a lawless blog

This Compendium of emails includes only those containing a substantial contribution to the discussion. Others may be found in the inbox of your email server. Sender, date and time are sufficient identification. Addressee has been added and in some cases a title to indicate the content or subject matter. The proposed constitution (see link above) is presented as a sample for discussion purposes only.

Tony 22.01.2020 11.28 am

To the Group

To those who have joined this discussion group, thank you and welcome. Here is our roll-call so far:

Brian Coyne editor@catholica.com.au

Cathy Taggart cathy.taggart1@gmail.com

Francis Brown franmar2647@tpg.com.au

JohnE je_syd@bigpond.net.au

John Collins (Herbie) johnncollins21@gmail.com

Janet Grevillea (Debb) jgrevillea@bigpond.com

Judith Holznagel jah.holznagel@gmail.com

Joseph Weber jweber_mphotogcr@yahoo.com

marian oxenburgh@westnet.com.au

Tony Lawless (Ynot) lawthorn@netxp.com.au

I'm a little surprised at some names not appearing. It might be worthwhile to consider dropping a note to someone as a friend and urging them to join if they can. Does this already indicate that there are many loners on Catholica who would feel out of their depth in this discussion group? Of course it is not possible to know their reasons. Most likely they are simply too busy. I need to explain in this context that the group who do the Sunday Reflections all wanted to take part in this. I think we need not fear that they will act as a pressure group. They are all very individual in their thinking and the way they go about things.Some on this list have asked to be kept in the loop; this could mean that they don't think they can contribute much. That's okay, but we do need as many as possible to put their minds to work on this.

Our first task is to choose a leader/coordinator. Perhaps enough to name one person, but in view of different tasks it would be good if, once chosen, that leader could coopt others for certain roles as they see fit. For example the final recommendation will need careful wording, something for a group of three to work on together. It would then go back to the whole group for last minute adjustments and final approval.

PLEASE NAME YOUR CHOICE FOR LEADER BY EMAIL ASAP.

SCHEDULE: THE GROUND TO BE COVERED

Time is extremely short. We might need to set a schedule, something like this:

Week 1 - to Jan 30: Preliminary - Clarify purpose and goal of this present task. Identify the three best things about Catholica, and the three worst.

Week 2 - to Feb 6: Theoretical - Look into the idea of a consultative team: How it would work. What particular assistance could they give. How many would be enough.

Week 3 – to Feb 13: Practical -Examine in detail:

Practicality – will it work? Could it be made to work?

Feasibility – team members would have to: Have time – how much and how often? Take responsibility – in some tricky situations. Be available – How much we'll work out.

Week 4 – to Feb 20: Review and Reporting - Agree on final recommendation. Write report. Approve final report.

If this seems too much organisation for a simple discussion we don't have to adopt it. Personally I think we will need to put in a bit of concentrated effort over these next four weeks if we are going to do anything worthwhile. I used to think it was a no-brainer for Brian to build a support team around him, but the closer I get to it the more I see the problems. We all probably have some experience in publishing, in monitoring a discussion group, in coping with a difficult person in a group situation, in judging what is inappropriate and taking action, even in running an enterprise on a shoe-string, but working together in harmony when you're adrift at sea in a tiny boat with no back-up, no rescue helicopter, no rational purpose for being there, and no clear idea in what direction to head... That's where Brian is with Catholica and that's the situation a consultative team would have to see themselves in.

What he has done makes Brian Coyne a giant in the field. I have promised him we will be working to find a way to sustain Catholica and to help him in forming a consultative team, if it can be done and he decides to give it a try. The worst we can find is that no such assistance is possible because it can't work. It is not in our brief to shut down Catholica or to recommend that it should close. I believe this is possibly the case but I want to make the point that if we do come to that conclusion it will be offered as a postscript. Our main report will be about a consultative team, whether it is possible and how it might work.

All the above (except the last paragraph) should be read as merely to start off our thinking. If you have another approach at odds with this, that's what the first week is for - to sort ourselves out and get into line, however that line is formed.

About the leader: since I'm the one who started this it will be easy to let me run it. Not necessarily a good idea! There are others who can do this better than me. If someone else were chosen it would make me very happy. Please think about it.

Best wishes and thanks,

tony

JohnE 22.01 2020, at 3:09 pm

ToTony

Thanks Tony for putting together this plan of attack. The plan you outline seems to me will get the ball rolling and is sufficiently focused for the short time-span suggested. One comment I would make is that instead of seeing these four weeks/tasks as sequential, they could well run in parallel - especially tasks two and three. Or to conceptualise it differently, two groups might well start looking at the notion of a consultative team and a separate group wrestle with the notion of practicality/feasibility. I am sure either discussion won't be wrapped up inside a week, however some thoughts on each might begin to make their way to paper over a two or three week period.

Nor do I suggest the two tasks occur in isolation - it’s hard to see how they could. But it is not hard to envisage that some ideas on each could occur in parallel as long as both threads of the discussion are mutually shared and all are kept in the loop.

I also think that to a certain extent the purpose and goal of week 1 might already be expressed in the outline for week2/3. But, as you suggest, best to clarify that that might be the purpose firstly. For my part, I think Catholica represents the non-clerical and essential voice of Australian Catholicism. It is a necessary component of the Catholic dialectic in Australia - one that is not going to occur or be heard if the bishops have their way and in the absence of Catholica.

Janet 22.01.2020 at 4.10 pm

Dear everyone,

Tony, I hope you will continue as our leader. I also find your schedule fine. For myself, I have begun going over the very first posts on Catholica, to discover what Brian and Amanda were thinking when they began the site.

Looking forward to everyone’s input,

JohnE 22.01.2020 at 4.42 pm.

To the Group

#1: Well, perhaps surprisingly, the thing I most like about Catholica is that it is built upon the Open Source software - My Little Forum (https://mylittleforum.net/) which itself is built upon two Open Source pieces of software magic: PHP and the MySQL database that underpin 90% of the Internet as we know it today. However, under Brian's mastery of the dark arts of website design and building he has taken a prosaic looking piece of software and transformed it into a work of art. Catholica's presentation and graphic design is wonderful and a clear expression of Brian's artistic talent and eye.

My Little Forum is also a delightful piece of bulletin board design. Even in its prosaic form it is easy to use, easy to logon, register and respond to. Also, old news gently slips into oblivion without so much as a murmur. Over the years, I have run a number of mailing lists with different groups but mailing lists via email by and large have had their day. It's becoming a daily nightmare (is that a contradiction?) opening up one's inbox and clearing it out of all the junk. A bit like putting out the rubbish bin - but having to do it every day!!! An online forum, from a user's perspective, doesn't require daily maintenance. You visit it when you like and not vice versa.

(Also, I think Open Source software is like going out into the highways and byways and inviting all and sundry to the wedding feast. It's there for all to participate in and to learn from and grow with, no one is excluded. It represents a moral statement in its own right.)

#2: I like the variety to topics that appear on Catholica - something there for everyone. For me, I like the almost daily snapshot of the world's Catholic press. Catholica provides a glimpse of the most important articles appearing around the globe from the best Catholic authors and publications. I like the fact that key articles and topics are anchored so as to allow ongoing discussions on important topics.

As expected, some topics appeal to me more than others as do certain Catholica contributors. Much there to enjoy.

#3: It's great to see Catholic voices resonating nationally and internationally.

And yes, I’m happy for Tony to lead.

Brian 23.01.2020 at 12.04 am

To the Group

Greetings to all of you. I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to contribute. At times I’m going to be super-busy with this new project at other times I might have plenty of time. We’ll see how it goes. I’m open to all suggestions – and, for that matter, any criticisms of me. It should be evident though that it isn’t easy setting up these sort of conversations and sustaining them for a long time. It’s expensive in time, energy and even financially (albeit a heck of a lot cheaper than it was when we were dependent on postage stamps and physical newsletters).

What I write in this email is principally to give you some background of what we had in mind when we established catholica…

BACKGROUND AND GOAL

(Title added, to be used in future references)

What we have with catholica started out through my decades-long experience in politics, local communities, parishes and various lay apostolates plus the technical and communication skills I had acquired. There was no social media on the horizon then. A lot of the “experimentation” had taken place over my years as co-administrator of the CathNews discussion board. The reality though is that it was my little fiefdom and experimental playground even though Fr Michael Kelly SJ, as CEO of CathNews, and Michael Mullins, as editor of CathNews, were senior to me but also remarkably tolerant in allowing me to experiment away to my heart’s content. In all my work over the decades I was principally interested in communicating to what, in marketing and communications’ language, is described and labelled as an “opinion leader audience”. That is people who have opinions and who make a difference out in the wider world beyond the particular group or community they might belong to. Most people in society are not “opinion leaders” – they might have opinions but they’re sheep rather than shepherds; the led rather than leaders. The coming of social media has shattered much of the beliefs and theories about mass communications. It’s become more about venting and “letting off steam”, quite often pretty shallow sentimentality, rather than any real leadership and high intelligence. There are still “opinion leaders” in society but the term has a very different meaning today than what it had in the past. Some of you may have heard of the relatively new term of “social influencers” who often make literally millions of dollars from their YouTube and Instagram pages. They have become the new sort of “opinion leaders” of today. I’d argue that they’re not necessarily leading, or influencing, society in any healthy directions!

I was the last President of the Newman Graduate Society in Western Australia immediately before my move to Sydney and setting up catholica. It was perceived as being an “intelligent discussion amongst opinion leaders” in much the same manner as the graduate apostolates that were a common feature of university life in earlier decades – groups such as the Newman and Campion societies in different states usually centred on a university or around a Catholic residential college. I knew from my long experience in politics and publishing that it was almost impossible in Australia to fund such an endeavour locally so, from the outset we sought an international audience, particularly from the far better philanthropic culture that existed in the United States. This was never intended as a “where two or three are gathered in my name/small group/small church-ecclesia” venture. We were seeking to establish something that would be a catalyst for wider action in society, and the church – “wider action” in the sense of encouraging serious thinking and discussion about ideas.

Back in the days of the CathNews Discussion Board we’d run into a problem fairly early on with Ann Thompson (Ann Free Spirit). As well as the abuse she had been subjected to in orphanages in New Zealand, she ended up being raped by a priest, and she was largely deprived of even an elementary education. I was receiving many calls for her to be chucked out of the community because what she wrote was either too painful and, at times, it was written in very childish or amateurish language because she’d been deprived of an education. I conducted a private consultation (perhaps not dissimilar to this one) amongst the leading members of that online community. I also look the question of “what should we do about Ann” to Michael Kelly and Michael Mullins. In the end we all agreed, though this really came from the leading members of the CathNews Discussion Group that we should allow space for Ann (and others from situations similar to hers) to “tell their stories”. Ann became one of the “success stories” of our community. Largely thanks to Barry Sinclair from our community who actually flew over to New Zealand and effectively negotiated the deal that enabled Ann to have her first book published by Penguin. Ann went on, despite her limited communication skills, to become some kind of leader at the international level of people who had suffered in those orphanages, laundries and work houses that were a feature of the landscape in the first half of the 20th Century. As most of you would know, Ann recently self-published her second book and she continues to be a leader and catalyst for victims and survivors of those convents, orphanages and laundries around the world.

We brought that ethos over when we established catholica and endeavoured to provide a place where victims and survivors of abuse could “tell their stories” – and hopefully in a place that was also attracting as readers those in the “opinion leader” strata of society and the Church where they might be in positions of power and influence to do something about what they are hearing. In other words we were also hoping that our work would be attracting bishops, priests and those employed professionally in the lay leadership echelons of the institution who might be in a position, both in individual cases and regarding the collective of victims and survivors, “to do something” about this scandal and tragedy. I believe we have all achieved much that we can be proud of in this general realm – even just at the level of providing a platform for Kieran to air and polish his ideas and to eventually publish his book which, as you all know by now, eventually led to the Pope and the Holy See abolishing the Pontifical Secret. That is a pretty big achievement within itself. I doubt the Pope, anyone in the Vatican, or even most Australian bishops would have even the foggiest appreciation of the role played by a little catholica discussion forum based in the Blue Mountains, and a retired solicitor and former civil judge down the coast from Sydney played in that momentous change in Catholic Law and Culture.

Part of the way I have managed catholica – and this I learned and perfected through my work moderating the CathNews discussion board – is not by heavy-handed censoring of contributors, or kicking them out/withdrawing their rights to post, but by coming in and attempting to “snow the forum”/divert attention with discussion on other topics and steer the discussion about from the venting, the navel-gazing and material that was “too raw” or causing the forum to spiral out of control (and me, as administrator/moderator) being flooded with requests to ban or censor this person or that person. Believe me, that takes a heck of lot greater input of time, energy and one’s emotions than striding around like some Sergeant-Major Editor or Administrator with some kind of lance, or stockwhip, trying to keep everyone in line – and the conversations on an “even keel”.

I honestly don’t know where we go from here. Amanda and I do not own our own home let alone have huge amounts of capital in other ways or in superannuation. Amanda has effectively been kicked out of the institution albeit – she’d also largely lost her hearing through industrial deafness by spending too many years in rock bands – and can’t sing anymore anyway because of her increasing deafness. It was providential that a phone call came out of the blue about 2 years ago offering me a position as an editor of a significant Catholic publisher based in Melbourne. The phone call was from the owner of the business. I responded “I already have my hands full with catholica, even though it doesn’t pay anything like a decent salary, the person you need to be talking to is my wife. She’s just completed a Masters in Writing at Swinburne University and she did really well in the book editing part of the course.” End of story is that she took on the job, initially on a 3 day a week basis. The owner eventually sold the business to the Bible Society and Amanda has been promoted to a full-time editor. With my part old age pension, which keeps getting cut with every promotion and salary increase, Amanda gets, we still struggle to get by. It has again been another providential or serendipitous event that has led to this new development I’m now involved in. If it comes off potentially “the sky is the limit” but equally it could all land in a heap in a month’s time and I’ll be back trying to do something with catholica – or looking to retire permanently. We find it ironic, and somewhat telling, that we are largely funded today by Amanda’s work for the protestants at the Bible Society rather than by the Catholic Church as this originally started out as a project to assist Catholicism rather than any other branch of Christianity. (She is doing surreptitious work though helping the Bible Society penetrate the Catholic market, LOL. This is all private and confidential stuff I’m sharing here so please don’t share it outside the group.)

On the other hand we also find it fascinating that there also does seem to be a trend away from Catholic – and Christian tribalism and spirituality is moving to become more ecumenical, and globally spiritual than it was in the past. We ask ourselves if the developments in our personal lives might be tied up with a far wider global trend or development?

Tony and myself had a couple of lengthy discussions a few months ago about establishing some kind of “editorial board” for want of a better term. Basically the fault is mine that we didn’t take it any further as this other development began to emerge around that time and has increasingly been claiming my time and attention. Tony probably has better ideas than anyone as to where this discussion forum might now go. I should point out that the road ahead is not easy. It requires a big input on the part of someone. You may be aware that after I left as administrator of the CathNews Discussion Board, Fr Michael Kelly actually employed a couple of different people to administer the board. Neither of them lasted and the discussion deteriorated under both of them until CathNews was eventually killed by “friendly fire” by a person (who was a friend of the entire CathNews initiative) starting a defamation action against the service and a particular poster. (It never went anywhere legally but it did kill off the entire discussion board.) You will also be aware that NCR has been through a torrid time trying to maintain an online forum associated with their news service. After years of trying they eventually had to kill it off and revert to an old-fashioned “letters to the editor” type section, which they now maintain as their main channel for generating feedback. Most diocesan newspapers and websites no longer maintain any feedback channels simply because it has become too expensive to employ people to manage them properly. I learned a heck of a lot as administrator of CathNews. Anyone here remember “MichaelW”? (That was not his online name but an abbreviation). He was like a one-man incendiary to a discussion community. I used to go to sleep some nights literally wondering if the discussion community would still be intact the next morning so destructive could this single individual be. It was similar individuals like that who eventually killed off the CathNews board and the various attempts that NCR had at trying to set up some kind of decent feedback hub.

