Rod Dreher, reporter for the Dallas Morning News, and a frequenter of many Catholic blogs, says the bishops and the Pope himself are a bunch of liars in a comment on Bettnet:
...the Pope’s asking for Krenn’s resignation “for reasons of health” is also a form of lying. They lie to maintain the great facade. They lie by habit. They lie “for the good of the Church.” They lie. I don’t believe a thing they say anymore, about anything. If the Pope said tomorrow that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I’d double-check that too, or at least wonder what kind of angle he was pushing.
My response:
Rod, you called the Holy Father a liar. I do not think he is a liar, unless you can prove that he deliberately stated something that he knew was untrue.
Nor do I think defending him from the charge of lying is "idolatry." Contra Joseph [in another comment], I'm not offering a "reflexive defense," nor do I go looking for opportunities to play Defender of the Pope. (I find most discussions of The Scandal to be almost completely unedifying.)
Listen to what you wrote: "If the Pope said tomorrow that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I’d double-check that too, or at least wonder what kind of angle he was pushing." That is breathtakingly cynical, and cynicism, as Chesterton said, is mere intellectual laziness: not everyone is corrupt, and not everone has an "angle" to push.
You are drifting off into the darkness, my brother in Christ, and I beg you to abandon your despair and trust more fully in the Holy Spirit, who will renew and refresh the Chuch whose life he sustains.
UPDATE: Dreher has retracted his "liar" claim, which is admirable, although he seems to maintain that certain bishops do lie, or at least do not tell the entire truth.
Yes...but maybe some of us feel the sheer magnitude of this ongoing and relentless scandal, the look-the-other-wayism of so many in authority who knew it was going on, and the hurt not a few of us personally experienced...is that cynical or is it just plain indignation...and this is not a fan of Jimmy Breslin talking here.
Rod is concerned about the pope's alleged dishonesty. (Garry Wills, call your office.)
And yet, he now writes this, over on Bettnet: "I’m going to stand here and say that there is deep, sick corruption in the Church, and that John Paul, who has been so courageous and outspoken about everything under the sun, is afraid to name it, and afraid to stand against it. The Holy Father can apologize profoundly to every group in the world who has ever been unjustly treated by the Church, but he cannot face his very own people who were violated in horrible ways by his own priests, and then in many cases emotionally and spiritually abused by bishops who told them to shut up and get lost. That is disgraceful, and it shouldn’t be so hard for followers of Jesus Christ to say it."
Sorry, but that's ... dishonest. The pope has at least twice - in April 2002 in a speech to the American cardinals, and later that summer at World Youth Day - expressed his sorrow at, and stated the unacceptibility of, the actions that led to The Situation.
And Rod knows this - indeed, he even cites the April 2002 remarks only to dismiss them.
Furthermore, as Mark Shea has pointed out to him, we actually have no idea with whom the pope has met in private.
(Finally, of course, even if there's unlikely to be much more abuse, there is indeed still "corruption" in the Church. But it's not as if the pope isn't also doing concrete things about that - like working to build a Church that will produce better bishops; like continuing to instruct our current bishops about their proper role, as in last fall's apostolic exhortation, and this spring and summer's series of addresses to the US bishops on their ad limina visits.)
Very well put, Kevin.
Whether Bishop Krenn's resignation involves health reasons or not, I for one don't know. There have been reports in the news that other Austrian bishops have asked Krenn to resign. In any event, it seems to me the most important issue is that a bishop has actually resigned from a see after presiding over extremely gross scandal in a diocesan institution under his control. A rare instance of proper church governance regarding a major sexual scandal has occurred.
Up until now, The current Successor of Peter, the supreme teacher, sanctifier, and governor in the Church, has not asked bishops who preside over gross scandal and criminal behavior to resign. Sadly, they have had to either molest minors themselves (O'Donnell, Symonds, Groer), run someone over with their own Buick (O'Brien, who was told not to resign over his near-indictment a week before) or receive public condemnation from a group of their priests (Law) before Rome demands their resignation.
