I'm guessing this is all we'll get

Fr. Neuhaus responds, in general, to critics. He names a few - but not Damon Linker.

I have little stake in the label “neoconservative,” or in “conservative,” for that matter, but I understand that you can’t have a vast conspiracy without labels. And I really do welcome criticism that raises interesting arguments. Those who have read FIRST THINGS over the years know that it is, for the most part, a sustained exercise in argument and counter-argument. I think of it as the continuing conversation, and relish the engagement of ideas within the bond of civility.

But much of the chatter about theocons and theocracy is in a vulgar attack mode. Some might find it entertaining if I indulged in a point-by-point rebuttal to such attacks, but it would really be quite tedious, and we all have, or should have, better things to do with our time.

Comments

[c. coleman]

My hunch is that Neuhaus will wisely wait for Linker's book to appear before he responds--if he responds at all. I imagine the book will be a series of intellectual vignettes of the major "theocon" players. Expect unappealing profiles of Neuhaus, Weigel, Novak, George, and anybody else with a sufficient paper trail. It's interesting that Linker was once a fawning student of Mark Lilla's, and my guess is that the later's book "The Reckless Mind" will be the template for Linker's portraits of "anti-liberal" thinkers. In other words, Linker's book will be a retread in virtually every respect imaginable.

[dan crawford]

Unfortunately, Neuhaus' comments have given me reason to suspect that perhaps what is dismissed so condecendingly may actually have substance.

[mulopwepaul]

And if he'd waxed indignant, you could have said "Methinks he protests too much." Either way, you would be free to interpret events into the paradigm you preferred.

PVO

[Will Barrett]

Or Father Neuhaus might be saying that Damon Linker isn't offering a coherent argument as he does say he would be willing "to respond to any coherent argument" his critics might give. I will infer from that Damon Linker doesn't offer a coherent argument worthy of real response.

[Mike Petrik]

"Unfortunately, Neuhaus' comments have given me reason to suspect that perhaps what is dismissed so condecendingly may actually have substance."

"Unfortunately" my eye.

[Charles]

I don't doubt that Fr. Neuhaus has better things to do with his time. I just bought the April FT and it's a fantastic issue. Great book review by Joseph Bottum of the Mad Scientists' Club series, a favorite when I was a yute, and an article by Weigel, which I'll read tonight, giving the neo/theo con view of the Iraq War. I think Weigel is spot on; I can understand people disagreeing, but can't they see that his arguments need to be dealt with, not merely dismissed? My favorite bit in the new issue, and the one that so impressed upon me how Fr. Neuhaus must not have many moments to spare, is Fr.'s take on a 500 page doctoral dissertaion coming out of the Angelicum that critiques von Balthasar. This guy (Fr. Neuhaus) is reading 500 page unpublished doctoral dissertations-small wonder he doesn't want to bother with defending himself against every criticism that comes out! (And, although this dissertation is just an opening salvo, I for one would love to see a reassessment of vonB. Back to the manuals!)

[Celine]

Surprise! As Charles reports, FIRST THINGS publishes George Weigel's defense of the Iraq War! (Actually, it is a feeble rehash of arguments already effectively rebutted elsewhere.)

The point is that FIRST THINGS does not and has not published any article attacking the War -- though it is hardly an ecumenical, much less Catholic consensus that the war was just or defensible. What does this tell you about FIRST THINGS, other than its editors are shills for preemptive war and neocon militarism in the name of God?

[Charles]

Celine,

Maybe what it tells us about FT is that Fr. Neuhaus and its editors have thoughtfully, prayerfully come to the conclusion that the Iraq War is just and should be defended. Maybe they're wrong, but they've NEVER been shrill namecallers.

Besides, I can remember an article in FT against the War. Also, as perhaps I should have pointed out, Weigel's article is actually a talk he gave recently, and is more a summary and a "where are we now?" account. You are right that it is no match for his brilliant work on preemptive war in the contemporary era as sometimes necessary to preserve the tranquilitas ordinis.

Forgive me, Celine, but I think it's precisely the shrillness of your comments that prevents thoughtful debate about these matters.

Say what you will about the justness of the War, it's led to a coarsening of debate among orthodox Catholics. And I think the name-calling has mostly been coming from one side. (That would be the non-Weigel, non-Fr. Neuhaus side.)

[c. coleman]

Celine:

>>The point is that FIRST THINGS does not and has not published any article attacking the War.<<

Seriously, can you read? Stanley Hauerwas, Paul Griffiths, and Rowman Williams have all penned very critical essay in First Things. And I'm probably leaving off some names.

