Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Monsignor Gänswein appears to be sold...

This may be my "just-when-I-thought-I-was-out-they-pull-me-back-in" blog post.



But I'm gonna let all y'all do the conversing in the comboxes. I'm verklempt.




18 comments:

  1. In Rome on 9/11 (!), being fawned over by Benedict XVI’s spokesman in almost messianic terms after schismatic-splaining to Catholics how the Church should solve its problems. That’s pretty much a winning round of Dreher Bingo right there. If only the good Monsignor had worked in a reference to Ruthie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So many people are heaping praise on him right now. It is amazing how people are ignoring so much of his writings about how awful the Church is to focus on Ganswein's glowing reaction to the BO book.

      Delete
  2. I'll wager that we still don't know what the Benedict Option actually is...

    (Other than a blank slate on which to project one's own wishes, that is.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer was provided in one of this week's blog posts from Rome:
      "Here, Lorenzo enjoys something I didn't know existed. You can order a little cup of nothing but foam from coffee."

      Delete
  3. Glad to see you're back to reporting on Dreher's shenanigans. Someone's got to hold him accountable. He also took a trip to Sardinia...
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/italian-benedict-option-sardinia-diary/
    Between the truly uncalled for Catholic-bashing, the bizarre pseudo-philosophical rambling about the Ethical and the Aesthetic and the Religious (why, yes, he does capitalize them,) and starting the whole thing off with an unflattering selfie, there's a ton to talk about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's that Dreher post in a nutshell:

      That first night, over pasta, salami, pecorino cheese, and good red Sardinian wine, we talked at length about the crisis in the Catholic Church.

      The rest is noise with no point, as usual.

      Delete
    2. Ha! Well, that just about sums it up. The strange thing about that post, which that sentence captures very well, is the weird way that Dreher bounces between heavy issues (such as the abuse scandal) and superficial indulgences (such as “good red Sardinian wine”). It just makes you wonder about his priorities...

      Delete
    3. But not strange for Dreher. In many ways, Dreher *is* a clericalist. Look at his history. He has ALWAYS wanted to be front and center on religion. He built a church in his back yard at St. Francisville. He is overly concerned about political matters in the church. He has always looked askance at Joe-six-pack in favor of the more intellectual liberal, stimulating classes. Yes, wine not beer, red wine. Oh, yes, red SARDINIAN wine, if you please, thanks.

      Delete
    4. Whatever Dreher's many faults, "uncalled-for Catholic bashing" is not one of them. Rather than criticize Dreher for reporting on sexual abuse, McKerrick, Francis' inadequate understanding and response, etc., how about you and others here in this little anti-Dreher echo-chamber face the issues head on?

      No, it's just easier to criticize Dreher for his wine choices and not being "Joe Six Pack" (as if the latter were some state praiseworthy in itself to aspire to!). I think Msgr. Ganswein (whose public statements are often a near proxy for Benedict XVI) is a more reliable and informed guide in these matters than a few commenters on a small website.

      Delete
    5. @EmitFlestKY

      The current embrace of Dreher's vapid, Hallmark Card pseudointellectualism and of diddling and sodomizing children are merely different aspects of the same institutional degeneracy, neither of them, needless to say, rudimentary to or universal in Catholicism.

      Any true Catholic "Benedict Option" would recognize their common DNA and would drive both out forthwith.

      Delete
    6. And nothing in that statement at all addresses the main point I made above in response to the person accusing Dreher of "unwarranted Catholic bashing" for simply reporting on the "diddling and sodomizing of children" (Which actually seemed to be the main aspect of Dreher which Ganswein praised and was concerned with in his speech. He didn't really address the BO book - or it's arguments, such as they are - in any great detail).

      Delete
    7. You're rather new to this, aren't you, Emit.

      Far from "simply reporting", Dreher has been able to parlay his serendipitous, vicarious, and virtually pornographic captivation with solely Catholic child sexual abuse into not only a successful career transition (we knew him long before, when he was just another nobody on the pundit-cluttered political beat) but also an ingenious means of keeping Mrs. Dreher accommodating by saving them both from the behavioral burdens an Erin Manning must still endure to keep all those additional children at bay.

      There is the palpably nasty degeneracy of a cleric buggering a little boy, and then there is the more sublime nasty degeneracy of an intellectually and morally unctuous Rod Dreher. As I said, any institution truly set on reform would raise its staff indiscriminately against both.

      Delete
    8. how about you and others here in this little anti-Dreher echo-chamber face the issues head on?

      You mean like this post? Or, do you want to be a contributor to the blog? Then you could show little ol' us how it's done. Thanks in advance.

      Delete
    9. "uncalled-for Catholic bashing" is not one of [Dreher's faults].

      He feels as if bashing the church he hates IS called for, so it is a matter of opinion. He doesn't go into gory detail on the many abuse cases in his own church or other churches. Yeah; we have noticed this over here, tho' it is not popular among the fans of his hobby-horse narrative.

      Delete
  4. Perhaps I should clarify my point. My problem isn't with Dreher writing about clergy members abusing children - that's definitely something worth writing about. My problem is with Dreher bringing up such a serious and dark issue in the middle of a post about how much fun he had on his vacation in Italy. If he had just wrote a post criticizing the Catholic Church for protecting abusive clerics, that would have been a fair and accurate response. But bringing up such a heavy issue right in the middle of a post about his Italian vacation — indeed, in the same sentence as a particularly tasty meal — makes it seem less like trying address an important problem and more like trying to show how much better he is than Those Eevil Catlicks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I promise to weigh in soon re this! Have just been incredibly busy and preoccupied... between freelance deadlines and Hurricane Florence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was right on my wager about the BO. From today's Dreher blog:

    Nice words from the Vatican journalist Sandro Magister this morning. I have admired him for years, and regret that I didn’t have the chance to meet him in Rome. He writes:

    "That “The Benedict Option” is truly “the most important religious book of the decade” — as David Brooks predicted in the “New York Times” — is now beyond a doubt, seeing how the discussion it has generated has come to involve even the highest levels of the Catholic Church...."

    ...Unfortunately, Magister repeats the canard that The Benedict Option calls for Christians to head for the hills and withdraw from any engagement with the world. A priest at the oratory in Genoa said to me that he has no idea why people keep saying that. “It’s obvious that they haven’t read the book,” he observed. Well, I’m pretty sure Magister read the book. He may not remember it well, and was misled by the remarks others made recently in Rome.


    Funny how people keep on reading the book, indeed "the most important religious book of the decade," yet they keep on misunderstanding what it's about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dreher is not an Anti-Catholic in the tradition of Jack Chick or David Hunt, he promotes the worst type of Anti-Catholic hysteria because it is very easy. It is easy because leaders in the Church gave him enough rope to hang them regardless of guilt. This happened because of the ineptness and/or criminality. He also does it because when you focus on one aspect such as Catholic abuse it is easy for him to make it appear as though it is only a Catholic problem when we have found abuse exists in Hollywood, Congress and in the schools. To focus on those would lead him to ask questions he does not want to ask. He follows the example of people like Nancy Grace who spent hours and hours making everyone think that the Duke Lacrosse Team raped Crystal Mangum. When the case fell apart, the accuser and the DA who prosecuted it went to jail for it. Did Nancy Grace apologize for that? NO! It is because with some media people their jobs allows them to never say they are sorry. It is a lack of the virtue of Contrition!

    ReplyDelete