stephencatanzarite

The Velvet Underground and Neuhaus

2009-01-12T16:43:00.000-08:00

What do the recently departed Richard John Neuahaus and the long gone Velvet Undergound have in common?

Very little, of course.

The former was a leader of a movement that found and tilled the common ground shared among orthodox adherents to a variety of faiths, nurturing the role of religion in the public square. The latter played radical avant garde rock music at the margins of popular culture. Richard John Neuhaus spent the 1960s championing the rights of minorities, the poor, and other marginalized members of the human family, while also pastoring them and tending to their spiritual needs. The Velvet Underground spent the 1960s in the drug-induced haze of Andy Warhol's factory, and voicing the experiences of drug addicts and sexual deviants. Neuhaus remained -- and grew -- as an active spiritual and culture-shaping force into the 21st century. The Velvets burned out in the early 1970s. In fact, the differences between the Velvet Underground and Father Neuhaus are so stark, they could fill a small book...or perhaps even a large one.

And yet...

As I was thinking about what is very likely to be the enduring influence of Richard John Neuhaus beyond his death last Thursday, I found myself pondering something Brian Eno is said to have observed about the Velvet Underground. According to Eno, even though a relatively small number of people bought the Velvet Undergound's albums when they first appeared, most of those who did went on to form their own bands. This, according to Eno, explains the enormous influence of the band in the face of its utter lack of mass commercial success. In many ways, Richard John Neuhaus was something of an underground hero, providing the intellectual capital and spiritual inspiration for a virtual diaspora of like-minded brothers and sisters. I feel safe in saying that the spiritual children of Richard John Neuhaus are scattered to the four corners of the world, and surmising that wherever they may be, they are vibrantly engaged with the local culture.They carry with them - in their heads, in their souls, and quite possibly in large steamer trunks filled with his many books, journal articles, and columns - the rare wisdom, so fully and artfully expressed, of this rare man.

This is not to say that Neuhaus was obscure. He counseled presidents and popes, was regularly sought out by the mainstream media for his thoughts on a variety of topics, and traveled the globe speaking (and preaching) to diverse audiences in varied settings. Tributes to Neuhaus have poured in from the mighty and the marginal -- on White House letterhead and on unseen blogs (such as this). But his passing has not and will not elicit a fraction of the popular attention as Britney's latest dust up (or break down), or the NFL playoffs. Coverage of Father Richard's death pales in comparison even to that given, less than one year ago, to that of his friend William F. Buckley.

In April of last year, I attended Buckley's funeral mass at New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral. Neuhaus concelebrated with Father George Rutler, among others (I was seated near the back next to the esteemed anti-theist Christopher Hitchens, who could have given lessons on the reverent singing of hymns to most of the professed believers in attendance). After the mass, I went over to say hello to Father Neuhaus, who was friendly and gracious. As we said our farewells, he turned to two young people (early 20s I am guessing) who were accompanying him and herded them (I assume) to a waiting car. One I surmised to be Nathaniel Peters, an assistant editor at the journal Neuhaus founded, First Things. Peters wrote a generous item about my book on the journal's blog about a year ago, and I regret not taking the occasion to thank him for it. I believe the young woman with them was Amanda Shaw, another assistant editor of the journal. As I think about Neuhaus, now and in the future, I will think also about those two young people and the incredible things they no doubt learned and experienced in the company Richard John Neuhaus. I have to say, I was (and perhaps still am) quite envious of them. I will wonder about (and watch for) what I hope will be their own profound contributions to our ongoing public discourse, contributions that will bear the influence and inspiration of their now late and lamented editor-in-chief.

Make no mistake: in my opinion, the artistic and cultural contributions of the Velvet Underground (whatever they may be) are like ant hills next to towering achievements of Richard John Neuhaus. I don't mean any offense in saying that -- former Velvet leader Lou Reed's album New York will always be on my personal Top 10 list. And I daresay that Reed's passing (which I hope will be many, many years from now) will elicit much more attention from the popular press than that of Father Richard.

