And this time he really really means it.

Oh goodie.

Rod Dreher was invited by Time magazine to write a piece about Pope Francis.  Of course, he was happy to oblige, and he did so in a way that only Rod Dreher could.  Literally, as it turns out.  I can't set it up any better than Dreher does himself:

I tried to think of something nobody else had said. 

And what might that be, you ask?  The title of the Time piece says it all:

I'm Still Not Going Back to the Catholic Church

And he's exactly right.  No one else had written on whether Rod Dreher is going back to the Catholic Church.

Read the whole thing, as Dreher himself would say (and did say).  Executive Summary:  Dreher goes into some length about how the Church did not preach "God's judgment", in effect preaching "Christ without the Cross", and that this lack of interest in teaching repentance was reflected in its reaction to the Scandal. Pope Francis doesn't help, not because of what he says (which Dreher likes), but because of how Francis will be misinterpreted.  Same old saw, but a bit more expanded.  Whatever.

The odd part about all this is that his Time essay didn't really say why Rod Dreher really isn't going back to the Church -- it just left the impression that it did. Instead, as he says in the TAC pimping of his Time essay, the real reason he isn't going back is "because [he does not] believe in Catholic doctrine any longer".   And he only tells us what the problematic part of the doctrine is when pressed in the comments: it turns out that the stumbling block is papal infallibility.

I'm confused, and at a loss for words.  I'm sure y'all won't be.  

P.S. The Time commenters are a bit rough on him already.

More Topix Action

There has been a lot of action over at the famous Topix post hilariously titled "Rod Dreher is on the cover of the latest Greater B. R. Business Report" on page 6 and page 7. The most recent accusation toward Billfr and me is that we are the same person. Here's part of my response, which you can read in its entirety on page 7.

His over-sharing of these kinds of things is nauseating to normal people, yet he is praised by many for being a courageous and creative journalist by many. And yes, I admit that he had many fans, and many people who believe him to be a wonderful and insightful writer. So the least that people like Countrylad can do is admit that there are *MANY* people – more than two — who find him disagreeable and obnoxious when he bashes the Catholic church, for example, or when he goes ballistic over Mark Levin's slip-up, or when he over-capitalizes on a family tragedy, or when he goes on about the "platonic ideal of chickenness" (feel free to Google that phrase). A lot of these people have found a home at my blog to vent about the content and style of his writing and there is nothing "circular" about their reasoning and there is nothing ad hominem about their criticism.

Now I know that a lot of people here believe that Countrylad is Rod Dreher. I'm going on the record now suggesting that it is not. I know he sounds like Dreher often, but I think he is just another local log-rolling partner of Dreher's. The more I read his weak stick apologetics for Dreher by attacking the opposition the more I feel like I'm doing the right thing by continuing the steady drumbeat of criticism.

And while we're on the topic, check out this recent one-star review of The Little Way of Ruthie Leming:

Embarrassing, condescending, passive aggressive backbiting
August 23, 2013 by hallowmetrop

I bought this book because of my interests in localism, the alternatives presented by small communities in contrast to metropolitan areas, family, the South, and religion. But it was an unpleasant read, because Rod Dreher is just not a pleasant traveling companion.

Little Way is weighed down with the author's bitter grievance toward his late sister, whose great and unforgivable crime, it seems, was to roll her eyes at the fact that her brother (the author) is a pompous and prissy character enraptured by his own voice. Again and again, the book goes out of its way to paint the late sister as cruel or rude or simple or thoughtless or otherwise unappreciative of Dreher's very special talents. Dreher seldom misses a chance to condescend to his late sibling. All in all, the book comes across as driven by a deep-seated selfishness - the late sister's life is reduced to a vehicle for the author's own personal growth story: "How All the Bad Things My Sister Did to Me Made Me a Humbler Man."

On finishing this book, the predominant feeling I had was one of embarrassment at Dreher's oversharing, and sorrow for the poor sister and her kids, whose family life has been so thoughtlessly hijacked and publicized by Dreher.

The author's conversation with his niece at the end of the book captures this all too well. In talking to this teenage girl, who has just lost her mother, the author cannot refrain from losing his temper because the little girl won't side with him, Rod Dreher, in his resentment-fest against her own late mother! It's hard to believe any grown man could be so mean to a teenage girl who has just lost a parent. Any reasonably decent adult would subordinate their own ego to the wellbeing of the kid at such a moment. But for Dreher, of course, the real wronged party isn't the deceased or her daughter, but always and eternally him. This book struck me as having a deeply bitter core, and shot through with passive aggression. I went in expecting to like it, but found it unsettling and unpleasant, and I would not recommend it to anyone.

I suppose that Countrylad thinks that this was written by Billfr, Pauli, Kathleen, Keith, Pikkumatti and Diane since we're all the same person.

