T H E PUBLIC SQUARE
A Continuing Survey of Religion, Culture, and Public Life
Richard John Neuhaus
WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY J R ·
AND THE POSSIBILITIES
O F LIFE
I was privileged to count him as a friend for well over a
quarter century. The two of us last had lunch together
at his Stamford, Connecticut, home last December. He
was getting ready to leave for Florida to write a book
on Ronald Reagan, for which he had a January 20
deadline. He doubted he would get it done. The
emphysema was the big problem, and he had to keep
an oxygen kit ready at hand.
BUI blamed smoking, a subject on which he had
become fixated in recent years, and he gendy reminded
me that over the years I had frequendy invited him to
join in the pleasure of an after-dinner cigar. I reminded
him that he usually smoked no more than an inch of
the cigar before setting it aside. He wasn't going to
blame his emphysema on me.
Norman Mailer had died a few weeks before, and
that prompted conversation about fame, life as perfor-
mance, and the fittingness of mortality. He had some
good stories about his encounters with Mailer over the
years. It seemed that Bill had stories about encounters
with just about everybody of public note. In the past
two years, he had been preparing himself for death, and
the more intensely since losing his much loved wife,
Pat, in April 2007. He thought he had pretty much
done what God had put him here to do.
We talked by phone while he was in Florida. The
book was not going well. In the weeks since Bill's
death, much has been written about what he accom-
plished, and much more will be written. Bill Buckley
was a man of almost inexhaustible curiosity, courtesy,
generosity, and delight in the oddness of the human
circumstance. He exulted in displaying his many tal-
ents, which was not pride so much as an invitation to
others to share his amazement at the possibilities in
being fully alive. He was also, in and through every-
thing, a man of quiedy solid Christian faith. I am
among innumerable others whose lives are fuller by
virtue of the gift of his friendship.
It started when I sent him a note protesting some-
thing he had written about the civil rights movement.
Bill had been, to put it delicately, on the wrong side of
that cause, a cause in which I was deeply engaged. That
was in the early 1970s, and Bill invited me to lunch to
talk it over. For some reason I forget, one or the other
of us couldn't keep that date, so the first time we
actually met was when he invited me to appear on his
television program, Firing Line, the longest-running
program with one host in television history. After that,
I was among the less notable regulars on the program,
and it was almost always an interesting experience.
Some encounters stand out in my memory. For
example, discussing with the philosopher Sidney
Hook why he didn't believe in God. ("If there is a God
and he asks me why I didn't believe in him," said
Hook, "I'll explain that he didn't give me enough
evidence.") And there was John Spong, the Episcopal
bishop of Newark, New Jersey. Spong was touting his
book touting sexual license, and I suggested that this
was not a message that the physically and morally dev-
astated inner-city of Newark really needed to hear.
Spong triumphantly, and smugly, countered that the
Episcopalians of Newark did not live in the run-down
66
city but in affluent suburbs, and they welcomed his
message of liberation from the onerous sexual morality
of the Episcopal Church. For a moment, Bill and I
were, most uncharacteristically, at a loss for words.
I was for several years the religion editor of Nation-
al Review, which meant writing a column for each
issue. It was a position inherited from the formidable
Jewish thinker Will Herberg, author of the classic
Protestant-Catholic-Jew: An Essay in American Reli-
gious Sociology. Throughout his career, Bill was appre-
ciatively attentive to Jewish talent and influence in
American intellectualfife.This was the positive side of
his oft-remarked role in excluding any hint of anti-
Semitism from the conservative movement. It was the
subject of many conversations, and in 1992 Bill wrote a
book about it, In Search of Anti-Semitism. I unsuccess-
fully urged anothertide,since "In Search of" suggested
that he had to go looking for it.
In 1984, in association with an institute in the Mid-
west, I established the Center on Religion and Society.
Five years later there was a very nasty break-up, with
the Illinois institute sending thugs to raid the offices
and put us out on the street. It was a much publicized
brouhaha at the time, with "paleo-cons" (them) and
"neo-cons" (us) going at one another. Bill's support
was invaluable, and out of it all came the Institute on
Religion and Public Life and this magazine. Every May
5, the staff of the magazine has a celebratory lunch in
honor of the raid. You may be sure that this year we
will be raising a glass to Bill Buckley.
Then there was that rather strange book of Bill's in
the late 1990s, Nearer, My God. Father George Ruder
and I were his interlocutors, and Bill pelted us with
questions on which we wrote mini-essays in response,
which he then incorporated into the text. Bill was
viewed by many as an exemplary Catholic lay leader in
the public square. The purpose of the book was to
make clear that his Catholicism was not of the happen-
to-be Catholic variety.
His standing as a Catholic had, in the view of many,
taken a hit with National Review's response to Pope
John XXIII's 1961 encyclical Mater et Magister
(Mother and teacher), on the Church's social teaching.
The memorable tide of the NR comment was "Mater
Si! Magister No!" Bill never tired of pointing out that
the phrase was the work of Garry Wills before he sailed
off leftward, but of course the responsibility was his.
America, a Jesuit weekly that was then of a more ortho-
dox stripe, attacked Bill as a dissenter from magisterial
teaching, which he forcefully protested, pointing out
that, despite the controverted phrase, NR did not
disagree with what the encyclical said but was disap-
pointed by its silence about other problems, notably
the threat of communism.
FIRST THINGS
Bill made no pretense of being a theologian, and I
winced at parts of Nearer, My God. But I am impressed
by the number of people who testify that that book,
and Bill's witness more generally, brought them, or
brought them back, to Christ and the Church. Bill
insisted on many occasions that he had never harbored
the slightest doubt about the Church's teaching
authority. Bill was what some call a natural Catholic,
bred-in-the-bone, so to speak, but his was also a faith
refined and reinforced by a lifetime of spiritual reflec-
tiveness. He indicated from time to time a mix of
puzzlement and sadness about those who resisted an
explanation of reality so comprehensive, coherent, and
reasonable. When in 1990, talking in his car after the
taping of a Firing Line episode, I told him I had decid-
ed to become a Catholic, he said he felt like a Red Sox
fan who had just learned about their signing up the
Yankees' star pitcher. That was intended toflatter,of
course, but the unspoken implication was, "What took
you so long?"
In the early 1990s, Bill and I launched a regular
gathering that was simply called "That Group." (Let
the conspiratorially minded take notes.) It was com-
posed of twenty or thirty editors, writers, and other
people of public influence, and we met twice a year,
once in Washington, D.C., and once in New York. In
later years, the Washington meeting was discontinued,
mainly because like-minded people there have enough
occasions to get together to plot the betterment of the
world. At our last lunch at the house in Connecticut,
Bill proposed ideas for the next meeting in New York.
But I do not really think that he expected to be there. I
think we both knew that we were possibly, probably,
meeting for the last time.
He again showed me around his disheveled study, a
cavernous space converted from a three-car garage,
pointing out paintings (some by him), awards, photos,
and general bric-a-brac from sixty years of a very pub-
lic life, telling stories about who gave him what and
when and why, as though he were saying goodbye to it
all. There in his disheveled study is where his body was
found on the morning of Wednesday, February 27.
He had several years earlier sold the sailboat. He
had given up the annual skiing in Gstaad, Switzerland.
The majestic harpsichord stood silent in the music
room. Don't you sometimes play it just for private
pleasure? I asked. "No, I remember how it was, and
now thefingersno longer obey my commands." And
Pat was dead. Again and again, the conversation turned
to Pat, and wasn't her memorial service just right?
Then he excused himself. He wastiredand needed to
nap. Afterward, we talked by phone, but that was the
last time together. The car pulled out of the driveway,
and I tried to hold back the tears.
MAY 2008
I called to mind the lines in Eliot's Murder in the
Cathedral: "Yet we have gone on living, living and
partly living." The life of my friend Bill Buckley was
the opposite of living, living and partly living. As much
as this life allows, he lived fully, exuberandy, relishing
the possibilities of gifts gratefully received and gifts
generously shared. He was ready for the more of
which this life is part. He heard his Master calling and
he readily went. May choirs of angels, to harpsichord
accompaniment, welcome him on the far side of the
Jordan.
[FT]
PRIEST
AND
RINGMASTER
Here's a nice summary of aspects of the Catholic litur-
gical circumstance, and what might be done about it.
