Via Media

Via Media


Conflict of Interest?

posted by awelborn

Yesterday, about ten people sent me the link to the review in the New Republic of Fr. Neuhaus’ latest book. The review is here, and it’s harsh.

I only skimmed it, so didn’t really think I could comment adequately on it. Plus, I’ve not read Neuhaus’ book. But then, into the breach steps James Kushiner and the commenters at Mere Comments who look at the article as well as its author, Damon Linker who, you see, used to work for FIrst Things.

I’m thinking it didn’t go well….



Advertisement
Comments read comments(43)
post a comment
C. Coleman

posted March 25, 2006 at 3:21 pm


I can clear up some questions people will have about this situation right off the bat. I will not disclose the sources of my knowledge, but be assured that what I write here is not speculation or uninformed at key points. I am not a First Things employee. I have been informed by those close to it, but not professionally tied to it. My name and email are fake.
Linker arrived at First Things a recent Catholic convert from a secular Jewish background. His ideological make-up was basically neoconservative, and his most recent position prior to arriving was as a speechwriter for Guiliani. I am told that Linker was a happy and energetic defender of the theological and moral teachings of the Church. He did express misgivings about certain points of moral teachings (contraception, notably) but he never gave any indication that he was in any fundamental disagreement with the mission of the magazine. He was, on the contrary, a very eager new member of the Church and the intellectual movement he had just joined. The magazine was pleased to have him aboard and he himself appeared, to all observers, to be even more thrilled to be there.
There was no breakdown in Linker’s relationship with Fr. Neuhaus at any point in his employment. Editorial disagreements, yes; fundamental disagreements, most certainly not. When a senior editor left First Things Mr. Linker lobbied strongly to be appointed to the position, despite his brief tenure at the magazine. There were grumblings from certain quarters of the magazine editorial board, but Neuhaus nonetheless appointed Linker over their objections. Neuhaus was his strongest supporter. Their working relationship was good. Neuhaus trusted Linker, supported his promotion, and encouraged his work generally. Linker seemed grateful for Neuhaus’ attentive cultivation, especially since Linker had been turned out of academia and had not found speechwriting fulfilling. The position was in many respects a professional coup for Linker.
Things went along without much ado until the end came–an end which came rather abruptly and left many unanswered questions in the air. Linker had made it clear to all that he was looking to make a name for himself by publishing a serious book (a thoroughly respectable thing to do for an enterprising young writer). I do not know for sure whether Fr. Neuhaus helped Linker in his search for a publisher, but I would suppose so. At any rate, Linker announced, unsuprisingly, that he would be writing on the inetellectual history and composition of the movement in which he held a signature position. This raised no alarums until it became known that Linker received a unusually large amount of money for this project and he resolutely refused to discuss its contents. He promptly left First Things. He departed in basically good standing, but with a big question mark looming over his book project.
This is what I know. I am told that Linker seemed to be a decent fellow but had difficulty getting along with those with whom he disagreed. I cannot address more directly his character, nor do I have sufficient knowledge to charge him with gross opportunism or absolve him of it.



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted March 25, 2006 at 3:56 pm


Well, well. This could be the most interesting apostasy of a political intellectual/thinker since Christopher Hitchens quit the mainstream Left. If the Mere Comments thread is any indication, we have a lot of screaming and finger-pointing to look forward to.



report abuse
 

Gerald Augustinus

posted March 25, 2006 at 4:05 pm


Father Neuhaus’ book, “Catholic Matters” is wonderful, especially to younger Catholics not familiar with what went wrong with whom and why after Vatican II.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted March 25, 2006 at 4:11 pm


Well, I am only a couple of chapters into Catholic Matters and wasn’t expecting it to get deep into unexpected controversy. Of course, I generally ride close to Fr. Neuhaus, except regarding the public use of tobacco.