My dad could beat up your dad

People unfortunate enough to know me well know that my favorite humorist is Jack Handy of Deep Thoughts and SNL fame. Here is a Deep Thought which comes to my mind at the moment (source):

Grandpa used to describe the size of everything in terms of a calf. For instance, if he was describing a large dog, he would say it was 'about as big as a calf.' Or about a car, he would say it 'could seat four calves comfortably.' (Oh, that was another thing: how many calves could ride in something?) One time he was talking about a calf he had, and I asked him how big it was. He said it was 'about three-quarters as big as a calf.' Sometimes Grandpa would tell time by calves. If you asked him how long something would take, he'd say 'About as long as it takes a calf to drive over here.'

Yes, I know, completely absurd. And maybe you don't think it's very funny at all. I understand. Well, here's something else which is absurd and not very funny, and is a good illustration of obsessing, not about calves, but about Catholics. Witness a man who uses the occasion of a dear friend's death to attack his former coreligionists. Excerpt:

As Catholics, we figured an archbishop would be an exalted personage who carried himself with a sense of inner pomp. By that time, frankly, I had had quite enough of bishops and archbishops.

I was on the ropes spiritually, battered by several years of writing about the sex abuse scandal in my church, and disgusted beyond measure with our hierarchs. They carried themselves with such a pride and entitlement, but when it came to protecting the children of the faithful, they had disgraced themselves.

As usual, there's a lot here. "On the ropes" is a boxing metaphor. But what opponent is "battering" him in the ring? Dreher's answer: "several years of writing about the sex abuse scandal in my church". Ergo, he was beating himself up. Ding!

But this part made me laugh. Check out Dreher's own "santo subito"-induced blindness where his Gandalfian friend is concerned:

That said, Dmitri's leadership was not flawless. I never saw problems, because I came to know him only in the late winter of his life. But some parishioners with long memories told me that as personally holy and pastoral as he was, Dmitri hated conflict, and didn't exercise strong administrative oversight when he needed to have done so. (This is also true of Pope John Paul II, incidentally).

Oh, well, no staff-breaking scene from the Dallas Gandalf. Note the obligatory tu quoque tossed at John Paul II, a recent Catholic Pope, at the end of an otherwise boring paragraph.

Is it a coincidence that just about everything reminds the working boy of how much better Orthodoxy is than Catholicism? On March 17th, Rod Dreher attacked the Catholic Church in the midst of a piece supposedly about the glories of Eastern Orthodoxy. Back a few years ago, Rod Dreher used the occasion of the death of Father Richard Neuhaus to attack his differing views on priest scandals. If you were the proverbial man from Mars, you would have learned precious little about Eastern Orthodoxy or Father Neuhaus from those articles, but you might have probably noticed that the author disliked Catholicism a great deal and waited for a priest who was noted as a skilled rhetorician to pass away before attacking his views.

The Orthodox readers who comment on Dreher at this blog—on this post and others—reinforce the disgust that we Catholics have for his constant Catholic-bashing. They are embarrassed and appalled that someone seemingly ignorant of his new faith is so strident in condemning his former one. I invite them to add a first name or nick name to their comments so we have an easier time getting to know them.

How many times must the cannon balls fly at the Catholic Church? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Waiter, I'll take two spheres, over easy please

Or maybe "scrambled" better describes the Catholic League's latest report from the "you can't make this up" files.

Ricky Gervais felt the need to offer a very public "Holiday Message," notifying the world that though he is not a Christian, he is a very Christ-like person. It is revealing that this British atheist couldn't find a single secular humanist to model himself after.

That is pretty rich. Why would you want to be Christ-like if he is a total fraud? Oh, I forgot—Christians are the real frauds. We learn from James Frey with an "E" that Jesus Christ is "an alcoholic who lives in a filthy Bronx apartment, smokes dope, kisses men and impregnates prostitutes." So is that the Christ that Gervais is trying to emulate, or the regular Christ who Christians believe in? Unclear.

Anyway, Frey's book The Final Testament of the Holy Bible contains this valuable bit of info. I don't know about you, but that title smacks of dogmatism to me, does it not? Who is James Frey to assert that he has the final word. And it's far from accurate. Someone is sure to write another "testament" by Lent of next year and chances are it will be fouler and more shocking. Maybe the Jesus in the next fantasy will reside in the suburbs and have a coke problem.

There is nothing quite like doubling down on your bet that God doesn't exist and Christianity isn't true. I don't advise it. Do it every few days like these people do and you're in for quite a negative payoff when the game is up.

"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.

Sparkling Dialogue on the View

It's great getting email updates from the Catholic League to keep abreast of the banality of mainstream media anti-Catholicism which ofttimes resembles a self-parody. Just received this bit of sarcasm from Bill Donohue under the title "THE VIEW PANELISTS SPARKLE".

