A reader sent in a note today with the sad news that our brother in Christ, Rod Dreher, has separated himself from the Catholic Church. To confirm it, he quoted a message he received from Fr. Joseph Fester, associate priest of St. Seraphim Cathedral, which is in Dallas. Fr. Fester wrote that "Rod is a recent convert to Orthodoxy, here at St. Seraphim's."
As I wrote in May, "Unless breaking communion with Rome has a positive value for someone, it's hard to see a way to justify the departure."
Rod's justifications for it seem tinged with a certain air of compromise: ten years ago, he wrote, he urged an Evangelical friend to opt for the Catholic Church, and the friend replied that his kids were likelier to remain Christians if he were to become Orthodox. At the time, Rod "humphed at this, and told him that if the arguments for Catholicism are true, that's all he needs to know, that the rest would sort itself out."
Now Rod is "doing it for the children" too. In May, he wrote: "It's hard to separate the intellectual from the emotional in all this, especially because I really am a Papa Bear about protecting my kids, physically and spiritually. And yet, and yet ... is Catholicism true? Is Orthodoxy true? Is Orthodoxy true enough?"
This doesn't read like the words of a man who thinks that the truth of the Catholic religion is inferior to that of the Orthodox religion: it reads like a man talking himself into a compromise: settle for an alternative that is not quite as true as the Catholic faith, and hope that it's "true enough" to accomplish one's salvation.
Perhaps he thought that being in a smaller, purer, more supportive community will be better for his kids than being in the Catholic Church. And it may turn out to be as he wishes. But ultimately the salvation of others depends on the providence of God, and sacrificing the truth, even in a small way, to accomplish some intended good, reveals a lack of steadfast faith in that providence.
Having said all that, I do pray for Rod: that if he has committed any grave fault or fallen into error, may God have mercy on him and come to aid him.
+J.M.J+
In an earlier post, he admits he's had an anger problem since 9/11/01. That does appear to have played a big role in his subsequent alienation from Catholicism. Unfortunately, he will take that anger problem with him into his new ecclesial home, so I can't help wonder how long this honemoon with Orthodoxy will last. He's now infatuated with it, but how long before he discovers some scandal or lukewarmness in Orthodoxy that ticks him off and sends him back on his endless quest for the perfect church of his own imaginings?
There but for the grace of God go I.
In Jesu et Maria,
Don't hold your breath on that Rosemarie. As the people of this blog noted earlier, "It is all about Rod."
This doesn't read like the words of a man who thinks that the truth of the Catholic religion is inferior to that of the Orthodox religion: it reads like a man talking himself into a compromise: settle for an alternative that is not quite as true as the Catholic faith, and hope that it's "true enough" to accomplish one's salvation.
RC, you (like most Catholics) have things backward. It's not the Church that saves but God through His Son, Jesus, and His atoning work of redemption on the cross.
Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that "the Church is the means through which God acts on earth."
-- Tell that to Catholics who have become confused with all the "liturgical renovation" reflecting "the Spirit of Vatican II")
-- Tell that to the members of USCCB who (like their mainline Protestant counterparts) have abandoned their spiritual patrimony for intellectual fashion and the lust for political influence.
-- Tell that to those members of the Vatican (Martino, Poupard, Sodano) who express sympathy with a satanic death cult called Islam
-- Tell that to a pope (JPII), whose papacy was marked by (among other and far better things) appeasing Islam.
-- Tell that to those Catholics who were sexually molested by priests whom they trusted, priests who were protected by their bishops.
Many Catholics view their faith in the same way that many first-century Jews viewed Judaism: The group tie is enough; no need for thought or committment. St. Paul condemned this attitude in the second chapter of his letter to the Romans.
Your attitude, RC, merely proves that human nature hasn't changed much in two millenia.
D'Hippolito,
So if Dreher cheated on his wife & later left her to move in with his mistress as long as YOU can come up with a laundry list of how bad a woman his wife was to justify it then you would be cool with that right? Espcially if Mark Shea was trying to talk him out of it eh?
You are a predictable person Joe.
Adultery is after all a form of schism or rather schism is a form of spiritual adultery. Traditon is unanimous, schism can never be justifed ever. Indeed if I'm not mistaken that's the Eastern Orthodox view as well.
What Rod has done is objectively evil. No and's if's or but's. God help him.
Joe:
I again ask the question:
Do you yourself still call yourself Catholic? Or have you found a home elsewhere?
I ask this not to harass you, or berate you, but to find out where you're coming from now. If you've moved on to Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, or whatever, then OK. You've at least followed your convictions, and I can appreciate that. But if you haven't, then you're in the same mold as Call to Action or the Lefebvrites.
