"Pope Benedict XVI". I like the sound of it. He invokes the patron of Europe,
and establishes that he is a man of tradition, of roots. But what is that sound?
From the shrinking camps of the Catholic modernists there is wailing and
gnashing of teeth. There are cheers on the Right, though I doubt that will last,
at least among those for whom Republican politics and Catholic orthodoxy seem a
neat fit: Joseph Ratzinger has been, if anything, a more strident critic of
capitalism than Pope John Paul II. He has questioned whether modern warfare can
ever be justified [Benedict XV, whose name he has taken, was a near-pacifist],
he has criticized American cultural dominance, and has even noted the negative
influence of modern technology on the religious imagination.
I suspect the Catholic neocons are even now heading for the high ground,
and discussing tactics for influencing the selection of the next pope.
Not that one would expect criticism; they changed tactics in the early 80s to
flattery and subterfuge, which have served them well.
John Paul II was loved and admired, even by many who took issue with his
teachings; and there were few who did not find something to take issue with, as
the late Pope refused to be bound by the human categories of Left and
Right.
I doubt, though, that Pope Benedict XVI will be so loved He already is
despised by many [barely] within the Church. Indeed, while I expect a strong
pontificate that will continue the Reform of the Catholic Church begun by his
predecessor, I also expect that he will be widely vilified, even hated. By all
accounts a soft-spoken, scholarly man, lacking the raw charisma of John Paul
II, and I fear he will suffer much. From his youth in World War II Germany to
his association with the successor to the Inquisition, he will be easy to
caricaturize. Brace yourselves, and hold on for what will undoubtably be a
controversial, and splendid pontificate.
–Daniel Nichols
I don’t have any (or not much) disagreement with the substance of what you say, but you really ought to consider finding another term than “neocon.” It’s really lost whatever utility it ever had. For most people who use it now it seems to function only as a more pejorative variant on “conservative.” Some journalist the other day referred to Ratzinger himself as a neoconservative.
Aw, how can you ask me not to use the term they coined for themselves, at just the time [thanks to the Iraq War] that it is beginning to sound like a dirty word?
That some ignorant journalist misuses it is no reason to discard it, else we would have little language left to use.
After reading your post I am convinced more than ever to pray for our new Pope. I hope I will be challenged by what he says because Catholicism is not supposed to be comfortable and happy with the status quo. But I see that as a good thing and I will be cheering our new Pope on!
Question is (about “neocon”): is there enough agreement on what it means that it’s useful? I mean, other than as an insult? (And you know it’s always been a dirty word for you.)
I don’t think it has a clear definition that would not include me, unless you just limit it to the original handful of people to whom it was applied back in the ’70s. Or at any rate to other specific people. Including me in it makes it pretty useless.
Maybe “Americanist” would be better? Not in the specific Catholic sense, but taken broadly, it gets at what’s in common, both philosophically and politically, between some conservatives and some liberals.
“What the Heck Is a ‘Neocon’?”
“Are You a Neocon?”
When I say “Catholic neoconservative” anyone conversant with Catholicism in the last two or three decades knows not only the opinions of which I speak but of whom I speak: Novak, Neuhaus, Wiegel, and their sphere of influence. When a word has such a precise meaning, why would I want another? Just because some fool of a journalist calls Pope Benedict a neo-con doesn’t mean much to me; I suspect we will hear him called many innacurate things in the months and years ahead.
Neocon is not used as a pejorative in reference to Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=28458&eng=y
True, qualifying “neocon” with “Catholic” does pin it down somewhat better, at least in the sense that one knows to whom it refers. But then: “..Novak, Neuhaus, Wiegel, and their sphere of influence.” The term seems to be directed against these specific people as much as against their opinions. If one accepts the definitions to which Franklin links, “neocon” would seem to be more concerned with foreign policy than anything else–which was certainly a major component of the original thing, and the Catholics you name are far more concerned with domestic matters, based at least on my middling amount of reading. At any rate they don’t have all that much in common with the guy in the first link, who seems somewhat indifferent to the social and moral issues which occupy a huge place in Neuhaus’s work (again, as far as I’ve read him). By the way I think his term “hard Wilsonianism” is much more precise and useful.