It's by Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary's
Church in Greenville, South Carolina. One of the mis-
taken things that people were told forty years ago is
that the Second Vatican Council mandated a reorienta-
tion so that priest and people face one another. The
older practice was scorned as the priest "turning his
back on the people." In fact, the practice is ad
orientem—facing the liturgical East of the rising sun,
meaning the Rising Son. Some describe it simply as ad
Deum—hcing God together. The older practice is per-
mitted with the Novus Ordo, the new version of the
Mass introduced in 1969, and more priests are doing
just that. It is another instance of Pope Benedict's
encouragement of the Latin form happily resulting in a
more reverent celebration of the English form. In any
event, here is how Father Newman explains it to his
parishioners:
"One objective of the liturgical reforms of the
1960s was to encourage the active participation of the
Catholic people in the celebration of the sacred liturgy,
in part by reminding them that they are participants in,
not spectators of, offering the sacrifice of praise ât the
heart of all Christian worship. Unfortunately, in
the years following the Second Vatican Council, the
Church's desire that all the faithful participate fully in
the sacred liturgy was too often rendered a caricature of
the Council's teaching, and misconceptions about the
true nature of active participation multiplied. This led
to the frenzied expansion of 'ministries' among the
people and turned worship into a team sport. But it is
possible to participate in die liturgy fully, consciously,
and actively without ever leaving one's pew, and it is
67
likewise possible to serve busily as a musician or lector
at Mass without truly participating in the sacred
liturgy.
"Both of these are true because the primary mean-
ing of active participation in the liturgy is worshipping
the living God in Spirit and truth, and that in turn is an
interior disposition of faith, hope, and love which can-
not be measured by the presence or absence of physical
activity. But this confusion about the role of the laity in
the Church's worship was not the only misconception
to follow the liturgical reforms; similar mistakes were
made about the part of the priest. Because of the mis-
taken idea that die whole congregation had to be 'in
motion' during the liturgy to be truly participating, the
priest was gradually changed in the popular imagina-
tion from the celebrant of the Sacred Mysteries of
salvation into the coordinator of the liturgical min-
istries of others. And this false understanding of the
ministerial priesthood produced the ever-expanding
role of the 'priest présider,' whose primary task was to
make the congregation feel welcome and constandy
engage them with eye contact and the embrace of his
warm personality. Once these falsehoods were accept-
ed, then the service of the priest in the liturgy became
grotesquely misshapen, and instead of a humble stew-
ard of die mysteries whose only task was to draw back
the veil between God and man and then hide himself in
the folds, the priest became a ring-master or entertain-
er whose task was thought of as making the congrega-
tion feel good about itself.
"But, whatever that is, it is not Christian worship,
and in the last two decades the Church has been gendy
finding a way back towards the right ordering of her
public prayer. In February 2007 Pope Benedict XVI
published an Apostolic Exhortation on the Most Holy
Eucharist entided Sacramentum Caritatis in which he
discusses the need for priests to cultivate a proper ars
celebrandi or art of celebrating the liturgy. In that doc-
ument, the pope teaches that 'the primary way to foster
the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite
is the proper celebration of theriteitself,' and an essen-
tial part of that work is removing the celebrant from
the center of attention so that priest and people togeth-
er can turn towards the LORD.
"Accomplishing this task of restoring God-
centered liturgy is one of the main reasons for return-
ing to the ancient and universal practice of priest and
people standing together on the same side of the altar as
they offer in Christ, each in their own way, the sacrifice
of Calvary as true worship of the Father. In other
words, the custom of ad orientem celebration
enhances, rather than diminishes, the possibility of the
people participating fully, consciously, and actively in
the celebration of the sacred liturgy."
68
WHILE WE'RE AT IT
• In late February, much news attention was paid the
"U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" released by the
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, and deservedly
so. A landscape survey is just that, however. The
methodologies of survey research cannot tell us what is
happening on the ground, never mind what is happen-
ing in people's hearts. Researchers set up categories and
then ask people to identify themselves in relation to
them. The survey describes the American religious
scene as "very diverse and extremely fluid," which is
undoubtedly true. That has always been the case, but it
is perhaps more so today. Almost 80 percent of Amer-
icans identify themselves as Christians, with, despite all
the talk about growing religious pluralism, no more
than 5 percent claiming other religions. (And perhaps
no more than 1 percent identifying as Muslim.) The 16
percent who say they are religiously "unaffiliated"
includes a large majority who say they believe in God,
pray, and are more or less like their mainly Christian
neighbors, except they don't identify themselves with a
specific religious tradition or community. For Protes-
tants, Pew offers three categories: evangelical, mainline,
and historically black. If by evangelical one means
someone who has had a conversion experience,
believes in the authority of the Bible, and tries to share
the faith with others, there are millions of evangelicals
in such "mainline" churches as the United Methodist,
ELCA, and Presbyterian Church USA, as well as the
Catholic Church, although most of them would not
call themselves evangelicals. The loose use of evangeli-
cal also results in frequent headlines declaring that
evangelicals divorce, engage in extramarital sex, and do
other un-evangelical things at more or less the same
rates as the general population. To which real evangeli-
cals say that such people are not really evangelicals.
With Catholics, it's different. There are no experiential
or behavioral tests for being a Catholic. "Once a
Catholic, always a Catholic" and all that. Being difaith-
ful Catholic is something else. The Pew data do suggest
an alarming rate of Catholics who no longer identify
themselves as such. It seems that one out of ten adult
Americans is a lapsed Catholic. I'll await the results of
other number-crunching analysts before commenting
further on that. The finding that received most atten-
tion is that 44 percent of Americans have changed
religions or denominations at least once in their life-
time. With few exceptions, these are changes within the
Christian tradition, broadly defined. The new Pew
FIRST THINGS
survey, like all such projects since the beginning of
modern survey research in the 1920s, indicates that
America continues to be a confusedly and, it would
seem, incorrigibly Christian society. So one might say
there is nothing new in the study, except that increased
"fluidity" might be bad news for those traditions, such
as Catholicism, with a strong connection between reli-
gious identity and ecclesial adherence.
• The former editor of America, a Jesuit weekly, offers
his response to the Pew data to the readers of the
Washington Post, many of whom probably found his
analysis plausible. The reason so many Catholics have
lapsed, he said, is that Catholic loyalty was once "based
on family pressure, ethnic neighborhoods, and lack of
competition rather than personal commitment." They
also stuck with the Church "out of fear of damnation,"
but people don't believe that kind of thing any more.
Catholics "became educated, got better jobs, and
moved out of their ghettos and into the suburbs." One
is reminded of the Washington Post description of evan-
gelicals as poor, uneducated, and easily led. The Jesuit
father repeatedly blames the hierarchy of the Church,
which he describes as "overanxious" and "authoritari-
an." Appeal to authority on questions such as birth
control, divorce, and female priests "did not satisfy an
educated people who wanted to be convinced with
arguments." On those and other questions, one might
note, the Jesuits have not been conspicuous in provid-
ing supportive arguments. The "creative ideas" of the-
ologians were respected at the Second Vatican Council,
he writes, but since then such theologians have been
"attacked and silenced by the hierarchy." As a result, he
writes, theologians have been alienated. I expect that
theologians comprise a very small portion of lapsed
Catholics. "A secular comparison would be to see the
church as a company where the management and
research division were not on speaking terms. Would
you invest in such a company?" Probably not, but, if
the problem is that the research division is sabotaging
the business the company is in, the answer might be to
get a new research division. Under the oppressive hier-
archy, "liturgical experimentation was forbidden." That
will come as news to innumerable Catholics in parishes
that have had to endure the liturgical creativity of Father
Jim and Sister Trixy. "Most Protestant services are more
interesting and moving than Catholic services." I don't
know how many Protestant services father has attend-
ed, but there is something more interesting and moving
than the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass? But
enough. There is not a wisp of self-criticism in this
wearily familiar complaint of adolescence coming on its
sunset years in unrelenting resentment that its "creativ-
ity" in destabilizing, confusing, obfuscating, and under-
MAY 2008
cutting Catholic faith and life has not received uncritical
parental approval. Just imagine what might have been
accomplished were it not for that authoritarian hierar-
chy and mean fatherfigurein Rome.
• As I may have mentioned before, when in 1983 we
launched the Center on Religion and Society, later to
become the Institute on Religion and Public Life, there
were in the country, as best I could determine, four
such institutes or academic programs with that focus.
At last count, there are well over two hundred today.
Now comes an announcement by Columbia Universi-
ty that it is establishing an Institute for Religion, Cul-
ture, and Public Life. To which the journal on religion,
culture, and public life says, "Welcome aboard." I'm
afraid, however, that Columbia has a very odd view of
religion. In the brief announcement, religion as a
source of conflict that needs to be countered by toler-
ance is alluded to no less than ten times. The heading of
the news release reads, "Columbia Opens New Insti-
tute to Curb Religious and Cultural Intolerance." Reli-
gion is the problem and the remedy is to be sought in
"innovative," "critical," and "cross-disciplinary"
study. It is a little like Columbia announcing the open-
ing of a business school that will major in the capitalist
exploitation of the poor, or a medical school devoted to
the study of malpractice. But at least Columbia is dis-
covering religion, albeit in the very limited form of
religion's threat to culture and public life.
