The Church’s “dry drunks”
Greg Erlandson is president and publisher of Our Sunday Visitor, and a colleague in the Catholic journalism dodge who I’ve known for years, since he was covering the Vatican for CNS in the 1980s. People like Greg–though he might be shocked to hear this–are the types who first drew my interest toward the Church. Greg would probably be described as “orthodox” in his Catholicism, as befits his job. Yet he is admirably outspoken about the excesses of the “orthodox” camp, as he is about any faction in the Church.
In the June 3 edition of OSV, Greg has a column titled “Orthodoxy’s ‘dry drunks’,” about the danger of being defined by what we hate rather than what we love. It is, to me, a wonderful piece that will go on the fridge (the highest compliment for a writer, no?), not just because Greg takes on what some might see as his own “tribe”–always a courageous thing these days–but because his insights apply to us all, left, right, and center.
Greg writes (access is subscription-only) that “doctrinaire” Catholics:
“…do not so much engage culture as demand its unconditional surrender, and they take greater satisfaction in elaborating on sin and its punishments than on the beauty of the Savior. They tend to be all Inferno and little Paradiso.
“Over the years, what I have found unsettling about such characters is that they seemed perversely obsessed with the perversions they decried. They never wrote half so eloquently about the Masses they enjoyed as they did about the Masses they deplored. Chastity was not nearly as compelling a topic as fornication. Heterosexual marriage not nearly as interesting as homosexual agendas.”
He compares such angry Catholics to the “dry drunks” of Alcoholics Anonymous, the folks who never take another drop but are stuck with the emotional and spiritual dysfunctions of the past:
“The blogosphere has become a veritable catch basin of these folks. Unedited, unrestrained and unhappy with the state of the Church and the world, they obsessively chronicle every twisted phenomenon, every perversion, every disillusioning anecdote. They fancy themselves proclaiming truth to power — the emperor is wearing no clothes. The trouble is, they can’t take their eyes off the emperor.”
Challenging stuff, and also, perhaps, an echo of some of the unease (at least mine) with some of the conversions discussed below–folks who enter the Church but may be spurred to do so because they feel Catholicism supports, rather than challenges, their pre-existing condition.
In my neck of the woods, we call the orthodox “cathoholics.”
And even while I’m reading the the extracts from Erlandson and thinking, “Hit ‘em again, Greg Boy,” I’m wondering if the whole alcoholic metaphor isn’t designed to imply that there is something dysfunctional about orthodox belief.
If orthodox Catholics are steeped in what they hate rather than what they love, aren’t liberal Catholics (myself included) steeped in what we hate rather than love (if anything) about orthodox Catholics?
As Mr. Gibson notes, there are lessons here for all of us, left, right and center.
I haven’t read this article, but I’ve called this phenomena “theological road-rage.” The road-ragers both on the left and right are more than happy to destroy their enemies’ families or ability to make a living according to their talents — in the name of defeating an “agenda” or a “threat.” The morose delectation over the sins of their fellow churchmen is singularly unedifying. As an obsessive consumer of gossip myself, I simply do not believe them when they oh-so-piously claim that they only have the good of the Church at heart when they linger over ths juiciest details of the latest outrage against the Faith by Cardinal O’Moneybags, Father Sodoma McFatty, Sister Dolores Pantsuit, Senator John Forbes Bilbo, or what have you.
I better stop now, since I’m winding up to my own little sanctimonious little tantrum.
David,
Thanks for this. I’ll look for more of Greg’s writings.
What Patrick refers to as “morose delectation, I call the “gotcha” syndrome: a corrosive feature of contemporary American Catholicism from which, as Jean suggests, none of us is immune.
What strikes me is how joyless much of our exchange and demeanor is. Was it Leon Bloy who said that the mark of a Christian is joy?
“…all Inferno and little Paradiso.” That’s priceless, as well as sadly true.
What’s happened is that many Catholics, laudably eager to bring their faith to bear on cultural and political issues, have ended up letting culture and politics define their Catholicism. What I still long for is a revival of the Catholic Worker perspective, a real “spectacle unto the world” that confounds both — or perhaps all — conventional sides of these battles.
On that score, incidentally, Our Sunday Visitor has started to surprise me. They’ve published these little books of devotional prayers and aphorism by people like Dorothy Day, a person one might never have suspected would get OSV’s approval. “Praying the Presence of Our Lord” is the title, and it’s a marvelous collection of some of Day’s best writing on the Eucharist, on forgiveness, on peace-making, on love.
OSV is a nice little paper which I find rather encouraging.
“Encourage each other while it is still today.” Heb 3, 13
Thanks, Mr. Gibson.