My final thought for the present is that collectively you/we need to decide what you/we are trying to achieve? Is it some kind of “social network” principally giving some kind of emotional or psychological comfort and a sense of community, or “togetherness/identity” to the individuals who form that community; or do you/we see yourselves attempting to have a far broader evangelising/outreach objective seeking to encourage a wider discussion in society of, for example, what the “good news of Jesus Christ” might look like? Or, in another example, encouraging wider discussion about what the Catholic institution is trying to achieve? For example is it trying to educate people into a more sophisticated way of understanding this entire spiritual dimension of life; or is its principal mission to be perceived as, in the words of the previous pope, “protecting the little ones from intellectuals” by feeding them superstitious bullshit and some equivalent of Heinz spiritual baby food formula?

Tony 23.01.2020 at 2.10 pm

To Brian

That's a splendid piece of writing you've shared with the group, Brian. You've given us a very sober condensed version of your journey which provides us with a solid floor to work on. Many many thanks. As I see it your closing paragraph opens up the issue of our goal and purpose in Catholica and expands the task of this group to include isolating and defining this immediate task as well as the less fundamental one of examining whether practical editorial assistance can be given by the likes of us or not. Please let me know if I am reading too much into it. For the first time I can see how opposed are our positions. Yet they are all valid, all part of the one reality, and a successful enterprise will establish whatever hierarchical or procedural pattern or structure is needed for it to maintain it unity. I've spent the morning on this in the hope that a different way of presenting it will help each of us to come to grips with it in our own way. I'll include it as an attachment (see immediately below); you can tell me if this analysis will help or not. I've asked John Edwards to check it out too before I send it around. When we're trying to set our course for the next four weeks clarity and precision are important.

THE FOUR SIDES OF THE SQUARE

(This was sent to Brian as attachment to this email. It was sent to the whole group at 5.56 pm on the same day. The title is added here and will be used in future references.)

Jan 23, Brian wrote:

My final thought for the present is that collectively you/we need to decide what you/we are trying to achieve:-

A. Is it some kind of “social network” principally giving some kind of emotional or psychological comfort and a sense of community, or “togetherness/identity” to the individuals who form that community?

B. Or do you/we see yourselves attempting to have a far broader evangelising/outreach objective seeking to encourage a wider discussion in society of, for example, what the “good news of Jesus Christ” might look like?

C. Or, in another example, encouraging wider discussion about what the Catholic institution is trying to achieve? For example is it trying to educate people into a more sophisticated way of understanding this entire spiritual dimension of life;

D. Or is its principal mission to be perceived as, in the words of the previous pope, “protecting the little ones from intellectuals” by feeding them superstitious bullshit and some equivalent of Heinz spiritual baby food formula?

Some comments:

Our primary objective is to examine the feasibility of editorial assistance to Brian. This morning Brian writes that if the new enterprise falls through he will be back trying to do something with catholica – or looking to retire permanently. While this is an over-simplification, it must lead us to examine also the feasibility of maintaining Catholica in some form without Brian and Milly. I don't mean a take-over, but in full appreciation of Brian's creative work to see what would be possible in the event he were not able to continue in his editorial role. (I leave aside the managerial role since it is well beyond the purpose of this quick review.) While keeping in mind our task of examining practical ways to share the editing and oversight of the forum, we now need to take up this question of what we are trying to achieve, the purpose and goal of Catholica.
In the closing paragraph Brian identifies four options for the purpose/goal of Catholica. I would present these in more abstract terms as:
1. A. Focus on community among participants and allow that to bear fruit in individual development.
2. B. Focus on opinion leaders with Catholica a kind of Ideas Exchange or Think Tank in presenting Christian values (the Good News) in the modern world.
3. C. Focus on church as institution, its purpose and role, with a view to modernising its methodology and functioning to make it more relevant and influential.
4. D. Focus on refreshing the spiritual life of ordinary Catholics – the vast majority.
If we see these four not as separate fields but as the four sides of the square, it is not possible to even think of one without reference to the other three, but at the same time it is not possible to fold them together and still have a square. Individually we enter the box through one or other of these four sides; as a community Catholica has to agree on one primary focus so that the other three are seen in their relationship with that one. Brian has always started from B & C, while many of us a committed to starting from A & D. There is a fair bit of tension between these two and our present task is to work through this until we can see it all as one living functioning reality. Everyone will have their own way of thinking about this. Perhaps if we think deep enough we will see where we're saying the same thing in different words, and often where even the wording can be improved to express the complex in one simple statement. That's the ultimate goal.

Brian 23.01.2020 at 4.36 pm.

To Tony

Thanks for this, including the attachment. Perhaps we might talk on the phone this evening, or after your siesta? The vast majority of people visit websites, or attend church, not with any ambitions to “change the world”. They’re simply seeking some comfort, identity, or seeking to affirm that they’re “on the right track, pathway or highway” in their life journey. I often wonder what sort of mindset Jesus would have brought to his everyday thinking and activities? Most human beings do not harbour ambitions of “evangelising the world”, or changing it. Most humans are simply seeking “happiness” – or the negative of that “an absence of as much stress, pain, anxiety and unhappiness” as possible. I suspect the majority of them in educated, affluent communities like ours no longer even worry about “eternal life” or “avoiding the everlasting fires of hell”; they simply want to survive until tomorrow and “have a bit of fun and happiness” in the process of doing so. As you correctly observe all the options of what you, or we, decide to do are valid. The question becomes: what is the most effective strategy to assist in “building the kingdom”, or “bringing the ‘good news’ to ALL people”? I no longer believe the Catholic dogma that we need to believe in, and worship, Jesus and God because we were commanded by God to do so, and we’re gunna be punished in the most diabolical of ways if we do not. I believe Jesus is important, and needed, because we human beings all model our thinking, our emotions and our behaviours on others and Jesus is one of the most important, or ‘iconic’, models that has evolved that most resembles the ideal of how an intelligent, psychologically, physically and psychically balanced human being should think, feel and act. In short: that’s what metanoia ought to be pointing us towards. I’m weird and a drop-kick because most people do not think about it in that manner. Ego rules – what most human beings seek most is to be loved and respected by the “significant audiences” in their lives.

I suspect that my, and our (Milly and I’s), time with catholica might be coming to an end simply on the basis of other signs popping up in our individual and joint journey. Whatever should develop in the future we have made a commitment to at the very least “preserve the archive”. This will need to be paid for, and may even require maintenance from time to time (and that will cost). We’re prepared to shoulder that cost. You will have noticed that I’ve already effectively abandoned the idea of a “Catholica Spiritual Marketplace” some time back. The reason for what is that it involved a massive input of time, energy, creativity – as well as maintenance keep up with changing prices and the best items to be displaying, or promoting. It was generating a bit of money, but it was also immensely complicating my status as a recipient of the old age pension.

The question you probably most want to discuss in this group is the future of the catholica forum – as opposed to all the other stuff, including the commentaries, the archive, the marketplace, and the technical considerations behind it all. John Edwards is a good person to have onboard as he does understand the big picture stuff, as well as the technology, and how much it takes to build a sustainable online community. I’ll include him in this reply. You could just “hive off” the catholica forum as a stand-alone community. It might be done using the existing “My Little Forum” software or – and I have seriously been considering this for some time – setting it up as a facebook-type community. If you are most interested in simply forming some kind of social media-type spiritual community I suspect the most efficient way to do it might be via social media such as facebook. A huge number of people are doing that these days. I suspect most of them are engaged in “churning” rather than “reaching out and evangelising” – reaching much beyond the small local networks that most human beings operate it. All that social media has achieved is to make it easier, and cheaper, to contact everybody in your local network. It hasn’t necessarily built these local networks into bigger networks capable of reaching out to more people on a large scale. It’s mainly about “churning” – people engaged in an activity that makes people “feel good” but is not necessarily achieving much beyond that “good feeling” for the person engaged in the activity. As I suggested in a recent comment: ego is what makes the world go around – ego at the narcissistic level of the Trumps, the Morrisons, the Johnsons and so on at the international level; but also ego at the ordinary grass roots level of the average Jack and Jill trying to drag a little bit of comfort and temporal security into their lives.

John 23.01.2020 at 6.06 pm

To Brian

Thanks for including me in this discussion. I agree that the most exciting part of catholica is the Forum. This provides the basis for an ongoing dialogue between catholica members and visitors. I am not sure that moving catholica to Facebook would work. Or to put it another way around, in moving to Facebook you would probably lose the very thing (and people) that makes it most worthwhile – its writers!! People for whom writing a considered piece, for others to react to and respond to, is important. I remember years ago meeting with yourself Brian and Cliff Baxter (from Catholic Weekly and Catholica) about setting up a Catholic Writers Guild. In fact, I remember registering the business name, Catholic Writers Guild, which I renewed annually for many years in the hope that it might eventuate. The idea was to find a means of encouraging Catholic writers and assist them. I think Catholica has achieved just that. My problem with Facebook, apart from it being an unethical institution which merely sees users as a marketable commodity from which they make billions, is that Facebook is much like Twitter (think Trump!!) which thrives mainly on one line comments and the notorious Like button. The major goal of Facebook is racking up millions of Followers!!! Trump, I discovered today, has 71 million Followers.

I don’t think Facebook or Twitter would suit the audience that interacts with the Catholica Forum. Can you imagine Aristotle interacting with Facebook? Or Enda?? The Forum allows members to write considered pieces of some length – something that Facebook doesn’t. Facebook is for publishing ephemera, the Catholica Forum for an ongoing series of serious pieces. Not all of it true, but enough to make it stand out. Also, importantly, the Catholica Forum allows you to anchor key discussions which can run for a number of days or more – not so on Facebook (as far as I can see).

Another important feature of Catholica is the archive. Enda has been able to download his many excellent pieces and publish them as a book. I have just recently set up jse Publications to enable people to publish such a series of essays in digital format (epub,mobi) which will have an ISBN and an index page created by the National Library of Australia which will go into the NLA catalogue which is searchable by libraries across Australia. Once in epub form it is easy to organise Print on Demand hard-copy books. […]

BrIan 23.01.2020 at 8.29 pm

To John and Tony

John, I was always far more interested in lengthy essays and commentaries – long form writing that causes people to think, reflect upon and, in due course offer intelligent responses. I increasingly sense most people are not interested in that. They get bored out of their minds if they have to read anything longer than about 3 sentences, or watch anything longer than a 60 second tv commercial. It’s part of the culture. It’s part of how we have all been formed. I think this is a critical question you need to sort out right at the outset. It’s relatively easy to set up an online community that provides some form of emotional or psychological comfort to the people attracted to it. That might form, as Tony suggested in his longer, earlier response, an important aspect of an overall evangelisation initiative. I don’t believe that alone, or if pursued as the primary objective, it produces anything significant to the goal of “bringing the ‘good news’ to ALL people”. But the confusion is back at what most people perceive “the good news” to actually be. I don’t believe it is the superficial “love one another/let’s all be friends with one another” stuff. It is actually complex and a life-long thing to master – and broadly connected with climbing beyond the pull of ego and thinking, feeling and acting, within the limits of the “talents/gifts” one has been given, at the highest level. I do not believe that can be explained in a 140 or 280 character “tweet” – or even in a gzillion 140 or 280 character tweets. As I suggested: it is a life-long process of learning. And it is often contradictory, paradoxical and hugely confusing – all the things that most scare the “little people and simple people” that so concerned Papa Ratzi. I believe the best, perhaps/possibly the ONLY way for anyone to explore that is through an on-going process of reflection and meditation. That’s why we need “long form writing” – and this form of dialogue. So, I’m agreeing with you that we can’t really do that on social media platforms.

There has been an explosion in “shallow thinking”, emotional venting, and the shallowest form of sentimentality in the mainstream media (as the likes of the Murdoch’s try to retain their audience numbers, and profits, which have been stolen by these upstarts like the owners of facebook, twitter and so on. There is a temptation for a Church to follow down a similar pathway. The Hillsong’s and Evangelical churches are doing just that. They are also finding that their audiences/congregations do not “last the distance”. They experience a high “churn rate”. I’ve long believed we have to offer something different to that – and ultimately it does involve trying to get, or educate, people to think a little more deeply than what all the other “agenda setters/opinion leaders or social media influencers” are attempting to do in the modern consumer society we have today. Jesus Christ and “the Good News” is NOT some container ship load of dogmas, but neither is it simplistic tweets about being “nice people to one another”. He (Jesus) and it (the Good News) are about learning to think, feel and act as intelligent adults and amidst all the challenges and difficult choices that crop up in our lives. That requires much thinking, much reflection, and much meditation.

Tony 23.01.2020 at 9.21 pm

To Brian

I guess that, when you say that we would "most probably want to discuss in this group is the future of the catholica forum", you are in fact saying that catholica as we've known it is finishing up one way or another. That changes everything. As a group we can certainly work on how to continue the forum either in similar form or as something totally different, but we can't really discuss ways of setting up a system that would share the editing work with you. There'd be no point unless we could expect to continue for some time. From what you've written here that seems unlikely.

I can see you had planned to face this issue by the end of your four weeks off, but in the meantime we can't continue with the schedule I mapped out yesterday. I wonder can we just keep it broader, and what we devise as a joint editorial and management board might apply to a stand alone forum. But we should work out the value of such a new venture and how it compares with what we've become used to with catholica, before getting into the mechanics of it. I'll sleep on it and see what it looks like in the morning.

Janet 24.01.2020 9.16 am

To Brian,

Thank you for filling us in on the story of Catholica and before that of CathNews. I learned a lot from your outline. A few responses. . .

I am so sorry to learn that Amanda has lost much of her hearing, awful for one who loves singing and who has given so much to others with her music. I live in companionship with someone with severe hearing impairment and I know just how difficult it is to live without being able to hear what others are saying. Socially isolating. Except that a new door opened with her Bible Society appointment.

Your comments about opinion leaders and opinion influencers are interesting. I am not much involved in social media, but I gather that, yes, a lot of venting goes on. I am aware of what happens on the Guardian online newspaper. They open comments on articles, carefully monitor them and close discussion when they judge it appropriate. Often they close comments overnight and open them again the next morning, presumably when their staff are awake. Many of the comments are venting, but there is an increasing number of carefully thought out, long comments, many that are helpful to people wanting information or attempting to formulate their opinions. I don't know how much it costs the Guardian to run its comments sections, probably quite a lot.

"Wider action" in the Newman society was about "encouraging serious thinking and discussion about ideas." To me it also means actually doing something to change the culture/society, for example by agitating for reforms along social justice lines. I think the serious thinking part is something you, Brian, have wanted to occur on Catholica. Some of the discussion is enlightening, but I find a lot of it is jumbled, repetitive and very mixed in quality. I don't know what could be done to remedy that.

I appreciate learning about Ann Thompson. I read her book when it first came out, but had no idea just how the CathNews people facilitated it. It is a good story. Of course, having someone with the expertise to go to NewZealand and negotiate the deal with the publisher is important, and I guess this is where being a body that emerges from the institutional church helps.

It is helpful to know what you had in mind when you set up Catholica. As a contributor, I don't think I have ever been clear about its purpose, certainly not aware of the aim to influence the "opinion leader" strata of the church and society. I think the contribution made by Kieren to the church has been a fine one, and probably not possible without him being able to use Catholica as a platform. So there is one good model to follow. I don't know how many other opinion leaders we have in the Catholica community, but I am certainly not one of them, and I suspect most of us are not.

