Richard John Neuhaus, Damon Linker and me

One of the saddest things to me about the Scandal is the way the clerical blindness, the us/them mindset, infected even very holy and good men. You would think that a sexually violated child would crack any wall of denial, but alas, it was not so. This seems odd to me, even unnatural. It is fundamental to most successful species to protect the young.

For the most part these were not and are not bad men. (I'm talking about the bishops and their defenders now, not the actual perpetrators.) There is some other mystery at work here.

RIP, Richard John Neuhaus.

A very fair assessment.

I think Fr. Neuhaus was blinded in part by his position in the culture war. He had the strong conviction, often justified, that the liberal media, especially the Boston Globe and NY Times, were anti-Catholic, and that they trumped up the sex abuse story because it fit their prejudices.

It took him a long time to see that even those who are the enemies of the church can speak the truth about it. I'm sure that was a bitter pill for a superstar convert, who took grief from some Lutherans and Protestants for joining what, in their view, is the ever corrupt Catholic church, always in need of reform. I'm sure he thought that they were thinking, "We told you so. What did you expect?"

In spite of the pope's silencing and discipline of him, Neuhaus never was able to come clean on Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, whom he idolized as the leader of a movement that was so close to his heart. Militantly conservative, intellectual, obedient, comfortable with the rich and powerful, and beautifully dressed, they were an order made in his image, and he couldn't believe their founder was an abuser, in spite of all the evidence. There was the air of a prig about him, and no more so than in his defense of Marcial.

But as you say, we are often fooled by people whom we like or admire, as many of us Texans were by W. It's hard to admit we were so wrong about someone we believed in so strongly.

None of it matters any more now, nor will it for any of us when that day comes for us all. God bless him.

Gosh, I wonder if this is really the best time to hash out all these rancorous matters, but against my better judgement I am responding to this post.

I too disagreed with Fr. Neuhaus on several issues, particularly with regard to the Iraq war. I certainly don't believe him to be above criticism, although I had a lot of respect for him and probably agreed with him on the majority of things.

But there's something inherently destructive about "hero-worship" in my opinion, and something not altogether fair about setting someone up as a hero and then bemoaning their failure to live up to that status. I sort of pity our new president for this very reason - I expect that the fury of the left will be fierce when he shows his feet of clay.

Everyone on the face of the earth has their shortcomings and their blind spots. That's part of what it means to be a human being. So it's perfectly fair to point out those shortcomings in those who have entered the fray of public controversies.

While I can respect an honest disagreement, I find it very hard to respect Mr. Linker's comments because of the way he went about pursuing his ends. I think it was wrong to pretend to be one thing, while exploiting trust to gather his case about the "evil twin" of Fr. Neuhaus and his supposedly nefarious plot for world domination. Mr. Linker's methods (not to mention what I believe were his distortions) involved a form of deception that I believe to be seriously immoral. And also just disgraceful -- bad manners (which I know sounds old-fashioned, but there it is).

If he was so convinced of his case, Linker should have quit his job right away and developed his case from publicly available information. Then people could judge his case free of the taint of his betrayal and the sense that he pulled his "double-agent" stunt just to get a book contract. To hear him now offer his reflections on Fr. Neuhaus is really difficult, and frankly kind of disgusting. Like he's still feeding on the man's reputation. Let the man rest in peace already!

Sorry if this comes across as harsh - Frankly, there's some wisdom in the idea of not speaking ill of the dead, particularly when his friends are still greiving his loss and are likely feeling rather defensive toward a person they loved.

In spite of the pope's silencing and discipline of him, Neuhaus never was able to come clean on Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, whom he idolized as the leader of a movement that was so close to his heart. Militantly conservative, intellectual, obedient, comfortable with the rich and powerful, and beautifully dressed, they were an order made in his image, and he couldn't believe their founder was an abuser, in spite of all the evidence.

I had forgotten about that. You're right. I may be wrong, but I believe that after Pope Benedict rendered his negative verdict on Maciel, Neuhaus wrote a grudging acceptance that indicated he still believed in Maciel's innocence.

Frankly, there's some wisdom in the idea of not speaking ill of the dead, particularly when his friends are still greiving his loss and are likely feeling rather defensive toward a person they loved.

I believe that there's nothing wrong with offering an honest assessment of the legacy of a very public man who threw himself wholeheartedly into all kinds of controversies. It's to be expected, actually, when a notable person dies. It should be clear from all my remarks here that I had a lot of respect for Fr. Neuhaus, and think the good he did far outweighed his faults. But he had faults, as do we all.

Rod -

I did not mean to say that one could never publicly criticize one who has died, particularly one who was in the public fray. I do question the wisdom of doing so on the day the man has died, when feelings are rather raw. Particularly for those close to him.

There's plenty of time for a retrospective in weeks to come.

If you grew up ethnic in certain northeast and midwest dioceses,priests were manly men(not in a joking way), basketball coaches, scholars and soldiers. Cardinal O'Connor, the son of a Philly union organizer who served in the Navy and selflessly served others, was the epitome of that. At some point in the last 30 years we got away from that. It was even mocked. That was not a progression.

I hope things are better. But I no longer know. What this crisis has done has called into question whether we should trust those in power. As Mr. Dreher compares it to thr Iraq war, you take 2 giant steps back and try to figure out how bad this all is. And in both cases it may be too early to tell.

