Don't let the door hit you... (conservative Catholic journalist joins Orthodox Church)

Cafeteria is Closed ^ | October 12, 2006 | Gerald Augustinus

[NYer]

Roman Sacristan tells me that Rod Dreher, a right-wing writer (Dallas Morning News, National Review) who used to be Catholic (convert) has jumped ship and joined an Orthodox church (personal take: for me it'd be absurd to join, say, the Russian Orthodox church without being Russian). On Beliefnet, Mr. Dreher explains himself in quite a pitiful manner, citing the sex scandals and dissent in the Church - only to offer up dissent himself.

Back in 2001, when I first started writing about the child sex-abuse scandal in the Church, Father Tom Doyle, the heroic priest who ruined his own career by speaking out for victims, warned me, "If you keep going down this path, you are going to go to places darker than you can imagine." I thought I understood what he meant, but I didn't. Even if I had, by then, I couldn't have stopped. What brought me in touch with Fr. Doyle was my having stumbled upon a cell of clerical molesters at a Carmelite parish in the Bronx. They had preyed on a teenage immigrant boy who was troubled, and whose father was back in Nicaragua. His mother sent him to the priests for counseling, thinking that maybe being around some men of God would do the boy some good. The priests ended up molesting him. When the boy's father arrived in the States and found out what had happened, he went to the Archdiocese of New York to tell them what happened. They offered to cut him a check if he'd sign a paper agreeing to let the Archdiocese's attorneys handle the matter.

And that's how it began for me. At the time, as the father of a young boy, I couldn't shake the thought What if this had happened to my family? Would we be treated this way by the Archdiocese? ...

The sex-abuse scandal can't be easily separated from the wider crisis in the American Catholic Church, involving the corruption of the liturgy, of catechesis, and so forth. I've come to understand how important this point is, because if most other things had been more or less solid, I think I could have weathered the storm. But I found it impossible to find solid ground.
...

After months, we finally made a decision: we would visit an Orthodox parish. As Catholics, we knew at least that the Sacraments there were valid. Though we couldn't receive communion, we could at least be in the presence of the Eucharistic Christ, and worship liturgically with them, and draw close to God on Sunday morning, however imperfectly. I can hardly express the burden of guilt I felt when I crossed the threshold of St. Seraphim's parish that morning. But you know, it was a wonderful place. The liturgy was breathtakingly beautiful. The preaching orthodox. And the people -- half of them Russian, most of the others converts -- could hardly have been kinder and more welcoming. As a new Episcopalian friend told me a couple of weeks ago after he visited St. Seraphim's, "There is life there."

We kept going back, and finally got invited to dinner at the archbishop's house. I feared it would be a stiff, formal affair. I was astonished to turn up at the address given, to find that it was the shabby little cottage behind the cathedral. We went in, and it was like being at a family reunion. Vladika's house was jammed with parishioners celebrating a feast day with ... a feast. There was Archbishop Dmitri in the middle of it all, looking like a grandfatherly Gandalf. I had never in all my years as a Catholic been around people who felt that way about their bishop. The whole thing was dizzying -- the fellowship, the prayerfulness, the feeling of family. I hadn't realized how starved I was for a church community.

Over time, we got to know the people of the parish. They became our friends. It was a new experience for me to be in a parish where you can be openly small-o orthodox, and the priest and the people support you in that. In "Crunchy Cons," the Orthodox convert (from RCism) Hugh O'Beirne says that Catholics new to the Orthodox Church may find it surprising that they don't have to be on a "war footing" -- meaning the culture wars don't intrude into worship. People are on the same page, and if they're not, they're not out trying to get the Church to change her position on abortion, gay marriage, inclusive language, and all that. As someone who more or less is on the front lines of the culture war every day in my job as a journalist, I found it a new and welcome experience to be able to go to church on Sunday and get built back up for the struggle ahead, instead of to find mass the most debilitating hour of the week.

Julie and I could see what was happening to us: we were falling in love with Orthodoxy. On several occasions, we stopped to check ourselves. But we couldn't bring ourselves to leave this place, where we were back in touch with Christ, and learning to serve Him in community, to return to what we had experienced as a spiritual desert. I know this is not every Catholic's experience, but this was ours.
......

