Neuhaus' first and last things

'American Babylon' is about being Christian in the United States

Jun. 11, 2009
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (CNS photo, 2005)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version

AMERICAN BABYLON: NOTES OF A CHRISTIAN IN EXILE
By Richard John Neuhaus
Published by Basic Books, $16.95

Soon after Fr. Richard John Neuhaus died in January, encomiums for his life and work appeared in this country’s top conservative newspapers and periodicals. Obituaries and assessments appeared also in journals that bore the brunt of his sardonic, scathing, at times unfair attacks, including the National Catholic Reporter.

This was not surprising, for even those who disagreed with him had to admit that Neuhaus made his mark, whether as a youthful civil rights advocate and opponent of the Vietnam War or, in more recent years, as founder of the Institute for Religion in Public Life and its signature journal, First Things.

Many commentators describe his career as a journey from left to right; as an abandonment of, or recovery from (depending on the viewpoint), his 1960s-style liberalism to an embrace of 1980s-style neoconservativism. Such plot lines obscure the extent to which Neuhaus propounded the same basic themes throughout his career. These themes are on full display in his last book.

American Babylon is about being Christian in the United States. The title is an allusion to the Babylonian exile after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., when God, through the prophet, called upon the Israelites there to build houses and plant gardens, to make families and multiply, to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:4-8).

These ancient instructions, Neuhaus notes, were interpreted by New Testament and patristic authors to mean that Christians, in whatever land they live, await their return from exile, not an exile from the earthly Jerusalem however, but from the heavenly Jerusalem. For Christians, every nation is Babylon, and their duty is to go along with the customs and seek the welfare of the city.

And yet, “there is a limit to their going along.”

Like the Old Testament heroes, Christians are not to worship false gods or accommodate themselves to the ways of the city when it involves betraying their faith. Thus there is a tension or dialectic for Christians between their ultimate allegiance to God and their political allegiances, which are “penultimate.”

This distinction highlights the significance of the United States, as Neuhaus sees it, for the government itself acknowledges this distinction in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The government declares its incompetence in religion but also protects its free exercise in society. This constitutional arrangement avoids the twin dangers of direct governmental control of religion, as in a theocracy, and of privatizing religion, as in the militant secularism of many European governments since the French Revolution.

Thus the task of Christians is to persuade their atheistic fellow citizens of the need for God in public life, while at the same time warning their overly eager fellow Christians against using government to enforce religious belief. Setting up the Christian task in the United States in this way allows Neuhaus to claim a middle position between two extremes and presents his own views on the relation between Christianity and America as “moderate.”

Neuhaus argues that Christian allegiance to America is provisional, not eschatological, limited yet substantial and real. For this reason, he affirms his identity as an American and derides radical critics who seek to escape time and place by claiming “citizenship of the world,” an ironic impulse, he notes, that reflects a very American way of thinking.

Neuhaus is at his best in picking apart the arguments of his opponents. His positive account of natural law as the basis for a public philosophy is less compelling. This becomes clear in his use, and misuse, of Alasdair MacIntyre, on whom he draws to critique utilitarianism and individualism. In his book After Virtue, MacIntyre shows that the Enlightenment project has failed and argues for recovering the Aristotelian tradition of the virtues by constructing local communities amid the dark ages that are already upon us. “This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.”

Neuhaus quotes this passage, but suggests it is “overdrawn” and translates it into a simple appeal for “traditional values.” But this misses the point. MacIntyre’s argument is that Aristotelian virtue is corroded by the modern state and that the only way to extend this tradition is through practices that resist its facilitation of free-market capitalism. Similar problems arise elsewhere in the book.

Nowhere does Neuhaus engage McIntyre’s critique of the modern nation-state as a deadening and deadly bureaucracy masquerading as a genuine political community.

This is no merely theoretical matter. Without a substantial account of a polis distinct from America, the tendency will be to imagine an idealized America. In these essays, this idealization emerges when Neuhaus claims that “the people who are the American polis are deeply attached to the concept of the dignity of the human person.” True, this concept is often invoked by U.S. citizens, but it is applied in contradictory ways in particular cases -- not only in abortion, but also in intentionally attacking innocent civilians in war.

Neuhaus’ exhibits the flaws of his two predecessors and personal heroes in public intellectual life, Reinhold Niebuhr and John Courtney Murray. While readily admitting that the American experiment has weaknesses, he is clearly not ready to hand over its title as the last best hope of the West. Judged on the basis of right reason and the natural law, Neuhaus’ stance on America is not very “moderate” at all.

“Hope and Hopelessness” makes for particularly poignant reading, given that Neuhaus wrote it while dying. Musing on humanity’s statis viatoris, our being on the way, and on the infinitely receding horizon of our hope for a better world, he writes: “It is a hope for a future generation, not for me. I will die before it is realized, if it is ever realized. Hoping in such a future is little more than leaving a greeting card for future generations, wishing them luck.”