"Part of the way I have managed catholica – and this I learned and perfected through my work moderating the CathNews discussion board – is not by heavy-handed censoring of contributors, or kicking them out/withdrawing their rights to post, but by coming in and attempting to “snow the forum”/divert attention with discussion on other topics and steer the discussion about from the venting, the navel-gazing and material that was “too raw” or causing the forum to spiral out of control (and me, as administrator/moderator) being flooded with requests to ban or censor this person or that person. Believe me, that takes a heck of lot greater input of time, energy and one’s emotions than striding around like some Sergeant-Major Editor or Administrator with some kind of lance, or stockwhip, trying to keep everyone in line – and the conversations on an “even keel”."

I am well aware of this problem, having led a small online group as part of Monasteries of the Heart (It ran for seven years before folding). We struck lots of problems with our membership drawn from four countries with different cultures and including some who hoped we were there to support them through messy life situations. If I were starting that group over again I would issue some guidelines, limiting the length of posts and stressing our aims. I am aware of the strategy of "snowing the forum". I use it myself often in a small group I belong to where we sometimes line up on clear right/left political lines and are in danger of enmity. However, the danger is that the entire discussion is short-circuited and clouded. Finding ways to deal with navel-gazing and venting, and also with people fixated on something, now that is a huge issue.

Yes, I agree that there is a global trend towards individual spiritual development, through such sites as Spirituality and Practice, Monasteries of the Heart, the Center for Action and Contemplation, the Global Meditation Movement, and, more recently, and still in its early stages, the Omega Center. Much of this activity originates in the USA .

Your question about the purpose, giving people sense of community or have a broader outreach is a crucial one. In a sense I cannot see how either can flourish without the other. Perhaps Eureka Street provides us with something of a model here (and again that is an endeavour that has its home in religious order with all the backup that can provide).

Brian, your final sentence worries me, especially the words "superstitious bullshit" and "Heinz spiritual baby food formula". I wonder what is going on for you when you use such words. Disdain? Despair? Exhaustion? Disillusionment? Disgruntlement?

Brian you have spent many years doing good work and it has borne fruit, perhaps not what you hoped for but certainly substantial. I hope that whatever comes next is fruitful.

Tony 24.01.2020 at 2.56 pm (NOTE: This email included the text, The Four Sides of the Square)

To the Group

Thanks, Janet, for your comments on Brian's post of Thursday Jan 23, 12.04 a.m.

Thank you all for your vote of confidence in me to lead this group's work. I have asked JohnE and Janet to help me.

We are having an on-going conversation with Brian, both by email and on the phone. I will send around a summary of the options we have mapped out so far.

In the meantime here are my thoughts, as on yesterday (Thursday) morning, about the last paragraph of that background account that Janet has commented on:

THE FOUR SIDES OF THE SQUARE

Jan 23, Brian wrote:

My final thought for the present is that collectively you/we need to decide what you/we are trying to achieve:-

Some comments:

Our primary objective is to examine the feasibility of editorial assistance to Brian. This morning Brian writes that if the new enterprise falls through he will be back trying to do something with catholica – or looking to retire permanently. While this is an over-simplification, it must lead us to examine also the feasibility of maintaining Catholica in some form without Brian and Milly. I don't mean a take-over, but in full appreciation of Brian's creative work to see what would be possible in the event he were not able to continue in his editorial role. (I leave aside the managerial role since it is well beyond the purpose of this quick review.) While keeping in mind our task of examining practical ways to share the editing and oversight of the forum, we now need to take up this question of what we are trying to achieve, the purpose and goal of Catholica.
In the closing paragraph Brian identifies four options for the purpose/goal of Catholica. I would present these in more abstract terms as:
1. A. Focus on community among participants and allow that to bear fruit in individual development.
2. B. Focus on opinion leaders with Catholica a kind of Ideas Exchange or Think Tank in presenting Christian values (the Good News) in the modern world.
3. C. Focus on church as institution, its purpose and role, with a view to modernising its methodology and functioning to make it more relevant and influential.
4. D. Focus on refreshing the spiritual life of ordinary Catholics – the vast majority.
If we see these four not as separate fields but as the four sides of the square, it is not possible to even think of one without reference to the other three, but at the same time it is not possible to fold them together and still have a square. Individually we enter the box through one or other of these four sides; as a community Catholica has to agree on one primary focus so that the other three are seen in their relationship with that one. Brian has always started from B & C, while many of us a committed to starting from A & D. There is a fair bit of tension between these two and our present task is to work through this until we can see it all as one living functioning reality. Everyone will have their own way of thinking about this. Perhaps if we think deep enough we will see where we're saying the same thing in different words, and often where even the wording can be improved to express the complex in one simple statement. That's the ultimate goal.

BrIan 24.01.2020 at 4.58 pm

To the Group

One of the considerations not mentioned in any of the discussions so far is the legal liability one. Amanda and I shouldered that as the publishers of catholica. The main challenge comes from people who might sue for defamation. In the 13 year life of the website I’ve only had one real threat where I did have to act quickly to ensure the pants were not sued off us, and so the website wouldn’t be shut down. I’ve had plenty of warnings though from the lawyer members of our community where we were venturing into territory where we might be sued. Del has been the main offender blatantly publishing names from up in her bailiwick in northern NSW. I haven’t a clue who these people are and I frankly do not have the time to research what she writes in case it might be heavily slanderous or defamatory. You may have noticed that I usually move her posts into the members forum. The threat of defamation is not the only problem. Her style of writing causes many people to turn away from reading our forum – the very people she needs and we want to be visiting our forum. I get real complaints about that. I’m too soft as an editor as I think these people should be given an opportunity to tell their stories but, my-oh-my it’s almost a full-time job monitoring them so that they don’t damage what we, and you, have set up. Very often “they know not what they do”. She hasn’t been the only one. The really serious case was against a person who posted only irregularly and a long time ago now.

My gut sense is that the institution is basically finished. I don’t believe there is going to be a Vatican III or any resurrection of the institution that we knew, or hoped might be rebuilt. Benedict-Ratzinger correctly foresaw that the future is a “smaller, purer Church”. He believed it would collapse but eventually re-evangelise all of society. I’ve come to the conclusion he was deluded about that. I think it will be a “smaller, purer Church” of individuals who have absolutely zero hope of reaching out and re-evangelising the 90% who have left, or reaching the vastly greater population of the world who are not even Christian let alone Catholic. And I say that even in the face of those who sincerely and deeply believe “anything is possible to God”. I think our entire picture of who God is, and what powers that God has, has been screwed up. That’s the fundamental reason why so many have left across the face of the educated, affluent part of the world.

That, I believe, is the point you’ve got to start from. That’s how serious the situation is. As I have argued: down the track I do believe a new generation, perhaps one not yet even thought of, let alone conceived, will write a new religious or theological script that will cause collective humanity to have an “Ah-Ha moment”.

In the last few days I’ve been bingeing out on the new series from Paolo Sorrentino – The Young Pope (10 episodes) and the New Pope (4 episodes uploaded so far). This is what we ought be talking about. This is what I wrote as a Post Script to a post to Tony and JohnE yesterday: We ought to be discussing this commentary in America magazine: “How St. John Henry Newman can help us understand why Catholics are leaving the church”: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/01/22/how-st-john-henry-newman-can-help-us-understand-why-catholics-are-leaving-church

And in recent days I’ve watched Paulo Sorrentino’s series The Young Pope (10 episodes still available on SBS), and The New Pope (4 episodes streaming so far). This sort of communication is driving more people out of the Church today because it gives people the explanations as to why they no longer believe and need to leave – or the intellectual and emotional justifications if they have left. These sorts of television programs are far more powerful in today’s milieu than a thousand Amazonian Synods or Australian Plenary Councils – and they’re operating at a global level reaching huge audiences. This is the sort of stuff we need to be having a serious conversation about. But it is frustrating and hopeless trying to find the audiences that are interested in doing that.

I had a long conversation on the phone this morning with a woman friend who is now the CEO and Managing Director of a large company that she inherited when her husband died. She and her husband were our best friends in Melbourne. We were mainly catching up about where our children have ended up. Between myself, Amanda and the friend in Melbourne we have nine surviving children all roughly in the age range late 20s to early 40s. The vast majority of them are in relationships, and have produced children – the next generation. Perhaps one of them still has a relationship with the Catholic Church that we educated them in. Most of them are actually hostile to what the institution has done. These television series and films that started back as long ago as the Monty Python series send up what the Church believes and endeavours to teach. Most of our children simply do not believe it today.

Amanda and myself have given a commitment that that now huge archive of commentaries, and the discussions on the forum, will be stored, accessible and maintained. We’ll pay for it however long we live. We believe that, in time, it may become historically significant for throwing light on the thinking of a significant group of people at a particular time in history. Whatever happens with this new project I’m working on I think it can be taken as read that we’re not the slightest bit interested in returning to manage yet another social media type endeavour on catholica. If we return, what we’d be primarily interested in is continuing with the objectives I outlined we had when we first started catholica. We’re NOT interested in either tearing down the Catholic Church, or hurting/criticising those intent on building Benny-Ratz’s “smaller, purer Church”, or punishing it for the sexual abuse crisis and tragedy, but we’ve also lost hope that Plenary Councils, the present leadership, or even Pope Francis, are going to turn things around. Those who know God’s mind better than any God are going to ensure there is no intelligent discussion anywhere. It’s all over, rover. We are interested in exploring the question of “where does spirituality and the religious/numinous direction go in human thinking from here?”

Brian 24.01.2020 at 5.56 (Commenting on draft text of Three Options - see below)

To Tony, John and Janet

I'm very comfortable with that summary you've prepared, Tony. I had earlier replied to everyone in the whole group before I saw this message from you. What I've written there might assist in discernment of what you write. I had a good talk on the phone with Paul Collins yesterday. He rang me wanting to get in touch with someone in our community. We had a good chat about where everything is going. He, like me, sees it all as pretty hopeless – this Plenary Council isn't going to achieve anything. The decline (i.e. exit out of the pews will continue). We agreed the fundamental problem is the lack of creativity and leadership at the top of the institution. JPII and BXVI successfully booted all the "best and brightest minds" out of the institution. If Francis wanted to revitalise the Church Downunder where in the dickens could he start looking for the talent with the qualities to bring it about? The best priest these days is an ex-priest – the best shepherds and pastors are no longer within the fold but the institution is hardly likely to be inviting you Tony, or the likes of Paul Collins, or John N Collins back in to be playing the role of shepherds to any discussions.

Tony 24.01.2020 at 1040 pm

THE THREE OPTIONS

To the Group

Through some emails on Thursday and a long talk on the phone today, we have clarified what our work should be focused on, and what options we might consider. In an email yesterday afternoon, Brian pointed us in this direction:

"The question you probably most want to discuss in this group is the future of the catholica forum – as opposed to all the other stuff, including the commentaries, the archive, the marketplace, and the technical considerations behind it all."

In one way or another the time will come when Brian will not continue running Catholica and all its departments. He recognises also the tension that I referred to as to the direction or the purpose and goal of Catholica. (See my email 2.56 p.m. today.) Hence the scope of our work is now broader than providing support for Brian in his editing role:

a) It must envisage a person or a team taking on editorial duties in some form.

b) It must examine various options as to the shape of the forum in the future:

Set up a stand-alone website with a new look and a new name
Secure the patronage of an established website which would provide the place for us to run a forum of our own.
Step by step an editorial board taking on the running of Catholica. Brian offers to continue to maintain and update the software programs as needed.

Each of these needs working through in detail. I will set out the main features, but first a couple of general points. The principal issues that must be taken into account are:

Tension as to the goal and the orientation or 'tone' of the forum. Brian has outlined his original purpose and expectation. We need to decide whether there needs to be a new formulation of purpose and/or how to refresh the spirit of the forum.
Editorial oversight has two elements: First, guiding the direction and content of contributions, encouraging the positive, restraining the disturbing, keeping the the ship heading in the agreed direction. Second, being on the watch for objectionable material, especially such as could be defamatory. This brings us to the next point...
Legal responsibility: this is a heavy burden that Brian and Milly never mention so that we don't even think of it. Yet a libel suit could bankrupt our hosts and there's nothing we could do about it. Most institutions are incorporated, which requires certain formalities such as a constitution, rules of membership, annual general meetings, accounts open to a public audit, and so on and on. I hear you say: But we only want to talk! Well, here in Healesville when we checked out various halls to hold a meeting in they all required that we be incorporated. As you can guess it's a matter of who is responsible in a legal action. (Someone with knowledge of the law might correct any mistakes in this summary, please.)
The most attractive idea, the 'soft' option, would see Brian continue his role, but with an editorial team to keep watch day by day. Offensive posts need to be removed ASAP, and an explanation given to their author. Only if there is always someone on the watch can Brian stop worrying and not feel he has to read every post as soon as possible no matter what pressure he is under at the time. A team of three or four could share the watch among them. Are we able to provide such a team of volunteers and guarantee their work? We need to look into the actual mechanics of it more closely.

I hope that does not frighten anyone. It is sobering, not paralysing. Now some pros and cons for each of the options:

Option (I) Pro: Fresh wine in new wineskins; small beginning, therefore easier to run and keep safe. Being a private website it has no tax implications, and suits our purpose well.

Con: May never achieve that mysterious life that has developed in Catholica.

Option (ii) Pro: Takes care of the arrangements and legalities. Access to ready-made participants.

Con: No one is inviting us yet; Freedom to be ourselves may be restricted.

Option (iii) Pro: It's our home. A shame to see it mothballed.

Con: While Brian and Milly have said they would continue ownership and therefore legal responsibility, this sort of hand-shake agreement can turn sour. For Brian to maintain an active involvement could result in tensions that he shouldn't have to wear.

I'm sure there will be many other things, even some more important than these. I'm setting these out to start us off. Adaptation and renewal can be very painful and takes a lot of work on formalities, energy that might be better spent in other ways. When something has come to the end of its life it may be only right to let it die, and see what the next generation brings. Brian may well feel a great relief when the daily grind is no longer tying him down. But nobody wants to force his decision. We all know what it's like. Perhaps we can arrange support and in due course take on the entire management. This is what we have to advise on. Whether the group of active participants or various separate groups would keep something going in other formats is the second stage.

If all this seems unduly calculating and heartless, forgive me. It's an attempt to come to grips with issues we feel strongly about.

Brian 24.01.2020 at 11.00 pm

To Janet

Yes, thanks Janet, in the long run I am an optimist. I do not believe the Divine, the Numinous, the Spiritual is dead or superseded. I am more inclined to believe that superstitious nonsense might be finding its influence is fading. Our beliefs about this “fourth dimension of life” – beyond the physical, the emotional and the intellectual is evolving. We still have much to learn. There are many interesting developments going on in the world at present, Ilia Delio’s Omega Center is one of the more interesting. For the last couple of days I’ve been binge watching the two series The New Pope and The Young Pope. We had discussion about The Young Pope series on catholica back in 2017 when it was first screened but I don’t think we took it that seriously. The new series caused me to go back and download the entire first series as I had only watched small parts of it. My perspective has changed this time around viewing it. These people (the writers and producers) have both a deep understanding of Catholic culture and thinking – and they also have a deep understanding of why it has been failing right across the first world. It’s both brilliant satire, and at times exceedingly funny because of that, but it’s also deeply insightful of what’s been happening in the educated world and why do many have been quietly walking away for the whole show. Brian

Brian Monro 25.01.2020 at 9.51 am

Thank you Tony for your correspondence as we discuss the future of Catholica.

You may recall a similar situation about 15 years ago when the future of Online Catholics was being debated. Not even a large amount of seed money, and a talented corporate structure could save OLC. It took the incredible energy, skill and dedication of one person, Brian Coyne, for more than 10 years to rescue the concept of an independent News and Discussion forum available to all online. Brian succeeded with Catholica where OLC failed.