I repeat: I'm not asking this to attack you. I just want to know. If you don't want to discuss it here, feel free to email me privately. I'm willing to talk. OK?
BTW just for the record all that stuff about "Rod's mistress" was hypothetical I am not accusing him of cheating on his wife. But he is ckeating himself.
Dave:
Getting Joe to answer that is like getting a reporter to admit his liberal bias. Dreher also will not admit his own bias. It takes someone like me writing a letter to Fr. Fester to get him to admit Dreher had converted. He has every right to his beliefs. What bothers me about people like Mr. Dreher is his deception about what he believes. It is the case when New York Times Report Bill Carter wrote a story in November 2002 about David E. Kelley was a Catholic writer using his show, The Practice, to express his anger at the church scandals. The problem with that was David E. Kelley was not Catholic, thereby making the premise of Mr. Carter's story ficticous. Mr. Dreher likewise continues in his disguise as a loyal Catholic out to rectify the wrongs of the church. Nothing is further from the truth. Enablers like Dom B, Mark Shea, Amy Welborn et. al. say nothing about his dishonesty, because he hits the right notes of their beliefs. Dreher's facade explains his inability to criticize the growing Anti-Catholicism in this society. Enough of that, Take Care and Joseph don't go chasing too many ambulances.
Jonathan:
Thanks, but I'm inviting Joe to discuss it with me privately if he likes, with no blogging or sharing of correspondence with others. If he wants to do so, fine. If he wants to discuss it here or in another public forum, all right. If he declines,that's his prerogative as well. I just want to know where he's coming from so I can understand him a bit better, even if I never agree with him.
Joe:
The invite's still on. If you lived in Milwaukee, I'd ask you to come on over and talk over a beer or other preferred beverage. Think it over...
Jonathan,
Are you the reader Richard Chonak references in his post who got the message from Fr. Fester? If so, do I understand you correctly that you made an inquiry specifically on the matter to this priest? If so, should the faithful be investigating the religious status of their coreligionists in this way?
You make an interesting case as to why they should, but still wonder about the prudence of doing so. I do see how the duplicity of a person passing himself or herself off as a critical but faithful insider of a particular religious tradition when he or she has actually renounced that tradition by conversion to another could warrant exposure. I also do not subscribe to the modern notion that religion is an altogether private affair.
Nevertheless, I do wonder whether it belongs to the laity to be making inquiries of this sort against their fellow believers, even when they suspect them of being former fellow believers, and then bringing the matter to a public forum for discussion. Yes, Rod has himself made the possibility of his conversion a public matter by posting it on his own blog; but he has not declared publicly since then that he actually has converted, so should others do it for him?
Mind you, these are earnest questions -- I have no definitive opinion on these myself at this time despite both misgivings that this is being discussed in an open forum and understandings as to why it is considered newsworthy.
Yes I am. I did this because Mr. Dreher passed himself as soemthing he was not. That something of course being a "loyal Catholic" in communion with the Holy See. I also felt the need to do this because many of the people who posted to his and other blogs bought his act and would not believe anything different unless there was pretty straightforward evidence confirming it. I may not be the eloquent writer Breher Dreher is, but I do my homework and can connect a few dots.
Several points:
Ben Yachov (Jim Scott IV), you equate Dreher's apparent decision to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy to adultery and call it an "objective evil." This is so absurd that it doesn't deserve a response.
Then again, such an assessment comes from a man who amuses himself by imitating Mr. Shea's despicable tendency to insult anybody who dares disagree with him.
Dave Pawlak, I will answer you offline.
Jonathan Carpenter, you have appointed yourself as Rod Dreher's "conscience" (i.e., self-righteous obsessive bully) on every issue under the sun. Dreher's conversion is just another excuse for you to dump on him.
You, like Ben Yachov, are nothing but an idolater. You and others like you worship your Catholic identity as God rather than God as God. Well, when the Second Coming occurs, God will destroy Rome. And Geneva. And Canterbury. And Wittenberg. And Istanbul, etc. And I'm not talking about the cities in a literal manner, here.
Joe:
Thanks.
Responses:
(1) For Joe: A list of the clergy's sins and failings doesn't persuade me that one can dispense with the visible Catholic Church. I became a Catholic at about the nadir of the Church in the US, in 1980; and obviously not because USCCB documents are edifying or the bishops are moral heroes. Surely there are better arguments than that.