But for those of my generation and younger who have an active interest in our culture-- and for those for whom rock and roll in all its many and diverse forms and styles still represents freedom and a full-bodied response to the chaos of a fallen world -- I hope this little comparison offers an opportunity to reflect upon the life and work of a man who was truly free, and who lived his life in filial service to something -- and Someone -- larger than himself.

That, my friends, is as radical as it gets.

RJN, RIP

2009-01-09T14:49:00.000-08:00

It is with great sorrow that I note the passing of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Those who have read my Achtung Baby book know that Neuhaus has had a great influence on me. I only met him twice (the last time at William F. Buckley's memorial mass), but he was pretty much a daily presence in my life through the journal which he founded and edited, First Things, and his monthly "Public Square" column therein. I love this photo which shows Fr. Neuhaus relaxing in fine style, with Princeton's (and Morgantown's) Robert George on guitar, and First Things editor J. Bottum on suspenders.

Grant him eternal rest O Lord.

May perpetual light shine upon him.

May he rest in peace.

Amen.

Barack Obama: Fundamentalist

2008-11-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

At his very first campaign stop after the Democrat convention, Barack Obama told a large crowd in the small town of Beaver, Pennsylavnia that he wants to "fundamentally change America."

Wow.

I'm always and all for reformed-minded change, but "fundamental change?" What does that mean? Do you think the fundamentals of American life -- which I would see as being enshrined in the United States Constitution -- need changing? Keep in mind, Barack Obama has never presented himself as a reformer -- he is an innovator. He seeks the reinvention of the political and social contracts that are the hallmarks of American life. Just a few of the things Obama wants:

* "Economic justice" through government-engineered redistribution of wealth

* Judges on the federal bench who decide cases not based on law but on their "empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”

* The interpretation of the Constitution as a "living document," which means finding ways to make the Constitution say what Barack Obama wants to hear.

We need reform, not innovation. Senator Obama, keep your hands off our fundamentals.

Former Aide to Robert Kennedy Disses Obama

2008-11-03T07:45:00.000-08:00

Over at NRO, Deroy Murdock has the story about former Robert F. Kennedy aide Bartle Bull, who is vigorously opposed to Barack Obama and his promises of "fundamental change" in America. A few of the highlights:

In blistering remarks to a Saturday morning rally here, former Robert F. Kennedy aide Bartle Bull embraced Republican John McCain for president, hurled Barack Obama under the bus, and then backed it slowly over the Democratic nominee.

“America needs a president who is grounded in patriotism, not drowning in ambition, Bull told a crowd of hundreds gathered in Lower Manhattan. “I have used that sentence many times in the last three months, and not once — never once — have I been asked which candidate is which.”

The lifelong activist and former Village Voice publisher presented his impeccable liberal-Democrat credentials.

“I had the privilege of serving as Robert F. Kennedy’s New York campaign manager when he ran for president in 1968,” Bull explained. “I was arrested as a civil-rights lawyer in Mississippi, and I campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment. But in honest conscience, I cannot support the Democratic ticket in this campaign.”

Bull aimed at his target and charged like a longhorn.“Character in the White House should be more important than charisma on the campaign trail,” Bull declared. “Barack Obama does not want to ‘change’ America. Barack Obama wants a different country.”

Turning to Obama’s financial agenda, Bull minced no words.“Obama’s notion of economic fairness is pure Karl Marx,” Bull said, “plus a pocketful of Chicago-style ‘community organization.’ ”

Read the entire story HERE.

Of Facts and Faiths

2008-11-01T19:04:00.000-07:00

Though my annual salary is less than that of, say, a junior United States Senator from Illinois, I have never considered the question "when does human life begin" to be above my pay grade. I am perfectly comfortable with "at conception" as my final answer to the query. Those disquieted by so confident and definitive a response will usually point to my professed Catholicism and say that my belief is an article of my faith, a religiously-inspired opinion not in the same league as a scientifically-proven fact.

