Deacon Bracy and Dave Armstrong are both good men who bring out many good points in this discussion about apologists. I apologize if I have offended Scott Hahn. I have some concerns though about the conduct of some Catholic speakers, not the people themselves. All post and links surrounding this discussion have been removed off this site.
Ressourcement - And the Greatest of These Is Progress, The Evolutionary Vision of Teilhard de Chardin
(Justin continues to do outstanding work over at his site even though we don't see eye to eye on the prudential matter of how some apologists choose to act and the fees, in some cases outrageous fees and requirements, that are associated with the privilege of hearing them speak for an hour or more. Brother, I'm sorry for angering you. You are a good man, better than I.)
Heart—or Head? Veritas before Caritas by Leo Wong
Pontifications - The Young Ratzinger
“Credo Apostolicam Ecclesiam”: Wednesdays in Saint Peter’s Square
Benedict XVI has inaugurated a new cycle of catechesis. He has chosen as the theme the “unbreakable” bond between Christ and the Church. And in his first lesson, he made an appeal for the conversion of the Jews by Sandro Magister
ZENIT - Pope Retires Title "Patriarch of West" as Obsolete, Vatican Hopes Decision Aids Ecumenical Dialogue
ZENIT - War and Peace and Religion, On the Spiritual Dimension in International Relations
Citadel of God: A Novel About Saint Benedict by Louis de Wohl
(Chapter One is provided you by Ignatius Insight)
Catholic Way - A Father Becomes a Father: Married Men and the Priesthood by Deacon Keith Fournier
Houston Catholic Worker
NEW! Pope Benedict XVI Interprets Vatican Council II: Holy Father Unwittingly Completes Zwick Article on "What Happened To the tremendous Renewal Possibilities After Vatican II?"
Pope Benedict XVI Sets the Themes for his Papacy: Rulers Must Help the Poor; Respect of Persons Prohibits Some Economic Practices; Lectio Divina Will Bring a New Spiritual Springtime
NEW! Distributism vs. Socialism: Economics As If People Mattered
"Blowing the Dynamite of the Church": Catholic Radicalism from a Catholic Radicalist Perspective by Michael J. Baxter, C.S.C., Theology Department, University of Notre Dame
TCRnews.com - The Social Order As Community by Thomas Storck
At the heart of the Church is the sacrifice of the Mass, an act of reconciliation between God and man, between individual men, between man and the rest of creation. Thus at the heart of any civilization formed and informed by the Faith is reconciliation, unity, community. This is the vision of the social order that the Church has always held out to mankind.
Modernity, Capitalism, A "Whig Tradition?" The Catholic Alternative
***
Please pray for Stephen Hand and his family, specifically Jeremy his son. For more information about the critical condition of his son, go here. The following documents are helpful in difficult situations like this one.
Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections (1992)
Resource Paper of NCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activites
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON "LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENTS AND VEGETATIVE STATE: SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES AND ETHICAL DILEMMAS" Saturday, 20 March 200458. There should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition and hydration to all patients, including patients who require medically assisted nutrition and hydration, as long as this is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.
Are Feeding Tubes Morally Obligatory? by Daniel P. Sulmasy, O.F.M., M.D., Ph.D.
Ignatius Insight Scoop - JPII and the difference between proportionate and disproportionate care
***
The Economist - The Wilberforce Republican, Sam Brownback is redefining the Christian right
Jim Wallis: The Religious Right is losing control
The Japery - Will GOP Unity Hold?
Memo to China: Careful what you wish for , Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher, Reviewed by Spengler
The Long Emergency - Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century
A five-week video exploration with author. lecturer, and de facto cultural historian James Howard Kunstler
On the Square - Who Was Washington’s God? by Michael Novak
(For more on this topic I refer you to Freemasonry and America.)
an interesting new article on tNP - Imagining Conservatism in a New Light by Daniel Larison
Deep Furrows comments on the above tNP article.