Well, I suppose it’s a waste of time to quibble over the term. I remain puzzled by the level of animosity Neuhaus et.al. provoke in some. I mean, I disagree with them on some things, heatedly so on occasion, but I just don’t see deep villainy there.
“Neoconservatism” means many things; “Catholic neoconservatism” is more specific. And they do have a foreign policy agenda: Novak went to Rome before the invasion of Iraq to try to get the Church to move toward accepting “pre-emptive war” as within the tradition of just war. He failed, thank God.
And now our former subscribers see the behind-the-scenes disagreements we have always had. You have never seen the Catholic neocons as being as insidious as I have thought them to be.
In the 80s most Catholics of an orthodox persuasion spent most of their energy in denouncing the liberal Catholic establishment, which pretty much was in control of the institutional Church at that time. I looked at the situation and foretold that they did not have long: they were not attracting vocations to their orders or conversions among the young, and their own brand of Catholicism was a tepid thing, dependant upon a reaction against perceived shortcomings of the Faith of the fifties. I thought in the long run there was not much danger there.
I did see the danger in those who accepted the Church’s teaching on the “hot” issues- abortion, homosexuality, and so on- but dissented on the social teachings of the Church, and wanted to steer Catholics in a direction more attuned to Americanism and nationalistic self-interest.
That is why there was precious little ink spilled in Caelum et Terra fighting the “liberals” and a good bit used in denouncing the neocons. I think my judgement about the liberals has been proven right, and I think the neoconservatives are a greater danger to the integrity of the Faith than ever. If they were to succeed in their project, one of the few sane voices against the American Empire will have been co-opted, and the Church will lose its credibility to the rest of the world, perhaps for generations.
I believe Pope Benedict is well aware of this, based upon things he said as a cardinal.
I didn’t mean that they didn’t have foreign policy positions, but that foreign policy isn’t their main concern. But anyway: I see the intellectual problems among that crowd, although (again, speaking from relatively casual acquaintance) there seem to be some real differences among them on that score–Novak strikes me as the least of them, for example. What I don’t share is what seems to be the imputation to them of some kind of bad motive.
It’s also the case that I don’t see their errors–which I see as (put briefly) an over-estimation of the virtue of the USA and her institutions–as being the danger that you do. Assuming that they’re embarked on a conscious mission of co-optation, that strikes me as being doomed in the same way and for many of the same reasons as the liberal “reform.” Just as the logical end (institutional death) of the latter only becomes more apparent as the progressives think through and follow the implications of their ideas, so the notion that Americanism is a doctor and not a patient (spiritually speaking) becomes daily more absurd to any serious Christian (and as I’ve frequently noted I’m speaking as someone who thinks there is a great deal of good in this country).
I’m very taken with Touchstone magazine, ecumenically orthodox, somewhat like First Things is supposed to be but less political and academic, more clear-eyed about the culture.
I just realized I misspoke in the original post for this thread. I said the Catholic neoconservatives changed their tactics in the early 80s; actually throughout the 80s they were openly dissident, not only on the social teachings but [for Novak at least] on Humanae Vitae. Their big change came after Centisimus Annus, in 1991. Their newfound loyalty included assent to the teachings on birth control; sincere, I hope.
I find it hard to attribute good will to those who have proven to be intellectually dishonest. I analyzed Fr Neuhaus’ paraphrase of CA which appeared in National Review and as an appendix to several neocon books in the pages of Caelum et Terra in the 90s[perhaps we can post it?]. I showed a pattern not only of omitting statements that the Pope made which contradicted the neocon spin on the encyclical, but even of added phrases which spun the encyclical in a different direction than the words of the Pope would warrant.
I got letters from each of the three Catholic neocon biggies, ranging from hurt feelings to outrage that I would dare suggest anything but the highest standards of scholarship and most noble motives to them. The letters were each marked “not for publication” and not one of them addressed the criticisms I had made or attempted to justify the editorship of the paraphrase.
Couple this sort of dissembling with the fact that they approach their entire ecclesial project like a political campaign, throwing money and prizes around, and I find it difficult to think of them as otherwise than knaves. I know this sounds uncharitable, but I reached this conclusion based upon their own actions and words.
Today, with the neoconservative dream of American Empire a project in the works, I think them a greater danger than ever.
