Letters to the Catholic Right

Bourbon, Bad and Good

percy tumbler

Walker Percy was a fascinating dude. The author of (in my opinion) the best New Orleans novel, 1961’sThe Moviegoer, and a key champion of John Kennedy Toole’s A Confederacy of Dunces, Percy was both an existentialist and a self-proclaimed “bad Catholic.” On top of all that, he was a drinking man, and hisshort essay “Bourbon, Neat” has become a  sort of touchtone text for religious people trying to make sense of their own drinking.

Maybe because of that, “Bourbon, Neat” is one of the most misread essays in the American canon. I guess because he called himself a Catholic, people figure that “Bourbon, Neat” is Percy’s attempt to find virtue in bourbon, to show how drinking can be safe, healthy, and ordered.

Take Michael Barruzini’s “Walker Percy, Bourbon, and the Holy Ghost,” published at First Things. Now, I don’t want to be too hard on this essay, because it’s a good piece of writing, and it calls attention to Percy’s excellent piece of writing. 

But damn if Barruzini doesn’t miss Percy’s point.

In Baruzzini’s analysis, bourbon is one way of answering the existential question of how to be in the world. “No, not in the sense of drowning sorrows in alcoholic stupor,” Baruzzini writes, “but in recognizing that it is in concrete things and acts that we are able to be in the world.” Man drinks bourbon, Baruzzini argues, like an eagle flies or like a mole digs, “because that is what you are, what you are good at, what you love.”

And he concludes: “[B]ourbon is for Percy a way to be for a moment in the evening. Why might one take an evening cocktail? Baser reasons are: an addiction to alcohol, or the desire to appear sophisticated. Better reasons, according to Percy, are the aesthetic experience of the drink itself—the appearance, the aroma, the taste, the cheering effect of (moderate) ethanol on the brain. Another reason is that a drink incarnates the evening; it marks the shift from the active workday to a reflective time at home. One simply must choose a way to be at a five o’clock on a Wednesday evening. Instead of surrendering to TV, Percy recommended making a proper southern julep.”

We can put aside the objection that Percy doesn’t recommend mint juleps (the essay is called “Bourbon, Neat,” remember), and we can ignore the fact that Percy advocates the opposite of savoring the “appearance, the aroma, the taste” of bourbon. Those are confusing aspects of Percy’s essay—he does give a recipe for mint juleps, and he does have a beautiful line about the “hot bosky bite of Tennessee summertime.”
The bigger problem comes in with Baruzzini’s insertion of the word “moderate” into that last paragraph.

Where does he get the idea that Percy’s essay is about moderation? The drinkers in “Bourbon, Neat” are desperate, awkward, and unhappy: they drink illegally, they drink irresponsibly, they drink whatever they can get their hands on, from Coke bottles and hip flasks and home-rigged stills. He writes of a bunch of teenaged boys so scared of girls that they hide in the bathroom during a school dance, swilling whiskey and wincing at its taste. He writes about turning to bourbon when he has no idea what to say on a date. And he writes of a julep party on Derby Day where “men fall face-down unconscious, women wander in the woods disconsolate and amnesiac, full of thoughts of Kahlil Gibran and the limberlost.”
But to hear Baruzzini tell it, Percy is advocating the stolid, responsible pleasures of a cocktail made with good whiskey, taken from an evening chair, maybe before going out into the backyard to toss the ball around with the kids and, then, once they’re bathed and off to sleep, making stolid, responsible love to the wife.
Percy’s ideal of whiskey drinking is far, far from that. It’s: 
“William Faulkner, having finished Absalom, Absalom!, drained, written out, pissed-off, feeling himself over the edge and out of it, nowhere, but he goes somewhere, his favorite hunting place in the Delta wilderness of the Big Sunflower River and, still feeling bad with his hunting cronies and maybe even a little phony, which he was, what with him trying to pretend that he was one of them, a farmer, hunkered down in the cold and rain after the hunt, after honorable passing up the does and seeing no bucks, shivering and snot-nosed, takes out a flat pint of any Bourbon at all and flatfoots about a third of it. He shivers again but not from the cold.”
So “Bourbon, Neat” isn’t about drinking to be yourself—it’s about drinking to escape yourself. 
Drinking to escape? Isn’t that bad? Isn’t escape precisely the wrong reason to drink? 

Yeah, it can be, but Percy hates what he calls the “everydayness” of modern life. And so he celebrates drinking, even bad drinking with all of its risks, because those risks are what allow bourbon to lift us out of that everydayness. In other words, for Percy, drinking whiskey is man’s (or woman’s) way of getting at the unfathomable, of launching himself into the wilderness of mystery. Even when he does it from his armchair.

Now, Barruzini is right that there’s a religious aspect to all this. But he’s wrong to look for it in the concept of vocation (doing what God calls you to do) rather than in the concept of grace. We don’t drink booze because it’s good for us, Percy is telling us. We drink it because it’s not. And somehow, that’s good.