[Tom Haessler]

Hello, Celine,

I believe that Fr. Neuhaus's intellect is a great gift to the Church in America. Even if his only contribution was broadening ecumenical dialogue to include evangelicals, he'd have made his mark. Nevertheless, I'm deeply troubled by FIRST THINGS' uncritical stance vis a vis the war in Iraq. The difficulty with Weigel's article is not what he says about the United Nations (virtually unassailable), but his understanding of the just war itself. He often makes reference to classical expressions of the theory, but nowhere does he give sustained attention to the modifications of the theory in recent magisterial treatments. It's extremely difficult to understand how his understanding of the theory can be understood as in any way "new" - something called for in GAUDIUM ET SPES. Nevertheless, his books defending other aspects of Catholic teaching are excellent, in my opinion.

[Damon Linker]

Discussion of me and my article on this and other threads has been quite edifying.

At the bottom of the "Dangerous Neuhaus" thread, you can find a brief response to a few of the insinuations made by the courageous C. Coleman and others.

Here I will only point out that every single critical discussion of the war in FT has been followed immediately by a "rebuttal" from George Weigel, who is in all cases given the last word.

[Rich Leonardi]

nowhere does he give sustained attention to the modifications of the theory in recent magisterial treatments.

Which modifications, precisely?

[Rich Leonardi]

Here I will only point out that every single critical discussion of the war in FT has been followed immediately by a "rebuttal" from George Weigel, who is in all cases given the last word.

Perhaps that's because almost every single "critical discussion" has been a critique of arguments made by Mr. Weigel.

FT has been clear about its point of view and has made sustained arguments on its behalf. Are you suggesting that they should be compelled or persuaded to adopt a Catholic version of the "fairness doctrine"?

[Damon Linker]

"Are you suggesting that they should be compelled or persuaded to adopt a Catholic version of the "fairness doctrine"?"

Not at all. But the brave Coleman implied that in publishing those critical essays FT showed itself to be something less than unambiguously in favor of the war. And that's nonsense.

[Tom Haessler]

Hello, Rich Leonardi,

Well, for starters, this one. In the old scholastic manual treatment of just war theory, two kinds of just war were distinguished: just offensive wars and just defensive wars. The former were defined as undertaken for (the just cause) the defense of the violated rights of a sovereign nation. The just defensive war was warding off an unjust attack. John XXIII in PACEM IN TERRIS, 127, said "In an age which prides itself on the possession of atomic weaponry, it is contrary to reason (CONTRA RATIONEM) to hold that war is a suitable means of restoring rights which have been violated." Contrary to reason = immoral. "Restoring rights which have been violated" is the "just cause" of a just offensive war. This position has been reiterated by Vatican II, Paul XI, and John Paul II in numerous statements. In other words, the traditional "just offensive war" is no longer part of the theory as defended by the magisterium today. It's very difficult to understand what is "new" in the theory as defended by Weigel. GAUDIUM ET SPES called on us to undertake "new" approaches to the problem of war and peace. Dusting off the just war theory with all sorts of references to articulations of the theory at a time when the weapons were crossbows and blunderbuses is not exactly a "new" approach.

At the time of Vatican II there were some theologians who thought that the concept of total war justified the elimination of the classical distinction between combatants (those directly involved in the war effort) and non-combatants. This view was rejected by the Council. In fact, one German Jesuit had to abandon his doctoral dissertation which was a defense of the elimination of the distinction.

There were also theologians who thought it was impossible to apodictically state that city busting was always wrong (on the grounds that proportionality calculus might in some circumstances permit it). This view was very strongly rejected by the Council Fathers.

These are the sort of modifications I had in mind, Rich.

[c. coleman]

I will concede that the official editorial line of First Things has been basically pro-war. So Mr. Linker's point is well taken. I only wish that Mr. Linker's other points were as fair. So, granted Linker's point, the question, then, is whether First Things was a forum for intelligent and responsible discussion of the war. Was there space for dissent? Was the dissent that was published done by credible and smart people? I would answer Yes. But closer readers of First Things than me could probably answer that better...

As an aside, I'm happy to see Damon Linker popping up on this site. It's apparent to me from his essay on Neuhaus that Linker is a writer and thinker of impressive talent and also a person with a real intellectual contribution to make to the place of the Christian Chruch in the public square. We should all welcome him here.

