The price of citizenship

is promoting sodomy, according to the New Mexico Supreme Court.  That’s what I expect from the ruling class, but I don’t expect it from ex-editors of First Things.

Our allies on the internet are rightly disgusted  by Joseph Bottum’s surrender on gay marriage.  Myself, I mostly just resent losing half an hour of my life reading his entire essay.   What people are saying about the piece being long and incoherent is all true.  However, I’ve been following (and criticizing) Bottum’s writings for a while, and I think a comparison with his previous writings can throw some light on what he’s trying to say here.

First a word in Bottum’s favor:  he doesn’t go in for the wanton slandering of opponents that intellectuals usually engage in when joining the sodomite bandwagon (e.g. leftist scumbag Wendell Berry).  Bottum even disavows the claim that those of us left fighting the good fight are all ignorant bigots.  Given the state of discourse on issues related to sex roles and/or buggery, this is a notable mercy.  I would like to show Bottum the same cordiality; in fact, I wouldn’t mention his surrender at all except for the peculiar arguments he puts forth, which are worth considering as a window into the neoconservative mind, if nothing else.  Many are perplexed by Bottum’s arguments from the incredulity of the public.  On the one hand, he claims to be making a case for sodomitical marriage, a case that resisting its acceptance is not only futile but morally wrong.  However, the substance of his argument (to the extent anyone has been able to make out an argument) seems to focus entirely on the unpopularity of our metaphysical premises.  The public doesn’t accept natural law, so we should stop bugging them about it.  Sex has become disenchanted in the public mind, so we should let our foes eliminate the last traces of recognition of marriage’s higher realities.  It would be easy to understand claims of the form “We can’t sell people on X, so let’s not bother trying” or “The people want ~X?  Let’s let ’em have it good and hard, and they’ll be brought around to our point of view soon enough.”  The claim here seems to be “The American people don’t accept X; therefore, it would be wrong (not just futile) to advocate policies based on X.”  Isn’t that bizarre?

Yes, it is, but it’s not new territory for Bottum.  Those of you who read First Things regularly may recall his odd article opposing the death penalty from a few years ago.  (The longer article is here, but Bottum is always clearer when he is forced to be brief.  The man is frankly too mentally disorganized to be a very good writer.  The only advantage of the long article is that it gets across the author’s craven desire for the Church to prove itself acceptable to liberals, a desire that has now lead him to the shipwreck of heresy.)  The argument was roughly as follows.  In previous times, the death penalty made sense because people thought that the state received its authority from God and that it had a charge to enforce justice (what Bottum calls “cosmic justice”, meaning “what people really deserve”).  In modern times, though, people think the state gets its authority from the people, and it is not beholden to God or ultimate justice, but only enforces a little bit of procedural justice, or rather whatever the people via their “social contract” have authorized the state to do, which one would hope has at least some relationship to justice.  On this understanding, the death penalty doesn’t make sense.  Therefore, the death penalty is wrong.

Of course, from an orthodox Catholic perspective, the reply should be that the old understanding of the state was correct, while the modern understanding is incorrect, and we should always reason from true premises, rather than from popular ones.  And, indeed, Bottum gives us no reason to believe that the modern view is better what it superseded.

This is a strange way to argue, especially since there are much stronger arguments to be made against the death penalty from within the Catholic tradition.  One could start, for instance, with “Thou shalt not kill”, which has some scriptural warrant and a very arguable natural law basis.  I suppose we should not be surprised that if Bottum pulled out his principle of bovine morality (“The herd is always right!”) for a position that was easily defensible in other ways, it’s not surprising that he came back to it when he needed to defend something utterly indefensible, namely that Catholics should not oppose the public promotion of mortal sin.

We should also remember that Bottum has always identified himself as a liberal, and has expressed frustration that Human Rights Watch doesn’t fight homophobia in the Muslim world.  He’s the guy who opposes localism because a world with small communities would be one where Jews might not be welcome everywhere.  Hence, my private nickname for him:  Jody “what about the Jews” Bottum.  So, anyway, painting him as a conservative who’s turned coat out of sheer unprincipled cowardice isn’t quite fair. He’s a man who inherited fatally compromised versions of Catholicism and conservatism, ones that thought the Church has an overriding imperative to fit somehow into the liberal American order.  He was never brought to see that Catholicism, rather than being some socially-disconnected metaphysical dream, is an inherently patriarchal religion and relies on a particular form of the family both for its social organization and its symbolic vocabulary.  He didn’t see how ruinous the Church’s silence on contraception and divorce have been–proof, if common sense weren’t enough, that allowing the Enemy a monopoly on the discussion of an issue means allowing one’s own beliefs to become unbelievable to the public at large.  For most of the Vatican II generation, this was the closest thing to orthodox Catholicism on offer, and yet we see now how poorly it has served those who accepted it.

