[inaudible] its a very good read. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And tonight Sam Tanenhaus has agreed to interview randy and call out for him aspects of the biography, so its my pleasure to welcome them bothful thank you. [applause] am i good here . I can shout, so i probably dont need one of these. So Randy Boyagoda youre a novelist, and youre writing about Richard John Neuhaus. How did we get to this topic, first of all and why . Right. I started i started working on this book in some ways without even realizing it in 2009, so shortly after neuhaus died. I wrote a profile for a torontobased magazine called the walrus. Im from toronto, and it was basically an essay that argued heres the most influential canadianborn intellectual in the past 50 years that none of you have ever heard of. So i wrote this interview and i kind of left it at that. At that point i was in the midst of a terribly unreadable second academic monograph and as a rescue from that sort of project, i realized that here really was a story a story about a man and his faith and his kind of involvement in a dramatic time in American Life and i thought heres the story that i think needs telling. I left it at that. And one night as these things tend to happen with books a lightbulb came on, and i read the biography. Then i assumed, well he has lots of people who would write his biography. So i emailed, i emailed George Weigel his very good friend, who i knew by sheer coincidence because my wife, anna, went to college with his daughter gwyneth, and so explain who George Weigel especially for our audience extremely distinguished catholic intellectual papal biographer, best known for a witness to to hope the biography of john paul ii, and for any number of books since then. So i wrote him, and i just said is anyone doing this, and he said no, authorial coast is clear, is how he put it. [laughter] didnt have to beat back no, exactly. [laughter] well, let me i wasnt Dustin Hoffman with a church waving it a church cross waving it at people to keep them away. What was your introduction . Many here will know he began as a lutheran pastor and a quite remarkable conversion to catholicism. When were you first aware of him . I can remember the exact moment, sam. I was at a system their in toronto seminary in toronto and this priest had in the kind of interest in literary matters [inaudible] in english at that point at boston university, and he said what are you doing . I said im doing this globalization reading of faulkner, and his response was why would you devote your life to a drunk . [laughter] and when he finished saying that, he said what are you doing reading that, you should read this, and he gave me a copy of something called first things magazine, and that was a really important moment for me because what it demonstrated to a cradle catholic was that what i thought of as the unbridgeable gulf between my mothers devotional catholicism, you know rosary beads and all the rest of it, and then my intellectual life which was about globalization theory theres nothing in between. You do one or you do the other, you do them both, but they should never meet. Wall of separation. So what i realized is you could be a cosmopolitanminded intellectual for whom matters of faith order and inform your life and your sense of the world around you. That was my introduction to first things. Okay. So now tell us who really neuhaus was, how he got came to occupy the place he did. You say repeatedly in the biography im sure many of you have already read it or will be reading it soon he was a fixture in the pages of the New York Times, he was a dominant public figure who rose, then fell from renown as happens often. But how did he become the figure he was . Where did he start and whats, quickly, sort of a brief summary, what are the steps in the new usa journey. Sure. Two things to think about right away, one would be his primary vocation was he was a man of god. Then it was, well what does this mean . He was hungry and he was ambitious. Now when was he born . Really nuts and bolts here. 1936, pembroke, ontario, his father was this kind of imposing rather authoritarian who spoke german . Yeah, thats right. These were real true exlutherans, yes, thats right. Im a tiny bit german myself. The germans get everywhere, even to sri lanka [laughter] but he was up seventh of eight kids, and he grew up in this very this very lutheran household where clem neuhaus, his father, you know, would refer when he was cutting a Roast Chicken on sunday afternoon would refer to the end of the chicken as the popes nose as he cut it off. Absolutely adored and admired him. Knew him slightly. Wanted to live that kind of life. Why was that happening in america . What was causing that . Us was emerging from the 1950s into the 1st kind of real call into a poor black and hispanic parish in williamsburg. Obvious question how does a lutheran pastor end up with the majority africanamerican congregation . Either that many lutheran africanamericans . This was a historic lutheran parish that over the course of the early 20th century the demographic shifted significantly. The neighborhood shifted significantly. The largest Housing Project in america inspired. Across the street quite literally right across the street from this church. Significant black and hispanic population just as the white demographic of the area. And that was what, german what, german, irish . Mostly german. In the 1940s and 50s, 61 he realizes twentyfive about . More or less. He looks around and sees an incredibly impoverished place. As you say pre hipster williamsburg. Very pre hipster. No milliondollar loss. 8 on a Peanut Butter sandwich. It was an amazing. Butter sandwich. Nevertheless, he gets there then. Majority black parish post jim crow the Civil Rights Movement is just emerging now. 1961. Thats right. Coming out of the church that has a majority at that. Rather delicate if