On the Unsavoury Antics of Certain Catholic Personages:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Though I am in general quite loathe to utilize labels for certain kinds of people, there comes a time when all attempts to avoid this fail and it becomes necessary to do so for the sake of expediency of prose. In undertaking this endeavour though, I will not explictly mention specific persons in doing this because the intention here is to avoid personalities to focus instead on issues, arguments, and the lack of the latter on the part of the kinds of persons I have in mind with this designation.

Essentially, though at least I will defend my occasional use of labels unlike these kinds of sniveling cowards who use terms they do not bother defining), it is with reluctance that I will coin the following term to explain certain Catholics who do far more harm than good in their public rantings and denunciations of others. The term for these sorts of people{1} is a long one but every part has meaning. Here it is:

Selective Neo-Ultramontaine Fideist Sophists{2}

My rationale for this label is as follows:

--The selective part applies because they are not consistent in their application of the other parts of the acronym.

---The neo-ultramontaine part applies because they fulfill the caricature of Catholics that the nineteenth century neo-ultramontaines did except they apply not infallibility to every papal utterance but the status of said statements as possessing magisterial weight which they do not have.{3} And in doing the latter, these sorts evince no understanding whatsoever of general norms of theological interpretation at all. In light of their denunciations of certain parties as "fundamentalists", there is no shortage of irony involved but I digress.

---The fideist{4} part applies because these sorts of people are constantly showing an unwillingness to use their gray matter by utilizing almost exclusively an illegitimate and illogical argumentum ad vericundiam methodology. Furthermore, they are constantly misrepresenting to a heinous degree the positions of those whom they react to{5}, they show no understanding whatsover of the charity that should accompany a passionate exchange on these issues. And because of the latter, they show their true colours as crass polemic rhetoricians who cannot interact with an argument on its merits and thus as unsuited to the discipline of the dialogue which recent popes have sought to engage in at various levels both within and without the household of faith.

---They are sophists{6} because they try to dismiss the arguments of their adversaries by puffing up the presumed "credentials" of those who may take their particular positions rather than examine the positions on their relative merits or lack thereof. This is an abdication of the tools of reason and logic and as I have argued elsewhere is by logical extension an endorsement of one of the worst forms of tyranny possible in potentia.

In short, they do a profound damage to the Catholic cause because in the area of reason and logic they fulfill the caricature of Catholics as ignorant simpletons who cannot exercise the fundamental tools of reason and logic and who would accept 2 + 2 as totalling 5 if a pope were to say so in a speech somewhere. Of course the Catholic magisterium has expressed a much more nuanced and logical approach to these matters and it is there where we should look for how to approach these matters, not self-anointed sorts like the kinds referred to above:

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed. (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25, § 1.)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Excerpt from Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian approved in forma specifica by Pope John Paul II (circa May 24, 1990)]

Obviously if this is the case with magisterial documents then by logical extension it applies at least equally if not more so to non-magisterial interventions of the prudential order as well.{7} This is the key problem that the Selective Neo-Untramontaine Fideist Sophists have with their methodology in a nutshell. And while more could be noted than just this, what is noted above suffices for the time being though this subject may be revisited and developed further if I sense the need for whatever reason and have the time and inclination to do so.

Notes:

{1} It bears noting that some persons may fit the criterial for only one or more portions of these characteristics but not all the parts so outlined above.

{2} Or SNUFS for a shorthand application of the term.

{3} There is also at times a misapplication of magisterial sources by these sorts in a manner that does not take into account not only general norms of theological interpretation in general but as they are properly applied to the sources they misrepresent in seeking to advance their respective ideologies.

{4} There is a good article in the online Catholic Encycyclopedia on fideism of which a few examples will suffice to point out the intended usage above:

A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpt from an Article on Fideism (c. 1913)]

Obviously, my usage of the above term for the kinds of people referred to is only intended to show habitual tendencies in their approach to various and sundry subjects and not imply a deliberate context that is proximate to heresy if not heretical.

{5} To note one example of many that come to mind, Stephen Hand is batting about .000 in understanding my positions on issues.

{6} The term "sophist" as I am employing it for the persons where the above label is applicable is the more modern and less ancient meaning of the term. Or to again quote the online Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject of sophism:

It was inevitable, therefore, that the name Sophist should lose its primitive meaning, and come to designate, not a man of wisdom, but a quibbler, and one who uses fallacious arguments. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpt from an Article on Sophists (c. 1913)]

{7} This is the reason why I have raised the challenge to those who claim a defacto magisterial sanction for the statements of the popes on the war in Iraq to show me how the statements themselves qualify as magisterial under the criteria of Lumen Gentium §25 and why the response from various Selective Neo-Untramontaine Fideist (SNUFS) has been evasion of the challenge so set forth by your host on many occasions. (To note one example of many which could be mentioned.)

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated!!!

The subject dealt with in that update is certain argumentation fallacies which have been circling the blogosphere as of late.

