Last call for "Raging Pit Bull"

Talk about "over the top" comedy: Mark Shea just posted a piece over at Catholic and Enjoying It entitled "A drama for our time!" --

They were a father and a son bound together by unbreakable cords of love...

until one man threatened to drive them apart!

New Oxford Review Films proudly presents Philip and Christopher Blosser in "Raging Pit Bull".

I told Mark in his comment box that I've always liked his shoot-from-the-hip style, freighted as it is with all its risks of possible misunderstanding. I also told him that's what I also liked about Dale Vree's style, though I grant that a shoot-from-the-hip style can have pique behind it as well as humor -- and that's true not only only of Vree's writing, as Mark knows.

What Mark's post is referring to is a substantial and, as-usual, well-written post by my beloved son, Christopher, "Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review" (Against the Grain, February 10, 2006), taking issue with my defense of Vree and NOR. As I read Christopher's post, his argument -- after a brief review of his personal history of reading NOR -- falls into two points: (1) Vree's manner of criticizing others is uncivil, and (2) Vree's argument in a specific example he cites by way of illustration from an exchange between Vree and George Weigel is mistaken.

First Point: The claim here is that Vree is uncivil. Here Christopher's view seems to fall in line with what looks like a majority consensus. Even I, who have come to Vree's defense, have described him as a pugnacious, sometimes piquish, "pit bull." Poor guy. Never a break. So there's that. But is it simply this? Or is this all it is that offends people? Clearly not. In my last post on the matter, "Why NOR ads aim to offend" (Feb. 9, 2006), I argued that much of what people find offensive about NOR and Vree is an in-your-face style and language ("sissies," "sodomites," "whores," "bozos," "fags") that evokes a recoil of abhorrence and disgust because it is deemed as having no place in "civil discourse." This isn't the sum of what offends, but I want to argue that a very large swath of what people find repulsive is precisely this. When Vree offered a detailed etymological and social analysis of the term "fag," for instance, with his accompanying "call-a-spade-a-spade" suggestions, you heard roomfulls of scandalized individuals jumping atop their chairs with lifted skirts, shrieking like Victorian schoolmarms who had sighted a rat. The pro-gay Fr. Joseph O'Leary, the living embodiment of political correctness, dismissed what he heard of Vree's discussion here as "dreck" -- Yiddish slang for excrement. When Vree used the words "whore" and "slut" to describe the view of women perveyed by contemporary liberal culture with its raunchy sex ed, soft-porn TV, recreational sex, Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus bent himself out of shape offering apologies to his readers in First Things, which had carried NOR's ad, calling the ad "beyond the pale," and NOR "mean-spirited, malicious, in violation of good taste, and seriously false." Yet in each of these cases, Vree was not simply shooting-from-the-hip: he clearly had a carefully reasoned rationale for what he was saying -- one that, I would insist, whether we agreed with it or not, was at least arguably defensible.

But this clearly isn't the sum of what offends. What also offends is the tone of Vree's editorials, which surfaces in remarks that pique, provoke irritation, poke beneath the belt, and snipe with ad hominem innuendo. I grant that I've noted this in some of Vree's columns. There were times several years ago when I wished he had simply dropped what I took to be his sniping at Deal Hudson. I had met Hudson, when he visited Lenoir-Rhyne College for a conference once, and though I think I may have caught a hint of impatient condescension with our small-potatoes venue in his demeanor with some of the audience members during a coffee break, I did like the content of what he had to say on stage, as I have generally appreciated his editorials in Crisis when he was editor in the past. Vree kept harping on Hudson's political aspirations, suggesting that he was curring favor with Bush Republicans in hopes of positioning himself to be appointed US ambassador to the Vatican -- that he was beholden to the big moneyed interests of the neoconservative wing of the Catholic-Republican coalition, and so forth. Then, when Hudson's sexual scandal broke, Vree wanted all the facts out in the open, questioning the motives of those who wanted to forgive and forget and let bygones be bygones. He questioned those who wanted to keep him on as editor at Crisis, for example, after such a high profile scandal in the midst of the national sex scandals that were then rocking the Catholic Church throughout the United States. All of this is so much unpleasantness, of course, and many will invariably be inclined to question the motives of anyone who seems to target an individual in a pointed, personal way, even where there are religious and moral concerns at issues in the penumbra of the discussion. The question remains whether and to what extent Vree in fact has been guilty of this.