May the good father rest in peace. I imagine Father Nehaus in his quiet moments might have realized that rather than go after Dreher, he should have stood with him, that such bishops are worse than anything any journalist could write.

In the NY Diocese, in at least 2 cases that were public, priests having affairs with women in violation of their vows were immediately defrocked. Yet homosexual priests are still upon exposure regularly sent to "retreat" and merely given what amounts to a vacation. Now, both are in the worng, so why the disparate treatment?

I'm troubled (as good liberals might say) that "men" like McCarrick, Eagan and Mahoney still sit on their silk thrones.And that is cause for concern. I have long thought that celibacy is in fact no longer viable may be not even preferable. And yet the leaders of the Church in America right now exclude faithful straight men for their ranks but seem to have no problem coddling closeted active pederasts among them.

"I did not mean to say that one could never publicly criticize one who has died, particularly one who was in the public fray. I do question the wisdom of doing so on the day the man has died, when feelings are rather raw. Particularly for those close to him"

Very wise words, Sally. Whether the deceased is in the public realm or not, there are mourning friends and family. I would think that Christian charity would impel us to refrain from airing our grievances in such a public way.

Fr. Neuhaus gently took me to task again for my writing on the scandal, saying that there are some things that ought not be known by people for their own good.

That attitude by those in Authority is precisely why my default position is to assume that all Authorities are looking out for their own best interests and the interests of their own clique.

It wasn't for the good of Catholic parents that The Scandal was covered up, it was for the good of the RCC - lest the Catholic parents start to consider how safe their children were with the RCC Authorities.

"Father Neuhaus," I said. "Why should I believe Bishop Timlin?" Mind you, this was well after all the episcopal lies in Boston had been revealed, and not only in Boston. Neuhaus literally yelled at me: "Because he's a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church!" Several years later, the sex abuse lawsuit against the Society and the Diocese of Scranton was settled and the new bishop suppressed the Society. Timlin was shown to have been not credible, to put it with undue charity. I tell you this story not to speak ill of Father Neuhaus, certainly, but to shed light on his complex character. He was not, as readers of his column know, a patsy for the bishops. But I do think he was an example of the extreme difficulty many Catholics, even good ones -- even sophisticated ones (perhaps especially sophisticated ones) -- had in seeing what was right in front of their nose in those days. Neuhaus had so much invested in the authority of the Church that he really did believe that the word of a bishop should be enough to settle matters. In what his final "While We're At It" column for the magazine, Fr. Neuhaus gently took me to task again for my writing on the scandal, saying that there are some things that ought not be known by people for their own good. It's a complicated point, one not without merit, and I hope to return to it later.

That is the exact same attitude and behavior that allowed the leader of a former church of ours in this part of the country to commit spiritual abuse (and sexual improprieties) against the members of the church and caused the other "leaders" (his "yes men" in actuality) to dismiss any suggestions that he could do any wrong - and to attack or silence or shun those who dared to speak up about it. The fallout - including broken marriages and messed up lives - continues to this day. In fact, I just yesterday got in contact with one woman whose marriage just ended in divorce and who finally left the church after 16 years (twice as long as we were there) and is just now waking up to the fact that she was in a cult and a victim of spiritual abuse. Another couple's marriage is headed to divorce due to the same pastor, and a third couple spent years in a spiritually-abusive marriage because they followed the teachings of this same pastor.

My condolences to the Neuhaus family, but I extend no sympathy to those who aid and abet spiritual abuse by spiritual leaders simply because "Well, they are LEADERS - BISHOPS - METROPOLITANS - PASTORS," and "There are some things that ought not be known by people for their own good." Well, there are SOME THINGS THAT PASTORS SHOULD NOT DO, and if they do them, the whole world should know about it so they STOP doing them and/or so people's lives stop being destroyed, IMO.

You all of people Rod know some of the kinds of people who frequent your combox, and here you've given them fodder to talk trash about him and the man hasn't been dead a day. Is this how Crunchy Con eulogizes him?

You all of people Rod know some of the kinds of people who frequent your combox, and here you've given them fodder to talk trash about him and the man hasn't been dead a day. Is this how Crunchy Con eulogizes him?

Oh, come on, Steve, I've been posting laudatory commentary about RJN all day long, in several posts. Here I post a true story from my own experience that illuminates how and why my friendship with RJN (it was more of an acquaintanceship) came to be strained, but how we came to think more kindly of each other despite it all. It's an honest story of two flawed Christian men being put through a terrible test in which both of us reacted imperfectly. I can't help it if people choose to trash-talk RJN. I wish they wouldn't, but people are entitled to their own opinion.

Through will alone, I'm fighting off the attack of the dread all-caps rant. I'm tempted to this vice because of my frustration at the seeming inability of plain words and clear observation to open people's eyes to the facts. Rod sees clearly that Neuhaus was a patsy for those above him and a bully to those below--then he takes it back. He sees that Neuhaus and those like him facilitated the rape of more children. Then he says it doesn't matter, because oh well, we're all sinners. Of course it matters.