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on what happened on the ABC-TV show, “The View,” today:

The panelists discussed the controversy between Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas Tobin on the propriety of an abortion-rights Catholic politician receiving Holy Communion. Why anyone would go on television and discuss something she knows absolutely nothing about is a mystery, but I’ll tell you this much—it makes for a great laugh.

So here’s the transcript. Which one of them was the most brilliant is debatable, but what’s for certain is that all the gals really sparkled.

Now, read the transcript:

Whoopi Goldberg: Now, Congressman Patrick Kennedy said he was asked by a Rhode Island bishop to stop receiving communion because of his stance on abortion. The Church has been sparring with lawmakers about restrictions in the health care bill. But, is this the right tactic to do? To say that you cannot come and take communion? When on one hand…
Joy Behar: You know, Teddy, his father, Teddy Kennedy was pro-choice. And Teddy Kennedy was divorced. And they all, the bishops and whatever all went to his funeral. He was not denied communion. So this all seems political to me. I don’t get it exactly.

Sherri Shepherd: He was asked not to take communion in 2007. So why is he bringing it up now?

Joy Behar: Why is he bringing it up now? Because he’s running for office.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Somebody brought it up again. This is my home state. I’ve done breast cancer walks with Patrick Kennedy before. And you know, I’m not, uh, the Catholic Church in terms of communion, I remember one of my friends who got divorced, they asked her not to go up and take communion. And for me, communion is the opportunity for someone to take part in and enjoy the sacrament as well, so I never, even from a young age, I never appreciated it when someone was not allowed to go up and receive communion with the rest of the church.

Joy Behar: You’re supposed to be without sin.

Sherri Shepherd: But who is without sin?

Joy Behar: What you’re supposed to do as a Catholic, you go to confession. You get the absolution and then you can receive communion. That’s the way it works. But it doesn’t always work that way. I mean, they don’t allow divorce. Yet, if you’re married 25 years and have 5 kids and you have a lot of money, you can get an annulment. So, I mean, there is a lot of hypocrisy in every religion.

Whoopi Goldberg: I thought in the Catholic Church, that in the Bible, at least as I remember it and I could be fuzzy on this, but I thought that God pretty much says to you, you don’t have to talk to anybody but me. You don’t have to talk to anybody but me. And I’m the one. I’m the one you go to. You don’t need a liaison. Now, great, if you happen to go into the Church, but basically your relationship with God is personal and, and, very clear. So I don’t think anybody is supposed to tell you what you can’t participate in. I don’t remember that as being part of the deal.

Barbara Walters: It’s interesting that he’s bringing it up.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Political season.

Barbara Walters: Yeah, and it is certainly for Catholic’s…

Whoopi Goldberg: Do you know why he brought it up?

Barbara Walters: Well, I don’t know why he brought it up.

Whoopi Goldberg: Because they recently clashed over the Church statement that they won’t back the health care overall without tighter restrictions on abortion. That’s why it coming up now.

Barbara Walters: So there is a political overtone to it.

Sort of reminds me of Psalm 2, except instead of "the kings of the earth tak[ing] their stand" we get the doofuses sitting around on comfy chairs and couches in a television studio.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck is supposedly on the view to provide some sort of political "balance". It's arguable whether she does but on thing is for sure—she doesn't do anything to elevate the combined intellectual level.

"In the Shoes of Peter"

Commentator James posted a good remark to Rod Dreher's latest bishop bash.

I think you too easily put yourself in the shoes of Peter without any thought to the responsibilities that the Holy Father has for all the souls placed in his care and that includes the souls of the victims as well as the offending priests and bishops. We would be foolish to think that one should not feel anger at such injustices committed against the innocent young men and women of the Catholic Church. We have a right to be angry, but the ultimate question comes down to what would rectify such injustices. Revenge is hardly a helpful motive in these times. One must tread carefully and patiently as the Lord Jesus himself no doubt would do. Who knows what private communications have occurred between these bishops and the Vatican? What benefit would it be for the Holy Father to excoriate the bishops? So lay people who are upset would feel better? Is that what its going to take to make people feel better again? Public admonishment? Would that make you feel better? What does such an exercise of scolding do in the end? Nothing really. For those who are hardened of heart, it does nothing.

Emphasis mine. well, exactly. Rod's rants often remind me of my grandfather's insistence that the Steelers were not practicing because he didn't see it on the news. "That's why they lost the Superbowl to the Cowboys! And I watch a lot of TV, believe me." If I was a lawyer, maybe I could have put together a class-action for Steeler fans. But I doubt that would have satisfied my grandfather, may he rest in peace.