• Part of the vitality, and of the vacuity, of evangelical
Protestantism is the unending and frenetic search for
"the next thing." Whether it produces more vacuity
than vitality is a disputed question. It is a question
addressed in Telford Work's critique of Reformed and
Always Reforming, a book by Roger Olson of Baylor
University's theological seminary. The next thing, the
newest thing, the coming thing, according to Olson, is
"postconservatism." Goodriddanceto conservatism,
which is marked by "slavish adherence" to an "incorri-
gible" tradition. Let's replace it with theology as "a
pilgrimage and a journey rather than a discovery and
conquest." It sounds an awful lot like "the spirit of
Vatican II." Putting it in a Protestant perspective, Work
says Olson is simply playing, once again, the old
Arminian pietist card against Calvinists in a war over
which tradition will dominate evangelicalism. If one
needs a name for "evangelical theology after moderni-
ty," says Work, it would be better to call it posdiberal-
ism, not postconservatism, "because postliberals
abandon the Enlightenment project that sparked the
whole fundamentalist-modernist controversy, and
thus both contemporary liberal theology and contem-
porary evangelical theology." He doesn't mention it,
69
but I expect he has in mind George Lindbeck's jusdy
influential book of more than twenty years ago, The
Nature ofDoctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postlib-
eral Age. The sad fact is, says Work, "from political
activism to the church-growth movement to the
allegedly postmodern 'emerging church,' evangelicals
are borrowing more than ever from late modern liber-
alism." Once again, the excited discovery of "the next
thing" turns out to be the result of rummaging through
a pile of discards in the used theology shop.
• Canada is in the odd position among the nations of
the world in that it has no law with respect to abortion.
Years ago, its liberal judiciary struck down the existing
law as being excessively "restrictive," meaning it pro-
vided a large measure of protection for the child in the
womb. Recendy, the new archbishop of Ottawa, the
nation's capital, indicated that Catholic politicians who
persist in obstinately supporting unlimited abortion
rights are in a state of grave sin and should refrain from
receiving the Eucharist. The Ottawa Citizen aired its
outrage at Archbishop Terrence Prendergast in its
news columns. Quoted at length is the spokesperson
for Catholics for a Free Choice, a very small offshoot
of the very small organization of the same name in this
country. And the Citizen interviewed David McGuin-
ty of Ottawa, a pro-abortion member of Parliament.
"Mr. McGuinty said he comes from a long line of
Catholic politicians who have been able to be pro-
choice while remaining true to their religion." The
archbishop will no doubt be interested in learning how
that is done.
• Come an election year and there is a renewed flurry
of interest in what religious organizations can and can-
not do to make a political difference. There will always
be a few churches that flirt with the revocation of their
tax exemption by direct intervention in electoral poli-
tics. From the offices of the major denominations flow
guidelines, usually written by nervously risk-averse
lawyers, that would stifle the voice of the churches on
questions of great moral moment. The best thing I've
seen on this subject is a twenty-page document pub-
lished by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life,
Politics and the Pulpit 2008: A Guide to the Internal
Revenue Code Restrictions on the Political Activity of
Religious Organizations. You can download it at
www.pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=280.
• Inner-city ministry, as it was called, was all the rage
when I was a young Lutheran pastor. That had every-
thing to do with my exulting in my call to a very poor,
black, and depressed parish in Brooklyn. Later, I con-
sidered butfinallydeclined an invitation to head up the
70
Urban Institute in Chicago, which was an ecumenical
training school for urban ministries. One of the heroes
of that time was Chicago's Monsignor Reynold Hil-
lenbrand, who inspired coundess priests as rector of
the Mundelein Seminary. The Chicago Sun Times
reports on an exhibit featuring Catholicism in Chicago
and quotes Monsignor Hillenbrand, who died in 1978,
as telling priests "to get out of the rectories and stop
just saving souls and start saving neighborhoods and
people." All these years later, one cannot help but be
ambivalent about that exhortation. Certainly priests
should get out of the rectory, and saving neighbor-
hoods is a good cause. But when priests stop believing
that their premier mission is to save souls, it is unlikely
that they'll be very good at saving anything else. And,
of course, Chicago's neighborhoods were not saved.
As for the number of souls saved, we await the final
report.
• Why, a reader asks, do we permit Professor Thomas
Derr to set the magazine's line on global warming. We
don't permit him to do so; we solicit, cherish, and
shamelessly encourage his contributions on the sub-
ject. And that is simply because, for the last twenty
years and more, there is no Christian ethicist who has
written more extensively and wisely on moral respon-
sibility for the environment or has followed more
closely the debates over climate change, from earlier
panics about global cooling to today's worries about
global warming. Yes, we know that an authority no less
than Al Gore has long since declared that "the argu-
ment is over," thereby decreeing that the hundreds of
experts in the pertinent sciences who disagree should
shut up. And yes, I saw that the other day Prince
Charles declared that skepticism about global warming
is "sheer madness." That may settle the question for
some royalists, but not for Nigel Lawson, former Sec-
retary of State for Energy and Chancellor of the Exche-
quer in her majesty's government. He has just brought
out a book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at
Global Warming, published by Overlook. His conclu-
sion might be described as straightforward: "So the
new religion of global warming, however convenient it
may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may
appear at first sight. Indeed, the more one examines it,
the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmen-
talism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal best-seller.
It contains a grain of truth—and a mountain of non-
sense. And that nonsense could be very damaging
indeed. We appear to have entered a new age of unrea-
son, which threatens to be as economically harmful as
it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all,
that we really do need to save the planet." Throughout,
his argument is that of Thomas Derr and many others.
FIRST THINGS
Not only is the science cited by the global warmists
much in dispute, but the propaganda employed invites
robust suspicion. We have just been through what has
been called "the winter from hell," with record low
temperatures in many parts of the world. This has
received slight media comment. One need not imagine
the coverage if the winter had been warmer than usual.
But after all the scientific disputes and all the hysteria,
the moral scandal is that the champions of the climate-
change campaign, citing what they call "the precau-
tionary principle," are quite sanguine about bringing a
halt to global economic development, thus guarantee-
ing that the poor of the world will be perpetually
locked into their poverty. How this cause ever found a
place on what some people call the "social justice agen-
da" is cause for wonder. Along with Thomas Derr and
other careful analysts, we will continue to follow the
evidence and the arguments. As of now, it appears that
the almost cultish devotion to reducing humanity's
"carbon footprint" is more a matter of trampling on
the hopes of the poor and the conscience of therich.As
of now, we are considerably more concerned about
that moral footprint.
• I came across this the other day on a website designed
for Protestant preachers. The fellow was going on about
preaching for ordinary folk, in the course of which he
suggested that great preachers such as Tim Keller and
Richard John Neuhaus had it easier because they preach
to the "chattering class" composed of sophisticated and
intellectual types in Manhattan. Whether I am a great
preacher, or even a good preacher, I leave for others to
judge. Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian
Church, is a great preacher. He is also author of The
Reason for God, which I see has now hit the New York
Times bestseller list. In an interview with our managing
editor, Anthony Sacramone, he described the book as
C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity for dummies. He is too
modest. But back to this business of preaching for the
sophisticated. As a Lutheran, I was for seventeen years
pastor of St. John the Evangelist, a large and predomi-
nandy black congregation in Brooklyn, where relative-
ly few people had finished high school. In the past
seventeen years as a Catholic priest, I have preached at
Immaculate Conception on Fourteenth Street, a decid-
edly working-class parish of a wondrous ethnic and
racial mix on Manhattan's Lower East Side. The people
there are, as the man puts it, ordinary folk. True, I am
also the preacher for the Sunday Mass at Columbia
University, where, if you promise not to say I said it,
people are not all that more knowledgeable about the
faith. I am asked whether I prepare two different homi-
lies, one for Immaculate and the other for the more
"sophisticated" types at Columbia. Definitely not. In
MAY 2008
both cases, and I would suggest in all cases, the aim is to
preach up to people rather than, in the name of rele-
vance or "meeting them where they're at," preaching
down to them. And the aim is to try not to be dull. It is
an extraordinary act of clerical abuse to bore a captive
audience forfifteenminutes, or thirty minutes, as is the
case in many Protestant churches. Catholics priests
routinely claim that people today have a short attention
span. Maybe they do—for the kind of preaching to
which they're accustomed. They have a long enough
attention span for many other things that interest them.
I don't think we want to suggest that Protestants are
genetically disposed to greater attentiveness. To preach
interestingly does not mean to be theatrical but to pro-
vide something of intellectual substance. In my experi-
ence, people are intensely interested in what Christian-
ity teaches, and why. Which is to say they are intensely
interested in doctrine. I see from time to time Catholic
homilies and homiletic aids on websites and elsewhere.