These are words written by a man who knew where he stood, but also knew that this knowledge is veiled in “learned ignorance” (Augustine’s phrase).

For those of us who disagreed with where Neuhaus stood, this is a comforting and discomfiting phrase, for “learned ignorance” abounds on the left and the right and everywhere else. In the end, we’ll all have much to learn about the significance of first things as they are revealed in the searing light of last things.

Michael Baxter teaches theology at Notre Dame and lives and works at the Catholic Worker in South Bend, Ind. He is also National Secretary of the Catholic Peace Fellowship.

Read NCR's obituary of Neuhaus and several remembrances: Fr. Richard John Neuhaus dead at age 72

Richard Neuhaus should be

Richard Neuhaus should be remembered for one book, and one book alone. Death on a Friday Afternoon will (or should) go down as a spiritual classic. It is a series of meditations on Christ’s last words from the cross. Though I certainly appreciate First Things, and his insistence that religious voices be heard in the public square, it is Death on a Friday Afternoon that will be remembered 100 years ago.

In reading the article, the

In reading the article, the folowing paragraph reminded me of a quote from Chesterton.
"Thus the task of Christians is to persuade their atheistic fellow citizens of the need for God in public life, while at the same time warning their overly eager fellow Christians against using government to enforce religious belief. Setting up the Christian task in the United States in this way allows Neuhaus to claim a middle position between two extremes and presents his own views on the relation between Christianity and America as “moderate.”

Chesterton once characterized the Christian (read "American Christian")as "one who hates the world (America) enough to want to change it, and loves it (America) enough to think that it's worth changing."

John Henry Newman also said, "To live is to change; to be come perfect means to have changed often."

Both of these quotes make a very strong case for the concept of evolution (change over time) and where we will be as Americans in the next 20 years is within our control. We are not determined by nature; we can choose the path of our evolution. As Lawrence of Arabia said in the film, "Nothing is written."

Oh, not Chesterton, again.

Oh, not Chesterton, again. Chesterton was considered rather pitiful when I was in Catholic college in the fifties. He was ignored even then.

The Newman quote has a word

The Newman quote has a word he did not write. He wrote: "To live is to change, and to be perfect [not "to be come perfect] is to have changed often.

Except for Bernard Law

Except for Bernard Law himself, no one has done more damage to the Catholic Church in this country than Neuhaus. He was a champion of Bernard Law and the Legionnaires of Christ founder Fr. Maciel. He, along with George Weigel, embraced the neoconservative politics of the Bush-Cheney administration that have debauched this nation.

Steve

HOW SICK!!" Cashelguy2 has

HOW SICK!!" Cashelguy2 has the nerve to write about a great man who has done so much for Church and society: "Except for Bernard Law himself, no one has done more damage to the Catholic Church in this country than Neuhaus. He was a champion of Bernard Law and the Legionnaires of Christ founder Fr. Maciel." Have you no shame, Sir! What a kind of venom do you drink for breakfast? Christ also helped and protected Judas, his betrayor. And so? You, too, have put your faith in people who later let you down. Does that mean you are evil?

Alex, did you even finish

Alex, did you even finish reading my post? We have all been let down by public figures at some point. The difference is that we stop defending their actions when their gross pathologies become apparent.

Neuhaus kept defending Bernard Law, Fr. Maciel, Bush and Cheney long after their gravely sinful policies were apparent. It is about prudence. Prudential judgement is a faculty that Neuhaus simply did not have.

Steve

No one has done more damage

No one has done more damage to the Catholic Church in this nation than Fr. Neuhaus and Cardinal Law? Really? How about Teddy Kennedy? How about Fr. Robert Drinan? How about Archbishop Rembert Weakland? How about Cardinals Joseph Bernardin and Roger Mahoney? How about the entire organization known as Call to Action? How about Women's Ordination Conference and WomenPriests (or whatever they call themselves)?

These are folks who just popped into my head within moments of reading your comment. Teddy Kennedy is about as far-left as one can get: pro-choice, pro-welfare state (as opposed to a state that encourages individuals to help themselves, and help their neighbors through direct action and charity, rather than government imposed charity), you name it; as well as being implicated in at least one suspicious death. Yet he claims to be Catholic in good standing. Fr. Robert Drinan, SJ, was Kennedy's theological adviser, and, in direct violation of Canon Law, an elected Congressman. He supported President Clinton's veto of the partial birth abortion restriction prompting Cardinal O'Connor, of happy memory, to publicly castigate him: "You could have raised your voice for life; you raised it for death," the cardinal wrote. "Hardly the role of a lawyer. Surely not the role of a priest."

