Last week, a friend called my attention to a website called "Faithful Shepherds" that was launched a year ago by LifeSiteNews.

They state that their purpose is to provide a "one-stop database" about where Catholic bishops stand on certain issues and to "encourage bishops to be faithful to Christ."

The website considers a range of issue, including homosexuality and liturgy: "Does your bishop encourage Communion on the tongue while kneeling?" is one of the questions posed.

I was glad to see that they properly labeled one category "abortion politics," although they failed to see that certainty about politics is different from certainty about morality.

The weirdest item on the list is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's testimony about which they ask "Has the bishop supported an investigation into Viganò's claims?

Does the bishop say his allegations are driven by ideology or are an attack on Pope Franics [sic]? Has the bishop said Viganò is a man of integrity?"

It is odd, is it not, that fidelity to Viganò has become such a calling card among these schismatics.

His screeds are so obviously a combination of score settling, innuendo and simple smearing — if you knew nothing about Viganò and nothing about the people he names and only read the texts as they are, you would be suspicious of the author.

When you find out where your bishop stands on these issues, you can click on a button to send him a postcard, thanking him for supporting the positions LifeSiteNews endorses or asking him to abandon his wayward ways.

First, you are invited to make a donation of $5 or more, and then alerted that your credit card will be charged $2 for the postcard.

You can also "do-it-yourself," as they provide an email address and phone number for each prelate as well.

"For too long, lay Catholics have been without an authoritative accountability tool for U.S. bishops, especially those who deviate from the Church's magisterium," they write.

Seeing as Francis is now the embodiment of the church's magisterium, the fact that they applaud bishops who have criticized Amoris Laetitia and denounce those who have supported it is a bit rich.

Last week, Cardinal Blase Cupich was their featured prelate.

I won't bore you with the bizarre way they frame different items on their list of complaints.

Many are tendentious in the extreme.

Others are true, but in this funhouse of extremism, what is sane is presented as heretical and what is a commonplace is considered an outrage.

I do not believe that any bishop, not even the bishop of Rome, is beyond criticism.

But what makes this Faithful Shepherds website so nefarious, and indeed what makes LifeSiteNews and other conservative outlets so nefarious these days, is that fidelity is defined as being in opposition to the pope.

They do not cite a single instance in which agreement with the pope is a mark of fidelity.

Silly me. All these years, I thought being in communion with the successor of Peter was a significant mark of Roman Catholicism. Continue reading

• Image: LifeSite

The operators of European-based Victoria Milan claims it has 15,000 Kiwi members and 1020 registered as being from Northland.

The founder, Norwegian Sigurd Vedal, claimed the cheater's portal did not ruin marriages, but saved them. Continue reading

In each case, an individual chose to divulge classified information even though confidentiality agreements forbade it.

Both Private Manning and Mr. Snowden claim they were acting in the national interest.

They both chose to violate their obligations: Private Manning to the U.S. military, Mr. Snowden to a private government contractor.

They have been called both traitors and heroes, and the debate about their actions promises to continue for some time.

One question worth focusing on is the moral legitimacy of their choices.

At a time when more and more government information is designated as classified, and when employees of all stripes are required to keep information secret, when is it justifiable for an individual to go public with certain information?

The question extends beyond debates about national security to the actions of financial institutions, for example. Could the financial collapse of 2008 have been averted if more conscientious bankers had stepped forward?

In the 1970s Daniel Ellsberg, an employee at the Rand Corporation, was publicly castigated for leaking classified information about U.S. policy in Vietnam.

Today there are whistleblowers in all industries.

Before their actions are judged traitorous or heroic, it is worth revisiting certain moral categories.

The Catholic moral tradition offers a number of principles that can help guide those who face this moral challenge.

Conscience

The Catholic tradition strongly emphasizes the inviolability of conscience. Yet an individual must engage in a serious process of formation before taking actions based on its demands. "Following an unformed conscience is simply an act of recklessness," the Jesuit ethicist James F. Keenan told America.

Individuals must consider their role within society and how it relates to the common good.

For Private Manning and Mr. Snowden, their roles required a high level of confidentiality; so to be legitimate, their decision to release documents should have been a last resort.

At a time when it is increasingly easy to share data digitally, it can be tempting to pass on sensitive information without sufficient deliberation.

Employees must consider whether there are other ways to address their concerns, like going through official channels before divulging sensitive information to the media.

An individual must also be aware that the decision to leak documents could lead to imprisonment.

Willingness to accept legal punishment for one's actions is a sign that an act of disobedience is sincere. Continue reading

Sources

• America
• Image: UNL News Blog