not almost allergic reaction to Public Engagement, especially on the race issue when you say Public Engagement you mean what . Politics, social issues . Two themes of theology. Very specific, the missouri tradition. Never the to show me. And then he gets involved through the parish life with questions of the dignity of the human person in the majority black population around him command need to speak to this in a greater way. That was his 1st involvement in politics beyond the church. There is a different kind of racial this harmony. Absolutely. And he sees to your point this example of Martin Luther king. Already involved with a a small Lutheran Organization committed to kind of raising civil rights. The key for him researching about researching a biography. A summer internship at a parish in detroit, and one of the moments that struck him was in detroit on a sunday morning, the most segregated hour in america. And watched in detroit the late 1950s and early 1960s sunday morning right before the service would begin a series of ushers would come out on the steps of the Lutheran Church with money in any black parishioner that showed up would give the money because this is how they were dealing with the question of a mixed race congregation. A perfect illustration of white guilt. Political walking money. Your some money. Dont come in here. We want you to go to church just not here. Newhouse reacted against this, immersed himself in urban history. 1961 to 19 69 predominantly black 69, predominantly black and hispanic parish and grew into a more national involvement. Let me ask you a really uninformed, naive question. I really dont know the answer. In this day and age, 2015, if somebody was coming to the ministry being ordained would they be as likely to have the range of experiences that you have . Didnt he also spent time in chicago . Detroit, detroit chicago, st. Louis, taxes, nebraska, coming to williamsburg. So he actually in some ways i dont mean to be disrespectful, but very worthy about this. Is that not part of the journey that the religious personal take . Without speaking in global terms, no, i dont think so. One of the things i realized from speaking to a lot of his classmates was what set him apart was that his travels intellectually and physically were very different than people emerging from smalltown german midwestern southern taxes right and going straight into seminary and go off to a smalltown congregation and off you go. You will probably see that. He set himself apart even then because in the 1950s he is already physically and intellectually elsewhere. Today to your question a cosmopolitan experience would that be the norm for any given seminarian . Probably not. But it was not then either. It was not the neither. Pardon my ignorance but does that mean he had the authority to be able to choose different stations . Not the authority. Very aggressive and persuasive guy. Nobody stopped. They tried but failed and going. Speaking of a counterexample gary wells a brilliant catholic intellectual born in atlanta raised in wisconsin seminary in st. Louis Xavier University in ohio, works with bill buckley, and that is the end of the journey, though he does other things, but he had to be released when he decided to become a journalist. But one does not have a sense with memoirs, memoirs, and he has written two memoirs, that he was someone seeking why a widely diverse experience but not as a religious man. You kind of suggest in the book he had almost an intuitive sense for whether culture and Political Action absolutely. Absolutely. He could sniff out the action and figure out a way to get there. One of his early obsessions in his early writings intellectuals. Makes an market metaphors that shape public conscious. Clearly, he wanted to be one of these guys. His ability was to identify any given moment the Antiwar Movement anti Vietnam War Movement is where he really emerged. Significant anti vietnam war servant. A large part of this is being taken on to campuses by the secular hardline left and emerging. A person of faith against this work, no context for you to speak out about this which led to his profound realization that no one was speaking about this in high order religious terms. Here is a way for me to get involved about what it means to be against the war out of theological principle. Principle. That is what i think you could do better than anyone else. And that is the moment he became a media celebrity. Not known as a great journalist. The different style of antiwar protests being organized. He would have been theyre. Cox was there. Very important. They ran into trouble with their new york cardinal who thinks suddenly he is escaping me. Let me ask you a question. [laughter] this is something we were talking about before. We just mentioned, brought up some very big public figures. Figures. You were around in the 1960s and 70s. You knew all these people were and heard what they had to say about American Life everyone did in magazines, the New York Times, newhouse bill kaufman, debating bill buckley about the vietnam war at yale. A very big deal. Has show is a huge figure, Martin Luther king, luther king, a giant. What do we have today . Is there anything like that . We dont need powerful, influential religious people in politics, but politics, but intellectuals, writers, and thinkers were dominating what Richard John Neuhaus call the Public Square. Do square. Do we have any version of that . What is it command if not, what happens . The whole mission coming out of neuhaus is to provide exactly that kind of distinctive voice. Contact with the editor to say that you can. To 1st things as one place. We should have captured it. I was shown. The major contributors figures. Not as many as earlier. Point rather delicate if not the powerful phrase of political cultural hero. When did that change happened, and what is it about . A more divisive American Life or you can