That “somehow” is grace. 

Booze is grace.

Can I get an amen?

bourbon neat

Embarrassing Embraces

opponents in france

(French anti-equality activists Frigide Barjot and Gilbert Collard embrace in Paris, via Agence France-Presse)

Pending a constitutional review of its new marriage equality law, France has just become the 14th country to offer nationwide marriage rights to gay couples.

The legislative process that led to this excellent development was fraught, though, as massive anti-equality protests enveloped France for weeks, and there were reports  of violence against gay couples and gay bars throughout the country. Pictured above are two of the leaders of the opposition, Catholic celebrity Frigide Barjot and hard-right politician Gilbert Collard. Blogger and theologian William Lindsey points out that “Collard represents a political party known for its anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-socialist, anti-tax (and, historically, anti-semitic and pro-fascist) law-and-order stance.”

This leads Lindsey to ask “why Catholic leaders seem intent on embracing ideologies that militate against some of the most fundamental Catholic values imaginable…” 

The question reminds me of an argument that sometimes comes up when I get deep into online debates with certain Christians about gay marriage. Trying to prove that their opposition to gay marriage isn’t just religious, they point out that atheistic regimes, like the ones in North Korea and China, also ban gay marriage. They could take it further, too, if they wanted, and argue that gay marriage is unimaginable in Iran and Saudi Arabia.  

Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that, along with France, the list of countries that have legalized gay marriage is full of countries with long Christian histories, and with legal and educational systems built on Christian assumptions of equality and justice. And that includes a number of deeply Catholic countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Spain, Portugal). Even Ireland and Colombia are taking early steps towards legalizing gay marriage.

And yet Christian fundamentalists would rather stand with North Korea and Iran. 

Listening to Pope Francis.

We’re about a week into the new Pope’s tenure, and so far I am impressed. Every one of his gestures—from refusing the traditional fancy-Pope garb to giving Mass yesterday in one of the Vatican’s (relatively) small chapels, rather than St. Peter’s—has emphasized humility. Apparently, he has said that he wants “a church that is poor and is for the poor.”

And while he’s on record towing the orthodox line on issues of gay rights and human sexuality, one has to be encouraged by any pope who can say this:

“We have to avoid the spiritual sickness of a self-referential church. It’s true that when you get out into the street, as happens to every man and woman, there can be accidents. However, if the church remains closed in on itself, self-referential, it gets old. Between a church that suffers accidents in the street, and a church that’s sick because it’s self-referential, I have no doubts about preferring the former.”

A recognition that the church can have “accidents”? There are some radical sentiments in that quote. At the very least, I’ll be listening to what Pope Francis has to say. 

Jazz in Church?

Interesting article in the New Yorker, about church services centered around jazz performance. From Marc Hopkins:

At Chicago’s Fourth Presbyterian Church, located at the top of the city’s Magnificent Mile, each Sunday at 4 p.m. the Lucy Smith Quartet draws heavily from sacred offerings like Coltrane’s “Dear Lord,” and songs from his A Love Supreme album. Adam Fronczek, associate pastor for adult education and worship, started the weekly services in mid-2010 to reach people who didn’t grow up in church or had stopped coming and wanted to return. Fronczek found jazz particularly useful because he sees the music as theologically rich. “There’s a musical journey that goes on with a piece of jazz music that I think mirrors our journey through the life of faith,” he said, referring to improvisation that occurs during performance. 

The line about the theological richness of jazz intrigued me, so I spent some time this morning digging around the internet, and I found this interview with “jazz theologian” Robert Gelinas. 

Jazz theology is what happens when we express the basic elements of jazz in our relationship with God—syncopation, improvisation, and call and response. These allow us to find our own voice within Scripture; experience life in concert with other practicing Christians; truly have time as servant leaders instead of time having us; and sing the blues so as not to waste any pain.

Curiously, Gelinas also writes “But my favorite jazz artist is the great American novelist Ralph Ellison, who demonstrated that jazz is more than music with his classic novel, Invisible Man. He showed that if we understand the basics of jazz, we can see it expressed in a variety of ways.”

See? It all comes back to my dissertation. 

Drinking With Women

I’m about to launch a new project/series of posts dealing with the theology of booze, and I’ve been doing lots of research—reading, I mean, not drinking. Though I’ve been doing my share of that, too.

As part of that reading, I found this interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall at the very interesting whiskeycatholic site.

Asked for his thoughts on “virtuous drinking,” Marshall responds:

“Virtuous drinking involves male friendship, plain and simple. It’s usually a time for men to remove themselves from the company of women that they love and sit together around a fire pit, in the darkness, or on the back porch. Some of the most meaningful conversations that I have had with my father, my brother, and my friends have been over a Scotch. Real relationships are forged. It’s a beautiful thing.”