It's not that I'm so far superior to Rod in the speed of my enlightenment. It took several betrayals by the Church and men of esteem within it to wake me up. The sex scandals were the last straw. Before that, I'd come crawling back every time, just like Meatloaf in "Bat out of Hell." But you only have to hit me six or eight times with a baseball bat before I figure out that no, you are really not my friend. And I have now become wise enough that when I see yet another guy on yet another corner with yet another baseball bat, possibly fancier and with more gilding and lace on it, I do not run up to him and kneel to receive a blessing. My prayer is that Rod will wise up too, and sooner rather than later.

Authoritarian power structures breed abuse, chronically and inevitably, and they attract abusive and violent men the way manure draws flies. There are no exceptions, no matter how piously you wish for one. There is no Good Big Daddy who will validate your choices with a pat on the head and redeem all the damage done by last year's Big Daddy who turned out to be not so good. Rod, I honor you for speaking up about the abuse, and refusing to be bullied into silence. Bravo. Respectfully, I suggest that what you need to do now is honor yourself. Believe the evidence of your senses. Stop looking for a benign authority. There really isn't one. You've already seen that the Orthodox Church is full of the same rot. Please do yourself a favor and don't raise your children to submit to more corrupt authorities. Don't allow more damage to be done to yourself and your loved ones. Don't prepare a future for yourself where you'll be hanging your head in shame because you were taken in again.

"I don't remember the rationales he offered, but I will never forget his telling me I had no business writing for NRO this story "

If you don't remember his rationale, only his admonition and his yelling, perhaps you should not repeat the story. I know little about Father Neuhaus. But if I knew nothing about him, a bald reading of your own account would tell me one thing -- you weren't actually listening to him, and you held an adolescent resentment of the way he addressed you. Posting it here leads me to believe those two things still apply.

I love this blog. Absolutely love it. You see things no one else that I know of sees, and write about it. And the personal nature of it is part of what makes it so valuable. But when I see the personal and it seems --- seems -- peevish, jingoistic, and narrow, this blog becomes a near occasion of sin for me.

I was astonished and deeply saddened to see such a thing top your page. I can only conclude that you consider Father Neuhaus not, as you seem to indicate, a colleague and something of a friend, but rather one of the celebrities that turn in our minds into imaginary people whose lives are to be discussed as if they were characters in a Tom Wolfe fiction.

Best to you on your efforts here.

My initial reaction to this post was similar to those of "Sally Rogers," "Ellen," "Merely Catholic," "Steve K," "Lisa" and others:

I thought the timing was absolutely awful !!!!

At the same time -- and in defense of Rod -- I have to remind myself that this is a blog and not a magazine or a newspaper. What we get here from Rod is something akin to his "thinking out loud" or, more accurately, "thinking for all to see and read in real-time." This blog is an admirable act of continual intellectual self-exposure on the part of its creator, Rod Dreher. No one edits the guy and he doesn't have editorial meetings to discuss what he's going to post next. He just "puts it out there" for all to see.

This naked approach to journalism is brave. So I'm willing to cut the guy slack on this.

Imagine that Rod is our "best bud" and this blog is an electronic version of his sitting with us at a bar every night (after work and before heading home) where he gets to spill his guts on the news of the day. Like most conversations among good friends it's not always neat and tidy but it is authentic.

Reaganite, I do see your point and I do appreciate that this is a special venue and a particular challenge.

But if he were my best bud in the bar and he told this story to a crowd of people, I think I'd call him on it.

And if I thought I'd become part of a bar crowd that eagerly waited every night for my bud to hold forth so that every once in a while they could hear something a little biting and snarky, I think I'd have to give him a big hug and a thanks and go hang out at another bar.

Sally Rogers:

Thanks for posting that. Please find below something which Fr. Neuhaus wrote just before the election. I've excerpted key portions. It should guide us all in anticipating what to expect -- and what to oppose -- under the new President.

"Why this Election is About the Freedom of Religion"
by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, "First Things," Oct. 31, 2008

There are several issues, all closely related to religion, on which Obama, for all his undoubtedly sincere talk about his own faith and the importance of religion in public life, is manifestly hostile to the vibrant diversity of American life.

The first is abortion, of course. Obama makes no secret of his intention to shut down that cause and disenfranchise the millions who are committed to the abolition of the abortion license imposed by Roe. This is evident beyond doubt by his repeated and enthusiastic endorsement of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would, among other things, eliminate all state regulation of abortions.

Consider also Obama’s consistent hostility to parental choice in education, even though for millions of African-Americans in our cities having an alternative to the failed government school system is their only hope for a decent education.

Then there is his position on the faith-based social initiatives advanced by George W. Bush. Obama says he favors such initiatives, but he also insists that faith-based institutions using government funds must not be permitted to “discriminate” in their hiring policies. This would, quite simply, mean the end of such institutions being faith-based. If an institution is not free to choose leaders who affirm its guiding and motivating mission, it is, in fact, forced to surrender that mission.

On these and other issues, Senator Obama is an ideological statist, determined to impose a monist vision on a pluralistic society. Although some were more explicit about it than others, the American Founders understood that religious freedom is the foundation of all the other freedoms they intended to protect. It is not entirely by accident that the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment is the freedom of religion.

The great problem today is not the threat that religion poses to public life, but the threat that the state, presuming to embody public life in its entirety, poses to religion. The entire order of freedom, including all the other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights, is premised upon what Madison calls the precedent duty that is signaled and sustained by religion. When the American people can no longer publicly express and give public effect to their obligations to the Creator, it is to be feared that they will no longer acknowledge their obligations to one another — nor to the Constitution in which the obligations of freedom are enshrined. The word enshrined is used advisedly.