report abuse
 

mt

posted March 25, 2006 at 4:57 pm


C. Coleman’s comments help a LOT. Linker’s article is an unbelievable hatchet job. My first thought was that he didn’t understand a thing about Neuhaus, but after a page I knew that he had studied Neuhaus broadly but incredibly shallowly.
Look at some of his comments:
“This was an extraordinary act of historical revisionism–one in which Catholicism was portrayed not as the enemy of modern liberalism but rather as its true source and indispensable foundation.”
This is revisionism?
He looks at the authorities of the Church as…you guessed it, Hitlerian!!
Or this:
“Neuhaus maintains that, far from restricting or abolishing freedom, the surrender of the mind to the absolute authority of the Church is the “foundation of freedom.” But this is sophistry. Matthew Arnold, who was himself deeply exercised by the cultural consequences of the crisis of traditional religion, beautifully and accurately defined free thinking as “the free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches.” Neuhaus appears to want no part of such serious play, such open-ended inquiry. Denouncing it as pointless “complexification” and yearning for what Paul Ricouer called a “second naïveté” on the far side of reflection, he gives every sign of preferring a comprehensive and hermetically sealed religious ideology that will definitively insulate him from doubt. Those less inclined to recoil from the joys and the trials, the frustrations and the rewards, of critical thinking will look on such longings with a mixture of perplexity and alarm.”
Wow, what a misunderstanding of the two visions of freedom – license OR freedom FOR excellence and virtue!
I read Neuhaus’s book and it was wonderful.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted March 25, 2006 at 8:26 pm


The New Republic has been in the Catholic bashing business for a very, very long time. The editors obviously knew Linker was going to savage the Neuhaus tome. I wonder if Linker is attempting to follow the Maria Monk path to fame and fortune?



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted March 25, 2006 at 8:29 pm


The New Republic has been in the Catholic bashing business for a very, very long time. The editors obviously knew Linker was going to savage the Neuhaus tome. I wonder if Linker is attempting to follow the Maria Monk path to fame and fortune?



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted March 25, 2006 at 8:50 pm


I, for one, have always thought that Neuhaus’ “End of Democracy” symposium flirted with treason, and Neuhaus is answerable for it. That said, Linker may not be the best person to make that critique. As someone on the TNR comment box noted, Linker demands not only separation of church and state, but separation of religion and politics. That was too much for that particular commentor who pointed out the obvious examples of politically committed ministers of the left, like MLK. As much as the both the religious left and right have a tendency to use religion as a vehicle to carry their political agenda, it is not an inherent part of the American tradition to force religions to the margins of public life. There are, of course, shameful bits in our history to the contrary, such as Know-Nothing agitations against the Catholic Church, the spiteful seizure of Episcopal Church property by the State of Virginia in the late 1780-early 1800s, etc.



report abuse
 

Maclin Horton

posted March 25, 2006 at 8:59 pm


Ha. You simple folk don’t grasp the wiliness of the neo-conservative mind. Neuhaus has been under severe attack from various Catholic traditionalists for Americanist tendencies for many years. What better counter to these attacks than to be loudly accused in the secular press of groveling before the potentate in the Vatican? Neuhaus and Linker are probably at this very moment sitting with brandy and cigars in a quiet velvet-curtained room in some exclusive Manhattan men’s club, rubbing their hands and hissing “Exxxccceeelllent!!



report abuse
 

Mike Petrik

posted March 25, 2006 at 9:05 pm


Patrick,
Interesting point about treason. Care to argue who is closer to treason, the participants in the famous symposium or the Supreme Court that unscrupulousy exercises power beyond its authority simply because it can?
Now actually, I don’t think either comes close, but if forced to take a side I’m confident that the Supremes have far more to “answer” for.



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted March 25, 2006 at 9:34 pm


“Care to argue who is closer to treason, the participants in the famous symposium or the Supreme Court that unscrupulousy exercises power beyond its authority simply because it can?”
One way of looking at the Supremes is that, perhaps, the Supreme Court possess the legal authority to exercise the power that it did because neither the executive nor the legislative branches chose to push back hard for decades. The concept is comparable to the argument that the President possesses the inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps in the absence of effective pushbacks from the judicial or legislative branches. One can scream and shout all one wants about how much the President has usurped his Constitutional authority, but at the end of the day, the authority *is* in his possession by virtue of its exercise. The same may be true of the judiciary.
But, toying with the idea of withholding allegiance to the United States government because of the existence of a liberal Supreme Court supported by Bill Clinton, I would consider to be a flirtation with treason. And the underlying thesis of judicial usurpation of politics was vastly overstated. The cure for the usurpation was found in the political process that Neuhaus and friends despaired of in 1995 by winning Presidential elections and maintaining Republican control of Congress who would in turn nominate and confirm judges and justices who were more modest about using the power of the judiciary to make definitive decisions on contentious political issues. The fact that the political process had not been hopelessly hijacked by the courts is certainly obvious in hindsight with the advent of Justices Roberts and Alito, but it was obvious to me back in the darkest hours of the Clinton presidency. Neuhaus and company were too blinded by their rage against the Romer case to notice.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted March 25, 2006 at 9:34 pm