There are uncritical progressives and uncritical retrogressives. They literally do not know where the are going but they are sure they are going in the right direction.
Theological Hermeneutics, lesson one:
Everyone to the right of me, and everyone to the left of me, is a heretic.
Just because I have often changed my mind does not mean that I am not always right.
Great post. See Rene Girard on mimetic scapegoating. “Morose delectation” is canny, reminiscent of Kenneth Burke’s epithet about mankind being “rotten with perfection.” As to the infernal dimension, obsessive accusation is, literally, satanic. Heaven help us.
“What’s happened is that many Catholics, laudably eager to bring their faith to bear on cultural and political issues, have ended up letting culture and politics define their Catholicism. ”
A comment that applies to people in all camps, to be sure.
To stray away from Erlandson’s points slightly, I have to say that in a “live” discussion with an orthodox believer, I will usually shut up, listen and, often, change my ways.
I could not have converted to Catholicism had my path not been lit by kindly orthodox believers who befriended me, Lord knows why.
The orthodox believers who show up here on Commonweal may, in real life, be like my orthodox friends. But most of them simply seem to want to smack liberals around on their home turf. Which means they believe Commonweal is the home turf of liberals, which I think is debateable.
Does the blogosphere somehow set people up for conflict? Has it contributed to conflict among Catholics? Or does it simply reflect the tensions within the Church and give them a venting point?
Jean: I suspect that there are more than a few who participate in this blog who, like myself, want to be considered “orthodox believers,” but who try to do more than “smack liberals around.” Do we need to find another description of the “smackers”?
Fr. K., heavens, I hope to be an orthodox believer before I die, though my own stubbornness is a huge impediment to this.
My point is that I found Erlandson’s “dry drunk” characterization offensive, even though Erlandson is using it to describe the people I like least on this blog.
It’s a clever label, and like all clever labels we agree with, it dehumanizes the label-ees and the label-ers.
So, no, I don’t want to find a new description for the people I don’t like on the Commonweal blog.
Perhaps Erlandson ought to have followed Patrick Rothwell’s tack and described the behavior–theological road rage–rather than tried to characterize those who, like me, engage in it occasionally.
I think Mr. Erlandson’s observations accurately describe the far-right element in the Catholic Church — even before we had the “benefit” of its venom on the blogosphere. I can recall years ago when my moderate-to-liberal pastor described his own experience with these folks: their complaints to the bishop about his outreach to the marginalized in the church, anonymous hate mail, etc.
I am not at all convinced, however, that Mr. Erlandson’s comments apply to those in the center as David Gibson believes.
Finally, I must ask if anyone can provide the URL of a far-left Catholic blogspot that matches the venom of the far-right ones. (I’m not denying the possibility; I just don’t know.)
Based on my limited experience, Mr. Erlandson’s article certainly is “behaviorally anchored.” What behaviors and conclusions might a liberal writer offer about the “veritable catch basin” on the far left?
My impression is that we are doing a creditable job in dissecting Erlandson’s observation. To a certain extent we cover this when we describe false as opposed to true prophets. False prophets do not care about people and use them for their own ends. We need true prophets, however uncomfortable they make us.
Current prophets, I contend, whom we neglect at our peril, are those who are begging us to pay attention to justice being done to the victims of sex abuse. Especially in our leaders. In our quest for a return to the status quo we neglect people seriously wronged and as a result fail to correct a hierarchy who truly has no clothes. People like Marci Hamilton advocate for people who are wounded and wronged while the liberal Christian hastily withdraws. As the following story shows.
States Move to Enact Laws Allowing the Death Penalty for Pedophiles:
A Good Sign with Respect to Public Dedication to Protecting Children, But Potentially Not the Most Effective Way to Do So
By MARCI HAMILTON FindLaw.com
Thursday, May 31, 2007
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20070531.html
So do we or do we not need more prophets in this area?
I found the posts here quite illuminating, especially when you compare the tenor, tone, and self-congratulation of the last five to the original nine, which are eloquent, generous, and honestly self-deprecating. Maybe we should all get into the habit of questioning our motives and asking if we are acting as “dry drunks” before we make any post. In that spirit, maybe I should have done a better job in this one, something beyond me at this moment.
Robert Kribs, what is the basis for your conclusion that the last five comments are characterized by “self-congratulation?”
As for “questioning our motives,” I had none other than to share my observations and those of a former pastor, to find out if anyone might be aware of far-left blogs that (in their own way) betray the venom of the far-right ones, and to state my agreement with Mr. Erlandson’s observations. Please note, too, that I qualified my references to both left and right with the word ‘far’ because I construed Mr. Erlandson’s article as relating to what I consider the fringe element, not to mainstream (read: moderate-to-conservative) Catholics on the right.