Those who belong to what St. Augustine called the City of God on its pilgrim way through time are careful not to sacralize any temporal order short of their destination in the New Jerusalem. Along the way, however, as the prophet Jeremiah counseled the Israelites in Babylonian exile, we seek the peace of the temporal city in which we find also our provisional peace. In this penultimate world of temporal orders, the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom touches upon the sacred. Upon its vigorous defense rests the hope of "novus ordo seclorum" — the hope that this experiment in representative democracy may be a new order for the ages.

I am sure that Senator Obama — based on his above-mentioned positions and his enthusiasm for a monistic and government-directed rather than pluralistic and free society — does not begin to understand why that hope depends on the first freedom of the First Amendment, the freedom of religion.

I lost respect for Father Neuhaus over Marcial Maciel Degollado and very seldom read 'While We're at it' again. It wasn't that he'd made a mistake, which we all can do, but that he carried on and on rationalising it. I was very sorry to read about his illness, and am saddened by his death.

Fr. Neuhaus will be missed by many, including myself. I pray that "First Things" or something like it continues and grows. I suspect Fr. Neuhaus never really got that far emotionally into the sex scandal but was professionally pulled into the issue by the sheer weight of the media storm. I remember his TV commentary about the Jay report, and he understood what role he was playing in this. He actually admitted it. He did not lose his emotional composure at anytime. He saw damage on all sides of the issue. I pretty much have same positions and attitude as he did since I too never really saw any abuse first hand nor knew anyone close to me who had any credible complaints or accusations. He refused to go nuts, but listened to all but watched what they seem to be trying to do, looked for agendae, etc. I suspect even his assessment of Marcial is probably about right, ie some accusations against him are almost certainly bogus but there is likely credibility in some because they were so numerous. It is a pity that Rod Dreher and others here emotionally or otherwise polarized by the sex scandals will really remember Fr Neuhaus only as some opponent in the sex scandal drama. Fr Neuhaus concerned himself and published numerous essays about many topics. Hopefully Fr. Heuhaus and his essay on the Culture of Death will become something of a masterpiece. As he writes "the culture of death is an idea before it is a deed" http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Jan09/nv010809part3.html I think this piece could become a classic.

It is a pity that Rod Dreher and others here emotionally or otherwise polarized by the sex scandals will really remember Fr Neuhaus only as some opponent in the sex scandal drama.

I'm sorry, but speaking for myself, that's plainly ridiculous. Have you not been reading all the laudatory commentary I've written on this site about Father Neuhaus? I mention something serious that came up between us, that added to my understanding of the man -- a man I've said here I believe was a "great-souled" man -- and suddenly you have me thinking that the only measure of his character was the way he responded to the scandal?

That is inaccurate and unjust.

This is not intended to speak ill of the dead, only to raise an honest question which has been bugging me for a few months.

Fr. Neuhaus has never been overly much on my radar, but I was fortunate enough to hear him speak in person several months ago at the American conference of the Fellowship of Ss. Alban and Sergius. However, there was an event he recounted (available for anybody to listen to at the URL listed above) for which I'm having trouble lining up the dates in my head.

He says that when Ut Unum Sint was promulgated, Fr. John Meyendorff of St. Vladimir's Seminary started crying and said, "For a thousand years, we have been waiting for a pope to say what John Paul says in Ut Unum Sint, and the great tragedy is that we have not found any way to respond."

The trouble is, Ut Unum Sint was promulgated in 1995, and Fr. John Meyendorff reposed in 1992.

I am not ascribing motive or malice, but this is what he said -- available online for anybody to hear -- and at least as described, without additional detail (such as Meyendorff seeing a very, very, VERY early draft), it couldn't have happened.

This has been bothering me for some time; if anybody knows any more about this and can tell me how the dates do in fact line up, or perhaps can provide a better sense of what Fr. Neuhaus meant, that would be appreciated.

Again, please do not read this as an attempt to speak ill of the dead, but rather to resolve an honest question.

Rod wrote: I must confess, though, that when Fr. Neuhaus finally got Bill Buckley to order me to stop writing about the Catholic mess,

What's the Latin for "WTF?!?!"?

sigaliris

I have cut and pasted your post to a Word document, and printed it out for my present and future edification.

Naturally what Rod Dreher does or does not do about any of this is of only secondary interest to me, but it is of first interest that I do not fall again into destructive patterns of behavior.

So, thank you.

"I'm sorry, but speaking for myself, that's plainly ridiculous. Have you not been reading all the laudatory commentary I've written on this site about Father Neuhaus? I mention something serious that came up between us, that added to my understanding of the man -- a man I've said here I believe was a "great-souled" man -- and suddenly you have me thinking that the only measure of his character was the way he responded to the scandal?

That is inaccurate and unjust."

It is simplified, but remove the "only" and replace it with "mainly" and it certainly describes well the impression I have received.

Seven pages of how Paris Hilton loves dogs and is nice to her mom followed by posting her sex video and telling us she's a slut, but that's o.k., because people are human. . . I would not get the impression you thought well of Paris, or wanted us to. I would get the impression that you wanted to show off your insider celebrity gossip, but had to put in the stuff about dogs to make it seem less harsh and self-serving.

