Historical Note - The Catholic Neocons of the 1990's-early 2000's on Donald J. Trump

Documenting for personal sake Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus (1936-2009), George Weigel, Michael Novak (1933-2017) and William F. Buckley (1925-2008) of the National Review insofar as where they had stood on the topic of Donald Trump.

Father Richard John Neuhaus passed on January 8, 2009. Reflecting on Neuhaus' death in 2021, Fr. Raymond de Souza noted:

Father Richard’s engagement in political activism never led him to messianic politics. He died after Barack Obama’s election but before his inauguration, and long before the current president came down the escalator at Trump Tower. He was suspicious of the messianic dimension of Obama’s candidacy and would have been troubled by those who regarded Donald Trump as having some kind of messianic anointing.

Father Richard would have been dismayed at the apocalyptic tone of politics today. The future of the republic does not hang on a presidential election, let alone a senate election in Georgia. Elections have consequences, sometimes, grave consequences, but electoral politics does not heal a corrupt culture.

“Moral progress is far from being self-evident,” Father Richard wrote. “We should at least be open to the possibility that we are today witnessing not moral progress but a dramatic moral regression.”

George Weigel in 2016 joined the likes of Robert P. George, Robert Royal, Ryan Anderson, Francis Beckwith, Eduardo Echeverria, Gerard Bradley, John P. Hittinger in "An Appeal to Our Fellow Catholics" (National Review), asserting that

... there are candidates for the Republican nomination who are far more likely than Mr. Trump to address these concerns, and who do not exhibit his vulgarity, oafishness, shocking ignorance, and — we do not hesitate to use the word — demagoguery.

Mr. Trump’s record and his campaign show us no promise of greatness; they promise only the further degradation of our politics and our culture. We urge our fellow Catholics and all our fellow citizens to reject his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination by supporting a genuinely reformist candidate.

Due credit for taking a stand against the tide. Weigel would go on to add that Trump "is an immoral man both in his public life and in his private life. And then it is not credible in the management of power. As I can not vote for Clinton, so I will never vote for him."

Michael Novak broke with Weigel and the authors of "An Appeal to our Fellow Catholics", expressing his relief after Trump's first election that Hillary would never be president (Silver-Linings for Never-Trumpers First Things 11/15/16). For an explication of Novak's own perspective I would refer to the excellent survey Michael Novak’s ‘Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics’ in the Trump Era, by Jesse Russel. (American Spectator January 5, 2019).

Michael Novak passed in 2017, and even so, I wonder whether he would have continued in his guarded support for Trump -- especially on or after Trump's refusal to concede the election of 2020, his trafficing in outright falsehoods and conspiracy theories contesting the election, his vocal encouragement of those who staged an attempted coup on the nation's capitol on January 6, 2021 -- and his current promise as president-elect to pardon those currently convicted for doing so.

William F. Buckley -- a Catholic conservative, howbeit not of the "neocon" persuasion -- made his displeasure known in a sharply critical editorial on Trump's narcissism and demagoguery in an article for Cigar Aficionado:

... So there we have the one problem--the encouragement given to demagogues by undiscriminating voters. The procedure here is to attract support to finance a campaign. But does the term demagogue fit in other circumstances? What about the aspirant who has a private vision to offer to the public and has the means, personal or contrived, to finance a campaign? In some cases, the vision isn't merely a program to be adopted. It is a program that includes the visionary's serving as President. Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today's lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America.

But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents--midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War--had little to do with a bottom line.

Michael Novak's "God of Ordinary Things"

A great quote from Michael Novak, from C.R. Pakaluk's thoughtful reflections on co-teaching with him

"My God is a God of ordinary things, of routine, of the grind and jading of everyday life -- of a simple cigar, of a grain of sand, of boredom and tedium and hard work as well as moments of rapture. One way I test politicians, theoreticians, poets, activists, philosophers, and friends is by how alert they are to the mysteries of the ordinary. The . . . quest for “ecstasy,” “revelation,” “faith”, and “transparency” gives me a certain fear of those abstractions in whose name concrete, complex human organisms are so often crushed." [The Myth of Romantic Love and Other Essays] -- Michael Novak

It reminds me of when Novak circa 1976 as a fiery young liberal idealist wrote:

". . . the hollowness of so much of American life; the vacant eyes watching television and drinking beer; the tired eyes of the men on the commuter train; the efficient eyes of the professor and manager, the sincere eyes of the television politician. Americans . . . do not know who they are, only what they are useful for; they are bored and apathetic because they are manipulated; they are violent because they secretly resent the lies they are forced to live. Unable to live with themselves, Americans level the earth, build and destroy, attempt to master matter and space and human history. Americans play God." ['A Theology for Radical Politics' 1969]

And later, in 1982, writing in The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, excoriated himself for his youthful presumptuousness:

That this was a superficial, unfair, and ideological description of real Americans became clear to me when I looked more closely at my neighbors and companions, and less at literary conventions.

Michael Novak: "Writing from Left to Right: My Journey from Liberal to Conservative"

Writing from Left to Right: My Journey from Liberal to Conservative
Image Books. September 2013.

Engagingly, writing as if to old friends and foes, Michael Novak shows how Providence (not deliberate choice) placed him in the middle of many crucial events of his time: a month in wartime Vietnam, the student riots of the 1960s, the Reagan revolution, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Bill Clinton's welfare reform, and the struggles for human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also spent fascinating days, sometimes longer, with inspiring leaders like Sargent Shriver, Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern, Jack Kemp, Václav Havel, President Reagan, Lady Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II, who helped shape—and reshape—his political views.

Yet through it all, as Novak’s sharply etched memoir shows, his focus on helping the poor and defending universal human rights remained constant; he gradually came to see building small businesses and envy-free democracies as the only realistic way to build free societies. Without economic growth from the bottom up, democracies are not stable. Without protections for liberties of conscience and economic creativity, democracies will fail. Free societies need three liberties in one: economic liberty, political liberty, and liberty of spirit.

Novak’s writing throughout is warm, fast paced, and often very beautiful. His narrative power is memorable.

Presentations

• Crisis Co-Founder Celebrates 80th Year with New Memoir, by Michael Pakaluk. Crisis Magazine. 09/09/13.
• Excerpt
• "Writing from Left to Right: My Journey From Liberal to Conservative" CSPAN-2 BookTV. Address to the Kirkpatrick Society at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
• Between the Covers: Interview with Michael Novak. National Review 10/01/13.
• Kresta in the Afternoon: Michael Novak 10/8/13.
• Five Questions with Michael Novak, by Joshua Mercer. CatholicVote.com.

Reviews

• Michael Novak, from Socialism to Conservatism, by Christopher White.
• Capturing a Political and Spiritual Moment, by Fr. John McCloskey. National Catholic Register 09/14/13.
• A Catholic for All Seasons, by Mary Eberstadt. National Review 10/14/13.
• BOOK REVIEW: ‘Writing From Left to Right’ Washington Times 12/4/13.

Also of Interest

PAPAL ECONOMICS: The Catholic Church on Democratic Capitalism, from Rerum Novarum to Caritas in Veritate, by Maciej Zieba.
Intercollegiate Studies Institute. July 31, 2013.

