January-February 1989

On Michael Novak's Conversion

I was pleased that John C. Cort took Michael Novak to task on his social thought (Nov.). No­vak has drifted a long way from his 1969 A Theology of Radical Politics, a bad book, which still probably embarrasses him. In my judgment, Novak still has some nostalgia for the authoritarian immigrant church that had all the answers, but, in effect, ceased to exist shortly after World War II. On the other hand, there was a certain crudity and lack of aes­thetics in this church which, de­spite these shortcomings, manag­ed to serve the needs of both po­ets and peasants.

The conservative establish­ment has always known how to exploit the gifted among the newly arrived, convert them to comfort, and make them even more conservative spokespeople than they could be themselves. Novak seems to fit this pattern and it is entirely possible that there is a greater emotional base to his conservatism than there is an intellectual base.

I have always had great dif­ficulty with the baptism of the capitalist system. Many years ago I was struck while reading some of the Spanish natural law philos­ophers of the 16th century. Francisco de Victoria considered usury and excess profit to be ab­solutely against the natural law. In fact, it seems so obvious to him that he begins one of his tracts on the natural law with “if something is against the natural law, such as, for instance, usury….”

I commend Cort for an ex­cellent article and commend even more his charity in dealing with Novak’s born-again capitalism.

A.W. Godfrey

Lecturer of Classic Studies and Comparative Literature, SUNY

Stony Brook, New York

Christmas Presents No One Needs

Several years ago, when Cambodia was disgorging refu­gees to camps in Thailand, my parents were so deeply moved that they elected to stop giving Christmas presents and to send the money which would normal­ly be spent on them to the refu­gees. My mother phoned me at Maryknoll School of Theology with the news — and I was overjoyed. Shopping for and receiv­ing presents no one needed al­ways dimmed the brightness of the feast for me. We continue to give gifts to the kids but refrain from exchanging them with each other; we continue to send the money to deserving groups and, in answer to your recent appeal, your magazine certainly qualifies.

I cannot tell you how much I enjoy the tone of NOR: you never lose that much needed charism in presenting both the good and the bad news about the Church — wit. So much of what is churned out by the conserva­tive and liberal Catholic media lacks what you have in abun­dance: humor, balance, taste, and, considering recent challenges, grace under pressure.

Enclosed is a gift subscrip­tion for a young family who came into the Church after I shared some old issues of the NOR with them. I am not saying that the NOR was totally respon­sible for their transition, but you played a part in a way that no one else is playing.

Rev. Patrick J. Dooling

St. Angela's Church

Pacific Grove, California

Mormon Missionaries

We recently read the guest column by Bill Kauffman entitl­ed “The Mormons Reconsidered” (Oct.). We appreciate very much the general tenor of the column and in the main found it thought­fully prepared. We would, how­ever, like to point out that one statement is in error — regarding our church missionary system and its linkage with the CIA. Our-church missionary system has no connection with the CIA and has gone to great lengths to avoid any such connection. If the au­thor purports to have any solid information to the contrary, we will be pleased to share any such information with our church lead­ers.

Richard P. Lindsay, Public Communications/Special Affairs Department

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Los Angeles, California

On Jonathan Edwards

As a stripling church histor­ian and a long-time “fan” of Jon­athan Edwards, I greatly appreciated Michael Nelson’s article (Oct.), “Reclaiming Jonathan Edwards for Political Progressivism.” Nelson is absolutely right to identify Edwards’s concept of “disinterested benevolence” as the root from which sprang a thicket of 19th-century move­ments for social reform.

By way of qualification, I would only note that current scholarship discounts Locke’s in­fluence on Edwards (see Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards’s Mor­al Thought and Its British Con­text, 1981), and that Perry Mill­er’s admittedly classic biography of Edwards is today seen as a rhetorical tour de force that tells us as much about the author as about his subject. In particular, Miller’s assertion, quoted by Nel­son, that Edwards worked “in full cognizance…that man is conditioned and that the universe is uniform law” is dangerously misleading: Edwards, after all, went to great lengths in his mas­sive treatise, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defend­ed, to debunk a priori, uniformitarian notions of natural law in favor of an approach that came to be called “continuous crea­tion,” in which “natural law” is nothing more than God’s habit. The best recent biography of Ed­wards is Patricia Tracy’s Jona­than Edwards, Pastor (1979).

George W. Harper

Braintree, Massachusetts

Non-Vicious Acerbity

I find the NOR to be a mix­ed blessing in my life: equally vexatious and uplifting, often in the same issue. The November is­sue is a good case in point. I am one of those Catholics who finds the organization’s preoccupation with things sexual to be entirely misplaced, particularly in light of more pressing matters. There­fore, when I continue to see the likes of Sheldon Vanauken con­stantly thrusting their near-hys­teria about the Charles Currans and Hans Küngs of the Church at me in the NOR, I get disturbed to the point of threatening to can­cel my subscription. However, John Cort’s skilled flaying of Michael Novak and Frank Haig S.J.’s illuminating analysis of Stephen Hawking’s thought were so very well done that I know I would miss the NOR’s particular brand of non-vicious acerbity.

So, vex away, as long as you also continue to bless us with criticisms of the Right-wing.

Jim McCrea

Piedmont, California