Over the years I have watched time and time again publishing sites descend into total click-bait madness. This is especially true of sites that try to cater to religion.

You can see the original good intentions of providing channels for different religious groups and even the irreligious. Originally I think of BeliefNet which set these channels up and then worked to attract writers who were blogging on their own. Part of the draw was promising a share in advertising. Was never much of a fan of BeliefNet which I always thought of as “UnbeliefNet”. Still they did draw some solid talent for a small period of time. Now BeliefNet is pretty much all ads and click-bait articles.

Then I saw the rise of Patheos which is pretty much BeliefNet under another name. Again an attempt to create various channels for churches, denominations, and atheists. Sharing advertising dollars to try to draw talent. This model is appealing for writers that they don’t have to mess with working with advertisers and are given a ad-sharing publishing platform. Patheos also had channel managers. This was generally a good idea as these managers could deal with drawing good writers for the specific channel and provide a more consistent and higher quality experience as far as writers go. I think specifically of Elizabeth Scalia who ran the Catholic channel for Patheos for a period of time. During her time there was a good stable of Catholic writers with a variety of viewpoints.

Patheos always had a problem with their intrusive ads which were often quite inappropriate. So many ads that it was almost like looking through a periscope to read actual content. So I pretty much always turned on some version of a Reader View, services that strip out ads and concentrate on text.

This of course is a major problem with finding a way to pay writers through ad revenue without overwhelming the reader with ads. Ad revenue and click-throughs are so low that it pretty much means that the number of ads have to be increased. A case of diminishing returns as the balance is always towards more intrusive ads.

Aleteia is a Catholic attempt to provide news, articles, and essays. It was created by the “Founder Foundation for Evangelization through the Media (FEM)” in France and has some approval by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization. It operates in six different languages. It was fairly promising at the start and once again we had Elizabeth Scalia involved, this time for their English version. At first it was a pretty good balance of quality writing, good layout, and non-intrusive ads.

After Elizabeth Scalia left, so did some of that quality. So much is now click-bait, listicles,and top ten lists. These top ten lists are created just to multiply page clicks and so often were factually incorrect. Click-bait headlines drive me crazy and a recent one set off me writing this post.

“Can Our Lady of Mount Carmel teach us to “dress for success”?”

Really! Now the article itself is not as bad as the headline and the writer of the article probably did not write the headline itself. It is hard for me to understand how somebody thought this was a good headline. Maybe I am too sensitive about this since I am so drawn to Carmelite spirituality. But that headline was hate-bait for me.

To be fair though, Aleteia has not descended to the levels of BeliefNet and Patheos. I still use Aleteia as a source in my RSS aggregator since I can still find good pieces there. Plus sometimes click-bait headlines amuse me or the train-wreckedness of top ten slide shows.

Still sometimes you can embrace click-bait and the worst of Buzzfeed and somehow not be awful.ChurchPop is such an attempt and one I find mostly successful. They have fun with these headlines and short informative articles. Plus the headlines are actually indicative of the article.

There are obviously problems with the revenue generation model for publishing sites on the internet. Nobody wants to pay for content for the most part. The idea that information should be free and that we want unlimited access to the fruit of other’s work. So can we really complain that “we get what we pay for?”

It would seem that Catholic publishing just will never be able to go the Wall Street Journal route of paying for access to content. Yet maybe this is not totally true. I have seen a interesting movement towards a patronage model, especially regarding Catholic podcasting. My Patreon bill has only been going up over time as I have been willing to provide monthly contributions to my favorite Catholic podcasters. This is certainly an area that is growing.

One of the podcasts I donate to is Matt Fradd’s Pint’s with Aquinas. He has totally moved to supporting his family via Patreon for the most part. So this is a rather interesting development. This model is rather interesting is that often the content available is available free to everyone. Sometimes some content is made available to paying subscribers, but mostly the content is available for everyone. There are some perks for subscribers such as behind the scenes information and ways to participate. I see this as a pretty positive step forward in avoiding the problems with ad revenue while being able to support content you want to have available to others.

So while this has caught on with Catholic podcasters to some extent. The same has not been for writers. There are probably other examples, but I can only think of Fr. Dwight Longenecker who has a subscription model to support his podcasts and his writings. Most of the podcasts and his writings are available to everyone.

