|
F e a t u r e A r t i c l e
GOING DOWN IN FLAMES
By KARL KEATING
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 12
 December 1994 
|
|
|
Last month in our "Dragnet" column,
we noted that The National Catholic Reporter carried an
article by its editor, Tom C. Fox, encouraging its readers
to sign up with certain Internet lists (online discussion
groups). Seeing an avenue by which our readers might promote
the faith, we invited them to join the same lists. If
nothing else, we figured, they might be able to offer some
ideological balance.
But the members of at least one list, Sister-L, were not
amused. Their list is devoted to the discussion of the
religious life (mainly from a feminist perspective), and
they bombarded me with angry messages--to use online jargon,
they "flamed" me.
Below I share with you some of the messages and my responses
to them. Please keep in mind that my responses were written
on the fly; they were not the products of leisure and
therefore are not as well phrased or as temperate as they
might have been had the clock not been running. I offer them
for your inspection not as models for you to follow, but to
show you a real-life, unedited commentary:
To: Kenneth [sic] Keating:
In the November 1994 issue of your magazine, you included a
report on the NCR article on Internet lists. It said,
among other things:
"The National Catholic Reporter, in its October 28 issue,
ran an article about Catholics using the Internet. Thomas C.
Fox recommended several e-mail lists to the liberal
readership of NCR. We recommend those same lists, but for
a different reason. By signing up you can counter the
self-satisfaction of the heterodox for whom these lists are
intended. This is a fine way to engage in long-distance
apologetics. You need have no worry about receiving
unwelcomed visitors at your door or strange missives in the
regular mail. In each case, when you subscribe using your
e-mail program, leave the 'subject' line blank. When writing
your name, do not include the square brackets. . . .
"Sister-L: Fox describes this list as dealing with the
'history and contemporary concerns of women religious,'
which means the usual concerns of radical feminists. To
subscribe, write to listserv@suvm.syr.edu. In the message
area write "subscribe Sister-L [your name] . . . If you
engage in this cyberspace apostolate, please drop us a line
and let us know how you fare [kkeating@aol.com] [sic].
Inquiring minds want to know."
As co-owner of Sister-L, I would like to know on what basis
you make the allegation--in print--that the meaning of our
official description 'means the usual concerns of radical
feminists.' Any evidence you have for this potentially
libelous charge would be greatly appreciated. For your
information, I sent an announcement of the list, when it
began, to the CMSWR [Conference of Major Superiors of Women
Religious, the leadership group for more conservative
religious]. Surely I would not have done this if the purpose
of the list was to push a 'radical feminist agenda'
(whatever that is!). There are no litmus tests for
subscriptions [memberships]. However, the list does have
stated purposes, and ideologically-motivated politicizing is
not one of them.
Should any of your readers decide to try to transform the
list into a forum for your apologetical agenda, I can assure
you that it will not be tolerated. The article from which I
have quoted does not, it seems to me, represent responsible
journalism.
Margaret Susan Thompson, Ph.D.
cc: Sr. Ritamary Bradley
(co-owner, Sister-L)
Dear Prof. Thompson:
Thanks you for clearing up a confusion. I had been under the
impression that Tom Fox would recommend a women's list only
if it adhered to the feminist line. Perhaps I wrote rashly
and Sister-L is intended to express the concerns primarily
of, say, sisters associated with Mother Teresa and Mother
Angelica.
I note with satisfaction that you consider it "potentially
libelous" to be accused of founding a list that caters to
"the concerns of radical feminists." As you know, one can
claim that a phrase is "potentially libelous" if it falsely
imputes to another something such as a loathsome disease.
(Ah, there's my legal background peeking out!) It's
encouraging to know that you consider feminism to be
loathsome.
You say that "any evidence you have for this potentially
libelous charge would be greatly appreciated." I suppose we
both will see the evidence as we download exchanges from the
list, won't we?
If it turns out that Sister-L is not a vehicle for feminism,
we gladly will print a retraction. (We expecially look
forward to the list's founders' explanation of why the Holy
Father was correct in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.)
By the way, we did not suggest that there is a litmus test
to subscribe to the list. Had that been our understanding,
we would not have recommended that our readers subscribe.
After all, most of them would fail the only kind of litmus
test we could imagine such a list having.
Thank you for your message. May God continue to keep you in
his mercy.
Karl Keating
P.S. My name isn't Kenneth Keating. Perhaps you have me
mixed up with the one-time U.S. Senator? Of course, he was
around many years ago . . .
