In an earlier post I was asked why I even bother with their thought. Very simply, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. As Catholics we are called to "test everything and hold fast to what is good."
The Whigs have done and are doing some good work!
For example, Weigel's Letters to a Young Catholic is a great introduction to a Catholic (sacramental) worldview. Fr. Neuhaus' leadership with Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) has produced some great fruits, which are rooted first and foremost in truth.
First Things is an outstanding publication that I have read for years and will continue to do so in the future. You might not agree with every article, but it makes you think. “Our American Babylon” is one of the best articles that I have ever read. It nearly caused me to leave Catholicism and become a full-blown Whig.
Looking into the future, one can even have hope for Novak. God saves the worst of sinners, consider for example the good theif on the cross. If God saved him, surely Novak has at least a little hope. This is of course assuming Novak is not the bad theif :-)
15 comments:
David,
You'll forgive me, of course, if I don't share either your positive regard for or the rather artificial terminology you employ to describe the Catholicans behind First Things, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, et al. While I would agree that every life leaves at least some good in it's wake, I would also observe that even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. There's some history we'd do well to trace.
Much play was given to Evangelicals and Catholics Together when it was first conceived, I remember it well having followed the journal in which it's birth was announced very closely almost from it's inception. It was always a self-conscious attempt to build upon what Neuhaus and others perceived as a developing "moral ecumenism". At no time did it ever enjoy the endorsement of the Church or even the Church's encouragement; it was a purely ad-extra affair based on the personal relationships that Neuhaus had developed with Charles Colson and some others prominent in Evangelicalism. On the surface and for a while at least, the rather modest objectives of the project seemed harmless enough. There were the theological exchanges, the expressions of hope, even the parrying of nay-sayers. But by the time of the second Bush presidency, a subtle change of tone had become all too clear. What had begun ostensibly as a good faith reaching-out-for- common-ground-among-friends had hardened more ominously into a political alliance. What has always seemed to me the very first evidences of something almost programatic about it occured at the time of the Bush stem-cell decision in August of 2001. First Things became a kind of centerpiece for the official, Bush Adminstration take on the matter. Neuhaus, in print, confessed to a certain inability to arrive at an opinion on the matter, that in the teeth of the stated opposition of the USCCB and the Vatican. I wrote a letter to the editor at the time, voicing my objections to Neuhaus's ambivalence and to the support given the Bush compromise by the Evangelicals with whom he was so closely associated in E&CT. And while the letter eventually was published, it had been so thoroughly emasculated by the editor that it was almost unrecognizable to me. All criticism I'd made of the Evangelical leadership, of Charles Colson, James Dobson and others, had been expunged. I was furious, naturally.
What has become of E&TC and First Things since, it's in-your-face advocacy of the aggression in Iraq most notably, is an embarrassment to Catholicism. Whatever good that might have come from the ad-hoc exchanges first reported of E&CT in the mid-1990s are forever compromised by the political cast into which they've been so obviously frozen. I suppose that as Catholics we can be grateful that the Church, qua Church, never officially allowed itself to get tangled-up in the Republican thicket Neuhaus seemed so intent upon weaving for us. If there is ever to be a genuine and official ecumenism with Evangelicalism it can never take the form that it has taken here. Neuhaus' self-important and amateurish meddling is hoist on it's own petard it would seem, and the viewpoint of First Things now an utter irrelevance. Just ask David Schindler.
John Lowell
The "artificial terminology" that I "employ" is accepted by the academic community as the norm. I refer you to here and here. Christopher Blosser has built a great website around this topic.
ECT has done a number of great works and it continues to do good work. It began through a number of close friendships of some of the leading minds alive today and its good work continues even today. I refer you to some current events in this regards. ECT is similar in many ways to the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology here in America and the Dombes Group in France. I applaud and personally support this important work.
Saying all of that, I will now say this. I have been and will continue to be critical of the thought of the Whigs where I feel they are in error or express a poor ontology. A lot of cyber ink has been spilled on this topic over the history of this blog. For example, I refer you to My disagreement with Novak & other Whig Thomists.
