Do you think Ross Douthat is a tool?
#1
On the one hand, I think he has written some really interesting material over the years in his books and NYT column.  He gives some solid takes on a number of topics and tends to be a very level-headed, non-polemic writer.  To Change the Church and Bad Religion were, to me, very thought-provoking books.

On the other hand, he is a bluepilled cuck and an unapologetic elitist.  His Trump hate is stupid and his preferred "vision" for the Church is probably more abhorrent than not.  I mean, good on him for working in the NYT building and living in the NE and STILL straight up stating that he is against gay marriage, but the constant attempts to endear himself to his liberal frenemies is pretty cringey.
[-] The following 2 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Augustinian, Fionnchu
Reply
#2
(11-04-2019, 12:09 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: ...I think he has written some really interesting material over the years in his books and NYT column.  He gives some solid takes on a number of topics and tends to be a very level-headed, non-polemic writer. To Change the Church and Bad Religion were, to me, very thought-provoking books.

 ...good on him for working in the NYT building.

A half-nod to that Ivy Leaguer, ICT. He helped me wind up here. For I'd found gradually over the last third-of-a-century (ugh) that the Grey Lady's Op-Ed columnists (as well as her general take on all things considered) were ticking me off more and more. As I got older, no coincidence. The one that I started to nod to, and half-side with, was more often than not Ross D., when he was hired as the token conservative Catholic. BTW he appears onThe Colbert Report (my wife watches it and calls me in to see him when he's on), but not as often as Fr J. Martin SJ.

I think his books were fine, but he's better in the short form than long narratives, where he can get lost in the forest for the trees. Still, his survey of progressives, conservatives, and traditionalists in To Change brought the realities of the Church at present to a wider audience, and gave a more nuanced approach along that spectrum.

For all his shortcomings, I am glad that RD's on staff. As with the fracas between French + Ahmari (New Yorker link), the more exposure that the MSM gives to dissent and a variety of views from those in the press as well as the pews, the better. You never know when malcontents like me, who had left behind the NO for a while, may learn about alternatives in current Catholicism, and through the NYC publications, may like me reconsider their p-o-v.
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Fionnchu's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump
Reply
#3
Did not know he was on Colbert. I'll have to check that out... as YT links of course because I can't stomach a whole.

I know that you are a 'behind enemy line' type, as am I. You have to give the guy a certain respect for that. He does a much better job than I would do. There are entire groups of people for whom I pretend to be a liberal in my life, so who am I to judge.

He does inspire me to want to send my kids to Andover or St. Andrews for high school though.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Fionnchu
Reply
#4
Yes, I am in some sort of "fifth column" indeed, ICT. Glad to find a comrade. As for Ross Douthat, here's his latest. He links today in the OpEd to his recent NYT interview with Cardinal Burke, and he doubts that the conservative faction (he lumps trads in here once) can resist the Vatican as she is. Two snippets:

As to post-AmaSynod "even the act of traditionalist defiance was part of the predictability of the proceedings. As conservative resistance to Francis has grown more intense, it has also grown more marginal, defined by symbolic gestures rather than practical strategies, burning ever-hotter on the internet even as resistance within the hierarchy has faded with retirements, firings, deaths."

After discussing Burke and "schism" and similar questions to FE about heresy and papacy: "you need only take a step beyond Burke’s position to end up as a kind of de facto sedevacantist, a believer that the pope is not really the pope — or, alternatively, that the church is so corrupted and compromised by modernity that the pope might technically still be pope but his authority doesn’t matter anymore. This is the flavor of a lot of very-online traditionalism, and it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t (eventually) lead many of its adherents to a separation from the larger church, joining the traditionalist quasi-exile pioneered after Vatican II by the Society of Saint Pius X."

But the column needs to be read in full. I may post it separately....

"What Will Happen to Conservative Catholicism?"
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
Reply
#5
So, I of course did reply to your other thread, but I'll just reiterate here that I think that Douthat is descending into abject intellectual dishonesty here.  Two clear examples are: 1) the focus on schism instead of heresy as a strawman, and 2) intentional obfuscation of the limits of papal infallibility.  Because he is too smart to not understand 1 and because he has LITERALLY written about the minutiae of 2, he is being a weasel and a liar for reasons I do not fully understand.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Fionnchu
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)