Wrong. It is true that the Catholic Church has been the strongest and most consistent witness to the sanctity of human life at all stages, but the premise that this witness is based on theological suppositions devoid of a basis in biological fact is false.

To wit, the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person has published a paper, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (H/T, Ryan Sayre Patrico at First Things) which in summary states:

Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, come into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with factual evidence, and independent of specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

The findings in this report are not new to anyone who has taken the time to honestly and openly consider what is at stake in the debates over such issues as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Only those who are disinterested, disingenuous, or desensitized by ideology will claim ignorance.

Barack Obama, as evidenced by his enthusiastic support for a right to abortion free of even the most modest of restrictions or regulation, is certainly not disinterested. We also have it on the unbiased authority of the mainstream media that he is anything but disingenuous. So when Senator Obama professes that he does not know when human life begins, we must conclude that he is adhering to one of the tenets of his political faith, which summarizes the matter of abortion in one short creed: "it is a woman's right to choose." Any feeling, thought, or fact which transgresses that dogma is heretical.

Those who, for whatever reason, truly don't know when human life begins might conclude it better to err on the side of caution and act as though it begins at conception, lest an innocent human life be taken through the act of abortion. But Barack Obama considers unplanned pregnancies to be "mistakes" and unwanted babies to be "punishment," and his unbridled advocacy of the unlimited abortion license flows from his adherence to those articles of faith.

Uncle Bam's Pitbull

2008-11-01T08:25:00.000-07:00

The ubiquitous Matt Drudge has a link to an AP story on the Obama campaign eyeing Rahm Emanuel as chief-of-staff should the junior senator from Illinois win the White House on Tuesday. Presumptuous yes, but probably a good idea from a management standpoint. Emanuel is a tough, disciplined politico who can herd the various cats of the Democrat majority and get them to purr with one voice. Maybe.

Drudge also links to this fascinating 2006 Chicago Tribune story on Emanuel, the architect of the Dems' congressional takeover two years ago. Those Obamaniacs who see in "The One" some new model politician who is going to civilize the tone in Washington should pay attention to Uncle Bam's Chicago compadre, the "profane, ruthless, and savvy operative" who will likely have a powerful hand in shaping the national dialogue for at least the next two years.

In the shadow of the the fall, politics of any kind (federal, state, local, workplace, familial) is a bloodsport and always will be. True, a good and savvy leader -- a statesman -- can put a pretty facade on the House that Adam Built. Inside that house, one will find all of the brutal human dynamics that, to greater or lesser degrees, has and will always mark our polity.

Chicago-style politics will never be confused for those of a Kibbutz. The rapid ascent of Barack Obama through the political precincts of Chicago to the threshold of the White House did not happen on prayers and good intentions alone. The dulcet tones and hymns of hope people hear in the speeches of The One are merely the packaging for a style of politics that is explicit in its ruthlessness and cunning, as captured in this paragraph from the Tribune story on Emanuel:

"In a world where congressmen refer to each other as "my distinguished colleague," Emanuel, 46, is sometimes unable to get through a single sentence without several obscenities. His politics are centrist, but his style is extremist. The top of his right middle finger was severed when he was a teenager, adding to his aura of toughness--especially when he extends that middle finger, which he does with some regularity."

"We are the change we've been waiting for" is simply a flowery way of saying "meet the new boss -- same as the old boss."

(Chicago Tribune photo by Pete Souza / October 25, 2006)

The Hype and the Feedback: A U2 Conference in NYC

2008-10-31T19:08:00.000-07:00

The music of U2 has always inspired passionate discussion and debate. I knew that when I wrote my little book on Achtung Baby, and I've experienced it firsthand many times since the book's publication last year. That's why I'm not turned off by the idea of an "academic conference" dedicated exclusively to U2. Far from it.

The Hype and the Feedback: A Conference Exploring the Music, Work, and Influence of U2 will be held May 13-15, 2009 in New York City. Those interested in attending can register here. Those interested in proposing a paper or presentation can do so via this link.

