There’s a great story by Lisa Wangsness in today’s Globe about the Boston Archdiocese’s adoption of the age-old solution to people who express critical opinions: try to silence them.
The Archdiocese of Boston, under attack by anonymous conservative Catholic bloggers, has blocked access to one of the websites from computers within the church’s Braintree headquarters.
The Boston Catholic Insider, the most lively of several blogs that have targeted the archdiocese, portrays Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley as a lax administrator and accuses his top aides of straying from Catholic doctrine and values.
Terrence C. Donilon, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said church officials blocked the site because it had become a distraction, not out of a desire to squelch debate. Its authors, he said, were “actively spamming the employees of the archdiocese with links to the site, interfering with their work day.” He pointed out that employees could still visit it from their home computers.
The folks at Boston Catholic Insider (who appear to have significant contacts within the Archdiocese itself) were not pleased.
The only recent example we can find of Internet censorship such as this comes, by coincidence, from Communist China, where the government censors Google, censors a range of websites and information about topics such as Dalai Lama and the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, and even has blocked access to the BBC and NY Times on occasion…. Is the mere prospect of archdiocesan employees reading this blog concerning to Boston’s archdiocesan leadership in a similar way that leaders of Communist China are concerned about Chinese citizens reading about the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests?
Actually, though, you don’t need to go to China to find similar examples of internet censorship. You can go, for example, to Kentucky circa 2006:
Now in neighboring Kentucky, state employees arrived at work this morning to discover their computers were blocked from viewing the muckraking blog Bluegrassreport.org. The site has doggedly pursued the administration of Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who’s at the center of one of the largest scandals in the state’s history.
The admin’s tech office is responsible for the deed, which seems ham-handedly political — Wonkette has also been blocked, though other blogs have not.
Of course, the Archdiocese’s equally ham-handed effort to squash dissent has predictably had precisely the opposite effect: it has drastically expanded the platform enjoyed by the anonymous folks at Boston Catholic Insider. First of all, the Globe story repeats the bloggers’ allegations, thereby announcing them to a far larger audience than they had previously received. Further, I can confidently predict that, in light of the Globe story, that once-obscure blog focusing on inside baseball at the Archdiocese will today, and probably for the next several days at least, receive orders of magnitude more traffic than it has ever seen before. If they’re smart, they will take advantage of the bump in traffic by restating their grievances and the evidence behind them, which will increase the pressure on the Archdiocese to deal with them.
Actions like those of the Archdiocese always backfire. It’s remarkable to me that people haven’t figured that out yet.
Headline and lede make it sound like the Church is trying to strongarm a website into shutting down, whereas what they’re really doing is blocking access on their own computers. Doesn’t mean employees can’t go home or elsewhere and see the content. Interesting the criticism is coming from conservatives though; usually it’s liberals who are thorns in the Church’s side.
Where does any part of the Globe story suggest that they are trying to shut down the site completely? Obviously they have no way of doing that, and the story specifically says that they Archdiocese blocked access “from computers within the church’s Braintree headquarters.”
…to YOUR headline and lede, whereas the part you quoted from the Globe clarifies what the substance actually is.
The Archdiocese did “block access” to a particular blog, just as I said in my headline. What’s unclear about that? Obviously they can’t block the entire world’s access to it, but they did what they could, i.e., block it from their computers.
More proof that they don’t have God’s ear, or that there is no God or no Ear.
…non-catholics concerned about whether workers have proper access to a Catholic gossip web site. I’m sure your concern for the internal politics at the office of the archbishop is for the good of the church.
<
p>How is it a public policy issue what web sites a private office blocks? Did you ask the archdiocese if their employees are allowed to use Facebook Twitter and Youtube at work also?
Defensive much?
<
p>Also, do you honestly think that what the Archdiocese did was smart? Do you think they are happy about the story in the Globe, and do you think the Globe story would have happened if the Archdiocese hadn’t done what it did? Do you doubt for a second that the Globe story has dramatically boosted Boston Catholic Insider’s traffic?