With limited time – I am 85 years old- and with few technology skills – I can handle email but not much else- I think the ideals of Catholica can be maintained in a loose unstructured correspondence by private email between friends who choose to agree or disagree. Currently I do this with personal exchanges with correspondents in Australia and beyond, some of whom I have met online through Catholica.

Now that Brian’s almost miraculous single handed effort is altering, perhaps ending, word of mouth through email may be one solution to continuing Catholica. Just a thought .

Janet 25.01.2020 at 12.54 pm Likes and Dislikes

Tony invites us to tell of three things we like about Catholica and three things we don’t.

What do I like and dislike? I ask myself which posts help build community, which provide spiritual food and challenge, and which comment on the institutional church in ways that help us all move forwards.

I like:

1, The people who tell their own stories, both stories of church involvement, of religious upbringing and background and of current matters, who converse as members of the community. I especially like reading from the relatively few women who belong here. I have found several people who write of their own experience, for example Roy, who make personal connection with people.

2. The Sunday Reflections, both reading the posted reflections and belonging to the small group that creates them.

3. Opportunities to share information and opinions on social justice issues, especially in Australia. It is good to know others in the Catholica community who care about such matters.

I dislike:

1. The popular "guru" type writers with their books and videos. e.g. Yuval Harari. I just don't open the threads about them. I wish we gave more attention to theological writers who bring really radical thought, especially female theologians and critics of theology e.g. Dorothee Soelle, Elizabeth Johnson, Sallie McFague, Beatrice Bruteau, Cynthia Bourgeault. If I mention them on the site I might get one or two responses from others who have read them, but mostly I think Catholica members are just not interested in what female theological writers have to say, except perhaps for Ilia Delio, who is sometimes quoted, but not at length.

2. The long theological/philosophical threads that go around in circles, with a lot of repetition and circumlocution. I used to try and read them, but now I don't.

3. This is a general comment about Pope Francis. We hear a lot about the politics of it all, who is plotting against him, what he has to say about sexual issues. We seldom attend to what he says about the natural world and our misuse of it (e.g. Laudato Si') nor to what he says about peace, nuclear weapons etc. I wish we listened to all he has to say, because, despite his limitations (don’t we all have them?) I see him as a significant world leader as well as a Christian leader.

JohnE 26.01.2020 at 4.09 pm The Options before us

While I don’t have an immediate answer to the many questions you pose here, one of the things I can clearly see is the tremendous work that both Brian and Milly have undertaken over the past thirteen years that they have rolled Catholica out into our inboxes and onto our desktops. Incredible work!! Not to mention the multiple postings I have seen from Brian’s quill with the ink still dripping in the early hours of the morning. Incredible dedication for which my debt of gratitude can hardly be measured let alone repaid. Thanks Milly and Brian.

Judith 27.01.2020 at 8.53 am Likes and Dislikes

Likes:

Discussing affairs of the Church Universal with like minded people in some depth, not just the local stuff

Being part of the Reflection group and having met some of them

Opening my mind to different writers I would never have heard of otherwise e.g. Elizabeth Johnson, Sr Joan Chittister Robert Mickens, John Collins, Tom McMahon et al

Dislikes:

[The writer has difficulty with the writings of some contributors. Editor]

Too long strings about issues of a philosophical nature. I gave up reading Mike Rivage Seul and a few others.

Tony 27.01.2020 at 9.13 am

To the Group

I know there's a lot to absorb in the schematic presentation of the Three Options paper. It might be time to say a little more about those options. Perhaps a quick look at the main features of each, and at the problems or limitations of each one.

First, comparing the three, (i) and (ii) can be grouped together. (iii) is on its own. Perhaps the order should have been reversed, because the group started off with the idea of finding a way to give editorial support to Brian. Option (iii) looks at the situation where Brian is no longer editor because his other opportunity has taken him away. He would still maintain the software, look after the archive, and carry the legal responsibility. We would supply an editorial board to run the website.

OPTION (iii): CATHOLICA CONTINUES UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Practicality: How will it work? What would it take to make it work?

The idea is a team of three forming an editorial board to watch over the day to day running. Some jobs can be delegated to others; e,g. monitoring for inappropriate material and blocking posts that breach the rules seriously; reporting same to editors. This perhaps on a roster of some kind.

The task of the editors is to keep the conversation alive and meaningful (in general). If a goal and an orientation are defined by the members, the editors have to keep the ship on course and foster the spirit of the conversation. They would invite and encourage contributors and they could arrange various subgroups.

All these things can be done remotely, but they would require a regular commitment of time. The way to work together is left to the members of the editorial board to work out.

There seems to be no reason why this could not work as described, but it would need to be backed up by the authority of the whole membership community. One way to realise this would be to form a members cooperative, the membership fee giving title to joint ownership according to the well-established practice of Cooperatives around the world. .

Feasibility: In the absence of a substantial backing fund all positions must be as voluntary commitment from among those members who have the time, can take on the responsibility and can be available for these duties.

For us to assess whether this scheme if feasible we might first think of likely candidates for editorial roles, starting with oneself. If there are some among us who would like to volunteer they might make that known. Others might be asked if they are available. We can each manage this in our own way.

As with the day to day editorial curating there seems to be no reason why all this cannot be done remotely.

Finally, this envisages Brian retiring from his editorial role when the editorial board, backed by the community of Catholica members, takes over. However ownership of the entity and the legal responsibility would remain with him unless another way can be found. As mentioned already this kind of agreement for convenience can go painfully wrong.

Tony 29.01.2020 at 2.57 pm

To the group

Dear Friends,

A few points I need to bring to the attention of this group examining how Catholica might continue if Brian were to resign from the editorial role.

One thing in particular we need to keep in mind at this point is that, as we take a close look at our options, we may feel a sense of expectation developing, that this or that is actually scheduled to happen. However these are no more than contingency plans at this time. We are discussing at leisure what would be impossible to manage under crisis conditions. When we have done our work, our report will be available to Catholica members so that when the time does arrive we can take our next step with confidence.

While at present we are focused on the shapes and forms of cyber communities and how they work, we also need to be thinking of the purpose and spirit of any group we might be interested in. As Brian has made it clear, his orientation is to proclaim the gospel through serious think-tank activity with the intention of affecting the ideas governing society at any time. The alternative focus is based on the idea that mature, fully awake and motivated individuals are the ones who make things happen in every field. During this peaceful time when Catholica is quiet, we might exchange ideas, especially how to explore ways to integrate these two dimensions within one community.

These summaries of our options are only rough sketches. I'd be surprised if there are not some important elements left out, some problems not mentioned, and some benefits that need to be recognised. While individually we may know in our heart which we would choose, it is necessary for the exercise that we make the list of pros and cons as complete as possible. For that, we need to know what people are thinking.

In a few days there will be a presentation of how small groups could work. Following that a closer look at how a board of management coupled with an editorial board could work. This latter could apply to Catholica and also to at least some forms of small group. Unless it is no more than an email connection among friends, any group needs a leader, and every leader must answer to someone, either to the whole group or to a management committee.

Here is Option (i) in close-up.

OPTION (i): NEW STAND-ALONE WEB COMMUNITY

Option (i) If Catholica closes down members could establish a stand-alone web community or a number of small communities

The “stand-alone” means they are totally independent of one another, although they can be interconnected so that there is an easy way for people to keep track of them all or to take part in more than one. [Option (ii) is about the same thing but under the umbrella of an established ecommunity.]
They could be set up along the lines of the Four Sides of the Square as a basic division, or anyone can start, and invite others to join, any kind of group they wish. The important thing is to use the time left us to get these things started. After that it will not be easy to communicate with all the Catholica community at once.
The “Reflections Group” already is such a community. We can talk more later about the experience.

Practicality: How will it work? What will it take to make it work?

The group(s) simply begin sharing whatever it is they share, or working together on their project. They communicate by email, and may or may not have some common website where something can be posted for all to see at once. Otherwise they can “Attach” documents to emails, or simply keep within the email itself, or have a little of all three.

It only takes two or three to begin. We could run a project before Catholica closes for various groups to be started. The forum could be used as a notice board to allow everyone to know what's others are doing, and to join in if they want to.

Feasibility:

There are no costs unless the group chooses to register a domain name and open their own website. That cost is manageable. Legal responsibility is minimal since it is virtually a private group. We should remember the rule, however, that anything posted on the web stays there forever.

The Archive of Substantial Contributions is an example of a personal website (with no Facility for Comments installed), being used to share something with a community: http://alawlessblog.com/discussion-at-catholica.php

The downside of small groups like this is that they remain essentially private. They will be unknown to anyone outside the group. If they register a domain it will not be easy to get it widely known, although with an appropriate name it may be found often enough by the search engines. That was the benefit of the name “Catholica”. Probably many of us found it when we googled “catholic”.

In 23.01.2020 AT 8.29 pm (see archive), Brian pointed out that:

It’s relatively easy to set up an online community that provides some form of emotional or psychological comfort to the people attracted to it. That might form, as Tony suggested in his longer, earlier response, an important aspect of an overall evangelisation initiative. I don’t believe that, alone or if pursued as the primary objective, it produces anything significant to the goal of “bringing the ‘good news’ to ALL people”.

That is to say, with this approach we forego any attempt to have an impact beyond our membership. While some will say that this is the way it should work, namely, that we must first be changed or 'filled with the Spirit' and then our impact on the world will be real and effective, others will say that on this score small sharing groups might seem to fail the criterion of “proclaiming the Good News”.

This is something we must discuss before we abandon the well-established and fairly widely known Catholica. Like any established brand name, the 14 year old discussion forum “Catholica” has significant value, and should not be casually abandoned. Hence this we need to consider whether the membership could be transferred in toto to a more simple structure. There are some ways of doing this which are able to cope with large numbers. Perhaps it could be arranged that searches for www.catholica.com are redirected to the new site.

If possible the name of this new site needs to connect with the old name “Catholica”. It may be by some modification, e.g., “Catholica II” or “New Catholica”. It might be better to find a new name which has some implied connection to the old, something that expresses the fact that we are the same community under new management and with (perhaps) a new tone or spirit, but essentially the same imperative to get the 'good news' of the gospel across to the modern world.

Next: Some models of small communities.

Brian Monro 29.01.2020 at 8.29 pm

To Tony

Thank you Tony for your comprehensive analysis of Option 1. Yes, Catholica needs to be more than a casual email connection among friends; and yes, it needs a structure with a leader to hold it together.

You also mention the need to integrate those two founding dimensions of Catholica into one community. What are Catholica’s additional aims? Are they didactic, or evangelical, or to provide therapy , or to act as an echo chamber bouncing back similar views to its members? All of these, I suppose , and more for individuals who choose to support Catholica for reasons of their own.

Going back to my own small involvement with Online Catholics I learned the importance of aims, goal setting, and leadership. I may be wrong and others may know more than I, but I believe OLC failed because its aims were vague, because its management was conflicted , and of course because it was expensive to maintain , and eventually ran out of money. Catholica can learn from that.

Brian 29.01.2020 at 11.59pm

To the group

Thanks for the telephone discussion today, Tony, and the one with you, JohnE, yesterday. One of the forum’s growing problems is that we have a community with diversely different objectives. Some, like me, have been looking for a fairly academic-level discussion of what Catholicism needs to reverse its decline. Others simply seek companionship and discussions about spirituality without getting too theologically heavy. And then it ranges right over to people who are thoroughly disgusted with the Church and just want to see it disappear off the face of the earth. In a sense the aims have become too diverse today and that is no longer helpful.

Whatever happens with this new project I’m involved in I have a sense that I haven’t given up on seeking to reform the Church. I see that as a more worthy project than any commercial or corporate enterprise on the entire planet. I’ve always seen it like that. I’m basically not interested in running a social-media like website though. Catholica was, from the outset, envisioned along the lines of an online graduate/academic discussion endeavour – and online version of the sorts of work that used to be the focus of university graduate societies like the Newman and Campion Societies but with a progressive focus as to how Catholicism could be a more competent and powerful “force for much good” in society. I will more than probably continue pursuing that objective in the future, albeit at possibly a lower level of input depending on what else happens in this new endeavour.

I am more than happy therefore if anyone wishes to establish any kind of new community that has a different objective – from offering discussion about prayer and spiritual matters, right through to blowing up the entire church for the damage it caused in society through sexual abuse which would seem to have been the preference or hope of some.

I should point out that it is not expensive today to establish such a discussion group or small community. There are plenty of free “apps” that can be used and you don’t need to have any computer genius-level-skills to use them. The most difficult thing is attracting a large audience but I suspect most people who’ve been attracted to our forum are not interested in that. It is a bit of a fluke that I was able to obtain the name “catholica.com.au” so I am reluctant to let that go even though, less and less, it is descriptive of what I see as the eventual end objective anymore.

I see that end objective today less in terms of reforming and rejuvenating the institution as I’ve come to the belief that the religious future of humanity is going to be far more inter-religious, pan-religious or ecumenical – i.e. far less tribal. I see the principal objective today as the encouragement of conversation that encourages such an outlook and would be broadly categorised as Progressive Christianity, or Progressively Religious and Spiritual. While I continue to believe Catholicism ought be playing a lead role in the future religious and spiritual development of humanity, I’ve long ago given up belief that we alone are “the one, true religion” or “that outside our Church there is no salvation”.

Interestingly enough some person based in Italy has been sitting on the url, www.catholica.com, from before we started – hoping, I suspect, that one day someone would pay him a lot of money to part with it. Oh, I’ve just checked up on that URL and it seems some traditionalist young person by the name of Chris has now purchased it, or grabbed the URL when the previous person let it lapse. As he writes: “My aim was to encourage traditional Catholic life as our culture moves into unprecedented levels of apostasy, sin, and deception.”. You can read more about what he’s trying to achieve at: https://www.catholica.com/about/ .

Finally for this message might I point out that I think a valuable role our community has played has been to the growing number of seniors and retirees who have raised children through to adulthood and who, in their senior years and retirement have been doing much reflecting and reassessment of their lives and what they once believed. Without having any ambitions to “change the entire world’s thinking” they do value meeting with others whose beliefs and thinking have changed in later life. I’ve often thought that providing that sense of contact and community for people in retirement villages, and as their ability to move around physically decreases, that is a worthy social role in its own right.

Tony 30.01.2020 at 8.13 am

To Brian

We seem to have reached a break-through. [...]

Reading your very crisp and clear email today, there is just one thing that niggles with me. You seem to say you would give away the name 'Catholica'. On the one hand I think to keep it and make it work afresh it would need some qualifier that indicates the tone and purpose. On the other hand it is your property and if you want to keep it for the academic-level discussion group that should be your priority. In other words you would be within your rights to allow the other people to set up their own show with new names, and let Catholica be what it was meant to be from the beginning. I suppose this may not be possible. You might feel the name is damaged. For my part I have serious doubt that the experience of Catholica will or even could continue for either group after they divide, so the name might well be left in the archives.

I'm going to copy in what I wrote to John sometime yesterday. In my usual way of playing with images I came to see Catholica as the legendary 'town square' of ancient Greece, "an experience of a busy 'forum' where all manner of things are in the air - intellectual debates, special interest groups meeting their own goals, old men and women sharing memories of the good old days, with news and rumours and common gossip swirling around in the air all at once. To separate these out is to form little sects. For me the melange has been the most enriching thing of all, after a lifetime in the uniform culture of a religious community. You've got to give it to them. Those places of mixing cultures and ideas, the serious and the frivolous, the secular and the sacred have been recognised throughout history as being, "good, indeed very good'.

[...]