To: kkeating@aol.com
I have asked the postmaster at AOL [America Online] to
discuss with you the inappropriateness of the following
post: ". . . If you engage in this cyberspace apostolate,
please drop us a line and let us know how you fare
[kkeating-@aol.com] [sic]. Inquiring minds want to know."
I would urge you to print a retraction to those to whom it
was sent.
Terri Powell
Miss Powell:
Before you start denouncing people to the authorities, a
la Joe McCarthy, please get your facts straight--which you
could have done by e-mailing me first.
What you think was a post on the Internet was no such thing.
It was part of an article in a print magazine. The article
mentioned several Internet lists, and someone on one of
those lists incorporated part of the text of the article in
her own Internet post.
Neither the article nor any of the Internet lists has
anything to do with AOL, and AOL was not even mentioned in
the article, so I can't see why you think it necessary to
bring AOL into the matter.
In your quotation you put in brackets my AOL address, as
though I was soliciting an e-mail reply from the readers.
But the material in brackets did not appear in the
magazine, and the phrase "drop us a line," as everyone
knows, means "send us a letter by U.S. mail."
I hope in the future you will give more consideration to
people's free speech rights and will get your facts
straight.
Do you think I should contact the people who run [your
Internet provider] and complain that you have been spreading
false information and request that they reprimand you? It
seems that you are the one who should circulate a
retraction.
Karl Keating
To Mr. Keating:
How shocking to read your article in This Rock, deriding
Sister-L and other lists suggested by The National Catholic
Reporter. More shocking, further, is your invitation to
disturb the dialogue among those for whom the lists were
created. I know of nothing in the Gospels, in civilized
morality, or in Church orthodoxy that would approve of such
tactics. Of course, your proposed plan of action does
closely resemble the pre-adolescent mischief of young boys
who tramp down others' tomato patches just to cause grief.
Perhaps your program is more closely akin to window breaking
and laying banana skins in the path of the unwary walker.
"The usual concerns of radical feminists"? You have resorted
to a smear word, without specified content, but designed to
spread ill-will at the very least. What are "radical
feminists," and what are their "usual concerns"?
Have you carefully read the "introductions" sent by many
Sister-L subscribers and decided that all these
people--scholars, nuns of many decades, wheel-chair bound
religious, friends of women religious, inquirers, members of
professional societies, etc.--deserve your pre-judgment,
disdain, and disruption? How dare you imply that you and
those you invite to your program are the "orthodox" and the
subscribers to Sister-L are the "heterodox"? Would you
please take your adolescent mischief elsewhere?
You have a strangely-twisted notion of "apostolate," as well
as apparent ignorance of the norms that are to make
cyberspace a realm of respectful dialogue and exchange. My
dear friend, the age of the Crusades is long past, and the
Church does not glory in the violence it occasioned.
Again: Please grow up!
Ritamary Bradley,
Professor Emerita
St. Ambrose University
Davenport, Iowa
Dear Sr. Bradley:
As you will recall, it was Claude Rains, in Casablanca,
who had that great line, which went something like this: "I
am shocked--shocked I say--to discover there is gambling going
on at Rick's." At which point the croupier handed Rains his
winnings. It was an amusing scene, and so it is amusing to
find that you think it "shocking" for This Rock to
"deride" (your word) the lists recommended by The National
Catholic Reporter. And you find it "more shocking" that
we could suggest to our readers that they subscribe to the
lists and participate in the exchanges.
It was our impression that when Mr. Fox wrote his
invitation, he meant it to apply to all who came across his
article. He is a sophisticated man and no doubt knows that
not everyone who subscribes to his newspaper agrees with the
opinions expressed in it.
You say that you "know of nothing in the Gospels, in
civilized morality, or in Church orthodoxy that would
approve of such tactics." Don't you sense that you've gone
overboard here? Granted, there's nothing in the Gospels
about responding to open invitations to subscribe to
Internet lists, and perhaps, in the name of "civilized
morality," this whole matter should be brought up to the
U.N. General Assembly or at least to the World Health
Organization.
But don't you think it's stretching matters a bit to wrap
these lists in the mantle of "Church orthodoxy"? After all,
they no doubt will be forums to promote such things as
women's ordination, the use of contraception, abortion (at
least in some circumstances), and idolatry ("goddess
spirituality," as Mr. Fox put it). Not a single one of these
falls under the rubric of "orthodox," unless one feels an
irresistible political impulse to adopt even inapplicable
terms.
You want to know how I "dare" to imply that people who
support my apostolate are the "orthodox" while "the
subscribers to Sister-L are the 'heterodox.'" Easy. I use
litmus tests. When subscribers to Sister-L can write that
they accept without reservation the teaching of Humanae
Vitae, I happily will confer on them the title
"orthodox."