Maciej Zieba, OP, a close associate of Pope John Paul II, is the author of The Surprising Pope: Understanding the Thought of John Paul II. He was a key player in the Polish Solidarity movement and is the director of the European Solidarity Center and the founder of the Tertio Millennio Institute in Poland. Father Zieba has lectured extensively on economics and theology. Reviews

• Popes on Economics, by Michael P. Orsi. First Things 10/23/13. "There exists a great deal of confusion regarding the popes’ social encyclicals. The problem is threefold: they span over one hundred years in changing political and social milieus; the language that is used is inconsistent; and, finally, there are competing tensions contained in the documents. This book navigates the reader through the confusion."
• Toward a More Human State of Economics, by Gabriel Torretta, O.P. Catholic World Report 10/16/13.

Towards a proper appreciation of “liberation theology” – Some resources from Pope John Paul II

In a recent post to Vox Nova, Michael Iafrate (aka. "The Catholic Anarchist") offers a welcome reminder concerning Pope Benedict's admonishment to the Brazilian bishops of "more or less visible consequences, of rebellion, division, dissent, offense, anarchy are still being felt, creating amidst your diocesan communities great pain and a grave loss of living strength", stemming from "he non-critical import, made by some theologians, of theses and methodologies originating from Marxism." To which Michael replies:

No where in this document, nor in either of the Vatican’s other two documents on liberation theology, does the Church condemn liberation theology as a whole. Nor does the Church even condemn all of the ideas of Marxism. John Paul II in fact used Marx very clearly in his encyclical Laborem Exercens. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of Marxian themes can see Marx’s influence on John Paul II. Paul VI affirmed the compatibility of some forms of socialism with Catholicism and used Marxian terminology in his encyclical Populorum Progressio. In fact, by warning against “a-critical” uses of Marxism, the Church implies that critical use of Marxism is in fact acceptable, and this is what most liberation theologians in fact do. Indeed this is what official Catholic social teaching has done since the Second Vatican Council.

Once again, this is not a condemnation of liberation theology. It is merely a warning against certain tendencies. The only way one would know this, though, is to know the history of the disputes and to know the Vatican’s two previous texts on liberation theology neither of which condemn liberation theology in toto.

Finally, it is important to consider not only this message to the Brazilian bishops, but a message to the same bishops delivered by the Venerable John Paul II who insisted that liberation theology is “both useful and necessary.”

Michael is certainly right that the Church has never condemned liberation theology in toto. (Nor has it condemned capitalism or capital punishment or sexual relations in toto, howbeit that is the impression one often receives reading the rantings of the fringe left and/or right, or even many presentations within the mainstream press which abandon, for the sake of a catchy headline or a cheap soundbyte, the carefully-nuanced position of the Catholic Church.

At any rate, as Michael wisely suggests, on the matter of "liberation theology" the remedy here would be a close study of the texts. For our readers' benefit, a compilation of texts by Pope John Paul II himself.

Karen Novak, 1938-2009

Via Joseph Bottum @ First Things

Karen Novak slipped away this morning—a great artist, a good friend, the beloved wife of Michael Novak, and convivial presence at so many of our events.

You can find some of her artwork described on her website. But even they don’t capture her fun, her spirit, or how much we will miss her.

Charles Carroll -- America's Catholic Founding Father

Charles Carroll of Carrollton was a delegate to the Continental Congress and later United States Senator for Maryland. He was also the only Catholic to have signed the The Declaration of Independence. One of the wealthiest men in the colonies, it is reported that -- upon fixing his signature,

a member standing near observed, "There go a few millions," and all admitted that few risked as much, in a material sense, than the wealthy Marylander.

(The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1832, by Kate Mason Rowland).

A new biography, American Cicero: The Life of Charles Carroll (Lives of the Founders) (ISI) will be published in February 2010. (Tip of the hat to Carl Olson). The author, Dr. Bradley J. Birzer, was recently interviewed by the Washington Times:

Q: Carroll was the last of the signers to die. What did he have to say about America at the end of his life?

A: He was so critical of what happened to the republic after the founding. He's very critical of the democratic element in the American republic - he's worried that self-interest and greed are replacing republican virtue. So from the late 1700s, Carroll starts being called "the hoary-headed aristocrat." He starts to be seen as a relic of an older age. But after Carroll dies, there's a resurgence of his reputation. All across the country, the headlines read, "The last of the Romans is dead."

And he was one of Alexis de Tocqueville's main informants. So there are moments in de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (Penguin Classics) when he is being critical of the democratic spirit, and it seems very clear to me that he is taking that from his interview with Carroll.

Q: What does history get wrong about Carroll?

A: I'm always amazed at how much our own history, especially [in] our textbooks, tends to portray the founders as merely enlightened figures. And there's no doubt they were. But the vast majority were Christian - Franklin and Jefferson being the exceptions that so many focus on. And the American people were intensely religious, mostly Protestant, at the time of the founding. I think it's dangerous that we secularize the founding so much. We need to know the context - we need to know what inspired them to fight for liberty.

Read the whole thing.

This would make the second book published recently about the Catholic founding father, the first being Scott McDermott's Charles Carroll of Carrollton: Faithful Revolutionary (Scepter Publications, 2001).

McDermott, a circulation librarian at Vanderbilt University Divinity School, writer and convert, began studying about Carroll after he came into the Church -- In 2005, Zenit News interviewed him about his biography and Carroll's influence on the founding fathers (Part I | Part II).

* * *

I concur with the observation that the religiousity of many of our founding fathers is sadly overlooked and much neglected. Michael Novak made an important contribution to restoring a proper recognition to the religious roots of America's founding with his On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding (2001), followed by Washington's God, a study of the religious faith of the pre-eminent 'Father of our Country'.

Rewarding Bad Behavior?

On Fr. Neuhaus and Mark Shea

I have over the course of the past two years joined many others in their increasing discomfort with the way Mark Shea has conducted himself as a Catholic apologist in the public sphere -- in his clear misrepresentation of others' positions and treatment of those with whom he disagrees by the imputation of the worst possible motives.

Back in August 2006, I took issue with what I took to be an unfair and cynical characterization of the position of William Kristol and "neoconservatives":

But as long as you support war in Lebanon, war in Iraq and a "war-fighting Republican Party," in the Weekly Standard's phrase, you get a pass on everything else. Beat the drum for permanent war for global democracy and against Islamo-fascism, and all other sins are forgiven you. . . .

And it's quite clear that, for the neocons, the only thing that matters is war and the entire prolife movement and social conservative types can drop dead. The Neocons are All About Power and Realpolitik. Conservatives are morphing into the mirror of their postmodern nihilistic Leftist opponents.

and in a subsequent post I responded to the strange manner in which Mark's commentary on social and political issues had illustrated a reliance upon strings of jingles and catchphrases which bore little resemblance to the complexities of reality (and usually directed at the neocon shibboleth).

To cite but just two examples:

. . . "War Zealots and Master Planners with big ideas for a New American Century based on "creative destruction" and other Machiavellian schemes" (Catholic and Enjoying It August 19, 2006).

". . . the Creative Destructionist Righty who promises an End to Evil and the triumph of the New American Century via murder of wounded combatants and torture, . . . (Catholic and Enjoying It August 17, 2006).

Besides the fact that such phrases simply make no coherent sense to the reader even moderately acquainted with the many facets of neoconservatism and its proponents, my concern was the general impact this form of "arguing" would have on the discussion in general. I had likewise voiced this concern in his combox on several occasions (engaging Mark directly over his constant reference to "The Rubber Hose Right"), and entertained the hope that he would grow out of it.

Unfortunately, in the months that followed it became apparent that this combination of soundbytes with inflammatory rhetoric -- what one might expect from, say, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and other liberal pundits -- was simply becoming the norm.