Briefly on Originalism and Chief Justice John Roberts:
(With Kevin Tierney)

Supreme Court Rules Against Schools in Military Recruiting Case

Granted it was an 8-0 decision, but the reasoning from Roberts once again shows that he came out a pretty solid nominee.

Indeed.

One of the benefits of the old blog being nowhere around, unless I say so, nobody is able to verify me opposing Roberts. :)

Well, Rerum Novarum is going nowhere soon and I will blog this so people know ;-)

Seriously though, I doubt you would have any problem publicly acknowledging that on the Roberts issue you were wrong...after all, it is if I recall an area where you said you hoped you were wrong. Or to go to the archives at gmail with your permission of course:{1}

On 10/6/05, Kevin Tierney wrote:
Even if Harriet Miers turns out to be a brilliant nomination, Bush has still dropped the ball big-time. It's been revealed that essentially her name was on a list of "pre-approved" justices that Harry Reid sent to Bush stating these nominees would not be filibustered. We've now entered a dangerous precedent over the issue of judicial nominations. The "Advise and Consent" clause of the Constitution now means what the liberals want it to mean. The president approaches them first, they tell him who to appoint, and then the president nominates them. Rather than what has traditionally happened, the President nominates, the Senate advises and inquires into the nominee, and then an up or down vote is given...

For my views on the proper meaning of "advise and consent", see this posting to Rerum Novarum circa May 24, 2005.

...What makes this worse is simply the fact that such a compromise is made for a weak pick. Republicans might be able to swallow a compromise if the nominee was solid. We got that compromise in John Roberts. Thankfully I was wrong about Roberts. He thoroughly embarrassed and bested the democrats attempting to destroy him during the confirmation hearings. As a result of that, the liberals were on the defensive. At this point they wouldn't dare squaring off against an even more intellectual judge that Bush could've nominated. Conservatives for the most part swallowed the socialism that was Hurricane Katrina relief because of John Roberts. Hurricane Katrina's socialism can be repealed. A supreme court justice cannot, or in essence cannot. [Kevin M. Tierney: Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa October 6, 2005)]

But yes, it was a well-argued decision. The nice thing about Roberts being Chief Justice is that he will have control of the court's agenda viz. what cases are tried, etc. for (God-willing) the next thirty years or so. Wikipedia has a good article on the role of the Chief Justice and you will see why Roberts in that role is potentially very advantageous for originalists everywhere.

Note:

{1} Kevin did consent to having that part of a private email posted at my request to do so.

"Vreebird" Dept.
(Another Installment in the So-Called "Neo-Con" Tracking Series)

The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. Though normally names are kept confidential, in this case it seems appropriate to mention the person whose work your host will interact with. Their words will be in yellow font.

[Update: A friend after reading this thread (who knows well my reasons for occasionally using the royal third person capitalizations when writing post material) advised me that this post would be better written in first person stylings. Ergo, I have gone back and changed the post to read much more in that fashion while adding two new sentences to end the post with. - ISM 3/13/06 11am]

Before the September Editorial and especially since then, many people have asked us what a neocon is.

For the record, when your host posited his challenge to define what is and is not a so-called "neo con", he did not have New Oxford Review in mind for a couple of reasons. One is that it simply is not (in my view) the source it once was and appears too often to have an approach to issues which is sometimes called "Anglo-Catholic." Certainly the journal itself admits that this was how it was founded and while they have been ecclesially aligned with the Catholic Church since 1983, it is the opinion of your host that certain pieces of presuppositional baggage from their days as Anglicans were not jettisoned in the process. Part of this was discussed in a weblog posting not long ago and your host does not intend to reiterate at this time was was noted back then. Moving on...

Your Editor has followed the neocons for over 35 years,

The first thirteen or more of which by Mr. Vree's own admission he was an Anglican. It remains to be seen if he got into his mind a certain understanding of this term that he did not bother revising after becoming Catholic. For that reason, it seems important to note the non-Catholic foundation from which he started this supposed "following" of so-called "neo-cons."

and I have had dealings with many of them (but I should not have assumed that everyone knows what a neocon is).

It is good to see Mr. Vree admit to this upfront. Often we all can assume certain things about a reading audience that we should not assume and (in this case) using a term without explaining what is meant by it is something that should be avoided as much as possible.

Given my background, I could have been an authentic neocon if I wanted to. But I didn't want to.

Whether this is or is not a good thing will depend (of course) on how Mr. Vree outlines the term as he understands it.

Here is a thumbnail sketch; I could say more, but this is the essence of it.

Here we go...

Authentic neocons descend from the Communist and socialist movements, with the most prominent leaders being Trotskyites (that is, ultra-Left Communists).

That is by my recollection how the term was first employed.{1} The question of course is why certain sorts refer to people as "neo-cons" who do not descend from this lineage at all.

When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites were severely persecuted, and ultimately Trotsky himself was assassinated in Mexico. Stalin was a gentile (indeed, an ex-seminarian) and Trotsky was a Jew, and the divide between the Stalinists and Trotskyites pretty much followed the same divide (with significant exceptions, especially in the early years of the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe, before many of the Jews in those satellite states were purged from the Party, even executed).