David,
You say:
The "artificial terminology" that I "employ" is accepted by the academic community as the norm."
Surely you jest. In both instances you cite it's Novak who does the labling. This is the "academic community"? Seriously, now. Simply because Novak claims a Whig heritage for himself doesn't mean that he has one. The matter hardly has been touched upon. It sounds more to me like Novak trying to lend dignity to his point of view by claiming a history for it. I note the objections of others to these artificialities as well.
You say further:
"ECT has done a number of great works and it continues to do good work."
Great works, here there are great works? These are ad-hoc conversations that have absolutely no official status whatsoever. At best, these are cigar and brandy indulgences, presumptous and self-important club talk with real potential for misleading the faithful. Ecumenism is a curial function, David, not the private preserve of self-important priests with a political axe to grind. It's one thing to edit a journal, quite another to imagine oneself as a kind of pied piper.
John Lowell
The debate/dialog between the Augustinians and Whigs has been going on for 20 years. It's raged through various publications including Communio, First Things, etc. Both camps accept these terms and use them for themselves. In the past several terms in various publications have described these camps including Neocon, Theocon and Cultural Radicals. Every term has its problems, but these seem to fit the best. The bottomline is this - If it's good enough for Novak, Rowland, and others within this debate, it's good enough for me. Refer to all the links that have already been provided to you. Refer to Rowland's book and interview provided in the Classic Posts.
Yes of course Ecumenism & Inter-faith Dialog is a curial function, but it's also an individual and personal responsibility. Read ECCLESIAM SUAM and a thousand other documents that I can cite from the Magisterium. Stop being so clerical in your position here. The healing of the Body of Christ happens one person at a time. In fact I would argue the best ecumenism occurs through friendship. Neuhaus' friendship with Cardinal Dulles, Timothy George, N.T. Wright, and others is beautiful and it has produced some great fruit.
Listen, like you I'm critical of the Whigs on the stem-cell decision and the War in Iraq, but that doesn't mean they are demons doing the Devil's work. These are prudential matters which good Catholics can disagree upon.
David,
I'm not sure how old you are but from the sound of things it's possible that I've been reading Communio regularly for as long as you've been alive. And my familiarity with First Things goes back nearly to it's inception. Now it's one thing to report the disagreement Schindler has had with Neuhaus as having lasted 20 years (which is a tad overblown actually) and to identify the descriptive terminology, Whig Thomist, with the duration of the dispute. It simply hasn't happened that way. Howland's constuction is of very recent vintage and hardly constitutes the judgment of academic theologians on the question. Her's is simply a personal not a broadly recognized usage, and you need to make more modest claims for it.
As to the matter of the stem-cell decision being a "prudential matter" upon which "good Catholics can disagee", are you unfamiliar with the Instruction, Donum Vitae? Is Neuhaus? You'll have to explain to me what it is about it's treatment of the handling of the remains of human beings that warrents disputation. There's no open question here at all it seems to me. No more and no less than Charles Curren in the past, Richard Neuhaus has proven scandalous in his handling of this question. And I'd have to tell you, an afficionado of nouvelle theology, that there's something to worry about and not minimize here? I sure want Neuhaus to clean up his act on that one before I'd consider him a "good Catholic", believe me.
John Lowell
it was a purely ad-extra affair based on the personal relationships that Neuhaus had developed with Charles Colson and some others prominent in Evangelicalism.
Maritain says that reconciliation between churches, and true ecumenism, is more likely to happen when members of different religion share a meal and friendship together than with all those official summits, committees, and documents.
Ecumenism is a curial function, David,
:: dismisses such clericalism ::
Let's see if I can be helpful here, reader. The complaint in this case is not solely that on the Catholic side E&CT is unofficial but rather because it is unofficial that it has degenerated into a kind of political alliance with unmistakeable Republican overtones. It's this underlying political current that is now driving the ecumemism. The purely ecumenical aspect is entirely secondary at this point.