But for those who reject authoritative teachings of the
Church, whether on this or any other matter, they settle
upon themselves the apt title "heterodox," which, as you
know, comes from Greek words meaning "contrary opinion"--in
this case, contrary to the Church.
I must say, as I said in my reply to Prof. Thompson's
message, that I am pleased to learn that you think it is a
smear to accuse someone of being a feminist. This, at least,
is encouraging.
Karl Keating
Dear Mr. Keating,
First, my apologies for attributing the wrong first name to
you; I hope you will forgive that.
On Sister-L, we do not limit discussion of religious life to
any one vision of what that vocation is all about. Some of
our subscribers are feminist (though, again, what "radical
feminist" is, in your view, is not clear from either the
magazine excerpt or your message to me). Some are not
feminist. We try not to judge individuals or to attach
labels to them. For the record (apparently you are an
attorney?), I do think of myself as a feminist.
But, since we have no questionnaire or other litmus test for
subscribers, except that they be respectful of the religious
vocation and of honest dialogue about it, I have no idea how
many others on the list (now about 350) would think of
themselves that way. And--it doesn't matter! So, no, I do not
find feminism "loathsome." What is more, since both the Holy
Father and the U.S. Bishops have called for recognition of
the full equality of women and men, I don't suppose they do,
either. The most fundamental meaning of feminism is, of
course, recognition of that equality and of the full human
potential of women. While I do not have my copy of John
Paul's writings in front of me, I do know that he has stated
his conviction on this matter clearly and repeatedly.
I'm sure there are many matters on which you and I would
differ. For that matter, I know there are many matters on
which the various subscribers of Sister-L differ! Still,
those who have been on the list have remarked on its
supportiveness, its spirit of charity, and its joy. I think
we can agree that these are Christian values worth praising
wherever they are to be found.
Margaret Susan Thompson
Dear Prof. Thompson:
Thank you for your reply. I'm pleased to learn that Sister-L
is a list that encourages "honest dialogue" among people
whose opinions may differ and that it "doesn't matter"
whether subscribers are feminists or not.
That will be encouraging news to non-feminists who may wish
to participate on a equal basis with feminists. After all,
if we agree that there is an equality between men and women,
certainly there must be an equality between feminist women
and non-feminist women (and between feminist men and
non-feminist men).
Yes, you are correct in stating that the Holy Father has
given his view repeatedly, though I think you will agree
that not many people would describe his view as
pro-feminist; a better phrase might be "pro-feminine."
However that may be, I hope your list will encourage so much
diversity of opinion that even Catholics who disagree with
feminism will be welcome.
Karl Keating
To: KKeating
I would request that you make a public correction to your
stance. The Internet is not a place for this such behavior.
One of the major rules of Netiquette [Internet etiquette] is
not to get on a list simply to disagree with or "convert"
the people on the list.
Also, from America Online's Terms of Service guidelines,
"Participating successfully in newsgroups is a matter of
common sense and common courtesy. Most AOL members are able
to use their own sense of what is appropriate to guide their
behavior. There will, however, always be innocent,
inadvertent postings and there will also always be
malicious, intentional postings. While it is not always
clear which case is which, certain activities will result in
an America Online member receiving a Terms of Service
warning or more severe action. Postings that will result in
Terms of Service actions include the following:
"Inappropriate Posts. Each newsgroup focuses on a
particular set of topics. Posts not related to these topics
are not appreciated by the participants. It is important
that America Online members become familiar with the culture
and guidelines of a particular newsgroup before posting.
Doing so will make your experience with newsgroups much more
pleasant."
The "culture and guidelines" of most newsgroups/mailing
lists involve topics in which all members agree (or, at
least, agree to disagree). Getting on a list simply to
disagree with these topics is not appropriate. People on AOL
have been known to loose their accounts over such matters.
But, in a more minor sense, AOL members have received a
horrible reputation on the Net due to people like yourself
promoting others not to follow Netiquette. As I suggested at
the start, please consider making a correction to your
suggestion in the same publication in which this was
printed.
Shari
Dear Shari:
May we dispense with idle threats, please? As Queen Victoria
put it, "We are not amused."
Nowhere is there an Internet provision that states that it
is inappropriate to get on a list if one happens to disagree
with much that is said on the list. If it turns out that a
disagreeing person becomes disagreeable, the moderator of
the list has power to unsubscribe him [drop him from
membership].
Please note that the passage you quoted says that
"inappropriate posts" are those that are not related to the
topic of a list. In This Rock have we suggested that
people subscribe to Sister-L and then start posting dinner
recipes or train schedules? No, we think they should talk
about the subject of the list, which happens to be the
religious life.