(2) For Jonathan: Rod hasn't been presenting himself as a happy Catholic for some time. He wrote his column about "considering" Orthodoxy back in the spring. Take it from me as a convert: when someone states publicly that they're "considering" joining a religion, they've decided, and all that remains are the formalities.
In June, he put in his column that he's now worshipping regularly at the Orthodox cathedral. That's a plain enough statement: that's where Rod attends church now.
Since he wrote that, I don't think anyone has ground to complain that Rod's presenting himself as still a Catholic. He probably has his reasons for not writing more about becoming a member of the Orthodox Church. Perhaps it's out of kindness toward his friendly Catholic readers who will be disappointed.
Since he wrote that, I don't think anyone has ground to complain that Rod's presenting himself as still a Catholic. He probably has his reasons for not writing more about becoming a member of the Orthodox Church. Perhaps it's out of kindness toward his friendly Catholic readers who will be disappointed.
er, well, when he keeps presenting himself as still undecided, still a fence-straddler---as he manifestly has---then you can't really fault his readers for failing to pick up on the cryptic clues. I mean, what is this--the Rod Dreher Code?
There is a word for such coyness. Dishonesty. And IMHO it is especially objectionable as Rod has lost no opportunity to bash the Catholic Church up one side and down the other, all the while maintaining the pretense of Still Being Catholic. Whereas in reality he's been just another ex-Catholic anti-Catholic. His credibility, if he ever had any, is shot.
You know, I really don't care that much whether Rod is no longer interested in "dancing with the one that brung him." What I object to is his penchant for loudly and publically dissing his erstwhile escort while waltzing off with the rival--all the while pretending to still be divided between the two.
He can become a Whirling Dervish for all I care, as long as he stops publically (and usually unfairly) bashing my Church.
Diane
Maybe there's some misunderstanding: I contend that since June Rod is not presenting himself as a Catholic.
If anyone wants to claim otherwise, it's your obligation to present evidence.
Jonathan Carpenter has long had a know-that-I'm-stalking-you-mine-enemy obsession with Rod Dreher. That he took the steps of 1) formally inquiring into Rod's religious activity and 2) publishing his findings as gossipy tidbits in the blathosphere confirms that he is, at best, just this side of kooky.
Given the origins of this "scandal," those who are incensed--INCENSED!--that Rod should consider Orthodoxy should reflect instead on their own willingness to get caught up in this undertow-cum-bilge.
They should worry that they might overhear themselves praying from the heart, "I thank you God, that I am not like this reporter. I fast twice a week, I pay my tithes to the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. . . ."
>Ben Yachov (Jim Scott IV), you equate Dreher's apparent decision to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy to adultery and call it an "objective evil." This is so absurd that it doesn't deserve a response.
I reply: You are as weird as you are inconsistant Joe. You castigate the late Pope as a heretic who goes against tradition for not holding to your private interpretation of the morality of the death penalty, yet Tradition (both before & after V2 & it's EO teaching as well) unanimously teaches that Schism is a mortal sin. The only excuse I can see for your heterodox self-serving Cafateria Catholicism is that you are as I said you are an extreme theological illiterate.
>Then again, such an assessment comes from a man who amuses himself by imitating Mr. Shea's despicable tendency to insult anybody who dares disagree with him.
I reply: For you ANYONE who dare to disagree with you and correct your false doctrine is being "insulting". I'm sorry if you believe in the infalibility of yourself & Rod Dreher. It's misguided since Jesus gives infallibility to the Church not the individual.
>You, like Ben Yachov, are nothing but an idolater.
I reply: I worship the God of Abraham alone thus how can I be an idolater? Again with the theological illiteracy.
>You and others like you worship your Catholic identity as God rather than God as God. Well, when the Second Coming occurs, God will destroy Rome. And Geneva. And Canterbury. And Wittenberg. And Istanbul, etc. And I'm not talking about the cities in a literal manner, here.
I reply: Spoken like a true follower of Geneve and not Trent, Vatican One & Two.
Has Rod or has he not gone into schism?
Rod needs to speak up to correct the record. Because if he hasn't then everything I have said about him has been premature.
Joseph Hippo said:
"Jonathan Carpenter, you have appointed yourself as Rod Dreher's "conscience" (i.e., self-righteous obsessive bully) on every issue under the sun. Dreher's conversion is just another excuse for you to dump on him."
