Richard notes that Rod Dreher, religion correspondent for the Dallas Morning News and a convert, is considering leaving the Church.
This isn't very surprising. A while ago, many people chastised Rob for his increasingly unhinged writing about the gay sex scandals. Catholic Light had commentary such as this and this, where Rod himself left a drive-by comment.
There is a strong element of narcissism in Rod's public conduct: Me, me, me. What I think, what I experience, what I believe. Playing out one's most intimate internal struggles for public consumption, in a manner that calls attention to one's own virtue, is not the approach of a serious man. It is the hallmark of the adolescent.
Sounds harsh? Maybe so, but it's the root of the problem. Rod is not having an intellectual difficulty. He believes that he has the right -- no, the duty -- to stand in judgment over the Church and her clergy. Read this 2004 column, where Rod "outs" his parish priest who was accused -- not arrested, much less convicted -- of molesting a male minor. Google isn't telling me what the resolution was.
I spent the next several days trying to find whatever information I could about Father Clay's situation. It was true: Father Clay had been banned from active ministry.Father Clay might have been an innocent man unjustly accused, swept up in the frenzied reaction to the scandal. But Judge Rod will not be deterred by considerations of prudence, avoiding scandal, or protecting the reputation of others. Father Clay was accused, and so he must pay!What to do with this information? I wasn't worried about Father Clay. I was worried about Father Allan Hawkins, the parish's very fine pastor, and the good people of the congregation.
I thought: Can't this be handled quietly, so Father Hawkins and the parish aren't embarrassed?
And then I thought: If I go that route, I am no better than the bishops and others I have criticized. They kept it in-house for the sake of the church and led us all off the cliff. Public exposure is the only sure way to handle Father Clay.
God is allowing Mr. Dreher's faith to be tested. Will he be a man and contend for it? Or will he allow his own personal disappointments to divert him into rejecting the head of the Church? I pray it is the former.
Eric:
Rod's column doesn't turn on whether Father Clay was innocent of the underlying charges, but that he was practicing in Diocese X while (1) Diocese Y, his diocese, had placed him under suspension; and (2) Diocese X had no official knowledge of Father Clay exercising his faculties.
Those two facts have never been officially rebutted, despite claims to the contrary (I went round this at Shea's at the time. There's more above and below.) So it was unquestionably a violation of the (stupid IMHO but valid) post-Dallas rules.
I agree this case was a tragedy all around -- it played no small role in Rod's turning East. And as I said at the time it probably was just innocent back-scratching. But by early 2002, the Church in the US had thrown away its secular credibility, the presumption that its leadership could be trusted to handle such matters confidentially and behind-the-scenes.
Calling Rod an adolescent, an inquisitor, hanging judge, etc., over that matter is really not defensible.
By the way, I think Rod's role at the paper is Sunday editorial page editor.
Rod is neither a clergyman, religious, or an employee of the Catholic Church. Rules governing those groups have no binding effect on him. He was not obligated to reveal what he found out -- and I think he had an obligation to figure out whether the charges against Father Clay were credible first. If he did that, he didn't mention it, nor can I find any subsequent information either exonerating or condemning Father Clay. If anyone has such information, please post it here.
I'll stand by "adolescent." I'd also add that "punishing" the Church by withdrawing from it reminds me a of a teenager who threatens to run away from home because he doesn't like his parents.
He was not obligated to reveal what he found out...
As matter of Church law, of course not. But you can't have it both ways, Eric. You can't maintain that Church rules don't formally apply to Rod while insisting that he ...
...had an obligation to figure out whether the charges against Father Clay were credible first.
I mean, how can a layman with no power or standing under Church law possibly do that? Rod has a moral obligation certainly, but I think he met that by confirming that Father was still under suspension in his home diocese (Scranton sez so; and they're the ones in possession of the facts about the investigation) and that he was practicing in DFW unbeknownest to those dioceses (Dallas and Fort Worth both say so). That's a prima facie violation of a publicly-passed policy made in response to a public scandal of immense proportions. How's that not immediately a public matter?
Here is the nub of I think where we differ, Eric. I don't think any layman, post-2002, should operate under the illusion that the US episcopacy and chanceries have the protection of lay children and teens as their first priority, or at least as a higher priority than the image of the Church (under the guise of "giving scandal"). Now that he had this true knowledge, Rod could either go to the episcopacy to hold the Church accountable from inside (knowing how it has treated Catholic parents like dirt to be swept under the rug in these situations) or to secular institutions like the law or the media that can hold it accountable from outside. Since 2002, I think that's a no-brainer.
I'd also add that "punishing" the Church by withdrawing from it reminds me a of a teenager who threatens to run away from home because he doesn't like his parents.
Eric, that's reductive; Rod isn't engaging in a personal snit or trying to "punish" the Church over Father Clay. What happened was that he was ostracized by St. Mary's parishioners, who blamed him and backed Father Clay and the pastor, Father Hawkins. This was the second time in less than two years in Dallas that he'd thought he'd found a parish he could call home and lost it. And so he basically gave up on the Dallas Catholic Diocese (a bit hastily, sez this man -- also a friend of mine.)
I'm not saying this is good, or doesn't betray an existentially Protestant ecclesiology on Rod's part. But it's very far from an adolescent whine.
I remember I ticked off Rod in the comments of a Post on Open Book. My comment was not a very good one, but I made the point that at least the Priest being accused of adultery was with a older woman and not involved in unnatrual acts with a teenage boy. He was very upset I said that. I think I gave the perspective of a parish priests who had enough of hearing about homosexual priests abusing boys.