Why is that when things have a bad ending in Catholic apostolates, they are the worst ending possible? Why are they full of the worst sort of further seeking revenge than anything I’ve ever witnessed?
My SD told me that working in the Church or one of her apostolates would be one of the greatest challenges of my life. Thank God I’ve only been able to be a volunteer so far.
I don’t know anything about this situation but it’s representative of similar situations I have seen in my own experience as a volunteer/observer.
Sad.



report abuse
 

Dan Crawford

posted March 25, 2006 at 9:40 pm


Am I to understand from the comments that Fr. Neuhaus and his book are beyond criticism? Exempt from taking exception to his ideas?
I heard Fr. Neuhaus the other day justifying the Bush doctrine of preemptive war and his views chilled me. I find myself very often in agreement with Neuhaus but on this and several other issues, I think he does need to be questioned in more detail – at least. Apparently not here. Is it the usual practice to launch criticism in this forum with ad hominem attacks?



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted March 25, 2006 at 10:06 pm


“I think he does need to be questioned in more detail – at least. Apparently not here. Is it the usual practice to launch criticism in this forum with ad hominem attacks?”
I think it remains to be seen whether Damon Linker somewhere down the line came to genuinely disagree with the entire First Things project. Genuine and sincere disagreements and parting of the ways DO occur. I’m thinking of Christopher Hitchens after 9/11 who came to a parting of the ways (to put it too nicely!) with the Left. On the other hand, if Linker is just a David Brock type, then we will find that out too. For what it’s worth, I am astounded that someone who believes in a strict separation of religion and politics could ever have written, much less edited, a journal like First Things – or even Sojurners for that matter. One wonders if the disenchantment was the result of certain philosophical indiscretions blurted out by FT writers or fellow travelers while lubricated over a bottle of wine or several glasses of scotch on the rocks.
The whole affair is really, really strange. The contents of – and the reactions to – Linkers book should be quite instructive.



report abuse
 

new clerk

posted March 25, 2006 at 10:07 pm


Dan, did you actually read the entire article? it is very long – 12 single spaced pages as a Word document. It is frothing-at-the-mouth rabid. It sets up straw men positions that the Catholic Church supposedly holds that my teenage daughter laughed at. It is a very, very strange piece.
No, Neuhaus is not beyond criticism, and many HAVE criticized him, for example for his position on the war, which was opposed to John Paul II’s.
But as someone who has a) read just about everything Neuhaus has written – and not always agreeing, and b) has several advanced degrees in logic, philosophy, and theology,plus decades of teaching experience,
I was truly stunned by the vitriolic tone of the article. I was especially astonished because the “rules” of their comment boxes specifically say that the NR doesn’t allow slander or libel, AND that since THEY don’t print ideology, neither should the comments be ideological. Well, I don’t know about the comments, but the article was beyond the pale in its ad hominem attacks on Neuhaus and on its relentless ideology, which was “whatever the Church says, I’m against it, period.”
This wasn’t just about politiics or the war. As another commenter pointed out, it was about every Catholic position. It is simply not possible that Linker could have so radically misunderstood Catholic positions on freedom, authority, etc. It must have been a deliberate twisting.
It was like looking at Catholicism is a funhouse mirror, where evereything true, beautiful, and good was distorted into a demonic caricature of itself.
Just to expand on something said about freedom above: it has been a long tradition in the West, from Aristotle through Aquinas and on, that freedom should be seen as a freedom FOR excellence and virtue. Therefore, people are trained or habituated toward the good. To take a rather shallow example, those who learn and master “the rules” of a sport or of music or of meter then find themselves truly freed, by excellence, to great flights. This is an alternative view to the idea of freedom as license or doing whatever one wants. Linker twists this around and quotes Mattew Arnold (!!) to say that anyone who doesn’t want freedom to be “free play” (as if there were no free play in Catholic thinking! but we know what he means – he means “freedom” as one ideology defines it) must want a “hermetically sealed religious ideology that will definitively insulate him from doubt. Those less inclined to recoil from the joys and the trials, the frustrations and the rewards, of critical thinking will look on such longings with a mixture of perplexity and alarm. ”
The idea of the Aristotelian/Catholic view of freedom (which he totally distorts) being opposed to “critical thinking” would leave most theologians utterly speechless.
The entire essay is like that,on every idea. Look at what he writes about authority!
You may think that by the first comment being about Linker’s history, an ad hominem approach is going on…but the article is so vicious, so full of what can only be deliberate false statements about what Neuhaus and the Cjurch believe, that if CRIES OUT for some sort of explanation.
The only explanation I can come up with (remember, I just read it today and I am still stunned) is Chesterton’s “halo of hatred around the Church of God.”
Once again, an article can most certainly disagree with Neuhaus on the war or whatever. But to try to eviscerate the Catholic Church….!
Oh well. The Emperors from Nero to Diocletian tried it, as did the regimes after the French Revolution; Mexico in the 1920s; Viet Nam in the 19th century; the various atheist regimes of the 20th century; etc. etc.etc. And guess what? The Church is still here. It will be here long after Linker’s book, coming out in September, is remaindered, and long after he is gone.
Because we have Christ’s promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.