[Tom Haessler]

Hello, Charles,

I agree with you that much of the debate about the war among orthodox Catholics has involved coarseness and lack of respect for one's adversaries. I also agree that the neo-cons associated with FIRST THINGS have almost invariable been distinguished for courtesy and civility. But I don't think Celine falls in the category of the offenders. She succintly states a concern that many Catholics have about the FIRST THINGS approach to the Iraq War and to just war theory in general.

[Tom Haessler]

Hello, Mr. Coleman,

Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I was under the impression that the articles by people like Stanley Hauerwas were primarily coming from the pacifist wing of evangelicalism and not point for point articulations of the injustice of the war on the basis of contemporary just war theory.

[Rich Leonardi]

These are the sort of modifications I had in mind, Rich.

Well, aren't you proud of yourself. ;-)

It isn't very persuasive in any event. Take this statement:

"In an age which prides itself on the possession of atomic weaponry, it is contrary to reason (CONTRA RATIONEM) to hold that war is a suitable means of restoring rights which have been violated." Contrary to reason = immoral.

The citation doesn't necessarily support your conclusion. And given that the late Holy Father was weighing matters of fact, one could also argue that "the possession of precision weaponry" proves precisely the opposite point, i.e., that we no longer place civilian populations at risk the way we did during, say, the Vietnam War when carpet-bombing was the order of the day.

Likewise, Gaudium et Spes may have urged us to undertake "new" approaches (like umpteen U.N. Security Council resolutions perhaps) but it certainly didn't take war off the table.

[Charles]

Tom,

The term "neo-con" has taken on certain connotations in certain circles and should, I think, be discarded. Celine's term "shills" is neither courteous nor civil; neither is her latching on to one small part of my post and using it as a launching pad to attack the aforementioned neo-cons. I repeat that I think the most interesting thing in the new issue of FT is the little blurb about von Balthasar. I do concede, however, that debate about the Iraq War on this thread was inevitable. Perhaps Celine was launching a preemptive strike?

[mulopwepaul]

New wars call for new applications of the theory. An offensive nuclear war would clearly be unjust. The effect of this development on other wars is not at all clear.

PVO

[Damon Linker]

Well, thanks Mr or Mrs not-Coleman, that was very nice of you. Quite a bit nicer, in fact, than the personal rumors you saw fit to spread on the "Conflict of Interest" thread and on the Touchstone blog.

Let me be very clear: The "personal" aspect to my review of Neuhaus flowed directly from the personal (autobiographical) way in which he defends his views of authority in his book. It was impossible to discuss those views and criticize them (sharply, yes, but also carefully) without sounding "ad hominem" to some degree.

The same cannot be said about the groundless speculation and character assassination you and others have freely engaged in. Instead of directly addressing and responding to my criticisms of Neuhaus's positions on authority (in the Church, in liberal politics, in the life of the mind), natural law, and many other topics, you have chosen to attack me personally. That's easy and fun, but it's also intellectually lazy and morally dubious.

[Rich Leonardi]

Not at all. But the brave Coleman implied that in publishing those critical essays FT showed itself to be something less than unambiguously in favor of the war. And that's nonsense.

Fair enough, if that's indeed what Coleman wrote.

As an aside, if you think you're getting hell in comment boxes now, wait until your book comes out. I hope you have enough time to grow a thicker skin.

[CV]

Mr. Linker,

"..ad hominem to SOME degree?"

It is interesting that you bring up issues like character assassination, however it is astonishing to note that you seem to be primarily concerned about yourself.

Father Neuhaus has taken the high road in response to your article. His point about the "herd of independent minds" is particularly well-taken.

[c. coleman]

Damon:

I am ashamed if what I posted was, as you say, "character assasination." I certainly intended no such thing. I aimed only to fill in such facts as I was morally certain of. Perhaps it headed off speculation of a worse sort.

The fact is that, like Neuhaus, your personal history is part of the supposed credibility you bring to your project. It will be raised again and again, so I'm happy certain things I posted have been corrected.

I was told you were an enthusiastic Catholic convert? Is that so? Are you still a practicing Catholic? You mocked Neuhaus for claiming that the Catholic church tells the "true story of the world." That would seem to be an odd claim for a Catholic to make. Or am I wrong here?

I note that you call me "intellectually lazy." I could not agree with you more.

(It is Mr. Cole)

[al]

Well, I would say I felt that on many occasions FT has given its interlocutors short shrift. For example, I thought Dr. Williams raised a number of substantive points which were basically palmed off.