You say the "culture and guidelines" of lists "involve
topics in which all members agree (or, at least, agree to
disagree)." Well, it seems your last phrase fits the
situation perfectly. If people follow our suggestion, they
will find themselves probably disagreeing with posts on
Sister-L, but there's every reason to suspect they will be
quite agreeable in doing so.
(Remember, these are people who think that uncharitableness
not only is unsocial, but is, in the plainest terms, sinful,
and they believe they need to confess their sins with some
regularity--an act no one enjoys, and the prospect of it
militates against committing sins.)
I find your implications unsettling. I have subscribed to
several lists that have been denominated as "orthodox"
Catholic, yet these lists freely welcome both "heterodox"
Catholics and non-Catholics, even anti-Catholics. Why?
Because the orthodox actually believe that open discussion
is a good thing. How is it, then, that those at the other
end of the theological spectrum, despite words to the
contrary, so often act as though the only speech they
welcome is speech that agrees with them?
Karl Keating
To: Karl Keating
Interesting citation [to Casablanca], but I do not see
the relationship to my statements. Perhaps we differ on what
the "stakes" are in respecting the dialogue fostered by
Sister-L. We will let Mr. Fox speak for himself. However, I
find it hard to imagine that he was "inviting" those who do
not agree with his opinions to launch a campaign to disrupt
the lists he mentions.
Again, I do not see the relevance of your comments [about
the U.N. and W.H.O.] to Sister-L. I prefer not to speak by
innuendo but openly and in plain terms, so that honest
misunderstandings can be cleared up. The Gospels and
civilized morality have principles which apply to our
respect for one another and to our equality as human beings.
The U.N. General Assembly and the World Health Organization
do not have anything to do with my point: Let Sister-L alone
unless you have something to offer within its statement of
purpose.
Here is where we differ: Sister-L does not apply litmus
tests. If you re-read my message, you will note that I
object to your pre-judgment that Sister-L is heterodox. I
doubt if there is enough data in Sister-L's archives to give
you even a random sample of opinions as a sufficient base
for a scientific application of your "litmus tests." Note
that we are not discussing actual or possible "forums." We
are discussing one list that does exist and has a real
history of a few months. It has one negative prescription:
"Bashing of sisters is unwelcome." If anyone finds your
list of "heresies" relevant to the purposes of Sister-L
discussion, they [sic] are free to speak of the matters.
Many of us are scholars and discuss all kinds of "heresies"
in other contexts.
Discussion does not imply adherence to the positions
discussed. For example, the "sin of sexism" condemned
recently by the American bishops might come up for
discussion. I believe this sin is related to the "heresy"
that the unknowable God is male. This might conceivably be
discussed on Sister-L in relation to the history and present
concerns of women religious.
I do not find it in conformity with the basic teachings of
the Gospel and of the Church to take on oneself the
prerogative of labeling others as "heretics," nor do I grant
to other self-appointed interpreters of orthodoxy that
right. Heresy is a serious matter. The first requirement for
such a judgment is for the authorities to read the writings
of the accused. Remember, we are discussing Sister-L, not
some mythical forum of your imagination. You are not invited
to serve as the grand inquisitor for Sister-L.
[You wrote,] "I must say, as I said in my reply to Prof.
Thompson's message, that I am pleased to learn that you
think it is a smear to accuse someone of being a feminist.
This, at least, is encouraging." Neither Professor Thompson
or [sic] myself [sic] have [sic] said that, and you
know it. I have called myself a feminist for some twenty or
more years.
Do we have nothing in common, such as the Gospel imperative
to love? I do, as a feminist, believe in male-female
mutuality. Perhaps we part company on this theme.
In summary, Sister-L has its own agenda and will pursue that
agenda. If you do not approve of it (presuming you know
anything about it), turn to other matters. But do not make
Sister-L into a phantom enemy which you imagine to be a
threat to all your cherished belief.
Ritamary Bradley
Sr. Bradley:
You have confirmed my intuition. You admit Sister-L has an
"agenda." This is not surprising, of course.
If you suspect that Mr. Fox was not inviting those who
disagree with him or with the thrust of Sister-L, you accuse
him of not encouraging an open and free dialogue. Now you
may be right about his thinking--I can't speak to that, not
knowing him or having asked him--but I am disappointed that
you evince no dismay at such an attitude.
Have I labeled any subscriber to Sister-L a "heretic"? No.
How can I, since I don't even know who subscribes, aside
from the people who have written to me?