Stalin became increasingly anti-Semitic, and the Jewish Trotskyites had another reason to hate Stalin. After World War II when Israel was established, the Soviet Union sided with the Arabs against Israel, and the Soviet Union basically did not allow Jews to emigrate to Israel. Another reason to hate Stalin and the Soviet Union.

This is an accurate summary of events overall. It bears noting however that there were Jewish roots to not only the Trotskyites but also the earlier Leninists from which Stalin originally came from.

Many Jewish Trotskyites -- and other Jewish Leftists (but not most of them) -- became increasingly and indeed vehemently anti-Communist. Many supported the Vietnam War and were extremely hostile to the détente policies pursued by Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter. These ex-Leftist Jews perceived the Left, even liberals (rightly or wrongly), as being pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. These ex-Leftist Jews evolved into what they themselves called "neoconservatives."

See the first footnote of this response. The expression did not originate from those whom Mr. Vree claims.

As Benjamin Ginsberg said in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press), "One major factor that drew them [ex-Leftist Jewish neocons] inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel...."

To delve into the Israel issue would be to spill a lot of type as it has no shortages of complexities to it. We may discuss it another time but for now, Mr. Vree's quoting of Benjamin Ginsberg's overly-simplistic statement will have to do so this thread does not get offtrack.

The Jewish neocons' primary goal -- though not their exclusive goal -- has been to protect Israel (which, we suppose, is their right), and they see an American Empire as the best way to do that. Yes, we know you're not supposed to say that, but we have a bad habit of telling the naked truth.

Heck, that Mr. Vree is at least giving a description of this term is a welcoming change from what many who blather on about so-called "neo-cons" have done. (And that is to his credit.)

So the neocons want an American Empire, and Jewish neocon Jonah Goldberg put their view at its most blunt when he said: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

Of course when the reader reviews the context of this quote, Goldberg's precise wording is interesting (all emphasis is mine):

So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago. [Jonah Goldberg: From the Article Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two as published in National Review Online (circa April 23, 2002)]

Now Jonah Goldberg notes three things of interest here. First of all, the viewpoint Dale Vree attributes to him is actually one that Goldberg attributes to Michael Ledeen and as a paraphrase at that. Secondly, Goldberg says that he admires Ledeen's theory so paraphraised but does not completely concur with it. Thirdly, Goldberg thinks Ledeen was somewhat sarcastic in noting it in the first place. Something tells this writer that if someone took a sarcastic blurb of Mr. Vree's this badly out of context that Mr. Vree would lay about three or four eggs. But that is neither here nor there.

It seems based on what he notes above that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents. Unless something is being missed in this description, it is the one that will be presumed throughout the rest of this interaction with Dale Vree's work here.

It's interesting that Judge John Roberts was queried by the Senate Judiciary Committee as to his loyalty to his Catholic Faith (he resolutely denied it),

No he did not. This myopic approach to political issues was touched on in a series of predictions about the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito. To quote what I noted back in January on this matter viz. the Alito hearings:

Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 10, 2006)]

One of those in mind when I wrote the above words was Dale Vree. Moving on...

but one cannot question Jewish neocons about their loyalty to Israel. This is a double standard pure and simple.

If there is anything your host is not it is politically correct. For that reason and provided that proper care and discretion was taken this writer sees nothing wrong about questioning a loyalty to Israel from certain parties referred to (usually in a derisive fashion) as "neo-cons."

If you think this is anti-Semitic, you're wrong. Catholics should be loyal to their Catholic Faith above their loyalty to their country (think of St. Thomas More and so many other martyrs) -- and it is not anti-Catholic to say that.

It is certainly not anti-Catholic to say that. However, (i) it is a significant lacuna in charity{2} to presume that certain Catholics are not loyal to their faith simply because they do not approach it as Mr. Vree does and (ii) a Catholic in public service has a responsibility towards the position he is elected to (or nominated for) and doing what that position entails.

Whether Jewish neocons should be loyal to Israel is not something we're qualified to comment on.

Fair enough.

However, we do wish to note that Murray Polner and Adam Simms, both Jewish, said: "Do the interests of Israel drive U.S. Middle East policy? It's a fair question, though anyone who poses it risks being wrongly accused of being anti-Semitic" (Commonweal, July 18, 2003; italics added). Nonetheless, neocon Richard John Neuhaus does just that.

Was Richard John Neuhaus ever a Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" communist??? Did he descend from any other Communist or Socialist lineage either??? We are aware of Michael Novak once having similar viewpoints so (by Vree's definition) the term could possibly be applied to Novak. However, Mr. Vree is applying it to Fr. Neuhaus whom to my knowledge was never a Trotskyite, a so-called "New Left" communist, or a descendant of any communist/socialist lineage. Nor for that matter was George Weigel, another popular personage to tar and feather with the term "neo-con" by people such as Mr. Vree.

