In Rod We Do Not Trust

Eric,

Why not try searching for "eric johnson" child sex on Google.

I'll stop writing about the child sex scandal in our Church when the scandal is over. We're not nearly over it yet, and until we are, we have to keep the heat on the bishops. If faithful Catholics don't take a stand, in public, for the right thing, then what does that say about our moral credibility?

Of course many Catholics have spoken out about the scandal. This is the first I've heard of anyone, Catholic or not, speaking out about it from such a prominent venue. You know as well as I do the Pope's comments have been minimal. In my view, they are not at all appropriate to the gravity of this crisis.

And puh-leeze, you ought to have enough sense to know that there are prophets, and the Prophets. To speak "prophetically" is to be a witness to truth, particularly when speaking to people who need to hear it. To call them to repentance and change. Weigel speaks prophetically in his book on the scandal. Even if Hill is wrong, she still spoke in a prophetic manner (you may call her a false prophet, but what she did was prophetic). You could look it up.

I sorta have to go with Rod Dreher on some of this. But as a non-Catholic, I guess my vote doesn't count much anyway.

But Rod is right on the matter of speaking "prophetically" vs. as a Prophet with a capital P.

On the other hand, it seems Ms. Hill was supremely rude and exhibited some poor timing. And I don't know that I can speak to her genuinely speaking prophetically. When you speak prophetically in such an instance, you both exhibit a certain humility yet a certain boldness grounded in being truly motivated by the Spirit and not by the self-seeking glory that our flesh desires (a false prophetic impetus which causes people to pontificate in public for the later praise of men instead of the praise of God and the censure of God's people when they are genuinely at fault).

She even made some cryptic talk about Christ being dead. I don't know if she means the message of Christ being a dead letter in a church she argues is corrupt and that is covering over its institutional problems (she probably meant that line of argument) or if she meant more literally that Christ is not as we know and believe Him to be alive and well in resurrected glory coming again to judge the living and the dead. So seeing as she may not be rooted in sound doctrine, the "prophetic" accolade might be going too far.

At any rate, as an outside observer (to the extent I'm outside the Church but not outside Christianity), I hardly think it worth a major rhetorical foodfight. And as a fellow brother in Christ, I urge you not to be too harsh on Mr. Dreher, whose motives and writings and loyalty to the faith you seem to have maligned with you slight on his writings regarding the church and the sex abuse scandals.

Sometimes the things or persons or institutions we love most we chasten the most and rebuke the most. Shouldn't be seen as a sign of some deep-seated hatred of said institution, but rather tough love.

But again, this is me speaking in part from my stance as an evangelical Christian from a small independent church background rather than any particular denominational one.

Coward, as always, you're in a league of your own. Are you aware that had you been more dilligent, you could have come up with links to sex offenders named Eric Johnson, like this guy?

Rod, I took you up on your challenge. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about "prophet":

1 : one who utters divinely inspired revelations; specifically often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Old Testament
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
3 : one who foretells future events : PREDICTOR
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
5 Christian Science a : a spiritual seer b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth

I'm not sure which definition fits Ms. Hill. Is she divinely inspired? You might think so, but I don't think one is compelled to agree. Is she "gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight"? Her special gifts aren't apparent to the naked ear.

Does she predict the future? Nope. Is she an "effective spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group"? It's hard to tell what cause, doctrine, or group she's promoting, if indeed she's doing that. Maybe she's a Christian Scientist...?

I know, I know -- you'll say that anyone who speaks the truth is a "prophet," and in a weak sense that's true. You'll notice that I didn't say "Catholics should stop talking about this," because I think we should. I just don't see the need to cast the Church and its bishops in such harsh terms.

Ms. Hill obviously didn't even know who she was addressing -- nobody there bore any direct responsibility for the scandals. The fact you're defending her plainly dumb and anti-Catholic comments says a lot.

Be careful how you dole out the condemnations. "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" (Matthew 7:2)

Ken, I agree with your comments, as I often do. But the vehemence -- dare I say venom? -- that Rod uses to describe the bishops is way out of bounds. I'm not just talking about this small matter. Sometimes he's temperate, and I'd say even prophetic, and sometimes he seems unmoored. Check out his other writings and see if you agree.

I'll keep it in mind.

I exchanged a few emails before with Mr. Dreher and I found the correspondence quite agreeable. And most of his work that's been on NRO, etc, I've quite enjoyed.

Where you could stand to redirect your anger, perhaps, is at the mainstream media who often bring folks like Rod on to criticize the Church but never bring on Rod or other persons to defend it in other instances.

For example, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown probably wouldn't waste time with Rod Dreher vis a vis blasting Opie and Anthony for that simulated sex act in St. Patrick's Cathedral a few months back. Yet when you have conservative critics (and liberal ones like Leon Panetta) speaking on the sex abuse scandals, they get ample booking time on CNN.

All too frequently the liberal secular media can pick up on good orthodox Christian critiques of the Church and use those interview segments to their biased purposes but yet turn around and ignore the cogent comments of the same folks on other issues facing Christianity in America. It's of course maddening that I see good conservative commentary in interview segments on news programs only when it's used to attack institutions which the media is biased against.

The media also did this during the Trent Lott flap when lo and behold they brought out every black conservative columnist whom I love to read on virtually every policy subject. This subject was worth their commentary, sure. But the only time they bring on a black conservative to talk politics is when some doofus conservative white pol from the South makes an ass of himself and black conservatives, along with a healthy share of white ones, criticize such idiotic sentiments.

