The Church indeed survived, but only as a fragment of itself. Justified or not, the Protestant Reformation was an act of spiritual, and often physical, violence that brutally cleaved the body of Western Christendom. The causes of the Reformation are complex, but nobody can dispute that corruption among the Roman Catholic clergy, especially in the papal court, was the prime cause of the catastrophe.
This paragraph displays what I call "pop-ecclesiology". It's how secular journalists who know little about religion describe the events in church history. For example, when he writes "The Church indeed survived, but only as a fragment of itself" what does he mean by "The Church"? At first it seems like he means the Roman Catholic church, but later he clarifies by saying it was "Western Christendom" which was brutally cleaved. The implication is that the Catholic Church is just one of the broken pieces of the smashed cookie jar, albeit the largest piece. We Catholics would see it more like living branches chopped off of a living tree with strong roots and a trunk ailing from disease and weakness. I think that the orthodox Orthodox viewpoint is probably closer to that, but Rod appears to have taken off his religious hat at the moment he wrote that.
My Reformed Protestant relatives and friends would strongly disagree with the statement that "corruption among the Roman Catholic clergy...was the prime cause...." of the Protestant Reformation. To them, the rediscovery of what to them are the truths of sola scriptura and sola fide is the cause for what Luther and Calvin accomplished, and they see all the popes from shortly after the third century as corrupt heretics. They might agree that this corruption was an historical occasion of which the reformers took advantage, but to them the prime cause was one of doctrine. So the notion that nobody disputes this stated prime cause is leaving out the beliefs of many of the pieces which were broken yet have still survived the centuries. Obviously, Rod is closer to the Catholic point of view here, but one has to wonder whether the gaffe of writing "nobody can dispute" follows from a held belief that "corruption among the Roman Catholic clergy" is a prime cause of many or most of the ills in the world throughout history.
Later on in the article we get some references to the attempt being made to revitalize the Catholic church scandal in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. That paragraph is gossipy and vague, and strains to make something from an off-the-record quote from an anonymous priest-friend from New York City. Bill Donohue's reaction is much more informative and I urge everyone to read it. He doesn't hesitate to criticize the Diocese along with the media for inattention to the due process rights of the accused. So in addition to containing more facts and less insinuation, Donohue's piece seems to be more in line with the demands of the Gospel than the demands of gossip, so you can decide which line of thinking and reporting is more profitable.
Rod touches vaguely on scandals in the OCA, but probably not enough to satisfy our friend, Diane, I'm guessing. Or any of us, really. (This might be because he follows this thread quickly with another blast at the Catholic church featuring another semi-quote from a Franciscan vocations director and an obligatory mention of his "own departure from Roman Catholicism.") He mentions Metropolitan Jonah's criticism of former church leaders as having "raped the church", rhetoric that Obama may wish to consider for the 2012 presidential campaign. He pimps the new OCATruth.com site, a site in which a letter of his was recently published. The letter is a must-read, if for no other reason than the fact that he mentions a transvestite and the immortal words of Charlie Sheen in the same breath. This is done to dismiss alleged accusations that +Jonah ("Yo, Plus, whazzup?") had commissioned the aforementioned Catholic-bashing propaganda piece on Orthodoxy. Oooooooh, smell the intrigue. [Correction: The piece being discussed is a piece by Julia Duin which can be read here. Rod states that he was interviewed for the story which ran several days after his OpEd.]
So now we've seen several blasts within a month at the Catholic Church from a guy who claims that his writing is strictly monitored by his employer. Is this lashing out the product of a rigorous Orthodox lent on the disposition of someone used to gourmet food and wine? Or is Rod bashing the Catholic Church to attain respect from his fellow secular journalists? I'm just wondering.
Is this lashing out the product of a rigorous Orthodox lent on the disposition of someone used to gourmet food and wine? Or is Rod bashing the Catholic Church to attain respect from his fellow secular journalists?
ReplyDeleteCertainly your second choice is a factor in this one, Pauli. Not only from this piece in and of itself (see below), but also from his time at the multi-culti anti-Catholic Dallas Morning News. Rod’s work has long shown a desire to fit in with the cool kids. This piece is no different.
But I’m starting to think he’s working awfully hard to justify (to himself) his loud and public conversion to Orthodoxy. We recall that his Catholic faith was broken by the scandal. Fair enough – the damage done to the faithful by the scandal is incalculable, and I fear includes the loss of a number of souls. But here we are, five years after, and we get more pieces from him trotting out the very same reasoning, including the swipe at “On Eagle’s Wings”, which no doubt he hasn’t heard in the intervening years. And to show Rod isn’t all that far from the newsroom, he engages in the insidious “some say” reporting that we see all too often these days (instead of finding out the underlying facts). Exhibit A is shown by the Donohue piece you cite, Pauli. Exhibit B would be the Mattingly piece he cites to. Rod pulls one question out of several from a balanced story about a vibrant PACKED formation center. One fairly reading the Mattingly piece would certainly not come away with the conclusion that Rod wants us to draw from the one sentence he pulled out (to wit: Rod didn’t provide a link to it).