This blog offers us opportunity to comment. And that we do. I, for one, do not consider myself a “dry drunk” although I have very real misgivings and concerns about recent (and not so recent) “stuff” out of Rome these past 25+ years.
Thank you.
Our town has a parish church and a university Catholic Center. For more than 30 years, there has been various tensions between and within the congregations that frequent these places of worship. Some of these tensions have to do with liturgy or ways of talking about our faith. Others are about more practical issues, such as policies for supporting the parochial school. Others, however they may have started out, now have devolved into personality clashes. In the last few years, 15,000 Hispanics have come to live in our town. There are some people who have devoted themselves to providing Christian service to these newcomers, but far too little has been done to address their needs.
Regrettably, though some of us lay people try to take small steps to address the divisions that inflict us, we have no support to speak of, much less leadership in the last 20 or so years from the clergymen who have been assigned here.
I’m well aware of the arguments among “dry drunks.” I’ve often been one of them. But it’s now clear that, at least in our town, the Church’s woes are too deep-seated to be dealt with just by us drunks “taking the pledge.” I hope that our town’s Catholic community is atypical. I fear that it’s not. And, even worse, I fear that none of us has a good idea about how to heal our divisions.
I found both Erlander’s OSJ piece and David’s reflections about it most interesting. I also resonate deeply with Robert Kribs comments above. “Generous and honestly self-depricating” are sentiments too infrequently observed in blogdom but enormously endearing when encountered.
Consistent with Joseph Jaglowitz, I observe far more venom on far Right Catholic blogs, although…let’s be frank…robust defense of conservative Catholic sensibilities is sometimes harsly received hereabouts.
But maybe we focus too much on content and too little on process; I see remarkable process similarities in discourse across the ideological and theological spectrum. Instead of rushing to refute the ‘errors’ of the Catholic Right, maybe we ought to ask ‘why’ so many conservative Catholics feel so alienated.
My personal experience of those whose rhetoric is most harsh, Right and Left, is that they have been deeply hurt somewhere along the line. Often they have experienced exquisitely painful rejection of their person or their deepest beliefs. In the Catholic ambit, such rejection has often often at the hands of the institutional church. The wounds are all too raw and shape perceptions for years to come. Well acquainted with our own wounds, we may too infrequently see the other guy’s wounds as equally painful and equally instrumental in shaping his worldview.
While we progressive Catholics may see ourselves marginalized in many ways, it is instructive to note that conservative Catholics also feel marginalized…and not without reason. In many zones of American Catholic life our voices have been ascendant for years. We’re living in a fool’s paradise if believe all the pain was inflicted by ‘them’ on ‘us.’ It just ain’t that simple. Many conservative Catholics have been collateral damage in our march toward renewal and exasperation with/contempt for their views are all too common among us.
In my younger days, labelling was considered the lowest form of discourse and, in psychology, was a defense mechanism.
I guess I’m unhappy then with “dry drunks” and lots of other labels.
And who’s orthodox? The broad view of the Church suported by NPLC probably covers the right territory.(I worry about NPLC which is being “reorganized” -whatever that meabns.)
The Voice of the Faithful have striven mightily to be “orthodox” though given short shrift by many of the hierarchy. Now they are in some financial distress- my guess is for not being outspoken enough.
Then there’s the wonnderful article in the current Commenweal. “You Did What?” which I wish had been featured on this page.
Someone comes to the faith because he appreciates the (another label) “dissidents.”
To reduce trhe pain in the Catholic comunity, we need less labelling and more “see how these Chrisitans love one another.”
Mike McG says: My personal experience of those whose rhetoric is most harsh, Right and Left, is that they have been deeply hurt somewhere along the line. Often they have experienced exquisitely painful rejection of their person or their deepest beliefs.
Jean observes: You are probably on to something there. As a convert, I haven’t been hurt by the Church, but I have plenty of spleen to spare for Fundamentalists whose overbearing presence in my early life certainly kept me away from organized religion for many years.
I have a lot of expectations that the Church will resist “Fundamentalist creep”–that is, resist adopting the tone and tactics of Fundamentalism, which I consider to be a very inferior, emotional, and narrow kind of Christianity based on false interpretation of Scripture.
I freely admit having “dry drunk” moments when I hear Catholics extolling Fundamentalist leaders and their “virtues.”
There is a small discussion about Greg’s editorial (and Greg even chimes in) over at Jim Manney’s “People of the Book,” a blog for all in Catholic publishing.
http://peopleofthebook.us/2007/06/05/orthodoxys-dry-drunks/
I pray all the dry drunks get themselves to a meeting fast. Mother Church is in need of all..!