Resignation of America editor should not surprise Catholics, expert says

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is Editor in Chief of FIRST THINGS Magazine.

He called Fr. Reese his friend and defended him as a man who works for the Church and has taken a vow of service and loyalty to the Church and the Pope.

This is the kind of bologna that makes me crazy...

He said Fr. Reese seemed to have “seriously misunderstood” the notions of fairness and balance and confused them with neutrality.

That's not all he seriously misunderstood. Catholics deserve to be served by priests who present the true Catholic faith with intelligence, reverence, and clarity. We...uh...used to study how to do that when I was taught by the loyal sons of the Society of Jesus. What happened?

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is amazing.

I just renewed my subscription :-D

Remember, Neuhaus started out as a liberal Lutheran. He still seems to have a few soft spots. Real Catholics less familiar with buying into positions of power within the church take the liberalization and de-Catholicization of Catholic institutions with slightly less humor.

“The problem was a basic mistake in editorial policy,” explained Fr. Neuhaus. “It was thought that being ‘fair and balanced’ required publishing on an equal footing articles that supported and articles that opposed the Church's teaching, as though the Church's teaching was but one opinion among others.”

I love clear thinking.

The intellectual error of indifferentism is epidemic in our country, and has been for as long as I can remember. It's rooted in the common misunderstanding of the First Amendment. "Freedom of speech" means the political freedom to express political opinions, even if erroneous. The political toleration of error is properly based on a prudential judgement regarding the overall good to society of such a position, as against a political system where political errors are suppressed.

But no one enjoys an absolute God-given right to promote falsehood or error. Such a position is absurd, since God is Truth itself.

We are all morally obligated to tell the truth, to the best of our abilities, at all times. A corollary of this principle is that we are morally obligated not to provide a platform for error, except in the context of refuting an error.

The media operates on the assumption that for every idea there is an equal and opposite idea. This is simply false. The theory is also self-contradictory, since it's a truth claim.

Remember, Neuhaus started out as a liberal Lutheran. He still seems to have a few soft spots. Real Catholics less familiar with buying into positions of power within the church take the liberalization and de-Catholicization of Catholic institutions with slightly less humor.

This is a cowardly cheap shot at Neuhaus. You ignore the careful distinctions Neuhaus makes and resort to an ad hominem attack against his Lutheran background. Take issue with his interpretation of "l'affaire Reese" if you wish, but save the cheap shots for your drinking buddies.

Neuhaus effectively is saying that the Vatican pressure was aimed only secondarily at Reese and primarily at America. In other words, Ratzinger while still at the CDF was telling America (and aiming the message through this magazine to the other Catholic intellectuals) that it's one thing to try to play the "neutral" and "give both sides" game when matters truly have not yet been defined authoritatively, but that when this or that doctrine of faith or morals has been clearly defined by the Magisterium, to do the "give both sides" routine (unless it is aimed to help people better understand and accept the Magisterium's doctrine) actually constitutes a form of dissent.

I wrote on an earlier thread on Reese that the decision was primarily aimed at the magazine, not at Reese. Neuhaus makes this clearer: Ratzinger at the CDF played a masterstroke. The whole cover that the Jebbies and other Catholic intellectuals have been using for decades is based on a two-part strategy: (1) never openly oppose settled doctrine--to do that is to invite being labeled a dissenter and have the label stick--that kind of open defiance, they would say, is okay for extremists ike Daniel McGuire or Matthew Fox or Call to Action. But we are going to be more clever. We will avoid getting labeled as open dissenters while (2) at the same time introducing the dissenting arguments under the cover of "giving both sides."

For a long time they've gotten away with that. They go right up to the edge of openly challenging settled doctrine on, say, women "priets" but calculatingly stop short of directly opposing it. (And before anyone responds that they do openly challengee it, you need to read much more carefully what they write. I know because I teach among them and I know how they respond when accused of open dissent--the Reeses have very carefully stopped short of that; McBrien thought he had but actually crossed the line and got disciplined by the bishops for it; McGuire and CTA openly cross the line. If you are not aware of these differences, you need to become aware because that's how the quasi-dissenting types like Reese have survived so long.)