15 thoughts on “The price of citizenship

  1. Excellent, as usual Bonald!

    When I had heard that a former editor of First Things came out in favor of homo “marraige”, I admit I taken aback by it, then I heard who it was, and I wasn’t so surprised anymore. Like you mentioned above, Bottum has done this sort of thing before, but even so, this really was a bottum of the barrel kind of thing, pun obviously intended.

    Why do right liberals never see that they are living only a stone’s throw away from an abyss, and that this kind of thing, as superbly retarded as it is, is inevitable. The left marches ever leftward into that satanic abyss, and there is no stopping it.

    It’s funny, one of the links you gave, to a post by you, had a quote from Bottum that gave me the shivers (“Look. We are the actual liberals here—the traditional liberals, if that makes any sense: the inheritors of the old sense of things—and all we want is a solid, old-fashioned kind of liberal institution.”) It was that kind of talk that helped awaken me to reality in the first place, helped set me on the path to becoming a Traditionalist.

    The same link you gave ended with this:
    “I predict that, within ten years time, the American Right will have transformed into the party that wants to invade third-world countries for the purpose of spreading gay marriage.”

    How horribly sad, how horribly likely.

    • How horribly sad, how horribly likely.

      Yes. No facetiousness intended, the actual purpose of the current mission in Afghanistan is already to impose western feminism (and other mores) on a people that doesn’t want it. I can imagine forced imposition of the homosexual agenda coming next. Under a pretext and bundled with other “goals”, of course

  2. Think tank Catholics like Bottum, George Weigel and Fr. Sirico are just in it for the money.They go on Fox News or EWTN and play a nice tune and yet the ship continues to sink, The silver lining in all this is that more people are catching on to their con.

  3. I’d never heard of Joseph Bottum until I read Bonald’s observations. Are Mr Bottum’s progressive opinions influential among Catholics in America, or is he a representative ‘educated’ figure who hints at a coming change in official Catholic teaching on sodomy? Is there any reason to pay attention to what he has to say about the eternal verities?

    According to the Catechism of Christian Doctrine (if it’s still operative):

    What are the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance?

    Wilful murder
    The Sin of Sodom
    Oppression of the poor (widows and orphans)
    Defrauding workmen of their wages

    Has sodomy been given an exemption from vengeance by the likes of Mr Bottum?

    On the same question: Justin Welby, who describes himself as an Archbishop of Canterbury, admonished his diminishing flock this week with a demand that Christians must repent for their treatment of “gay” people in the past. The Church of England, he announced, must face up to a “revolution” in attitudes toward homosexuality and take account of “the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 think what the church is saying is incomprehensible, wrong, and wicked…….”

    Taking account of this “fact” will, of course, justify further submissions to the Spirit of the Age in the Church of England.

    • If that’s what the Archbishop actually declared, then hasn’t his Church prostrated to the spirit of hedonism which grips our age in its heinous vices? Isn’t the road to hell often paved with bouquets of sensuous indulgences? Has he not googled “satan and sodomy” to educate himself about the intertwining bond between these abominables?

  4. Milton has been accused of being a sect of one. He knew his own mind and was not about to be swayed by the crowd. (Cf. Joseph Bottum; see also James 1:8). In Book Five of Paradise Lost Milton wrote:

    So spake the Seraph Abdiel faithful found,

    Among the faithless, faithful only hee;

    Among innumerable false, unmov’d,

    Unshak’n, unseduc’d, unterrifi’d

    His Loyaltie he kept, his Love, his Zeale; 

    Nor number, nor example with him wrought

    To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind

    Though single. From amidst them forth he passd,

    Long way through hostile scorn, which he susteind

    Superior, nor of violence fear’d aught;
    And with retorted scorn his back he turn’d

    On those proud Towrs to swift destruction doom’d.

    As Wordsworth put it:

    We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
    That Shakespeare spoke: the faith and morals hold
    Which Milton held…

  5. Uh…”First a word in Bottum’s favor: he doesn’t go in for the WANTON SLANDERING of opponents that intellectuals usually engage in when joining the sodomite bandwagon (e.g. LEFTIST SCUMBAG Wendell Berry).”
    Also, I’ve read a majority of everything Berry has ever written, and he could hardly be described as a leftist, or a scumbag.

    • Not only have I read a lot of the work in question, but for about four years I used books like Art of the Commonplace, Jayber Crow, and Life Is a Miracle in my teaching. My own grandfather was a Kentucky tobacco farmer; I greatly admired “the prophet of Henry County,” and was delighted to find someone prominent who for once seemed interested in representing me & mine.

      As it turns out, however, His Agrarian Holiness has no use for those rural Kentuckians who esteem the authority of the Apostle Paul over that of the New York Times magisterium, and unlike Bottum he happily collaborates with the regime’s demonization of them — the very folk he purports to defend. I can safely speak for quite a few country people when I say That Man sure doesn’t.

  6. Pingback: I was wrong | Foseti

  7. Pingback: How ‘Gay Rights’ Will Harm America | Theden | Thedening the West

  8. Pingback: It’s never just sodomy | Throne and Altar


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.