But since Dale Vree wants to play the label-slapping game, let me turn the tables on him for a moment. The problem with socialism is that there are different degrees involved. Would anyone at all who was once socialist or had socialist leanings who became conservative fit the so-called "neo-con" label as Mr. Vree understands it??? Or would this involve possibly someone who did not embrace the reactionary core of the Communist/Trotskyite/Socialist weltanschauung while having socialist tendencies??? Certainly Fr. Neuhaus was of what would be commonly called "leftist sympathies" in his younger days. A biographical sketch of him online from a supposedly "right wing website" had this to say about the man (footnotes removed and all emphasis being mine):

In the 1960s Neuhaus was an activist pastor at St. John the Evangelist Lutheran Church, whose parish extended into the largely black ghetto of Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. From the pulpit, Neuhaus preached against the war and for social justice. Neuhaus took his antiwar and other progressive beliefs—which he grounded in Christian theology—out of the church and into the streets. In the late 1960s Neuhaus gained national prominence as the cofounder of the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. Peter Berger, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College who like Neuhaus later became a neocon ideologue, joined Neuhass on the national steering committee of the antiwar group. In 1970 Berger and Neuhaus published Movement and Revolution, a collection of essays on the progressive movement. Included in the volume was an essay by Neuhaus titled "The Thorough Revolutionary." "A revolution of consciousness, no doubt," wrote Neuhaus in his defense of the Movement, "A cultural revolution, certainly. A non-violent revolution, perhaps. An armed overthrow of the existing order, it may be necessary. Revolution for the hell of it or revolution for a new world, but revolution, Yes."

Neuhaus' fellow revolutionary enthusiast Berger soon became disillusioned with the "Movement," and by the mid-1970s both Neuhaus and Berger had dropped revolution for the reactionary politics of the ascendant neoconservative camp. Neuhaus, Berger, and Michael Novak (another former proponent of liberation theology) had all undergone a personal revolution of their own, having sharply shifted their ideological fervor, academic endeavors, and political activism to the right. [Excerpts from the Rightweb site article Profile: Richard John Neuhaus]

The questionable political categorizing of "left" and "right" aside for the time being,{3} it seems reasonable to assert that Fr. Neuhaus would not fit the template unless (and this is the clincher) Dale Vree wants to take on the so-called "neo-con" label himself. He cannot have it both ways and certainly he fits the criteria at least as good as Fr. Neuhaus ever did.

It also bears noting that Fr. Neuhaus was opposed to the NATO bombings in Serbia which was certainly a military intervention; ergo the idea that he supports an "aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy" has at least one example where he did not express this outlook. Whether there are more or not this writer is not presently certain. Hopefully, Mr. Vree would not try to play the "Fr. Neuhaus only opposed the Serbia bombings because Clinton was president" card because it would only lend more credence to the observations made last month{4} about certain habitual tendencies that seem to permeate Mr. Vree's writing and the overall tenor of New Oxford Review to an ever-increasing degree.

He said: "The 'Jewish lobby' has America in its hip pocket. So says Philip Weiss, a leftist columnist of the New York Observer.... Philip Weiss has a point, however unoriginal, about the influence of Jews in our country and its policy toward the Middle East.... So why is Philip Weiss flirting with...old-fashioned anti-Semites?" (First Things, Dec. 2002, pp. 90-91). Weiss has "a point, however unoriginal," but Neuhaus smears him for flirting with anti-Semitism. If what Weiss says is true, then to blacken his name for flirting with anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Once again your host is seeing imprudent zeal and a lack of charity in Dale Vree's writing. This seems to be an ever-increasing pattern with him and it is disconcerting to put it mildly.

On the other hand, at the risk of sounding philo-Semitic, the Jewish neocons were and are extremely energetic and very bright, and they have made big inroads into the conservative movement, often with willing gentiles. They are enormously influential and powerful in the George W. Bush Administration -- you could call them neocon apparatchiki. No, this is not a Jewish conspiracy, for it is out in the open, and most Jews are not neocons (probably because they believe America's imperialist policies are not good for Israel or the Jews). And there are neocons who are not Jewish -- most of them being Johnny-come-latelies, considering it "cool" to be a neocon. Some gentile neocons don't know they're being used, while others know full well, but don't care, because they see it as a ticket to influence and power. Other gentile conservatives and neocons think they're using the Jewish neocons because they believe protecting Israel is a great way to advance an American Empire and control much of the world's oil supplies.

As I noted earlier in this posting, it would appear that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents.

One of the divides between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites was that Stalinists said you could have "socialism in one country" while Trotskyites demanded "worldwide socialist revolution" (which was true to what Marx thought). But since the Trotskyites soured on socialist revolution, they transferred their allegiance to "worldwide democratic revolution," hence their eagerness to export the democratic revolution everywhere and have the U.S. intervene militarily in the affairs of sovereign nations, which would make America a "rogue" nation (which is how many Europeans already see America).

Considering the sewer that Europe has become as a whole (not to mention their overall spinelessness), your host for one hardly considers their opinions to be ones with much weight to them.

In Bush's Second Inaugural Address, he said: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." This sounds like it came right out of Trotsky's bottle: The survival of socialism in the Soviet Union increasingly depends on the success of socialism in other lands.