And indeed the tone with many of the arguments presented by FT has been dismissive (using terms like "naive" or "anachronistic" in lieu of actual arguments), or simply absent--as in cogent arguments (from authority for example, namely the authority of the last two popes, and how their express judgments should be brought into the mix) being utterly ignored.

Moreover, I have to say this is demonstrative of a line of responding in FT, in which "withering" dismissals, or glib elisions respond to genuine objections. For example, the objections raised to the presentation of JPII as an advocate of Free Market Economic principles. Or of Phenomenology. These objections have been raised many times over to FT & Co. presentation of these issues, and they are simply never addressed.

This is not something

[suscipe]

“The same cannot be said about the groundless speculation and character assassination you and others have freely engaged in. Instead of directly addressing and responding to my criticisms of Neuhaus's positions on authority (in the Church, in liberal politics, in the life of the mind), natural law, and many other topics, you have chosen to attack me personally. That's easy and fun, but it's also intellectually lazy and morally dubious.”

So I guess when you wrote, "Discussion of me and my article on this and other threads has been quite edifying," you were disingenuous? Either you are edified by such discussions or you are not. Which is it? Do you often search for discussions of yourself for edification? This is not a good path my friend.

I was once warned by a spiritual director to avoid seeking the opinions of others about myself. So, to start things off right, I was advised not to publish a conversion story and to keep my catechesis to the parish level. In particular, I needed to be wary of conceit in proclaiming my path to Our Lord. Why bringing others along for my messy ride of discovery? Who was I to reveal the truth? As a convert, like you(?) a former secular Jew, with a number of ties to prominent intellectuals, I was in a position to do great unintended damage in this area. Besides which, engaging in back and forth with critics would waste time better spent serving Him. Seeing your attempts to discredit others, and how it has in turn opened you up to blows which you are not taking kindly to, I am reminded of this advice and glad I took it.

[al]

. . . this is not something which I think betokens considered and considerate argument.

For example, an objection to a term like "neoconservative" rings rather hollow coming from the coiner of a term like "Thomists of the Strict Observance."

[George Lee]

"In an age which prides itself on the possession of atomic weaponry, it is contrary to reason (CONTRA RATIONEM) to hold that war is a suitable means of restoring rights which have been violated."

Consider that statement vis a vis the First Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991.

How else but by war could the rights of the Kuwaiti people have been restored? The sovereignity of Kuwait was restored and such rights as the Kuwaitis had came because military force was used against those who oppresed them savagely. It is unreasonable to object that the Kuwaitis didnt and don't have all the rights of Westerners. They didn't have any rights at all under Iraqi subjugation.

Since pride in nuclear weapons was also mentioned by Pope JPII, should we not also consider that it was by war that Sadam Hussein's nearly completed quest for nuclear weapons was prevented? All observers agree that in 1991 he was only a year or two away from possessing them. It doesn't seem contra rationem to put a stop to his efforts to acquire them. Far from it, considering what he would then have been in a position to do in the region and perhaps beyond.

The late Pope's remark about "an age which prides itself on the possession of atomic weaponry" seems oddly nebulous to me. The age prides itself on this? I can easily see how some countries, with newly acquired atomic weapons, like Pakistan or India or Saddam Hussein's Iraq might be fairly said to take such pride, but such individual countries, with their unique histories, don't amount to an "age." The language seems, as the language of his old age sometimes did, imprecise.

I think it would be unfair--and perhaps typically so--to lump either the USA or Britain in with those who take pride in a nuclear arsenal. Those arsenals weren't built out of pride. Winston Churchill believed that "The only reason there is a free man on the continent of Europe is because of nuclear weapons." Some might disagree with that assessment, but surely anyone can hear that there isn't a note of pride in it. A fair-minded listener would rather hear consternation.

[Simon]

Before this thread gets cluttered up with the usual off-topic back and forth about Just War theory, I for one would like to hear Mr. Linker's response to C. Coleman's questions above.

I would also suggest that while Mr. Linker is completely correct that a writer can and should change his public positions once he becomes convinced they are untrue, he nevertheless owes his readers some explanation of how and why those views changed. By contrast, Mr. Linker's TNR review simply attacks Fr. Neuhaus and the "theocons" without ever bothering to explain what attracted him to their views in the first place, and what subsequently forced him to change his mind. Odd.