As if the way you and people like Mark Shea, Dom B treated me for bringing up questions because I was not part of your clique. You do not have room to talk. I investigated Mr. Dreher's status because people like you would not believe it unless it was clear cut. You should know about making your prima facia case. I am not as eloquent as you, Dreher et. al. I just connect the dots to show the picture of someone far from being the loyal Catholic is anything but. People have every right to criticize the stupidity of people like Bishop Brown. I do not like to use it as an excuse to dabble in what Arthur Schlesinger called "The Deepest Bias in the history of the American people." That being Anti-Catholicism. Maybe it is me but I do not by this "breaking a few eggs to make an omolet mentality.
Jonathan,
Thanks for confirming that. I understand what you are saying, but it still does not sit right with me, especially if Richard's read on the situation is the right one. Keep in mind that Rod is a religion reporter for a secular newspaper, and Roman Catholicism will continue to generate newsworthy stories for him whether he is still a Roman Catholic or not. Of course, if Rod's reporting on Catholic Church is unfair (and I think that it can be myopically so) or if he makes a jaundiced unfavorable comparison of RC against O, then by all means he should be corrected. Moreover, if he writes a manifesto of "Why I Am No Longer a Catholic" on his blog, then that likely warrants a response as well. Until he makes such a declaration, though, the idea that the blogosphere should launch private investigations into his standing as a Catholic and subjecting the findings to public discussion rather than diligently focus attention on the content of his reporting about Catholicism strikes me as overstepping our bounds.
Ronny. Mr. Dreher is not a Religon editor or reporter. He is a Columnist/Editor of the Dallas Morning News.
He has confirmed on his blog Mr. Carpenter's finding. See here.
I don't see that as a distinction with much of a difference, Jonathan. Yes, I know his position. I also know that he has a special interest in religious topics in his reporting (as evidenced in many of his posts in the DMN editorial blog, not to mention his Crunch Cons blog hosted on Beliefnet). He is, to that extent, a religion reporter. Getting hung up on his official title, though, is entirely beside the point that I raised.
Ben Yachov (Jim Scott IV), you equate Dreher's apparent decision to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy to adultery and call it an "objective evil." This is so absurd that it doesn't deserve a response. (Joseph D'Hippolito at October 11, 2006 9:52 PM) Actually, the response it deserves is confirmation, at least to its being an "objective evil". Schism is a serious sin. Subjective factors may (I say may) mitigate one's culpability for schism, but objectively it is a serious sin. I can hardly imagine how a Catholic could think to deny that.
Wow. There really isn't any difference between a columnist and a reporter. Wow.
Good grief, ELC.
I think that I should absent myself further from this thread and another one on which I have posted. Something tells me that this discussion is going to get increasingly less prudent and charitable than it already is.
Several points,
1. anonymous, you make the most sense of anybody on this thread. The fact is that it's none of our business whether Rod converts to Orthodoxy or some other Christian church, or remains a Catholic. That's between Rod, his conscience and God. The ultimate question is whether he accepts or rejects Christ.
On that note...
2. RC, the issue is whether the Cahtolic Church truly reflects the fullness of Christ. I believe that *no* institutionalized church represents the fullness of Christ because institutionalized Christianity as a whole -- Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, liberal, conservative, evangelical, liturgical, charismatic, whatever -- has become an abomination to a holy, righteous God Who demands that those who hold authority in His name abide by higher standards. I would hold that the Catholic Church (among others) has been abandoning those standards for centuries.
Now, to Ben Yachov:
You castigate the late Pope as a heretic who goes against tradition for not holding to your private interpretation of the morality of the death penalty...
Ben Yachov, you are the one practicing "self-serving Cafeteria Catholicism." My interpretation of the morality of capital punishment is not private.
[extensive off-topic argument deleted --RC]
Enjoy the cafeteria, Ben...
D'Hippolito,
You deny the CLEAR UNANIMOUS TEACHING OF THE CHURCH that schism is never justified & an objective moral evil.
So it is illogical & inconsistant for YOU to "correct" JP2 on captical punishment. Again you are not being intellectually consistant here. Which is nothing new for you. Trying to sidetrack me into defending JP2 & answering your private interpretation of tradition in regards to Captial punishment is mere sophistry on your part. I won't take the bait.
>I believe that *no* institutionalized church represents the fullness of Christ because institutionalized Christianity as a whole -- Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, liberal, conservative, evangelical, liturgical, charismatic, whatever -- has become an abomination to a holy, righteous God Who demands that those who hold authority in His name abide by higher standards. I would hold that the Catholic Church (among others) has been abandoning those standards for centuries.
I reply: This is a purely Protestant sentiment & contradicts the same tradition you claim authorirty for your view on Capital punishment.. You are not an orthodox faithful Catholic Joe. [name calling deleted--RC]
Jonathan:
Objectively speaking, Joe D'Hippolito and Mark Shea are not in the same clique.