In any case, all of the private initiatives in the world are so only much fluff unless joined to the official initiatives of the Church, the quaintness of Maritain's reveries notwithstanding. Memories have gotten a bit clouded it would seem. The intercommunion of the Paris barricades which took place in 1968, if I recall, were the direct consequence of the meal sharing romanticism you describe above. We won't need another Dutch Catechism, thank you.
John Lowell
John, my brother
We are more in agreement than not here. All "hell" broke out between the Schindler and Weigel in 1987 and really took off in 1988. It began through an article Schindler published - "Is America Bourgeois?" Communio 14, no. 3 (1987): 262-90. Novak starting using the term "whig" officially in his book, which is linked to you in one of my posts above. Academically Novak used this term in a ND conference in the very early 90s, which a book was ed. by Schindler of this conference as well. Yes of course, the term "Augustinian" in this context was coined by Rowland in her book and used since then. No one has said anything different.
Abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia are not prudential matters per se, the teachings of the Church are clear on these matters. I was referring to politics, economics, war, etc. where the Church doesn't claim to have authority in temporal affairs.
I will leave you with a nice piece to ponder called The Intimacy of the Table by Henri Nouwen.
The table is one of the most intimate places in our lives. It is there that we give ourselves to one another. When we say, "Take some more, let me serve you another plate, let me pour you another glass, don't be shy, enjoy it," we say a lot more than our words express. We invite our friends to become part of our lives. We want them to be nurtured by the same food and drink that nurture us. We desire communion. That is why a refusal to eat and drink what a host offers is so offensive. It feels like a rejection of an invitation to intimacy.
Strange as it may sound, the table is the place where we want to become food for one another. Every breakfast, lunch, or dinner can become a time of growing communion with one another.
The intercommunion of the Paris barricades which took place in 1968, if I recall, were the direct consequence of the meal sharing romanticism you describe above. We won't need another Dutch Catechism, thank you.
Wha...? Well, Maritain gets blamed for '68 a lot, and you won't be the first or last to do that, but for the Dutch Catechism? Give the man a break. In any case, I blame you sir, for my headache this morning.
I suppose the true Catholic eats alone!
What has always seemed to me the very first evidences of something almost programatic about it occured at the time of the Bush stem-cell decision in August of 2001. First Things became a kind of centerpiece for the official, Bush Adminstration take on the matter.
Help me out here, since I'm too lazy to go rummaging through the archives -- I'm wondering if John Lowell could provide clear citations of First Things formally adopting the Bush administration's position on stem-cell research?
Fr. Neuhaus, Weigel and Novak clearly had their own convictions about the war, but I don't recall First Things as a publication formally adopting the Republican party line -- on both capital punishment and the war in Iraq (areas which are, by the recognition of Benedict XVI himself, "there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion" between Catholics), First Things played host to substantial debates between both sides, bringing in Rowan Williams, Stanley Hauerwas, James Turner Johnson and others to weigh in on the subject.
It has been some time since I studied the various documents put forth by ECT, so I'm not in a position to comment on them or their political demands.
In any case, as First Things remains an ecumenical publication that's good enough to warrant the attention of Cardinal Dulles, Fr. Fessio, Stanley Hauerwas, Edward T. Oakes, Robert P. George, Mark Noll, Wolfhart Pannenberg, David Novak, David Schindler (among others), I'm not likely to give it up reading simply on account that its editor(s) happen to share a qualified preference for the Republican Party over the Democrats.
And if Weigel was good enough to be the official papal biographer of John Paul II and Neuhaus an attendee of JPII's synod on America by JPII's personal request, then I'd wager they are probably worth reading as well and the 'Whig-Thomist / 'Augustinian-Thomist' debate worth following in the context of this blog.
Christopher,
I agree. Thank you.
Hi Reader,
I'd tried to answer you yesterday, but a decidedly frustrating penchant on my part somehow to delete what I write before sending it interfered. I have yet to analyse why it is that this problem occurs. In any case, a new day begins with a reply.