<
p>What I’m doing here is writing up observations about what I thought was an interesting story in the Globe. That’s kinda what we do here, in case you hadn’t noticed. If you don’t like it, feel free to go elsewhere.
Ah yes, the Streisand effect. Don’t want people to hear about something (true or not) and try to put the kibosh on it, generating even more interest from media and the like, thereby magnifying interest.
<
p>I think ME2k10 is right on this one — why do we care, given that it’s not really public policy or a “blue” issue? I also think David is right — don’t fall victim to the Streisand effect.
<
p>The Archdiocese would have been much better off tracking IP and determining which computers were accessing it, and then having a word with those employees about surfing on company time, or even reducing their access to information, whatever. But do it quietly and legally, of course.
We care for two reasons. First, the Archdiocese is an important institution in Boston. Second, this is a story that concerns blogs, and we’re obviously interested in stories like that.
The managers of the Boston Archdiocese have provided far more than their normal measure of community entertainment with their digital equivalent of the two-year old’s fingers in ear gesture of endless comedic parody.
Well, that’s just plain nonsense. Most businesses block blogs, and the Commonwealth blocks some. Because it’s at WORK and all.
<
p>I’d be curious to know who tipped of Wagness – probably the ‘connected’ blog itself. Will she be doing follow up as to business practice else where, or centent herself with Catholic bashing?
<
p>And does the Globe still block the Drudge Report?
That may be true, PP – what is unusual here, and what was unusual in Kentucky, was the selective, obviously viewpoint-based nature of the blockage. As far as we know, for example, employees of the Archdiocese remain free to browse BMG at their leisure.
and how does PP know that anyway? Is she an IT consultant?
I was recently sitting in a car dealership waiting for a repair to finish, but was tragically unable to blog due to the dealership’s decision to block blogs from their wireless internet.
<
p>But, as I’ve said several times, what sets this apart from routine action designed to improve workplace efficiency is the viewpoint-based nature of the action. That’s not something you do in the interest of efficiency; it’s something you do because you don’t like what a particular viewpoint has to say.
This is a dilemma for me, as I would like to boycott the Catholic Church, but I am already at 100% boycott mode against the Catholic Church now. I do not know how to boycott them ever further.
As was pointed out on one of Boston.com’s own blogs, this was hardly a fair story.
<
p>
on Archdiocese computers and Internet access. They are free to read the blogs at home. They are free to read the blogs on their PDAs if they have Internet service on them. I’m no fan of the Cardinal or his Archdiocesan hierarchy, but he has no problem here, in my eyes.
The law firm I work at blocks out all non-work related sites (which go beyond the typical facebook, aim blocks and includes the New York Times, I am not arguing they are censoring my viewpoints in that sense, but ensuring I am not distracted), similarly the State Department blocked out political news sites, including blogs, in the summer of 08 because too many people were looking at them. Blogs have always been blocked at CRLS high school in Cambridge, I would not argue that the school has an agenda other than ensuring computers are used for school related work. A more prescient example was the small Catholic order I briefly worked for that ended up severely blocking out most websites I browsed to force me to stay on task, and I suspect to keep the seminarians away from inappropriate sites (including ESPN for some surprising reason, as the monsignor was a big hockey fan). So I really don’t see why this is news, other than the Globe continuing its usual criticism of anything the Archdiocese of Boston does. I swear the anti-Catholic WASP mentality of the former Brahmin paper has never quite vanished.
<
p>Also for the record, the groups are upset that O’Malley has been too liberal, from gay parents in parochial schools, to overcompensating victims, to limiting the latin mass, and being too lenient on liberal priests. Some are sedevacantists who feel that the post-Vatican II popes are illegitimate for a host of reasons, or anti-semetic LeFebvrists. I for one think O’Malley is infinitely better than his predecessor (not hard to be better than a criminal I know but he has been even better than that minimal standard) and is one of the strongest voices in the church for a broad church perspective, like that of John Paul II’s, that balances the Petrine (conservative, orthodox, hierarchical) and Pauline (evangelical, peace and justice oriented, less orthodox) tensions within the church quite well. Contrary to both liberal and traditionalist Catholics, the Church needs both to survive and its why those Saints share the same day. And he is free to purge his organization of internal dissenters, I would expect no less of a CEO or a President.
