars spoke about this and their persecution.

You know how it is done, don’t you? A “Beautiful day, Holy Father” here and an “Excuse me, Holy Father: what time is it?” there, together with many “How do you feel, Holy Father? ( are you tired, angry, thirsty, sleepy, cold, warm…)”. It’s so easy to distract the poor, trusting soul! And he has only one lung! Only one lung! I wonder how he breathes at all! It must be the Holy Ghost’s assistance helping him, for sure!…still, who knows how much he coughs!? Are we surprised he has not heard of the Friars’ persecution? Oh, Father Volpi, what an evil man you are! To profit in such way of the a Holy Father’s ailment! Disgraceful!

No. We must understand here that there is a conspiracy to keep the Holy Father, He Whom The Holy Ghost Picked With His Own Hand, in the dark about all this. If he knew, if he only knew, how would he run to restore justice and put an end to Father Volpi’s persecution! We must do all he can to inform him, because he is surrounded by wolves…!

5. The media report that Francis reassured the Friars they can celebrate the Traditional Mass for now. Oh, foolish men! Don’t they understand Francis said “they can celebrate the Traditional Mass” and Father Volpi, imitating his voice, added “for now”? Seriously: this is sooo obvious!

Also, it was clearly Volpi who, imitating Francis’ voice, said to the Friars they need the “discernment” of their superior or of the bishop in order to celebrate the TLM. This is patently against Summorum Pontificum, and therefore our good and humble Holy Father simply cannot have said it! Sheesh!

I could go on a long time, dear Mundabor, but I know you don’t like long messages in your comment box. I know you are, with me, in the first row of those defending the Holy Father from the bad, bad wolves surrounding him, and erecting around him a wall of lie and deception. The poor, humble man lives in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, fully isolated from what happens around him! He never sees anyone, he never visits anyone, he never goes out! How can he keep abreast of what happens around him if the wolves keep him isolated from the news, imitate his voice with journalists, and even interrupt him all the time so he can never be properly informed?

And he has only one lung! Only one lung! I am reliably informed the other lung is also almost gone! How can a person in this condition, and even with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, pay attention to what the Friars said to him? Don’t you understand he must breathe all the time?

Mundabor, I implore you and your readers to join me in our struggle. We are with Pope Francis and against Father Volpi and his unjust, unjust persecution of the Friars! The Pope knows nothing about it! ¡Nada!

Thank you for your time, Mundabor.

With Pope Francis, against the wolves!

Pollyanna

 

 

Bible Verse Comparison: Matthew 16:23

Pollyanna was so happy with her new Bible…

 

 

King James Bible

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

English Standard Version

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

American Standard Version

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

Pollyanna’s Bible

But he turned and said to Peter, “I do not understand what you are saying. I find it confusing. But you have been hand-picked by the Holy Ghost, so this must make sense in some way I don’t know”.

 

Mundabor

“What Did Bishop dal Covolo Really Want To Say”?

********** POLLYANNA MODE ON *****************

Look, dear readers, why are you all so angry?

It is very clear here that the Bishop wanted to say that Guam is a beautiful island, and he will spend a very interesting Christmas there, and everyone is so nice, etc.

The hate press is obviously trying to misinterpret Bishop dal Covolo here, as they always do with Francis.

Look, what has he said that would be unorthodox? “Francis is a sign of discontinuity”. And? Is not every Pope a discontinuity compared to his predecessor? Of course he is! This is why we speak of the Pontificate of Benedict XV as something different from the one of Pius X! Discontinuity clearly means “difference” here, but it does not mean that the Bishop is being dismissive of the Pontiff Emeritus! Don’t be fooled by the haters… 

And then there is the one with the “ingratitude”. Really, what is this hate? What don’t we love each other like as many sisters from a Louisa May Alcott’s novel? Oh, if we all just followed the words of Pope Francis…

Whenever we read a prelate, we must read him according to what the Church says.  Does the Church say that a Bishop should be ungrateful to a Pontiff Emeritus who made him bishop? No? Well then, case closed…

Well, OK, I agree… he might have expressed himself in a slightly inappropriate way. He has said “discontinuity”, but I think he wanted to say “substantial continuity with small, organic, not at all worrying differences”.

These small errors happen. Apparently every 1000 words there is a mini- blunder like that. Scientists swear on it, and my cousin is also very much of the same opinion, and everyone knows he is smart.

Please stop listening to the hatemongers who don’t like our dear bishop, and consider instead what he really, really, really wanted to say…

******************* POLLYANNA MODE OFF **********************

———–

******************* MUNDABOR MODE ON ***********************

Seriously: the conceit is unbelievable.

It goes to show, once again, how wrong in his choices Benedict could be.

