Thus read the title of the telegram I received from Guy Noir - Private Eye, the beginning of a long missive full of miffed musings and vented aggravations. Here's what the telegram said:
I have not even read this rather head-turning piece... in Christianity Today ... by R.R. Reno! And I am not at all sure I can, especially after reading a similar take in the evangelical zine Relevant this summer (http://www.relevantmagazine.
The CT media event: https://twitter.com/
But I will make this one comment. Here is a post from a very Reformed [a.k.a. "Calvinist"]--and unfortunately very antagonistic to contemporary Catholic converts--website. How come they can make this rather arguably astute observation, but it would be like speaking in a foreign tongue if addressed to a smart guy like Reno. The antagonist Protestant take goes like this:
Guy Noir continues:
Thoughts?I really don't know. Does proposing something that seems simply beyond the pale -- just because it seems beyond the pale -- make a suggestion out of the question? If a nagging suspicion or claim won't go away, is the best policy simply to ignore it? If Francis to so many Catholics sounds unCatholic, isn't that a reason to address to underlying issues, versus continuing to exist in a faith-anestithizing environment where we just pretend it ain't so? And while I am at it, since when is a Pope who talks like Universalism is an option and Being Good is good enough, a pope than evangelicals think sounds evangelical?! B. B. Warfield and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, please call you offices, stat!