I had to admit that I had never seriously considered the case for Orthodoxy. Now I had to do that. And it was difficult poring through the arguments about papal primacy. I'll spare you the details, but I will say that I came to seriously doubt Rome's claims. Reading the accounts of the First Vatican Council, and how they arrived at the dogma of papal infallibility, was a shock to me: I realized that I simply couldn't believe the doctrine. And if that falls, it all falls. Of course I immediately set upon myself, doubting my thinking because doubting my motives. You're just trying to talk yourself into something, I thought. And truth to tell, there was a lot of that, I'm sure.

But what I noticed during all this Sturm und Drang over doctrine was this: we were happy again as a family, and at peace. Julie said one day driving home from liturgy, "Isn't it great to look forward to going to church again?" ... Here I was beginning to live a more Christ-like life as a fellow traveler of Orthodoxy, and knowing that if I went back to full-fledged Catholicism, I would be returning to anger and despair. What does it mean to live in the Christian truth in that situation? How would I feel if I approached the Judgment Seat and said to God, "I lived as a depressed and embittered man, lost my children to the Christian faith, and was a terrible witness to your goodness. But Lord, thanks to you, I never left Catholicism."

It was not an abstract question for me. I wondered: is the point of our life on earth to become like Jesus, or is it to maintain formal affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church? ...

I can look back also and see that my own intellectual pride helped me build a weak foundation for my faith. When I converted to Catholicism in 1992 (I entered the Church formally in 1993), it was a sincere Christian conversion. But I also took on as my own all the cultural and intellectual trappings of the American Catholic right. I remember feeling so grateful for the privilege and gift of being Catholic, but there was a part of me that thought, "Yay! I'm on the A-Team now, the New York Yankees of Christianity. I'm on Father Neuhaus's team!" ...

A few weeks back, I mentioned to Julie on the way to St. Seraphim's one morning, "I'm now part of a small church that nobody's heard of, with zero cultural influence in America, and in a tiny parish that's materially poor. I think that's just where I need to be."
...

As far as tradition goes, I have moved with my family to a church that I believe stands a much better chance of maintaining the historic Christian deposit of faith over time. To be more blunt, I have moved to a church that in my judgment within which I and my family and my descendants will be better able to withstand modernity. Basically, though -- and this is as blunt as I can be -- I'm in a church where I can trust the spiritual headship of the clergy, and where most people want to know more about the faith, and how we can conform our lives to it, rather than wanting to run away from it or hide it so nobody has to be offended.

Unmanly. Consumerist.

So he left the Church because of the scandals...and his own dissent - let's not overlook that part. Luther complained about scandals...and dissented. One can only hope his small church doesn't have a scandal, where'd he hop to next?

He joined a societally irrelevant, small church. No wonder they all agree. Small size, smaller problems. It's similar to running off to the SSPX - hey, it's 50 of us and we're all USDA Prime orthodox, baby! In the end, the logical consequence would be to start a "church of one". No one else around, no one to disagree with! It's a lot more courageous to stay with a huge Church.

For a conservative he sounds a lot like a member of the "me" generation. Is this a new trend, right-wingers joining Orthodox churches ?

It seems to me that he joined the "American Catholic Right", not the Catholic Church, in the first place.

[MarMema]

Ok now I am going to have to look it up.

You must have some hardy Ya-yas in your village.

[Kolokotronis]

"You must have some hardy Ya-yas in your village."

Indeed we do, many of whom are descended from Yiayias who slit the throats of Mohammedan Turks as they slept during the Revolution!

[kawaii]

Well this is certainly in the spirit of dialog, understanding, and basic Christian attitudes... (/sarc)

[kawaii]

I couldn't go from a church that explicitly rejects divorce/remarriage

This is a straw man, both the Orthodox and Catholics have the same criteria for divorce. You will note that this is something which has never been stated as in need of dialog when the ecumenical discussions take place. The Orthodox draw their criteria from Matthew 19:19. The only difference is whether one asks the bishop directly or whether there is some sort of court.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...both the Orthodox and Catholics have the same criteria for divorce."