[John] as I reply to your emails I find better insight developing in myself. At the moment, if the above analysis was proven satisfactory, it would point to a complete separation of the two groups. Let Catholica continue as is and focus on an intellectual level of conversation, while the rest can form their own group(s) in whatever form they choose according to their various purposes and goals. We would probably lose the one thing that is utterly unique about Catholica: it is an experience like no other; an experience of a busy 'forum' where all manner of things are in the air - intellectual debates, special interest groups meeting their own goals, old men and women sharing memories of the good old days, with news and rumours and common gossip swirling around in the air all at once. To separate these out is to form little sects. For me the melange has been the most enriching thing of all, after a lifetime in the uniform culture of a religious community.
Hmmm. This would lead me to suggest either a tripartite division - or if you like a common forum with its own mix of all the cultures, and separate specialist clubs with big signs over the doors declaring their purpose and style. Might be a bit like riding two or three horses at once.

Our public places don't work the same today. We have so much communication that the whole of society is an ideas and culture exchange, with pockets of intense interaction, like Catholica. I wonder what would happen if you did retire and it was transformed into a cooperative with management board appointing editors/conductors of the forum! I wonder if we put it to the vote among the membership how many would go for this swirling mix, and how many would want to develop their separate 'courts' and pursue their special interests apart from the hoi poloi out on the street? Either way, without your charism for hospitality it will never be the same.

I think, for me, the choice would be to withdraw from the town square, but I'd always like to think it was still there. Maybe not the only one feeling that way.

Janet 30.01.2020 at 9.39 am

To Brian

I am not sure what you mean by academic. I would expect rigour and continuity, some sort of capacity to listen, absorb and respond. I don’t think the style of argy-bargy in the forum encourages that. I find the supposed intellectual threads very off-putting, and that is not because I don’t like academic discussion - I am well versed in it. As Tony says, I wrote that I do not like the “philosophical-theological” threads on Catholica, not because I don’t like discussing philosophy and theology, I do, but because they are messy, jumbled and repeitious. And you might notice, almost all the participants are male. Tony once asked if the men and women on Catholica think and write differently, and I am sure that for the most part they do.

I have been a primary school teacher, an academic, a psychologist, and a feminist (politically and academically) all of which taught me the power of the personal. The personal is political. What I experience in my daily life both reflects and impacts on the bigger picture. If I want change I have to work for it politically, but I also have to be prepared to change myself. So, I do not look down upon concrete stories of everyday life, but welcome them as doorways to something bigger, wider, deeper, more meaningful, more spiritual. I don’t see the gap between what you call “social media” and serious discourse. To draw the experiential and the theoretical together, weave them into a meaningful dynamic, requires attentive leadership. In the old days when we ran consciousness -raising groups the “leadership” tended to rotate. A session where we shared stories of our lives would be followed by much lending of books and articles and visits to see relevant films, perhaps a “speak-out” in a local church hall, attendance at a demonstration, writing letters etc, all sorts of activism.

Retirement villages? Have you seen the adverts? The many widows, divorcees and the few married couples meet for bingo, a swim in the pool, a game of bowls, a bus trip to a display garden, a barbecue etc. All managed, manicures, tidy, neat, decorous and devoid of riotous life. I would avoid going to live in one. Then there is U3A, which, where I live, is largely a social-cultural movement, very valuable, but not really friendly to “religious” discussion.

Brian, I agree, the church for all its failings, has given us ways of viewing life, a set of guidelines, principles, ways of being in touch with ourselves, one another and what some call “the numinous”, which we don’t want to see disappear, even if we must accept their re-interpretation. I think the most promising avenues for the future come from a few concentrated “think-tanks” such as the one started by Ilia Delio. In the meantime, it is good that those of us in Catholica share our stories. Stories are crucial.

JohnE 30.01.2020 at 10.20 am

To the group

I’d like to suggest the following as the objectives of the Online Catholica Community. Brian has outlined his objectives which I hold to be true of participation in any community one holds dear and values. Church life is such a community. Seeking reform is just another way of saying that our understanding of the world we inhabit, both in its physical and multiple non-physical, societal dimensions, is ever changing and we must constantly examine whether we need to adapt some of our more comfortable, traditional ways in light of it. As the saying goes: we need to change just to remain the same. Philosophically the notion of personal identity is perplexing simply because there is not a single cell of our body that is not renewed every seven years (except they tell me our neurons in the brain). And while our bodies, our thinking and knowledge change multiple times over our lifetime we still see ourselves as essentially the same. And I think that is true of the church community. It’s not that we seek radical reform, it’s just that reform is part of life. If we stop refreshing the way we think and view the world, then we may as well give up thinking altogether.

At the start of this dialogue, Tony asked we like most and least about Catholica, with a view presumably towards setting out why we would, and should, continue with the Catholica initiative. In doing so, we would set out the objectives of such an online community.

I’d like to set out the following as the Objectives of the Catholica Online Community which I believe are consistent with what I have seen and heard from this discussion group and from what I have seen and read online in Catholica over the years:

Objectives of the Catholica Online Community

The Catholica online community seeks to:

* continue to be Australia's premier Catholic website (Alexa Ranking: nnnnn)

* explore what it means to be Church in the twenty-first century

* unfold the many levels of meaning of an ancient text in a modern world

* explore new models of church consistent with an ancient text

* identify modern prophetic voices nationally and internationally

* examine the best of Catholic writing and reporting today

* provide opportunities for Catholic writers young and old

* listen to Catholic voices in a national and global context

* explore Catholic culture past and present

* explore the multiple dimensions of Catholic identity today

* explore new ways of participating in Church life today

* be a living archive recording Catholic voices of yesterday, today and tomorrow

* explore the tensions inherent in leadership in a modern world

* map a path for being Church in a modern democratic and egalitarian society

* map a path towards a more independent and inclusive national church within a transnational context

* seek to elevate individual rights in a medieval, hierarchical and patriarchal structure

* give effect to St. Augustine's text: Ecclesia semper reformanda est.

While Brian contends that his model is embedded within the Newman Society once found within university life, I would contend that it has now burst the bounds of university walls and such discussions now take place across an internet connected world. And I’d contend that Catholica is such a place and that Newman would be quite comfortable posting to it, alongside the many other voices who do so.

Francis30.01.2020 at 1.05 pm

To the group

Brian, I believe there can be no advance in reforming the Church as it is. Without a full awareness of the spirituality present in Jesus' life and death. In a possible new version of Catholica Spirituality must have a valued part where we all can learn how the idea of communities with the Community can be organised helping any spiritual or mystical person can find a home. I would like to see a definitive and reliable use of Hebrew and Aramaic study showing a better English translation of the Bible especially the New Testament . Greek translations seem to have been a corrupting (especially as duality thinking began under the Greek Culture) as the culture the translations made from was/is(?) was not dualistic and less mathematical.

Francis 30.01.2020 at 1.23 pm

To the Group

Thank you, Janet. you talk a lot of sense. I felt along with you and hope for something waking us to the reality of being "Son of God" in a world f..... in a mess similar to the one Jesus tried to show his people how to survive.

Brian 30.01.2020 at 1.32 pm

To the group

Thank you Tony, John and Janet for your responses. I am broadly pleased, even quietly proud, of what we created at catholica. And I don’t see it as my creation alone. I believe it reflects an organic growth over a long period of years from a diversity of individuals. (In some senses catholica really started way back in about 2001 or 2002 when I first got involved with CathNews.) I have no difficulties whatsoever of the set of objectives you wrote, John (...). Even though I have mentioned graduate societies as providing something of a model for what I had in mind, my own experience of such groups is that they were not full of eggheads and over-the-top academic discussions that flew in the stratosphere above the heads of ordinary people. There was a lot of frivolity and lightness of touch in the conversations that took place in such places. I do believe we achieved something close to the ideal in catholica.

In response to Janet’s observations: two of my on-going disappointments as editor and publisher have been in encouraging greater participation of young people and of women. Both experiences/disappointments though have been hugely instructive. The challenges in trying to encourage youthful participation has led to my optimism that it will be a generation not yet born, or even thought of, who will be writing a completely new theological or spiritual script. (I think we’re seeing the signs of that emerging already in the Greta Thunberg phenomenon in society. Who could have predicted that even 5 or 10 years ago?) I’m noticing our/my failure on the female participation front as I seek to randomly choose commentaries from our archives to place at the top of our home page. The vast majority of our formal commentaries have been published by blokes – and despite earnest pleas from me at times trying to encourage much greater input from women. The conclusion I have come to is that blokes and gals communicate in fundamentally different ways – and neither was, or is, superior to the other. They are simply “different”. Any society needs a mix of both styles of communication to advance forward in a positive direction. Us blokes tend to be argumentative and competitive while women, in their very nature, seem to be far more conciliatory and more focused on building relationships and a sense of community. I feel I haven’t really solved, or gotten on top of those challenges. At another level though I believe one of the “successes” of the catholica community has been in the encouragement of story-telling, and sharing personal experiences that offer wider lessons. Janet, Judith, Cathy and many other women down through the years have excelled at this but there have also been some blokes as well: Enda, Bruce and Ari in particular – and virtually all of what Journeyman brings to our attention. I sense any successful, sustainable community does need a combination of both styles of communication even if the individual members might gravitate towards one or other of the styles as their personal preference.

Where I think we have most fallen down is allowing the membership to become too wide in light of the focus of what we were trying to achieve. Some have ended up treating it more as some kind of social media site and they use the site principally for a form of “venting” – letting off steam and their own frustrations with life. These are the contributors who have generated the most email complaints to me basically suggesting “why don’t you expel these people because they’re the ones driving away the audience that you need to attract”. In some ways I am far too soft as an editor. Over the 13 years of the website I have only withdrawn the posting privileges of three people in total because I believed they were injurious to the health of the community and the entire endeavour. All of them, I am sure, could also be categorised in the box of individuals “who know not what they do” – who had no understanding whatsoever of why their presence might be injurious to others, or to the entire community.

[...]

I've mentioned before that back in my days administering the CathNews discussion board, I learned how a single individual could completely wreck an entire community within the space of a few hours. That is what led in the end to most serious papers shutting down their discussion channels – such as CathNews itself (notice the Bishops have not attempted to resurrect their discussion board since they’ve taken over CathNews*) and even National Catholic Reporter. It is simply too expensive, and often too painful for the individuals tasked with the job of moderating, to deal with this minority of individuals in any community who have no comprehension of “what they do” – what damage they are capable of inflicting.

I submit this is the problem you are going to face if you decide to establish some new community. The person in the world who loves the yobbos and venters is Rupert Murdoch. They provide the equivalent of the local cock fights that you find in every village of the third world. This is the form of “entertainment and distraction” that the Romans knew to provide in their stadia in every city of the ancient world they conquered. This is what “draws audiences” even today to commercial and tabloid newspapers and commercial and pay television. It can make people exceedingly wealthy – as it has done the Murdochs, elevated them all into one of the wealthiest families in the entire world. It is interesting that in recent weeks the anger against the Murdoch’s is rising [...] I bet the Murdoch’s themselves (except perhaps James and his wife) love it all because it’s only anger from the “latte-sipping lefties” and they appreciate it is not damaging the audiences attracted to their television stations and newspapers. The same goes for all these “populist politicians” around the world who have been studying the “Murdoch Bible of Successful Communications”. This is why Trump, despite his abysmal personal opinion ratings, and despite being in serious danger of being impeached at present, stands a good chance of being re-elected to a second term as President later this year. It’s like the ways in which the German and Japanese people voted for the leaders who took them into the annihilation, humiliation and devastation of the Second World War all over again. No wonder Jesus on the cross cried out “they know not what they do”!

For most of my life I believed in “the great merits of democracies” – where the decisions are made by all the citizens whatever the colour of their skin, their gender, or their age. Increasingly I see it all as a huge myth. John Henry Newman has been a large influence on my outlook even though I also recognise that my reading of him is possibly very idiosyncratic and out of line with the mainstream interpretations of Newman. (Most Newman Societies in the world still operating are pretty extreme right wing/traditionalist and they do not interpret Newman in any of the subtle ways I read him.) I believe Newman could see through all the smoke and mirrors, and myths, about the value in the “intelligence” of the vast masses; the common people. Yes, he saw that ultimately they determine in which direction a community or society would travel. But it was not through some “innate intelligence” of the common people. It was because of their intuitions about which leaders, or small elites, they should be following at a particular period in time. Sometime the common people elected to choose leaders, or small elites, who would literally lead them all into hell. At other times though, and I sense Newman also understood that there was a small bias, that for most of time the common people did choose leaders and small elites who would lead them in a positive direction – towards some kind of equivalent to heaven.

It has been these sort of factors which have largely shaped my view of what I have been trying to do at catholica. I am aware of my own imperfections. And I also appreciate what my vision is, and has been, isn’t for everyone. I do think now might be a good time to be undertaking this re-evaluation.

Footnote * : The bishops do provide a Facebook page but it does not encourage serious discussion, meditation or reflection apart from the Filipino ladies who post “Amen” to the particularly sentimental stories that appear in the news. It doesn’t require any moderation because the people who use it – i.e. the “Filipino ladies”scare away everybody who is likely to post anything challenging, or intelligent. Bishops are not as stupid as they sometimes look to be!

JohnE 03.01.2020 at 3.58 pm

To the group

Thanks Tony. I think this pretty well sums up the various options of small independent discussion groups whether via email, mailing lists, blog sites or other means. As you say, their advantage is the ease of setting and maintaining and by-and-large they are monothematic and simpler for their membership to maintain a common thread of discussion.

Their major drawback, as you suggest, is their possible invisibility across the web at large. However, for many this may not be a disadvantage and may in fact lead to richer, more in-depth conversations.

Judith 30.01.2020 at 5.22 pm

To the group

I can agree with the objectives John E has set forth and, although I never actually attended University, being a correspondence student who got her degree by mail and so missed the interaction with others, I agree that the level of discussion has to be more than the "this is what is wrong and this is how to fix it" language. As has been said, we are entering into a time for which we have no blue prints either for thought or action, so, in a way, we are walking in faith in the darkness, hoping that something of value will last and new growth will come, though we do not know from what source.

JohnE 31.01.2020 at 9.32 am

To the group

I thought I might proffer a small-scale alternative for some of the forums that are popular on Catholica.

A good starting point would be to look at the Sunday Reflection forum. The idea would be to set up, independently of the Catholica website, a Sunday Reflections blog site. This would be a small scale site clearly focused on a popular Catholica forum.

I think Tony you are already familiar with this type of architecture so that setting up this type of site would not present an immense technical challenge. Keeping in mind I am only presenting a model here and not developing a work order for you to undertake.

The blog site would not only present a reflection on the Sunday readings but would also allow readers to post a (moderated) comment on those readings. This is similar to what already takes place on the Sunday Reflections forum on Catholica.

The web address would be something like: SundayReflections.mycatholica.net

The idea would be to take the multiple forums as they exist on Catholica and replace them with individual blogs for each forum. Each forum/blog would have the following related URL:

Forum1.mycatholica.net

Forum2.mycatholica.net

Etc.

Hence one registers a single domain name (e.g. mycatholica.net) and then creates multiple independent forums that hang off that domain names as sub-domains.

One could then have a webpage: forums.mycatholica.net which would have link to each of the separate forums/blogs.

Brian 31.01.2020 at 1.47 pm

To the group

John, with respect, I think the most fundamental question each one of us has to ask is the one you and I have identified recently: what are we, or am I, trying to achieve?

Not too many years ago the extra-curricula reflection material the vast majority of Catholics had access to apart from attendance at Sunday Mass, and the local parish bulletin, was the diocesan newspaper. Today there has been a stellar explosion in the number of websites, blogs, facebook, Instagram, youtube, whatsapp and similar pages where individuals are talking about their beliefs, and their religiously-aligned activities. They range from highly credentialed journalists, and even archbishops and cardinals, down to earnest individuals offering perpetual online rosary and prayer circles.