Finally, I would like to know why we should take seriously the opinions of anyone who believes that this country is in danger of becoming a "theocracy" or that any significant movement -- anywhere in the United States -- advocating such a theocracy. This is the sort of grossly imprecise language (to put it mildly) that I do not generally associate with intelligence or nuance.

[Chris Sullivan]

Al,

The phrase "Thomists of the Strict Observance" reads like a term of affection and endearment to me (I'm not saying that's what Neuhaus intended).

There are many strict Thomists who have heroically opposed war and they are an example of the very best of Thomism.

The problem with Neuhaus is that he cloaks himself in tradition while really stepping aside from tradition. That isn't traditional at all, but modernist in its americanist form.

He cloaks himself in loyalty to the Pope while rejecting both the Pope's prudential judgements and doctrinal teachings against war. That isn't loyalty to the Pope at all.

People are now seeing through the war propaganada and seeing Iraq as the unjust war it always was. They are seeing that Pope John Paul II was right all along to oppose it and Neuhuas and his fellow travellers were wrong.

God Bless

[Dennis]

Having been a subscriber and avid reader of First Things for over 7 years now, I can simply say that anyone who thinks Fr. Neuhaus (and other so-called "Neo-Cons" or "Theo-Cons")advocates "Theocracy" is so far off the mark as to be unworthy of being taken seriously in any debate on the role of religion in public life. (Especially when the charge comes in yet another anti-Catholic/anti-Christian screed featured in The New Republic. TNR and it's rabidly anti-Christian cultural editor Leon Wieseltier have made a career out of this sort of thing.)

Since leaving First Things Linker has continually displayed such hostility toward Fr. Neuhaus, and other of his former colleagues, that I'm shocked he ever wanted to work for him in the first place. After all, it's not as if Fr, Neuhaus and First Things were unknown quantities ideologically circa 2002-2003. Perhaps Linker had ulterior motives all along?

[Tom Haessler]

If my memory serves me correctly, didn't Fr. Neuhaus very recently argue in Spain for the compatibility of the laicity of the secular state with Catholic understanding of the state?

[Eileen R]

The term "neo-con" has taken on certain connotations in certain circles and should, I think, be discarded.

Ditto. There is a large chunk of the population which means "Jews" when they say neo-con. I'm quite wary of using the word, lest those people be given legitimacy.

[Donald R. McClarey]

Terms like "neo-con" and "theo-con" are mere verbal brickbats. Eileen is quite correct that many people say "neo-con" when they really mean "Jew". Perhaps Mr. Linker can tell us who he is targeting when he uses the term "theo-con".

[Dan]

"Neo-con" is not a pet term of mine, but I find preposterous the idea that it is anti-semitic. In common parlance "neo-con" refers to Republicans who advocate an aggressive foreign policy (and hence are distinguished from Republicans of old, who tended to be isolationist or at least non-interventionist). The advocates of this approach in the current administration include Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, none of whom are Jewish. It also includes Jewish advocates, some of whom may see it as being in Israel's interest as well as the interests of the U.S. This does not mean however that the label "neo-con" is code for "Jew" or otherwise anti-semitic.

If criticizing "neo-cons" is anti-semitic, then it is even more anti-semitic to criticize "Hollywood" or "The New Republic."

[Maclin Horton]

Sure, Dan, that's what the word means in common parlance. But the syndrome Eileen & Donald describe is very real. Maybe you haven't crossed paths with those folks yet, but believe me, they're there. It's not so much that "neo-con" is a synonym for "Jew" for them, exactly, as that they have a way of focusing on Jewish neo-cons in a way that has a real stench about it.

Personally I rarely use it because it's been misused so much that it's often hard to know what it means. For some liberals it's become just a more vituperative synonym for "conservative." E.g. some liberal columnist trashed "the neo-cons" for making a fuss about Terri Schiavo.

[Ambrosius]

Funny, I get annoyed with First Things for being too liberal. I mean, would you really call Fr. Neuhaus a theocon? I mean, let's compare him to the real deal:
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

That's Pope Blessed Pius IX's Quanta Cura, btw.

[Kevin Miller]

Indeed - Neuhaus, as a follower of Murray, is no "theocon."

In fact, both Murray/Neuhaus, and Pius IX, are mistaken.

The way to go is with Dignitatis Humanae, which develops doctrine beyond that of Pius IX, but which is not simply Murray's view either.