Mundabor

Extreme Pollyann-Ing

Pollyanna had finally found her favourite blog.

A blogger on a famous multi-faith (and none) blog multinational made my day today, with the wonderful explanation of why the Pope Bishop of Rome always – and particularly on the famous aeroplane – talks as if he had one Litre Fernet (the Argentinians like it a lot, I am told; like the Italians) in his humble stomach.   

It all has to do with Sun-Tzu and his Art of War, you see.

The brilliant war strategy unfolds as follows:

1. Francis just shuts up in the face of huge attacks on Christianity, for months.

2. Then, he surprises the enemy by showing he is on their side.

3. This leaves the enemy utterly without defence or orientation, because of all things they were certainly not expecting the Pope… to be on their side. The shock!

4. At this point the enemy is clearly confused, faintly whispering “he is one of ours, then!”… and

5. They give the Pope huge attention, repeating all over the world how he (erm… cough) sabotages Catholicism… At this point, when Francis has the world’s attention…

7. BLAM….. He attacks them with clear Catholic teaching!

I miss the BLAM phase; but that is meant to be in the future, I am sure…

For today, I notice this is the same as saying Churchill should have started to teach the superiority of the Aryan race during WW II, and perhaps made one or three laws against the Jews, in order to surprise the confused Wehrmacht soldiers….

Hilarious.

It’s not even twisted, or immensely stupid anymore. It’s just plain funny.

Wins the Pollyanna Championship hands down.

Mundabor

Pollyanna And The Grumpy Old Man

Wouldn't make a good blogger...

It might be, perhaps, useful to explain to my readers how I intend to report and comment the issues – which I fear will be numerous – concerning the new Pope.

Good or bad (or very bad; or awful; or outright heretical) the Pope is my Pope, and he will be until he proclaims an error as dogma. This means that before I criticise, I will do my best to examine what he says without any animosity or preconceived criticism.

If I find what he says or does is objectively wrong (a Pinocchio Mass has simply no excuse, none whatsoever) or highly questionable (the “poverty drive” and the awful whiff of populism) then I will express my criticism in terms which I see as respectful, but very open; and I will continue to go back on them as long as the issues themselves continue to exist.

I can safely say no one will ever suspect me of acquiescence to all the Pope says merely because it was said by the Pope; at the same time, cries of impending doom seem wildly inappropriate to me, and I have no intention whatever of starting my own little personal war against Pope Francis qua Pope Francis.

Instead, I will try to examine the single facts as they are presented to me, and do my best to provide a comment of which I hope Padre Pio would – taking account of my human shortcomings and of my rather emotional nature – not disapprove; and in doing so, I will try to say it straight – and try to inject some humour here or there – without, I hope, becoming all too heated.

If, therefore, you are hoping that this blog becomes an outlet of anti-Francis propaganda and resentment you will be disappointed, because I will endeavour to report what I think is good with the same zeal I report what I think is going wrong. Please also consider the good, gentle, and liturgically (somewhat) conservative Benedict was largely unable to be effective, but a strong-willed Pope will be able to do a lot of good at least in what concerns particular issues; though I am persuaded that if a Pope's theology is polluted by neo-Modernism – an issue from which none of the VII Popes are totally exempt anyway – this Pope will never be what is expected from him, and error will accompany him every day of his life.

Neither a Pollyanna nor a Grumpy old man, this is what I would like to be when I write on this blog. If you are looking for militant anti-papacy or sugary “who are we to judge” rubbish, your time is better employed away from this blog.

Mundabor

 

Ten Reasons For The Anonymity Of Catholic Bloggers

Big Brother Is Googling You…

In the last days, objections have been made to the fact that many of those who write about Catholic matters do so anonymously. As always, there is no scarcity of people who indulge in easy accusations of what they don’t like, and can’t control. Let us examine what this is all about and the many valid reasons for anonymity on the internet.

1) Anonymity is freedom. Unless one lives on Planet Pollyanna, there is no denying (not even by its detractors) that the protection afforded by anonymity allows information to be exchanged and discussed that otherwise would have never reached a wider public. This makes our societies (and more specifically the religious discussion) more free. This is important, as freedom of expression is an extremely important pillar of every democratic society.

2) Anonymity encourages criticisms of what doesn’t work within the Church. As Catholics, we have the duty to react to scandals and abuses we see around us, but we don’t have the duty to seek martyrdom (I mean here in a broader sense, as persecution or discrimination because of our convictions) if we don’t have to. Anonymity on the internet makes therefore not only democratic societies more free, but provides a better system of control for the abuses within the Church. If a Bishop tells you that he feels scrutinised by the anonymous internet bloggers, it’s because he is. This is good for Catholicism, and potentially vital for the salvation of the relevant Bishop’s soul.