I am sorry to say they are usually an embarrassment—
moralistic tripe joined to vacuous uplift and a cute
story. I do wish seminaries would stop teaching priests
to lean on anecdotes and story illustrations. The really
interesting stories, to be interestingly explicated, are in
the biblical readings. Go read St. Augustine's homilies
to see how that is done. Not everybody is going to be a
great, or even a very good, preacher. Expectations are
higher among Protestants. Catholics come to church
chiefly for the Mass and, as often as not, put up with
the homily. But priests should not take advantage of
lower expectations by trying the patience and insulting
the intelligence of their people. Years ago I wrote Free-
dom for Ministry, a book in which I emphasized the
importance of a well-prepared homily. I wrote that, if
by Tuesday morning a preacher has not given serious
thought to next Sunday's homily, he is already behind
schedule. It's a matter of mulling it over and jotting
down notes over the week and having by Friday, or
Saturday morning at the latest, an outline, or even a
written text—I seldom have the latter—of an interest-
ing homily. If it is not interesting to you, it's probably
not going to be interesting to others. Well, I didn't
mean to go on so. But I did take umbrage at the fellow
saying I don't preach to ordinary folk. My folk are as
ordinary as your folk, buddy.
• The most distinguished public award offered by
Notre Dame University is the Laetare Medal. This year
it was given to actor Martin Sheen, who on television
played a president of the United States who is a Notre
Dame graduate. In announcing the award, Father John
Jenkins of Notre Dame said: "He has used his celebri-
ty to draw the attention of his fellow citizens to issues
that cry out for redress, such as the plight of immigrant
71
workers and homeless people, the waging of unjust
war, the killing of the unborn and capital punishment.
We welcome the opportunity to lift up his example for
our Church, our country, and our students." In fact,
Mr. Sheen has been arrested on multiple occasions in
protests against the Bush administration, the war in
Iraq, and other issues. He has reportedly written
checks for crisis-pregnancy centers, but he has not
"used his celebrity to draw the attention of his fellow
citizens to . . . the killing of the unborn." In an inter-
view with the Progressive, he said, "I personally am
opposed to abortion but I will not judge anybody else's
right in that regard because I am not a woman and I
could never face the actual reality of it." The "personal-
ly opposed but" position has a long history at Notre
Dame, going back to Mario Cuomo's notorious
address of 1984, "Religious Belief and Public Morali-
ty," in which he made the argument that Catholics
could, as he did, support the unlimited abortion license
of Roe v. Wade. Apparendy, Notre Dame has learned
little about what it means to be an "example for our
Church, our country, and our students."
• "Imitation is the sincerest form offlattery"writes a
reader who picked up on an inaugural meeting at
Georgetown University of a project called the Evan-
gelical-Catholic Dialogue on the Common
Good/Public Policy. I suppose it might be referred to
as ECD to distinguish it from ECT, Evangelicals and
Catholics Together. The more, the merrier, I say. The
list of participants is composed of "moderate" to less
than moderate proponents of a leftward political per-
suasion. Catholic headliners include Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washing-
ton, D.C.; John Carr of the bishops' conference; and
John DeGioia, president of Georgetown. On the evan-
gelical side are, inter alios, Rick Warren of The Purpose-
Driven Life, Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social
Action, and Richard Cizik, point man on global warm-
ing for the National Association of Evangelicals. The
stated purpose is to "bring faith to bear on public life
with regard to respect for life issues touching on abor-
tion, the death penalty, and end of life questions, and
with regard to poverty as it relates to questions of jus-
tice affecting family life, wage stagnation, income
inequality and related issues." The obvious, although
unstated, goal is to distance the participants from the
"religious right," which is presumably excessive in its
preoccupation with the killing of babies in the womb.
While it may be the case that most of the participants in
ECT are more politically and socially conservative
than those involved in this new initiative, the focus of
ECT is not politics but spiritual and theological recon-
ciliation. Thus ECT has devoted its energies to state-
72
ments on justification, scriptural authority, and the
communion of saints, and is currendy working on the
question of Mary in Christian faith and life. The grow-
ing cooperation between evangelicals and Catholics is
to be warmly welcomed, and it is probably inevitable
that it would be employed for more overtly political
purposes, as is the case with ECD. To be sure, the
forming of a political coalition is quite distinct from the
quest for Christian unity, and may even further divide
Christians along conventional lines of political polar-
ization. That is sad but hardly surprising when for
many people, including many religious leaders, politics
is trump. In any event, we will be keeping an eye on
ECD, which is a potentially significant development.
• During this past Lent of the Long Lent that is the
Church's period of penance for the sex-abuse crisis, an
organization called Justice for Priests and Deacons sent
out a national mailing asking for support. Hundreds of
priests (nobody seems to know just how many hun-
dreds) have been accused and, without due process,
publicly humiliated and removed from active ministry.
Too many bishops have adopted the Caiaphas princi-
ple of sacrificing a few for the good of the many. Some
observers have urged that these priests, guilty or not,
should "take a hit" for the team. I don't think so. The
Church is to be a "mirror of justice," and scapegoating
the innocent only intensifies the leadership corruption
so devastatingly detailed in Philip Lawler's recent
book, The Faithful Departed. The past six years have
gone a long way in destroying the relationship of trust
between bishops and priests, the men for whom bish-
ops at their ordination promise to show a special solic-
itude. The above-mentioned mailing offers advice on
"Protecting Your Rights as a Priest and a Deacon." It
includes this: If a bishop or diocesan official summons
you to a meeting about reported misconduct, "take
your civil attorney, your canonist or another reputable
individual such as a fellow priest with you to the meet-
ing. This will provide you with an independent witness
for the proceedings and will limit the possibility that
the meeting is mischaracterized or inappropriately
interpreted at a later date. You should never go by
yourself." Don't talk to your bishop without having
your lawyer at hand. Bishops say they want to protect
the children. They do and they have. The institutions
of the Catholic Church are now the safest environment
for children in the country, next to their being safe in
bed under the watchful eyes of loving parents. But in
their treatment of priests and deacons, bishops fre-
quendy give priority to their financial liability and
public image. These are of course legitimate concerns
but not at the price of solicitude for the men in their
pastoral care or at the price of elementary justice. The
FIRST THINGS
address of Justice for Priests and Deacons is P.O. Box
87225, San Diego, California 92138. Another organiza-
tion of lawyers helping accused priests is Opus Bono
Sacerdotii, 430 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 309,
Detroit, Michigan 48207. For more information about
both, go to their websites. You might want to consider
writing a check.
• Many are the uses of the poor, and India is a veritable
cornucopia of poor people. Despite the country's
growing economy, more than two thirds of its billion
people subsist on less than $250 per year. Not that they
don't have valuable assets, however. There is a very
brisk international market in kidneys and other body
parts. Why did God give us two of some very valuable
parts if not to have one to put up for sale? The same
goes for women and their wombs. Some years ago
there was a terrific media storm in this country over a
rich Manhattan couple who had contracted with a
New Jersey woman to be "surrogate mother" for their
child, and then sued the woman because she didn't
want to keep her part of the deal. During pregnancy,
she had developed a strange attachment to the child.
The arrangement ran into a buzz saw of media indig-
nation as an offense against good old-fashioned Amer-
ican egalitarianism. Not in America you don't. That's
why God made India and so many other places chock-
full of poor people. Here's a story in the New York
Times about die growing surrogate-mother industry in
India, where such things are not inhibited by regula-
tion or moral scrupulosity. Rich Europeans and Amer-
icans have their pick of wombs for rent. This story fea-
tures two gay men from Israel who are delighted to pay
$30,000 to artificially inseminate an Indian woman to
bear a child who will be, so to speak, their very own. It
is hard to blame the women involved. Here is a mid-
wife who was making $69 per month, barely enough to
support her nine-year-old son. Her cut for the first
time she rented her body for nine months was $13,600,
enough to buy a house. This time around she is getting
only $8,600. The reliable dynamics of capitalism are
doing their work. The competition is stiffening, and
there is no shortage of women who are poor and will-
ing. It's a buyer's market. It is true that most of what
used to be called the Third World is getting richer.
(Apart from Africa, of course. But for some reason that
nobody mentions—Is it possibly related to racism?—
African body parts and wombs are not very popular on
the international market.) Despite the economic devel-
opment of most poor countries, however, the rich of
the rich countries are assured that there will be an
ample supply of poor people for decades to come. The
affluent will not be inconvenienced by a lack of moth-
ers to rent, while the demand for wombs and body
MAY 2008
parts is driving down prices every day. Adam Smith
should have lived to see this day. Many are the uses of
the poor.
• Here is a promising new beginning. CALL is the
acronym for Catholic Association of Latino Leaders,
launched in February under the episcopal auspices of
Archbishop José Gómez of San Antonio and Arch-
bishop Charles Chaput of Denver. Mr. Mario Paredes,
a good friend and a foremost expert on all things
Latino, is the president. At the initial meeting in San
Antonio, he spoke about evangelization, support for
the family, the culture of life, immigration policy, and
the need for Latinos to embrace responsibility for the
ecclesial care of their rapidly growing communities.