This concern cemented itself with Mark's role in the so-called "torture debate" in the online Catholic blogging community. For what it's worth, here were my contributions to "the torture debate": On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Part I), Part II and Part III.

Part II and III specifically concern themselves with Mark Shea's comments, especially on the matter of the Abu Ghraib scandal. While I share similar concerns about the policies and conduct of the Bush administration and the lack of accountability, I find that pounding the table and asserting that "Dick Cheney wants more Abu Ghraibs" (to quote Shea), that "virtually the entire field of GOP Candidates and most of the Allegedly Conservative Punditocracy Favors [beating a man to death]" (to quote Shea again), or that the only reason "people were prosecuted and sent to jail [for Abu Ghraib] is because it would have been political suicide not to do so" (Shea yet again) really does nothing to advance the discussion.

On the matter of the "Rubber Hose Right", I would also note that both Michael Ledeen and John Derbyshire have penned forceful columns against torture in the National Review.

So has Victor Davis Hanson for that matter, who Mark recently dismissed as a "Pagan Realpolitik Zealot."

And the virtual mouthpiece of the neoconservative movement -- The Weekly Standard -- has published articles criticizing the Bush administration's practice of rendition and in support of a uniform standard prohibiting detainee abuse.

I have endeavored to point out all of this to Mark on numerous occasions (on this blog and in his combox), but he's quite wedded to his current approach of slamming the "Rubber Hose Right" and "The Torture Party" en masse -- which sacrifices clarity for convenience and actually has the unfortunate effect of alienating possible allies on the right (not to mention fellow Catholics).

* * *

This pattern of verbal abuse extends itself to other topics as well. Sadly, when Mark moves from hurling general broadsides at political parties ("Tweedledum" and "Tweedledee") and takes aim at specific individuals, his remarks are not merely ignorant and comical. Rather, to concur with Sydney Carton, his "so-called sarcasm is intensely personal, characteristic of a vindictivness that is surprising."

The matter of Mark's libel against Michael Ledeen has been explored and documented in the past; I wish to cite three more examples of such misrepresentation and unjust treatment:

Mark Shea on Michael Novak

As part of the trio of 'Catholic neocons', Michael Novak (along with Neuhaus and George Weigel) receives a great deal of criticism for expressing his personal support of the Iraq war and the foreign policy of the Bush administration in general. Whilte Fr. Neuhaus is curiously absent from Mark's criticism, his remarks about Novak leave much to be desired:

• July 2004 - In a column for the National Review (Why the Dems Will Lose), Novak expressed the following sentiment:

  I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.

  Novak's phrasing is a bit "over the top", and he raises some puzzled eyebrows and chatter over at Amy Welborn's. But while Patrick Sweeney ("Novak makes the obvious-to-all point that Bush took the risk of doing something unpopular because he believed he needed to protect American lives"), Maclin Horton ("[Novak expresses] the hope that God will bless Mr. Bush's work and the opinion that it deserves blessing: certainly debatable points, but not so very bizarre as all that"), Rich Leonardi ("A charitable reading of this section of the piece would infer that Novak hopes Providence plays a role in aiding Bush, since he acknowledges that things don't always work out the way we think they should") and Christopher [Fotos] ("This is an unremarkable yearning that God will favor what, in Novak's eyes (and mine), is the good guy") offer charitable interpretations, Mark siezes upon the opportunity to bash Novak as neocon "court theologian":

  Michael Novak acts as Court Prophet for the Bushies.

  I think T. Marzen gets it just about right over on Amy's blog.

  Novak's vocation as paid Neocon Court Theologian has led to this, has it? Bush's "willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq"? How glorious! How noble! Never mind about the lives of the American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians that were sacrificed to the Goddess Liberty.

  This is really nutty. But Novak’s honesty (or revealing lapse) does provide us an open glimpse of what really makes these guys tick. Next thing he'll be advocating is for us to offer a pinch of incense to whoever is current American Caesar (at least if he’s a Republican).

  Memo to Novak: The central story of history is about the progress of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the success of the American Experiment and the Triumph of Our Way of... well, not "Life" exactly (given that we are busily attempting to establish two sins that cry out to heaven as fundamental human right and laboring to invent new evil via biotech), but "Doing Things".

• October 2004 - Novak is once again treated to ridicule:

  Some people failed to get Michael Novak's memo about the universal longing for liberty

  Not a few people would very much prefer to be tagged like sheep. After all, an extremely powerful alliance of business, science, and political power will always want to take care of us and would never hurt or exploit us. It's part of the blessed assurance we have from the Holy Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.

  Strangely, Novak's book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, had little if any relevance to the subject Mark was addressing in this post. (I may as well pose the question here, as often as he pokes fun at the title, has Shea even read it?)

• November 2004 - In a guest post from a reader endorsed by Shea, Novak's pre-war visit to Rome is dismissed as "the height of intellectual arrogance" (In a post to First Things' blog, Novak provides the context and details of his visit to the Vatican, noting in part the curia's reaction).

• March 22, 2006 - Adopting what has not become his as-of-late "pox upon both your houses" approach to U.S. politics, Shea took yet another a swipe at Novak:

  This is why I'd like to see a healthy Dem party re-emerge. Opposite evils, so far from balancing, aggravate one another. A Wilsonian Drunken Sailor Safety Through Torture Right inflames an hysterical angry vengeful Left. Meanwhile, when Elephants and Donkeys fight, it is the grass that suffers. The Left fanatically aims for the maximum number of babies to die, while the Right continues pissing away our grandchildrens savings and trying to make the world into the image and likeness of Michael Novak through the exportation of our democratic capitalist system at the point of a gun (only to wind up with Muslims who tend to see the image and likeness of Madonna instead--and to to hate us all the more).

  Once more in the combox, Daniel Darling, Sydney Carton and others engage in a futile endeavor to educate Shea as to Michael Novak's actual thought, with little success.

• March 23, 2006 [Update] - Mark Shea attempts to downplay his earlier ridicule of Novak and bolster his case for his criticism of neoconservatism that "they are basically arguing that democracy capitalism will fix the Islamosphere":

  . . . I don't think Michael Novak is a bad guy. I do think that the attempts by the Money and Power guys who are writing policy to hold up Novak as a sort of Voice of Catholic Teaching Blessing our Policies vs. the Euroweenie opinions of our Peacenik Pope and his Clueless Bishops was highly cynical. I wish Novak had been more vociferous in saying that it is precisely at the moment when the whole world is shouting for one thing and an almost unanimous chorus of bishops is saying "Whoa!" that the duty of the Catholic is to inform his conscience with the teaching of the Church, not join the shouting throng. But I also think Novak is not a materialist so much as a guy who has been beating the drum of democratic capitalism for a long time and who naturally gravitated toward people who found him...useful.

  So instead of Novak the "Court Theologian to the Bushies", we have Michael Novak the useful and exploitable peon by the Money and Power Neocons.

  Again in the combox, Ed Graham, Paul Zummo, and Daniel Darling -- displaying a comprehension of what 'neoconservative' foreign policy actually entails (and what Michael Novak himself really proposes in his book) -- attempt to provide a basic education in political thought.

I do not expect Mark Shea to agree with Novak -- but as co-founder of Crisis magazine (one of the journalistic outlets Shea has written for), and even (dare I say) as a fellow Catholic, perhaps a modicum of respect and a fair and accurate presentation of his thought would be in order?

