More Reactions from Rod Dreher's Dance on Father Neuhaus's Grave

Roland de Chanson made this comment on the original post, date-stamped January 9, 2009 10:32 PM:

Rod,

You have deleted posts by authors whose kind words I acknowledged in my reply. I must therefore look like a fool in replying to comments ostensibly never made. I acknowledge your right to censor any and all respondents to your blog, but I am dismayed that you would delete posts from a person or persons (whom I in any event do not know either by name or reputation) which are neither scurrilous nor defamatory nor even mildly provocative and even in some cases quite amusing.

If you wish to delete my posts as well, please do not feel constrained in so doing. I enjoy reading your articles here and in DMN and I agree with you more often than not, but in this instance I am afraid you have transgressed the bounds not only of civilised propriety but also of Christian charity, in that you have profaned the obsequies (pokhorony) of Fr. Neuhaus for your own picayune vindication. You are hardly a nonentity; you ought to have enough confidence in your own integrity and reputation that you might eventually be proven more correct in your assessment of the scandal than Fr. Neuhaus, if indeed history ultimately justifies you. All things in the fullness of time.

As one born a Catholic, I have nothing but the utmost reverence for those who find their way to Rome, given the intellectual and spiritual obstacles history has thrust into the path of conversion. And I was greatly moved by the story of your own conversion. I cannot disagree with your sense of betrayal and disgust during the heyday of the homosexual scandal. But, as I know you are well read in history, I found it preposterous that you abandoned your religion because of the failings of mere men. As I have written here several times before, I love the Byzantine churches, both Orthodox and Uniat, and have been overwhelmed with the transcendence of their liturgies, yet, despite my contempt for the perpetrators and facilitators of the scandal, I cannot think that a sufficient reason for apostasy.

Censor me too if you wish. But, from a bad Catholic to a bad Orthodox, let us hope we both learn a bit of the charity of Christ.

Rod's response to this: "....I don't think it would be fair or accurate to judge John Paul II's papacy (for example) by his failure to govern the Church well. The man was, in my view, a saint, and his greatness is assured. And yet, the way he handled, or mishandled, the sexual abuse crisis was part of who he was, and showed his humanity." In other words, even saints need journalists to interpret their lives properly for the faithful. As for plain old Catholic clergymen, who better to moonlight as all-around advocatus diaboli than Mr. Part-time-chicken-farmer himself, our Working Boy!

Here's another thoughtful comment from "Disappointed Reader":

Since discovering your book and blog several years ago, I have been a devoted reader and fan, but the handling of Fr. Neuhaus’s death on these pages has me questioning whether I should continue to read and recommend your writings.

As someone who is not just a blogger but also a journalist, don’t you have an obligation to verify a derogatory story about a public figure? Perhaps before accusing someone in a public forum of bullying and censorship, you might send a simple email to check with your former boss and see if you had the facts straight?

As a reader this whole affair raises serious doubts in my mind about how much weight to give to your writing. If this is how you treat someone whom you claim to respect greatly and who hasn’t even been dead for a week, should I accept as fair and balanced your representations of those you disagree with?

I have read Fr. Neuhaus for years and while I disagreed with him on several issues, I felt his death as a real loss. Now added to that, I feel I might also need to stop reading a blog that has been a daily part of my life for a long time. Say what you will, your treatment of Fr. Neuhaus here strikes me as a failure of journalistic integrity, civility, and Christian charity. With those qualities called into question, I’m not sure why I should continue to read this blog.

Anyone want to attempt to convince D.R. to continue reading the crunchy blog? Bueller?

Alan Jacobs posted this at The American Scene, a Dreher-friendly mag for sure. It's basically a brief "common sense and manners 101" for folks who have forgotten about this and this:

But still, there is something that troubles me about Rod’s story. If someone has mistreated you, or done anything discreditable in your presence in private, and you wait until he is dead to tell the story in public, you’re ensuring that he doesn't get the opportunity to give his side of the story, to clarify or correct — and above all, to apologize and ask for forgiveness. He is forever, and publicly, the person who acted badly towards you; whereas if the story had been told while he was still alive, he could have been the person who repented and apologized for such behavior.

And last but not least, Simple Sinner's piece is a must-read. Excerpt:

In this swipe & smear piece where Dreher takes opportunity to further reflect on his hobby-horse - the priestly sex scandals… Well the hobby horse, ever inching its way across the blogosphere carpet, arrives just in time to rock across the as-yet unburied body of the very recently late and much beloved convert priest.

I hope the ratings are worth it.

From the above-linked post, Dreher tells us...

I tell you this story not to speak ill of Father Neuhaus,

...But then goes on to offer unverifiable (and now somewhat retracted) comments about interchanges that the now-dead priest can neither deny, affirm, corroborate or correct.

Had a priest of Neuhaus’s immense gifts and stature spoken out on behalf of Catholic victims and their families earlier, or at least not have stood up for them when he ought to have been calling them out, who knows how much good might have been done, and suffering might have been avoided?

If he had troubled to put himself in the position of Catholic mothers and fathers instead of the high-ranking churchmen who were his usual milieu, maybe it would have changed his views.

Gee, Rod, no incongruency at all in noting that you are not out to speak ill of the dead (before his body has been committed to the ground) before criticizing him in this highly emotive way.

Rod also makes mention of his deleting comments by our friend Diane, so maybe she could enlighten us about other reactions. Please bring to my attention any other reactions, especially those defending Dreher's remarks.

AFAIK, Mark Shea has not commented yet.