BishopAccountability.org
	Dreher and Neuhaus The American Scene January 11, 2009 http://theamericanscene.com/2009/01/09/dreher-and-neuhaus Over at Rod Dreher’s place, a few commenters are unhappy with Rod for his post in which he relates some unpleasant experiences he had with Richard John Neuhaus — in particular, an episode in which Neuhaus simply shouted at Rod in an attempt to dissuade him from writing about sexual abuse by Catholic priests and its coverup by Catholic bishops. “Don’t speak ill of the dead” is the general view among this set of readers. Well, first of all, most of them are neglecting the many very positive things Rod says about Father Neuhaus. And second, I think it’s okay to tell the truth about the dead, even when that truth is not so pleasant, as long as one is fair and balanced (to coin a phrase). But still, there is something that troubles me about Rod’s story. If someone has mistreated you, or done anything discreditable in your presence in private, and you wait until he is dead to tell the story in public, you’re ensuring that he doesn't get the opportunity to give his side of the story, to clarify or correct — and above all, to apologize and ask for forgiveness. He is forever, and publicly, the person who acted badly towards you; whereas if the story had been told while he was still alive, he could have been the person who repented and apologized for such behavior. The story Rod tells is not malicious — it makes a legitimate and germane point about the varying attitudes of equally committed Catholics to the clergy abuse scandals — but it would have been equally germane to any number of pieces Rod has written about these matters in the past few years. So while I don't think Rod was simply wrong to tell the story now, I don't think his decision was the best one. I wish he had published the story while Father Neuhaus was alive, or not published it at all. Leave a Reply 1. Being who you are, Alan, I suspect you’ll have an opinion on this, and so I’ll say it: your argument made me think about Orson Scott Card’s Speaker for the Dead, and the idea that only after one has died can the whole truth—meaning, the whole story of a life—be told in such a way as to bringing healing to a community. (Though it occurs to me that, during the climactic “speaking” of that book, Card gives us a Catholic priest who thinks to himself about how much more appropriate it would have been in Ender had spoken what he did in confession, rather than in public.) Anyway, any thoughts? — Russell Arben Fox · Jan 9, 04:56 PM · # 2. It’s been a long time since I’ve read that book, Russell, but I think it’s interesting that Ender’s career as Speaker begins when he feels morally compelled to tell the story of those whom he has killed. Which raises all sorts of questions about who is qualified, who is worthy, to tell the story of a life. I actually discuss at some length the issue of how and when the narrative of a whole life can be told in my book Looking Before and After. (Sorry for the self-plug.) — Alan Jacobs · Jan 9, 05:06 PM · # 3. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. I’m a long-time reader of Dreher’s blog (as well as a long-time admirer of your work), but I was deeply put off by Rod’s post on Fr. Neuhaus. I have to ask: When you say that “most of them are neglecting the many very positive things Rod says about Father Neuhaus,” what “many very positive things” are you thinking of? The post in question has almost nothing “very positive” in it. Count them on the fingers of one hand: Neuhaus was “no patsy of the bishops” (bad bishops!). He had an “unexpectedly charitable” public response to Dreher’s conversion (apparently, Dreher was expecting an uncharitable, or at least less charitable, response). And, um, not much else. And even those comments have a backhand to them. In the combox Dreyer protests that “It should be clear from all my remarks here that I had a lot of respect for Fr. Neuhaus, and think the good he did far outweighed his faults,” adding, “I’ve been posting laudatory commentary about RJN all day long, in several posts.” Maybe. I can only find one or two such posts — not “several” — and the “laudatory commentary” he refers to appears to be mostly OTHER people’s commentary — not Dreher’s own. (It’s not all laudatory either, but I don’t want to start splitting hairs.) From Dreher HIMSELF, I can only find one snippet that could remotely be called “laudatory,” a couple of paragraphs he wrote for the Washington Post. And even those paragraphs are mixed — one might say “balanced” — a blend of praise and the kind of criticism to which Dreher devoted his subsequent hatchet piece. In short, after writing a couple of arguably balanced paragraphs for the Washington Post, Dreher proceeded to distill from those paragraphs only the negative content, and then expanded those into a much longer blog post that almost totally ignores anything positive. Had he also developed further the positive side of his WaPo comments — or at least linked to them, for crying out loud — people going by