Wednesday, August 21, 2002
Dale: This, to put it charitably, sticks in my craw. It's a cradle thing, you wouldn't understand. Essentially, Thomas Hoopes at the National Catholic Register takes on Rod Dreher of National Review, targeting Mr. Dreher's not-yet-available-online article on the Pope and the Scandals. I don't know anything about Mr. Hoopes, and I've only had a couple of brief but pleasant exchanges with Mr. Dreher (can I call you "Rod"?). I admit to bias: I've read just about everything Rod's written about the scandals, and I agree with him almost 100%.
Actually, the first three points of Mr. Hoopes' commentary are essentially unobjectionable, although #3 becomes problematic in light of number 4. 4 is where the problem erupts, and Hoopes blasts those who have publicly criticized the bishops and the Pope. Here it is in full to avoid questions of context:
"Arguments like Dreher's are very much a product of precisely the circumstance he criticizes: There is a lack of solid Christian formation. It seems that people who came into the Church (I don't know how Dreher did) through apologetics were totally unprepared for the current scandal. They believe because the Church is eminently believable; it makes sense intellectually. But when faced with sinful pastors, the intellect isn't enough to hold the faith together. Apologetics alone produces a weak faith. Catholic faith has to be based on love for a person, Christ, and trust in him and the knowledge that he is at the heart of the Church, which is his body. That requires prayer. When you know him you aren't as scandalized by some of the things that happen. You know that he is the Lord of the wheat and the tares (and this parable not only applies, it is in the Gospels in order to speak directly to today's situation as much as any other), the Lord who chose Peter and Judas, the Lord who made sinful men and not angels the ministers of his sacraments, the Lord whose ways we can't fathom. You believe with St. Catherine that his popes and bishops should be confronted privately, not publicly, you believe with St. Paul (and Christ in Revelations and JPII) that his erring churches need to be set straight through exhortation."
I don't think there is any other way to read this attack but this way: if you publicly disagree with the way the scandal has been addressed by the bishops and the Pope, your faith in Christ is weak. Excuse me? There's even a whiff of an accusation of Donatism flung at the critics ("the Lord who made sinful men and not angels the ministers of his sacraments..."). It's hard to read this sort of thing charitably. I, like Mr. Dreher, am a convert. Like him, I came from an increasingly relativistic mainline Protestant denomination seemingly bent on self-destruction. I came to the Catholic faith because of Jesus Christ, and for no other reason. To argue that (entirely unlike those more fully grounded in Christ) I'm upset at the scandals simply because I'm a badly catechized convert with a head full of soundbites from "Catholic Answers" tracts is patronizing crappola of the highest order. Explain to me how one privately remonstrates with shepherds like Mahony, Law, McCormack, or Daily--men more attentive to liability concerns than governance in persona Christi. And lest we forget, Paul acted sternly against immorality within the congregation. See 1 Cor. 5:1-13 for an illuminating example of St. Paul going well beyond mere exhortation. No, St. Paul is no help on that score. To be absolutely clear, I am not scandalized by "sinful pastors." Like me, all pastors are sinful. No, I am scandalized by monstrous pastors, men who used their collars to prey upon children. I am scandalized by the knowing inaction of their bishop superiors who allowed them to run free for decades. Bishops who remain, and will remain, securely in office, with all of the privileges thereof, until they retire.
And I don't appreciate the pietistic finger-waving that dismisses these well-founded criticisms as the product of the weak faith of converts. There are more pungent phrases that better convey my anger, but I'm trying to curb my language.
Actually, the first three points of Mr. Hoopes' commentary are essentially unobjectionable, although #3 becomes problematic in light of number 4. 4 is where the problem erupts, and Hoopes blasts those who have publicly criticized the bishops and the Pope. Here it is in full to avoid questions of context:
"Arguments like Dreher's are very much a product of precisely the circumstance he criticizes: There is a lack of solid Christian formation. It seems that people who came into the Church (I don't know how Dreher did) through apologetics were totally unprepared for the current scandal. They believe because the Church is eminently believable; it makes sense intellectually. But when faced with sinful pastors, the intellect isn't enough to hold the faith together. Apologetics alone produces a weak faith. Catholic faith has to be based on love for a person, Christ, and trust in him and the knowledge that he is at the heart of the Church, which is his body. That requires prayer. When you know him you aren't as scandalized by some of the things that happen. You know that he is the Lord of the wheat and the tares (and this parable not only applies, it is in the Gospels in order to speak directly to today's situation as much as any other), the Lord who chose Peter and Judas, the Lord who made sinful men and not angels the ministers of his sacraments, the Lord whose ways we can't fathom. You believe with St. Catherine that his popes and bishops should be confronted privately, not publicly, you believe with St. Paul (and Christ in Revelations and JPII) that his erring churches need to be set straight through exhortation."
I don't think there is any other way to read this attack but this way: if you publicly disagree with the way the scandal has been addressed by the bishops and the Pope, your faith in Christ is weak. Excuse me? There's even a whiff of an accusation of Donatism flung at the critics ("the Lord who made sinful men and not angels the ministers of his sacraments..."). It's hard to read this sort of thing charitably. I, like Mr. Dreher, am a convert. Like him, I came from an increasingly relativistic mainline Protestant denomination seemingly bent on self-destruction. I came to the Catholic faith because of Jesus Christ, and for no other reason. To argue that (entirely unlike those more fully grounded in Christ) I'm upset at the scandals simply because I'm a badly catechized convert with a head full of soundbites from "Catholic Answers" tracts is patronizing crappola of the highest order. Explain to me how one privately remonstrates with shepherds like Mahony, Law, McCormack, or Daily--men more attentive to liability concerns than governance in persona Christi. And lest we forget, Paul acted sternly against immorality within the congregation. See 1 Cor. 5:1-13 for an illuminating example of St. Paul going well beyond mere exhortation. No, St. Paul is no help on that score. To be absolutely clear, I am not scandalized by "sinful pastors." Like me, all pastors are sinful. No, I am scandalized by monstrous pastors, men who used their collars to prey upon children. I am scandalized by the knowing inaction of their bishop superiors who allowed them to run free for decades. Bishops who remain, and will remain, securely in office, with all of the privileges thereof, until they retire.
And I don't appreciate the pietistic finger-waving that dismisses these well-founded criticisms as the product of the weak faith of converts. There are more pungent phrases that better convey my anger, but I'm trying to curb my language.