On the other hand, Rod Dreher's move to Eastern Orthodoxy in response to the sex-abuse scandal is not uncommon. For example, my best friend from college is now a Greek Orthodox priest, partly because he had to endure the dominant homosexual culture in the seminary. It may be that some men feel that a married clergy will ensure a scandal-free environment. But anyone who does the research will know that it is not the case. There will always be a Judas.
I just engaged in some private correspondence with someone on this matter, and I think I should paste here the following paragraph from that note. It makes an important point that cannot be inferred from my previous notes here:
---------------------------------------
Now if you want to say what happened at SMV was a tragedy that proves how retarded and silly the post-Dallas rules are, that they presume guilt against priests, give them no recourse while they're in the investigatory limbo, and let enabling bishops off the hook ... hey, get in line behind me, bud. But rules is rules, and they were not being followed here on a matter where the laity have no reason to trust the hierarchy.
---------------------------------------
Let's distinguish between two things, Victor:
-- The moral law, which we are all obligated to follow; and
-- Policies set by the NCCB, which no one is morally bound to follow, but has great force because bishops voluntarily agree to follow them in their dioceses.
I contend that by not figuring out whether the charges against Father Clay were true, Rod violated the moral law. You ask how he could find out if they were true? Well, you're a journalist, too: he could use the usual means of asking questions, researching, etc.
For instance, if no police report was filed, the accuser's name is unrevealed, and the circumstances are unknown...are we supposed to assume the priest's guilt? To Rod (and far too many others), yes.
I had thought that the Christian thing to do, if you have a grievance against your brother, was to challenge the offending party. Read Matthew 18:15: "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over." Did Rod do that? I don't see that in his own account.
Also, I don't see how being "ostracized by his fellow parishioners" makes Rod any less childish. Presumably, they're grown-ups, too, and many of them have male teenagers. If they support the priests, and didn't run screaming from their parish because of an unproven allegation, what does that say about Rod?
Gotta revise that, Eric. Some of the Dallas norms were made into particular law for the US by Pope John Paul.
Also, one of the news stories I cited, if I understand it aright, indicates that Fr. Clay was accused of some misconduct by the plaintiff in the SSJ case, in spite of the fact that he was neither sued nor charged criminally.
Richard, if the Pope turns a policy into legislation, it's not just a policy anymore. I don't see how that contradicts what I said.
You're doing the same thing Rod is doing: just because a priest is "accused of some misconduct" doesn't mean he's guilty. I really hope you're not going down that path....
just because a priest is "accused of some misconduct" doesn't mean he's guilty.
Of the underlying conduct -- correct.
But that doesn't mean he isn't prima facie guilty of breaking rules related to "those accused of some misconduct pending the investigation's outcome." If you jump bail, your guilt on the initial charge is neither here nor there. You've jumped bail. And *that* (jumping bail/exercising his faculties contrary to a valid suspension; the analogy is obviously imperfect) was Father Clay's wrong. A wrong which Rod did check (all the concerned dioceses told him he was suspended/out on bail; one even issued a general press release). And a wrong about which Rod did warn Father Hawkins, the pastor, days before turning what he knew over the DMN religion reporter.
I don't see how being "ostracized by his fellow parishioners" makes Rod any less childish.
For leaving SMV parish? Absolutely. He had de facto no choice on that matter. How can you be a member of a parish (which is supposed to be a family, right) that blames you, rightly or wrongly, for ruining a priest they like.
For considering leaving the Church (which keep in mind, he hasn't done yet)? Less so, but I'm merely saying the experience solidified the bitter taste of Dallas in his mouth. Where one can criticize Rod obviously is for chucking his cross aside (hardly something all of us are not tempted by) or for seeking a kind of purism (I wish this poster at Shea's could have cut the snark. I largely agree with what she says substantively).
Rod needs to fast both from food and from idle talk. I think the Eastern desert fathers would tell him just that. Unfortunately his line of work makes that difficult.
Here are some reports about Fr. Clay's case. I tried to post them in a previous comment, but it was lost in a technical mixup.
The impression they give is that the DA lost or suppressed files on the case; when no prosecution ensued, Bp. Timlin imprudently took it as a justification for reinstating Clay.
5/9/2002:
Clay accused of misconduct, removed from duty in PA
5/26/2002:
Bp. Timlin describes charge against Clay
6/29/2004:
Ft. Worth diocese bans Clay after learning of accusation
(also here)
7/1/2004:
DA's file on Clay case is "missing"; former DA accused of molesting own daughter; deposition accuses Clay of giving alcohol to youth
7/1/2004:
Rod's account of exposing the story
7/1/2004:
E-mail from Jeffrey Bond (quoted by Matt Abbott): mentions CDF process
7/2/2004:
Timlin says that he was ready in 2003 to reassign Clay
7/9/2004:
Fr. Hawkins reprimanded
7/14/2004:
Contradictory answers on Clay's status
7/14/2004:
E-mail from Jeffrey Bond quotes DN story
My opinion is that based on the 2002 stories alone, Rod would have had sufficient reason to believe that the Scranton diocese found the charges credible. This wasn't a case of Rod publishing secret charges: the deposition was already known and had been reported in the press.
There is a strong element of narcissism in Rod's public conduct: Me, me, me. What I think, what I experience, what I believe.
Sort of. It really is "what I feel, what I feel, what I feel."
Yawn. A delayed Boomer.
Hey, I'm the commenter who didn't "cut the snark" at Shea's.
Chalk it up to anger. One feels a bit p.o.'d at the implication that one is a Bad Parent if one keeps one's kids in that horrible evil soul-destroying Catholic Church. :p