I have also seen some mixes such as Patrick Coffin’s Coffin Nation where most content is for subscribers along with some YouTube video’s for everyone.

It will be interesting to see how these models develop and if similar models become more common for Catholic writers. There are certainly some caveats such as where Patreon is involved. Jordan B Peterson left Patreon since they are more and more stepping into determining who is allowed to use their service. I only see true Catholic content as getting more and more seen as controversial. Everything is so politicized as we have seen multiple media companies weighing in on Georgia’s “Heartbeat Bill.”

As a widower, the thought of “what now?” is often on my mind. What in the world is my vocation now? What is God calling me to do? Discernment sucks. I have to try to clear out what I want from what God wants for me. I want to be able to say “Thy will be done” without flinching. Saying “May your will be my will” is what I am aiming for, but the emphasis is weighted towards “my will.”

I am not sure if this post is self-indulgent or a reflection on discernment. I think my motive is to help others with the same difficulty. Knowing others have the same struggles can be very helpful. I found this especially true being involved in the Christ Renews His Parish process.

Being sixty and alone was not something I was prepared for. After being married for over 36 years, it is not something you prepare for. So I, of course, feel that lack of companionship leading to loneliness. Sure I keep myself busy and spend my time being involved in my parish, reading, studying, and playing guitar. Have always been one to keep myself amused and not saying “I’m bored.”

So I could easily keep up this state of involvement and amusing myself without second thoughts. I am highly suspicious of this state as I have always been prone to a self-involved life more selfish than giving of self. Introversion has been my excuse for maintaining this state of affairs. So it dramatically annoys me in scripture to see time and time again — God dealing with the excuses his prophets put up against him. I know I am doing the same.

I certainly think about one day being married again. The line that it is not good for man to be alone resonates with me. Anything that is now good about me, was really brought about by my late wife. As a selfish, arrogant jerk, I did so much damage to our relationship — especially the years of my atheistic materialism. I feel our marriage was also rather selfish as far as benefits go. I benefited from knowing her and finally acknowledging and repenting of my many sins. Her part of the bargain was putting up with me. Seems pretty one-sided to me now, although I suspect I am possibly too harsh on myself. I don’t want to paper-over how bad I was.

There is another aspect of marrying again that makes me suspicious. Having grown up on dirty jokes and pornography, I have always tended towards the objectification of women. Something that for most of my life, I did not struggle against this. After my conversion, it just became a struggle I wanted to overcome. There are some aspects that it is only through the grace of God that I overcame. He probably knew I would never overcome this on my own and was given the grace in this regard – something I seriously consider miraculous.

Still, I am hyper-aware of women and find it so easy to objectify them based only on appearance. Some years I have felt that I have received an Easter grace that would mitigate this somewhat for a time. This Easter I have felt this same grace. To fight off that lingering stare. That second or third look to take them in visually. A constant fight indeed, but I don’t want to be that creepy old guy. The only positive thing in this regard is that this level of objectification is not turning to thoughts of lust.

So I am suspicious of my desire for marrying again. I don’t want a one-sided thing where I am a user. I do believe that I am genuinely seeking companionship, and even a corny “walks on the beach”. Someone I can talk to. I don’t fully trust myself that I am escaping my self-absorption and giving of myself. These self doubts certainly make this harder along with being such an introvert does not precisely open up opportunities in this regard.

Plus it could merely be the case where God is calling me to something else that I should be looking for opportunities of self-giving instead.

My current aspirancy as a Discalced Carmelite Secular Order is part of this discernment process. My time daily before the Blessed Sacrament and engaging in contemplative prayer moves me out of my self-orbit and towards supplication and being love at the heart of the Church. My thought processes are usually too abstract; I need this to turn these prayers into concrete acts. So I am now spending more time praying for others, a step in the right direction.

I recently read To Quell the Terror: The Mystery of the Vocation of the Sixteen Carmelites of Compiegne by William Bush and published by ICS Publications.

Recounts the dramatic true story of the Discalced Carmelite nuns of Compiegne, martyred during the French Revolution’s ‘Great Terror’ and known to the world through their fictional representation in Gertrud von Le Fort’s Song at the Scaffold and Francis Poulenc’s Dialogues of the Carmelites.

As you might expect, the actual story is much more amazing than any fictional accounts. The more familiar story and opera introduce characters that are ahistorical, which is par for the course.