Mark Shea on Tom McKenna

In November 2006, responding to Mr. Tom McKenna on the matter of sentencing Saddam Hussein:

Tom McKenna is Predictably Angry with Me

Reason: I demonstrate an insufficiently insatiable hunger and thirst for death, death, death, and more death, so that means I regard Saddam as a victim, you see.

McKenna, whose blog is more or less devoted to obsessing over how to execute as many people as humanly possible, is naturally orgasmic at the idea of hanging Saddam. Failure to be thrilled at the death of a human being and a general agreement with Pope John Paul that it's better to forego executing people unless you really need to is, for McKenna the ultimate crime and the source of numberless entries on his vengeful blog.

At the time, Mr. McKenna was expressing his personal frustration with the comments of Cardinal Martino on the execution of Saddam ("punishing a crime with another crime"). He was certainly not alone among Catholic bloggers in doing so (see fellow apologist Jimmy Akin).

Nor was McKenna alone in expressing confusion over what he perceived to be the embrace of an 'abolitionist' mentality on capital punishment by the Vatican. Other Catholics like Justice Antonin Scalia (Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty in First Things and Michael Dunnigan ("The Purposes of Punishment" CHRISTIFIDELIS Sept. 14, 2003) have expressed similar concerns about the present faming of this issue in the Catechism.

One can certainly sympathize with Mark's inclination to defend John Paul II against McKenna's criticism, but Mark's decision to paint his subject in the worst possible light ("devoted to obsessing over how to execute as many people as humanly possible" and "naturally orgasmic at the idea of hanging Saddam") only greatly impeded this effort (much less the possibility of a fair and civil exchange on Shea's blog).

Incidentally, Tom McKenna happens to be a criminal prosecutor by profession. "Orgasmic at the idea of an execution"? Devoted to "death, death and more death"? -- No, but as he reminds us, he HAS "had to sit with the families of murder victims and witness first hand the social, moral, and personal destruction wrought by murderers", and one of the necessary obligations of his office is to weigh the "proportionate, careful use of the death penalty."

Mark Shea on Norman Podhoretz

In May 2007 Mark used the death of a U.S. soldier to smear Norman Podhoretz:

Another Cubicle Dweller Has More Plans for More Andy Baceviches

When it comes to Grand End to Evil Planners, no sacrifice of other people's children is too much.

No doubt, criticial commentary on Norman Podhoretz's "The Case for Bombing Iran (Commentary ) might be ventured. But again, here is not so much an attempt to engage Podhoretz's argument as simply to mock, and imbue the worst of motives. This is what passes for a "response" in Mark's eyes. (Sydney Carton is to be commended for his attempting to reason with Mark in the combox and demonstrate where he might have been amiss in his depiction).

* * *

I want to reiterate: my criticism of Mark is not motivated by personal disagreement with the content of his position. There are some issues on which we disagree and a great deal more on which we are in clear agreement. And on the matter of the conduct of the Bush administration and their prosecution of the war in Iraq and even its defenders, reasonable criticisms should and has been made. But if you hope to persuade somebody of your position on the war or any other issue, fostering an environment conducive to civil exchange and accurately presenting your opponent's positions will work in your favor.

To quote Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ:

Barbarism likewise threatens when men cease to talk together according to reasonable laws. There are laws of argument, the observance of which is imperative if discourse is to be civilized. Argument ceases to be civil when it is dominated by passion and prejudice . . . when dialogue gives way to a series of monologues . . . when the parties to the conversation cease to listen to one another, or hear only what they want to hear, or see the other's argument only through the screen of their own categories; when defiance is flung to the basic ontological principle of all ordered discourse, which asserts that Reality is an analogical structure, within which there are variant modes of reality, to each of which there corresponds a distinctive method of thought that imposes on argument its own special rules. When things like this happen, men cannot be locked together in argument. Conversation becomes merely quarrelsome or querulous. Civility dies with the death of the dialogue.

One need only spend a little time with Mark Shea online to see that his conduct and treatment of others is the antithesis of civil discourse and Christian charity.

On Fr. Neuhaus' Foreward

It is at this point I'd like to note Mark's mention of Fr. Neuhaus' decision to write a foreward to his upcoming book. I have been a subscriber to First Things for decades (at least since I was in college) and have long-admired the journal as an example of how the free exchange of ideas ought to occur.

For example, it's refreshing to pick up a magazine and see such disparate parties as George Weigel, Peter Griffiths, Rowan Williams and Stanley Hauerwaus weigh in on just war theory in the pages of a single journal; or Cardinal Dulles and Justice Scalia debate the contemporary application of capital punishment and its presentation in the Catechism -- contrast this with the daily dose of polemics and what merely passes for debate on, say, Fox News and even on many blogs. And if First Things has been a model of civil discussion, Fr. Neuhaus has exemplified the same -- both in his own writing and in his response to various critics.

Now contrast this with Shea's caricatures of neoconservatives in general as "Money and Power Firsters" who are "All About Power and Realpolitik" and "pissing away our grandchildrens savings and trying to make the world into the image and likeness of Michael Novak through the exportation of our democratic capitalist system at the point of a gun" to the more recent (and completely absurd) fulminations about "sinister rhetoric of Creative Destruction that is animating the latest Big Thinkers in their Wilsonian/Machiavellian attempts to create heaven on earth" -- and his persistent slander and obstinate misrepresentation of countless individuals. . . .and you have an inkling of why I am absolutely baffled that Neuhaus would, at this particular time, commend Mr. Shea in the form of an introduction to his forthcoming book.

It is a strange and disappointing move for someone dedicated to fostering -- in his own words -- a "civil public square."

* * *

Update

A reader had responded to me privately posing the question of whether -- as opposed of being dishonest -- Mark Shea was merely out of his league, his present approach and blogging style masquing an ignorance of the complexities of the political situation.

Judge for yourself with tonight's post:

"Change--above all violent change--is the essence of human history." - Michael Ledeen

Labels: Salvation Through Leviathan By Any Means Necessary

posted by Mark at 4:31 PM

Mark Shea links to a CBS News story about U.S. soldiers rescuing "24 special-needs boys from a Baghdad orphanage after finding the children suffering in horrific conditions" in a government-run orphanage:

Inside the building, a government-run orphanage for special needs children, the soldiers found more emaciated little bodies tied to the cribs. They had been kept this way for more than a month, according to the soldiers called in to rescue the 24 boys.

"I saw children that you could see literally every bone in their body that were so skinny, they had no energy to move whatsoever, no expression on their face," Staff Sgt. Michael Beale said.

"The kids were tied up, naked, covered in their own waste — feces — and there were three people that were cooking themselves food, but nothing for the kids," Lt. Stephen Duperre said.

Fortunately, the neglected kids were saved by U.S. troops (on routine patrol), and the perpetrators are now under arrest and detained by the Iraqi government.

It's a brutal story, but let's face reality: it could happen anywhere, indeed probably has happened, in every major city in the U.S. (and then some). Want to experience the loss of humanity? The callous neglect of the poor and suffering? Turn on the six o'clock news.

So why, may I ask, would Mark deliberately choose to link to the story in such a way as to suggest that Michael Ledeen is responsible? To suggest that Ledeen condones this kind of abuse?

Got me.

I posed this question twice in the combox -- deleted on both counts.

Fr. Sirico, The Zwicks, and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

The Compendium has been heralded by some as a major achievement in Catholic tradition and a solid presentation of Catholic social doctrine. Deacon Kieth Fournier, for example, announced that "the Compendium has come at a vitally important time for all Catholics, other Christians and all people of good will who truly desire to build a culture of life and a civilization of love to replace the current culture of death, materialism and nihilism." ("Neither Left nor Right: The Compendium of the Social Doctrine" March 11, 2005).