That’s exactly the difference here. As far as we can tell, the Archdiocese doesn’t block all, or even most, blogs. It has chosen to block a couple of specific sites, precisely because they are critical of the Archdiocese. It’s classic viewpoint discrimination, and it has backfired, as it pretty much always does.
They still technically have an Inquisition office in the Vatican. The Church has never been a bastion of free thought and open debate and has never pretended to be. As with gambling in Casablanca, you seem to be shocked that there is censorship going on in this establishment!
The State department censored political information when I worked there, mostly to keep the partisanship in check and keep people focused on foreign policy concerns. Plenty of work places, political or otherwise, censor the websites of others. Plenty of businesses censor the websites of the competition, etc. What probably happened is that people within the Archdiocese obsessed over the leaks and the inside baseball nature of the blogs in question and it became distracting to their work and to the message. Frankly I wish Obama banned Fox news from the White House, instead of catering to them they’d be ignoring them as they should.
<
p>Also I find the notion that the Church has to be held to a democratic standard rather silly in a variety of ways. Christians are not democrats, they are loving and dedicated subjects of the most benevolent monarch ever to walk the face of the Earth. Christ is a King, not someone or something open to a free vote. Much like the mosque story, most outsiders critical of Catholicism usually demonstrate remarkable ignorance about their subject matter, particularly the Globe.
ya! Christ would definitely block the crap out of those fools!!!
<
p>Seriously, you really think a benevolent leader would choose to pointlessly block his subjects from reading some people’s opinions at any point in the course of their day at work (assuming they don’t have a blackberry, or a laptop, or know what a proxy is, etc.)? No doubt, JC would have embraced and/or debated his critics- surely gone on the blog to answer directly and engage the people who, at least, care enough to have an opinion. Maybe the people running the church did even try something like at one point? In any case, the Church gave up. Is that really WJWD?
<
p>I agree with you on the too common remarkable ignorance show by outsiders. It is bad. On rare occasions, perhaps even worse than the remarkable ignorance demonstrated by insiders.
I am not arguing the archdiocese is smart or right to ignore its critics, I just don’t see why its newsworthy since everybody does it all the time. And in some cases it makes sense for an organization to do so, again I wish Obama spent far less time worrying about what Fox News thought of him and more time governing. O’Malley is doing a good job, most Boston Catholics think so, the Pope thinks so, and hopefully God approves as well. If he chooses to ignore a few radical rightist Catholics I don’t see why we as progressives have to scold him or somehow make the giant leap that this is like the inquisition. Clicking the block button on a computer and burning someone at the stake seem to be miles apart in my book, but apparently when the Catholic church acts like any organization its intentions must be malicious, anti-democratic, and evil.
Second sentence of second paragraph above you fall into the trap of using the word Christian when you should say Catholic, which is a big pet peeve of mine. We’re not all subjects of the Pope and my denomination welcomes dissent and debate. In fact, the early church elected their bishops locally and the hegemony of Rome in the West only came later.