What I found most interesting of this very well researched book, is just how much these Carmelite nuns and others associated with this Convent were preparing themselves for this eventuality. This slow march towards the guillotine developed over time as the French government animosity towards Catholic priests and religious ramped up over time.

The back story also includes a prophetic element where one of the Discalced Carmelite nuns of Compiegne who lived a century before these events, left writing that they later interpreted as predicting their martyrdom. A prediction included the number of people associated with the Convent who would not be part of this martyrdom.

This element became an exciting dynamic in how they were responding to these events as they were evicted out of their Convent and worked to stay together despite the wish of the government. The author has brought out a good deal of information on these women and their various backgrounds.

The story of Mother Teresa of St. Augustine, their prioress, is especially intriguing. The extent she went to, to protect them and keep them together. The tension of both protecting these nuns from a possible martyrdom and preparing them for it. She was willing to give her own life to protect her charge, while also questioning her own motivations in this regard.

This review is all the summary that I want to provide to keep myself from spelling out everything I loved about the story and how it told. You, of course, know ahead of time how it all ends, and yet I felt so involved in the story from start to finish.

The background of the Reign of Terror and the so-called enlightenment places the context of these events. There are so many disparate tensions with an anti-Catholic fervor in the name of enshrining reason – which they tried to do more than just figuratively. This background information enhances the telling of this story, yet like many actual events are stranger than fiction.

This article from Crux “McCarrick correspondence confirms restrictions, speaks to Wuerl and China”

ROME – Correspondence obtained by Crux from an ex-aide to Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal laicized over charges of sexual misconduct and abuse, confirms that restrictions on McCarrick were imposed by the Vatican in 2008. McCarrick also claims that Cardinal Donald Wuerl, then the Archbishop of Washington, was aware of them and involved in conversations about their implementation.

Denial all the way down. Especially as Cardinal Wuerl also denies this new report.

Remember when the attack on Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò mostly revolved around whether these restrictions existed? Viganò testimony tried to prove too much and went into more dubious territory, this aspect I always felt was the strongest part – if accurate.

Still the private restrictions was a major mistake, kind of like an Animal House “double-secret probation” which also didn’t end well.

I recently read an advance copy of Bishop Barron’s “Letter to a Suffering Church”. Found it very good as it does not pull punches. Pretty accurate assessment along with the response.

In it, he calls again for an investigation into McCarrick’s enablers (my words).

This is the aspect I am most skeptical about. While I don’t think clericalism is the root cause of abuse itself (I see it as much more complicated and no single cause). It is a major factor in the cover-ups. Not investigating the circumstances of McCarrick’s rise is pretty much pure clericalism. As a whole, it seems that the bishops don’t want to know the answers as a cover up for fellow bishops. To me, this is something where it is going to have to get much worse before it can get better. I am just as tired of the scandals as anybody else, but I want the truth more than just caring about PR concerns for the Church.

On the other hand I know the difficulties involved in such a investigation. How do you prove someone’s knowledge regarding this? To what extent they knew of or believed these rumors? While it seems pretty improbable that Cardinal Tobin who worked closely with two abusers never suspected or knew, implausibility is not exactly a rule of evidence. Mostly these are things that don’t leave a paper trail. Still, there certainly is paperwork involving the later stages and the Papal Nuncio’s office in Washington, D.C. that should see the light of day. Light is a disinfectant, and also cause roaches to scurry. A serious effort does need to be made.

As an American I see the scandal through the lens of our experience here. Partly because of the concentration of focus here and the early stories. Still I also know that this same story has played out around the world with other McCarrick’s and their enablers.

I really want to be wrong, but no one will face consequences for enabling McCarrick’s rise despite being aware of his peccadillos. Wuerl’s semi-fall was more of a perfect storm of the grand jury report and only partially Archbishop Viganò testimony. All the Sergeant “I see nothing” Shultz’s who are current Cardinals and Bishops will stay in place.

I am more optimistic about other aspects regarding clerical abuse where I do think there is considerable progress. This is an area that requires eternal vigilance since the creation of laws and reporting structures is only a first step.

My own attitude has slowly involved to that I would rather pray for the Church than to constantly gripe about it. Still a case of both/and and even voices from obscure/unimportant blogs can to some limited extent contribute.

Image: Copyright World Economic Forum Image/Photo by Andy Mettler – Cardinal McCarrick – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008