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.

National Review's Excellent Tribute to Father Neuhaus

Read the whole thing here. Intro:

Richard John Neuhaus, who died earlier today in New York, was the most influential Catholic and Christian theologian and writer in America during the second half of the 20th century. His influence can be compared to that of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, with one important distinction: Fulton Sheen exercised his sway over the public directly, through his radio and television sermons. Father Neuhaus did so less directly, through his books and articles, through his editorship of two important magazines devoted to religion and politics, through his friendship with Pope John Paul II, and through his impact on other theologians both in the Catholic Church and in other Christian congregations. Partly for those reasons, however, Neuhaus’s influence is likely to be the deeper, longer-lasting and more extensive one.

The Acton Institute's Fr. Robert Sirico also has a great article.

It turns out that there is a lot you can say about this man without descending into dubious personal anecdotes in order to smear him.

Palestinian Demonstration

Comments welcome.

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....

Deep Thoughts About Redefining Marriage

Yesterday I posted this latest contribution to Alexandria for the redefinition of marriage continuing discussion. Now I just checked and there are a lot more comments than I had expected. I haven't read them all yet, and I'm not sure when/if I will being out-of-town on business currently. I threw up a few obligatory retorts, remaining in the character of the original snark.

In all seriousness, the mistaken notion that two dudes or two women can get married and it's just as much a marriage as a traditional union between a man and a woman is just as silly as it is wrong. It reminds me of the Deep Thought: "To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." In fact, I can't help thinking about Jack Handey of Deep Thoughts fame whenever I read the ultra-seriousness of the dinner party elites on the topic of so-called "same-sex marriage". My eyes roll uncontrollably when they ruminate about how the redefinition of marriage is necessary to solve social ills such as dying old people not being able to receive visitors in the hospital. Please.

As fans of Handey know, one of his tricks is to mock something which begins like a lofty aspiration and twist the ending to show how it is really just a platitudinous inanity. For example,

I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.

or here's another:

The first thing was, I learned to forgive myself. Then, I told myself, "Go ahead and do whatever you want, it's okay by me."

If you are a serious fan of Handey like I am and own or have read What I'd say to the Martians, then you know that in it he takes an extended shot at the concept of a sex change operation by comparing having the procedure to getting a tattoo when he was drunk. In my estimation, I'm not nearly as skilled or funny as Handey. But I'm working with what I got to shed some sunlight on infected thinking. As the man himself hath said:

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.

If you're shooting blanks, the pill gets your thanks

Well, I already posted about "pillution" here, but LifeSite news has the scoop now, and it ain't just fish, fellas.

VATICAN CITY, January 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An eminent doctor writing for the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has stated that hormones from the contraceptive pill are causing a significant rise in male infertility in western nations.

Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, President of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations (FIAMC), writes that "we have sufficient data to affirm that one of the reasons for the not insignificant rise in male infertility in the west (due to increasingly fewer sperm in men), is the environmental contamination caused by 'the pill'."

"We are confronted with a clear anti-ecological effect that demands further explanation from the manufacturers," continued Castellvi, who also noted that the abortifacient and carcinogenic effects of the contraceptive pill are also well known (see LifeSiteNews coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010504.html).

Castellvi's statements echo similar utterances made by numerous other medical and scientific experts since 2004. Female hormones from birth control pills, which enter the water supply through urination, are being blamed for declining sperm counts in human and animal populations, the growth of female sex organs in male fish, breast growth in young men, and early onset of puberty in young girls.

In September of last year, a scientist at the University of Montreal's Department of Chemistry announced the discovery that Montreal's water treatment plant was dumping estrogen products into rivers at a level 90 times the critical amount, a level far beyond the minimum for disrupting the fertility of fish.

Last week, Mexico's Secretariat of Health issued a warning that use of the contraceptive pill during pregnancy could raise the risk of "genital ambiguity," also known as hermaphrodism, in newborns.

I think we should start a campaign to combat this. Basically here's all it takes: get informed and tell people you know this is happening. Every other health hazard is reported in the news, when it's not over-reported. But the pill is a sacred cow. This observed phenomenon will receive scant coverage. Tell people that also. Learn the names from the article and google them. Check it out:

Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi - Pedro is a bold man fro speakin' truth ta power and he's naturally getting some bad press; let's get the truth out.

Liza Viglino - Liza's doing the research on the transgendered fish. We want them to end up in fish nets, not fish net stockings.

I'll let you people do the rest. Power to the people!

"Put your raygun to my head..."

I have vivid memories of viewing a beat up VHS of the entire concert movie from which this is pulled with a college friend back when I was still way into punk, music in general and the entire art of performing rock, especially the mysterious concept known in the music business as "creating a presence". The way I see it, this performance of David Bowie/Ziggy Stardust at the Hammersmith in 1973 will hold up forever, or at least as long as people give a guitar lick about what Rev. Timothy Lovejoy referred to as "rock and/or roll". It features incredible musicianship and flawless stagecraft in delivering the demands message. The words of the "message" epitomize just about every excess of which the rock genre can be rightfully accused, viz., sexual messianism, absurd science fiction references, cultural jargon ("lay the real thing on me") and frequent descents into whimsical gibberish ("squawking like a pink monkey bird"). The performance features include ecstatic chicks fawning in the audience, intense gender confusion and a long, self-indulgent, effect-laden guitar solo replete with shots of guitarist Mick Ronson's made-up face contorted with pantomimed ecstasies. Plus there are dozens of little nuggets and gems: narcissistic gesticulations, smirks, pouts, poses, pelvic grinds, blowing of kisses, falsetto chirps and departures from the melody into melodramatic sprechstimme. In other words, it's orgiastic psychedelia served up with customary British pomp, circumstance, costumes and a mostly straight face. The British might not be able to say they invented rock, but idols like Bowie and Bolan contributed tremendously toward the development of the "glamour of rock", aptly named as such.

I love how Bowie promptly struts off the stage around 3:40 after raising his hands in a final blessing. Personally I think that the erstwhile Mr. Jones is playing Mercury to Mick Ronson's Zeus here, but that's just me. Actually, the rhythm guitarist here is John "Hutch" Hutchinson who deserves as much credit for the sound of the performance as does Mick, but maybe not as much for the pomposity or decadence of the video. It's to bad that Groupie Number Four gets more face time than Hutch whose signature crunch guitar initiates the song and propels the rhythm throughout, allowing Ronson to freak out on the lead as the lyrics continually demand.

Check out the happy hand jive from 0:52-1:09―I want what she's having.

Twenty or so years after the roadies packed this show onto the lorries, Jennifer Lopez had Versace alter Mick Ronson's silk PJ's from this tour and famously wore it to the Oscars.

Don't get me wrong; as much as I love to make fun of this thing it still blows me away every time I check it out. Besides, without stuff like this we'd never have This is Spinal Tap.

----------

(1) There's a word for this practice but I can't think of what it is. My oldest son does this completely naturally in his version of Frosty the Snowman -- scary. [UPDATE: Sprechstimme! Thanks, Kathleen. I put it in there.]