This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
Twitter @ressourcement Twitter @ltdan4123
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
A Knot within the Communio
Michael Novak in the pages of Houston Catholic Worker.
Many thanks to the reader who sent this link and supplied the title above!
Michael Novak's is no more and no less than an intellectualized, Catholic version of Jerry Falwell's God and Country fundamentalism. I mean anyone that could take a perfectly decent Catholic periodical, Crisis, and transform it into a Republican house organ the way he and Deal Hudson did is truly remarkable. Even Karl "Alternative Voters Guide" Keating could be alarmed by this transformation, but I understand that Karl is now up to his eyeballs fending off IRS reconsideration of his organization's tax exempt status. All of which might give a new meaning to the term "apologetics", eh?
"For you to quote the Pope in favor of your form of capitalism bears resemblance to the devil quoting Scripture."
Ah, yes. The Zwicks are in fine form here. FYI, I addressed their knack for civil discussion in The Zwicks vs. Fr. Neuhaus & Michael NovakAgainst The Grain August 19, 2003.
Personally, I preferred this particular quote, just before the one you cite, Christopher:
"The abuses of the industrial revolution have returned with a vengeance. We thought the devil had been swept clean by legislation, but no, it has returned with seven more deadly than the first. We have a new totalitarianism with a dictatorship of the profit motive that destroys any human concern and takes no prisoners."
I mean anyone that could take a perfectly decent Catholic periodical, Crisis, and transform it into a Republican house organ
Actually, Novak, along with Ralph McInerny, founded Crisis as a way to counterbalance the ideologically-driven leftist hegemony among catholic periodicals at the time. You sound like an angry person, Mr Lowell.
The transition to Republican house organ from Catholic periodical came in the mid-to-late 1990s, Reader. Prior to that time the magazine focused almost exclusively on liturgical abuses, sound doctrine and the like and it served a valid purpose. But at one point Karl Rove started reaching for Deal Hudson's rollodex and, some say, Deal dealt. It's said he wanted the ambassadorship to the Holy See, but I really don't know. I typically leave speculation like that to more placid souls. :-)
Your account of the founding of Crisis is tendetious and just plain wrong. McInerny, who founded the magazine along with Novak, plainly contradicts you:
Reflecting on this, I find one source of the founding of Crisis 20 years ago this month, when Michael Novak and I launched the magazine as Catholicism in Crisis. This proximate cause was the letters being issued by American bishops on national defense and the economy and their long and happily failed effort to produce one on women. It seemed necessary to make the point that there was no entailment between being Catholic and adopting the most liberal position on such issues. But there was something ominous in the fact that our bishops fiddled with such matters while in their ranks or coddled by them were many who seemed intent on burning all bridges to Rome.
You consider a report on the views of others and a refusal to speculate as tantamount to a speculation, Christopher? Remarkable. I think you would have been far more on target to have seen me as being willing to take seriously the view of Hudson's antagonists. There'd be no need for speculation whatsoever on that point, believe me.
You prefer anonymity, reader? How will I ever get to know my fans that way? :-)
How it might be that the McInerny statement you offer us above is a contradiction of the appraisal I'd given you earlier utterly escapes me. I'd stated that their concern, initially at least, was with abuses and sound doctrine. McInerny's remarks quite clearly confirm that. Now if your looking for an appraisal of this question apart from my own, might you consider one from Karl "Push For Bush" Keating. Here's a link:
10 comments:
This is very good!
Michael Novak's is no more and no less than an intellectualized, Catholic version of Jerry Falwell's God and Country fundamentalism. I mean anyone that could take a perfectly decent Catholic periodical, Crisis, and transform it into a Republican house organ the way he and Deal Hudson did is truly remarkable. Even Karl "Alternative Voters Guide" Keating could be alarmed by this transformation, but I understand that Karl is now up to his eyeballs fending off IRS reconsideration of his organization's tax exempt status. All of which might give a new meaning to the term "apologetics", eh?
John Lowell
"For you to quote the Pope in favor of your form of capitalism bears resemblance to the devil quoting Scripture."
Ah, yes. The Zwicks are in fine form here. FYI, I addressed their knack for civil discussion in The Zwicks vs. Fr. Neuhaus & Michael Novak Against The Grain August 19, 2003.
Personally, I preferred this particular quote, just before the one you cite, Christopher:
"The abuses of the industrial revolution have returned with a vengeance.
We thought the devil had been swept clean by legislation, but no, it has
returned with seven more deadly than the first. We have a new
totalitarianism with a dictatorship of the profit motive that destroys
any human concern and takes no prisoners."
I mean anyone that could take a perfectly decent Catholic periodical, Crisis, and transform it into a Republican house organ
Actually, Novak, along with Ralph McInerny, founded Crisis as a way to counterbalance the ideologically-driven leftist hegemony among catholic periodicals at the time. You sound like an angry person, Mr Lowell.
A Reader
A Reader,
The transition to Republican house organ from Catholic periodical came in the mid-to-late 1990s, Reader. Prior to that time the magazine focused almost exclusively on liturgical abuses, sound doctrine and the like and it served a valid purpose. But at one point Karl Rove started reaching for Deal Hudson's rollodex and, some say, Deal dealt. It's said he wanted the ambassadorship to the Holy See, but I really don't know. I typically leave speculation like that to more placid souls. :-)
John Lowell
Mr Lowell,
Your account of the founding of Crisis is tendetious and just plain wrong. McInerny, who founded the magazine along with Novak, plainly contradicts you:
Reflecting on this, I find one source of the founding of Crisis 20 years ago this month, when Michael Novak and I launched the magazine as Catholicism in Crisis. This proximate cause was the letters being issued by American bishops on national defense and the economy and their long and happily failed effort to produce one on women. It seemed necessary to make the point that there was no entailment between being Catholic and adopting the most liberal position on such issues. But there was something ominous in the fact that our bishops fiddled with such matters while in their ranks or coddled by them were many who seemed intent on burning all bridges to Rome.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2002/endnotes.htm
Again, please, stop being so mean.
A Reader
It's said he wanted the ambassadorship to the Holy See, but I really don't know. I typically leave speculation like that to more placid souls.
Than why bother speculating?
Christopher,
You consider a report on the views of others and a refusal to speculate as tantamount to a speculation, Christopher? Remarkable. I think you would have been far more on target to have seen me as being willing to take seriously the view of Hudson's antagonists. There'd be no need for speculation whatsoever on that point, believe me.
John Lowell
A Reader,
You prefer anonymity, reader? How will I ever get to know my fans that way? :-)
How it might be that the McInerny statement you offer us above is a contradiction of the appraisal I'd given you earlier utterly escapes me. I'd stated that their concern, initially at least, was with abuses and sound doctrine. McInerny's remarks quite clearly confirm that. Now if your looking for an appraisal of this question apart from my own, might you consider one from Karl "Push For Bush" Keating. Here's a link:
http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050111.asp
Here not even an alternative voters guide can keep you from the patently obvious.
John Lowell
Post a Comment