Once again Mr. Vree is jumping to conclusions as similarity does not ipso facto denote identity. Let us reason together now: the difference between promoting liberty and promoting socialism is night and day as one puts you in chains and the other seeks to remove the chains. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bush Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East after 9/11, to attempt to compare it to Trotsky's movement is disingenuous at best.

Neocon Stephen Schwartz said that "those who are fighting for global democracy should view Leon Trotsky as a worthy forerunner." Schwartz, who unabashedly proclaims his Trotskyite roots, would prefer that "neocons" be called "Trotskycons."

Your host does not know much about Stephen Schwartz; however if he does have roots in the so-called "New Left" then by Vree's definition he would be a so-called "neo-con." But to this writer's knowledge he has no such roots at all so under what criteria does Mr. Vree label him as a so-called "neo-con"???

Neocon Christopher Hitchens, also a disciple of Trotsky, wants the U.S. to be "a revolutionary force" to fight fascism and religion, especially Islamofascism. "Religion," he says, is "that most toxic of foes.... the most base and contemptible of the forms assumed by human egotism and stupidity. Cold, steady hatred for this, especially in its loathsome jihad shape, has been as sustaining to me as any love." He says: "George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he -- and the US armed forces -- have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled."

Christopher Hitchens was a former disciple of Trotsky so by Vree's definition would be a so-called "neo-con."

Smashing Islam paves the way for democracy, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc.

More like "smashing the Islamic extremists paves the way for freedom." Obviously freedom can be abused of this no one would dispute. But abortion, homosexuality, and pornography predate modern democracy. Apparently Mr. Vree does not realize this though or (if he does) he prefers to ignore it in the interest of his ideology.

Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen said: "We tear down the old order.... Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be [and that would include Catholic tradition]).... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission," adding that "It is time once again to export the democratic revolution."

Notice Dale Vree attempting to read into the statements of Michael Ledeen. This gets to the core of a lacuna of charity which some have noted is a discernable pattern in his work and the work of not a few others at New Oxford Review.

"Our historic mission"? Trotsky's god was History. In 1921 Trotsky wrote a book called The Defense of Terrorism. In 2002 (before the invasion of Iraq), Ledeen called for the "creative destruction" of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What exactly is the difference between terrorism and "creative destruction"?

Someone will have to ask Michael Ledeen. But even so, just because Michael Ledeen takes this viewpoint does not mean that others with a similar weltanschauung as his do.

"In a just war, killing soldiers, and killing civilians who get in the way of military targets (collateral damage), is not murder, whereas killing civilians on purpose is murder.

Correct.

"In an unjust war -- which is what the Catholic Church said the war on Iraq is -- killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder.

Since the Catholic Church never claimed the war in Iraq was an unjust war, Vree's entire argument collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind. It is difficult after reading this tidbit to take Dale Vree seriously when he makes these kinds of ignorant statements. To revisit this subject yet again will require quoting something written last year at this weblog; nonetheless (and since Dale Vree takes the same approach to this matter that Stephen Hand does) my criticisms of Mr. Hand on this matter can be seen as applicable to Dale Vree as well:

Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.

The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war." [Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger on the Abridged Version of Catechism Compendium Expected Out in 2 Years via Zenit (circa May 2, 2003)]

Mr. Hand obviously presumes that the position articulated by the pope is the only one that can be arrived at by "a conscience enlightened by faith". Cardinal Ratzinger certainly did not say this nor was it even implied. Therefore, to read into his words what he did not say is manifestly uncharitable to say the least. Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger sentiments not expressed by him since to do this with an eye towards marginalizing others violates the traditional canons of Catholic charity to no small degree.

As far as the idea that the Holy Father's view is convincing from the rational point of view I happen to strongly disagree for reasons I have outlined in no small degree of detail as have some others. Indeed, the rational point of view on this is quite weak when all the relevant factors are accounted for...and I not only see no evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger did this but indeed see clues that he did not do this. That is not a problem of course for those of us who recognize (as the cardinal himself did) that geopolitical issues are not within his competence. But (of course) for those who hang on Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) these expectations are going to find their presumptions crushed under a weight it cannot be expected to bear.

This is why unless Pope Benedict XVI takes this matter beyond where Pope John Paul II and makes this a part of his magisterium[...] my position on this is not going to change an iota. I have seen nothing resembling an intelligent and well-reasoned argument in opposition to what I have written. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]

Your host challenged Mr. Hand to put up or shut up on this matter and the result thus far has been silence as was predictable. Likewise, either Mr. Vree should demonstrate his assertion using general norms of theological interpretation or he should admit that he cannot and cease making such uninformed (and polarizing) statements. While more could be noted on this matter{5} the above material suffices for the present time.

(And just what is the difference between terrorism and murder in warfare?)

The difference is the means whereby the intended end is pursued; however, since Mr. Vree's assertion of the Catholic Church condemning the Iraq war as unjust is as fictional as Pope Joan, no more needs to be said about it at this time.

But even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one's heart should be troubled.

War should never make one at ease...whatever their view of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a particular war happens to be.