[al]

Well, Pius IX's Quanta Cura is quoted in the Catechism's explanation of Dignitatis Humanae, so evidently someone views them as in continuity: "2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37[Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799.
] but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38[Cf. DH 2.]

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39[Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.] The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40[DH 7 § 3.
]

[Ambrosius]

Yeah, Kevin -- I'd be a little wary of just calling a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium simply "wrong." Say what you will, but al is right: Dig. Humanae must be read in light of, and in continuity with, Quanta Cura.

[Simon]

Mr. Linker???

[Spectator]

In today's American Spectator on the web:

Among the Intellectualoids
Thundering Theophobes
By Mark Gauvreau Judge
Published 3/30/2006 12:06:32 AM

At some future date, an intrepid scientist will announce that he has made a discovery: there is a correlation between heroin and liberal outrage. Apparently, when a leftist goes off on a tirade against conservatives, religion, or Evil America, it triggers an opiate release in the brain that causes a blissed-out high. Thus, as the addict must hunt down smack, the liberal must have a constant supply of outrages to feed his jones. If none are available -- if, indeed, our modern age is criminally short of witch hunts, McCarthyism, religious intolerance and racism -- then one must be made out of smaller things. Thus the almost ardent obsession with George Bush. Thus the depiction of the Catholic Church as a tsunami of fascism. Thus Cindy Sheehan. Of course, as is the case with addicts, truth is often a casualty.

Which brings me to Damon Linker. Linker was once an editor at First Things, the neoconservative journal edited by Father Richard John Neuhaus. Linker recently left First Things, and has landed a book deal with Random House, and a cover spot on the New Republic. Linker's book, called The Theocons, is about "secular America under siege" by people like, well, Richard Neuhaus. According to Linker in the New Republic,
In Neuhaus's view, what was happening in the United States could only be described as "the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people." Hence the stark and radical options confronting the country, ranging "from noncompliance to resistance to civil disobedience to morally justified revolution."

That is the America toward which Richard John Neuhaus wishes to lead us -- an America in which eschatological panic is deliberately channeled into public life, in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country's political institutions and make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence, in which citizens flee from the inner obligations of freedom and long to subordinate themselves to ecclesiastical authority, and in which traditionalist Christianity thoroughly dominates the nation's public life. All of which should serve as a potent reminder -- as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder -- that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America's most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it. It is a large part of what makes America worth living in.

It's like an alcoholic's first shot of bourbon. The problem is -- like all addicts -- Linker is a bit paranoid, not to mention unreliable.

It's pretty simple: like a lot of conservatives, Richard Neuhaus wants to arrest judicial activism. In 1996 First Things ran a symposium called "The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics." It argued that when judges start ordering our lives, democracy suffers -- and taken to an extreme can be lost. The most stark example of this is abortion.

In fact, Neuhaus was arguing the exact opposite of what Linker claims. Linker writes that Neuhaus sees an America "in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country's political institutions." He was, in fact, calling for a revitalization of those very institutions. Linker says Neuhaus wants a public able to "make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence." No, he was calling for the negotiable demands of a democracy that arranges its public life through debate, not judicial fiat. In Neuhaus's dystopia, warns Linker, "citizens flee from the inner obligations of freedom and long to subordinate themselves to ecclesiastical authority." In fact, Neuhaus was calling citizens to precisely exercise their inner obligations of freedom -- obligations which have been purloined by judges. As for a world in which "traditionalist Christianity thoroughly dominates the nation's public life," this is just a mindless abstraction. What, exactly, does Linker mean by this?

Leftist Christians like Linker -- and leftists in general - can easily get away with their prevarication; the high of a rhetorical blast like the one Linker delivers above is just too sweet to let the truth get in the way. Linker will no doubt find a home in the mainstream media, and among liberal Christians suffering from similar addictions. In a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, liberal Catholic historian Garry Wills, author of a new book about Jesus, revealed that there is a conservative Catholic fringe group that is pulling the levers of power in the church and the government. Specifically, there are four men: George Weigel (whose terrific new book God's Choice is required reading for serious Catholics), Joseph Fessio, Michael Novak, and (cue scary music) Richard John Neuhaus. Perhaps suffering from a Da Vinci Code-like fever dream, Wills charges that these men, well, run the country. They are connected with Karl Rove (natch), and guide their nefarious neocon policy from the fringe. They are, that is to say, an anti-democratic oligarchy imposing its will on a public that does not support them.