I am not arguing you are a subject of the Pope, I am arguing that you are a self professed subject of Christ, and certainly not his equal, and certainly someone unworthy of voting as o making decisions as his equal. All Christians, Protestants and Catholics alike, hold to the belief that Christ is their ultimate savior, ruler, and master and that we are all His humble servants. My friend in UMC seminary training to be a minister would agree with me on that sentiment, and certainly disagrees with me on a host of theological matters. Additionally some of your own denominations most pre-eminent theologians Barth and Bonhoffer would agree with me that Christ is truly King and Lord. I am pretty sure we can both agree they were wise to prioritize their commitment to the kingdom of heaven over the earthly one they were subject to, one incidentally created via a democratic vote. There are some principles that are not up to debate or vote within Christian circles, or at least they shouldn’t be-among them the incarnation, the resurrection, and the triune nature of God. Although many denominations are in fact voting on these very matters. Also you conveniently left out that while the early Church was nominally more democratic than the current Roman church, the bishops still had more say than the priests or laity, and the losers of those votes had to either get with the program or be branded as heretics. You are familiar with the Arians are you not? Or the Nestorians? The Gnostics and the Manacheans? They would argue the early church was hardly a free and open democratic society where debate and dissent was tolerated. Part of the Christian experience involves rejecting modernity and fully embracing Christ as your sovereign. This has been true from Paul right through to today’s converts, of all denominational stripes. As the Protestant in our argument, the truer heir to Sola Scriptura, I am sure you can appreciate the numerous scriptural references to Christ as a King: King Eternal (1 Timothy 1:17), King of Israel (John 1:49), King of the Jews (Mt. 27:11), King of kings (1 Tim 6:15; Rev. 19:16), King of the Ages (Book of Revelation 15:3) and Ruler of the Kings of the Earth (Rev. 1:5). I mean denying the Kingship of Christ, or claiming that this universal notion of his Kingship is a papist anachronism, is akin to denying his divinity itself. The whole point of his being a God is a recognition that he is your superior and infinitely your better in every sense of the word. And this rings true in his benevolence as well, stronger than that of any elected leader.
…I realize you were refering to Christ. I was refering to the VERY early church even before the “heresies” you mention come into being. There WERE Arian bishops in some dioceses. Even upto the Council of Nicaea there was some room for discussion. However, once the Council did make its decisions everyone was expected to tow the line or get out. This was largely due to Emperor Constantine’s theory that a united Church was a prerequisite for a united empire. We do believe in Christ as “Sole Head of the Church”, though our Puritan heritage seems to make as shy away from saying “King”. We also believe that God speaks through the body of believers rather than an earthly hierarchy.
Perhaps this is due to denominational differences, but I am glad the church went in the direction Constantine did. That same Methodist friend of mine is as well, though he calls it a happy accident of the spirit that lead to Nicea, knowing full well Constantine did it out of political concerns as well as genuine belief. I believe the Puritans even maintained this language, claiming they believed in no earthly King, and rejecting the titular claims of the British monarchs to heading the realm spiritual as well as temporal, I would argue that also alludes to Christ’s kingship. My point is most churches, even Protestant ones, acknowledge the Creed as a starting point. I know the UMC baptismal ceremony uses it, and my gf’s father, a UMC pastor trained as a UCC pastor, emphasizes that point in his baptismal sermons. In any case, churches democratic in the small or big D senses are bad ideas in my book. I’d rather a church remain politically engaged but not in a partisan fashion, and maintain some non-negotiable items. It seems the lack of that would descend into Arianism in some form or another.
…at least not as tests of faith, though even that varies based on the traditions of the local church. We’re on the other extreme almost to a fault, which we even poke fun at ourselves for. I remember at one of our meetings someone mentioned the Ten Commandments and deadpanned, “Moses was clearly not UCC!” We do not presume to know through whom the Spirit will speak at any given time, which is the theological reason for discernment and deliberation. While the early theological debates are interesting academically I quickly lose patience with the whole nature of Christ discussion. Did the Spirit descend from the Father AND the Son or from the Father THROUGH the Son? Was Jesus fully human, fully divine, half and half, or somehow fully both? As a historian I personally lean toward the first, one who was conceived and born like the rest of us, lived for a certain length of time, then died (and yes, stayed dead) like the rest of us. Theologically I don’t care. I think those who got themselves all worked up about these questions missed the real point of Christianity, which in my view is to do one’s best to follow the teachings and example of Jesus as presented in the Gospels in our everyday lives.
