Cardinal George Issues Statement Praising Father Richard John Neuhaus

From Catholic News Agency:

Many are grateful for the service that Father Richard John Neuhaus offered to the entire Church, especially through his contributions at the Institute on Religion and Public Life. He was an exemplary priest and a personal friend.”

As the testimonials from persons of all faiths have shown, Father Neuhaus's work in the area of ecumenism was appreciated by those who saw the importance of working together for the common good of our nation. He had the ability to engage in dialog that was intellectually honest, fully respecting each person while remaining true to his own faith.

Father Neuhaus will be deeply missed. His life and work were a great gift to the Church and to the country he loved so much. It is my prayer that the Lord will bring him quickly home."

Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago
President, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Pikkumatti's Comment

Pikkumatti's comment deserves a post of it's own.

I was wondering what it is about Dreher that gets all of our danders up. Pauli's blog is relatively quiet, but then we have a Dreher-related post and blammy.

And then Pauli nails it. It isn't so much that the crunchy One left our Church -- that happens all the time. It isn't so much that he is a conservative poser -- we've got plenty of those around, esp. in Congress.

It is that he poses as a conservative somewhat-Orthodox Christian to the non-believing or fringe-believing "intellectual" world (think Franklin the pagan), and trashes the Church in front of them. (Ditto for conservative issues, but that hits a duller nerve.)

As I wrote back at the time of the Great Orthodox Conversion, it was as though he tossed a stink bomb into a party that he just left. And then called a crowd outside the house to watch the mayhem through the windows. We couldn't help but defend the Church, but to the outsiders, that defense couldn't help but appear ungracious at the least.

And the pagans et al think that Dreher himself plus the harsh words of the defenders are what the Church is all about. Either we are snobs who claim to care about Truth but will change our views for issue-convenience (Dreher) or we are just a bunch of touchy nutcases.

As Pauli said, we appear as believers in a system with no internal logic. And that unfair and incorrect appearance is not only annoying, but in fact is the deepest cut -- made by someone who should know better. That is what gets to me about him, anyway.

I think that's a good summary of what infuriates the infuriated.

Another reader remarked on the phenomenon of Rod Dreher being the one topic causing the most comments on the blog. That was about a year ago. I laughed at the time, and I still do. Although I don't post things merely for the sake of comments, it's obvious that comments―among other indicators―serve to demonstrate the interest level on the topic being blogged. But here's something else interesting to note. Over the last few days, a good portion of the hits on my humble blog have been coming from a google search of "dreher neuhaus", so it's not just the usual suspects driving up the interest level, outsiders―those not involved in the original discussions―are interested in this topic, too.

Also, I suppose I should find someone to blame for using a big nasty bowling word in said comment section. Well, I was watching this and this along with other Steeler-related material which might account for a spike in testosterone levels. This is not to mention 4-hours of Jack Bauer to kick-off the week. But it's possible that I'm just a crude human being who's prone to crudeness now and then. So let that be a lesson to me.

BTW, Tom, the Ravens are going down, mutha.



Update: To be fair, not everything that goes on over here makes Christianity look good to all people either, and maybe I ought to think about cleaning up my act a bit (burrrp.)

Joseph Bottum on the Father Neuhaus Obituaries by Dreher and Linker

Joseph Bottum says he felt as if he needed to say something about Damon Linker's snot-nosed obit and Dreher's "attack", as he terms it. I'm glad he did. If you haven't read Linker's pitiful obit and don't want to, he basically calls Father a two-faced son-of-a-bitch. Here's what Bottum says about Dreher's:

The second consists of Rod Dreher’s postings over at Beliefnet. Again, if you’re interested and want to read a reasonable response, Alan Jacobs has taken on the burden. My own reaction is much like Alan’s: The duties we owe to the dead are different from the duties we owe to the living; if you’re going to attack someone with a personal story, you need to do it while they are alive. I made a parallel point about parents last year, in a long essay called “The Judgment of Memory,” which may be worth quoting:

Every memoir of childhood is necessarily overshadowed by parents, and I could find, were I to turn my mind that way, stories of my father’s drinking, his pretension, his bounce.

But my father, being dead, is not here either to be triumphed over by my telling of those stories or to defend himself against them. The death of parents leaves their honor in their children’s hands, and the cruel accuracies we might fling in anger against them while they are alive seem even more wrong to use against them once they are gone. “To the living, we owe respect; to the dead, only truth,” Voltaire once opined. It’s a good line: high-minded, confident, sententious in the way only enlightened French philosophes could manage with any aplomb. But it also feels exactly backward, particularly about those we knew and loved. To squabble with our vanished parents about how they lived their lives seems more than a metaphysical nullity. It is, in fact, a moral failing.

Rod and I were friends, I thought, or, at least, we spent some fun days together in Rome once. But then, a while ago, he used me as an occasion for an unpleasant column he wrote attacking Scooter Libby. I guess I should have understood, and, no doubt, he felt it all strongly. But, in truth, that cashing in of a friendship for the sake of scoring a transient political point was as painful an experience as I’ve had in public life, and Rod Dreher’s eagerness to do it weakened my ability to trust the kind of points he now wants to score by cashing in on his acquaintance with Fr. Neuhaus.

Whoa... I had to read that last paragraph a second time. Strong stuff. I wonder if Rod will go for a hat-trick with Bottum and say something about his mother.

But would Rod Dreher use people like this? Would he "cash them in for political points"? Ironically enough, Dreher wrote a rambling post yesterday semi-regretting what he called the "dust-up over my Neuhaus posting". You have to read it to believe it--he actually partially blames Damon Linker for his attack on Neuhaus. Then he claims that he has a sort of "writer's autism" which blinds him from foreseeing any of the consequences of his writing, then he compares himself to Truman Capote who lost friends by blasting at them in his gossip column....