Have I labeled some opinions as "heterodox"? Yes. Please
keep in mind that in the Catholic Church we profess a common
faith when we recite the creed, and this faith is explicated
in the decrees of ecumenical councils, in the statements of
popes, and most recently in The Catechism of the Catholic
Church.
To the extent one disagrees with the beliefs taught by the
Church, one is heterodox. This heterodoxy might be quite
innocent, in which case it can't be termed heresy. If the
disagreement is on a matter of doctrine, is made with full
knowledge that it does not conform to official Church
teaching, is public, and is pertinacious, then it qualifies
as heresy--or "heresy" has no meaning at all.
But again: I have called no one a heretic, not just with
respect to Sister-L, but in the pages of This Rock, in
public lectures, or in any other forum, so please do not
insinuate that I have. I am careful to distinguish between
the status of a belief (whether or not it accords with
Church teaching) and the status of an individual.
You ask, "Do we have nothing in common, such as the Gospel
imperative to love?" Of course we do, and we are obliged to
follow that imperative, and it includes the obligation to
love not only one another, but to love the truth, which
ultimately means to love Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the
truth, and the life."
Karl Keating
Mr. Keating:
I am one of the charter members and a member of the advisory
board of Sister-L. I invite you to read the list for a time;
I think you would find conversation of quality,
intelligence, and real concern for the church. The
subscribers, religious women, men, and people without public
vows engage in wide-ranging discussions on a variety of
topics. We refrain from the kind of mean-spirited,
ill-informed remarks you made in your publication.
Regina Siegfried, ASC
Aquinas Institute of Theology
St. Louis, Missouri
Prof. Siegfried:
I would be delighted to have my initial suspicion proved
false. I am thinking of subscribing under the nom de
plume (not nom de guerre!) of HildegardB.
Karl Keating
To: KKeating
I don't know what you read as threats because none of my
message was intended to be a threat. But I do hope none of
the people who read your message are on commercial services
where they can loose their accounts. The people of the
Internet are not very friendly toward AOLers to begin with
and really can't stand ones who don't abide by the rules of
Netiquette.
People threatened to complain about my post on a newsgroup
about dogs because I dared to mention that I wanted to breed
my dog. I found out later that the newsgroup I was on was
against breeding. I should have read the information about
the list first, so that was my mistake.
I also inadvertently posted an offer for a free catalog on a
list where I saw advertisements. I didn't realize I was
posting in the wrong place. Again, I should have read before
posting to determine the "culture and guidelines" of the
list. For this, I received a strict warning from the AOL
staff.
I've learned much since I first started posting on the
Internet. I have learned the hard way, and my message to you
was simply warning you of the possibilities the lie ahead if
you post messages as you describe in your message. If you
are going into these mailing lists to read and learn, I am
all for it. But if you are going in to "convert" or to try
and prove that people are wrong, it is a complete misuse of
the Net. and I hope you don't loose your AOL account over
it.
Shari Vogt
Miss Vogt:
If people on that dog list threatened to complain about you
for posting a single message about breeding your dog, you
were the victim of illiberal minds. It's one thing to keep
commercial messages in fixed locations--we can agree that
such restrictions might be needed--but it's something else to
come down heavily on someone for innocently posting a
message.
You advise joining a list if one wishes to "read and learn."
But that presupposes that on the list there are other people
who "teach," right? I hope you will concur that we all can
be teachers and learners at once, and this is why I
encourage people to subscribe to lists (of whatever sort).
Yes, they can be readers and learners, but they also can be
writers and teachers so that others may be readers and
learners. Call it reciprocity, if you will.
Karl Keating
To: KKeating
But the problem, Karl, is that your idea of teaching, from
what I gather from your message in The Rock, (please
correct me if I am wrong) is not teaching, but converting.
You are asking people who disagree completely with the
intentions of a list to sign on and use it as a means of
"witnessing." No matter how much you disagree with me or
with Netiquette, that is an inappropriate use of the Net.
Shari Vogt
Miss Vogt:
I seem to be receiving mixed signals from founders and
members of Sister-L. By some I'm told that there is no party
line on the list, but you advise that people who "disagree
completely with the intentions of a list" shouldn't
participate in it. But if the "intention" of Sister-L is to
discuss the religious life, then it seems that anyone
willing to discuss that topic, no matter from what angle,
should be welcome.
On the other hand, if the discussion is expected to proceed
along only one point of view, namely the feminist, then it
appears that some members of the list are trying to mislead
me or have been guilty of false advertising. I think you and
I both know what the real story is, and I will not ask you
to place yourself in an awkward position by continuing this
exchange. Please know that you have my best regards and my
thanks for your civility.
Karl Keating is the editor of This
Rock.
|
Catholic Answers
