In following Fr. Tom’s blog postings and interviews with liberal rag papers like The Toronto Star over the last few years, the astute reader would have noticed how he would throw out these little quips of unsubstantiated fact that helped validate his argument. For me, these little statements of fact seemed to be rather suspicious. Nothing too outrageous, and just enough for the reader not to query it because it was a more minor point within a larger thesis, and it would be difficult to challenge in any case. Although we peasant bloggers have not reached the heights of scholarly precision that Fr. Rosica has, the internet has afforded us a mechanism at sifting through clumsy statements and holding them up to see if they can, in fact, bear the light of scrutiny.
In his latest Mad As Hell trip to Vancouver recently, Fr. Rosica threw out a slick little “study” to his assembled brother priests which he used to bolster his bravado about us poor Taliban Catholics and our “hate sites”. (We’re all just haters! Haters I tell you! Coincidentally, all of us haters just so happen to be Fr. Tom’s opponents. It’s a slight detail, and just one big massive coincidence).
Here it is again:
Father Rosica said a study of Catholic blogs involving non-Catholics and non-Christians looking at Catholic blogs found they were filled with “filth, hate, conjecture, and innuendo.” (Source)
In order for a study to be commissioned, someone has to commission it. For a bona fide study, it usually has be to something of a pressing public concern like health care or education or the economy. We’ve all seen them before. There are also “push studies” – “studies” that are financed by interested parties – which ensure that the “conclusion” is to the sponsor’s liking.
Now, folks, I want you to think about this. Legitimate studies cost lots of money. And there is usually a pressing demand to find out the answer to a hot question. Does it make sense to you, gentle reader, that some legitimate groups would commission a study of “Catholic blogs” to find out the opinion of non-Catholics? How probable or necessary is that and who would put up the money for it? And, even if some group did do that, does anyone really believe it would be an impartial body without a Progressive axe to grind?
I very much doubt it. And that’s why all Catholics should be demanding to see the “study” that Fr. Rosica is referring to. It’s so bizarre that it strains credibility.
Where is it, Father? Let’s see it posted on your blog or a link to it. It can’t be that difficult to dig up that Study. Where did you find it? In the main stream press, a Catholic periodical, magazine? Where? After all, it’s got to be very, very recent, considering the topic under consideration. Or, perhaps, it’s a little too recent? These nasty Catholic blogs have not been around for that long. A few years, maybe?
Here is your opportunity to show us that you actually have the evidence to substantiate your claims. I’ll even link it on this blog….if you find it. My guess is that we won’t hear anymore of this study.
And here’s another curious lacuna for our readers found in The BC Catholic article which reported on this hyperbolic balloon Fr. Rosica floated to his audience:
Around 70,000 users check Salt and Light’s English blog each week, he noted, “We use it as a teaching tool,” he said. “Thousands of priests download the Scripture stuff and copy it, and we’re happy to provide it.”
Thousands of priests? Really? 70,000 users each week? Let’s check the veracity of that statistic.
Alexa.com measures website traffic. If you visit their website, you will see Salt+Light’s traffic ranking. They peg Salt + Light’s website at 817,075 (global) and 26,630 (Canada). See illuminating commentary here on this little lacuna which was posted by one of our readers. In light of this commentary, it seems that Fr. Rosica is likelyusing “page views” as his measurement to measure webtraffic. That’s kind of like saying you make 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 pesos as a salary in a third world country. Sounds impressive but that might be the daily wage of a poor farmhand, and it usually is! The key here is to compare Salt + Light’s traffic to a popular websites like LSN. LifeSiteNews blows Salt + Light out of the water (a thousand pardons for using such violent Taliban language!). Here’s another result that yields the same conclusion. Not bad for a “blog in a basement”. So, if we were assessing the reach and effectiveness of LSN and Salt + Light and comparing that to their annual budgets, dollar for dollar, Salt + Light is, well, a bust.