Well, I just decided I'm not going to re-post any of it here, nor any of the comments which I found hilarious because frankly, and I'm completely sincere, it really made me feel pity for the guy. Furthermore I think I'm done with the man for awhile. That post was written after Bottum's; perhaps the Capote remark was occasioned by his reading it. And maybe he's realizing that you can't just write or say whatever you want whenever you want, something we should all take to heart.

I'm turning off comments to this post, something I rarely do.

More Reactions from Rod Dreher's Dance on Father Neuhaus's Grave

Roland de Chanson made this comment on the original post, date-stamped January 9, 2009 10:32 PM:

Rod,

You have deleted posts by authors whose kind words I acknowledged in my reply. I must therefore look like a fool in replying to comments ostensibly never made. I acknowledge your right to censor any and all respondents to your blog, but I am dismayed that you would delete posts from a person or persons (whom I in any event do not know either by name or reputation) which are neither scurrilous nor defamatory nor even mildly provocative and even in some cases quite amusing.

If you wish to delete my posts as well, please do not feel constrained in so doing. I enjoy reading your articles here and in DMN and I agree with you more often than not, but in this instance I am afraid you have transgressed the bounds not only of civilised propriety but also of Christian charity, in that you have profaned the obsequies (pokhorony) of Fr. Neuhaus for your own picayune vindication. You are hardly a nonentity; you ought to have enough confidence in your own integrity and reputation that you might eventually be proven more correct in your assessment of the scandal than Fr. Neuhaus, if indeed history ultimately justifies you. All things in the fullness of time.

As one born a Catholic, I have nothing but the utmost reverence for those who find their way to Rome, given the intellectual and spiritual obstacles history has thrust into the path of conversion. And I was greatly moved by the story of your own conversion. I cannot disagree with your sense of betrayal and disgust during the heyday of the homosexual scandal. But, as I know you are well read in history, I found it preposterous that you abandoned your religion because of the failings of mere men. As I have written here several times before, I love the Byzantine churches, both Orthodox and Uniat, and have been overwhelmed with the transcendence of their liturgies, yet, despite my contempt for the perpetrators and facilitators of the scandal, I cannot think that a sufficient reason for apostasy.

Censor me too if you wish. But, from a bad Catholic to a bad Orthodox, let us hope we both learn a bit of the charity of Christ.

Rod's response to this: "....I don't think it would be fair or accurate to judge John Paul II's papacy (for example) by his failure to govern the Church well. The man was, in my view, a saint, and his greatness is assured. And yet, the way he handled, or mishandled, the sexual abuse crisis was part of who he was, and showed his humanity." In other words, even saints need journalists to interpret their lives properly for the faithful. As for plain old Catholic clergymen, who better to moonlight as all-around advocatus diaboli than Mr. Part-time-chicken-farmer himself, our Working Boy!

Here's another thoughtful comment from "Disappointed Reader":

Since discovering your book and blog several years ago, I have been a devoted reader and fan, but the handling of Fr. Neuhaus’s death on these pages has me questioning whether I should continue to read and recommend your writings.

As someone who is not just a blogger but also a journalist, don’t you have an obligation to verify a derogatory story about a public figure? Perhaps before accusing someone in a public forum of bullying and censorship, you might send a simple email to check with your former boss and see if you had the facts straight?

As a reader this whole affair raises serious doubts in my mind about how much weight to give to your writing. If this is how you treat someone whom you claim to respect greatly and who hasn’t even been dead for a week, should I accept as fair and balanced your representations of those you disagree with?

I have read Fr. Neuhaus for years and while I disagreed with him on several issues, I felt his death as a real loss. Now added to that, I feel I might also need to stop reading a blog that has been a daily part of my life for a long time. Say what you will, your treatment of Fr. Neuhaus here strikes me as a failure of journalistic integrity, civility, and Christian charity. With those qualities called into question, I’m not sure why I should continue to read this blog.

Anyone want to attempt to convince D.R. to continue reading the crunchy blog? Bueller?

Alan Jacobs posted this at The American Scene, a Dreher-friendly mag for sure. It's basically a brief "common sense and manners 101" for folks who have forgotten about this and this:

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.

And last but not least, Simple Sinner's piece is a must-read. Excerpt:

In this swipe & smear piece where Dreher takes opportunity to further reflect on his hobby-horse - the priestly sex scandals… Well the hobby horse, ever inching its way across the blogosphere carpet, arrives just in time to rock across the as-yet unburied body of the very recently late and much beloved convert priest.

I hope the ratings are worth it.

From the above-linked post, Dreher tells us...

I tell you this story not to speak ill of Father Neuhaus,

...But then goes on to offer unverifiable (and now somewhat retracted) comments about interchanges that the now-dead priest can neither deny, affirm, corroborate or correct.

Had a priest of Neuhaus’s immense gifts and stature spoken out on behalf of Catholic victims and their families earlier, or at least not have stood up for them when he ought to have been calling them out, who knows how much good might have been done, and suffering might have been avoided?

If he had troubled to put himself in the position of Catholic mothers and fathers instead of the high-ranking churchmen who were his usual milieu, maybe it would have changed his views.

Gee, Rod, no incongruency at all in noting that you are not out to speak ill of the dead (before his body has been committed to the ground) before criticizing him in this highly emotive way.

Rod also makes mention of his deleting comments by our friend Diane, so maybe she could enlighten us about other reactions. Please bring to my attention any other reactions, especially those defending Dreher's remarks.

AFAIK, Mark Shea has not commented yet.

The "and me" meme should be drowned, slowly

This reminds me of this.

Rod Dreher loves dancing on graves. Watch him do the Watusi....