have people barely capable, adapt, persuasive speaking to people who believe the same way they do. What could newhouse do what could neuhaus do that very could fuel . He could speak beyond, lets say, a conservative christian audience in essence informed by the christian nation but could speak the perfect example of this would be the economist debate about whether religion should be involved in politics. T whether religion should be involved in politics. Their should be no involvement. And by the end of the debate, guess what, debate guess what, they are all persuaded otherwise. Not because any of them are concerned about those matters but could see beyond it. To your question, we can. To different voices that have an authority, but it is a different kind of Institutional Authority. The New York Times and in many ways we know from the book he was informed very much by neuhaus. This will interest many viewers and listeners here. Sort of a funny story. A very gifted oped columnist for the New York Times. I spent a month going through. How do we know neuhaus had a healthy ego . He printed every single email he ever wrote presuming someone would go through them at some time. They were destroyed. Destroyed. One of the things i found that was very interesting wrote to say thank you so much. I have a son who is now in college at harvard. Your magazine is so valuable. Conversion but in some ways in graduate school it gave him at context and a set of a set of terms to demonstrate, you know what you can believe in god and right for the New York Times all these things can happen in synthesis. A great columnist able to do this. Where does the Institutional Authority come from . His Institutional Authority comes from the New York Times, not from any religious concession. In other words, it would be hard pressed to my think, to find a, to find a religious leader whose Institutional Authority is religious commending a National Voice where someone like Richard John Neuhaus or bill kaufman were the reverend Martin Luther king, a baptist preacher baptist minister. There is no one today that can do that. Rick warren can get on tv and do wonderful things and organizers were interested. He approached evangelical christianity, but he is not speaking to anyone beyond that. Talk about neuhaus as a writer. A Norman Mailer a lot of broad bureaucrats. A sophisticated writer who makes important contribution to policy. Liberating structures. Every time you read the phrase it is a kleenex. It is Richard John Neuhaus laying structure to these conversations. Im so glad you asked me that writer that question because as a writer and critic myself i watch the governance of a writer finding his voice and terms. When did he find it . I would say 1984. I would say a large part of that was his good friend peter. Peter. They were going to write that together. That phrase to make a Public Square was kind of frenzy. The naked Public Square. By the naked Public Square, he means a public life that is aggressively and intentionally shorn of any reference to a specifically judeochristian argument for who we are how we merge in order our lives. But when that happened and he got that phrase which kicked up in the public consciousness in the middle of the 84 election, when that happened his his prose, i think, finally countdown. In the 60s and 70s every other sentence he is waiting for the fence trying to come up with that one phrase. I mean he was a natural writer. He was a remarkable writer. 10,000 words a month. Before that, thousands more. But he found his voice when that phrase became what is funny is then the knew Reagan Administration early 85 quoting the phrase, just a normal phrase now. It is amazing the transition as a writer that, i think, is what happened. His called by some the 1st blogger in the way that he surveyed. I would say this, though, we all love those moments funny, punchy, love them hate them. A far more supple writer in his best work than his date stamped punches against liberal bishops would suggest. It demonstrates a dispassionate sensibility somebody able to speak about how we live our lives together whether you are a militant atheist or ultra montanas catholic. Here how religion should matter to our lives. There is a complex, vital center. I want you to go through a few things and then we will take questions. Sure. As i i lay dying. Yes. Talk about faulkner. Yes. What is that about . I am glad you asked me that. He almost died in early january 1993 from a ruptured colon wide from a tumor he had. And he wrote this beautiful, beautiful firstperson account of the dignity of dying basically on nearly dying and the dignity of suffering. Say that you can point to and that is what you remember. An impressive intellectual he was a pastor, man of god. That book that book is 230 pages of beautiful preaching on the art of living and dying well. Did he consciously take his title from faulkner . You might argue that faulkner took it from him and did not realize. Two quick things we need to cover. One, the move from left to right. Absolutely. And it is not caused by issues many would suppose. It is not really weighed. That is not what moved. 1975. Two things. 