Vatican types often display a knack for language that can rankle friends as much as foes, with the latest example a speech by Rome's ranking guest at the Anglican Lambeth Conference, Cardinal Ivan Dias of the Congregation for the Evangeliz(s)ation of Peoples.In his intervention yesterday, Cardinal Dias warned the Anglicans--who as we all likely know are struggling with internal divisions over homosexual bishops and women bishops, among other things--that they may be suffering from the ecclesial equivalent of Alzheimer's and Parkinsons:

For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimers. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinsons.

Many, no surprise,are not happy with the cardinal's talk. (A friendsent it to me this morning, but I found it so soporific--the nature of such speeches, Iguess--that I never got to the juicy bit near the end.) The Guardian has coverage, and The Times (of London)'s Ruth Gledhill leads with protests from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's charities. Over at Crunchy Con, Rod Dreher rather likes the cardinal's phrasing, but notes that "this same accusation is more or less what traditionalist Catholics say about the Second Vatican Council, and is also more or less the traditional Orthodox criticism of Roman actions leading up to the Great Schism."No doubt there will be cheers and jeers, depending on one's point of view. But leaving aside the propriety of Dias' analogy--the late pope himself suffered from a form of Parkinson's that the Vatican would not even acknowledge--what of the point Dreher makes? One couldargue, as reformers have throughout history, and as biblical exegetes can today, that Rome is a captive of a particular era, or several eras. Is that too not a form of presentism, orparalysis or forgetfulness?Historical consciousness is a tricky cudgel to wield. Then again, Dias is also invoking--I presume--heritage and tradition in the context of theRoman rather than the Reformation understanding. But reform is an inherent part of theAnglican heritage and tradition, so perhaps they are talking past each other.