report abuse
 

Mike Petrik

posted March 25, 2006 at 10:24 pm


Patrick,
First, the idea of holding an allegiance to a “government” is not a particularly American one. We are supposed to hold an allegiance to a Constitution.
Second, the thesis explored in the symposium is that the Supreme Court had rejected the Consititution by rather explicitly ignoring it. Few honest people could disagree with that thesis, but what could be debated was, as you suggest, whether the the situation was salvagable.
In any case taking your logic to its conclusion, nothing suggested in that symposium would be treasonous unless the executive branch would successfully impose a sanction. Your hypothesis essentially reduces everything to will and then ultimately power.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted March 25, 2006 at 10:46 pm


I didn’t think much of the symposium, although I agree with Mike that the Supremes, constantly, in effect, amending the Constitution to suit their personal prejudices, text be hanged, have far, far more to answer for than intemperate musings in a magazine. As for treason, I am very careful about that term. I believe it consists of waging war against the country, or giving aid and comfort to those who are. To me traitors are individuals who every loyal American should oppose with all of his resources. Let us be very reluctant to label anyone a traitor unless that is what he clearly is. The level of political dialogue in this country is decreasing daily, and I assume none of us wish to add to this deplorable trend.



report abuse
 

Cheeky Lawyer

posted March 25, 2006 at 11:04 pm


I am amazed that commentors over at TNR are calling Linker’s piece civil. I don’t see it. It seems beyond the pale to compare the fidelity of your former patron, boss and colleague to the Church with the allegiance of someone to Hitler.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted March 25, 2006 at 11:17 pm


“I am amazed that commentors over at TNR are calling Linker’s piece civil.”
They don’t like believing Catholics Cheeky. Anything short of unleashing bloodhounds on us would appear civil to them.



report abuse
 

Christopher Fotos

posted March 25, 2006 at 11:42 pm


For what it’s worth, I am astounded that someone who believes in a strict separation of religion and politics could ever have written, much less edited, a journal like First Things
That’s a sharp observation. It’s Fr. Richard Public Square Neuahaus for goodness sake. From First Things’ “about” page:
FIRST THINGS is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.
Musta been one heck of a U-Turn by Linker somewhere along the way.



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted March 25, 2006 at 11:52 pm


What else can you expect from a magazine that lionizes a bigot like Daniel Goldhagen? They treate all of his rantings about our church as if they are gospel.



report abuse
 

George C.

posted March 25, 2006 at 11:55 pm


I think Linker’s is a fairly powerful critique, and doesn’t appear personal at all. Which is good.
Father Neuhaus is a theocon in a neocon’s clothing, no?



report abuse
 

Bender

posted March 26, 2006 at 12:55 am


many HAVE criticized him, for example for his position on the war, which was opposed to John Paul II’s.
I am still waiting, lo these many years, for someone, anyone, to produce even one actual quote from our late Holy Father, of happy memory, regarding “the war,” which I assume is meant the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.



report abuse
 

Peter Lawler

posted March 26, 2006 at 7:32 am


The first comment here by CC is accurate. Linker’s Damon-izing of Neuhaus is a transparent attempt to make a name for himself. He got a big advance to expose the alleged theocon conspiracy. Please ignore him.



report abuse
 

Peter Lawler

posted March 26, 2006 at 7:36 am


The first comment here by CC is accurate. Linker’s Damon-izing of Neuhaus is a transparent attempt to make a name for himself. He got a big advance to expose the alleged theocon conspiracy. Please ignore him.