And then he uses this sloppy reporting to assert (in his usual name-dropping fashion) that today’s bishops are acting from the same Big Three Motivators as the Renaissance popes – with not one single fact or logical bridge to support that these same motivators are at work.
So I’m afraid that Rod is trying, after these years and despite the experience he has had with Orthodoxy in the meanwhile, to justify his loud departure from the Church. As I said in the previous thread, I would have hoped to have seen a nice story about the blessings he’d received in the meanwhile. Seeing no such story leads me to that sad conclusion.
Maybe Rod’s next stop on his faith journey will be Islam. After all, the Islamists are stuck in the deep past, telling us that the anti-terrorism action of the West is just another instance of the Crusades. Rod is stuck in the Reformation, telling us that today’s Bishops are just latter-day Borgias. Peas in a pod.
including the swipe at “On Eagle’s Wings”, which no doubt he hasn’t heard in the intervening years
ReplyDeleteI don't have the stomach to read Rod's garbage, so I didn't see this.
Good grief. Even I haven't heard "On Eagle's Wings" in the last five years.
For a would-be cool kid, Rod sure is out of touch.
Ordinarily I'm kind of a live and let live sort--i.e. I doubt I would have bothered with the hypocrisy-outing that J. Carpenter did five years ago.
ReplyDeleteThe recent moves though, have me wondering if someone shouldn't bring this all to the attention of Dr. Templeton. I don't think he'd like the verray, parfit gentil Sir John's institutional legacy to be associated with this kind of junk.
So I’m afraid that Rod is trying, after these years and despite the experience he has had with Orthodoxy in the meanwhile, to justify his loud departure from the Church.
ReplyDeleteThis is a familiar pattern among ex-Catholic anti-Catholics. It's why they just cannot let it go. It' very sad.
Man from K Street, I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteAgree, Man from K. it's all a bit lurid for their taste (not to mention sourced like something from TMZ).
ReplyDelete(not to mention sourced like something from TMZ)
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Actually, I think TMZ has higher journalistic standards.
Pik, you're link is bad. Do you mean the comment to this Mattingly piece?
ReplyDeleteDang. My bad. This is the link.
ReplyDeleteBut as of right now, it shows up as behind a paywall -- it wasn't this morning. Let me see if I can figure out how to extract it out of my cache (I used to know how, but that was several browsers/OSes ago).
Bingo. Someone else picked it up. Here you go -- try this one.
ReplyDeleteGreat link. "Standing-room-only Masses." Yeah, we Catholics are so unhealthy and moribund!
ReplyDeleteKudos to Mattingly for his journalistic balance.
Pik:
ReplyDeleteI do not think he will go to Islam. I think he will go the way of Bart Brewer, and "Alberto Rivera." Dismiss him as the poseur he is! He is no different then the man who lies about be a Medal of Honor winning Seal who in reality never lasted 3 weeks in Boot Camp.
Thanks for the link, Pik. Dreher definitely cherry-picked that one line out about sexual abuse, it's such a small part of the article. If he had linked to the source, people going there to read it would read a comparatively positive post about young people discerning religious vocations at a Catholic University, and we couldn't have that. It's a major disruption in the declinist narrative.
ReplyDeleteIf corruption among the Roman Catholic clergy, especially in the papal court, wasn't the prime cause of the catastrophe, that's only because too many Renaissance men without chests weren't manly enough to be as outraged as real men would be.
ReplyDeleteLook at the Reformation in England though. Basically they traded the corrupt Roman Church for... what? An Anglican church run by some real characters at the top--Henry VII et al.
ReplyDeleteBelloc says the Prot. Reformation was really pulled off by men who had two hatreds: hatred of the priesthood and hatred of the Holy Eucharist. The first can be explained in part by corruption of the clergy, I don't think the second can.
Luther and Zwingli
ReplyDeleteMust be treated singly.
Luther despised the peasants,
Zwingli the Real Presence.
That may have been Belloc's.
Confessional, old-school Lutherans cling to the Eucharist and the Real Presence. Just had to throw that in there. :) We argue about that and baptism with Protestants all the time.
ReplyDeletePauli, good point re the English Reformation. And the Continental Reformers were arguably no better. For many of Luther's aristocratic followers, the Reformation was an excuse for a giant land-grab. And even the Reformers themselves lamented that popular morals and piety remained unimproved after the Reformation.
ReplyDeleteSorry to pop in late, but it seems that Rod Dreher was, in fact, one of the anonymous authors of the OCATruth web-log. This adds another layer of complexity to his silliness. And, just FYI, there are a lot of Orthodox who don't like Rod Dreher at all.
ReplyDeleteStayed tuned tomorrow, Mr. GZT. You will not be disappointed.
ReplyDelete