TNR on Fr. Neuhaus

The cover story of the latest issue of The New Republic is called "Without a Doubt:  The Christianizing of America."  The cover illustration features wax-model-type examples of various conservatives, who are on display before a curious young boy:  Fr. Neuhas ("theocon") with Vice-Presideny Cheney ("GenghisCon"), Ann Coulter ("BlondCon"), Jack Abramoff ("ConCon"), Paul Wolfowitz ("NeoCon"), and Pat Buchanan ("PaleoCon").  Clever. 

The long essay, written by Damon Linker -- who used to edit First Things and who is, I gather, writing a book about conservative Catholic intellectuals -- purports to be a review of Neuhaus's latest book, "Catholic Matters:  Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth" (which I am reading right now).  Actually, it is a sweeping denunciation of (what Linker represents as) Neuhaus' work, influence, goals, and understanding of Catholicism; his alleged contributions to the rise of the so-called Religious Right; and his influence on contemporary conservativism(s).

Linker's well-written and lengthy essay is, in my view, almost entirely wrong, badly undermined by uncharitable misunderstandings, and largely uncomprehending.  True, I suppose one should be pleased when a magazine like The New Republic -- which I have been reading and enjoying for about 20 years -- devotes thousands of words, written by a smart person, to Catholic stuff, without suggesting that the Church caused the Holocaust or Pius XII was Hitler's Pope.  (Instead, as I mention below, the piece merely suggests that Neuhaus's views are not far from Bin Laden's).  The views of many of Fr. Neuhaus's critics will, I expect, be affirmed and validated; many of us who -- like me -- have read most of what Neuhaus has written during the last 20 years and found his work interesting, helpful, important, and even inspiring will be irritated, or worse. 

Obviously, reasonable and thoughtful people -- Catholics and non-Catholics -- can and do disagree with Neuhaus about all kinds of things.  I am sure there are good, helpful, critical reviews of Neuhaus's latest book in the works by engaged and informed Catholics and others who understand and are prepared to represent fairly and accurately -- even if they reject -- what it is that Neuhaus believes and proposes.  Such reviews and critiques -- pieces that are more than just patricide-on-display -- are entirely appropriate. 

But Linker -- even though, again, he knows and has worked with Neuhaus -- has not written such a review.  His blistering critiques would be powerful, if they were directed at a real person.  And, maybe they are . . . but that person is not Neuhaus.  At the end, things get nasty, and wacky:

[T]he America toward which Richard John Neuhaus wishes to lead us [is] 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.

This is paranoid, insulting, ignorant nonsense.  The idea -- even the suggestion -- that Neuhaus's call to for a non-naked Public Square, and even his sharp denunciations of judicial overreaching in cases like Casey, is anything like, or takes us anywhere near, "the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world," is ludicrous.  As for the claim that the only alternative to "the theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world" is "the strict separation of politics and religion", that "rare, precious, and fragile achievement" . . .  please.  We all can and should (and I'm sure Neuhaus does) happily endorse the "separation" of the institutions and authority of the Church from those of the State.  But, the "strict separation of religion and politics" for which Linker claims to long is only possible by suppressing either religion or politics.