The problem is, aside from his paranoid style of politics, Gary Wills is a liar. In his piece he claims that the Catholic cabal, realizing that most Americans disagree with them, have formed their own little revolutionary government. As a primary example, Wills cites the 1996 symposium, "The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics," that was sponsored by First Things. The symposium's point was that an activist judiciary had overtaken the role of politics, subverting -- even eliminating -- democracy itself. As a result, Americans might have to refuse to obey immoral laws, change the constitution and possibly engage in civil disobedience.

Wills offers the symposium as exhibit A of the right's desire to undemocratically take over politics. He does so by selectively quoting, for example, Judge Robert Bork's piece "Our Judicial Oligarchy." In it Bork argues that activist courts can and should be reined in by the democratic process. But it's useful to let Bork explain and then show Wills's deception. Bork:
On the evidence, we must conclude, I think, that this tendency of courts, including the Supreme Court, is the inevitable result of our written constitution and the power of judicial review. Even in the depths of the Warren Court era some of us thought that the Court's performance, though profoundly illegitimate, could be brought within the range of the minimally acceptable by logical persuasion or the appointment of more responsible judges, or both. We now know that was an illusion. A Court majority is impervious to arguments about its proper behavior. It seems safe to say that, as our institutional arrangements now stand, the Court can never be made a legitimate element of a basically democratic polity.

The way to fix this, writes Bork, is through democracy:
Only a change in our institutional arrangements can halt the transformation of our society and culture by judges. Decisions of courts might be made subject to modification or reversal by majority vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Alternatively, courts might be deprived of the power of constitutional review. Either of these solutions would require a constitutional amendment. Perhaps an elected official will one day simply refuse to comply with a Supreme court decision That suggestion will be regarded as shocking, but it should not be.

Completely clear, right? However, in his piece Wills accuses Bork et al. of a "quiet extremism" hidden behind "a quiet air of reasonableness." They want nothing less than armed rebellion and the refusal to obey the Supreme Court. Then Wills quotes Bork this way:
It seems safe to say that, as our institutional arrangements now stand, the Court can never be made a legitimate element of a basically democratic polity....Perhaps an elected official will one day simply refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision. That suggestion will be regarded as shocking, but it should not be.

See how specious this is? Wills complete eradicates Bork's contention that any change in the courts must be done democratically, through a constitutional amendment -- just as Linker obfuscates Neuhaus's advocacy for democracy. Wills's truncated quote makes it seem as if Bork is calling for revolution. What he is calling for is a democratically fueled restoration. Yet as Wills proves in his Catholic-bashing later in the piece, he has things a bit backward. He wants a representative republic, the United States, to be run by liberal elites like judges. And he want a hierarchical institution, the Catholic Church, to be a democracy.

He and Linker need to get to rehab.

[Joseph R. Wilson]

Father Neuhaus’ comments of March 29 are worth reading in full. I wonder if wide publication of this “theocon” stuff is part of a general emerging strategy for the midterm elections.

I think that I have noted an increase of the use of the (scary) word “fundamentalist” in discussions of political controversies. I don’t recall it being applied to Democrats, though. It is interesting to observe the effort to increasing secularization of the politics in Canada. Perhaps First Things can help us to avoid some of that kind of “progress”.

[al]

And of course, JPII quotes Quanta Cura as well in his elucidation of the notion of freedom as well.

In fact his elucidation seems to bear directly on Mr. Linker's juxtaposition of "inner obligations of freedom and "subordinat[ion] [of oneself] to ecclesiastical authority."

"34. "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?". The question of morality, to which Christ provides the answer, cannot prescind from the issue of freedom. Indeed, it considers that issue central, for there can be no morality without freedom: "It is only in freedom that man can turn to what is good".56 But what sort of freedom? The Council, considering our contemporaries who "highly regard" freedom and "assiduously pursue" it, but who "often cultivate it in wrong ways as a licence to do anything they please, even evil", speaks of "genuine" freedom: "Genuine freedom is an outstanding manifestation of the divine image in man. For God willed to leave man "in the power of his own counsel" (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God".57 Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known.58[58. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, 2; cf. also Gregory XVI, Encyclical Epistle Mirari Vos Arbitramur (August 15, 1832): Acta Gregoree Papae XVI, I, 169-174; Pius IX, Encyclical Epistle Quanta Cura (December 8, 1864): Pii IX P.M. Acta, I, 3, 687-700; Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Libertas Praestantissimum (June 20,1888): Leonis XIII P.M. Acta, VIII, Romae 1889, 212-246.] As Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: "Conscience has rights because it has duties".59

[tcreek]

Personal opinions about “just war” are just that, opinions, no matter the source. Opinions are not prudential judgments. The holder is uniformed about the myriad consequences of action or inaction. They do not have the competence to make a prudential judgment that considers the consequences of action.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
2309 - The evaluation of these conditions (just war) for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

[Will Barrett]

Damon,

I am sorry it is hard to take your argument seriously when it is dressed up in such overblown and caustic language. Comparing Neuhaus' desire for the Church's authority to that of a man who tethered himself to Hitler is just the most egregious of the many examples in your piece.