Archbishop Rembert Weakland is a sexual predator who robbed his archdiocese of $450,000 to pay his victim/lover to keep quiet. Cardinal Bernardin was the leading advocate of dissent of his age (though I truly believe that he found his faith again as he was dying his heroic death). Cardinal Mahoney has been involved in massive coverups of child sexual abuse for years! He still is trying to cover it all up!!

Call to Action, Women's Ordination Conference, Catholics for a Free Choice, etc are all dissenting organizations whose members publicly and proudly violate Catholic teaching and Catholic law, who promote ideas that are anathema to a truly faithful Catholic: women's ordination, unrestricted abortion on demand, etc.

These individuals and groups have harmed, and continue to harm, profoundly, the unity of the Church and its teaching. They lead trusting souls down the road to ruin and they are completely unmindful of the great harm that they are doing to the Church.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was one of the finest priests I have ever had the great fortune to know. He was kind and gentle, very pastoral, highly intelligent and an incredibly talented writer and speaker with a gift of gathering around him like-minded folks, as well as individuals who were searching for truth. He used these skills and talents solely for the service of God and the Church. He was a profound inspiration, yet he never believed that the focus should be on him or his ideas, but rather on Christ and His Church, and the eternal Truth that the Church preaches. We should all strive to live up to that inspiration.

As for Cardinal Law, he may have been guilty of great misjudgment, misjudgment that harmed many innocents. But, his errors were not malicious, but simply misguided, misinformed, and neglectful. Unlike those whose names I have listed above, who choose to err, occasionally out of malicious intent (Archbishop Weakland's crime, for example), but most often out of a desire for power and influence. Cardinal Law's errors were committed by a good man, who, in good faith, accepted the word of his advisers rather than investigate himself. The others commit their errors out of their own pride and ambition.

Clint, what dissent was

Clint, what dissent was Cardinal Bernadin guilty of that you claim damaged the Catholic Church? I followed his career for years and do not remember any dissent.

Apparently you are not familiar with Bernard Law. He was guilty of gravely sinful errors of commission. Not only did he cover up the crimes of the sociopathic pedophiles he enabled, he conducted legal and spiritual war on the victims of these predator priests. In an Orwellian campaign of deceit, he blamed the victims of being the perpetrators who preyed on priests. He also threatened them with damnation if they didn't join his sick campaign of cover-up. Also, he slandered the saintly Bernadin.

Steve

I tend to agree with you

I tend to agree with you cashelguy2. And knowing Baxter for may years, I find this article to be incongruent with the Baxter I know.

You certainly have identified an detestable trinity if ever there was one...

From what I heard and saw

From what I heard and saw from Fr. Neuhaus is a man of mature faith and intellect. Some might decry that he moved from the liberalism of the 1960's to the conservatism of the 80's but that move was a move of growth in intellect, common sense and an abiding thirst for the truth that is greater than the narcissism of so much of Christian liberalism. His move to the Catholic Church was simply a culmination of this growth in the truth. True growth in the truth always embraces love even to the point of sacrificing security and past friendship to stand up for the Truth who is ultimately God. His scathing attacks on the drivel often times coming from the National Catholic Reporter and other hacks of a similar nature was based on this Truth so often obfuscated by the drivel of these neo-deconstructionists. His scathing comments were really righteous indignation because he knew that those who assented to the drivel of liberalism had caused the most damage within Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular. Yet these hacks remain in denial. Just look at the more liberal religious orders. Essentially they have all but committed suicide, their numbers so few, yet they protest that all of this was a result of being faithful to Vatican II and the "renewal" it mandated. They think themselves a model for renewal--it is to laugh. Give me Neuhaus!

Richard John Neuhaus was a

Richard John Neuhaus was a far right wing fundamentalist of the neo-conservative post Vatican II Catholic Church. His reactionary words and deeds did great harm to the true nature of Christ and The People of God. It is not surprising to read the venomous and hate filled words of people who admire him. This man brought shame to the Church with his narrow and backward thinking mind.

Clint Green apparently is

Clint Green apparently is quite spritually advanced, for his knowledge of Archbishop Weakland's "maliciousness intent" and Cardinal Law's lack of malicious intent indicates a preternatural ability to know souls. Isn't it interesting how we find it easy to forgive the failings of those with whom we agree and whom we like? Sort of like our parents whom we always love, no matter their character flaws. JUDGE NOT, LESS YOU BE JUDGED.

I don't know, but I call

I don't know, but I call *allegedly* assaulting a young man (though an adult) sexually in his office while that same young man was trying to discuss the possibility of exploring a priestly vocation with the archbishop, then misdirecting $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to that same young man in the form of hush money, malicious. But, then again, you may have a different definition of malicious. Perhaps that is simply a rite of seduction?

I do agree, however, how easy it is to forgive the faults of those with whom we agree. How else can one explain the unambiguous defense of Archbishop Weakland found at NCR, along with the near universal contempt and scorn heaped upon Cardinal Law?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Solve the simple math problem.
1 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.