You never get Armstrong Williams or Robert George or Deroy Murdock on CNN's NewsNight to talk about the prescription drug bill's enormous costs and unconservative policy implications or about the capture of Saddam and what it means for the 2004 race.

Guess I'm rambling now. My point is, attack the media. It's so much more fun.

I have read many of Rod Dreher's blog entries, and even when I might not completely agree with him, I find them articulate and researched.

I am grateful to him (and others) for keeping those of us who are not professional ministers or writers aware of the sex abuse scandal in our Church, and I hope he continues to do so until all children are safe. (when hell freezes over)?

I have to agree with Eric. I read the original comment in The Corner and the phrase that leapt to my mind was "the Gary Wills - Rod Dreher faction" of the Catholic Church. The similarity obviously not being found in the content of their views, but in the "prophetic" certainty they they (and apparently only they) know what ails the Holy Roman Catholic Church -- and that it won't be fixed until the Church remakes itself into whatever Rod/Gary tells it to be.

I also see a strong tinge of U.S. parochialism in Mr. Dreher's utterly unquestioned assumption that what whatever is happening in the U.S. church is automatically THE top priority for the rest of us.

John is right: America, while it didn't invent sexual license, has happily been promoting it within its borders and in the rest of the world. Then we have this scandal that is directly attributable to that license -- which our part of the Church has not done enough to beat back -- and the pope should spend his time eradicating it?

My pre Christ's Mass draft of New Year's resolutions:

1) At least say in spirit, "We are all sinners down here." about once a day

2) Try not to blame Peter for what Judas does

3) Try to make more of my criticism into "constructive criticism"

4) Give major Democrat issues to Bush so he can attract enough swing voters to be a lame duck president and pass real conservative reform without having to worry about getting re-elected next term

5) Find someone to give me a Rosacea Orchard so I don't have to break my vow of poverty to be independent

6) Get married to someone like Ann Coulter

7) Have 33 children like me and Ann

8) Have 1089 grandchildren like me and Ann

9) Homeschool everyone with whom I come in contact so they can become proto-saints

10) Go to sleep reminding myself of who is in charge of even the most minute details of the whole entire universe...

Good night, and if I don't talk to you soon:
happy holy days!

I must confess that I do not see the problem with Mr Dreher's comments. So a non Catholic speaker takes the Church to task over its mishandling of child abuse claims - big deal.
Perhaps some people here dont realise just how badly the reputation of the Church has been stained by these scandals? The Church acted appallingly in many of these cases - and I for one, feel that the Vatican could have come out much harder and much stronger than they did. Sometimes some plain speaking is just what is needed.

goangod, "the clergy" isn't identical to "the Church." They are the ones who are supposed to be leading, teaching, and administering the sacraments, but they are not the whole Church. As I said in my later post, I believe the laity is strongly implicated in any recent scandals, as it has not done enough to produce good priests and bishops from its ranks or to create a culture of life in the country at large.

I'm with RD on this subject. While it is absolutely a painful and ugly subject, we need to be informed about it as it has not passed - it is ongoing and the whole thing (as much as possible, anyway) needs to come out for the Church (us) to be purified. What is tricky is keeping in mind that the bishops we get are from our own folds... and so they are us in a way.

I appreciate Rod writing about the scandal from his seat otherwise it would almost seem like most of it is confined to Boston (my seat). I look at the whole thing as a connect the dots problem. At some point you get enough pieces to put facts together and begin to root out the causational issues.

Rod is right. The US bishops have been serious negligent, (some say criminally so) in their dealings with sexual predator priests.

But that is not their first failing or the last. As a group, they have been seriously negligent, and continue to be responsible, for the ongoing liturgical and various schismatic movements in their dioceses. Bp. Bruskevicz called them a hapless bench of bishops. That was a public comment! Imagine what he must really think! Many other serious Catholic commentators will point to lack of sufficient commitment to the faith on the bishops' part as the reason for their negligent behavior. What ever the reason, the behavior was unworthy of people who claim to be the successors of the Apostles.

A priest writing about the homosexual priest problem in the Church (Catholic World Report), way before the Boston Globe did, concluded that any organization that cannot reform itself is corrupt. I believe, left to themselves, the US bishops would never have acted to correct the "Situation." They ignore dissent from Church teachings everywhere (rampant abuses of the Mass) becasuse the Boston Globe does not care abou that. Neither do the bishops.
Rod is right on!

Eric, I'm with you on this one. The issue with Rod is one of tone and approach. He's convinced that to do less than what he does is to be morally culpable and failing to "take a stand". Yet, for all the heat he throws out, I see little evidence of effectiveness. Is it really just fine to heap on the criticism and venom every chance one gets? Or should one judge that action also by whether it is resulting in anything positive.

Here's what I have seen as a result of the Scandal and the constant drumbeat against bishops: ordinary Catholics now assume that their bishops are incompetent, faithless cowards. Now, some might be. But do we seriously believe we are laying the foundation for authentic Catholic renewal if we sow hatred of bishops so completely into the culture?

Rod writes that he will "stop writing about the child sex scandal in our Church when the scandal is over." My worry is that Rod and others of his ilk mean by "the scandal is over" that there is never another case of abuse by a priest. Well, if it needs to be said, that's a pipe dream.