The conference organizers have put together a great schedule of speakers and activities, including keynote addresses by Anthony DeCurtis, Neil "I Was Bono's Doppleganger" McCormick, Steve Turner, Jim Henke, Cathleen Falsani, and Matt McGee.

May in New York, the music of U2, and a hotel full of opinionated U2 fans -- sounds like a good time to me. Rockelogists will recognize in the title of the conference two early names for the band that would become U2.

The "Liner Notes" Endorsement: McCain

2008-10-30T13:38:00.000-07:00

Liner Notes is endorsing John McCain for President of the United States.

We believe that of the available choices, only Senator McCain has the experience and demonstrated ability to lead our nation at this moment in history. While we do not expect that Senator McCain will advocate fully or effectively for the principles of conservatism which we believe represent the best and most cherished ideals of America, his moderate, center-right views are the best we can hope for in this election. Unlike his opponent, Senator McCain has a well-known record of fostering bipartisan cooperation on a range of issues. While we have not always agreed with the compromises McCain has been willing to make, we nonetheless respect his ability to be a uniter. Love him or not, John McCain is a known and trusted leader all Americans can feel comfortable with in the White House.

In stark contrast, Barack Obama is the least experienced (and least qualified) presidential candidate in American history. Less than half-way through his first term as a United States Senator, and after eight years in the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama has not distinguished himself in any substantive way as a legislator or leader. Indeed, his most impressive accomplishment has been in creating the "Obama brand" and stylishly offering himself as a "blank slate" to the American electorate. His eloquent call for "change" is dismally backed by the proposal of policies which have all been tried, have all failed, and have all been abandoned in other countries. Owing to his lack of a legislative record and the poetic vagueness with which he presents himself as a candidate, we do not know how Senator Obama will govern. However, all indications are that Barack Obama is a man of hard-left tendencies who will not do much to create consensus in Washington or unify America. Given the likelihood of clear Democrat majorities in the house and senate, there would be little reason for a President Obama to moderate his ideology.

To be sure, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States would be historic. Given our nation's tragic history of slavery and institutionalized racism, the election of our first black president would be cause for celebration across the political spectrum. As we have said in the past, we would, all other things being equal, prefer to vote for a black man (or for a woman or other minority) for president. Unfortunately, the candidates in this election are not equal in terms of experience and governing philosophy. John McCain has proven himself ready to lead on January 20, 2009. Barack Obama has not.

Charlie Gibson: He-Man...Matt Damon: Genius...Pam Anderson: Sucker

2008-09-12T22:22:00.000-07:00

ABC newsman Charlie Gibson proved his mainstream media bona fides this week by giving Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin the "I'm gonna take you back to school, little girl" treatment in the Governor's first one-on-one interview since receiving the nomination. Attempting a smack down on the woman who is apparently giving Matt "I want a girl just like the girl who married dear old Noam Chomsky" Damon nightmares, Macho Charlie smugly informed Governor Palin what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Gibson's "gotcha" moment was apparently designed to show that the Governor is ignorant because she didn't understand the meaning of his question "do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"

Only trouble is, the Gibster didn't understand the question any more than Governor Palin. The man who coined the phrase "Bush Doctrine," Charles Krauthammer, delivers a swift kick to Gibson gonads in this column.

In a related incident, the noted...um, ah...(just what is Pam Anderson noted for these days...besides divorces and sex tapes?) Anyway, Pam Anderson apparently is advising Governor Palin to "suck it."

Can't accuse Ms. Anderson of doing a "do as I say, not as I do" on that one (I'm told the woman knows a thing or two about...oh, never mind).

Stephen Catanzarite's "Achtung Baby": "A Heavy and Deep Work of Art"

2008-09-12T06:21:00.000-07:00

So says jazz great and children's television legend, Joe Negri. I gave him a copy of the book back in December when we did a concert together. He confessed that it sat on his night stand for many months before he picked it up this summer. Now Joe wants to dig into the album. I think he'll really be into "Love is Blindness," a song which has always struck me as having a Miles Davis kind of vibe.