Joe:
If you need my email, you may get it via my blog. I'm not sure if emails are link through this comment box. Thanks again for accepting my invitation.
Objectively speaking, Joe D'Hippolito and Mark Shea are not in the same clique.
I'm not sure they're on the same planet.
:)
Diane
Joe: Thanks for the kind words. I must dissociate myself, though, from your separation of Christ and the Church. I think Rod has done himself a disservice in going Ortho, and I have told him so privately, as behooves one in such matters. I fear far less for Rod's soul, than for those who engage--either by action or affirmation--in Jonathan Carpenter's savage act of high Phariseeism. May God have mercy on their souls, I find myself praying, for I fear they will need it.
I would add that there are a few people who seem to have a well over-developed sense of outrage at Rod Dreher, to the point of setting up group blogs to discredit him.
I fail to understand the special animus against him because I don't think he's been especially harder on bishops and the Church than quite a few orthodox (no pun intended) Catholic opinionists out there.
Jonathan, did Rod run over your dog once or something because you have crossed the line into obsession and perhaps even criminal stalking. At the least you should be checking in regularly with a confessor to ensure you're not doing damage to your soul.
And perhaps you might consider that other bloggers don't take you seriously because you come off as seriously creepy, not because they are especially interested in defending Rod for his alleged offenses.
Well, if you ask me, in the sheer creepiness department, Mr. d'Hippolito takes the cake. Jonathan Carpenter could take his correspondence course.
As for the morality of "outing" Rod Dreher: Gee, I seem to recall that Dreher outed some priest against whom there were unproven allegations of sex abuse---because the bishop was moving too slowly for Rod (apparently he couldn't wait longer than three days before blazing the story across the pages of the DMN...so much for taking one's beef to the Church first, the Scriptural procedure).
Maybe Rod's just getting a taste of his own medicine.
He has already intimated that he will continue bashing the Catholic Church publicly, because, after all, he is an "opinion journalist."
What a sweetheart.
Diane
+J.M.J+
Rod can continue bashing the Church all he wants; he's got freedom of speech/press, after all. I just think Catholics would be less likely to listen to him if they know he is no longer one of us, because he will be seen as a disaffected ex-Catholic. Even if his criticism is justified, it won't carry as much force anymore.
In Jesu et Maria,
Hey, Rosemarie, when I made the same point on Mark Shea'ss blog, I got bashed.
Gee, I feel so...special. ;)
Well, it's a good thing we're holier than those terrible Pharisees.
Diane, I ask you to specify why, where and how my "creepiness" "takes the cake."
Moreover, for you to equate Carpenter's trying to "out" Rod for going Orthodox with Rod trying to "out" a priest suspected of child abuse is moral absurdity at its highest. First, Rod's conversion to another Christian church is nobody else's bloody business. Besides, Orthodoxy (unlike Islam) is a legitimate, God-fearing faith.
OTOH, failing or refusing to confront evil makes us accessories to that evil, at least in God's righteous eyes. As a Catholic and as a citizen, Rod had every right and responsibility to "out" that priest -- whom you don't assert was innocent, btw.
It is not Carpenter's responsibility to monitor the legal, private decisions others make. It is, however, everybody's responsibility to protect the innocent.
As far as going to the Catholic authorities are concerned, Rod has enough experience to know that those authorities have been (and, as far as we know, continue to be) pervasively corrupt. Instead of holding clerical perverts accountable, bishops enable them to protect themselves and the Church as an institution -- or have you been asleep the past four years?
If the Catholic authorities were all that trustworthy, then where are the canonical trials for clerical perverts and their episcopal enablers?
For that matter, Diane, why does Roger Mahony still have his position as Archbishop of Los Angeles?
Joseph:
You are right in saying that Cardinal Mahony should not be Archbishop of Los Angeles. I think you should also remember the part of the creed that says "We believe in god who will judge the living and the dead." Does that mean anything to you Joseph? God will hold him accountable as he will everyone else. Also, you are right in saying Dreher can believe what he wants. What bothers me is the fact that he pretended to be a loyal Catholic in communion with the Holy See; eventhough he admitted he has been Orthodox for the past two months. Does his journalist credentials give him the right to pretend to be something he is not? I do not think so. Are we supposed to believe with him it is "Do as I say, not as I do" ?
Now that Rod has written about his conversion to the Orthodox Church, and written trenchantly about the seamy clerical behavior which demoralized him so much -- an act which is a public service on his part -- there's no need for any further comment on this thread.