Your post tells us nothing about Neuhaus -- it is only talking about you, your ego, your offense, what you believed was in his heart. You assume and describe his yelling is a result of the wounded dog syndrome people in deep denial exhibit. Maybe you were just irritating. Since you don't seem to remember any of his non-yelled words, maybe the yelling was an attempt to get your attention.

If Father Neuhaus was so attached to his illusions that he forcefully tried to cover up rape, he was not a great souled man. He may have repented and become one, but you do not facilitate rape of children with a great soul in your closet.

But I'm thinking this portrait of him is a caricature. A distortion. A projection. Pretty unjust and inaccurate. I say this not because I knew the man or his writings well, but because I know propaganda when I see it, and I know its fruits.

By portraying your assessment of his psyche as "conventional wisdom", a simple fact everyone knew and lived with, you have given everyone who reads your posts and comments the impression that a man can be on the side of rapists and still be great, loved, and called holy, because after all, we're all human. That's not what the Church teaches, and it's not what I believe. Straightforward posting would either defend him as not facilitating evil or condemn him for doing so and pray for his repentance. By claiming he held the hand of rapists but lauding his other great qualities, you only give a warped impression of what it means to be Christian and Catholic, and I'm not sure to what end.

You have left the RC Church, maybe in part because you never really understood it. You kind of need to stop speaking for it. You don't speak for the Church. And you don't speak for me.

I love First Things and have read it avidly for many years, mostly because Neuhaus wrote with such compelling insight. But he surely had his failings. I don't think the deference Neuhaus showed to his clerical superiors during the sex scandals was the worst of those failings. Nor was his adulation of George W. Bush, which seemed to make him blind to the evils of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath--and led him to publish Michael Novak's duplicitous neocon attacks on the social teachings of the Catholic Church. No, I think Neuhaus's very worst failing was his choice of Damon Linker as a friend and colleague. As he did in his days at First Things, Linker still comes across today as faithless and petty. I am sorry you linked to his bitter recollections of a great man.

I think that Rod was well within his rights to reveal this incident involving Fr. Neuhaus. After all, Rod is a journalist and his coverage of the homosexual scandal was objective, accurate and thorough. This is evidenced by his use of precise journalistic terms such as "host" and "legion" when discussing the number of bishops involved and his steadfast refusal to reveal even more horrors in order to protect his sources. Why should we believe him? Because is a journalist in the United States of America, that's why.

And as to the patsy and bully who has finally had the good grace to shuffle off his mortal coil, well, the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Neuhaus.

There seems to be something of a generational divide between you and your friend, Mr. Linker, on the one hand, and Fr. Neuhaus, on the other.

What you seem to miss is that those of Fr. Neuhaus' generation were in complete shock over the scandal--it was something entirely alien to our experience of the Church. It was, to us, unbelievable. You fail to give an old timer the understanding you expected from him in your position as a young father.

You might have heeded Chilon of Sparta’s advice, “de mortuis nihil nisi bonum.” (“Of the dead, nothing but good.”)

St. Paul seems of the same mind, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

That he was a friend to you both would seem to have required nothing less. And since he is in no position to either defend or explain himself, your public criticisms seem particularly unfair.

EricW, John E., treebeard, thanks! I appreciated your posts, too.

Friend, I'm very grateful if you found something to help you in my inadequate words. I'm still dealing with much grief and guilt that I was not able to see more clearly, earlier in my life. I feel great sorrow that I am not able to change the past. It motivates my resolve not to be silent in the present. One of the worst things that abuse of authority does is to condition people to doubt themselves, to be easily silenced, to feel guilty if they dare to oppose those authorities. Please don't ever be afraid to speak the truth as you see it. Please don't sell yourself short, for a "love" that comes at the price of your submission to things you know in your heart are not right. Don't let anyone steal your dignity and your integrity from you. You are worth more than that. It helps me to know that I've done something constructive in the present, to make up for what I could not do before. So, thank you for telling me that.

Steve K., I appreciate your kindness in praying for me. But I'm disturbed that your prayer seems to imply that I worship idols and that I despise Jesus. Please set your mind at rest--I don't do either of those things! Kind intentions are never wasted, however, so carry on praying for me, and I'll do the same for you. ; )

It's odd so see so many people trying to shame Rod for criticizing Richard Neuhaus--just as Neuhaus tried to shame Rod for criticizing the bishops. Isn't this exactly the same syndrome Rod brought to our attention in the Islamic shame/honor culture? "Those are important men! They are priests! You can't criticize them! Shame on you!" Thus the honor of the elite is once again placed above the welfare of the people. Of course we must always treat human beings with respect and kindness. But let's not ever be ashamed of taking a clear look at the results of their words and deeds.

Roland de Chansen writes "And as to the patsy and bully who has finally had the good grace to shuffle off his mortal coil, well, the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Neuhaus."

I do not know if you are intending irony here, referring to Shakespeare's speach by Mark Antony full or irony to turn the angry croud around but I think the good that Fr Neuhaus did will live after him. That would be my hope here.

I'm going to offer a thought on your personal journey that I hope won't offend you. I read your blog but never comment.

Could it be that when you were a Catholic, you were a bit of a Mottramist? The scandals made being a Mottramist impossible for you. Because Neuhaus and others influential upon you claimed that Catholics must be Mottramist, the only option you saw was to leave the RC Church. (Based on your post about Douthat and Plan B, you still seem to think that Catholics must be Mottramists.)