On the contrary, the Catholic Church holds that a sacramentally valid marriage is indissoluble. This does not mean that a validly married couple cannot get a civil divorce (civil divorce in itself has nothing whatever to do with a sacrament); but it does mean that, even if a civil divorce is obtained, the validly married husband and wife are still married in the eyes of God, and cannot remarry until the other partner dies.

Annulment is a different matter: it is not divorce. It is based on an investigation of the validity of the sacrament and the vows. If both the husband and the wife made sincere vows (they weren't drunk, crazy, immature, coerced, mentally handicapped, ignorant of the meaning and obligations of the married state, etc.) and were truly free to marry (there was no question of incest, bigamy, etc.), the bond stands; but if the vow was null (defective) from the git-go, there was no indissoluble bond. Hence annulment: a finding of no marriage.

I would be truly grateful to be corrected on this subject, but my understanding is that the Orthodox Church under some circumstances permits divorce and remarriage, even if the couple was validly married in the beginning. That's what my divorced/remarried Orthodox friends tell me.

Please direct me to some link if I'm wrong about this. I'm here to learn.

[kawaii]

I would be truly grateful to be corrected on this subject, but my understanding is that the Orthodox Church under some circumstances permits divorce and remarriage, even if the couple was validly married in the beginning. That's what my divorced/remarried Orthodox friends tell me.

The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.

Those Orthodox jurisdictions which issue ecclesiastical divorces require a thorough evaluation of the situation, and the appearance of the civilly divorced couple before a local ecclesiastical court, where another investigation is made. Only after an ecclesiastical divorce is issued by the presiding bishop can they apply for an ecclesiastical license to remarry.

From GoArch.org

[kawaii]

For Roman Catholics, Holy Matrimony is a binding, ostensibly an unbreakable, contract. The man and the woman marry each other with the "church" (bishop or priest) standing as a witness to it. Hence, no divorce under any conditions - no divorce but annulment of the marriage contract if some canonical defect in it may be found which renders it null and void (as if it never took place).

In Orthodoxy, Holy Matrimony is not a contract; it is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church - in the presence of "the whole People of God" through her bishop or his presbyter. Divorce is likewise forbidden, but, as a concession to human weakness, it is allowed for adultery. Second and third marriages are permitted - not as a legal matter - out of mercy, a further concession to human weakness (e.g., after the death of a spouse). This Sacrament, as all Sacraments or Mysteries, is completed by the Eucharist, as St. Dionysius the Areopagite says.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.aspx

(Noting the assumptions on the Roman beleif may not be correct... )

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, kawaii; that's how I have always understood it.

Note that in the Catholic Church, as in the Orthodox Church, "marriage is the mysterious or mystical union of a man and woman - in imitation of Christ and the Church -"

It's more than a contract. But in the Catholic Church, it's never less than a contract. The Catholic Church respects people enough to respect their vow: "til death do you part."

[Tax-chick]

Bless his heart. Whatever works for him.

[steadfastconservative]

Dreher's story doesn't ring true. He says that he was scandalized by the clerical sex abuse scandal (who wasn't?) and, therefore, decided to try out an Orthodox parish. After being smitten with the solemnity and beauty of the Orthodox liturgy, he decided that the Catholic Church's teachings on papal primacy and papal infallibility must be wrong.

Dreher is clearly using his newfound "discovery" that the Orthodox are right about the papacy to justify his decision to leave the Catholic Church. He had to find some intellectual reason that would allow him to indulge the warm and fuzzy feelings he was getting by going to this Orthodox parish.

Dreher writes that if the doctrine of papal infallibility falls, then "it all falls." Hence, he is duty-bound to leave the Catholic Church. But why stop at Orthodoxy? After all, Orthodoxy shares many beliefs with the Catholic Church. But if the Catholic Church is wrong about papal infallibility, then couldn't it also be wrong about the Trinity, or the Resurrection, the sacraments, or any other doctrine that it holds in common with the Orthodox? Dreher is not being logical here. But, then again, his decision to leave the Catholic Church was not logical. Nor was it right.

[kosta50]

I won't get into the argument about the validity of papal claims, except to point out the simple utility of "one bishop."