Latinos are not only entry-level participants in the
workforce. They should include in their vision a larger
role in economic opportunity. Paredes said: "The social
doctrine of our Church places a very high importance
on entrepreneurship, which is a reflection of God's cre-
ativity; this social doctrine does not in any way contain
the idea of an intrinsically evil economy that is to be
restrained with the reins of ethics like a ferocious beast
that must be tamed. On the contrary, it reasserts that
the economy, a resolve of human activity, has meaning
and longevity only when it corresponds to an anthro-
pological reality. Our late Holy Father, John Paul II,
explained the failure of Communism as a result of a
major anthropological error which could only lead to
economic failure. He also criticized Capitalism, not for
its economic system, but for the weakening of the
entire social system as it limits itself to producing goods
and services, and falls into an equally condemnable
materialism. We cannot deny that the Church and the
business world have suffered an ambiguous relation-
ship. Today, we have the opportunity to recognize the
positive role of the market rather than condemn its
ideology as anti-religious, inhuman, and socially
unsustainable. The Catholic life cannot be lived in a
dichotomy. Faith matters. All of our being calls us to
have an integral personal development. We cannot pre-
tend to be religious in the Church and ruthless in the
workplace or community. This is a false interpretation
of the human person." For more information about
CALL, check out www.call-usa.org.
• Max Stackhouse of Princeton Theological Seminary
has been working for years on the theme of "God and
Globalization." Ghbalization and Grace (Continuum)
is the fourth andfinalvolume in a series on that theme.
Combining theology, sociology, social theory, and
ethics, Stackhouse's "public theology" offers a very
judicious, and generally favorable, evaluation of global-
ization understood not only in economic or geopolitical
73
terms but with particular attention to cultural dynamics
that are moving toward something like a cosmopolitan
future. He spends a great deal of time responding,
patiendy and respectfully, to the many enemies of
globalization, both Christian and other. The fierce
antiglobalization passions of a few years ago that gener-
ated raucous protests at international meetings seem to
be on the wane. Like it or not, globalization is happen-
ing, and Max Stackhouse makes a persuasive argument
that the Christian response to it may turn out to be one
of the great turning points in Christian and world histo-
ry. Globalization and Grace is not light reading, but it is
the kind of book that, fifty or a hundred years from
now, may be celebrated for its prescience.
•John Searle, professor of philosophy at the Universi-
ty of California, Berkeley, has been writing for years
and years on the quandaries of the brain-mind-con-
sciousness connections. We have what I expect are
basic disagreements, but he is always instructive. His
most recent book is Freedom and Neurobiology
(Columbia University Press), and it is reviewed by
David Papineau, a philosopher at King's College, Lon-
don, in the Times Literary Supplement. A strength of
Searle's approach is that he is attentive to thinking and
consciousness, as we experience thinking and con-
sciousness. This is sometimes called a commonsensical
approach, and Papineau doesn't think much of it.
"Common sense is all very well," he writes, "but it has
many strands, and they aren't always internally consis-
tent, especially when they need to be squared with the
findings of science." Ah yes, the findings of science.
Searle is critical of the vulgar reductionism by which
mind is exhaustively explained by reference to neural
synapses in the pound of thinking meat that is the
brain. He says that consciousness is "causally
reducible" to the physical world but is not "ontologi-
cally reducible." Papineau thinks this comes close to
talking nonsense. "Quantum mechanics," he says,
"tells us that the probabilities of physical effects are
always fixed by prior physical circumstances." Apart
from the problems with the idea of "fixed probabili-
ties," one might think that Papineau's readiness to
surrender to the physicists the last word on human
thinking imperils his employment as a philosopher.
The chief difficulty is with the idea of science as the
study of that which is under our control and can be
subjected to examination and experiment. In this
definition of science, the scientist seeking to under-
stand consciousness by studying the brain is not study-
ing consciousness. More specifically, he is not studying
the consciousness of the scientist seeking to understand
consciousness by studying the brain. John Searle hasn't
figured out how we think and why, and perhaps
74
nobody ever will, but he is suggestive and instructive
because, unlike David Papineau and many others, he
refuses to define science down.
• It is a very old question and, quite understandably,
people keep asking it. In Luke 13, Jesus is asked
whether those who are saved are many or few. As
many other theologians have done, Pope Benedict
speculates on a possible answer to the question in a
February meeting with the clergy of Rome. He
expresses the hope that most will be saved, but says:
"Perhaps there are not so many who have destroyed
themselves so completely, who are irreparable forever,
who no longer have any element upon which the love
of God can rest, who no longer have the slightest
capacity to love within themselves. This would be hell.
On the other hand, they are certainly few—or at least
not very many—who are so pure that they can imme-
diately enter into communion with God." Thus the
need for purification, as in purgatory. Of those who
might be damned, he says, "Alarming profiles of this
type can be seen in certain figures of our own history."
Most people would immediately think of figures such
as Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. This line of speculation is
not without its problems. Avery Cardinal Dulles has
written in these pages: "The search for numbers in the
demography of hell is futile. God in his wisdom has
seen fit not to disclose any statistics." John Paul the
Great, in agreement with Hans Urs von Balthasar,
holds out the hope in Crossing the Threshold of Hope
that in the end all may be saved. It is a hope that I have
explored in Death on a Friday Afternoon. Speculating
about who or how many will be damned undercuts
that hope. Better, it seems to me, to stay with the
response of Jesus in Luke 13. He does not satisfy the
curious by answering the question but says: "Strive to
enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you,
will seek to enter and will not be able." Gradations of
wickedness are known only to God. All of us are by
our sinful nature under the judgment of God and our
only hope is the grace revealed in Jesus Christ. As Jesus
says in John 10, "I am the door; if any one enters by me,
he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pas-
ture." We are to strive forrighteousness,but we cannot
enter through that narrow door by our own efforts.
Whether all will enter by the door who is Christ only
God knows. We may hope so, and that is enough.
• Dealing with sin and forgiveness in the public realm
is a very tricky business. One of the most interesting
exercises in recent history is the Truth and Reconcilia-
tion Commission established in South Africa after the
end of apartheid in 1994. Understandable passions for
punishment, retaliation, and reparations having been
FIRST THINGS
set aside, it was agreed that the goal was to make a clean
breast of the wrongs perpetrated and then get on with
being one society. In this country, of course, the origi-
nal sin of our founding was slavery. Here, too, there
have been from time to time agitations for the payment
of reparations to the victims of slavery, even if six or
more generations removed. That campaign has never
gotten very far because, among other reasons, there is
nobody living who was a slaveholder; because of the
impossibility of sorting out the mixed heritage of most
blacks who are descendants of both slaves and slave-
holders; and, perhaps most important, because the
country has already paid with 620,000 deaths in a Civil
War that ended slavery. And, of course, all that was a
long time ago. Moreover, with a presidential contender
who was born in Hawaii of a black father from Kenya
and a white mother from Kansas, whatever connection
remains between race and victimhood is, in the minds
of most Americans, attenuated to the point of implau-
sibility. A more recent instance of sin and forgiveness is
the case of the Aborigines of Australia. Long-time
prime minister John Howard staunchly refused to
make an official apology on behalf of the nation for
some pretty awful things that were done to them. The
new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is of a different mind.
"We apologize for the removal of Aboriginal children
from their families, their communities, and their coun-
try," he declared at a solemn gathering in Sydney. "For
the pain, suffering, and hurt of these Stolen Genera-
tions, their descendants, and for their families left
behind, we say sorry.... For the indignity and degra-
dation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud
culture, we say sorry." In view of what was done, even
if much of it was well-intended but seems atrocious in
retrospect, "Sorry about that" hardly seems sufficient.
And, of course, there are calls for reparations, which
Mr. Rudd is resisting as staunchly as did Mr. Howard,
and for reasons in some ways similar to the rejection of
reparations in this country. Within the limits of human
history, marked by mistakes and crimes beyond num-
bering, there is no course of redemption that can set
things right. Except, of course, for the reconciliation
effected by the cross of Christ, which is beyond the
administration of the nation and state. Political leaders
can acknowledge errors, even if their predecessors
thought they were doing the right thing, and promise
not to repeat them. One may applaud Mr. Rudd for
doing so, even if one wishes that, for such a solemn
occasion, he might have come up with something of
greater gravitas than "We say sorry." On the other
hand, "We ask you to forgive us" might raise questions
about guilt, contrition, and satisfaction, generating
suits and countersuits without end. Forgiveness is so
very specific.
MAY 2008
• Marx, Freud, and, above all, Nietzsche are atheists
for whom one can have a measure of intellectual
respect. They, says John F. Haught in his book God
and the New Atheism, understood that when God and
religion are eliminated life does not go on as usual.
Haught calls them the hard-core atheists. It's quite a
different matter with the new crop of soft-core atheists.
Haught writes: "Dawkins declares that the biblical
God is a monster, Harris that God is evil, Hitchens that
God is not great. But without some fixed sense of
rightness how can one distinguish what is monstrous,
evil or 'not great' from its opposite? In order to make
such value judgments one must assume, as the hard-
core atheists are honest enough to acknowledge, that
there exists somewhere, in some mode of being, a realm
of lightness that does not owe its existence completely
to human invention, Darwinian selection or social con-
struction. And if we allow the hard-core atheists into
our discussion, we can draw this conclusion: If
absolute values exist, then God exists. But if God does
not exist, then neither do absolute values, and one
should not issue moral judgments as though they do.