I’ve just been doing a search online of the proliferation of such websites. It’s been triggered because Professor Len Swidler’s Yahoo-based “Katholica” email group has recently run into technical difficulties because Yahoo made some changes to how it all operates and, accidentally some of the key participants in that discussion got “locked out”. Literally at this moment some of the members of that list are setting up a new group via “Google Groups” and they are in the process of calling it – wait for it – “Catholica Today”. I find this hugely ironic in that when I set up catholica I literally pinched Len’s name and just changed the k to a c. And here we are 13 years later with catholica effectively shut down for a few weeks and they’re doing the reverse. Katholica has been a pretty “high-level academic” group of theologians, professors and such like but generally progressive with a small sprinkling of conservatives. The list is probably about 200 total but, as I’ve observed before, there are only a small handful who are active and posting regularly. They tell me the new group has been established but doesn’t yet have any posts. When I did a Google search it leads to our catholica rather than this brand new Catholica Today email group. Out of curiosity that led me to doing a wider search of other people with sites containing catholic or Catholic in the name.

I’m already subscribed to a large number of facebook groups and blogs. Some of them like the likes of Massimo Faggioli and other important journalists I’ve deliberated subscribed to. But as an editor myself literally hundreds of other target me trying to get me to subscribe to their pages. My computer and phone “pings” constantly through the day with messages coming in.

What I am suggesting is that nobody needs to set up yet another forum, or blog or facebook page. Just do a simple search and you’re sure to find something that suits your tastes – and ambitions about what you are trying to achieve. It is true that we have about 21 separate forums within our single catholica forum. But even understanding how 21 can also be 1 is about as technically mysterious to some people as how the 3 persons of the Trinity can also be 1. Only about 3 of the 21 separate forums on catholica are regularly used: the main forum, the members’ forum, and the YNOT Sunday Reflection forum. Few posters even bother to post to a particular forum and most posting takes place on the main forum.

One thing I’ve noticed in my little bit of research in the last few hours is that many of these blogs and facebook pages appear to have a short life. Even bloggers who used to be regularly mentioned on our forum even a year or two ago are now silent. Have the individuals died – or have they just become tired of the effort? Some of them were quite young – for example “Questions from a Ewe” – so I suspect that it is not actual death that kills them off. It’s more waning enthusiasm and a sense of frustration that it’s simply “no longer worth the effort”.

As I suggested above, and you have suggested: I think everyone needs to ask themselves the question of what they are seeking to achieve via their participation in some online group? Are they trying to “change the world”; “evangelise the world”; “bring the ‘good news’ to all people – or even just a small group of people”; or are they merely looking for something to while away a few hours?

I’m sure Helen and Marian might share more of their experiences in establishing the online Cyber Christian Community in WA – which has been successful compared to many other efforts that I am aware of. Our catholica web initiative was not the only one that evolved out of the old CathNews discussion board. It is though one of the very few that survived.

JohnE 03.02.2020 at 3.09 pm

With Sample Text of Catholica Constitution

To the group

I’d just like to take the opportunity to embed the seventeen objectives I set out previously for Catholica within the model constitution for a registered association from NSW Fair Trading.

The advantage of such a constitution is that it highlights for members what the objectives of the association are and hence what postings to the Catholica website need to adhere to. Postings that do not further the objectives of the association would be removed and the author asked to resubmit a compliant posting.

Also, such a formal constitution articulates for members what the aims of the association are and hence what they can and can’t do under the aegis of that constitution.

In addition, it sets up a structure whereby specific functions can be allocated to various sub-committees, e.g. an editorial sub-committee, a membership sub-committee, a website maintenance sub-committee, etc. These sub-committees may be as few as one person or as many as needed.

Finally, the aims of the association can be amended at any time as the need arises.

Janet 05.02.2020 at 3.23 pm

To the group

I don't know about you all, especially those who have been quiet, but I have been thinking about the proposals for Catholica, and sliding back and forth.

At first glance, John's list of objectives look good, then I start to wonder if they hem us in or allow us to open up with clear guidelines to help that. I wonder where Catholic social justice fits in, whether personal stories will fade out, whether we will stay within RC church boundaries or venture into multi-denominational, multi-faith arenas? That's the sort of thing I've been considering. I'm wondering whether others have similar or different questions, or whether it all just feels too hard to talk about, or other matters are more pressing?

I found an article on Omnicide on the abc Religion and Ethics page. I found it excellent and very challenging. It does not mention Cardinal Pell, or the Pope, or Jeshua, none of the names that usually attract big readership in Catholica, but it is about life and death of everything! What could be more relevant for all of us? https://www.abc.net.au/religion/danielle-celermajer-omnicide-gravest-of-all-crimes/11838534

Had Catholica been open I'd have posted it. I reckon the first response would have been from Roy, who is alert to such matters. I always appreciate his intelligent attention to such issues. Then several others might have said something. Then Roy would have posted a youtube of some rock band from the past that I have never heard of, and that would be the end of it. I was wondering how we could encourage deep discussion of such matters, with actual practical repercussions for our daily lives and for political activitism. . ."

Just wondering how everyone is going and what you are all thinking

John N Collins (Herbie) 05.02.2020 at 5.36 pm

To the group

Just to record that I could read and write in the context proposed by JohnE - adding that I am not worldly-wise in such matters. But there seem to be plenty of escape routes… And sincere thanks to John for giving such careful attention to the situation. - herbie

Judith 05.02.2020 at 8.36 pm

To the group

I am still thinking about the proposals but find them interesting and probably the best we can do, at least in the short term. I don't mind writing but haven't the access to the wider world materials that some of you are blessed with, but I don't mind writing Reflections on the Sunday Gospels and will add my two cents worth when I feel I have something to say.

Brian 06.02.2020 at 11.24 pm

To the group

Dear all, I’ve been under pressure today which I hadn’t expected and haven’t had time to devote to these matters and opening the forum. I will get Tony to post his message to this email list as some of what he writes may become important and valuable down the track.

I’m intending to re-open the forum mainly because there is a fair bit of news about in the wider world that I am sure many in the catholica community would like to discuss. My problem is that I may not have large amounts of time, at various times, to be monitoring the forum. My long term objective is to reopen catholica according to the original objective – which is generating a serious discussion about spirituality and the future of religion, all largely within a context of what I label as “Catholic Thought”. “Catholic Thought” not so much in the culture of pious practices and the sort of fairly childish superstition and spirituality most of us were brought up in, but in the sense of the original meaning of the word “catholic” as something universal, and as a some kind of quest to seek ultimate truth or belief. Other ways of thinking about this were seeking to explore that the original founder, Jesus-Yeshua, was on about (as opposed to all the Roman and Institutional power plays seemed to divert it); or seeking to recapture that sense of renewal offered by the Second Vatican Council. This website was not principally perceived as some kind of social media exchange where people “let off steam” or “vent their frustrations”, or are just looking for companionship or bolstering of their own beliefs. What we were seeking to establish was a more serious discussion exploring why the institution is in decline; what were its original objectives and driving ethos; why a lot of that appears to have been lost; and what might be done about all that. As I’ve often stated the social media function is also important but, under the original objective of this site, I envisaged it being “kept in check” and subordinate to, and supportive of, the prime objective; or seeking to return to the original Aggiornamento discerned by the forward-looking episcopal leaders at the Second Vatican Council [Wikipedia]. Sadly the discussion ended up getting subsumed a lot of the time under a sort of social media culture and the number of visitors, and the number of participants slowly declined.

Part of the motivation for this is that communication is an expensive business. Originally I had hoped to employ, or pay, a large number of writers who were capable of attracting a large readership. I know from the start it would be difficult to raise the necessary funds within Australia. We simply do not have a large enough population, or a strong culture or ethos of philanthropy that supports this sort of work. That’s the reason why I sought to position this as a “global conversation”. I haven’t lost that original vision for this website – and the contribution that we might collectively make to the well-being of the wider society in which we operate. Yes, I appreciate they are “lofty ambitions” – and they might not be even understood by a lot of people who are merely looking for some kind of “pleasant conversation with a group of like-minded people”.

Eventually I had hoped that we could establish, or find some kind of structure – much along the lines of the objectives that John Edwards has outlined in this discussion in recent days. I was seeking a foundation, or legal structure, that would be strong enough, and financial enough, to sustain that vision. Over the decades I’ve been involved in a lot of community, political, parochial, not for profit, and lay apostolate endeavours, often at a leadership level. My constant experience, particularly in recent decades, has been the difficulties in sustaining them. That is the constant challenge I have faced in trying to build a sustainable base for this community and this website. Part of the problem, as I view it, is that collectively we have endeavoured to welcome people who have been victims and survivors of this massive blight that has virtually wrecked the institution; sexual abuse and its cover-up. My vision was in trying to establish in the Southern Hemisphere something similar to National Catholic Reporter or The Tablet and the services and work they do in the Northern Hemisphere. The challenge, as I see it, is in attracting the sort of people – particularly quality writers and thinkers but readers as well – who were sympathetic too and supportive of such a vision. We were seeking a large readership, partly to sustain the endeavour financially, but as much seeking a large readership and audience who might be an effective force in society in either “reclaiming the Vatican II vision, or the original vision upon which this institution was based”.

Unfortunately I don’t have time tonight to compose the rest of what I wanted to write, both for this small email discussion, as well as what I believe needs to be published on the forum before I reopen the forum. That will now have to wait until Saturday as I will be away and otherwise engaged all day on Friday.

I do appreciate this might not be everyone’s vision or “cup of tea” but I believe it only fair that I share with you what the original vision for catholica was, and what I continue to see is the worthy objective I am proposing we collectively pursue. I also do appreciate that there is a place for small groups, and social media-type discussion in society. One of the things I’ve long thought of, and tried to do, is to try and combine the two sorts of objectives under the one web address – for example by sponsoring two distinct forums: one reserved for the higher-level, serious discussion of spirituality (within that broad “catholic” understanding I’ve tried to outline above), and a separate more social media-type discussion and interaction. This I was even trying to find ways to implement way back in the days of the CathNews Discussion board with I administered. I’ve never found a way to do it successfully, but I’ve not yet given up entirely. I knew from the outset the enormous obstacles we would face in trying to establish in the Southern Hemisphere something that emulated the success of The Tablet and National Catholic Reporter in the Northern Hemisphere. (The Tablet was launched in 1840 by a Quaker convert to Catholicism, Frederick Lucas, 10 years before the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales. It is the second-oldest surviving weekly journal in Britain. You can read more about the history of The Tablet on Wikipedia at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tablet . National Catholic Reporter is a much younger endeavour. It was established in 1964 and you can read more of its history at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Catholic_Reporter . Both of these publications operate under various forms of charitable foundations. Eureka Street and America magazines are also useful models though they are each funded by the Jesuits and religious orders have an even longer history behind them of seeking the funding for their endeavours. The Tablet and NCR continue to be largely lay-lead and lay-driven communication endeavours.)

I am sorry this is abbreviated compared to what I had originally hoped to write. (The hardest part to write is what I am proposing to do might, or will exclude a small number of contributors to our endeavour [who have the effect of driving readers away rather than attracting more readers]. I want to try and achieve this without causing distress to anyone – themselves, or those in the wider community who might be upset that we have to exercise control of this nature.)

I welcome feedback and even critical discussion about what I have written in this message but also be aware I will probably not to be able read any of it until late tomorrow night or Saturday.

Cheers, Brian

Tony 07.02.2020 at 7.05 am

To the group

This was going to be a directions statement for the final phase of our work. On Tuesday Brian asked me to hold it over until he had written, setting out his intentions. Since he has mentioned this in his email of last night it is necessary to post it now. It is not clear it has any practical usefulness but, as he says, 'some of it may be important down the track'. Today we can reflect on what Brian has written, and we may want to share our thoughts. On Saturday we can take up the dialogue with him and sort out any matters that need clarifying.

Winding up

Dear Friends,

We're half way through and entering the wind-up phase. John and I have been in touch with Brian by phone, keeping abreast of his situation and trying to get the feel of how it will work out for Catholica in the end.

We have covered a lot of ground in our investigations, from the original idea of a disciplined conversation around serious topics that grew into a free and easy exchange with the atmosphere of a village square, through the problems that bedevil this transition, its values and limitations, to the demanding load carried by the editor, and finally the prospects for giving him some assistance, or taking over in the case he should retire from the role, and consideration of the options for members in the case of Catholica folding altogether.

Small Group Forums

For this last we have looked at forums run by small groups with a particular focus. John has given us a list of the objectives we currently pursue, and they are many. We might add a mention of spiritual development and related matters. It seems that small group forums are not difficult to set up or to manage, but they will rarely reach large numbers or embrace the genial mix of characters that is an outstanding feature of Catholica.

I believe that, of all the values that we find in Catholica, this diversity is the best. Catholica represents only a tiny segment of humanity but within you will find every colour and shape of human reality and all the tensions that evolution relies on for its progress. Keeping up with Catholica is very demanding. All the challenges of 'evangelisation' are right there in our midst, as is the kingdom of God in the flesh.

John has also shown us how Catholica could be set up as a Not-For-Profit association with a constitution based on the standard model. This would require special commitment from a number of individuals, and that may not be forthcoming. In addition to the very important benefits to the ordinary running of the forum that John has listed, it would also provide the protection of limited liability.

Editorial Board

Editorial supervision is a huge job. Brian has explained that he simply does not have time to do it all. We have examined the possibility of members assisting in this work.

An editorial board would allow the work to be shared. The forum would be more orderly with monitoring not only for inappropriate posts but in trimming discussion threads by separating passing comments and observations from more substantial contributions.

To have a team working together can help the editor in chief in his role of guiding and directing the forum. Editors working alone can fall into the trap of giving too much priority to their own views and observations, returning to their favourite themes, promoting areas that interest them while allowing other concerns to slip past. There is a danger that the publication might end up being seen as a platform for the views of one person in spite of the original intention being exactly the opposite.

In daily dialogue a team allows an editor to work through ideas and keep in touch with the trends. Two (or three) heads are better than one. The load is halved by being shared, especially the load of policy direction and overall responsibility. To the degree that all the members of the editorial team work together in harmony they will gain in strength of purpose and their leadership will be felt throughout the forum.

It seems a pity to close down Catholica before something like this has been tried. I think our experience so far shows that 'remote' editorial assistance is possible. It can work, but it depends on whether there are some people ready to volunteer their time and energy to it. And we need to keep in mind that this would only help Brian to improve the forum; it does not solve the issue of finance, nor is it a total solution to problems of fatigue and general discouragement.

Winding up

Schematically the situation we are faced with looks like this:

A. Brian's prospect for new position comes good; resigns from editor role.

Members

either (i) set up management and editorial board and run Catholica as a cooperative

or (ii) disperse, upon closure of forum; some form small group forums.

B. Brian's new prospect falls over; he continues as publisher and editor

either (i) alone – no major change to present system

or (ii) with help of editorial board of member volunteers.

Comments:

A (i) Volunteers are needed. No meaningful discussion can occur until these are recruited.

        At least three are needed; minimum time commitment may be investigated in advance.

        Operational details can be worked out later by the group with advice.

A(ii) This follows closure of Catholica Forum, but needs to be prepared for in advance.

        Those founding small group forums advertise on the forum to inform members.

        Members interested provide names to common mailing list, or remove them if they prefer.

        This discussion group provides basic information and sample of process.

B (ii) Requires volunteers: see comment A(i) above.

Conclusion

There will be no certainty before Brian has his definitive answer on this new project, but when this comes events may unfold very quickly. I think our next job is to prepare some strategies and procedures. There'll be more to come about this. In the meantime I would appreciate everyone working through all the above and if there is something you disagree with or something that has been overlooked, let us know.

Thank you again,

Tony

John 07.02.20 at 12.40 pm

To the group

Thanks Tony for a delightfully concise outline of all the options discussed so far.