Ratzinger has nailed them. He has effectively called their bluff. He's said, it's only a game you are playing, thinking you can go right up to the line and just stop short of it. No, if you "give both sides" when one side has been clearly determined to be settled doctrine, you are being an unfaithful, disloyal Catholic.

I have said this to my colleagues repeatedly and they become furious and show me in excruciating detail just how they have avoided crossing the line. Their defense rests on fine distinctions that lay people don't see. Then they laugh at the conservative Catholic people who lump the Reese's in with CTA and McGuire--laugh at them as ignoramusess who don't know the subtleties of theology the way the Jebbies do.

Now Ratzinger has nailed them. He's said, those fine distinctions will not save you in cases where the Magisterium has clearly spoken, e.g., on ordination of women, stem cell research etc.

Of course they won't agree with him, of course they won't accept his verdict. They will grouse that he doesn't really understand the fine points of theology.

But he has nailed it down and they know he has blown their cover. They'll grouse, yes, but they'll also stop playing this game, at least to some degree and in some ways. They'll either boldly cross the line into open dissent with the CTAers etc. or they will back away and be more cautious about playing the "giving both sides" game.

What is gained from that? Well, at least some of the great unwashed middle-brow Catholic faithful (college students etc.) will no longer have dissenting positions thrown quite so openly in their faces as continuing to be "live options" for Catholics. Will it clean everything up? By no means. But it's a start, a warning shot across the bow, a putting on notice, not of the McGuires and CTA types but of the great middle ranks of the liberal Catholic dissenters who have done so much to befuddle the Catholic faithful precisely because they played this game of "presenting both sides" so well.

Cowardly? You don't even know anything about me or the courageous battles we have led in the church long before Rev. Neuhaus appeared. One might suspect his comments about "Father" Reese were merely charitable fraternal pieties in a spirit of intra-ecclesial ecumenism. Those of us who were born into the Catholic faith and have lived in accord with orthodoxy EVERY day of our lives (and paying the fees) are free to comment on and criticize the professional converts and any other nouveau Catholics who seek to define our faith and culture within the absurd context of modern U.S. culture. Btw, in the old days America was a MUCH BETTER magazine than FIRST THINGS.

Neuhaus is worth reading and I wish him well in his continuing education. Try to develop a sense of humor.

We agree on the basic points about the struggle within Catholicism.

William A. Donohue of The Catholic League also speaks favorably of Fr. Reese

Real Catholics less familiar with buying into positions of power within the church take the liberalization and de-Catholicization of Catholic institutions with slightly less humor.

Perhaps you're right. Humor, though, has always been an integral part of Fr. Neuhaus's writing and First Things in particular. I don't think his writing would be as captivating without it.

I liked The Naked Public Square and The Catholic Moment stuff.Fr. Neuhaus is a good man, a subtle thinker, and has made admirable contributions to the public debates about religion in modern America. It would be fair to say that even among the most sincere, humble, well-intentioned, and piously orthodox-minded converts that there are areas where cultural attitudes, ideas, and sensibilities from Protestantism or American modernism persist along with a lack of precise familiarity with some aspects of Catholic culture and institutions.

Reese seems to represent the unfortunate Harvardization or perhaps Berkeleyization of the American Society of Jesus. This may come across as more obnoxious, absurd, and ridiculous to cradle Catholics who grew up in the old Jesuit school/college culture when things were orthodox and very Catholic. Someone from a Protestant background might not find this as irritating and ridiculous as we do.

James Hitchcock's book The Pope and The Jesuits details some of the more unsavory aspects of the neo-modernist revolution in the American Jesuits. That documentation and historical background would illuminate some of this brouhaha surrounding Reese and America. But you have to be able to understand what Catholic culture was like before the 1960s to "get" how absurd the new America was and is.

There are better Jesuit scholars who could revive America magazine and help restore the Catholic faith within Catholic institutions.