Belief in God or the practice of religion is not necessary
in order for people to be highly moral beings. We can
agree with soft-core atheists on this point. But the real
question, which comes not from me but from the
hard-core atheists, is: Can you rationally justify your
unconditional adherence to timeless values without
implicidy invoking the existence of God?"
• Parental choice in education, through vouchers or
some other instrument, continues to be a matter of
simple justice. And yes, the chief concern here is for the
urban underclass whose children are truly victimized
by being consigned to government schools that have
for decades been a catastrophe. It is disconcerting that
in recent months there appears to be increasing oppo-
sition to vouchers by various conservatives. (Politically
relevant liberalism is in the pocket of teachers' unions
who won't give an inch in defending the monopoly on
funding for government schools.) So we have a promi-
nent conservative debunking the "Milwaukee Mira-
cle." Milwaukee has a large and well-functioning
voucher experiment, and it may be, as this critic claims,
that it has not dramatically lifted the performance of
public schools, but it has provided thousands of chil-
dren in independent schools with real educational
opportunity That is not all the miracle that was hoped
for, but for those children it is miracle enough. Then
there are those who say that what we need is not
vouchers but tax credits. That's an interesting idea, but
its proponents have yet to explain how it will help
those who don't pay taxes to begin with, which means
the urban underclass that is most in need of better
75
schools. Now we have John Tamny, editor of Real-
ClearMarkets.com, contending that "good schools are
a reflection of the good values of parents and students
who put a premium on education. Without them,
vouchers will likely be another government handout
bringing with them all the negatives and unintended
consequences that other handouts have traditionally
brought." Apparendy it is better that the government
handout, at the rate of $15,000 per year per student,
should be given to the existing and disastrous public
school systems. Mr. Tamny's answer to the problems
of the urban underclass is that they should become
middle-class. Brilliant. That may be much to be
desired, but it will not happen so long as their children
are forced into schools that are manifestly not prepar-
ing them to participate in the opportunities and
responsibilities of American society. Real parental
choice, whether through vouchers or other means,
deserves the support of conservatives, liberals, and
everyone else who claims to care about the poor in
America's cities.
• Published accounts and personal conversations
about the recendy concluded 35th General Congrega-
tion of the Society of Jesus suggest that it will be pretty
much business as usual with the Jesuits. The big news
item was the election of a new general of the society,
Father Adolfo Nicolas, a Spaniard who has spent many
years in Asia. In two messages to the meeting of the
congregation in Rome, Pope Benedict gendy but clear-
ly indicated concern about Jesuit fidelity to Catholic
faith and life, but that apparently made little impres-
sion. Speaking to the press after his election, Father
Nicolas complained about stories suggesting a tension
between the society and the papacy. "The Society of
Jesus," he said, "has from the very beginning always
been in communion with the Holy Father.... We want
to cooperate with the Holy See and to obey the Holy
Father. That has not changed and will not change." Of
course, anybody who has not apostasized is in com-
munion with the Holy Father. In view of the recent
history of the society, Father Nicolas' assertion seems
somewhat insouciant. As the number of members has
declined precipitously in recent decades, Jesuits have
been in the lead among those who dissent from, and in
some cases publicly defy, the Church's teaching on
faith and morals. The fact that those who have presided
over the society's decline expressed such enthusiasm
for the election of Father Nicolas is not encouraging.
The Catholic character of many Jesuit universities and
colleges—describing themselves not as Catholic but as
schools "in the Jesuit tradition"—has all but disap-
peared. Jesuit theologians are conspicuous among
those denying or fudging the unique and universal role
76
of Christ in human salvation. A 2005 instruction from
the Vatican declared that "those who practice homo-
sexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies,
or support the so-called 'gay culture' must not be
admitted to seminaries or to holy orders." Yet Jesuits in
positions of leadership declare that they welcome and
affirm men who are "homosexuality oriented and gay."
Writing to the General Congregation, Pope Benedict
indicated that there are serious concerns about the way
in which Jesuits address, or fail to address, the pastoral
care of men with same-sex attractions. There is also
deep dissent on abortion, as witness a chair in the law
school of Georgetown University, a putatively Jesuit
school, named in honor of the late Fr. Robert Drinan,
who did more than anyone else to provide a covering
rationale for Catholic politicians who publicly reject
the Church's teaching on the defense of innocent
human life. Well, we could go on, and sometimes we
have. Father Nicolas has just assumed his role as leader
of the society. We must hope that he will demonstrate
the courage and faith to lead the society toward a
"communion with the Holy Father" that would be
recognizable by Saint Ignatius. That is the hope
expressed by Pope Benedict in an audience with those
participating in the meeting of the congregation. After
emphasizing the Church's teaching on Jesus as the sole
mediator of salvation, sexual morality, the culture of
life, and the understanding of marriage and family, the
pope said: "Precisely for this reason I have invited you
in the past and I invite you again today to consider how
to regain a fuller meaning of your distinctive 'fourth
vow' of obedience to the Successor of Peter—which
consists not solely in readiness to be sent on mission to
distant lands, but also—in the more authentically Igna-
tian spirit of 'thinking with the Church and in the
Church'—in the readiness to 'love and serve' the Vicar
of Christ on earth with that 'effective and affective'
devotion which must make you his valued and irre-
placeable co-workers in his service for the universal
Church."
• Oh, what a delicious brouhaha this is. The rabbis of
Conservative Judaism have voted to censure the pope
for changes he made in a prayer of the Good Friday
liturgy. Not, of course, the Good Friday liturgy known
to all but a relatively few Catholics, but the liturgy in
Latin, sometimes called the Tridentine Mass or the Pius
V Mass. Benedict XVI calls it the Mass of John XXIII,
since it was last modified during that pope's reign, and
it is officially referred to as "the extraordinary" form, as
distinct from the "ordinary" form familiar to most
Catholics. Got all that? In any event, the old prayer
spoke of the "blindness" of the Jews to their Messiah.
Jews strenuously objected to that. So the new prayer
FIRST THINGS
drops the bit about blindness but still asks God to lead
Jews to accept Jesus as their Savior and expresses the
hope that "all Israel may be saved." Now Jews object
just as strenuously to that. Catholic-Jewish relations
have suffered a severe setback, we are told. Says Abra-
ham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, "While
we appreciate that some of the deprecatory language
has been removed, we are deeply troubled and disap-
pointed that the framework and intention to petition
God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact."
Cardinal Walter Kasper, Rome's point man on Jewish-
Christian matters, is just a touch testy about such com-
plaints. "I must say that I don't understand why Jews
cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to
formulate our prayers," he told an Italian newspaper.
"We think that this prayer cannot reasonably be
viewed as an obstacle to dialogue since it reflects the
faith of the Church. Also, Jews have prayers in their
liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like." In an
interview with Vatican Radio, Kasper said: "The Holy
Father wanted to say, 'Yes, Jesus Christ is the savior of
all men, including the Jews.' This doesn't mean we are
embarking on a mission [to convert Jews]. We are giv-
ing witness to our faith." A very different Jewish
response is offered by Hillel Halkin in the New York
Sun. "Are [the Jewish protestors] worried that God
might actually listen to such a prayer? . . . Are there
really so many Jews who are ready to run to the bap-
tismal font with thefirstknock of a Christian mission-
ary at their door? One doubts it, but, if it's true, it's a
sad comment not on the predatoriness of Christianity
but on the weakness of contemporary Judaism and
Jewish identity," writes Halkin. He mentions Chris-
tians who are appreciative of Judaism and close to Jews,
and they are also "convinced that in the end the Jewish
people will recognize this figure as the Messiah they
gave to the world." "I know such Christians. Not only
do they not have an anti-Jewish bone in their bodies,
they think far more of the Jews than many Jews do. " It
is quite possible, writes Halkin, to respect another reli-
gion while believing one's own is more true. "Jews have
always thought this about Judaism and it's hypocritical
of them to want Christians not to think it about Chris-
tianity. If anyone cares enough about my soul to pray
for me, I might as well take it as a compliment."