One of the possible problems of the small groups option is the diaspora effect – the dispersal of a significant catholic readership into multiple isolated communities. While some ideas have been canvassed to mitigate this effect, an idea I had been working on last year in a parish context was a ParishPostBox where parishioners registered their email address online into a secure database which provided a search facility so that other parishioners could find fellow parishioners with similar interests, however defined. One of the less well-known benefits of catholica has been the ‘catholica post box’ facility. That is the ability to email other members of catholica, to make contact and to discuss offline issues that may have arisen online or just simply just to send a note to that person. Currently, catholica members have the ability to log in and to set up their profile and have an option to provide an email contact address. With a dispersed community, it would be great to have a similar post-box facility if only perhaps to advertise the forums people contributed to or to search for existing forums. Perhaps an idea for further exploration at another time.

John 07.022.20 at 11.07

To the group

Thanks Brian for this email. While I’ll no doubt be in strife or “charged” with misrepresentation ?, I’ve pulled out the following very instructive objectives of catholica from what Brian has written below. I trust Brian will forgive my incomplete summary:

[Incomplete summary of…] Objectives of Catholica

[Catholic Thought and Spirituality]

…the original objective of catholica – generating a serious discussion about spirituality and the future of religion, all largely within a context of what I label as “Catholic Thought”… in the sense of the original meaning of the word “catholic” as something universal, and as a some kind of quest to seek ultimate truth or belief.

… to explore what the original founder, Jesus-Yeshua, was on about (as opposed to all the Roman and Institutional power plays seemed to divert it);

[Quality Online Media]

…to establish in the Southern Hemisphere …[an antipodean] National Catholic Reporter or The Tablet

… to establish a more serious discussion exploring why the institution is in decline; what were its original objectives and driving ethos; why a lot of that appears to have been lost; and what might be done about all that.

…attract …a large number of writers … capable of attracting a large readership.

…to position [catholica] … as a “global conversation”

…there is a fair bit of news about in the wider world that I am sure many in the catholica community would like to discuss.

[Vatican II]

…seek to recapture that sense of renewal offered by the Second Vatican Council.

…to seek a large readership …[as] an effective force in society in either “reclaiming the Vatican II vision, or the original vision upon which this institution was based”.

…the social media function, while important is … subordinate to, and supportive of, the prime objective - seeking to return to the original Aggiornamento discerned by the forward-looking episcopal leaders at the Second Vatican Council

[A Sustainable Structure]

…to seek a foundation, or legal structure… strong enough, and financial enough, to sustain [the above] vision [and] …to build a sustainable base for this community and [the catholica] website [and] …[to obviate the] large amounts of time… monitoring the forum

…To sponsor two distinct forums: one reserved for the higher-level, serious discussion of spirituality (within that broad “catholic” understanding I’ve tried to outline above), and a separate more social media-type discussion and interaction.

++++

Most websites today have an About tab on the main menu allowing the reader/visitor to gain a succinct summary of the purpose of the website and deriving from that an implied or clearly stated conditions for posting to the website. Many sites are moderated so that only a selection of posts get through. Catholica on the other hand has been very successful over the years in not being a moderated site, but at a cost - one more beneficial than not. Hopefully these current discussions will help regain the original motivations and very marked success that catholica has achieved over the years.

Tony 07.02.20 at 1.21 pm

To the group

Thank you, John, for picking out these objectives. I find they describe an enterprise, its goal in general terms and various preferred means towards that end. To get the picture I need to sort them out because they seem to be jumbled - which is to be expected given that they are found variously in a longish text. Like you I hope I will be forgiven if this arrangement warps the idea in Brian's mind. It is by no means definitive.

Objectives of catholica arranged in logical order. [The numerals in (...) represent the order of items in John's original list.]

(1)...the original objective of catholica – generating a serious discussion about spirituality and the future of religion, all largely within a context of what I label as “Catholic Thought”… in the sense of the original meaning of the word “catholic” as something universal, and as a some kind of quest to seek ultimate truth or belief.
(2)… to explore what the original founder, Jesus-Yeshua, was on about (as opposed to all the Roman and Institutional power plays seemed to divert it);
(4)… to establish a more serious discussion exploring why the institution is in decline; what were its original objectives and driving ethos; why a lot of that appears to have been lost; and what might be done about all that.
(8)…seek to recapture that sense of renewal offered by the Second Vatican Council.
(9)…to seek a large readership …[as] an effective force in society in either “reclaiming the Vatican II vision, or the original vision upon which this institution was based”.
(5)…attract …a large number of writers … capable of attracting a large readership.
(6)…to position [catholica] … as a “global conversation”
(3)…to establish in the Southern Hemisphere …[an antipodean] NCR or Tablet
(7)…there is a fair bit of news about in the wider world that I am sure many in the catholica community would like to discuss.
(12)…To sponsor two distinct forums: one reserved for the higher-level, serious discussion of spirituality (within that broad “catholic” understanding I’ve tried to outline above), and a separate more social media-type discussion and interaction.
(10)…the social media function, while important is … subordinate to, and supportive of, the prime objective - seeking to return to the original Aggiornamento discerned by the forward-looking episcopal leaders at the Second Vatican Council
(11)…to seek a foundation, or legal structure… strong enough, and financial enough, to sustain [the above] vision [and] …to build a sustainable base for this community and [the catholica] website [and] …[to obviate the] large amounts of time… monitoring the forum

Brian 07.02.20 at 1.12 pm

Editorial Board & Forum Moderation

To the group

Firstly, thanks to Tony for posting your comments. Thanks also to you John for providing a summary of what I had written. I really wish to concentrate on one matter here – which has two distinct parts – which emerges out of your emails, and in fact this entire situation we have found ourselves in.

They are two issues that have been under consideration for some time. The first is the need or desirability of an Editorial Committee or Board. The second is the need for Moderation and Administration of the Forum. There has been some confusion that the two roles are interchangeable. One of the values of the present shut-down, and discussion, has been in clarifying in my own mind, and that of some others, that they are two separate issues.

FORUM MODERATION: As I have explained FORUM MODERATION has been a hugely difficult issue for all serious publishers – except perhaps for our friend Rupert Murdoch who actually enjoys, encourages and profits from stirring up venting, societal division and over-the-top sentimentality. For publishers it is massively expensive employing staff around the clock to moderate forums, discussion boards, and feedback channels that are open 24 hours a day. It is also a job that very few, if any, people like to undertake – and even if they are paid. Quite often the people who need to be moderated, censored, edited or deleted are actually unaware of why their behaviour might be offensive, defamatory, or injurious to others, or the health of the particular community. Part of the success of catholica has been that I found a way to handle this aspect of our website by firstly making it difficult to register as a member with the privileges to post. It’s partly because it is a laborious process of “checking applicants out” and the fact that each day we are flooded with applications that are indisputably spammers or hackers. While it is fairly easy to spot them, and delete them, it is a very time-consuming job. I tend these days to only undertake it irregularly – and that is why it is also so difficult to be given the privileges to post. In the past I did try to employ someone on a small stipend to undertake this work but that didn’t last long. It is mind-numbingly boring and without any immediate rewards. There has been “reward” in it for myself, albeit long term, in that it makes the overall moderation task much easier. I have also seen it as valuable in terms of building the overall success of the website so it has been “worth my while” to invest the time trying to ensure that we do have a community that knows how to communicate both in civil ways, and ways that encourage good discussion and greater participation. The forum moderation task also tends to be far more closely aligned with the legal responsibility and ownership of the website, particularly as it relates to the matter of the threat of defamation actions. As I’ve explained in a previous message there are reasons why it is relatively easy for me to shoulder that responsibility – which is onerous.

AN EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OR BOARD: This is a separate function (albeit often confused even in professional publishing environments where editors are often called upon to also moderate forums or even letters-to-the-editor feedback loops). NCR, for example, after spending years trying to establish good self-moderated feedback forums, eventually had to abandon the effort because of the futility and expense they eventually realised would be involved. They have now reverted to a simpler, and traditional Letters-to-the-Editor style, where the editors of NCR read and decide which letters they receive will be published. (It’s also more expensive for incessant letter writers having to constantly buy postage stamps and take their letters to a post box. That hugely cuts down the work load that is placed on editors.) On catholica the idea of having an EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OR BOARD is something we have considered for a long time. More specifically TonyL approached me about a year ago seriously proposing such an initiative. This is for an altogether different purpose than trying to moderate any discussions. Tony’s concern at the time was that very often good discussions on catholica ‘die on the vine’ (for want of a better expression) simply because the overall discussion on our forum often moves so quickly that these “good discussions” disappear off the front page too quickly. He suggested that with serious discussions it can be often days, perhaps even weeks, while individuals mull on a subject before they feel ready to respond, comment or move the discussion forward. Now I think we appreciate that there are a lot of people who are not the slightest bit interested, or excited, by long or extended discussions. But some people are – and they happen to be the sort of people whom we’ve been particularly interested in attracting in light of the overall objectives of why this website and forum exists.

Tony’s suggestion was or is that an EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OR BOARD might serve a very useful purpose in meeting occasionally, perhaps once a week or a fortnight, and choosing some subject that might be the focus of these “more intense and lengthy conversations”. They might even, amongst themselves or by inviting or commissioning someone external to themselves to write the LEAD COMMENTARY that might open up discussion on the chosen topic. I will be proposing that we meet either via an email list similar to this, or the one Ynot operates for the Reflections or – harder task – I’m going to try and move some people to a more advanced technology such as a skype, facetime or zoom meeting where we communicate via sound and images. I’m investigating technical ways in which we would give such discussions prominence on the forum for an extended time but in a better way than the existing mechanism of simply nailing some strings to the top of the forum for a period of days.

I believe the EDITORIAL COMMITTEE OR BOARD remains an excellent idea and in the coming weeks I will write to a few individuals asking if they’d like to contribute to the overall good of this website in such a way. It will be a small group of perhaps half a dozen individuals. Tony’s experience as leader of the YNOT Reflections group shows us a way to go. The FORUM MODERATION remains much more problematic, in terms of finding anyone prepared to undertake the role, and on account of the legal liability or responsibility, so I’m prepared to continue undertaking that for the foreseeable future.

It's difficult technically, and sociologically, having two separate forums with individuals categorised as to which forum they are permitted to belong to, or comment in. What I have been thinking of for some time is setting up a catholica facebook page – in fact we already have one – and inviting some people to use that if they are inclined to want to share their stories, or comment on anything raised on catholica. An alternative to that might be to set-up a DISQUS Forum – we already have one of those at the bottom of our lead commentary pages but it would be more difficult technically to integrate that into the forum software that we use. I’m still thinking about this idea. As I mentioned in my last message this is the single most challenging question I’ve been mulling on over this period since I’ve had to shut down the forum: how do you tell individuals in a very nice, and non-hurtful or harmful way, that they misunderstand what catholica is all about, and how they might use it. Such an alternative forum would need to be self-moderating but I would be looking for one which deliberately also tends to encourage discussions to “die on the vine”. Facebook tends to do that.

Tony 08.02.2020 at 4.52 pm

To the group

This is a very compact treatment of these two key issues, Brian, and thank you. It would be nice to say 'That nails it', but I'm going to resist that temptation and again take a critical approach to what you write. We'll start at the bottom and work back.

I don't understand how Facebook could work other than for advertising Catholica very widely. So many of us have an aversion to Facebook that your efforts to set up a catholica page might be in vain. Disqus too, as far as I could see, only allows for very brief comments. Any decent conversation must allow for contributions of up to 1000 words, and sometimes people want to post a longish quote from an article or book. The point I'm making here is that this 'other' branch of Catholica is also a serious business. I am mildly offended by your designating it as Social Media. It may contain a lot of chit-chat and quick shots and mere gossip, but it is characterised by friends sharing their interests and their experience, whether stories from their past, current illustrations of life or quotes they've found worth sharing. You've always said Catholica is a conversation about life; the thing about our forum is that it is life in the real, with real people and real conversation. There is a place for the more serious or theoretical or 'academic' and I hope you can get that going, but whatever structure our sector has, it must to be seen as more than an exchange of quick greetings and short remarks.

Next item is the way an editorial board could meet. I will not be playing any major role so my preference is irrelevant, but I would certainly prefer the written form to phone or skype, not only because of hearing difficulties but also because if you go to the trouble of writing down what you're thinking it is more useful than an exchange over the phone where it may be less certain exactly what was meant and even what was said. Writing like this is hard work for sure, but I think it is the more economical timewise. Of course it would be very good to meet together and/or talk on skype occasionally. It might even be necessary, but it would not be my preferred way when email is so quick and direct.

Coming next to the Moderator. That's a nice title, but in fact the job is to monitor what's being posted – and nobody enjoys being a watchdog. All I want to suggest is that perhaps this role could work effectively if one or two members of the editorial board took on a commitment to keep an eye out for problems. They would then send an alert to you, with perhaps a comment on what they see as the problem with a particular post. This would relieve you of the need to be always on the lookout. With time it may happen that the assistant monitors would be able to deal directly with the 'offender', but it's fair enough that at present you should look after that.

This brings us to the role of the Editorial Board. You describe it in terms of helping to guide discussions, keeping them on track, proposing topics and even writing lead articles. As I wrote in my email posted yesterday, I think an important need would be met if the team acted as a sounding board for editorial policy and direction.

“To have a team working together can help the editor in chief in his role of guiding and directing the forum. Editors working alone can fall into the trap of giving too much priority to their own views and observations, returning to their favourite themes, promoting areas that interest them while allowing other concerns to slip past. There is a danger that the publication might end up being seen as a platform for the views of one person in spite of the original intention being exactly the opposite.

“In daily dialogue a team allows an editor to work through ideas and keep in touch with the trends. Two (or three) heads are better than one. The load is halved by being shared, especially the load of policy direction and overall responsibility. To the degree that all the members of the editorial team work together in harmony they will gain in strength of purpose and their leadership will be felt throughout the forum.”

I'm not sure that you see the point here. Realistically I think it is not wise for anyone to act alone as editor of what is in any sense a public forum. As the forum maintains a certain healthy balance by virtue of contributions from all sides, so an editor needs to have people who can help him maintain his balance by sharing their contrasting points of view. I think you try for this by your posts on the forum, sometimes in the members forum, inviting responses and feedback, but somehow what we give back is not much. The exchange is too exposed, and therefore remains at a general level. Very occasionally does someone make reference to something they feel needs your attention, and then you do take note and the difference is visible. Overall there is a heavy editorial bias to the forum, and that troubles me.

Clearly there are people looking for Catholica to be back on stream because they like the lively conversation. What you are proposing in these emails is the easiest way forward, and the most secure. Any other involves much work and the uncertainty that goes with forging new domains. It might be possible to take up where we left off, with the prospect of various changes to make a good place even better.

But that leaves the major issue still to be faced. I am still not convinced that you can continue to do this. A 24/7 commitment wears you down, even without it being a battle against opposing forces in the face of a growing sense of futility. If it did get to be too much, who would call 'Time, gentlemen. Time'? It's a worry.

Take it easy, brother.

Tony

Brian 08.02.2020 at 7.39 pm

To the group

Thanks, Tony. I’ve just posted a message on the forum – largely culled from previous messages here – to telegraph that I’ll be posting some new rules and re-opening the forum early tomorrow morning: https://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=231098 .

Re Facebook: I suspect you have little appreciation of the multiplicity of ways in which Facebook is used. I think you also misunderstand my derogatory use of the term “social media”. It is a term NOT aimed at yourself and your style of writing and communication – or anybody capable of writing a post longer than three paragraphs or sentences!