The Orthodox Church remains alive and well without the "one bishop" concept, and much less prone to innovations and changes. We do, of course, recognize not only that the Bishop of Rome has a very special place in The Church, however we are unable to inter-commune with him because our theologies have distinct disagreements that need to be addressed and resolved, since many of them can be a matter of linguistics and historical perspectives. Until such time, our inter-communion is not possible any more than it is possible for the Pope to allow women priests. Inter-communion means sharing the same faith, not more or less, but the same.

We also have different ideas as to the scope of the Petrine Office.

[livius]

I hate to break the news to Rod Dreher, but when I moved in Orthodox circles, sex scandals - that is, homosexual men going after teenagers (not pedophilia) - were a dime a dozen. The difference was that the Orthodox Church had no money, so there was no point in suing it. Furthermore, they would never had admitted it anyway, and on top of that, they were so low-profile they wouldn't even have made good fodder for the press.

If this was what started him on the road out of Rome - and then caused him to rexamine the Petrine claims! - I think he's got some sorry surprises awaiting him.

[kosta50]

Your post is the kind I would expect from a true Catholic/Orthodox. I fully understand where you are coming from. But let me say that if they had to leave their Church, it is best that they didn't go too far, certainly not far enough to lose the life-giving mysteries of the Church.

Your concerns are for their souls, and that is the correct approach. I am sure their souls will be blessed in the Orthodox Church with the same life-giving sacraments as they would have received in the Latin Church. I don't think they left the faith; they left what they perceived as lack of it. Perhaps they should have looked more and sought refuge in some other Catholic parish. But at least they never left The Church. Thank God.

[Kolokotronis]

"The difference was that the Orthodox Church had no money, so there was no point in suing it."

Blessed are the poor! :)

As a matter of fact, L, judgments against at least the GOA have been quite devastating, though not to the scale of bankruptcies of various Latin Rite dioceses.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dreher was more scandalized by the clerical abuse issue than most of us: he was researching it intensively and interviewing both those who were psychologically and spiritually battered by it, and some very highly-placed clerics who were more corrupt than you would believe. You and I were perhaps brushed by this foul stuff: Dreher was plunged into it.

For that reason I think it's true that the intellectual or doctrinal reasons for his conversion to Orthodoxy were sparse --- even he would admit that. But the fact that his conversion was "emotional" is not to be scoffed at. He was not just pursuing warm fuzzies; he was fleeing a horror and anger which was parlous for his soul.

I believe it is objectively wrong for a Catholic not to abide in the Catholic Church; but subjectively, he's doing what he sees as his duty to preserve faith (and hope and love) within his family. I pray for him, and frankly I am glad he is in an Orthodox parish where he and his loved ones can still be nourished by the Sacraments. May he (and we) receive a merciful judgment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I too am afraid of what will happen if he runs into some --- fly-covered pile --- in the Orthodox Church. Scandal is a real soul-murderer.

Pray hard for those who are most vulnerable.

[netmilsmom]

>>Just a word to the wise, however; don't get too big.<<

The funny thing is that although we are getting bigger, we are still like family.

[mware]

I was just watching the 10 year anniversary of Fox News.

I did not know that Neil Cavuto once studied for the priesthood.

Actually I am not that surprised. When you listen to him talk about issues outside of business. He really is a soulful kind of guy.

[kawaii]

I think you're misunderstaning.

The Orthodox phrase it as a capitulation but not as one that the church innovated; THEY THINK CHRIST OFFERED A CAPITULATION IN MAT. 18:18.

No divorces can take place in the Orthodox church unless they fall into porneia; the only difference is the Orthodox feel that even then it is as a capitualtion NOT that marriage didn't exist.

The reason behind this is the Orthodox do not feel the wedding CREATES the marriage. The Orthodox bless an existing marriage.

There is a difference in reasoning, but the effect and the rules for remarriage are the same.

[RobbyS]

Orthodoxy can stand an infusion of catholiciity: that is the ability to appeal to people regardless of ethnicity. It has been awhile since Orthodoxy engaged in missions. The Russian Orthodox Church once reached across Siberia to Alaska and the west coast of the United States. Nowadays it seems to have lost that vitality. Of course, many Rcs have the same attitude: clutch your faith to your breast and be nice to others.