I would not want you to believe for a minute that I see Maritain as responsible for the 1968 intercommunion. Rather I was identifying the comment you attribute to him above with a kind of naive hope that has all too frequently characterized ecumenism in the past. That naivete most certainly lead to the abuses of that time and may again. What distinguishes that earlier hope from the recent E&TC "ecumenism", however, is that the former appears to have been based upon a purely religious motivation, albeit poorly guided one. E&TC lacks the authenticity of the earlier type, revealing now a poorly disguised political undercurrent that, in my belief, was present in it from the beginning. No, it's not Maritain, it's his romanticism. Would that we had minds of his calibre available to us today.
As to your headache, I refuse on principle to accept responsibility for it. I would attribute it to a far more likely source: God in his retributive justice evening the score with you for past trangressions. :-)
John Lowell
Hello Christopher,
"Help me out here, since I'm too lazy to go rummaging through the archives -- I'm wondering if John Lowell could provide clear citations of First Things formally adopting the Bush administration's position on stem-cell research?"
Since I'm no more moved to go rummaging through the archives than you are, Christopher, we'll have to settle for the best that my memory can manage in answering your question.
As I recall, most of the material in question came just months after the Bush stem-cell decision in August of 2001. Initially, there was the opinion of Fr. Neuhaus on the matter. He was
experiencing a kind of ambivalence about the compromise, he noted, this from a priest, reportedly in good standing, with access beyond that available to most to the Church's teaching documents and aware of the expressed opinion both of the Bishops' Conference and the Vatican on the question. I recall reading his comments almost slackjawed. Subsequently, Neuhaus submitted the resources of his journal to a formal debate on the question, a debate which consistently failed to get at vital points but which rather simply gave currency to opinions which were at odds with that of Rome. My memory has Weyrich on the pro-Bush side, although I could be wrong about that, perhaps it was Weigel, and there were others. The distinct impression was left that, for Catholics, the matter was an open question.
It will do well to breathe some of the political air at the time of the decision to get a sense of things before continuing. The night that Bush made his announcement, pro-life reaction to it was dramatically split and, mostly, along confessional lines. The bulk of the Evangelical leadership, James Dobson, Richard Land, Jerry Falwell, and, most importantly for our discussion, Charles Colson, expressed immediate pleasure with it. They were joined by Catholic, Weyrich, not surprizingly. On the other side were the USCCB, the Vatican, Ken O'Connor, the independent head of the Evangelical FRC, since fired, and Concerned Women. For weeks in advance of the decision, almost daily toward the end, James Dobson's radio program, Focus On The Family, had
trumpeted its objection to any kind of compromise on the issue, unbelievably falling in line after the President spoke. What became clear when explanations for his reversal were made was the unmistakable impact of Republican political exigencies on the question. Dobson - and others, undoubtedly - sold out because he perceived the stem-cell question to be subordinate to larger, more important considerations. The USCCB and the Vatican saw the issue more foundationally and hermetically, of course. Correctly, charges were made of a broken campaign promise by Vatican Radio.
The importance of Fr. Neuhaus' personal connection to Charles Colson and of a certain political undercurrent always sensible in their joint sponsorship of E&TC now becomes apparent. Similarly,
Neuhaus' inexplicable paralysis on the stem cell question and his willingness to treat it as an open question for Catholics in his journal is more easily explained. Like Dobson, Neuhaus would appear to see the Bush stem-cell compromise in the context of his political loyalties, not his faith. These loyalties have become ever more clear in his advocacy of the Iraq violence.
On a personal note, I took the step of writing a letter to the editor of First Things, I believe it was in September of 2001. The letter objected to Neuhaus' inability to form his ideas and to the clear abandonment of principle by Colson and his pals on the Evangelical side. While published several months later, in final form the letter bore little resemblance to the one I' originally written. All reference to my complaints regarding Colson et al were expunged. I'll give you one guess as to why.