Yet here I would raise a singular caution: if Vree can be blamed for violating the "laws of civil discourse" (I'm thinking of the reference to John Courtney Murray's We Hold these Truths that Christopher cited here), there is plenty of blame to go around. In fact, I would suggest that if Vree has seemed more piquish of late, it may well be due to the fact that many others have been perhaps violating the laws of civil discourse in their treatment of him. I personally HATE calling into question the integrity of specific individuals, especially individuals I like, in public. So far I have avoided doing so, preferring instead to extend the benefit of a doubt -- or at least an indulgence -- as far as possible; and I intend to continue doing so, since I consider such accusations largely unproductive. So I shall speak in generalities. But I can assure you that I have an ARSENAL of examples I could offer you if I were so inclined, which would only provide Vree with the near occasion of the sin of gloating and the accused individuals with the near occasion of the sin of vindictive hate and vengefulness. Whatever their faults, I love the work being done by Vree, Rose, Neuhaus, Weigel, Fessio, Hahn, Welborn, Shea, Christopher, and many, many others, and see no reason why they should not indulge one another a trifle more as well. (Hahn, I think, has actually been a model of this, particularly when the subject of criticism and attack.) I don't think anybody can fault me for lack of appreciation for the work of any of these individuals. But if we're talking "rules of civil discourse," Vree has had stunts pulled on him -- often behind-the-scenes -- the likes of which would make any editor's blood boil and the paint peel off the wall -- like having his ads pulled from "friendly" periodicals without any reasonable explanation, having requests for review copies of books ignored, having correspondence and communication refused, or not being consulted by key players before decisions were made indirectly affecting his apostolate. He has even been the attempted object of outright bribery from big moneyed interest groups who have sought to buy influence in his editorial perspective. If Vree has been guilty of ad hominem attacks on others -- and he obviously has -- for every attack Vree has made on others, he has himself been the target of probably fifty or more in return. There is no equity here and people just miss this, as they did back in school when the whole class would gang up on the one kid they made the whipping boy of the entire group. If Vree has been guilty of violating the laws of civil discourse, so have many others placed in positions of far more influence and power than Vree who have used their influence and power either individually or in concert to try to sideline, shut up, or shut down NOR.

Second Point: The claim here is that Vree is mistaken about Weigel's concept of freedom. Although Christopher cites the Vree-Weigel exchange in the December 2004 issue of NOR "to illustrate" his earlier assertions about Vree, the rest of his post is not really so much an argument about Vree's incivility of manner as it is an argument against what he takes to be a mistake in Vree's criticism of Weigel's concept of freedom. The issue is raised in Weigel's letter-to-the-editor, published in NOR:

George Weigel: The rest of the country has often had reason to wonder about the contents of the Berkeley water supply. Whatever is going on in your fair city now appears to have degraded your Editor's capacity to read.

Contrary to your Editor's polemic in your September issue ("George 'Humpty Dumpty' Weigel"), I have never written that "freedom" is "another name for virtue." In the column that so offended your Editor, what I noted parenthetically was that "habit" is "another name for 'virtue.'" Those capable of reading English understood this -- except, evidently, those looking to deal the dread neoconservative beast another lick. I might also point out that my snapshot description of the meaning of freedom in that column -- "doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way, as a matter of habit (which is another name for 'virtue')" -- leans on the work of Fr. Servais Pinckaers, O.P., one of the principal influences on Veritatis Splendor and the leading contemporary interpreter of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Before he charges his sundry bogeymen with "rhetorical witchcraft," your Editor might do them the courtesy to read what they write with that minimum of care nominally associated with the office of "Editor."

George Weigel
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Washington, D.C.

"Weigel, of course, is a bit snippety in the opening of his letter," writes Christopher, "-- there is just something in Vree's style which often provokes the worst kind of spirit in people." But why assume this? Why simply assume that it couldn't possibly have been Vree's snippety reactions in this context that have been unjustly provoked? It goes without saying that the tables could be turned, and details seem to suggest the possibility: when NOR asked the publisher of Weigel's The Cube and the Cathedral, for a review copy in order to review it, the request was ignored. Vree assumes Weigel didn't want NOR to review the book because of Vree's earlier criticisms of Weigel and instructed his publisher not to send Vree a copy. Could one not ask whether Vree was a bit snippety because he had been cold-shouldered by Weigel? Isn't what's fair for the goose fair also for the gander?

But the real issue here is the definition of "freedom" and whether Vree misinterpreted Weigel. The answer, I contend, is quite simple: Vree turns out to be right here, and it is Weigel who is fudging. Let me explain. In his original article, ("A Nation Defining Election", The Tidings, April 2004), Weigel is concerned to distinguish two senses of the word "freedom": (1) freedom in the sense of doing things "my way"; and (2) freedom in the sense "doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way, as a matter of habit (which is another name for 'virtue)." There is nothing new about this distinction. Out of the multifarious senses of "freedom" one might distinguish (here Mortimer Adler's Freedom: A Study of the Development of the Concept in the English and American Traditions of Philosophy is probably definitive), Weigel has singled out two -- the former, a sense with modern associations stemming from the Enlightenment and Kant's notion of the autonomous executive will ("doing what I want") -- and the latter, a sense with classical associations stemming from the Greek, or more specifically, Aristotelian ideals of virtue ("doing what I should," or "acting in accordance with the inner telos of my true nature"). The latter is also susceptible of overlays of biblical understandings ("the Truth shall set you free") and Thomistic and Lockean natural law ("freedom is discerned through the naturalis ratio") and their respective modes of apprehending the Good.