In June 5, 2005 ("The Clarion Call to Catholic Action" Catholic.org), Fournier praised the Compendium as

a bugle blast that should be heard throughout the entire Church, and, through her sons and daughters, throughout the whole world. Far from an indistinct sound, it is one that rings out with crystal clarity. This magnificent volume presents the treasury of the Church’s social teaching in one place. It is waiting to now be implemented and give form to a new Catholic Action. Never before has the distilled wisdom of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church been so beautifully organized, brilliantly articulated or thoroughly researched. . . .

What the Compendium does is to give Catholics, other Christians, other people of faith and all people of good will a complete sourcebook for the Social teaching. In this one volume we find all the references needed to study the Social Teaching and then to go “right to the source” by turning to the back. It provides the instruction that has been so desperately needed to give clear direction to those who are committed to Catholic Action. It will also be welcomed ecumenically by anyone concerned with true social justice.

Hence my suprise, then, upon learning that Mark and Louise Zwick have suggested that "neoliberal language" has infiltrated the very Compendium itself. The allegation is made in the review of Pope Benedict's encyclical Deus Caritas Est (Pope Benedict XVI's Matthew 25 Encyclical, God is Love: Charity and Justice Must Meet Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, May-June 2006):

Benedict recommends outstanding encyclicals of previous popes and their summarization in the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching. Unfortunately, the Compendium itself, while filled with wonderful statements from Catholic social teaching, is also touched by the neoliberal language that has crept in everywhere in recent times. It includes a few statements that have come from neoliberal global capitalism instead of papal teaching or the Gospel. We hope that there will be a second edition which will eliminate those.

Examples: include No. 334: “The economy has as its object the development of wealth and its progressive increase...” (This is not from the Gospel or Catholic Social Teaching!) and No. 347: “A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice...” (Not true!)

While statements follow these which are from papal teaching and which may qualify them, the business man or woman who reads them may find a Calvinist interpretation which would make them feel justified in pursuing their “enlightened self-interest” instead of the charity and justice of Jesus Caritas.

With all the work and writing that John Paul II did regarding the foreign debt which is choking the poor all over the world, it is surprising that there is just one small paragraph on this subject in the Compendium in #195, in which it states that countries should pay their debts.

We are especially sensitive to the impact of the Compendium on the socio-economic reality of America because over the past 25 years we have received many thousands of immigrants and refugees from exactly that reality—refugees from the current global economic system. Those who work for a pittance in factories of multinational corporations are unable to provide for their families and forced to migrate, while CEO's and stockholders receive enormous remuneration.

The Precursor to The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church -- A Look Back

How, pray tell, did the Compendium come to be infected by this pernicious neoliberal language? -- the answer can be found in a Zenit 2005 interview with Fr. Robert Sirico of The Acton Institute, in which he discussed the legacy of John Paul II to Catholic social doctrine:

In 1992 I met François X. Van Thuán, the saintly archbishop of Saigon, who was in exile in Rome. When the Holy Father asked him, then president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, to coordinate the compilation of Catholic social teaching, he asked me and the Polish Dominican Provincial Maciej Zieba to compile a collection of magisterial texts entitled "The Social Agenda," which was published in seven languages.

In April of 2000, Fr. Sirico discussed the origin and content of The Social Agenda with Zenit News. The compilation consists of selections of over seventy-five documents from Catholic tradition from St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great, with "the major concentration . .. the magisterial texts of this century," particularly those of John Paul II. Adds Fr. Sirico:

In my estimation I would say that the most decisive documents come from Pope John Paul II, especially Centesimus Annus (the most recent social encyclical, 1991), due to its ability to take account of the collapse of 'real socialism' and the globalization of the market economy. However, Centesimus Annus builds from the foundation the Church's teaching tradition, while at the same time 're-reading' or developing this tradition in light of momentous social, economic and political events.

Fr. Sirico worked closely with Maciej Zieba (president of the Tertio Millennio Institute in Krakow) in the five-month long process of editing the document, after which "a process began by which the collection itself was looked over by numerous advisors and consultants to insure both its scope and usefulness." The compilation was published on April 27, 2005.

During the presentation of The Social Agenda, Cardinal V?n Thu?n commented: "This volume is an optimal instrument for those who want to have direct contact with the magisterial sources and, at the same time, a systematic presentation of them."

At the same time, it was a "systematic presentation" which anticipated something much greater. In his preface to the published work, the Cardinal acknowledged:

Like any collection, this publication does not claim to be complete. The individual texts have been selected because of their significance, but it is hoped that the reader will be led to re-read them in their full context and thus become more familiar with the breadth of Catholic social teaching.

And, according to Fr. Sirico:

This collection also serves as a kind of preamble to the more significant Catechism or Compendium of Catholic Social Thought that the Holy Father called for when he promulgated the post-synodal apostolic exhortation "Ecclesia in America" in Mexico City in 1999. It is hoped this text will be an easy reference text for those concerned with and who teach the Church's social doctrine, having at their disposal a distillation of texts from roughly the past century.

This is a collection of magisterial texts, and as such there is nothing innovative or "new" within them. What is striking, and I believe will be evident as one reads the volume, is continuity of the teaching, along with the Church's willingness to engage the critical issue of the day from within its commitment to the human family.

Cardinal Van Thuan passed away in 2002. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church was published in its final form in October 25, 2004, under the direction of Cardinal Renato Martino, who praised the volume as a resource "without precedent in the history of the Church."

* * *

As one might expect, Fr. Sirico's involvement in the compilation of The Social Agenda received some flack from the left, inciting protests from the National Catholic Reporter ("Free-market priest compiles Vatican book" May 12, 2000) and Salt of the Earth ("Are conservative Catholics redefining Catholic social teaching?" November, 2000), a "social justice" monthly and sister publication of the Claretian U.S. Catholic.

So, it would appear that the Zwicks' are on to something: the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church has Fr. Sirico's and Maciej Zieba's dastardly prints and neo-conservative agenda written all over it. What were John Paul II and Archbishop Van Thuan possibly thinking?

* * *

The Zwicks' Criticism of the Compendium -- An Analysis

Finally, let's return to the Zwick's objections to the alleged "neoliberal" content in the Compendium -- which I think is revealing, in that their criticism relies on some rather selective quotation.

For example, take their excerpt of section 334, -- "The economy has as its object the development of wealth and its progressive increase...” -- which they vehemently protest, "is not from the Gospel or Catholic Social Teaching!"

If we examine this phrase in its full context (and indeed, the rest of the very sentence itself), we might find ourselves questioning the Zwicks' interpretation:

The economy has as its object the development of wealth and its progressive increase, not only in quantity but also in quality; this is morally correct if it is directed to man's overall development in solidarity and to that of the society in which people live and work. Development, in fact, cannot be reduced to a mere process of accumulating goods and services. On the contrary, accumulation by itself, even were it for the common good, is not a sufficient condition for bringing about authentic human happiness.

Or take their condemnation of the phrase “'A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice...' (Not true!)"

Again, if we examine this phrase in its full context (under the heading, "The Role of the Free Market"), we find that it is contained in section 347, a reasonable assessment of the free market's strengths and advantages:

. . . The Church's social doctrine appreciates the secure advantages that the mechanisms of the free market have to offer, making it possible as they do to utilize resources better and to facilitate the exchange of products. These mechanisms "above all . . . give central place to the persons' desires and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another persons."