I find this link absolutely hilarious! Somebody better tell the God-Father of the Whig Thomists to stop using the terms "Neo-con" and "Paleo-con." I've already pointed out in the past that Fr. Neuhaus does this himself within the print edition of First Things. But what's really funny is that Novak is advertising the Neo-Conned books (Vol I & II) through a hyper-link of the Amazon Affiliate Program on the First Things website itself. This is good, this is very good considering all the cyber-ink spilled over at Against the Grain on this topic. Christopher, if the Neo-Conned books are good enough for First Things, why are they not good enough for you?
I will end with a quote as published in La Repubblica from the Chief Neocon of Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. "I am the Jesus Christ of politics... I sacrifice myself for everyone." This of course is coming from the man who also compares himself to Napoleon and Moses, not to mention, is the richest man alive in Italy.
15 comments:
David, as you know, Chris Blosser doesn't object to the *use* of the term "neo-con," but to its *mis*use. I think all he'd like to see from you is a definition of terms, and that is often a useful place to begin a discussion.
Quickly, David, with regard to the Trump item: remember the whole bees-honey-vinegar thing; you've got to know that such items don't exactly incline people to hear you out, right? And ditch those suspicions... they don't do you any good.
the use of the term neoconservative
If you use the Blog Search at the very top and type in the word "Neocon" and then search for it on my blog, you will get 10+ posts on this topic. Enjoy!
And in none of them do we find your definition of the term, but only your right to use it (which has never been disputed).
My friend, if you want Chris Blosser et al. to engage you on this, you're going to have to either a. define neocon as you understand it, or b. explain why you won't do so.
In regards to the Trump item, it's called humor, but I agree it may be bad humor for some. It might cut like a knife, virtually speaking of course.
I apologize to those that it might have offended. I don't know who that might be b/c I did not specifically identify anyone by name and kept it generic. So for any generic person out there in the cyber-world who might be offended by my comment, I am sorry for any anguish that I might have caused you. I beg for your forgiveness.
In regards to the definition of "Neocon," I would respond that if you ask 10 different people, you'll get 10 different answers. It's a mystery and considering I'm Eastern Catholic, I enjoy mystery. But for the Latin in both of you who wants to put everything in a nice tight inpenerable box, I will define it for you. Basically it's anything or anyone remotely related to this description. hehe
In short, a Neocon means a person that supports the foreign policy of the Bush presidency, which was clearly stated in the post I've already provided you above.
Okay, David, first of all, your cited post states, Now sometimes it's appropriate to use the term "neoconservative or neocon" for it has came to mean those people that support the foreign policy of the Bush presidency. "Now sometimes"... "it has come to mean"... these aren't exactly the terms people use when they are going to give a clear definition of a term; hence my request for a clear definition. But for the sake of argument, I'll grant that you offered this definition as your understanding of the term.
The problem is, it's a problematic definition :-)
I tend to support Bush's foreign policy, but a neocon I am not (though I have more respect for them than do you). And I'm not the only such person.
Another problem: the wiki definition you link states at the outset that neocons support big government; but there are *plenty* of people who have been called neocons and oppose big government, including some of the people *you* label neocons (e.g. Weigel).
But this is all somewhat beside the point. In the post to which these comments are afixed, you imply that the complaint against you is that you merely *use* the term "neocon". That is not -- and to my knowledge -- never has been the issue. It is, in other words, a red herring.
David, in light of the discussions between you and I (and other readers of your blog including I. Shawn McElhinney, Santiago, Greg Mockeridge, Stephen Hand, et al.), it really doesn't take a leap of insight to guess who you're referrign to by "Catholic war-hawks."
Likewise, in light of the past discussion one will know whom you are referencing by "Catholic apologists."
I am not at all "anguished" by such remarks, only disappointed, since we can certainly have a civil discussion without labeling the opposition.
But what's really funny is that Novak is advertising the Neo-Conned books (Vol I & II) through a hyper-link of the Amazon Affiliate Program on the First Things website itself. This is good, this is very good considering all the cyber-ink spilled over at Against the Grain on this topic. Christopher, if the Neo-Conned books are good enough for First Things, why are they not good enough for you?
I presume that John Sharpe and Derek Holland's background is known to very few people, and whether or not First Things links to the series is up to them.