There is a spiritual component here: if you were a Mottramist, then you needed your faith to be purified, and your conversion to Orthodoxy likely is doing that.

We are all Mottramists sometimes. I know some born-agains who are Bible Mottramists. In this way, I think the liberal Christians/Catholics have something for us conservatives to learn from.

Father Neuhaus was a great man who lived a heroic life. As a consequence, his shoes will not be filled. How could they be. I always read First Things back to front. What will I do now. Re-read old issues I suppose.

In time, a biographer worthy of the subject will tell the whole story (warts and all) and Damon Linker will take his place in the footnotes as the dimestore Judas that he is.

Your Name @ 12 noon: admit it. You ARE our old friend Diane! Nobody else can do the anti-Orthodox snark with such a heavy hand. Found any more websites to get banned from lately?

of course, this behind the scenes gossip does explain the (unfair, I thought) slam of a book review that FT published of "Crunchy Cons" a while back.

I thought this was an excellent post that gave new color to my impressions of both Father N. and Rod. Both men (as well as Damon Linker) are merely human. They are neither perfect nor are the mere cartoons. I think those of us who admire Fr. Neuhaus are well-served by knowing more about him. Those of us who read Rod regularly are likewise well-served by knowing how these episodes may have (though not necessarily) impacted his spiritual decision-making.

Rod: I think your posts over the past several weeks/months have been among your most consistently well done.

All I can say is that his intellectual acumen will be missed. His bullying and hatefulness in some areas will not.

"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."

Quite true.

See Rod's earlier post for a Mottramist:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/01/what-is-an-orthodox-catholic-o.html#more

Francesca, could you explain angelism a bit more?

A very well-written and balanced post, Rod. I think that in a sense it answers the question posed a few threads back as to what orthodox Catholics should do if he perceives a gap between Catholic teaching and the data used to support it. On unquestioned, fundamental matters of doctrine (e.g. the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the content of the Creed, along with a small number of other matters), I think it is clear that one who does not accept such doctrines is either heterodox in their understanding, outright heretical, or on their way out of the Church. Situations such as Douthat described, however, are much commoner--situations where the issue is not doctrine or dogma per se, but the practical application of dogma in the light of information in areas not covered by the Magisterium's authority (e.g. cience, history, etc.); or in some cases extrapolations or (dare I say it?) penumbras formed by emanations from dogma. This is where it gets tricky.

Officially, the Church says that the faithful owe "religious submission of will and intellect" to all teachings proposed by the Magisterium, even those that are non-infallible. E.g. this quotation from Donum Veritatis, viewable here (emphasis added): "When the Magisterium, not intending to act 'definitively', teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith." In short, even on a non-definitive teaching, which is an extrapolation or emanation from dogma ("to make explicit its contents" or "to guard against ideas that are incompatible"), the faithful must believe "under the impulse of obedience to faith".

Now to some extent, this is actually defensible. Most teachings of the Church do not deal with the hypostatic union of natures in Christ, but with temporal applications of the faith: Should I vote for a certain policy? Is what this job requres me to do moral? How can I best help the poor? Not every single bit of minutia is to be called into question. The problem is that with a powerful, hierarchical structure which has temporal as well as spiritual clout, there is a great peril of tyranny over the believers. I'm sure the men who tried Galileo were certain that he was not giving the "religious submission of will and intellect" required of him, despite the fact that he was, in fact, correct. Eppur si muove! A rather Ultramontane mind-set develops that comes close to saying, "The Magisterium says it; I believe it; case closed!" This is a huge characature of Catholic doctrine, but all too many in more conservative wings of the Church seem to think this way. I think the anecdotes about Fr. Neuhaus vis-a-vis the bishops and Maciel are clear examples of this. By the way, such things as these wouldn't even come under the rubric cited above from Donum Veritatis, but the mindset of creeping infallibilism and Ultramontanism tends to seep into all corners.

As I've pointed out before, it is also richly ironic that the same conservatives who would tend to take issue with the least deviation on such issues as the morning-after pill or many other such things, using this very argument on submission of will and intellect, were quick to distance themselves from the Vatican when it declared the Iraq war to be unjust, saying, "Well, that's a prudential decision by the state, and we can disagree with the Pope." Well, almost all moral decisions in the real world invovle "prudential judgments", don't they? I guess we submit our will and intellect only to the pronouncements we like, huh?

I think Your Name at 8:37 PM is pretty much right. As I've said before, there seems to be less clericalism and legalism in the Orthodox Church, so that there is less problem with this kind of thing. Alas, I'm inclined to think that much this is more from lack of power than superior behavior. For nearly a millennium, most of the Orthodox world were either dhimmis or under the thumb of powerful states (e.g. Russia after Peter the Great). If you look to the earlier history of the East, condemnations, banishments, exiles, and even the occasional brawls, fistfights, riots, and executions were about as common as in the Latin Church. John Chrysostom himself was involved in the final destruction of the remains of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesis, one of the Wonders of the Ancient World (would he have done thus to the Pyramids, given the chance?).