A truly competitive market is an effective instrument for attaining important objectives of justice: moderating the excessive profits of individual businesses, responding to consumers' demands, bringing about a more efficient use and conservation of resources, rewarding entrepreneurship and innovation, making information available so that it is really possible to compare and purchase products in an atmosphere of healthy competitition.

I'll concede such a positive evaluation of the market is more reminiscent of Michael Novak than the Houston Catholic Worker. At the same time, one has only to read further to find a reminder of the market's inherent limitations:

348. The free market cannot be judged apart from the ends that it seeks to accomplish and from the values that it transmits at a societal level. Indeed, the market cannot find in itself the principles for its legitimization: it belongs to the consciences of individuals and the public responsibility to establish the relationship between means and ends. The individual profit of economic enterprise, though legitimate, must never become the sole objective. . . .

349 The Church's social doctrine, while recognizing the market as an irreplacable instrument for regulating the inner workings of the economic system, points out the need for it to be firmly rooted in its ethical objectives, which ensure and at the same time suitably circumscribe the space in which it can operate autonomously. The idea that the market alone can be entrusted with the task of supplying every category of goods cannot be shared, because such an idea is based on a reductionist vision of the person and society.

So, it would appear that the Compendium's recognition of the capabilities of the free market is clearly situated within a proper clarification of its limitations, not to mention an explicit condemnation of the reductionist worldview which is properly understood as neoliberalism.

Call me naive, but I find it difficult to see how any "business man or woman who reads them may find a Calvinist interpretation which would make them feel justified in pursuing their 'enlightened self-interest'." Methinks the Zwicks protest too much?

* * * In his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Benedict recommended the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church as a "comprehensive presentation" of the Church's social teaching, and expressed the need for its study and implementation:

Marxism had seen world revolution and its preliminaries as the panacea for the social problem: revolution and the subsequent collectivization of the means of production, so it was claimed, would immediately change things for the better. This illusion has vanished. In today's complex situation, not least because of the growth of a globalized economy, the Church's social doctrine has become a set of fundamental guidelines offering approaches that are valid even beyond the confines of the Church: in the face of ongoing development these guidelines need to be addressed in the context of dialogue with all those seriously concerned for humanity and for the world in which we live.

Further Reading

• The Social Agenda: Preface of François-Xavier Nguyên Cardinal Van Thuân, President, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
• Ok, Something's Odd Here . . . -- Jimmy Akin takes issue with the presention of the Compendium [of Catholic Social Doctrine] by some as a kind of "parallel Catechism," placing social teaching on the same level as dogmatic theology. (Dec. 8, 2004); Jamie Blosser has a thoughtful response to Akin, raising the question "whether the Church's social teachings can be so easily separated from the Church's dogmatic and moral teachings. Is not the Church's social teaching not moral in its very essence?" -- inviting further response by Jimmy Akin.
• Toward a Proper Understanding of Neoliberalism - a response to the specious charge by the Zwicks that "Neoliberalism is known in the United States as neoconservatism. Its Catholic proponents are Fr. John Neuhaus, George Weigel, Michael Novak and Fr. Robert Sirico. Their publications are available through the American Enterprise Institue, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Acton Institute and First Things magazine."
• The Social Agenda - A collection the central statements of the Roman Pontiffs from a range of texts, including papal encyclicals, apostolic letters, and Conciliar documents, on matters relating to politics, economics, and culture.
• The Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society - founded in 1992 by Michael Novak, Rocco Buttiglione, Father Richard John Neuhaus, Father Maciej Zieba, OP, and George Weigel to deepen the dialogue on Catholic social doctrine between North American students and students from the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. The seminar is built around an intense study of John Paul II's 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, supplemented by readings from the classics of American political theory and contemporary articles.

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus & Michael Novak on John Paul II

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is editor-in-chief of First Things, published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life, and the author of several books on Pope John Paul II, including Appointment in Rome: The Church in America Awakening -- chronicling the Synod for America held in Rome, 1997 -- to which he was a special delegate designated by the Pope -- and Doing Well & Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian Capitalist, on the Papal encyclical Centesimus Annus. "John Paul the Great" New York Post April 4, 2005. The Cuban Revolutions First Things 83 (May 1998): 23-28. Notes and observations from Fr. Neuhaus' trip with Pope John Paul II's historic to Cuba, which was unfortunately shrounded by the media coverage of President Bill Clinton's sex scandal. The Liberalism of John Paul II First Things 73 (May 1997): 16-21. On the liberalism (properly understood) of the Pope, as expressed in the encyclical Centesimus Annus. John Paul II Plays "The Capital of the World". First Things 59 (January 1996). The Gospel of Life. Review of Evangelium Vitae. Wall Street Journal April 3, 1995.

Michael Novak is the George F. Jewett scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Farewell to a Great" National Review Online. April 12, 2005. John Paul the Great. National Review April 8, 2005. Cover story in the April 25, 2005 issue. The Embodied Self, First Things 130 (February 2003): 18-21. On Pope John Paul II's meditations on human sexuality presented during his general audiences. A Pope and His Critics: What the young people are responding to and the elites don't get, by Michael Novak. National Review Online. July 26, 2002. The Pope's Critics, by Michael Novak. National Post July 26, 2002. Capitalism Rightly Understood: The View of Christian Humanism. Faith & Reason, April 1991. On the papal encyclical Centesimus Annus.

The Neocons - Apologists for Free-Market Utopianism?

A friend inquired by email what I thought of Pat Buchanan's remark in his Godspy interview that the Catholic "neoconservatives" (George Weigel, Michael Novak, Richard J. Neuhaus) were "the altar boys of a sect that holds, heretically, that free market-democracy is mankind's salvation."

My response was that a comment like that is such a gross distortion (actually, outright falsehood) of Novak and Neuhaus that I wonder if Buchanan -- like certain members of the Catholic left -- had actually read their books.

When I was in college I was a bit of a radical lefty anarchist sort -- anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, heavy imbiber of Chomsky & Howard Zinn, little bit of Marx, Nietzschian nihilism thrown in for good measure. You might be familiar with the type.

I read a lot of criticism about conservative thinkers (or neoconservatives) in those days, but as far as I can recall, didn't find much time to actually READ them. It wasn't until after college that I actually picked up Novak's books from the library, along with Fr. Neuhaus, and what I encountered hardly compared to the crude little caricatures I'd fashioned in my mind.

If you're interested in what the "First Things crowd" has to say on this topic, I'd personally recommend Doing Well & Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian Capitalist, by Fr. Neuhaus, which I'm presently re-reading -- his reflections on the topic occasioned by Pope John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus and The Catholic Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism, by Michael Novak -- if you don't mind reading used books, you can find both for affordable prices at Amazon.com. Read them and judge for yourself, but don't let the spurious rantings of disgruntled critics prejudice your opinion.

Lastly, on the popular conception (or slur, rather) of Novak as apologist for "unbridled capitalist greed," it has always been Novak's contention, as far as I read him, that the very success of the free market and liberal democracy is contingent on the degree to which it embodies the moral virtues of Christianity. Regarding Buchanan's charge of material utopianism, consider the following:

A capitalist system is only one of three systems composing the free society. The economic system is checked and regulated by both of the other two systems: by the institutions of the political system and by the institutions of the moral/cultural system. Capitalism does not operate in a moral vacuum. Those who fail to live up to the moral standards implicit in its own structure are corrected by forces from outside it. Thus, capitalism supplies only some of the moral energy present in the free society as a whole. There are moral energies in the democratic polity to call it to account. And there are moral energies in families, in the churches, in journalism, in the cinema, in the arts, and throughout civic society to unmask its failings and to call it to account.