72, low v wade clearly why he became a conservative. No. A hardcharging liberal as Teddy Kennedy would demonstrate and still be prolife. Neuhaus does two things sense of protestantism in continuity with years before the hartford statement, the hartford statement controversial moment where he said, here is what is wrong today. Time magazine thought it was almost Martin Luther banging on him, begging on the declaration. And there were liberals. That was one. The other one which is to me, more timely vietnam ends. They start imprisoning minorities right away. This is not what he was marching in demonstrating for. He goes to his friends on the left and says to them, look what is happening . We need to write a statement and publish in the times and banging doors and protest the improvement of religious minorities by this new communist government command it did not happen. Not intel after. Its an interesting moment. He would not have been by any means procommunist but he was not anti cant do this. He realized his foes on the left were not willing publicly to come out against the marxist government. And some here will remember or be aware in the late 1940s when the satellite countries were really in the grip of the soviet union. It was often religious people, clerics. A powerful strain of the early conservative movement was formed, reaction to that i think phyllis likely came out of that movement, and it also had to do with the kind of war and religion that came from the communist regime. One more question is the 1 i i think we can end with because it is so important. And the conversion has decided to become a catholic and it was his close friend. A close close friend. Once wrote a book about chambers to my guy who did not become a catholic but acted like one. So was there a a kind of you use the phrase crypto catholicism with new house. That side of him that was drawn to it. He would argue yes. Remembering this poor boys who were also catholic. He knew this strikes me as idealizing. A moment. It really was for me. I think he was formed by an ecclesial lutheranism that argued a Reform Movement internal to the universal catholic church. By the late 80s neuhaus came to the conclusion that this account of lutheranism was in the severe minority. So it really was a branch of american constitutionalism it is no longer as Teddy Roosevelt predicted, but i dont know how many there are currently. [inaudible] there we go eight or 9 million. Well. A lot more. That is one. And i 1. And i criticize to a degree for emphasizing the theological and ecclesial reasons for why he converted over and against the political and theological. And i was not persuaded by this. By the late 80s neuhaus realize the full account of democratic life anti communism would be against in cold war terms, any attempt to demonstrate democracy finding in political terms the arguments were being made by catholics and the catholic church, john paul ii the moment the anticipatory apology. Larger Development Western christianity that were political and cultural in nature and also informed by theological arguments the reason why by 1990 he decides i we will become the catholic i already was. The world is changing. I am theyre. Nothing from his lutheran pastors denied. Out of this came the celebrated magazine. So lets take some questions, if we have them. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] [inaudible question] sure. [inaudible question] so everyone heard the question. The inevitable question. Someone stop me on the street and said, argue son jacob to the cnn doctor guy . And i said, no, no. They said no you are. What i am trying to say is i cant been to likewise Richard John Neuhaus. What i can say is this what could he do . He could make a case that would be something of special interest to him. He would be making arguments beyond what is already being made. He could translate a true theological argument and publicly acceptable terms into soundbites. He could be advancing arguments well beyond the confines of a sizable readership. That is what that is what he would be doing. What he would be saying . Again, we can only predict or presume. What he would be saying saying, where and how he would be saying it. A huge part of following . He took a tremendous crashing the article the end of democracy. Many, many times over. Talk about the end, very much involved. A huge controversy. The genesis was a meeting a meeting here, and editorial meeting in may of 1996 our big things to think about and talk about in the coming years right after the assisted suicide physician out of oregon, the initial catalyst. [inaudible question] yes. That inspired this roundtable conversation. Importantly the Editorial Board at that time peter berger was not there not a single republican in the room. So as a result of this what came out of it basically asking do we have an illegitimate state because of the usurpation of the democratic legislative decisionmaking by an activist judiciary . And neuhaus at the time i dont think, realize just how insinuating this was going to be. [inaudible question] yes and no. And lots of ways we can make this case. Were still living in a functioning democracy. You could argue otherwise. Next time you go to vote tell me you are being prevented from doing so. My. Is simply that neuhaus at the time did not realize himself just how much of an explosion this was going to be. Right around 96 reelection. And. Now lets now lets be specific. A few thousand, 10 percent. I asked richard. It went out. Every single issue edited for this biography. I cannot get my hands on a hard a hard copy of that one. Because it does not exist. [inaudible question] i cannot find one. Its like a babe ruth rookie card. You are saying that has been either censored or hidden . No. Anyway, this thing explodes. Wait. Norman todd horace said you are throwing bombs. This is what we rejected. Peter berger was his closest coauthor and friend collaborated on a lot of things providing intellectual context on a lot of things. He walked away from that. I met him to talk about neuhaus, and he said at that time after this issue berger thought they were too far apart. What should we could next friendship. Bill buckley tried his best to mediate. A firefight. Bill buckley, a oneman structure. What was his role in this . Trying to say these questions need to be asked. But that does not mean that the answer is yes. Didnt norman have a pungent response . Yes. Questioning whether or not incest is acceptable does not mean we are arguing about incest or not. Asking whether it would be 08 okay. Thank you. Exactly. And it was shocking to us. A guy who had been in all the political battles. Civil rights