Thus, I think we should understand Church doctrine and form our consciences in light of it; and I think we should be slow and reticent to disagree or dissent. In the last analysis, though, it is up to each person to make his own decisions, and to live with their consequences. I think God would look more kindly on a sincerely mistaken Christian who does so, even perhaps to the point of persecution, than the on the Church functionaries, even bishops or Popes, who would use tyranny or duress against such Christians, even if the Church is doctrinally correct in the particular situation.

Your name is in this instance Francesca, not Diane!

Tumarion: As I've said before, there seems to be less clericalism and legalism in the Orthodox Church, so that there is less problem with this kind of thing. Alas, I'm inclined to think that much this is more from lack of power than superior behavior.

I think the degree of RC clericalism is relative to culture. You wouldn't have found more clericalism in southern Italy in the 19th century than in Greece, for instance. To Europeans, American RCs seem excessively clericalist. It's contingent - for instance, in 17th-
19th cent Ireland, priests were to the laity the representatives of a faith that England Protestantism held in 'dhimmitude', and so they were highly regarded.

No Scott - I meant that 1.46 was me. That's the only 'your name' I've posted - on Mottramism.

Me Too: When Mottram says to the priest, 'I suppose it would be a spiritual rain but we are too sinful to be able to see it,' could that not be paraphrased, 'whatever, Father' ?

Me Too - 'I suppose it is a spiritual sort of rain which we are too sinful to be able to see' is not obsequeiousness. It is fake deference masking indifference. That exists amongst real RCs, no? 'Whatever' is colloquially used to mean, not, 'any thing', but 'who cares?'

Friend: Exactly my point. Official Church teaching does essentially boil down to, "Whatever, Father (or Bishop, or Your Holiness)." I think the Church at its best realizes this is not right, and understands that in this fallen, temporal order we inhabit, things are much messier than that. Unfortunately, I think Sigilaris is largely correct in pointing out the inevitable tendencies of institutionalized authority (spiritual or otherwise) in actual practice. An excellent book that touches on many of these issues is The Astonished Heart, by Robert Farrar Capon, a retired Episcopal priest.

I look at faith and the institutional Church as the treasure in earthen vessels, or (sometimes) the diamond at the bottom of the septic tank. The institution is the form that is necessary to propagate the teaching, and it has produced many extraordinary men and women of great holiness as well as doing much good in the world. On the other hand, it has propagated a lot of really bad &*%$ in the world, as well. Ineveitable, given human nature, since the Church is composed of humans.

The point is that just as the holiest men and women often have some rather apalling warts, the institutions that are supposed to be holy are often far and away the opposite, especially towards those whom they supposedly serve. Corruptio optimi pessiumum--"The corruption of (that which is) best is the worst." So it is with the Church. So it is with everything in this order of being--perfection belongs to the next world, not this one.

Of course, God writes straight with crooked lines, and manages to get diamonds out of septic tanks. Thus, Holy Mother the Church is Holy in that God is at work through the Sacraments, and the Holy Spirit cannot be that easily driven out (completely, at least). On the other hand, to use a Lutheran phrase, the institutional side of the Church, like all of us, is simul justus et peccator--"at the same time just and a sinner." Not enough of the "just", all too often.

Anyway, when all is said and done, I read and still read First Things, and while disagreeing with Fr. Neuhaus on many things, I think he was a good man at heart, and I join in praying for his repose.

Seriously Rod, why didn't you write this earlier? Alan Jacobs writes:

But still, there is something that troubles me about Rod’s story. If someone has mistreated you, or done anything discreditable in your presence in private, and you wait until he is dead to tell the story in public, you’re ensuring that he doesn't get the opportunity to give his side of the story, to clarify or correct — and above all, to apologize and ask for forgiveness. He is forever, and publicly, the person who acted badly towards you; whereas if the story had been told while he was still alive, he could have been the person who repented and apologized for such behavior.

The story Rod tells is not malicious — it makes a legitimate and germane point about the varying attitudes of equally committed Catholics to the clergy abuse scandals — but it would have been equally germane to any number of pieces Rod has written about these matters in the past few years. So while I don't think Rod was simply wrong to tell the story now, I don't think his decision was the best one. I wish he had published the story while Father Neuhaus was alive, or not published it at all.

Just want to make it clear that I just wrote about Mottramism.

"What Alan Jacobs Said,"

Thank you. My view converges with Jacobs's also -- with the caveat that I don't see where, as Jacobs suggests, Dreher's critics are "neglecting the many very positive things Rod says about Father Neuhaus" ... primarily since I don't see where Dreher has made so "many very positive" comments in the first place.

SDG, are you Steven Greydanus, my favorite movie critic? I rely on your reviews! (And I appreciate your comments here.)

i'm not "diane"

Me too AKA Diane, thanks for demonstrating why you get banned. Eventually Rod will check this thread and delete everything you've posted. And you will continue slinging around terms like "loser" and accusing people of slander, and then you will wonder why people just don't like you much, even though you are a Staunch Defender Of The Faith. I've not been banned from any blogs, thanks, unlike you, nor thrown out of any bars. I haven't accused you of anything except getting banned from some blogs, let alone your nonsense about broken bottles and human sacrifice, but that's all it takes to launch the total retaliatory response so well known to those of us who frequent Orthodox/Catholic sites. Why are you so frantically insecure? And why do you sneak back to sites where it has been made clear that you are not welcome? Pathetic.