This is as it should be. For the free society is not constructed for saints. There are not enough saints on earth to people a free society. A free society must make do with the only moral majority there is — all those citizens called to a noble destiny, indeed, but often weak, tempted, egocentric and quite imperfect. In imagining the free society of the future, it is important not to be utopian. This century has built too many graveyards in its so-called utopias. The citizens of the 2lst century will warn one another against the mistakes of the 20th.

In addition to systemic checks and balances, there must also be internal checks. James Madison wrote that it is chimerical to imagine that a free republic can survive without the daily practice of the virtues of liberty. A free society depends upon habits of responsibility, initiative, enterprise, foresight, and public spiritedness. It depends upon plain, ordinary, kitchen virtues. Citizens who are dependent, passive, irresponsible, and narrowly self-interested will badly govern their own conduct, and their project of self-government is bound to fail.

It is, therefore, a crucial act of statesmanship to identify and nourish the cultural habits indispensable to the practice and survival of liberty. The free society cannot be made to thrive on the basis of any set of moral habits at all. Where citizens are corrupt, dishonest, halfhearted in their work, inert, indifferent to high standards, willing to cheat and to steal and to defraud, eager to take from the public purse but unwilling to contribute to the commonweal, and entirely self-aggrandizing, self-government must fail. Many peoples of the world, in fact, have shown themselves incapable of making the institutions of liberty work. The road to liberty, Tocqueville warned, is a long one, precisely because it entails learning the habits of liberty. Not any habits at all will do. The road is narrow and the gate is strait.

From "Wealth & Virtue: The Moral Case for Capitalism", National Review Feb. 18, 2004.

See also:

• The Novak Achievement, by Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 36 (October 1993): 60-70.
  
• Capitalism, Rightly Understood: The View of Christian Humanism. Faith & Reason, April 1991 -- a reading of John Paul II's encyclical Centesimus Annus.

Stephen Hand & The Zwicks

Thanks to Stephen Hand, editor of TCRNews.Com ("Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports" who posted this qualified endorsement of the Ratzinger Fan Club to his front page today:

While we disagree with not a few things found at this marvelous website and blog...we agree with virtually everything said about its hero and the creed...

A little too "NeoCon," it would appear for our tastes, and downright wrong when it comes to Mark and Louise Zwick and the Catholic Worker witness in general, it nevertheless remains a "must visit" website if you appreciate Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as we do. One thing is certain, this website is an important resource for admirers of Cardinal Ratzinger, and it's always written intelligently and with the verve of faith.

Stephen may find me a little "too far right," but in spite of our political differences, he has been gracious enough to link to my website, and I'm more than pleased to do so in return. TCRNews is an excellent resource -- one of the first Catholic websites I discovered on the web, and one which I return to on a regular basis, confident that I will always encounter something new and spiritually-enriching to read (and in that sense, establishing a good example for my own blog to follow). Likewise, Stephen demonstrates how one can esteem Catholic tradition without being compelled to denigrate the Pope and the Church, unlike other self-styled "traditionalists."

As far as the Zwicks are concerned, last year I had objected to what I thought was a hatchet job they did on Michael Novak and Fr. Neuhaus. Whether my critique (of their critique) was correct or "downright wrong," I'll leave to the discernment of my readers.

However, I'll reiterate what I have said about the Zwicks: it is inspiring to see a couple devote their daily lives to the Works of Mercy and assisting the least among us. While I can disagree with the Zwick's opinions on economic matters and "neocons" Neuhaus and Weigel, judging from what I've read in their newspaper, I daresay they accomplish more in the way of love and charity in a day than many of their critics will do in a lifetime, and they are a model of what "any average Catholic or non-Catholic" can do with God's grace.

A Little Something on the Side . . .

Motivated in part by the Houston Catholic Worker's criticism of Fr. Neuhaus and subsequent reading of Michael Novak's "The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (which I greatly appreciated); John Allen Jr.'s recent column on the the "liberalism" of John Paul II, and my overall desire for personal convenience in doing research on the web, I spent last weekend putting together a new website as a resource for those interested in the various issues debated by the 'neoconservatives' (Novak, Neuhaus, Weigel, et al.) and the 'Communio' school (for lack of a better term).

I'm still at a loss as to what to call it, but I'm hoping others will participate by recommending additional articles and books (and by participating in the discussion via the blog exclusively devoted to this discussion). Don't worry -- it's not going to replace my regular blogging on 'Against The Grain', but will rather serve as a vehicle for sustained investigation of certain issues.

You can find the all the details here.

The Zwicks vs. Fr. Neuhaus & Michael Novak

Being a regular subscriber to The Catholic Worker since college, I'm very much acquainted with that particular faction of Catholics and their understanding of economic affairs. Having likewise subscribed to First Things for some time, I have of late familiarized myself with the perspectives of Fr. Neuhaus and the Catholic philosopher & economist Michael Novak. However, I confess that I've never fully studied the Church's thought on these matters, which is something I hope to remedy.

With that end in mind, one of the books I've been reading is Michael Novak's The Catholic Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism, which is in many ways a revision of his earlier work The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. I'm only halfway through and not at a point where I can provide a substantial review, but it has prompted me to go back and evaluate some of the earlier criticisms of Neuhaus and Novak I encountered in the pages of the Houston Catholic Worker, particularly by Mark & Louise Zwick.

There is something about the way the Zwicks go after these authors (the "neoconservatives") in the pages of their newspaper that really gets under my skin. Take, for example, their scathing review of Fr. Neuhaus' book Appointment in Rome, charging that his advocacy of "neoconservative economics" (what they commonly refer to as "neoliberalism") "presents a view shockingly different from that of the Holy Father" in the apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in America. ¹

It was in reading [First Things] that we began to see cracks in the facade of this very reputable convert. We did not fault Fr. N. too much, because we knew he was a convert and Catholicism takes time to integrate.

We noticed that in his anxiety to focus on First Things as a Catholic, [Fr. Neuhaus] neglected to focus on the Last Things . . . we, of course, always agreed with Fr. N. that socialism and Communism were not the answers to the world's problems. However, we knew from the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church that the poor, the marginated, the outcast, as Pope John Paul II has stated so often, must not be neglected. . . .

Solidarity with those most in need, is one of the major themes of the Synod report, Ecclesia in America. It does not appear at all in Fr. Neuhaus' book . . . To have missed such a major theme from a Synod is quite surprising. It is an indication, in fact, that Fr. N. missed a lot at the Synod. ²

Personally I find that the Zwick's patience in waiting for Fr. Neuhaus' conversion to Catholicism "to take" a little condescending. After all, Neuhaus was ordained a Catholic priest nearly a decade before this review was written. And those who are familiar with his writings, or have encountered him in person, would hardly recognize him in the Zwick's criticism that he "missed the point" of the Synod due to his callous "neglect of the poor."

In reviewing Novak's book, the Zwicks forego direct citation and rely on crude paraphrasing. Thus Fr. Neuhaus "endorses an economic system where the vast majority, especially in Latin America, are not free at all. Factories of U. S. companies in Latin America pay slave wages." The same goes for his cohort, Michael Novak, who "has stated that it is sinful for those who work for slave wages to complain about this disparity in salaries, since the sin of envy was condemned in the book of Deuteronomy", and that "Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J., defends slave wages as being better than no wages."