from the right from the left even changed his faith. He was he was surprised . Why . What was he not prepared for . He was not prepared for the intensity of negative reaction from his friends his allies his longtime allies. Who stood by him . I i would say by and large it would be the more catholic and more conservative christian members people like george wigle would be a straightforward example. Just as jello brand. Who attacked him otherwise constantly. Thank you. Joe sober and was a one time, i guess member of member of the bill Buckley Group of National Review who grew ever more interested in what people would be describing as anti somatic. And he hammered on neuhaus call them political actor with a a roman collar after he converted to catholicism. But on this one neuhaus had it right. [laughter] at least it got good. Let me ask you something. One last thing. This would be one of the few examples where you can see someone really questioning a decision. Very rarely maybe i should not have done that. In the apartment talking to jim. Yelled, why is this happening . He is in a i told a i told you so sort of moment a modern and prudent man. A lone voice against it. Other questions as well though. Yes, we want to get to other questions. [inaudible question] and ambivalent attitude toward the christian coalition. He spoke of repeated victory events. What i noticed is he would go and representative on them. He would go, someone else rightwing culture warrior to get the vote out. Got up and said what are you doing . Partisan and lots of different ways but was very concerned about the idea of a a perfect alignment of Party Politics and faith commitments being able to happen. He was keen on reagan. I think he saw a reagan in i think, entirely in positive terms not just because of the strong anti communism. More open and not to questions of religion in public life. Neuhaus was johnny on the spot. I get the sense the more Majority Movement which was important the media perception of it a term still argue by scholars. It comes up again. He showed up and became a welcome figure in the reagan white house. Angry. But i think i think he saw and reagan as certain openness to john paul ii, anti communism and more generally against the soviet union. Supportive of that. I would not say he was nearly as interested in reagan as he was jimmy carter or george w. Bush. About carter. In the mid 70s he wrote to a precursor of 1st things in some ways. He was excited about carter. This was in part a reaction to watergate. Here was someone who could openly and confidently speak out of the question for morality about matters of public significance. For kayseven,. For neuhaus, you no, ironically so, too, george bush years later. Very excited and wrote a few really big pieces about the promise of the carter presidency. And then everything fell apart when the appointment of neuhaus by pres. Carter president carter to the white house conference on the family and this effort to move the situation of the American Family in the 1970s with any number of domestic pressures on it. And and neuhaus not unlike the conference lbj had the rights of the American Family. Exactly. Neuhaus realized very quickly that the harder Democratic Left was arguing the term family was self exclusionary. It turned into families plural. And neuhaus saw that as an abandonment in economic means of people who need attention. It became about elites. Exactly. Other questions . [inaudible question] you need a very deep voice. [inaudible question] he dies at the end, i should tell you. [inaudible question] they did not necessarily crash and burn. The only crash and burn closely aligned with the Republican Party platform. Incidents he was involved with that existed and thrived. But the idea beyond 1st things in that project was in late 2,008 of course in political terms there was very little to say positively about president obama. He he gives the post Jeremiah Wright address in philadelphia on race. April, i think, of that year, year, neuhaus wrote a respectful piece about that same it was the only person who could do this credibly. But he was in his last public appearance he gave a talk. The middle of the election october 2008 he will get up and slay the democrats. He got up and instead of doing that he just had a more melancholic set of observations about the difficulties of trying to pursue your faith commitments through politics this was not working out. If i. If im not mistaken, his last reference, talking to someone at Immaculate Conception in late 2008 what should we do about the obama presidency. Presidency. And his response was, pray. That strikes me as a reasonable and dispassionate response and a higher order response. At that time he was moving in that direction. And ambiguous response. I think he would want us to pray for it. Absolutely. Other questions . That was it. Pray. Terrific an important book. Excellent review. Thank you for the conversation. Thank you. [applause] a great conversation. Books are for sale 20. Amazon. Com. Please subscribe. There. There we go. Thank you very much everyone. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] your watching book tv on cspan2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. Book Tv Television for serious readers. The 2011 egyptian revolution and profiles two of its leaders. Good evening, everyone. I am david cohen. I love doing introductions here. Politics and prose is a beacon and a standard setter under its current ownership of brad graham and the wonderful staff about having civil discourse and dealing with difficult issues and demanding issues. We did that last night and are doing it tonight. We have done many other books histories, policy books novels that deal with demanding issues in either the middle east were the islamic world. And so we are pleased here to welcome this offer and celebrate the publication
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.