Finally, Christopher, should you require, I'd be pleased set out for you the particulars of the debate as I remember it. You'd have the assurance of knowing at least that the person reporting on it didn't see it as an open question.
John Lowell
Again Christopher,
In my earlier post I had dealt only with the Bush stem-cell question as it bore on the Catholican, Neuhaus. I'm afraid I'd gotten far too focused and over-looked the other questions you raised as well, the war, the death penalty, etc., which certainly deserve comment.
You say:
"Fr. Neuhaus, Weigel and Novak clearly had their own convictions about the war, but I don't recall First Things as a publication formally adopting the Republican party line -- on both capital punishment and the war in Iraq (areas which are, by the recognition of Benedict XVI himself, "there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion" between Catholics), First Things played host to substantial debates between both sides, bringing in Rowan Williams, Stanley Hauerwas, James Turner Johnson and others to weigh in on the subject."
If Neuhaus, Weigel and Novak's take on the war wasn't an apology for the Bush Administration's (and the Republican Party's) take on it, what, may I ask, do you suppose that it was? Do you really think that their arguments appeared when they did because they had suddenly taken an interest in St. Augustine? Novak even went to Rome - one wonders who financed the trip - to shill for his, and Bush's position, only to be denied an official hearing, not unexpectedly. Undaunted, he then went on while there to force himself upon anyone who would listen. There weren't many that did.
Yes, the war and capital punishment are areas that are considered open questions, unlike the question concerning the Bush stem cell decision. But here, on the war, we have a coterie of individuals most keen on identifying themselves as "orthodox", people in the past who on several occasions have taken pot-shots at any number of theologians whose fidelity they regard as suspect, and here they find themselves quite thoroughly at odds with the Pope and the Curia. And the Republican loyalties of these folks are hard for you to detect? Surprizing, I'd say.
You continue:
"In any case, as First Things remains an ecumenical publication that's good enough to warrant the attention of Cardinal Dulles, Fr. Fessio, Stanley Hauerwas, Edward T. Oakes, Robert P. George, Mark Noll, Wolfhart Pannenberg, David Novak, David Schindler (among others), I'm not likely to give it up reading simply on account that its editor(s) happen to share a qualified preference for the Republican Party over the Democrats.
And if Weigel was good enough to be the official papal biographer of John Paul II and Neuhaus an attendee of JPII's synod on America by JPII's personal request, then I'd wager they are probably worth reading as well and the 'Whig-Thomist / 'Augustinian-Thomist' debate worth following in the context of this blog."
Well, I'd not dispute that First Things is a "ecumenical journal" suitable for the attentions of Wolfhart Pannenburg, Robert P. George, and, until recently anyway, Mark Noll. After all they're Protestants, they can ecumenize all over themselves and feel as they may about the war as far as I'm concerned. As to Fr. Oakes, I can recall no contribution of his to First Things whatsoever that has been ecumenical particularly or approving of the war. He's a theologian and a reviewer, not an ecumenist. If he's done anything in that area at all, and I very much doubt that he has, it's likely been done simply to be informative or corrective. I hardly see Fr. Oakes as being all that close to First Things, he has no need of them. The same with Fessio, who, after all, is a publisher, for God's sake. If he's gone beyond publishing into ecumemism or the war he's clearly out of his depth. Dulles, yes, has involved himself with First Things ecumenically, and if he continues with it he well may tarnish himself by it for the very reasons I've expressed. For a Cardinal to be seen as comfortable with Neuhaus' war advocacy can hardly be considered as optimal at the moment, I'm sure you'd agree. And David Schindler, please point me either to any contribution of his to First Things or to any comfort with it. Any point of contact Schindler has with First Things simply points up it's irrelevance. Last, I'm afraid I'll have to leave to history the matter of whether or not being a papal biographer or an attendee at America exempts one from meaninglessness.
John Lowell
I know comments that just say 'I agree' are intolerable, but I thought "Our American Babylon" was brilliant.
Francesca
Post a Comment