Now it is true, of course, as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Weigel, and Aristotle and all of classical thought are agreed, that 'virtue' is a kind of 'habit.' Just as by repeatedly smoking cigarettes, one acquires the habit of smoking, so by repeatedly performing acts of moral goodness (like telling the truth) or evil (like telling lies), one acquires moral habits (virtues such as truthfulness, or vices, such as untrustworthiness). This much is a given.

But now, when Weigel writes in his letter to NOR: "I have never written that 'freedom' is 'another name for virtue,'" and that what he had originally written was that "'habit' is 'another name for virtue,'" this may be true; but it is also beside the point and misleading. For the question is not whether "freedom" is "another name for virtue" -- which it isn't -- but whether it is conceptually linked with virtue in Weigel's second sense of "freedom," which it essentially and ineluctably is. Therefore it seems to me that Weigel is being not a trifle disingenuous here, probably still smarting from Vree's treatment of him in his Sept. 2004 New Oxford Note ("George 'Humpty Dumpty' Weigel") to which he obviously took strong exception. Vree's answer to Weigel sounds flippant, but it would be unwise to dismiss it precipitously as conceptually mistaken on that account, because it's not. Vree wrote:

What's not to understand? What you wrote is crystal clear: Freedom is habit is virtue. Therefore, freedom is virtue. Sorry, but there's no "plausible deniability" here. You can't wiggle out of it. You said it, and you can't pass the buck on to Fr. Pinckaers.

It's true that the terms and concepts of "freedom" and "virtue" are not identical. But in Weigel's second definition of freedom, he defines freedom in the sense of a habit of virtue; hence, Vree is entirely within his epistemic rights in concluding that, for purposes of that definition, freedom = habit = virtue. Thus Vree is the one who's got his philosophy right here, no matter how flippant he may sound, whereas it's Weigel who is blowing smoke and confusing the issue, no matter how diplomatic and scholarly he may sound. What's Weigel up to? Why would he do such a thing? Why would someone who is the object of sharp criticism react in this way? To distance himself from his critic? To give the appearance of having bested his critic in any way possible? You tell me.

I have no quarrel with Christopher's fine points about Weigel's linkage of freedom to "moral excellence" elevating him above the reproach of moral relativism or utopian delusions regarding the moral perfection of Western civilization, etc. Nor do I have a quarrel with his other points about the obvious totalitarian dangers of Islamic government (see my post of January 2, 2006: "The Challenge of Islamic Extremists"), or his appreciation of Weigel's and Cardinal Pell's finely-drawn distinctions that go beyond a simple either/or choice between a "theocratic state" or "rampant individualism" where definition of socio-moral norms are concerned. Anyone who has read my "War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning," knows my respect for Weigel's work. Yet I do believe that Vree is a great deal more knowledgeable and careful in his reasoning than people often give him credit for. I do also believe, as Christopher agrees, that Vree raises important questions that other quarters of conservative Catholicism may sometimes find uncomfortable -- such as where that line lies, exactly, between that coalition of Natural Law-Christian Right-Republicanism and an unbridled, secular Nietzschean imperial will-to-power.

Like Christopher, I also believe that if we could get Vree and Weigel (and for that matter Neuhaus, Fessio, and all the rest of the gang) together in a good Irish pub over several rounds on the house -- in other words, quite 'tight' together in the old English sense of the word -- we might actually get somewhere. Perhaps, my friends, the answer is not far to be sought, in the final analysis. Yes, of course, we must pray, study, read, and seek the face of God. But as Ben Franklin also said: "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." I have my own ideas on what I would recommend as the best beer in the world. But buy your beer gift certificates HERE for the Catholic apologists who irritate you the most. Consider it an exercise in pre-Lenten penance of "Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." I suspect Vree will be swimming in a vat of hops and malt before the end of the week. Who knows ... it may lead to the New Springtime in the Church for which we've all been hoping and praying.

I'm calling this post "Last call for 'Raging Pit Bull'," because I don't intend to invest any more energy writing posts on this topic beyond this or respond to comments beyond next week. With this last post, I will have said more than needs to be said: that Dale Vree -- however insulting he may seem -- is on the side of the angels, and NOR is a Catholic journal serves a valuable apostolate in contemporary Catholicism. Cheers!