After one-and-a-half years of war in Iraq, The Lancet (the British medical journal) estimated the Iraqi civilian death toll at 100,000.

Now Mr. Vree is parroting discredited statistics. Your host dealt with this back in October of 2005 via the work of Christopher Blosser whose findings have yet to be interacted with by the way.

However, a more recent count after two years of war, produced by the London-based Iraqi Body Count -- which did not count civilian deaths that go unreported in the news media -- put the civilian death toll at 24,865 (with about 42,500 wounded). This sounds like a more reliable figure. Of those 24,865 dead civilians, 37.3 percent were due to the U.S. military, 35.9 percent were due to the crime wave that swept Iraq after the fall of Saddam, and 20.5 percent were due to insurgents or terrorists. Even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one must be alarmed that the U.S. military has killed almost twice the number of civilians as have the insurgents and terrorists.

Mr. Vree needs to demonstrate proper journalistic disclosure{6} and point his readers to the fact that these figures have been disputed as has the integrity of the Iraqi Body Count group and their calculating of numbers.

Whether one considers the civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military -- 9,270 (disproportionately children) -- to be murder or not murder, Trotsky would be proud, for he famously said: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

Once the foundation from which rhetoric such as the above is imploded, the rhetoric itself can be brushed away as irrelevant except for noting that Mr. Vree appears to be engaging in the argumentation fallacy of provincialism with the above assertions. It is hardly the first time in this thread that he has done that but it seems appropriate to point it out at the present time.

The neocons, mainly through the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), planned for a war against Iraq well before 9/11 (one big reason being because Saddam was a supporter of terrorism against Israel).

This is a nice simplistic interpretation of a very complex subject matter. But of course a failure to appreciate the nuances germane to complex geopolitical circumstances and situations has hardly stopped Mr. Vree from pontificating on these kinds of matters before. Ergo, it should not surprise that he does so here as well.

The Bush Administration is peppered with people from PNAC, such as Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby (indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury), Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Richard Perle. These people tutored -- let's be honest -- an ignorant President Bush, who had no experience in foreign affairs, to launch it.

This is classic conspiracy theorist drivel. First of all, whatever one thinks of President Bush, he is certainly smarter than it is commonly portrayed by people such as Mr. Vree. President Bush comes from a family with two prior generations in foreign affairs experience. Considering this factor in the equation, it is hardly a stretch to opine that the apple generally does not fall far from the tree in these matters.

More could be noted than this but based on what Mr. Vree has claimed a so-called "neo-con" is, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum is unaware of anyone in the above paragraph fitting the description given by Mr. Vree. Apparently it is just easy to tar people with a derisive label in classic cultic deadagenting fashion rather than do the hard work of actually thinking about these matters beyond facile caricatures. Considering Mr. Vree's capabilities, this is a regrettable tendency that he has but it is what it is.

As we said in our September Editorial: "BeforeCrisis and First Things were even founded, the NOR was contacted by a neocon foundation -- right out of the blue.

If that foundation (whomever they are) are not a foundation of ex-Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" communist/socialists{7} then Mr. Vree is going against his own description of what a so-called "neo-con" is supposed to be in calling that organization "neo cons."

The foundation wanted to give us money -- 'free' money. A fellow flew out from the East Coast and asked me (the Editor) to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant -- on him. Sure! (We were desperate for money.) He told me he would fund us regularly -- if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic U.S. foreign policy." What I didn't say was that the fellow was a Jewish neocon with no interest in Christianity or Catholicism, and I suspected he was interested in getting us to promote Jewish neocon interests (which he had every right to do). As we said in the September Editorial, I said "no," and that was the end of that.

Ok.

But the neocon foundations didn't give up. Michael Novak (very pro-Israel) founded Crisis -- then called Catholicism in Crisis -- and Fr. Neuhaus (also very pro-Israel) founded First Things, both with huge financial support from neocon foundations.

Of course does Mr. Vree tell anyone whom these so-called "neo-con foundations" are??? Of course not as blanket assertions are easy to make whereas substantiating assertions is much harder.

So the neocons found a way to get Catholic and Christian magazines to front for their largely Jewish neocon interests (which, again, is their right). Do we exaggerate? No we don't.

Let us consider what Mr. Vree says next and see if his assertion is accurate or not.

When the Catholic Church denounced the war on Iraq -- calling it an unjust war, a war of aggression --

Since the Catholic Church never did this (a point I touched on above), Mr. Vree has just in the span of a sentence violated the Law of Non-Contradiction.

both Crisis and First Things supported it. A clear case of supporting Jewish neocon interests over Catholic Just War doctrine.

See this writer's previous comments.

For a synopsis of Fr. Neuhaus's support for the war on Iraq, based on his support for Israel, see our New Oxford Note, "What Does the Pope Know About World Affairs?" (Nov., pp. 13-14, 16-17).