• In sharpest contrast to Hillel Halkin's reflection is a
long editorial in New York's Jewish Daily Forward. It
is a sustained cry of outrage against Pope Benedict's
revision of the Good Friday prayer in the extraordi-
nary Latin form. The editors write: "The prayer no
longer speaks of Jewish 'blindness' or 'darkness,' much
less 'perfidy.' But it still asks that 'all Israel be saved
through Christ our Lord.' It was that missionizing
MAY 2008
ambition, not the phrasing of it, that troubled Jews
through the ages. That was the doctrine that Pope John
Paul II promised to annul." It will come as stunning
news to all who are even minimally informed about
such matters that John Paul promised to annul, as if he
could, the teaching that Jesus Christ came to be the
Savior of all. Repeatedly the editorial claims that in
recent decades, before the regressive Cardinal
Ratzinger became pope, the Catholic Church declared
that Jews and Judaism are "exempt" from the universal
promise of the gospel. The Catholic Church taught,
says the Forward, that "the Jews have their own path to
redemption." Of course the Church teaches that God
denies nobody the grace necessary to salvation and
underscores the unbreakable bond between the
Church and the People of Israel, but that does not
diminish in the slightest the doctrine that salvation is
through Christ, even for those who have never heard
the gospel. It is touching to the point of pathetic that
the Forward is so eager to have the Church legitimate
Judaism by granting it a unique exemption from the
gospel promise. The editorial is tided "Turning Back
the Clock" and ends with this: "In America, at least,
Jews and Catholics have a long tradition of making
common cause in the public sphere, working together
for religious freedom, the rights of labor, immigrants
and the poor, and much more. In recent years, it's true,
the collaboration has been clouded by disagreements,
mainly over abortion and the lessons of the Holocaust.
Progressives on both sides have looked to the continu­
ing process of dialogue and reconciliation to lift those
veils and clear the road forward." Yes, progressives (i.e.,
liberals) on both sides no doubt hope that. Those on
both sides who care about the integrity of Judaism and
Christianity, however, know that dialogue and recon­
ciliation can be advanced only in the truth of reason
and revelation that is not subject to political negotia­
tion. Contra the Forward, Jews who are confident of
the truth of Judaism do not feel a need for the Catholic
Church to certify their conviction, and Christians who
are faithful to the gospel will continue to ask everyone,
including Jews, the question posed by Jesus, "Who do
you say that I am?"
• Yes, it is true, I occasionally criticize our parish
newsletter, the New York Times. Less frequendy than
in the past, however. It is, after all, such an easy target.
But I am among the declining number who read it
almost every morning, and I confess it can still get a rise
out of me from time to time. In its editorial stridency
and biased reporting on culture-of-lif e questions, along
with much else, the Times seems to be begging for out­
raged protest. Not, of course, that one would oblige
them with protest that is anything other than civil. But
77
now I stumble across this article in the New Republic
criticizing the Times9 treatment of abortion. How nice,
I think, that even TNR has had enough. But no, the
point of the article is that the Times is not full-throated
enough in its advocacy of "reproductive rights," which
is the paper's favored euphemism for abortion. The
author of the TNR article, Debbie Nathan, cites sever­
al stories in the Times over the last few years that
include not entirely unsympathetic treatments of pro-
life advocates and even go so far as to suggest that some
women are deeply troubled about having had their
children terminated. Nathan writes: "So, what's going
on at the Times} Maybe only what's happening in the
whole culture. Liberals and even feminists have bought
into the reasoning that abortion is basically immoral,
and if women could just be educated and dosed with
birth control, we wouldn't have to terminate any preg­
nancies." She is right about the cultural change in atti­
tudes toward abortion. Some people are going even
further and are raising serious questions about contra­
ception. Where will it all end? Nathan writes, "The
Gray Lady is powerful way beyond New York liberal
circles. And by making anti-woman moral judgments
and obsessing over 'problems' with no good evidence
they exist, she's abusing her nation and the world."
What a lovely phrase: "her nation and the world." It
should do wonders for editorial egos at the Times, even
if the paper is being charged with the crime of nation
and world abuse. Debbie Nathan, one notes, is also the
author of Pornography, ζ book aimed at helping
teenagers understand the pros and cons of pornogra­
phy. And, although the TNR article doesn't mention
it—as in "full disclosure"—Nathan has something of a
history with the Times. A couple of years ago, writing
on Slate, she accused Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald
of illegally watching kiddy porn, which got her entan­
gled in a threatened libel suit. But Ms. Nathan has a
point in her discussion of a change in the Times9 treat­
ment of abortion. It is no longer an unmitigated good
to be celebrated as a sign of women's liberation. It is
now somehow morally problematic, to be discussed
with a furrowed brow and moderate hand-wringing,
and, push come to shove, to be defended, and defend­
ed adamandy, as a necessary evil. This may be viewed
as progress, albeit of a painfully limited kind, and it is
understandable that Debbie Nathan and TNR are
alarmed.
• The expensive wraparound of this issue of Publishers
Weekly is promoting Gene Robinson's In the Eye of
the Storm: Swept to the Center by God. Robinson, you
may remember, is the gay Episcopal bishop of New
Hampshire. The book is published by Church Pub­
lishing Inc., which apparendy has absorbed the old
78
Morehouse and Seabury publishing entities. The ad
says that this is "the only book by the Rt. Rev. Gene
Robinson," so apparendy it is a chance you don't want
to miss. The foreword is by Archbishop Desmond
Tutu of South Africa, who espies parallels between
apartheid and bias against gays, and whose support for
Robinson underscores the yawning gap between him
and the Anglican bishops of Africa who are pressing
the Anglican communion to the breaking point in their
commitment to biblical faith and practice. The promo-
tion describes Robinson as a "major newsmaker for
2008." Well, not really. He became bishop in 2004 and
hasn't done anything newsworthy since dien except to
continue to be the gay bishop of New Hampshire.
Newsworthy would be repentance and a declaration of
fidelity to a recognizably Christian sexual morality.
But it is nice to see the names of Morehouse and
Seabury prominendy mentioned again after all these
years, even if in a paid advertisement. One expects that
sales to gays and remaining Episcopalians might repay
the cost of the wraparound. But there is something so
yesteryear in making a big splash about gay Episco-
palians. Both author and publisher no doubt remember
fondly the 1950s when Bishop James Pike could create
a modest sensation by rejecting whatever article of the
faith he found disagreeable that week. What was then a
novelty has by now the feel of a staid and exhausted
tradition. I suppose, however, that one takes his oppor-
tunities for defiance where he can get them, even where
there is nothing left to defy. Unless one dared to be
truly original by defying the urge to appear defiant.
• It was in 1988 that we hosted Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, who gave our Erasmus Lecture, followed by
several days of intense conversation with an ecumeni-
cal group of noted theologians and biblical scholars.
From that I edited the book Biblical Interpretation in
Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church
(Eerdmans). This October, exacdy twenty years later,
Pope Benedict will preside over a synod of bishops
devoted to biblical interpretation, under thetide"The
Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church."
Already, some of the arguments are joined. Cardinal
Carlo Maria Martini, a Jesuit, leading progressive, and
emeritus archbishop of Milan, is giving interviews in
which he defends the status quo. Various critical
methodologies have not undermined biblical authority
or confused the faithful, Martini contends, and the
most important thing is not to "roll back" the advances
of Vatican Council II. In sum, says Martini, there is no
crisis. Benedict has chosen as relator, or chairman, of
the synod Cardinal Marc Ouellet, archbishop of Que-
bec. "Faith is a basic principle to the scientific character concludes, "These volumes are a scholarly achievement
of exegesis," Ouellet told a recent meeting of biblical
FIRST THINGS
scholars. "If we exclude faith, we are not being rigor-
ous; we are misunderstanding the book. This point has
to be made in the academy. We have to help one anoth-
er to come home to Scripture in the spiritual sense." If
you want to get a sense of some of the issues that will
likely be joined at the synod of bishops, read again
Robert Louis Wilken's "How to Read the Bible" in the
March issue. Or maybe you can track down a used
copy of Biblical Interpretation in Crisis.
• It seems the tide has turned in public attitudes
toward abortion. Especially among young people.
Two pro-abortion warriors, Ellen Goodman of the
Boston Globe and activist Gloria Feldt are not at all
happy about it. Both address a spate of movies—Juno,
Knocked Up, Waitress, Bella—in which the decision to
reject abortion and have babies is favorably portrayed.
Goodman writes: "I am supposed to go with the flow
and not point a scolding finger at cultural propaganda.
But fuddy-duddy be damned. Sitting behind those
tweens [in the movie theater]—girls somewhere
between preschool and pubescence—I wondered what
was being absorbed through their PG-13 pores." She
quotes Stephanie Coontz who says: "Social conserva-
tives are backing off on the condemnation of single
mothers. Social liberals are backing off on the idea that
it's possible to have an abortion and not be ruined by
it." Goodman concludes: "Once again, adults are being
called to teach against the culturaltide.Think of it as a
casting call for designated fuddy-duddies." Feldt is
exercised that pro-lifers have successfully joined their
cause to what is seen as the pro-family position. "It's
often overlooked that abortion is as much part of fam-
ily formation as childbearing. Women don't have abor-
tions because they fail to value children, but because
they value children so highly that they want to give
birth when they can care for them well." Right. "I value
children in general, and maybe a different child at
another time, but this child is scheduled for extermina-
tion." Women of their age, Goodman and Feldt seem
to be saying, are like moral vampires who need today's
girls to make the same mistakes they did in order for
them to feel justified about their own decisions. The
good news is that they now cast themselves as defend-
ers of the status quo against the culturaltideof aversion
to abortion.