Point taken, Sally, and I'm done. But who said Catholicism was a bad religion? Having spent Christmas Eve with the Pope, (we were snowed in, and thanks, NBC!) it's certainly not me.

"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."

You were right on that score. And my opinion of William F. Buckley is diminished by the fact that he ordered you to stop writing about that story. I'm really surprised and disappointed to hear he did that, actually.

I tell you this story not to speak ill of Father Neuhaus,

Ooops, too late!

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.

Gee, Rod, no incongruency at all in noting that you are not out to speak ill of the dead (before his body has been committed to the ground) before criticizing him.

Then again, that could be said of me. You too. We are all broken, and in need of mercy.

On that point, it would not hurt you to beg your readers' prayers for the repose of the soul of His priestly servant.

Trampling on the grave of a man, before it has even been dug.

Be proud of yourself if you can manage to do so - in time I suspect you will come to profoundly regret such a lack of charity.

I apologize if this posts twice -- I'm somewhat of a Luddite when it comes to blogging and may have hit "submit" more than once --
As one of Fr. Neuhaus's (Uncle Dick's) many nieces and nephews, I am warmed by all of the postings regarding his life and beliefs. While Uncle Dick and I were polar opposites politically, religiously, and culturally, there was never any doubt in my mind that he was a man who lived as he believed (whether I agreed with those beliefs or not). Please do not condemn those that are less than flattering of him. He was just a man. He need not be canonized. I suspect he would enjoy knowing that all of those who knew him, friend and foe alike, are communicating publicly as a result of his passing. He was, after all, a man who knew how to push our buttons. I, for one, appreciate everyone's postings, including Rod and Dan, and encourage you all to "lighten up" and simply remember the man who liked his pipe, his scotch, his friends, his cottage in Canada, and his family. I will remember the man who walked me through his particularly interesting interpretation of the Chronicles of Narnia during a late night phone call in the early '80s, the Luthern minister who prayed for his grand-nephew Abraham during an illness, and the man who managed to both inflame and inspire those around him. He was just a man --- and I'm proud to call him my Uncle.

Rod,

You have deleted posts by authors whose kind words I acknowledged in my reply. I must therefore look like a fool in replying to comments ostensibly never made. I acknowledge your right to censor any and all respondents to your blog, but I am dismayed that you would delete posts from a person or persons (whom I in any event do not know either by name or reputation) which are neither scurrilous nor defamatory nor even mildly provocative and even in some cases quite amusing.

If you wish to delete my posts as well, please do not feel constrained in so doing. I enjoy reading your articles here and in DMN and I agree with you more often than not, but in this instance I am afraid you have transgressed the bounds not only of civilised propriety but also of Christian charity, in that you have profaned the obsequies (pokhorony) of Fr. Neuhaus for your own picayune vindication. You are hardly a nonentity; you ought to have enough confidence in your own integrity and reputation that you might eventually be proven more correct in your assessment of the scandal than Fr. Neuhaus, if indeed history ultimately justifies you. All things in the fullness of time.

As one born a Catholic, I have nothing but the utmost reverence for those who find their way to Rome, given the intellectual and spiritual obstacles history has thrust into the path of conversion. And I was greatly moved by the story of your own conversion. I cannot disagree with your sense of betrayal and disgust during the heyday of the homosexual scandal. But, as I know you are well read in history, I found it preposterous that you abandonned your religion because of the failings of mere men. As I have written here several times before, I love the Byzantine churches, both Orthodox and Uniat, and have been overwhelmed with the transcendence of their liturgies, yet, despite my contempt for the perpetrators and facilitators of the scandal, I cannot think that a sufficient reason for apostasy.

Censor me too if you wish. But, from a bad Catholic to a bad Orthodox, let us hope we both learn a bit of the charity of Christ.

Rod replies to an earlier post "Have you not been reading all the laudatory commentary I've written on this site about Father Neuhaus? I mention something serious that came up between us, that added to my understanding of the man -- a man I've said here I believe was a "great-souled" man -- and suddenly you have me thinking that the only measure of his character was the way he responded to the scandal?

That is inaccurate and unjust."

OK, perhaps I should not presume to know what you really think and therefore I will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider what I suggested is "inaccurate and unjust". I restate my prediction that the memory of Fr Neuhaus will be kept alive in his essays. The anecdotal narritive of his conversion and dedication to the Culture of Life moves me.

Since discovering your book and blog several years ago, I have been a devoted reader and fan, but the handling of Fr. Neuhaus’s death on these pages has me questioning whether I should continue to read and recommend your writings.

As someone who is not just a blogger but also a journalist, don’t you have an obligation to verify a derogatory story about a public figure? Perhaps before accusing someone in a public forum of bullying and censorship, you might send a simple email to check with your former boss and see if you had the facts straight?

As a reader this whole affair raises serious doubts in my mind about how much weight to give to your writing. If this is how you treat someone whom you claim to respect greatly and who hasn’t even been dead for a week, should I accept as fair and balanced your representations of those you disagree with?

I have read Fr. Neuhaus for years and while I disagreed with him on several issues, I felt his death as a real loss. Now added to that, I feel I might also need to stop reading a blog that has been a daily part of my life for a long time. Say what you will, your treatment of Fr. Neuhaus here strikes me as a failure of journalistic integrity, civility, and Christian charity. With those qualities called into question, I’m not sure why I should continue to read this blog.