Catholic Authenticity
And now for a more complete response. Deacon Russell has recently posted a piece at Catholic Vote explaining why he’s such a jerk to gay people – or rather, why he’s not a jerk at all and all of his critics are being unfair to him.
Deacon Jim’s response is illuminating in that it provides a very good window into a set of beliefs that inform a lot of disedifying conservative writing. So I’m going to offer some criticisms in the hopes of, perhaps, improving the state of the discourse and avoiding this kind of ugly controversy in the future.
Let’s move through his list point by point.
“Learn the difference between public discourse and individual pastoral ministry.”
Deacon Jim writes that “Writing essays for Catholic publications is not a pathway toward intimate, bridge-building, harmonious nirvana with those who may happen to be mentioned in that essay.” So, first there’s the fact that he talks about bridge-building and intimacy in rather snarky tones, but since I’m defending Joe Prever’s right to be snarky I suppose I have to grant it to Russell as well.
His argument hinges on the claim that he’s discussing “differing views.” Well, yes, I’m sure that Deacon Jim and Joe have differing views on the question of whether Prever is “immature,” “unsettled, unseasoned, and uncertain,” but there are some fairly obvious reasons why this might not be an entirely academic point for Joe.
The fact that you’re participating in public discourse does not obviate the obligation to speak with charity and discretion, or to avoid detraction. When you cross the line from critiquing someone’s views to evaluating someone’s character, you are no longer in the realm of charitably informing your readers of a difference in viewpoint.
It’s also not a mere difference of opinion when you say that those who disagree with you “shouldn’t have been given a public platform at this time, both for their own good and for the good of attendees and readers”.
This is not an intellectual disagreement: this is about whether Joe and Eve’s experience should be included in the discourse at all. No-platforming is a way of shutting people out, from preventing the expression and discussion of differing views. You can’t argue for disincluding those who disagree with you, and then complain that what you want is a gentlemanly academic discussion.
“Learn that “You’re Mean” is not a rational argument.”
Here, Deacon Jim offers a very familiar bugaboo of traditional Catholicism: “We have truly lost the elegance of yesteryear’s gentlemanly but pointedly-clear expressions of public discourse…in which participants never got their feathers ruffled and consistently stayed on point throughout an entire exchange…For goodness sake, readers and writers, take a cue from a more decorous era and argue ideas rather than displaying all manner of unfettered emotionalism.”
So, first, if you say hurtful things about people they will get emotional. Joe Prever is not a theologian. He’s a blogger. He speaks very openly about vulnerable, emotional issues. Demanding that all public discourse take place in the form and style that you are most comfortable with is incredibly self-important.
We don’t live in fin de siecle England, and the internet is not the same medium as a public debate. Media shapes discourse. If you don’t understand the nature of the medium you’re working in, you shouldn’t work in it. (Or you should go read Marshall McLuhan.)
Also it’s important to note that there was nothing “more decorous” about discourse in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This was a period where “taking it outside” was an acceptable way to settle disagreements in many contexts. A com-box is not the present-day equivalent of a university lecture hall, it’s much closer to something like a public house or a tavern. There has never been a world in which it was acceptable to come off as superior, obnoxious, impolite and insensitive in public, non-academic venues. It’s just that nowadays you’re more likely to face snark and name-calling than to have your face bashed in in the alley out back.
“Learn that you do not get to deny that my words mean what I say they mean.”
Here, the Deacon argues that if he says he has no “personal animosity” towards Prever, he has no personal animosity towards Prever. Yes, okay, but it doesn’t matter: you can do violence and damage to a person without having any personal animosity.
When you psychopathologize a person, and attempt to silence them (and yes, no-platforming is a form of silencing) it is not okay. When children on a playground exclude another child, and tell their friends to do the same, they might not have any personal animosity – but they’re still being bullies.
People are reacting to the effect of your words rather than the intent of your words, and that’s perfectly reasonable. They’re valuing the objective content over your subjective meaning.
“Learn that if you have no intention of even trying to understand what I mean by the words I choose, then STOP READING.”
I’ve already dealt with this one. Admittedly, with maximum snark. But my point stands: conservatives would do much better if they didn’t obsessively read blogs and articles that they disagree with in order to be offended by them. I don’t read Crisis Magazine unless my name appears in the article. Why? Because I don’t need to be outraged.
Going into a discourse that uses language in a way that is incompatible with your ideolect, and then insisting that language there must change to mean what you would mean by it, is unproductive. If you’re going to participate in a discussion, it is only polite and gentlemanly to educate yourself in how language is used in that discussion and then respect those conventions.
“Learn that just because I disagree with some “gay” people doesn’t mean I despise any “gay” person.”
I know that Deacon Jim – and many conservatives – don’t despise any gay people. But you do say things that hurt, alienate, and scandalize many gay people. And that matters.
I’ve had people write to me and tell me that they are thinking of leaving the Church because of articles written by Ruse, Russell and other pundits of a similar bent. I’m talking about people who are actually trying to live the teachings – not people who are in dissent. And I’m also not only talking about gay people.
When I have to repeatedly talk people off of the ledge because of things that you are saying, I think it’s understandable that I react emotionally. The fact that you don’t doesn’t make you come off as rational and decorous– it makes you come off as dangerously callous.
If the way that you engage in discourse actually has the objective effect of driving people out of the Church, it doesn’t matter whether you subjectively despise them or not. You are damaging them spiritually, and it’s time that you stop making excuses, ridiculing your critics and justifying your behaviour and start thinking about whether, just maybe, there’s a reason why so many people are offended and upset by the things that you say.
Image: “Mühlberg – Säbelmensur”. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%BChlberg_-_S%C3%A4belmensur.jpg#/media/File:M%C3%BChlberg_-_S%C3%A4belmensur.jpg
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In