I just realized I misspoke in the original post for this thread. I said the Catholic neoconservatives changed their tactics in the early 80s; actually throughout the 80s they were openly dissident, not only on the social teachings but [for Novak at least] on Humanae Vitae. Their big change came after Centisimus Annus, in 1991. Their newfound loyalty included assent to the teachings on birth control; sincere, I hope.
I find it hard to attribute good will to those who have proven to be intellectually dishonest. I analyzed Fr Neuhaus’ paraphrase of CA which appeared in National Review and as an appendix to several neocon books in the pages of Caelum et Terra in the 90s[perhaps we can post it?]. I showed a pattern not only of omitting statements that the Pope made which contradicted the neocon spin on the encyclical, but even of added phrases which spun the encyclical in a different direction than the words of the Pope would warrant.
I got letters from each of the three Catholic neocon biggies, ranging from hurt feelings to outrage that I would dare suggest anything but the highest standards of scholarship and most noble motives to them. The letters were each marked “not for publication” and not one of them addressed the criticisms I had made or attempted to justify the editorship of the paraphrase.
Couple this sort of dissembling with the fact that they approach their entire ecclesial project like a political campaign, throwing money and prizes around, and I find it difficult to think of them as otherwise than knaves. I know this sounds uncharitable, but I reached this conclusion based upon their own actions and words.
Today, with the neoconservative dream of American Empire a project in the works, I think them a greater danger than ever.
As to the term “neocon,” it is used differently in the United States versus Europe. In reference to American Catholics, Weigel, Neuhaus and especially Michael Novak are the principle neocons. In Europe, it appears that the media has misinterpreted the term to mean anyone even marginally socially conservative. Thus, in Europe, Pope Benedict is described as a neocon, but in American usage, he is more closely allied with the thought coming from the journal Communio and with traditionalists of a more moderate variety. There was considerable debate some years ago between David Schindler at Communio and the American neocons over a statement by then-Cardinal Ratzinger that American culture is bourgeois. The debate spanned various journals over a number of years and yet, amazingly, the neocons never seemed to grasp the nature of Schindler’s argument.
In Europe, it appears that the media has misinterpreted the term to mean anyone even marginally socially conservative.
Actually that’s happened here, too. The day I decided the term was useless, at least without qualification, was when I read a review of that recent Oscar-winning pro-euthanasia movie (or so it was characterized–I haven’t seen it). Much of the review was devoted to ranting about “the neo-cons” who objected to its message. For him, the term was just another way of saying “right-winger” or something of that sort. I wrote about this last year, actually, here.
As far as the Catholic neo-cons are concerned, I’ll continue to take what they say case-by-case. (I like Jeremy Beer’s term for them: Whig Thomists.) And although I decline to demonize them, it’s a fact that they have, at the very least, a pretty big blind spot about the culture of capitalism, and it seems like they’ll have to face that sooner or later.
Maclin, they have faced it. And they think it’s just fine. Novak and Sirico, at least, have said, for example, that pornography is the price you pay for freedom. That shows a faulty understanding of freedom, I would say.
So I go search the First Things and Acton Institute web sites for the word “pornography,” and on the basis of a quick browse it sure doesn’t look to me like either group thinks pornography is something we just have to accept, although the Acton folks go a lot farther in the libertarian direction than First Things. In fact “libertarian” would seem to be the most accurate shorthand description of the Acton Institute. But in both I see a lot of concern about the trashing of the culture, including the problem of pornography, and discussion of ways to address the problem. I think that to say “they think it’s just fine” is pretty unfair. In fact I think I’d rephrase what I said above about their blind spot, and say, more precisely, that they have a blind spot about the connection between the ethos fostered by capitalism and the corruption we see around us.
Well, this is a pretty fruitless argument, since it’s ultimately about trying to discern their motives and character. I’m not going to convince you that they’re not a malign conspiracy, and you’re not going to convince me that they are. I don’t have any problem with beating them up about specific things they do or say, when that’s warranted, as in the CA episode.
I read that comment in an interview with Sirico, but it was years ago and I can’t document it. I am pretty sure that Novak said something similar in one of his books; specifically that if we are to have free markets we must tolerate what people choose to do with their freedom.
Personally, I am not in favor of beating anyone up, prefering nonviolent tactics…