Author: Richard Chonak

Devotees of San Gandolfo brought his statue from Polizzi Generosa in Sicily all the way to Little Italy in Manhattan 105 years ago, but it looks like the landlord is making him move again.

(Thanks to The Cranky Professor for the link.)

Over at the HMS, Kevin Miller gives a rebuttal to my post below about the Dreher column and the overwrought responses it has garnered.
Part of the dispute comes from the suggestion that maybe nobody at NR is “a sincere Catholic”. Now, I don’t happen to read that magazine these days, but to me, that’s a serious charge: yet Kevin openly defends it.
I take “sincere” to mean such things as “honest”, “unfeigned”, “heartfelt”, “genuine in feeling” — and to call someone “insincere” is tantamount to calling him a hypocrite. Our Lord was entitled to do that, or maybe a reader of souls like Padre St. Pio, but for you or me, or Kevin or Victor to do that strikes me as somewhere between imprudent and impudent. It’s an accusation about the person’s inner intentions, so there’s a pretty high burden of proof. On the other hand, if they want to say that this or that fellow Catholic (Dreher or Fr. Schall or whoever) is in error, or is inconsistent, that would be fine with me.
Kevin defends Greg Popcak’s analysis (on the Pope’s role vis-à-vis bishops) as based on sound theology, but I think it’s hard to tell, because Greg uses some vague language to express his thoughts. He writes:

Likewise, the Pope cannot “unmake” a bishop at his will, he may, however, ask a bishop to resign if he is SURE that it is God’s will that he do so.

There are a couple of ambiguities here.
First, no one, not even God, can “unmake” a bishop, in the sense of undoing the sacramental character of ordination, so the terminology here is confused.
As for the talk about being “SURE” of God’s will, what is Greg’s basis for writing this? A bishop can either be deprived of office or be asked to resign. Either way, the grounds are relatively objective and stated in church law, not based on anybody’s discernment of God’s will.
I don’t think this is such clear theology.

A few of the bloggers took Rod Dreher to task Friday for his latest WSJ column, in which he compares the Vatican’s full-court press against a war on Iraq with its less vigorous approach with respect to the sex-abuse scandals in the US, and grouses at the latter.
Greg Popcak called the article “idiotic” and the sentiments “bordering on irrational”. I expected him to grill Dreher: are you now or have you ever been an Ultramontanist? And Victor Lams, seldom given to harsh judgments, wonders whether no-one writing for National Review is “a sincere Catholic”. Considering the company that Rod is in as an NR writer, that sort of talk was over the top.
When orthodox Catholics express the wish that Pope John Paul would intervene more vigorously in Church life over here to correct abuses, they’re often told: sorry, dears, things just don’t work that way; the Pope is fulfilling his role, and it’s up to the bishops here to fulfill theirs. Can’t argue with that.
This notion that Pope John Paul passed up opportunities to discipline bishops must be some fringe view held by people who really don’t understand the Church’s tradition on governance — unless you want to take seriously people like James Hitchcock, Ralph McInerny, George Weigel, and Tom Bethell.

Maybe for health reasons, maybe due to his role in the scandal. I hope it’s not the latter: that would make the Mass in Bp. Moreno’s honor today a bit sticky.
Hey, Gordon Zaft, you’re on the scene: can you add anything?