Furthermore, I highly doubt anyone would take you quite as seriously on these issues if you didn't have "Former editor of First Things," after your name. I seriously doubt your book project would be in existence were in not for that convenient fact either. In this respect, you are a bit like Father McBrien whose reputation stems solely from the fact that he trashes the very institution that gives him credibility.

There is a way of disagreeing with Father Neuhaus, George Weigel, and Michael Novak that doesn't involve trashing them or labeling them theocons or insinuating that they are radicals foaming at the mouth to achieve some American theocracy.

[scriblerus]

This thread is pretty good illustration of how difficult it is to engage with folks like Neuhaus, Weigel, Novak (theocons, neocons, what you will).

Neuhaus claims that he is all about democracy and chastizes religious believers and secularists alike for not allowing all viewpoints into the conversation (insert Murray quote about American democracy as a conversation) but then brushes off some of the criticisms that come his way with stuff like "I'm too busy," or the sort of pompous highmindedness that is on display in other places. In this case, too, I think that Neuhaus is refusing to engage by taking cover behind the faults of his opponent.

With non-engagement of that sort (and the exact repitition of their arguments even after they are criticized; e.g., see discussions of capitalism, just war, etc.), it is easy enough to see why some people get very frustrated with them.

In Linker's case, the early parts of his essay, when he talks about "The Naked Public Square" and Neuhaus' use of the ideas of democracy and natural law, are on the money. Plus, Linker's emphasis on Neuhaus' concern over the years with the threat of America's loss of purpose is quite right. These characterizations of Neuahus deserve reasonable discussion and, even if Linker goes over the edge later, they deserve a response. Unfortunately, "Naked Public Square" also has parts critical of religious fundamentalists who want to impose their ideas on others, showing how misguided Linker's criticisms are.

Where Linker goes wrong is to equate these arguments with theocracy, etc. I think one of the earlier posters is on to something with the comparison of Linker to Lilla. We won't know until we read the book but I suspect that some sort of analogy between "reckless minds" who embraced totalitarianism and "theocons" who are pushing totalitarianism is serving as a template for Linker's own book.

[viri probati now]

Frankly, all of this smacks as nothing more than an attempt at redeeming ones career with the liberal media, Mr. Linker.

[JP]

Funny how the Just War Doctrine keeps coming up. In light of recent 20th century history, one would think the doctrine itself would be untenable. France in 1935-36, had the right via the Treaty of Versailles to occupy the Saar and Rheinland areas when Hitler sent a few weak rifle companies westward. However, this "preemptive strike", or prevenative campaign (the Wehrmacht hadn't yet begun rearming, and was in no condition to fight France) would not pass muster today. Ironically, many of the same arguments and protestations in France as well as England would be heard 68 years later in America (Don't rush to war; give peace a chance, etc..) Hitler played the victim perfectly. The Saarland and Rhienland did, afterall belong to the Reich. France was just a bully- its right wing politcians and general swere just nationalistic warmongers.In the end France blinked. The Second World War began not in 1939, but 1936. By failing to enforce the resolutions of the Versailles Treaty, France failed Europe.

The Just War Doctrine as understood today would have suited Hitler perfectly.

[Mike Petrik]

JP,
I think you are right re "the Just War Doctrine as *understood today*."
But the predictable rebuttal is either (i) if we had behaved in accordance with this Ghandian understanding of JWT everything would have worked out so much better or (ii) good ends cannot justify bad means, so too bad.

Sigh.

[GJ]

The real theocons are at places like The New Pantagruel criticizing RJN and FT for doing Liberalism the neocon way--and from standpoints that might by turns be described as both left and right. Maybe "poly-sectarian root-and-branchers" would do us justice. Now if only we could blog our way onto TNR's, Harper's, etc. A-list of members of the vast conspiracy of wrong-thinking people who will murder you in your sleep...