this one post might not come away with the impression that Dreher has only bad things to say about Neuhaus. As it is, that’s the impression the post gives. So, I don’t think that Rod’s critics are guilty of “neglecting the many very positive things Rod says about Father Neuhaus.” Not at all. — SDG · Jan 9, 05:12 PM · # 4. SDG, In an earlier post Rod wrote, “He and I have had our differences, but his contribution to the intellectual life of American religion these past 20 or 30 years, and to the good work of strengthening the bonds among Catholics, Evangelicals and Jews, is hard to overstate.” That’s pretty high praise, isn’t it? And he spoke movingly in the Times piece, I though, about how, when he had left Catholicism and was getting hammered for it, “Fr. Neuhaus responded in his column with a graceful farewell.” There are other words of praise too. I think those should be acknowledged, that’s all. — Alan Jacobs · Jan 9, 05:50 PM · # 5. A comment from an outsider unfamiliar with the various intrigues and conflicts: Through the years I have enjoyed several First Things articles and reviews. Ironically, my least favorite author was Father Neuhaus. His style reminded me too much of committed, smart and articulate Marxist ideologues I have come across in my life. Such Marxists enjoyed a good debate, but only up to a certain point. After that doctrine and ideological commitment trumped honest debate and they simply became apologists. I ended up usually avoided reading Father Neuhaus’s pieces. Perhaps I’m being unfair, but I’m writing of my impressions as an occasional First Things reader who has never met Father Neuhaus in person. I don’t know whether Rod Dreher did the right thing. I have to admit, though, that what he wrote about Father Neuhaus complaining to Bill Buckley resulting in Dreher’s not being allowed to write about the scandal in the National Review came as a shock to me. I didn’t know that and, frankly, it doesn’t reflect well on either Neuhaus or Buckley. Once again, this is all from an outsider’s perspective who is not privy to the details. — Kolya · Jan 9, 08:06 PM · # 6. My deep apologies for the terribly written comment above. English is not my native language, but that’s not good enough of an excuse. — Kolya · Jan 10, 04:40 AM · # 7. Dreher has subsequently posted he may have been mis-informed about the perceived suppression of his work. — Julana · Jan 10, 10:00 AM · # 8. Thanks, Julana. Then Dreher was plainly wrong in writing about it in the first place. From reading his post I assumed he got a direct order from Buckley—that there was no speculation on Dreher’s part. — Kolya · Jan 10, 12:43 PM · # 9. Being troubled that Rod Dreher uses the death of a Catholic priest as a stick to smack a Catholic bishop is like being troubled that a bear did his business in the woods. — Pauli · Jan 11, 01:25 AM · # 10. “Stop Donating Laity!” as St. Peter Damien correctly postulated and asserted. It Is The ONLY Solution. www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for daily verified & vetted reporting on the ongoing, no end in site, unpunished & unremoved curia criminal conduct, with no wavering of their motto = ISAIAH 28:15. Fiat Lux & Veritas! Albino Luciani, MURDERED POPE, NOT Smiling, From Heaven — Albino Luciani · Jan 11, 03:28 PM · # 11. I, too, am a frequent visitor to Rod’s crunchycon blog, and I cringed when I read his swipe at Father Neuhaus. (I am also a devoted First Things subscriber). It struck me as witheringly self-serving, to do so at a moment typically reserved for tributes. And to be fair, it isn’t Dreher’s usual m.o., except in matters involving the Catholic church, which he never tires at disparaging. He seems to take the view that prominent Catholics — such as Father Neuhaus— are somehow holocaust deniers if they don’t keep the spotlight trained on the sex abuse crisis. I wish I could convey to Rod that there are witnesses to the aftermath out there — like me — who in some small way would rather lend a hand in building the church— perhaps I should say re-building—than in wallowing in her ashes. There’s more to the Church than this ignominious episode. Two years ago, my parish lost its paster for decades-old sexual misconduct allegations. Yes, many parishioners got disgusted and left. Those who stayed have transformed our parish into a vibrant new community, where ACTS retreats and Eucharistic adoration suddenly are welcome and well attended. There were some difficult, dark days. Unpleasant things to confront. But as Catholics we are not to invest inordinately in the personality of our priests. I cannot tell you with what fresh urgency I heard our new pastor recite the familiar words, “Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim church on earth.” Father Neuhaus loved the church, and his prolific output helped readers like me develop a deeper appreciation of our faith tradition during one of its darkest, loneliest moments. The loss of his gift is incalculable. — carolineW · Jan 11, 06:58 PM · #
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.