3) The accusations of it being “coward” to hide behind anonymity are the most cowardly acts themselves. Repressive political systems are those who try to repress anonymity the hardest. The people asking bloggers to reveal their identity are not much different than, say, Saddam Hussein calling his opponents cowards because they stay hidden. There’s a reason why people hide behind anonymity and only stupid people, or people in utter bad faith, pretend not to understand them.

4) If you look attentively, you noticed that anonymity is one of the most powerful engines of progress. Whistleblowing sites could never exist without the protection afforded by anonymity, and they are a most powerful engine of correct behaviour and have now possibly become the most implacable weapon against criminal behaviour within corporations and public bodies. Why anonymity would be acceptable for them but unacceptable for misbehaviour within the Church (which, notabene, can include child abuse and the like) is beyond me.

5) The accusation of it being very easy to slander people from behind anonymity does not really stand scrutiny. It being very easy to slander from behind a wall of anonymity, the relevant information is heavily discounted. People have always written anonymously on walls, but this has never made what they wrote believed just because it was written. On the contrary, an accusation made from an anonymous person will need to be substantiated to even begin to carry any real credibility. This is exactly what happens on the Internet. Criticism of clergy is accompanied with facts and evidence, or it is easily discarded. This is another of the beauties of the Internet. If, say, a Bishop gives scandal by participating to the “ordination” of a “bishopess” or some Protestant ecclesial community, the information will be there with the facts: day, people present, photos, videos, the whole enchilada. It is obvious to the meanest intelligence what counts here is the fact, the provenance being fully irrelevant in the economy of the scandal.

6) It is undeniable, though, that insisted, repeated slander may – even if unsubstantiated – have some effect in the long-term on the person affected. Voltaire used to say something on the lines of “keep on slandering: something will stick”. There you are, you will say, but the best protection against such slander is, once again, anonymity! Every non addetto ai lavori (as journalist, or priest) who willingly renounces to his own anonymity when he writes on the internet is allowing his ego to play him the most dangerous of tricks. Be assured that there will be a price to pay, as recently seen in the case of a “commenterer” known to many of us.

7) It has always been known to people with some salt in their brains – a minority, I sometimes think – that a wise man picks up his own fights. It is utterly illogical (nay: it is outright stupid) to think that what we write will not have an impact on our future – allowing for countless forms of covert discrimination, never to be proved and impossible to trace or fight against – for decades to come. It is the very freedom of our societies which makes this unavoidable.
This may not be a problem for a journalist (who makes of it his profession, and for whom his own name is a brand and professional tool), but can be a huge problem for everyone else. A wise man will prudently decide himself if and when and under which conditions to face a conflict because of his religious convictions, but a moron will gladly expose himself to every kind of retaliation of which he might even never become aware (lost work opportunities, or business opportunities, or both).

8 ) Even anti-discrimination legislation wisely chooses the same way as Internet bloggers. Information about health, age, religion cannot be asked by a potential employer. There is a reason why, and it is that such information opens huge doors to discrimination. How stupid would it be to legislate against such form of discrimination, whilst demanding that bloggers voluntarily expose themselves to it, irrevocably, for all time to come. Make no mistake, religion is – and always will be – the biggest cause of hatred and conflict. It’s just the way it is and he who doesn’t see it is in serious need of waking up.

9) Stupid commenters were never considered less stupid because they are not anonymous. Intelligent commenters were never considered less intelligent because they are. I – and everyone else – will pick my sites and blogs according to the validity of their content, not according to the degree of anonymity of their writers. Just to make an example, “Splintered Sunrise” is an excellent blog. Is anyone concerned that it is anonymous? Not I.

10) We have recently had another example of how beautiful anonymity is. I do not know whether priests are allowed to blog anonymously (albeit, by definition if they really wanted they’d be able to do it anyway), but had Fr. Mildew written an anonymous blog, he’d have been much more relaxed against the bullying of Mgr. Basil Loftus. His blog is now closed. QED.

This is of course not meant to be a justification of my being strictly anonymous, for which there is no need. Rather a caveat to all those who still haven’t understood the potentially devastating influence of a sustained, prolonged Internet presence with their own names, particularly when the subject matter is not neutral (like photography, dogs, or gardening) but serious, highly emotional issues like politics and, most importantly, religion.

Wake up to the reality of the Internet. The immense freedom it harbours also hides dangers for your own professional future; dangers the more devastating because subtle and able to damage you whilst keeping you fully unaware of what is happening. And if you think that this problem only concerns people with extreme views or roaming the internet with illegal purposes ask everyone who works for reference checking firms, and think again.

Mundabor