There is a deep connection between authoritarian religion and authoritarian politics; it's rare for some who promotes authoritarian politics to accept democracy in their religion or for someone who promotes authoritarian religion to fully accept democratic politics. It's rare, though, to see people openly proclaim both. Authoritarianism still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

Damon Linker reviews Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy, and the Splendor of Truth, a book in which Richard John Neuhaus seems to openly advocate authoritarianism in both politics and religion:

Neuhaus teaches traditionalist Christians that they need not choose between modern America and their theological convictions, because, rightly understood, modern America has a theological--and specifically Catholic--essence. He has pushed this position for nearly twenty years now--in books, in his magazine First Things, in sympathetic Washington think tanks, and even in the White House, where George W. Bush receives counsel on social policy from the man he affectionately calls “Father Richard.” This is why Neuhaus’s new book is so important: it gives us a detailed and up-to-date account of the kind of Catholicism that he is peddling, which he aims to inject into the heart of American public life.

If America has a Catholic essence, does this mean that non-Catholics — or at least non-Christians — don’t entirely belong? Are they members of the American polity only at the sufferance of Catholics and Christians? This sounds like a rather extreme position, but Neuhaus has elsewhere denied that atheist can be “good” citizens.

Much of Neuhaus’s book is devoted to responding to imagined critics of his blatantly authoritarian understanding of Catholicism. To those who would accuse him of having a “felt need for authority,” Neuhaus proudly declares that “of course” he does, “as should we all.” We must submit to an authority that will provide us with criteria and standards for deciding between rival claims to truth, he believes, because relying on ourselves alone (on our own “private judgment”) inevitably produces confusion and indecision. But how can we know, by what authority can we determine, which authority is the right authority? This is a significant problem for anyone who combines a longing to obey with a refusal to recognize as authoritative the traditions into which he happens to have been born.

Carl Schmitt, the political theorist who devoted a great deal of thought to this dilemma, determined that such men have no choice but to make an arbitrary yet resolute decision to obey some authority, any authority. Taking account of the options in Germany in 1933, Schmitt swore obedience to Hitler. Neuhaus, of course, makes an infinitely more respectable decision in favor of the Vatican. He does so because, in his words, “the promise of Jesus that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his disciples” is a “promise made to the Church.” But why does Neuhaus--and why should we--trust this promise? He claims that he can know that the Church’s authority is worthy of his obedience in the same way that a bride can “know” that her “bridegroom will be faithful.” Though Neuhaus does not employ the term, what he is describing is merely another leap of faith, a melodramatic form of cosmic confidence that derives its psychological strength from its aversion to philosophical thinking.

If Richard John Neuhaus wishes to make a personal leap of faith to place all trust in the authority of the Vatican and turn over all vestiges of thinking and reasoning to others who can then tell him what to believe, that’s his decision. I would call such a choice to be intellectually and morally reprehensible, but people like Neuhaus have every right to neuter themselves if they don’t think they can be trusted with original thoughts. Perhaps they are right not to trust themselves.

Problems arise, however, when these same people assert claims to social and political power which they would then employ to push the same choices on the rest of us, whether implicitly or explicitly. Richard John Neuhaus is not someone whom I choose as having any religious authority over me; because of this, he cannot presume to make any religious decisions which affect me — he lacks any authority whatsoever over any aspect of my life, however remote.

By working to inject his authoritarian Catholicism into public policy that does affect my life, though, he is engaging in illicit and immoral behavior — yet, as an dyed-in-the-wool authoritarian, it’s unlikely that he’ll ever recognize that imposing his authority figures on others could be illicit. It seems to be a standard characteristic of authoritarians that they recognize no valid boundaries to the imposition of their agenda on others; otherwise, they wouldn’t be authoritarian, would they?

 

Christian Right & Christian Nationalism:

• Religious Right News
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry
• Christianism & Christian Nationalism
• Religion in America

 

Read More:

• Roman Catholicism
• Catholicism News