report abuse
 

al

posted March 26, 2006 at 8:01 am

NW Clerk

posted March 26, 2006 at 8:17 am


“Damon-izing” is right. It is positively diabolical how that man can – by the use of scare quotes, sarcasm, and imputed motives for each “step” of the “neocon conspiracy” – make things like a covenant, forgiveness, freedom, and indeed a great deal of truth about what Neuhaus says, all seem like the most disgusting and disingenuous power grab by the most vicious people on Earth – Christians!
He says outright that using any kind of language of reason or natural law is just part of an “agenda,” a “ploy” to coverup the insidiousness of the truth: that their “faith” is nothing but unverifiable, subjective emptiness.
Even the Catholic view of abortion is seen as an evil plot by JPII/Neuhaus to trick poor, mindless Christians into thinking that abortion will, by a slippery slope, lead to even worse moral collapse (euthanasia etc). And what is ultimately behind all this? A power grab, pure and simple – a nefarious plot to take over America.
Most of his arguments are ridiculous. He says the sex scandal had something to do with the Church’s “practices regarding sex” – by which I take it he means celibacy, etc. But since public schools have 100 times the sexual abuse as the Church, and teachers are not celibate and can marry, that excuse is jejeune in the extreme.
The entire section on authority is nauseating. He coyly says that Neuhause would deny that authority means clicking our heels like Nazis at whatever Rome says, but, he says, how else can you see it?
This is poisonous in the extreme. It takes every single idea that is good in Catholicism and either denies it outright or turns it on its head. Here is a typical sentence: “Apparently thinking is permitted in this cramped theological world only to the extent that it contributes to keeping the intellect in line with the ‘splendor of truth’ proclaimed by the Church.”
Damon-izing indeed. And the sad thing is, those who read this article will believe it.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted March 26, 2006 at 10:10 am


My husband asks, was Linker ever really converted? Or is he a latter day Leo Taxil pretending to be something other than he is so he can profitably turn his coat?
I looked up Linker’s article about fatherhood. The preening smugness of the essay would have given me an instant dislike of the man all by itself.



report abuse
 

NW Clerk

posted March 26, 2006 at 10:15 am


YEs!! leo Taxil – EXACTLY!!



report abuse
 

Mike Petrik

posted March 26, 2006 at 10:27 am


al,
I think that Bender’s post must be read in context, which means he was looking for a quote from JPII that articulated a postition on the Iraq war that was “opposed” to Neuhaus’s. Read carefully, I don’t think that the quote above qualifies.



report abuse
 

Mike Petrik

posted March 26, 2006 at 10:28 am


Sandra,
I agree. I recall that article and it kind of gave me the creeps.



report abuse
 

Cheeky Lawyer

posted March 26, 2006 at 11:03 am


al,
The quotation you give is more of a general list of considerations, is it not? Certainly, the Pope seems to have held that the war with Iraq was not a last resort and on that score he seems to have been right. But did he ever condemn the Iraq war as immoral or unjust? Perhaps that judgmenet is there by implication but I don’t think direct comments to that effect were ever made by him.



report abuse
 

Susan Peterson

posted March 26, 2006 at 11:29 am


The very first poster stated that Linker didn’t accept the Church’s teaching about contraception. Many people ignore this teaching without qualms of conscience, apparently, and go on being Catholics without being bothered by the inconsistency. But someone who is inclined to philosophize and to systematize as this Linker seems to be is going to be bothered by the inconsistency. I wonder if all of this is not a result of his “non serviam” on this point? Just a thought. I do think it is unlikely that the whole thing was planned from the beginning, that it was a “fake” conversion. But it seems to have been a shallow, superficial conversion. Perhaps he was at least genuinely converted to Christ and could honestly be some other kind of Christian? One hopes so.
Susan Peterson



report abuse
 

JP

posted March 26, 2006 at 12:08 pm


Al,
I think if JPII knew of the degree of corruption concerning the UN Oil for Food program – a 24 billion dollar scandal- he may have had second thoughts about including the UN as an organization with controlling authority concerning war.
Excuse for me sounding like a Neocon, but in light of this scandal, and the implication of not only the UN, but France, and Russia, it is quite obvious why the UN ultimatly didn’t grant President Bush the resolution to enforce previous UN sanctions. According to a stories published by Reuters and Time Magazine on Friday, Russia’s treachery extended to giving Saddam the names and locations of our Spec Ops units locaed in Jordan and Kuwait.