• History of the Book in Canada is a $200 set of three
volumes and almost two thousand pages produced by
the University of Toronto Press and tracing the story of
book publishing in Canada from 1840 to 1980. The
extended review in the Times Literary Supplement
that deserves a wide readership." But not likely to
MAY 2008
receive it, I'm afraid. We live in a world in which so
many achievements are denied their just deserts. While
a wide readership seems improbable, surely a few of
you might strike a blow for justice by buying, and read­
ing, History of the Book in Canada.
• "American Catholics in the New Gilded Age." It's
not a pretty picture, according to Daniel J. Morrissey,
professor of law at Gonzaga University, Spokane.
Writing in America, ζ Jesuit magazine, he says: "The
masters of the universe in the new golden age of greed
were aided and abetted by the only tangible achieve­
ments of the Bush administration: its tax reductions
and deregulatory schemes. Every profile of contempo­
rary American Catholics must come to grips with the
uncomfortable fact that a majority of the Catholics
who attend church every week voted for George W.
Bush in 2004." He then adds, "Maybe pragmatic con­
siderations were uppermost in their minds at the time."
Or maybe they were weighing something other than
all economics all the time. Like, for instance, the culture
of life. For Professor Morrissey, it seems, that is an
uncomfortable fact with which he has not "come to
grips," or even considered worthy of notice.
• One of the most admired figures in Poland during
the Solidarity period was Father Jozef Tischner, the
first chaplain to the union movement. Tischner, who
died in 2000, was a philosopher of great distinction
who worked closely with Karol Wojtyla, later John
Paul the Great, in Krakow and, later, in organizing the
regular gatherings of intellectuals at Castel Gandolfo.
Now the Tischner Institute in Krakow has published
in English the first issue of the Tischner Institute
Journal of Philosophy, "Thinking in Values: Solidarity."
It is a big, handsome journal with contributions by
notable Polish intellectuals and will be of interest to
those who want to understand currents of thought that
influenced Karol Wojtyla. (For more information:
www.tischner.org.pl.)
• "Mormons Dismayed by Harsh Spotlight" is the
headline on the front page of the Wall StreetJournal xhe
day after Mitt Romney dropped out of the race. The
story says, among other things, that I wrote that "a
Mormon presidency would threaten Christian faiths."
Not so. As readers may remember, my position was
that Mitt Romney was in many ways a very attractive
candidate but I believed that commentators were
underestimating the uneasiness of many Americans,
and not only evangelicals, with the prospect of a Mor­
mon president. A major reason for such uneasiness is
that a Mormon in the White House would enhance the
influence of Mormonism, which they view as a false
79
religion. Whatever the political attractiveness of Rom­
ney, for such people the religious factor trumps the
political. All this strikes me as self-evident and in no
way "controversial." These people are not to be derid­
ed as religious bigots nor to be compared, as they are
by one party in the Journal story, to anti-Semites. One
may disagree with them while recognizing that their
position is not indefensible. The Romney candidacy
revealed the extent of uneasiness with Mormonism.
One can hardly imagine a more reassuring public face
of Mormonism than that presented by Mitt Romney.
Yet a poll taken shortly before he withdrew from the
race indicated that 50 percent of Americans were, to
varying degrees, "uncomfortable" with the prospect of
a Mormon president, while 81 percent ranged from
"comfortable" to "enthusiastic" with a black president,
and 76 percent said the same about a woman. We have
a long history of thinking about blacks and women in
our society. Until this campaign, it seems probable that
most Americans had given little, if any, thought to
Mormons and Mormonism. It also seems that those
non-Mormons who had given most thought to the
subject are most uneasy about a Mormon as president.
Greater familiarity does not necessarily result in greater
acceptance. But it can, over time. The Latter-day Saints
continue to present themselves as being part of the
Christian tradition with which most Americans identi­
fy. That can cut two ways: It may make Mormonism
more acceptable for many, while, for others, it may
exacerbate the suspicion that Mormonism is sailing
under false colors. I expect thefirstdynamic is stronger,
if for no other reason than that most people are not
attentive to the theological concerns that drive the sec­
ond. The response to the Romney candidacy is a disap­
pointment for Mormons seeking a secure place in the
American religious and political order, and a brutal dis­
appointment for Mormons who thought that security
had already been attained. The story of Mormonism in
America is far from over. The Romney candidacy may
be viewed in historical retrospect as a moment that
alerted us, Mormons and non-Mormons alike, to the
hard work still to be done.
• "Let's getridof all the nuclear weapons in the world."
So what's this? Another crackpot idea from lefty paci­
fists? Hardly. The statement in support of a nuclear-free
world was issued in January 2007 by George P. Shultz,
William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam Nunn—
two former secretaries of state, a former secretary of
defense, and a famously hard-nosed former senator and
expert on security. The Catholic Peace Fellowship or
Evangelicals for Social Action this is not. Yet the
statement received almost no public attention apart
from the Wall Street Journal, where it was published.
80 FIRST THINGS

The statement underscored that the control of nuclear
weaponry is much more unstable than we have been
lulled into thinking, that the doctrine of nuclear deter-
rence is unworkable, and that it is in fact possible, if we
have the political will for it, to rid the world of nuclear
weapons. In January 2008, the four initiators issued
another statement, also published in the Journal, indi-
cating that they have been "encouraged by additional
indications of general support" from a very impressive
list of former secretaries of state and defense as well as
former national security advisers. "Indications of gener-
al support." That's a big step down from the boldness of
thefirststatement. The new statement advocates a num-
ber of specific measures toward the goal of a nuclear-
free world. But the four have not abandoned the goal.
Here is the conclusion: "In some respects, the goal of a
world free of nuclear weapons is like the top of a very
tall mountain. From the vantage point of our troubled
world today, we can't even see the top of the mountain,
and it is tempting and easy to say we can't get there from
here. But the risks from continuing to go down the
mountain or standing pat are too real to ignore. We
must chart a course to higher ground where the moun-
taintop becomes more visible." It is no criticism of the
initiative to observe that this sounds more like a wan
hope than the forceful alarm and challenge of the first
statement of January 2007.
• Those of a certain age may remember, as do I, the
evening of March 23, 1983, when at the end of an
address to the nation, almost as an afterthought, or so it
seemed, President Ronald Reagan said that we must no
longer resign ourselves to the prospect of cosmic devas-
tation on which the doctrine of mutual assured destruc-
tion (MAD) was premised. Is it not possible, he asked in
a seemingly wistful manner, to move away from threat-
ened retaliation to effective defense? That was the
beginning of the strategic defense initiative, quickly
dubbed by Reagan's opponents as "Star Wars." Stu-
dents of these matters say that it is one of the great and
unacknowledged achievements of the present adminis-
tration that it has made great strides toward an effective
strategic defense system. I hope they areright,for I sus-
pect that Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn arerightin
saying that we have lulled ourselves into a false sense of
security about the prospect of nuclear devastation.
• I reviewed a book for the New York Sun in which I
had occasion to remark that the author's claims were
excessively apodictic. The book editor tells me this was
appreciated by his colleagues, one of whom recalled
this bit of doggerel:
A painter at work on a triptych
Asked the sitter the colorfor lipstick.
"The only real red
Is carmine, " she said,
In a tone a tad too apodictic.
So you expect every item here to be profound?
FIRST THINGS gift subscriptions to students—perhaps
a son, daughter, niece, or nephew?—have been known
to change lives. Think about it. And, if you know
someone who is a likely subscribers, we will gladly
send a sample issue and mention that you're the one
who thinks so highly of their intelligence. Just send
their names and addresses.
If you just can't wait for your next issue, there is, on the
Web, a Daily Article by some of your favorite writers
at www.fkstthings.com. Then click the "Read Our
Blog" button and get even more.

Sources: Fr. Thomas Reese in Washington Post, Mar 3; Columbia York Sun, Feb 12; Jews and Good Friday, Jewish Daily Forward,
University press release, Feb 26; ChnstianityToday.com, Feb 25; Feb 15; Nathan in the New Republic, Feb 14; Gene Robinson,
Prendergast in Ottawa Citizen, March 12; Hillenbrand, ChicagoPublishers Weekly, Feb 11; Ouellet quoted by John Allen, Feb 8;
Sun-Times, Mar 2; Indian surrogate mothers, New York Times,Goodman in Seattle Times, Jan 4; Feldt in Women's eNews, Jan 17;
Mar 10; Searle-Papineau, Times Literary Supplement,Jm 18; Pope History of the Book in Canada, Times Literary Supplement, Sept
Benedict on hell, Zenit, Feb 11; Rudd in Australia, New York 14,2007; Morrissey in America, Jan 7-14; Mormons and Romney,
Times, Feb 13; Haught, Christian Century, Feb 26; John Tamny Wall
in Street Journal, Feb 8; nuclear-free world, Wall Street Journal,
New York Sun, Feb 14; Kasper in Zenit, Feb 9; Halkin in New Jan 15.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.