Wednesday, April 21, 2010

"Amerikantsy konvertsy"

An Orthodox Christian blogger named Vara shares her opinion near the bottom of this page. She gets bonus points in my book for her use of the word jackanapes.

Lately, one Rod Dreher, one of the loudmouthed konvertsy, has raised a brouhaha. Firstly, I would like to apologise to all of my Roman Catholic readers for his indecent behaviour. Honest opposition is one thing… to use the sad events in one confession or another to smash others in an “ecumenical” venue is beyond the pale. I bow before you and ask your pardon (especially when the person involved only recently converted from the confession that he attacks... sheesh, that’s LOW).

That is why I have translated this piece. If Rod Dreher (and all like him… Jonas Paffhausen, Frederica Matthewes-Greene, Patrick Henry Reardon, Joseph Honeycutt, John Behr, et al) is not a legitimate example of an Orthodox Christian, then, pray tell, who is? Read these words of Dmitri Belyukin, and look at his art... look at the art of his teachers... and of their teachers as well (especially Pavel Korin’s A Farewell to Rus). One Dmitri Belyukin is worth more than all the posturing Amerikantsy konvertsy put together.

I am sorry that this posing jackanapes used the current crisis in the Vatican as a cudgel. When I mentioned it, I also mentioned our own failings, and, indeed, mostly confined myself to intramural affairs. As for my opinion, I believe that too many converts start posting before they have learnt “A cat sat on a mat” in spiritual things. Mr Dreher is one such... however, one can say this in his defence... he has been encouraged by equally ignorant clergy. All too many clergy in the OCA and AOCANA have heterodox, not Orthodox, formations... that is not a piffle.

Again, I apologise for the outburst of Mr Dreher, he should have left his former confession alone, and in peace (the sheer arrogance and hubris of it is breathtaking). If it is any comfort, these sorts are worse to us grounded Orthodox… they tell us we are “hateful”, that we need to go to confession, that what we believe is “wrong”, and they quote the Fathers and canons (from bad translations) ad nauseum.

It's pretty clear to me that he's still somewhere in the neighborhood of "a cat sat on a mat". And pooped out coffee.


  1. Maybe Mark Shea should post Vara's piece, too? It ROCKS.


  2. To me, Dreher's post errs because it presumes that "what we have here is a failure to communicate", and that's all. He seems to think that if the journalist class and the religious class just talk to each other more, there'd be none of this ugly press that we're having now.

    So I now think that Pauli is right in his comment on the earlier post, in that Rod is not able to see through the thin veil laid, by those perpretrating the Benedict hit pieces, over the underlying intent of destroying the credibility of the Church. I guess he can't fathom that there are secularists in the media who know fully what the Church is about, but simply cannot cope with the simple fact of its existence as a moral authority.

    It is as though the crucifixion would have been avoided if only Christ would have had a better media strategy. A little more outreach with the populace of Jerusalem, you know, and those calls of "Crucify him!" wouldn't have happened.

    So either he won't, or he can't, see through the thin veil. At any rate, both sides could do exactly what he says they should do, and nothing would change.

  3. It is as though the crucifixion would have been avoided if only Christ would have had a better media strategy. A little more outreach with the populace of Jerusalem, you know, and those calls of "Crucify him!" wouldn't have happened.

    Interesting... yes, it's humorously phrased, but it made me think of how the West builds more of its spirituality from the crucifixion than the East which focuses more on the incarnation. Most Catholic theologians agree that Christ theoretically could have saved us without dying on the cross. But that wasn't God's plan; Christ says it was "necessary to suffer" on the Road to Emmaus. In Acts, I think, Peter or Paul talks about Jesus suffering at the hands of "evil men." (or, perhaps those are our Lord's words? Forgetting at the moment....)

    I don't know why those behind the dishonest attacks on the Pope would not be evil in the mind of Dreher et al; they do it with full knowledge and consent. These are not "men of good will"; that has been demonstrated.

    In one of the comment replies on the other post, Dreher wrote "The New York Times is not the enemy here." The only way he can state that with such confidence is to really believe in the goodness--or at least neutrality--of all journalistic efforts where the Church is concerned. And that is naivete at best.

  4. "The New York Times is not the enemy here."

    eh. Terminal cluelessness? Maybe there are meds for that.