Frankly, I am not about to buy an article from Mr. Vree's site to read it. Having noted that, it suffices to point out Mr. Vree's (i) misrepresentation of the Iraq war in the eyes of the Church as well as (ii) his moronic and myopic assertion that Justice John Roberts resolutely denied his Catholic faith and also (iii) his recourse to faulty statistics as well as questionable statistical sources. These factors alone give me significantly ample reason to question whether or not what he notes about Fr. Neuhaus above is accurate. And for the record, the present writer does not believe it is a priori in light of the examples above.

If you persist in seeing this as anti-Semitism, you're wrong again.

This must be a case of Vreeus locuta est, causa finita est. Sorry but this writer is hardly going to uncritically accept anything Mr. Vree says. However, Mr. Vree does make a good point in the above statement so it seems appropriate to touch on it here before moving onto the next part of this thread.

On the subject of antisemitism and opposition of support to Israel, there is nothing intrinsically antisemitic about opposing support for Israel. However, at the same time all antisemites oppose support for Israel. As far as whether or not Dale Vree is the latter, your host does not at the present time believe he is: preferring to give Mr. Vree a charitable benefit of the doubt which he so often{8} refuses to give to others.

In an editorial in The Forward, the oldest Jewish newspaper in the U.S., it was stated that: "Recently...reasonable people still could dismiss, as antisemitic conspiracy mongering, the claim that Israel's security was the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq. No longer.... Its advocates can no longer simply be shushed or dismissed as bigots. Those who disagree must now argue the case on the merits."

Ok. But in all honesty, a lot of hostility towards support of Israel is rooted in at least an implicit antisemitism. Obviously this is not the case all the time but to so blithely dismiss this as a not-that-significant factor is to show no small degree of naivety about this subject.

Aside from foreign policy, can orthodox Catholics find common cause with neocons in the culture wars? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Of course Mr. Vree defines these so-called "neo-cons" one way and then attaches the label to those who do not fit his description. Either his description is to be taken as the identifying template or it is not. He cannot have it both ways if the formal contradiction I noted above is to be avoided.

As Irving Kristol, a Jewish ex-Trotskyite and the godfather of neoconservatism, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Those [culture] wars are over and the Left has won."

And why should this writer (or anyone else) uncritically accept anything that Irving Kristol says??? I do not (and never have) read stuff from Irving Kristol and then felt any need to uncritically tip the biretta, bow three times, and incense (metaphorically speaking of course). Furthermore, if you look at what Irving Kristol actually said, again we see misrepresentation from Vree. Presenting, Mr. Kristol's actual words:

America is and always has been different. Our federal system, for instance, is still in force. Because the states still have considerable authority in such matters as education and religion, the "culture wars" have ended differently here. In both Europe and America the left has won these wars, yet the victory in America has been far less complete.

There are more than 1m youngsters being "home schooled" in the US today because their parents dislike the progressive curriculum, codes of conduct and general ethos of the public schools. Similarly, in higher education there are more than 100 Christian colleges serving over 250,000 students. Many of these were formed in recent decades after the mainline colleges reshaped the curriculum and campus culture into a version of the 1960s counterculture.

It is easy to start a college in the US. State legislatures are obliging with their charters because most Americans--the educational establishment always excepted--respect this exercise in entrepreneurial freedom. The same thing is true of religion for the same reason.

So although the left has won the culture wars here, as in Britain, in America it is a partial victory vulnerable to popular denial. Football and baseball games from high school up to the professional level almost always begin with the singing of the national anthem. Patriotism is still a vital force.

So much for the differences between the US and the UK. [Irving Kristol: From His Commentary A Tory Revival Starts with a 10 Percent Tax Cut (circa May 31, 2005)]

Frankly, your humble servant does not see how what Mr. Kristol says in the above paragraphs is even deniable to those with a normal intact functioning brain who are paying attention to things. But this is noted by me with a caveat: just because the left{9} won the cultural turf decades ago does not mean they cannot lose it in the future as a result of actions taken in the present. But enough on that matter for now, it suffices to note that once again Dale Vree has misappropriated a source in his writing for whatever reason.{10}

Yes, it can be quite lucrative to get on the neocon gravy train, but it's not something we wish to do. "Freedom Is Not Free." You pay a price for your freedom, and the NOR is truly free, even if relatively poor.

Including (it seems) free from subscribing to the mens ecclesiae when the latter is inconvenient for them to do. To say nothing about freedom from the advice of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition.{11}

Thought-leader periodicals such as the NOR, First Things, and Crisis never break even. Either you rely on neocon foundations (and we're not denying that First Things and Crisis often help the orthodox cause), or you go it alone, relying on subscribers for sustenance. We prefer not to have any strings attached.

As if there are not enough "lone-ranger" sorts in the Church today...

As you know, we're trying to raise $176,000 (so far we have reached $67,587). In its last reported year, First Things got $425,000 from neocon foundations, so what we are asking for is peanuts. Much of what we're asking for is going to our website (where you can subscribe or renew a subscription by credit card), which is at present a huge financial drain. On our reconstructed website, you will find our Archives, the Ad Gallery, selected Dossiers, an "En Español" section, the NOR Gear Shoppe, and our New Oxford News Link.