report abuse
 

sj

posted March 26, 2006 at 2:03 pm


“I think if JPII knew of the degree of corruption concerning the UN Oil for Food program – a 24 billion dollar scandal- he may have had second thoughts about including the UN as an organization with controlling authority concerning war.”
Of course, as reported here in the Christian Science Monitor what came next may have been worse, corruption-wise.



report abuse
 

al

posted March 26, 2006 at 4:05 pm

chris

posted March 27, 2006 at 1:31 am


al, I wonder what he would say about the war now?



report abuse
 

JP

posted March 27, 2006 at 10:36 am


The Just War Doctrine does breakdown once it is applied to events from our recent past.
Would France have been justified in invading Germany during the Nazis reoccupation of the Rhein in 1936? At that point, the Wehrmacht had few servicable front line divisions, and only sent a few infantry batallions into Rheinland Hesse. This move was in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty. Like the UN Resolutions, the language was clear, but Daladier refused to answer to this provacation, and public opinion in France and England was certainly against the warmongering of the French Right. Field Marshall Keitel said after the War,”If the French would have sent in troops to the Rhein, the Germany Army was prepared to stand down. Hitler would have been finished.” A few months later, Hitler declared general rearmananct.
The War in Europe actually started on this date whether England or France knew it or not. The Anschluss, and The Sudentan Crisis followed.
According to the way most people today interpet the so called Just War Doctrine, France would hve been morally remiss to invade Germany during the Rheinland Crisis despite having International Law on thier side. Bush, would went to great pains to ge the UN to enforce its own resolutions was in the same position of France during the 1930s. In each case, the Just War Doctrine would have precluded an armed struggle.
Chamberlin as everyone knows allowed Hitler and Poland (yes, Poland in 1939 was invited to help itslef to some old Czech territory in Galacia) to occupy Moravia and Czech inorder to avoid an armed conflict in 1938. Was Chamberlin acting morally? Was England and France justified in attacking Germany using a preemptive strike in the years 1936-1939? According to many today, the answer would be a NO.



report abuse
 

Rosie M. Banks

posted March 29, 2006 at 10:46 am


So, Fr. Neuhaus’ non-response is up. Is it good enough? Does he need to say more? Most of us seem to be agreed that Linker’s piece was lacking but does he deserve some sort of response?



report abuse
 

Rosie M. Banks

posted March 29, 2006 at 10:48 am


So, Fr. Neuhaus’ non-response is up. Is it good enough? Does he need to say more? Most of us seem to be agreed that Linker’s piece was lacking but does he deserve some sort of response?



report abuse
 

Damon Linker

posted March 29, 2006 at 3:41 pm


This has been fun.
Just for the record, allow me to clarify a few things.
1. I was not “turned out” of academia. Like many young aspiring academics, I grew tired of temporary (non-tenured) positions and decided to do other things.
2. Neuhaus had nothing to do with helping me find a publisher for my book.
3. Neuhaus and I were not “friends.” He was my boss at a magazine about ideas — ideas with which I came to have considerable disagreement. Reading the comments here, I’m reminded of Churchill’s remark, when told by an opponent in parliament that he had changed his position: “Yes, sir, when I discover I’ve been wrong I change my position. And what do you do?”
4. I harbor no ill-will against Neuhaus, who was always unfailingly generous to me. My break from his ideological project had nothing to do with personal animus. It was about ideas and their practical effects. Once I became convinced that the ideology promulgated by the magazine for which I worked was having a significant negative influence on the country, I reluctantly concluded that I had to do what I could to counteract that influence. Loyalty to the truth and devotion to the good of the nation demanded nothing less.



report abuse
 

c. coleman

posted March 29, 2006 at 4:22 pm


Thanks for responding and clearing up some factual matters, Damon. I’m happy to be corrected there. I did try to relay information as fairly as I could.



report abuse
 

Joe

posted March 29, 2006 at 11:26 pm


“Neuhaus…was always unfailingly generous to me,” and I honor that courtesy with the repayment of a cover story putting the worst possible gloss on his ideas.
“Neuhaus had nothing to do with helping me find a publisher for my book,” because publishers know that people will be very interested in my self-important ideas and this will be totally unrelated to the fact I was an insider at the leading Theocon publication whose ideas I am criticizing.
“This has been fun.” You sound like a super nice guy.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.