Reese seems to represent the unfortunate Harvardization or perhaps Berkeleyization of the American Society of Jesus. This may come across as more obnoxious, absurd, and ridiculous to cradle Catholics who grew up in the old Jesuit school/college culture when things were orthodox and very Catholic.

Maybe you're right. I was born in '75, and the Jesuits have always represented heterodoxy, homosexuality, liberalism, and all other things that I dislike. Indeed, I never remember the SJ being very respected or respectable. None of the orthodox young people I've ever known have ever said that they were going to enter the SJ.

Do either of you recall the original title of America back in the day (before my time)? I know it was Latin... I'm just curious.

I do think it is noteworthy that this situation is being handled with a view to the long term integrity of this publication and the Jesuits. It could happen.

Well, it's a fascinating development in terms of the recent modern history of the Society of Jesus. And a little surprising that more of a fight was not put up. Makes one wonder what the precise issues were.

It's very hard to construct a clear picture from these spotty news accounts from journalists. What we really need is a more vigorous and scholarly Catholic journalism culture that spells things out. Hopefully, in time, we will see that again. Spirited debate, in the long term, is good for the church and good for the Catholic faith.

You don't even know anything about me or the courageous battles we have led in the church long before Rev. Neuhaus appeared. One might suspect his comments about "Father" Reese were merely charitable fraternal pieties in a spirit of intra-ecclesial ecumenism. Those of us who were born into the Catholic faith and have lived in accord with orthodoxy EVERY day of our lives (and paying the fees) are free to comment on and criticize the professional converts and any other nouveau Catholics who seek to define our faith and culture within the absurd context of modern U.S. culture. Btw, in the old days America was a MUCH BETTER magazine than FIRST THINGS.

Neuhaus is worth reading and I wish him well in his continuing education. Try to develop a sense of humor.

Okay, so you are not cowardly. Just extremely prejudiced and condescending toward converts to Catholicism. Choose your poison, but it will poison you. Now you accuse Neuhaus of hypocrisy. Then you end with a condescending stab in the back about his continuing education and top it off with an appeal to a sense of humor. Which part of what you wrote did you intend as a joke? I'd be glad to laugh with you if you could just be a bit clearer about which part of your bile you intended as humor.

I honor you for whatever heroic struggles you have fought in for the sake of the Church. But prejudice and bile against Neuhaus, which you then extend to all converts (talk about blanket accusations), is devoid of Christian and Catholic charity. This attitude will not only poison you but poison the people around you with whom you fight for the Church. Please, for the sake of Christ, reconsider.

You don't even know anything about me or the courageous battles we have led in the church long before Rev. Neuhaus appeared. One might suspect his comments about "Father" Reese were merely charitable fraternal pieties in a spirit of intra-ecclesial ecumenism. Those of us who were born into the Catholic faith and have lived in accord with orthodoxy EVERY day of our lives (and paying the fees) are free to comment on and criticize the professional converts and any other nouveau Catholics who seek to define our faith and culture within the absurd context of modern U.S. culture. Btw, in the old days America was a MUCH BETTER magazine than FIRST THINGS.

Neuhaus is worth reading and I wish him well in his continuing education. Try to develop a sense of humor.

Okay, so you are not cowardly. Just extremely prejudiced and condescending toward converts to Catholicism. Choose your poison, but it will poison you. Now you accuse Neuhaus of hypocrisy. Then you end with a condescending stab in the back about his continuing education and top it off with an appeal to a sense of humor. Which part of what you wrote did you intend as a joke? I'd be glad to laugh with you if you could just be a bit clearer about which part of your bile you intended as humor.

I honor you for whatever heroic struggles you have fought in for the sake of the Church. But prejudice and bile against Neuhaus, which you then extend to all converts (talk about blanket accusations), is devoid of Christian and Catholic charity. This attitude will not only poison you but poison the people around you with whom you fight for the Church. Please, for the sake of Christ, reconsider.

Apologies for the double posting. My error

Ping!