Is this not a blog about progressive politics, mostly at the state level. I do not see how gossiup about the Catholic church should matter to anyone outside of it. Employers have a right to discriminate and censor the viewpoints of their employees at work, and plenty have and will continue to do so. If you are a mission oriented organization you want everyone focused on the same task. The government, corporations, and the military flagrantly practice this on a much grander scale than the Archdiocese and nobody seems to care or shed a tear or write an article. Thats my main beef with this, hell I personally think O’Malley and his subordinates should face their critics, particularly because I think he has done a good job. Ditto Benedict. The April-June silence on sex abuse cost the Church dearly, facing our critics is better than pretending they are agents of the devil or praying they will go away. But the Church, like any independent organization, can set its own internal policies. I don’t see how its newsworthy.
The allegation that they are silencing their critics is unfair. They are not silencing their critics. Hitting their sites with viruses, suing them, or otherwise destroying these dissenting voices, voices by the way articulating radical viewpoints most Catholics on this site would disagree with, would be true silencing. They are ignoring their critics. Perhaps a flaw and a sin in its own right, but certainly a far cry from silencing them.
<
p>To use a layman’s analogy, its the difference between the President, acting as head of the executive branch, removing Fox News Channels from White House television and removing Fox News reporters from the press room, or shutting down their license. The former is ignoring critics, the latter is silencing them. Arguably both are bad, but the former is limited to incompetence and folly while the latter is far more sinister and made to sound like abusing power.
In all scenarios it would be newsworthy.
and it has to do with blogs, hence the post’s salience.
<
p>I think you’ve answered your own question.
Other organizations ban blogs from their websites all the time, why single out this one? Also silencing their critics and ignoring them are two completely different things, and while I said both are bad, I think the chasm between the two is quite wide and deep. Its the difference between blocking a website and burning your opponent, and any talk of this being similar to the Inquisition not only does the Church a disservice, but also a disservice to the victims of that most horrid chapter in its history.
<
p>Also Muslims across America are actively silencing their critics and removing anti-Islamic ads from websites, trains, and cabs. This is in fact an active silencing of their critics but I do not see the outrage in the Globe or on this blog. Yet those critics are rightly branded as racists and xenophobic. Well these critics of the church are just as racist, usually against Jews, and are critical of the many positive steps the Church has taken to reconcile itself to the Jewish community and atone for the sins it committed in the Inquisition and during the Shoah. If Muslims can actively silence racist critics, surely Catholics can passively ignore them?
…, I think the chasm between the two is quite wide and deep.”
<
p>Which is probably why this post is in the form of a “this is kind of interesting” comment rather than a call to arms.
<
p>Like I said, I think you’ve answered your own question.
But it seemed David was genuinely aghast at the church ‘silencing’ its critics. To me its certainly a fairly innocuous form of silencing if at all, and again if the Muslims can (rightfully) silence their radical critics I don’t see any harm in the archdiocese in ignoring theirs.
…I don’t see anything that expresses your alleged ‘aghast-ness’. If anything, it reads to me as amused because of the backfire effect. Your second sentence doesn’t seem applicable here because David doesn’t actually assert that anybody here is ‘wrong’ and the only ‘harm’ he alleges is the harm the act does to their own intent (‘backfire’). It seems to me like your reading more into what was posted than the words on the page.
Oh come on. I wasn’t “aghast.” I just thought it was a stupid thing to do, because it (totally predictably) brings publicity and gives more oxygen to the very critics they are trying to
silenceignore. The one who is aghast here, and on many other threads, is you — any time someone utters what could be taken as even the mildest criticism of any aspect of the Catholic Church, you go nuclear.I painted with a bit of a broad brush, some of the critics are not sedevacantists or anti-semetic to clarify, and actually I echo the concerns of Una Voce that O’Malley seems to be deliberately trying to squash the Latin Mass. Why I don’t know, in Chicago it has been a great way to engage people in their faith again, even if they aren’t regular adherents. For the record I disagree with people that think it should only be in Latin, but I also think the ‘progressives’ worried about a few Latin liturgies eroding Vatican II are also being alarmist and paranoid. For me the Latin Mass was the first time I really appreciate the beauty of the liturgy and it made me far more engaged with its English counter party. Also most of my friends who went with me were either non-Catholic or liberal Catholics. Traditionalist doesn’t always mean conservative in religious circles.