I take your point about the suggestion for video meetings for Editorial Meetings. I in fact agree with you about the superiority of written communications – but I suspect both yourself and myself are a bit weird in that regard. Your suggestion though that these video or phone meetings might be occasional I’ll take that on board. That will be a better way of handling it. I’m finding that a lot of seniors really get confused with these new technologies – stuff than even small kids just take to intuitively can cause a near mental breakdown with seniors. I’ve been observing it at the collapse of the katholica email group in recent days and the attempt to try and move it from a yahoo platform to google groups. It is now back at yahoo because some simply could not handle the simple things that needed to be done to set up new accounts on the new platform. These are otherwise eminent professors and doctors we’re talking about here with the very highest academic qualifications. They’re often dumber than 4 or 5 year olds when it comes to using computers and all these new technologies.

Re Moderation: what you propose already happens. I get plenty of “advice” via email from readers of what, and who, should be allowed to be posting on the forum. I don’t believe we need to set up anything more formal than that.

Re the Editorial Board: some of what you write might well apply when we have the correct legal structure in place which “owns” and takes legal responsibility for the website. I’ve seen too many “committee designed or run” things in my life collapse within a short space of time. None of us can ever expect 100% agreement with our individual views and ways of operating. C’est la vie. We don’t yet have the funding, or the structure, that I believe is needed to support catholica in ways like The Tablet, La Croix-Bayard (I just learned through further research this French publisher has been going since around the same time as The Tablet in 1870), or NCR. There are oodles of capital ‘C’ Catholic websites around the world that all claim to be “faithful to the magisterium” and who claim to know the mind and rules of God better than any magisterium, or even the Almighty him or herself. There are very few offering what we’ve tried to offer, or what The Tablet, La Croix or NCR offer. Even John L Allen at CRUX in the end had to go cap-in-hand to some of the most conservative agencies and orders within the institution to keep his outfit afloat when the Boston Globe pulled the plug on his news site. It’s a challenge we individual publishers face setting up initiatives like this. There will always be someone who disagrees with that we’re proposing, or how we exercise our editorial role. John Menadue faces that problem at the moment and is trying to find someone to take over what he and his wife do each day. He hasn’t found anyone to do it so far. It’s a very difficult job find people with the skills and commitment necessary in taking these sort of endeavours forward into a space where there is more collective ownership and editorial accountability. I betcha there’s a legion of individuals in society who’d love to run over John Menadue and take Pearls and Irritations off the air. I’m sorry you’re probably going to have to put up with “yours truly” for a little longer until “if and when” this catholica baby has strength enough to walk on her own two legs.

Cheers, Brian

Brian 08.02.2020 at 9.49 pm

To the group

Dear all, I have just posted a fresh message on the forum explaining how things will be changing when the forum returns to normal in a few hours’ time. I am proposing to set up a new forum, very similar in look and operation, to the existing forum but completely separate but specifically intended for people like Del, Roy and other people who have issues with the Church to voice their concerns. I’d also encourage others to join them who are not as enthusiastic about the objectives that I have outlined, or who wish to show hospitality to victims and survivors of clerical abuse or who are unskilled communicators. Unfortunately, and for technical reasons, it’s going to take me a few days to set this up and it will require a separate log-in procedure to the one you’ve used for the existing forum. (At your own discretion though you’ll still be able to use your existing user names and passwords – which will still be encrypted and back-vault safe. Those passwords will not be accessible to anyone, including myself, or any technicians at our website providers. That will become a bit of a pain in the butt for people who’d like to post on both forums but, with minimal technical skill, you can set up your browser to take most of the pain out of logging-in and out of separate forums or websites safely and simply these days.)

Following Tony’s and Janet’s suggestion, this will NOT be a facebook forum. I think it best if we find someone to keep an eye on this forum and the most time-consuming duty will be periodically approving memberships. This requires some limited technical skills which I can teach, and I’ll be able to assist with. (The most frustrating part of this role is dumping in the bin the huge number of spammers and hackers, usually from Russia, China, and other unlikely places around the world seeking memberships. I’m sure most of these applications are not actually generated by genuine human beings but by what are known as “bots” – computer codes that seek out vulnerabilities on the world wide web.) Are there any volunteers? (We’ll look to provide some recompense such as paying for an internet connection and the monthly charges.)

You’ll find the new message on the forum at: https://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=231100

JohnE 08.02.2020 at 10.24 pm

To the group

Why don’t I put my hand up for oversight of the second forum – unless that job is filled! The technical part I am sure I can handle once you show me what needs to be done. As for “moderating” the site I am sure there will be more than a few who will let me know if something is amiss in the state of Denmark. We can pin down tomorrow a time when I can pop up and see you.

Janet 09.02.2020 at 6.18 am

To the group

Bahh!!!!! Brian, why did you post, as your first offering to the forum in its reawakened state, an eight-years old video of a man speaking about toxic culture?? Yes, a good man, a thoughtful man, a man tuned in to what is wrong with us (he is, after all, an addiction doctor). But . . . . Why did you pluck him out of the vast array of Bioneer videos available?

I’m sorry to sound so negative, but truly, if Catholica just goes on presenting us with popular speakers (and predominantly male speakers at that) drawn from anywhere and everywhere, I see no purpose in participating.

How is watching him going to help us develop our spirituality, or reflect on our Catholic Thought and practice?

What does he have to say about "spirituality and the future of religion, all largely within a context of what I label as “Catholic Thought”?

Yes, he is a Bioneer. Yes he warns us of the toxic effects on us and our children of this culture. But . . .

The Bioneers was begun by a husband and wife team thirty years ago? Two very “alternative” social entrepreneurs. Half of the team is Nina Simons. She still speaks at Bioneer gatherings. This is how Bioneers describes itself:

For 30 years, Bioneers has acted as a fertile hub of game-changing social and scientific innovators with breakthrough solutions for the world’s most pressing environmental and social challenges. A celebration of the genius of nature and human ingenuity, Bioneers connects people with solutions and each other through our acclaimed annual national conference, award-winning media, local Bioneers Network events, and visionary programs and initiatives.

Bioneers draws in people from all spiritual backgrounds, and none. They have a great range of speakers we could draw from, some probably more attuned to the Catholica purpose than others.

Have you seen the Bioneer videos of talks by the deeply spiritual Buddhist and life-lover Joanna Macy, who not only tells us of the dangers we face, but gives us ways to make our future? Who gave us the term “The Great Turning” (what we call metanoia) years ago now? Here she is speaking last year, aged 90. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9IHbC1z6x8 Joanna not only speaks to crowds. She leads workshops in which people are changed. My friend attended one of her workshops in Sydney some years ago. And here she is at age 90, still changing herself and what she says, still offering us ways forward.

Why don’t we feature her on Catholica?

Instead of plucking people out at random, why don’t we focus for a time on each one of a bioneering group of radical female thinkers and activists?

Why don’t we initiate discussions that might actually change our lives?

Judith 09.02.2020 at 10.37 am

To the group

Your thought about using other than "mainstream' people is good, especially calling forth women who have better insights (sadly, too often neglected) than the men do about developing spirituality. Even if the Church folds, as it deserves to do unless massive changes are made, then we need guides to help us develop personal spirituality leading to deeper relationships with God and all of Creation. Elizabeth Johnson and Sr Joan Chittister have changed my vision far more than any male writers I have read, and I am not a committed feminist by any means. I just found that their insights made better sense.

Marian 09.02.2020 at 1.32 pm

To the group

I agree with every word you have written. There should be an equal division between the masculine and the feminine insight into spirituality otherwise it's like the Church, it starts to learn over to one side and loses balance.

Cathy 09.02.2020 at 10.16 pm

To the group

I had intended to take an active part in the discussion about reinventing the forum, but for one reason and another I didn't manage to do so. In any case, to a large extent I would've just given a "hear! hear!" to the things that Janet wrote, particularly about the importance of personal stories. Thank you to all of you who did engage in this process. There are a few points I'd like to make now so I hope I'm not too late (story of my life!!).

Firstly, I can see the point of having a separate forum for the more personal, so-called "social media" posts, but I'll have to say that I'm confused and not altogether pleased about the way you describe it, Brian, in relation to the main forum. You probably didn't intend it this way, Brian, but the way you describe it sounds patronising and elitist to me. Over the years I have become very disillusioned with mainstream feminism, particularly because the emphasis has mainly been on enabling and encouraging women to become involved in traditionally male areas of life, and of course that's a good thing. But this process has meant that women's traditional concerns - based in the "private" realm of the home, the family and the neighbourhood - have become even more trivialised and devalued than ever. So from my perspective, stories drawn from real-life, personal experience are just as important and valuable in their own way as the more intellectual and less personal discussion that have traditionally been engaged in by men. I don't want it to look like the women in this group are ganging up on the men - because I know we've just had critical emails from Janet, Judith and Marian - but I feel a deep need to say these things.

I particularly think it's important that real-life, everyday experience should be taken seriously as a source of the new theology and spirituality that we're all trying to develop. On the forum many people are very critical of clericalism and the exclusiveness of the present Roman Catholic church, and rightly so, of course. But I'm worried that we are simply developing a new kind of elitism, one which excludes ordinary people who have no interest, and perhaps no ability, to take part in intellectual, abstract discussions. But they can still experience God in their lives, and work out through experience what it means to live as a follower of Jesus/Yeshua in the modern world. Perhaps it is too much to expect that their insights and experiences can form part of the process of developing a new theology and spirituality, but I don't think we can ever have a truly inclusive and people-oriented church until this happens.

I had also intended to ask whether our Sunday reflections would still be part of the forum, but I notice that Joe has posted his so I assume the answer is "yes". Which means that I'd better get a move-on, as I'm on the roster for next weekend! :-)

Finally, I also wonder if we need to give people a bit longer than a week to log on to the forum and thus re-establish their membership rights. However, I thought it might be more appropriate to put a note about this on the forum.

Thank you Brian for re-opening the forum, and for all the work that you and Amanda put into it.

Judith 10.02.2020 at 10.08 am

To the group

Just a thought struck me as I was reading Cathy's post. Maybe the New Evangelization needs to teach us how to reach inwards - to develop our own relationship with God and how this affects our lives - before anyone tries reaching out to others. Wasn't this how Christianity got going in the first place - people's lives were changed by what they saw and heard from others, not from leaders, and they passed on what they had experience? If we can share our stories of how we have encountered Jesus and what effect this has had on our lives, would this reach a wider audience than deep discussions about theological issues?

Janet 10.02.2020 at 10.52 am

To the group

I agree with what you are saying. It is the changed lives that matter, and the stories of how we came to change. I hear a lot of that sort of thing on the radio, in religion and ethics programmes, but also in the morning sessions on radio national. There is a lively discussion out there about how we should live, what we find difficult to negotiate in relating to others, what is the right or ethical thing to do at work or in social settings, and how we encounter God/Other/Numinous or whatever name we call that reality and that relating. The “lifestyle” programmes don’t call it religion, but it is all about how and where we find meaning in life.

I have been wondering whether it would be better to post the Reflection on the new site Brian is planning to set up for more personal conversation, and then it can be discussed in terms of how it applies to our daily experience and actions.

Brian 10.02.2020 at 11.53 am

To the group

Dear all, as much as we might all love “the ordinary people” at times they make abysmal decisions – as did the German and Japanese people in the 1930s and 40s. There are many other examples down through history besides those two. Most of the time the views and needs and wants of the vast masses don’t actually make a great deal of difference as to which direction a society, or a religion, heads in. When things are “going well” – i.e. wealth is on the rise generally, living standards are trending upwards, and there are no great threats such as wars or economic recessions or depressions, the opinions of the ordinary people don’t matter much. But it is always “small elites” that chart the overall direction even if, at times, it is “the vast masses”, or “the ordinary people”, who choose which elite they are likely to follow. The “small elites” themselves are not always clever, or intellectual. Quite often, perhaps most of the time down through history, they have simply been the people who have been graced, or lucked, with huge amounts of wealth, or power (such as members of royalty or the nobility). But, at significant times it has been “intellectual elites” and “IDEAS” that have been the principal driver of the direction in which a particular society, a particular religion, or all of society heads. What I write here are ideas largely culled from the head of another “intellectual” – one who was recently made a saint, Cardinal John Henry Newman. And some of it from a more recent “intellectual” – one who largely charted the economic and political principles upon which Western society has operated since the Great Depression – John Maynard Keynes.

Christianity, I argue, grew out of “an idea” – and a really powerful one that ended up revolutionising the world, far more than it grew out of one individual (some who believe Jesus was truly a supernatural “miracle worker” might disagree with that. I’d urge them to read, and understand, the point Gauvain is trying to make in his “15 theses” on the catholica forum https://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=231113 . In the end it is ideas that count. I argue the collapse we are presently witnessing in Catholicism, and religions generally, is because the underlying ideas simply no long “grab the attention” and convince the vast masses of the population. This is perhaps best exemplified in our part of the world where around 90% of the educated, reasonably cognizant parts of the population, have ceased listening and participating. If you want a church, or religion, in the future, I argue, you need to start with the foundational ideas – the “theology” or “theories” that trie to explain what it is all about and what the end objective is. Starting off with “happy clappy parties” isn’t going to cut it. History is what proves that.

What I think has emerged out of this shut-down of the forum, and the discussion we’ve been having here is a new experiment on catholica (which will start when I’ve set this new forum up) where you can see some of what I’ve tried to describe above. And where we can view which approach is most effective.

Tony 10.02.2020 at 10.30 pm

To the group

Brian, at the end of your email it almost sounds like a challenge:

"What I think has emerged out of this shut-down of the forum, and the discussion we’ve been having here is a new experiment on catholica (which will start when I’ve set this new forum up) where you can see some of what I’ve tried to describe above. And where we can view which approach is most effective."

You describe your idea as a discussion group of competent thinkers working to clarify the core elements of Christianity. This is the way to reinvigorate the church because:

"In the end it is ideas that count. I argue the collapse we are presently witnessing in Catholicism, and religions generally, is because the underlying ideas simply no longer “grab the attention” and convince the vast masses of the population. This is perhaps best exemplified in our part of the world where around 90% of the educated, reasonably cognizant parts of the population, have ceased listening and participating. If you want a church, or religion, in the future, I argue, you need to start with the foundational ideas – the “theology” or “theories” that tried to explain what it is all about and what the end objective is.

Perhaps we could take this sentence from Judith's post as defining the other path: "Maybe the New Evangelization needs to teach us how to reach inwards - to develop our own relationship with God and how this affects our lives - before anyone tries reaching out to others." The idea is reinforced with Janet's: "It is the changed lives that matter, and the stories of how we came to change."

I guess there could be two distinct and separate forums along these separate lines. But it wouldn't be a real competition, because there'd be no way of saying which one was more effective. How would you measure effectiveness?

A bit of good-natured competition perhaps; I guess if you felt it was fair enough to designate Forum Two as the "Happy Clappers", it'd be okay for them to refer to Forum One as the SAINT JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN associates, or StJHNs for short (pronounced sinjins as you know). Sorry for leaving out the all-important 'C' word.

With two distinct and separate forums, members could follow and perhaps contribute to both, but there would need to be a rule against disruptive interference. Each would develop its direction and spirit according to its own purposes and tastes, and monitor the conversations according to its own standards and style.

John has already volunteered for the moderator role. An editorial board to guide the tone and spirit might not be hard to assemble.

Well, anyway, you know I like flying kites.

a lawless blog

Compendium of Exchanges in

Discussion at Catholica

GO TO CATHOLICA CONSTITUTION

SCHEDULE: THE GROUND TO BE COVERED

BACKGROUND AND GOAL

THE FOUR SIDES OF THE SQUARE

THE FOUR SIDES OF THE SQUARE

THE THREE OPTIONS

OPTION (iii): CATHOLICA CONTINUES UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

OPTION (i): NEW STAND-ALONE WEB COMMUNITY

Objectives of the Catholica Online Community

With Sample Text of Catholica Constitution

Winding up

[Incomplete summary of…] Objectives of Catholica

Editorial Board & Forum Moderation