Sounds a lot like Bill O'Reilly. Will Mr. Vree be selling "no spin doormats" soon too???

This is a big risk for us, but it simply must be done. Young people spend enormous amounts of time on the Internet, and it goes without saying that young people are the future of orthodox Catholicism and of the NOR.

Certainly of the former, of the latter that is debatable. Young people have a hard enough time properly cultivating the virtues of authentic obedience, charity, and zeal without receiving assistance to the contrary from sources such as NOR.

We are not owned by any diocese or religious order (which have a vested interest in not telling the full truth) and we are not bought and paid for by the neocon agenda (which has its own grandiose interests to pursue). We simply must keep a free press in the Church alive.

And of course only the NOR is a truely "free press" is standard grandiose peanut gallery strutting if you ask me. As far as telling the full truth where is the evidence that New Oxford Review has an interest in this at all??? Judging by some of the half-truths and downright errors propagated by Mr. Vree in the text just examined, pardon your host if he has his doubts about the veracity of Mr. Vree's above assertions about being interested in the "the full truth" or of not being beholden to (in Vree's words) "its own grandiose agenda" whatever that happens to be. Certainly "the full truth" is not part of it as what is noted above gives at least a cursory indication of.

From there it is the standard begging letter so it need not be taken into account by us in this examination.

Then it will not be taken into account at all. Suffice to say, while Dale Vree does (to his credit) give a description of what he views a so-called "neo con" to be, he then turns around and applies the term to those who do not fit the description he gives. Ergo, in the interest of consistency, Mr. Vree either needs to refine his description or retain it and cease imputing the term "neo con" to various personages above who do not fit the description he sets out. And that is the bottom line really other than Dale Vree needing to be FAR more careful in how he appropriates the statements of others. (More in line with the traditional canons of Christian charity in how he interprets them and not the disgraceful approaches taken by the journalistic hacks of the mainstream media.)

[Update: The "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series -of which the above thread was a part- was eventually resumed. See this thread for details. -ISM 11/03/06]

Notes:

{1} From my recollection, the term "neo-con" was coined by a socialist named Michael Harrington who lapsed from a Catholic Worker style of Catholic interpretation into full blown socialism and (ultimately) atheism. Though it is of the opinion of your host that the trajectory taken by Harrington was logical in lieu of where he started (and yes, this theory can be defended by me if need be), at the same time, I are left wondering why so many Catholics would utilize such an expression considering the source from which it derives.

{2} Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]

{3} I reject these political categorizations almost as much as the fallacious "communist/fascist" political spectrum theory: a subject covered by the present writer HERE.

{4} "Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept. (circa February 12, 2006)

{5} It seems appropriate to remind Mr. Vree of the teaching of one of Pope Benedict XVI's predecessors...in this case Pope Benedict XV. Though the matter of the war is not one where the magisterium has made a pronouncement on, part of section 22 seems appropriate to note here to remind Mr. Vree of what he is to avoid doing if he wants to be thought of as one who is in communion with the mens ecclesiae:

[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §22-23 (circa 1914)]

Pay close attention now those who use either descriptive terms like "traditionalist", "progressivist", etc. or derisive epithets like "neo-cons" and the like...

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §24 (circa 1914)]

As Roma locuta est on this matters, hopefully Mr. Vree will recognize the second half of the ancient maxim (causa finita est) and adjust his tactics and dispositions accordingly.

{6} Or as your host noted in another weblog posting on the subject of utilization of sources in argumentation (among other things):

---In utilizing any source with a degree of controversion pertaining to it, factors which may bias that source should be disclosed to the readers if they either are known or can be reasonably ascertained.

For example, consider if this writer was to quote the Institute of Historical Review as a source critical of the Holocaust and the number of Jewish deaths and not reveal that the IHR was comprised of no small number of former Nazis and other unsavoury characters with an obvious agenda. If that were to happen, then this writer would be failing to practice proper disclosure of the source viz. certain key factors biasing the source's view. As a result, he would be deserving of a rebuke of no small degree by his contemporaries in no uncertain terms. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]

{7} Or to quote myself anew from the above posting viz. Dale Vree's stated position of what is and is not a so-called "neo-con" (when you piece together the various elements he mentions):

[I]t would appear that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents.

{8} See footnote four.

{9} The present writer really hates this French revolution political jardon of "left" and "right" btw.

{10} ---In citing sources, concern for proper context should be viewed to be of importance.

Once again, this should be self-evident but it is not. One of the reasons your host so often links to his sources in essay writings or on this weblog is so that it can be verified that he is quoting those sources correctly and not absent proper context. Obviously this cannot always be done since sometimes one must quote a source that cannot be found on the web. However, by disclosing web sources when they are utilized as a rule, the reader can recognize that the present writer quotes sources correctly and thus implicitly trust him when he quotes from a source they may not have access to.

The converse principle is also true in that those who demonstrate that they cannot be trusted in quoting sources which can be verified should not be trusted to quote accurately sources which they cite and the reader cannot verify. But enough on that point for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]

{11} See the quotes on zeal and charity from the post in footnote four.