For the Zwicks, to favor freedom, capitalism and moral responsibility over socialism and liberation theology inevitably makes one a supporter of not only unjust wages but torture and execution. Neuhaus "recommends the U.S. economic system as one of fairness and freedom to the Bishops, without admitting that the School of the Americas, where so many Latin American soldiers were trained to torture and kill their people, is an integral part of that system." Neuhaus' alleged support of slave wages and Latin American death squads is compounded by the fact that he "suggests that their economic problems might be blamed on the Latin American Catholic Church because of its lack of Calvinism."

Ultimately, those not inclined to investigate the writings of Fr. Neuhaus beyond the pages of the Catholic Worker will conclude, along with the Zwicks, that he (and Novak, and Dulles, et al.) wholeheartedly endorses a violent political philosophy which "mows down people who are in other countries through maquiladoras, slave wages, international trade agreements and torture taught at the School of the Americas to ensure that "freedom" prevails."

The Catholic political philosopher Michael Novak is also a frequent target of the Catholic Worker. When he was invited to dedicate a local Catholic business ethis program at a local Catholic University, the Houston Catholic Worker likened the action to "inviting Hugh Hefner to dedicate an institute on the sacrament of marriage", describing Novak's vast body of writing as "window dressing to promote an economic system based solely on self-interest." ³ The former comment was made by a fellow Catholic Worker, and was thought to be "uncharitable" by his colleague. However, according to the Zwicks, ". . . the reality in our world obligated us to speak in truth and solidarity with the cry of the millions of poor people who suffer so much from neoconservative/neoliberal policies" -- as if "speaking in truth and solidarity" necessitated such ridicule!

In October 2002 the columnist Peggy Noonan recommended Novak's Spirit of Democratic Capitalism as an antidote to the selfishness which characterized the businessmen involved in the recent corporate scandals. According to Ms. Noonan:

[Novak] spoke movingly of the meaning and morality of capitalism. He asked why capitalism is good, and answered that there is one great reason: Of all the systems devised by man it is the one most likely to lift the poor out of poverty. But, he asserted unassailably, capitalism cannot exist in a void. Capitalism requires an underlying moral edifice. Without it nothing works; with it all is possible. That edifice includes people who have an appreciation for and understanding of the human person; it requires a knowledge that business can contribute to community and family; it requires "a sense of sin," a sense of right and wrong, and an appreciation that the unexpected happens, that things take surprising turns in life. ⁴

Shortly thereafter the Zwicks published an editorial responding to Ms. Noonan's endorsement of Michael Novak. Again, they chose to exercise their right to "speak in truth and solidarity with the cry of millions":

Novak is an underwriter of Enron capitalism, giving permission to create wealth in any way that the market allows. He gave the greedy all permission in the name of the Church. In his many talks and books he told them wealth creation was a virtue, that the Fathers of the Church were dead wrong when they said avarice was a capital sin. He said CEO's deserved as much money as they could get because they worked hard and creatively. He even compared the behavior of these corrupt CEO's to the creative work of God, without any criticism of their approach. ⁵

In their editorial the Zwicks ask "Did Peggy Noonan read Novak's books?" One might ask the same of the Zwicks. In fact, on one occasion Novak was moved to tell them: "I enjoyed serving several times in various articles as an evil presence in the world of your imagination . . . I enjoyed it because you have created a straw man", recommending several of his books to them and offering to provide them himself. The Zwicks published his letter with a lengthy response, in which they praise ("we have read several of your books in that beautiful romantic prose"), chastise ("for you to quote the Pope in favor of your form of capitalism bears resemblance to the devil quoting Scripture") and finally invite him ("As a fellow Catholic who partakes of the same Eucharist") to assist them in developing a new economic model. ⁶

Clearly the Zwicks differ sharply in their interpretation of Novak's thought. I can only wonder how the Zwick's can square their characterization of Novak as an apologist for "Enron Capitalism" with his contension (along with Pope John Paul II) that

"Capitalism must infused by that humble gift of love called caritas . . . This is the love that holds families, associations, and nations together. The current tendency of many to base the spirit of capitalism on sheer materialism is a certain road to economic decline. Honesty, trust, teamwork, and respect for the law are gifts of the spirit. They cannot be bought" ⁷

Fr. Neuhaus also responded to the Zwicks in his column in First Things, noting that "The Catholic Worker seems to be of the view that the authentically Catholic position is one of being in love with being in love with the poor and the suffering. The course of love, I would suggest in agreement with Catholic doctrine, is to do all we can to remedy poverty and suffering productivity and exchange". He concluded:

What is one to make of the nastiness perpetrated by the Catholic Worker? Because of the vestigial connection with the much admired Dorothy Day, a general inclination is to cut a lot of slack for those who claim to be her heirs. As a friend says, "Of course what they say about economics and politics is mostly nonsense, but they are idealists and they keep the rest of us honest." It is a benign view, but I cannot agree. Nobody is kept honest by their dishonesty, by their attempt to ideologically hijack Catholic social teaching, or by their misrepresenting of those with whom they disagree. That is not idealism. It is moral posturing that serves no purpose other than the inflation of self-esteem as people of ever so superior sensitivity to the sufferings of the poor.⁸

I do respect Mark & Louise Zwick: it is truly inspiring to see a couple devote their daily lives to the Works of Mercy and assisting the least among us. Nevertheless, one would think that their efforts to embody a new economic model distinguished by "cooperation and sharing between rich and poor" would be assisted by genuine dialogue with those they disagree with -- and to the extent that they misrepresent the thought and character of Fr. Neuhaus and Michael Novak, their manner of writing strikes me as inevitably counter-productive.

A blog is not a suitable vehicle to go into a lengthy, detailed examination and point-by-point rebuttal of the Zwick's charges -- nor do I think I'm especially knowledgable or competent enough in this area to do so. However, I have read enough to believe that anyone who confines themselves to the Zwick's assessment of Novak & Neuhaus in the Houston Catholic Worker is sorely deprived. ⁹

---

1. "Fr. Neuhaus should withdraw his Book", by Mark & Louse Zwick. Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XIX, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1999.
2. The Zwicks translate the Pope's condemnation of "neoliberalism" as nothing less than a condemnation of capitalism as has been put forth by Neuhaus & Novak. Michel Therrien offers a different reading here.
3. "The Economic Religion of Michael Novak", by Mark & Louse Zwick. Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. 18, No. 3, May-June, 1999.
4. "Capitalism Betrayed", by Peggy Noonan. Wall Street Journal. June 28, 2002.
   
5. Michael Novak: Enron Man, by Mark & Louse Zwick. Houston Catholic Worker, Vol. XXII, No. 5, September-October 2002.
6. Letter from Michael Novak and Editors' Response Houston Catholic Worker circa. 1997.
7. "How Christianity Created Capitalism". Religion & Liberty, May-June 2000. That the success of the free market and Western society is utterly dependent on its rootedness in the practice of Christian virtues is the chief lesson I get from reading Novak.
   Another article worthy of reading in the same publication is "The International Vocation of American Business" (July-August 1999), on a topic close to the Zwick's heart: the economic collaberation of certain corporations with nations who turn a blind eye to human rights and civil liberty.
8. Against Neoliberalism, by Richard John Neuhaus. First Things 95 (August/September 1999).
9. For a good introduction to Michael Novak's thought, and an overview of many of the same books mentioned by Mark & Louise Zwick, see "Michael Novak's Portrait of Democratic Capitalism", by Edward W. Younkins. Markets & Morality. Vol. 2, No. 9 Spring 1999.