Richard John Neuhaus, Damon Linker and me

Like me, Damon was a Catholic convert, and like me, Damon was a young father. We talked at some length, I recall, about how searing it was to endure the revelations about what priests did to children, and what their bishops did to families who sought justice. At some point, I brought up how disheartened I was by Father Neuhaus's reaction. I said
that he's the kind of man who dines with popes and prelates, and I suspected that he simply had no idea what it was like to be a Catholic father or mother, and to learn of the gross betrayal of Catholic children and Catholic families by the hierarchy.

Damon agreed, and talked of what life was like in the First Things office -- in particular, how detached Fr. Neuhaus seemed to be from exactly that thing: the experience of ordinary Catholic families being dragged through this hell, along with the rest of the Church. In my recollection, this deeply disturbed Damon. I will leave it to him to describe what, if anything, the experience of working at FT through the crisis did to his relationship to the Catholic faith. For me, though, I felt consoled, in a way, to know that there was someone in my position -- that is, a Catholic father -- working directly with Fr. Neuhaus, who was just as puzzled and even angered by his circle-the-wagons attitude as I was, and his curious indifference to the experience of Catholics like us.

As many of my readers know, Father Neuhaus and I, who had been friendly till the scandal, had a break, and I eventually left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church. My leaving Catholicism occasioned an unexpectedly charitable public comment from Father Neuhaus, for which I was grateful:

Over on Beliefnet.com, Rod Dreher explains at length why he and his family have left the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy. It is painful reading, as it was undoubtedly painful for him to write. For those whom I have described as "ecclesial Christians," Orthodoxy has to be very seriously considered. In Catholic Matters, I discuss some of those considerations and why I am convinced that an ecclesial Christianity is more fully realized in the Catholic Church.

Having said that, however, Dreher's essay is important. Yes, his decision is in large part reactive. But he is reacting to very real corruptions in the Catholic Church. I hope every Catholic bishop and priest will read his essay, and especially those bishops and priests who are inclined to heave a sigh of relief that we have weathered the sex-abuse scandal. And every Catholic engaged in the standard intra-church quarrels, whether on the left or the right, should take to heart what he says about Catholics being more preoccupied with church battles than with following Jesus.

Dreher concludes his reflection with this: "Still, those of you more charitably inclined, please just pray for me and my family, that we always live in truth, and do the right thing, and be found pleasing to God, the Father of us all." No Catholic should hesitate to join in that prayer.

As someone who considered himself an informal acolyte of Neuhaus's at one point, that meant a lot to me, and I got word to him that it had. I never saw him again, nor communicated with him personally. I held not the least grudge against him for the rancor between us. I have no way of knowing, but I've wondered if the toxic tsunami of what Cardinal Ratzinger would publicly describe as "filth" that kept coming after that spring finally overwhelmed his defensiveness, hence his graceful and empathetic send-off to me. Or maybe not, as his final word on my case in the current FT might indicate. It's impossible to know, and it doesn't really matter anyway. What's past is past.

I must confess, though, that when Fr. Neuhaus finally got Bill Buckley to order me to stop writing about the Catholic mess, I was angry at him, considering him a bully who was trying to cover up things that ought not be covered up. [UPDATE: See my correction/clarification of this point in a subsequent post. -- RD] And maybe he was that. [Though I confess that in retrospect, whatever his rationale, I'm glad he did what he did; I really had gotten far too emotionally involved in the story.]

But as the years went by, and I learned myself how badly I had let myself believe what I wanted to believe about the Iraq War, I came to see how fallible we humans are, and how hard it is for us to see and believe things that shatter our illusions. Few men did more to successfully defend Catholic orthodoxy in his ministry and career, and the realization that the institution -- and, specifically, the men -- he'd been championing were in many horrifying cases spectacularly and grotesquely corrupt -- well, it became easier for me to understand how a man of his considerable intellect and considerable pride could have reached the conclusions he did. Had I been in his place, I might have done the same thing.

I'm not defending it, because I think it's pretty much indefensible. Had a priest of Neuhaus's immense gifts and stature spoken out on behalf of Catholic victims and their families earlier, or at least not have stood up for them when he ought to have been calling them out, who knows how much good might have been done, and suffering might have been avoided? If he had troubled to put himself in the position of Catholic mothers and fathers instead of the high-ranking churchmen who were his usual milieu, maybe it would have changed his views.

Then again, that could be said of me. You too. We are all broken, and in need of mercy. I trust he has found it today, in the company of the saints.