When Bishop Wuerl traveled to Rome to ensure a bad priest would be defrocked, it wasn't big news. The situation was handled perfectly. When things go right, it's the opposite of news and credit is not assigned where it's due.

Likewise whenever Bishop Pilla was basically asked to resign by the Vatican it wasn't big news. But it was taken care of. Everybody knew he'd screwed up. Nobody I knew — least of all practicing orthodox Catholics — wanted him to be dragged out and pilloried publicly any more than he had already been in the courts. Of course, to anti-Catholics who had left the Church it might have been another matter entirely, and that's who we're often dealing with in the complaint department.

Were Bishops to blame in the clergy scandal? You bet. Did it deserve news coverage? Of course. But it seems media elites like Dreher will never think this is getting enough coverage, ever, and they'll never accept that any discipline is being done by the Pope unless it is done publicly with lots of press passes handed out.

Austria, blasphemy, Catholicism, gay, orgy, Schoenborn, Vienna

Those are the tags from Rod Dreher's latest bit of Catholic news reporting. Mr. Dreher is known in some circles to be a "religion writer", although I think his official title is Senior Content Provider.

Anyway, in the thread someone called who knew wisely comments: "Those who can't do, do shock value, those who should be shocked don't want to appear prudish." Another commenter, Alicia, ironically states the following:

Good post about "those who can't do, do shock value." I like that. My way of putting it is the artist is stuck in the anal phase - he has the desire to cover everything with his own excrement, and actually thinks other people will be just as fascinated by his excrement as he.

Hey! I like that, too. Well.... I'm sure Alicia's intention is to describe the homosexual artist responsible for the stupid weirdness in the cathedral, but I think her word "artist" can be replaced with "journalist" and the wisdom will still apply. As the old joke says, "If the Foo shits, wear it."

But you know here's some silver lining. I just realized that Rod's Catholicism tag can be used to summarize what he's been reporting on vis-a-vis the Catholic Church. Read those headlines — pretty fair and balanced, huh?

In other Catholic news, Pope Benedict is visiting America for the first time. But that's a whole 2 weeks away.

Update: I did just notice that Rod had put up a post about Pope Benedict's visit, but he didn't tag it with his usual "Catholicism" tag. So to be fair, OK, but is it a little fishy that he doesn't use the tag on the good and neutral news on which he uses the Pope Benedict tag, but reserves it for bad news? After all, he does acknowledge that the Pope indeed is Catholic, using the tired cliché.

Os Guinness Argues the Benefits of Ministerial Celibacy

Well, inadvertently, of course, in his article about the train wreck named Frankie Schaeffer. Excerpt:

The problem is not so much that Frank exposes and trumpets his parents' flaws and frailties, or that he skewers them with his characteristic mockery. It is more than that. For all his softening, the portrait he paints amounts to a death-dealing charge of hypocrisy and insincerity at the very heart of their life and work. In Frank's own words, his parents were "crazy for God." Their call to the ministry "actually drove them crazy," so that "religion was actually the source of their tragedy." His dad was under "the crushing belief that God had 'called' him to save the world." Because of this, his parents were "happiest when farthest away from their missionary work." Back at their calling, they were "professional proselytizers," their teaching was "indoctrination," and it was unclear whether people came to faith or were "brainwashed" and "under the spell" of his parents. Frank's own arguments in their support, he now says, were a kind of "circus trick."

O.G also discusses Frankie's sweet reminiscences about his dear mother, Edith.

....Frank describes his mother as a "high-powered nut," who was "best at the martyrdom game." He mocks her with vitriol in several of his books, and her incredible and justly celebrated passion for beauty and excellence he dismisses with a postmodern sneer as a mission that was "nothing less than repairing the image of fundamentalism." Several times I saw her reduced to tears in private after his barbs against her. But now in her nineties, with her failing memory, she neither fully knows nor is able to respond to all he has written about her. "If I read it," she said to me about one of Frank's earlier books, "it would probably break my heart."

Second, Frank's descriptions of other people and events are often equally irresponsible and wildly inaccurate. He rightly disavows the immaturity of his early books and films. He was as "addicted to mediocrity" as anyone he attacked. But for all his improved writing style, his manner of sneering dismissals is unchanged. Sometimes he is ludicrously negative, as in his remarks about Billy Graham and Carl Henry. Sometimes he is self-servingly positive, citing compliments from people—such as Malcolm Muggeridge—who were well known for their overall scathing dismissals of both Francis and Frank. Sometimes he is just plain cruel, as in his description of the woman assigned to be his home school tutor—and as in most cruelty, he is worst when mocking those unable to reply.

HT Rod Dreher, and I have to hand it to him for posting this since it showcases the kind of rage that a lot of these priggish Orthodox converts exude. Hopefully it will slow him down from his recent spate of Catholic-bashing, but I do not advise breath-holding.