But to enlighten your readers as to the present reason why I presently decline to link to or promote books by IHS Press, I've laid out my concerns in the following post:
IHS Press, Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections, Etc.: A Chronicle of Disturbing Patterns Against The Grain February 27, 2006.
The post is concerned not with the content of the series itself, but with the background of its publishers, who while they are presently involved in "Catholic publishing" have some connections to other activities and/or political organizations which would warrant a closer look. (Those who want to comment further can join the discussion in the combox).
Regarding Michael Novak's article on Washington, one might recommend as well:
How Charles Carroll Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers ressourcement.blogspot.com Nov. 2, 2005, a discussion between David Jones and Tim on freemasonry in the Carroll family; and "On the Subject of America's Founding With Christopher Blosser and David Jones" -- Part I; Part II; Part III -- by I. Shawn McElhinney. Rerum-Novarum.
Trump University I have suspicions that some Catholic war-hawks and fellow bloggers could possibly have graduated from this institution. Let us hope that some Catholic apologists don't get the big idea to form their own university using this model. Thinking about it though, they wouldn't even have to produce any new books, audio cds or videos. They can use what they have already produced, but this time make even more of a killing, financially speaking of course, by charging for tuition and other related fees!
This gets my vote for cheapshot of the week.
For the record - Both my wife and I enjoy the Apprentice. There are many good things that one could learn from Trump University I suspect. Making money is not evil.
What Is a Neoconservative? -- & Does It Matter?
Even in trying to explain what a "neocon" is, Dale Vree is inconsistent -- permit me to recommend I. Shawn McElhinney's analysis and critique of the aformentioned editorial by Dale Vree Rerum Novarum March 6, 2006.
various definitions of neocon
My preferred use of the term "neocon" is as a reference to the original neoconservatives (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, et al.) -- according to Max Boot:
The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."
Fr. Neuhaus and Michael Novak have followed a similar intellectual path insofar as in their younger years they were (in Neuhaus' case) politically active in the Left, or (in Novak's case) held a socialist worldview. As Novak reminds us -- Neocons: Some Memories National Review May 20, 2003 -- "it was the Socialist Michael Harrington, indeed, who coined the term "neoconservative" for this small band and their friends, intending it as an insult." Harrington would leave Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker to fully embrace socialism and (ultimately) atheism.
These days the label "neocon" has been broadened to encompass a variety of other meanings, positions, or influences, such that the very use of the term immediately begs for clarification. (Likewise for the term "liberal", which in my experience can denote any number of things). Too often the case -- as it often happens in blog comboxes -- one deems it a sufficient repudiation of a position or essay by noting that the author is "a neocon," making it impossible to hold a simple and civil discussion.
Case in point: when I blogged the piece What Makes A Neocon? Religion and Liberty Nov. 6, 2005, it was prompted by David Jones' use of the label to describe Italian Catholic philosopher Dario Antiseri ("An Italian Neocon" Nov. 4, 2005, attempting to link Antiseri's philosophical criticism of Benedict XVI's campaign against "the dictatorship of relativism" with Michael Novak, Fr. Sirico and Fr. Neuhaus. (Which is itself interesting in that David's use of the term "neocon" in that particular post conflicts with his present definition of the term, since -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Antiseri's specific position with respect to the foreign policy of the Bush administration is not known).
Likewise, Leo Strauss is taken to be the "grand philosopher" of neoconservativism, but one would be hard-pressed to find Strauss' influence in Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel or others who are labeled neocons. Recently Robert Kagan was compelled to announce I am not a Straussian (Weekly Standard Feb. 6, 2006), to counter the confident assertions that he was by "students of neoconservatism."
Even the use of the label to mean "a person that supports the foreign policy of the Bush presidency" renders the term functionally meaningless, since a reading of the uber-"Neocon" periodical Weekly Standard (founded by Irving Kristol's son Bill) will reveal that its authors are generally supportive of "Bush foreign policy" while voicing their criticisms of the Bush administration in particular -- for example, in opposing the policy of rendition ("Against Rendition" May 16, 2005); or arguing for the Pentagon to adopt strict standards on the treatment of detainees ("One Code to Rule Them All" October 4, 2005).
Post a Comment