I for one rejoice to see proper governance in action in this situation. The bishop is someone whom (as St. Thomas tells us) is primarily a charismatic, a person conformed to Christ by a spiritual gift, to be an icon and witness of Christ's person--from which gift his office as participant in Christ's teaching, sanctifying, and governing flows.
And this time, when a bishop presided over gross malfeasance and criminal activity (child pornography was involved in St. Poelten, remember), Rome demanded his resignation. This should be ordinary procedure. The ecclesiology of communion *must* give way in these situations to the common good. The man who is the primary icon of Christ, the primary witness, for his piece of real estate, must be removed when he so grossly covers up crime and scandal.
Sadly, the systematic, officially supported and encouraged massive homosexual-behavior scandal, not to mention the child pornography, at St. Poelten was continuing freely until outside publicity occurred. But at least this time when the scandal occurred, true accountability happened. That's something I for one am glad to see, and I pray that good governance becomes more common.
Rod's acknowledged (comment at 10:48 am on Bettnet) that the "liar" complaint was unjustified:
It was a rash thing to have said, and I can’t substantiate it—if by “liar” one means someone who consciously told an untruth with the intent to deceive. I repent of that.
That's good - except that he goes on to say: "However, I do wish to say that I believe the Holy Father, like all the bishops, have a certain mindset that allows lies to be told 'for the good of the Church,' and indeed thinks that practice to be normal, and of no great moral consequence."
Which is just as bad. And then he goes on to try to substantiate the claim with reference to the controversy over "It is as it was" and The Passion of the Christ. Except that, as last winter, he's still botching that story, since, among other things, he's still misrepresenting the contents of the emails in question (even assuming that they're all authentic). For details, see http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/BlogDetail.asp?ID=12705
Eric, since Dreher has retracted the statements that seemed to accuse the Pope of lying, wouldn't it be fair to change the headline on the thread as well? The site has done that in other instances, such as the Phatmass thread.
"That's good - except that he goes on to say: "However, I do wish to say that I believe the Holy Father, like all the bishops, have a certain mindset that allows lies to be told 'for the good of the Church,' and indeed thinks that practice to be normal, and of no great moral consequence."
Which is just as bad."
Why? Why is that bad? This is my understanding of, at least, American bishops. For the past two years I've been asking why lay Catholics found it acceptable for Bishops to habitually lie. I'm frankly astounded that some of them can appear in public without being pelted with rotting fruit.
"Bubbles":
I was talking about the "the Holy Father" part - not the part about the bishops.
Although, I also think that saying "all the bishops" is inaccurate and unjust.
As goes Phatmass, so goes Catholic A'ight. I have changed the headline.
Kevin,
I would certainly agree that claiming the deception we've seen exhibited by some bishops is generalizable to all bishops, is itself dishonest.
This is something that I'm trying to reconcile, not smear. 'Course, it's hard to remember St. Francis' "..trusting that He will make all things right." when you've got a good supply of over-ripe tomatos.
"Bubbles":
Right. I actually prefer to eat them when they're just ripe, so as to avoid that temptation, and also so as to be able to enjoy a tasty salad.
"In my job, I deal with people who lie all the time. Some of them are bishops."
I heard this from a priest who works with bishops from his office in Washington. I didn't need to hear it from him to be aware of it. Sorry, Eric, a number of our bishops have been guilty of being fast and loose with the truth. They wouldn't be up to their keisters in lawsuits if they hadn't.
Still wanna dump on Rod Dreher? Whether you do or not, no one is a Catholic for the sake of a bishop or a priest, but for Our Lord. Nothing he's written would suggest (at least not to me) that he has lost trust in the Holy Spirit.
But he HAS lost trust elsewhere. And he's in REAL good company.
Refuting someone who issues an unjust accusation isn't "dumping" on anyone.