Examples, please.
Paragraph 2: "...Litvinov, the Jewish Soviet Foreign Minister of the 1930s."
Ah, those infamous atheist-Bolsheviks who amazingly/rhetorically retain their Jewish identity. And in an essay that ostensibly is concerned with Protestantism. Cardinal Vlk's accusation that Rao peddles anti-semitism is looking more plausible.
Paragraph #3: "If ecumenism has been devised to appeal to the good faith of believing Protestants, to guide them lovingly back to the True Church, without rancor and accusation, then ecumenism is a good thing. When Christians are confused, then Rome must be loving and kind."
The irony of this passage, given the rancorous and insulting character of the entire essay, should be obvious. *********************************************************
The rest of the article is a mish-mash of caricatures of Reformed theology and scripture interpretation that aren't worthy of a response. The "seed" analogy is used merely as an excuse to focus on the issue of original sin, and then to build a house of cards based upon the rotten foundation of his misinterpretation of this issue.
Caricatures abound; that of the Puritans as humorless, grim men whose gloomy souls adorn their drab clothing is particularly funny...and innacurate, as anyone who has bothered to crack open a volume of Perry Miller would know.
Rao's fanciful and innacurate definition of America as "secularized Puritanism" merely opens up another of his purely rhetorical attacks on America and capitalism, the like of which got his work banned from FR. Anyone who commits a sentence like this to paper --
The United States has constantly had a tradition of denigrating the elaborate as effeminate, and has divinized a drab conformism in dress, music, architecture, art, food and drink.
-- is someone who has a very tenuous relationship to truth, or perhaps to reality.
Into the diatribe is mixed in what may be Schemann's notion of the sacramental nature of Creation. If so, then Schemann deserves better than this. Feh.