I’ll never, ever, ever get this sort of homosociality. I know that other people feel that way, but I just don’t. It must be some kind of innate orientation that I just flat-out don’t have. I like fire pits and back porches, and I like male friendship. But I’ve done enough sex-segregated activities—spent enough time in locker rooms, in sports camps, etc.—to state with confidence that just about everything worth doing is better when there are women around. Drinking maybe most of all.

We’re coming up on the 4th anniversary of the day my mom died. I’ll always remember the drink I shared with my grandmother that afternoon. I had just lost my mother; she had just lost her only daughter. We were stranded in our bewilderment, both of us entirely without words. But when I offered to drive her to the liquor store for some bourbon, her face lit up in appreciation. It was all I could do at that moment, but it meant something. Arguably, it meant everything.

So Marshall is absolutely right that alcohol forges bonds. What I don’t get is why he doesn’t want to forge those relationships with the women in his life; why he needs a space that excludes the women he loves. 

The Myth of Moral Decline, pt. 5 (Booty Dance Edition)

Did you think those background dancers in the 2 Live Crew and Sir Mix-a-Lot videos of the early 1990s invented booty dancing?  Nope. Here’s Josephine Baker at the Folies Bergere in the late 1920s. 

(By the way, this is the kind of thing I get to research for my dissertation. So is this.)

Sharing

What’s Natural About Natural Law?

From Noah Millman:

The people who, today, seem to me to be making “natural law” type arguments of the sort Aristotle himself would recognize are the evolutionary psychology folks – the people who are trying (we can debate with what success) to develop a genuinely scientific genealogy of morals, to know our natures by understanding, scientifically, how they got that way. But this isn’t at all what people who call themselves supporters of a “natural law” approach to law and ethics do.

It seems to me that this is the reason that natural law arguments fail in practice. It’s not that we can’t accept that we have natures, or that those natures might be constraining in one fashion or another – outside of certain politically touchy topics, we entertain the idea that our natures constrain us, and how we can pursue (and achieve) happiness, all the time. It’s that the advocates of a natural law approach cannot explain adequately how they know what they claim to know about our natures, and expose that purported knowledge to scientific criticism of the kind that we would recognize if the question were, say, “do dogs feel pain?” And the suspicion grows, over time, that this question isn’t opened not because it cannot be opened but because it must not be opened, because it is really the conclusions that are “known” absolutely, and not the premises.

h/t Andrew Sullivan.

Wow.

This is fascinating. The German Bishops’ conference has approved the use of the morning-after pill for use in Catholic hospitals for patients who have been raped.  AND, what’s more, the Vatican has backed them up.

On one hand, it’s a no-brainer: science has told us for some time (and it has become clearer recently) that these pills prevent fertilization and do not cause the abortion of an already fertilized egg. 

On the other hand, it’s a stunner, for these reasons:

1) It’s interesting to see the Vatican support the use of contraception at all, in any instance. These particular cases (when a woman has been raped, and therefore hasn’t willfully separated the procreative and unitive purposes of sex) can be logically reconciled with Catholic teachings on sex and contraception but, still, it’s interesting.

2) This stance puts the German Bishops (and the Vatican) at odds with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which, despite the facts, maintains that these pills are abortifacients. 

3) It also undermines the lawsuits by evangelical groups and businesses (like Hobby Lobby) against the HHS contraception mandate of Obamacare, which (unlike Catholic complaints) are based on the (false) notion that, by forcing these companies to cover morning-after pills, the government is forcing them to pay for abortions. So the religious right might have to stop talking about Hobby Lobby as the “first martyrs under Obamacare.”

Pope Benedict XVI Resigns.

I’m not very good at prayer, but I will be praying fervently that the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals as they choose his successor.

This is awkward.

I’ve said before that anyone who uses the Mark Regnerus study to make a point about the parenting abilities of gay couples is either lying or ignorant of its data. 

Guess what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops just did?

According to this article by Peter Montgomery, in their amicus brief for the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 trial, the Bishops characterize the Regnerus study as “finding that children raised by married biological parents fared better in a range of significant outcomes than children raised in same-sex households.”  

That is a deeply misleading/dishonest/untruthful statement. As Montgomery puts it:

But that’s not what the Regnerus study studied. A website set up by the Witherspoon Institute, which funded the study, says “although it would have been helpful” to do that, it wasn’t “feasible.”  What Regnerus did study was “adult children of parents who have, or have had, same-sex relationships.” And he compared those – including children of divorced or single parents – with children raised by a married mom and dad.”

So. Bishops: in your amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, were you lying, or were you just ignorant of the study you cited?


Rob Tisinai Rebuts the Rebutter

Catholic blogger Brandon Vogt has a post at Our Sunday Visitor that he thinks offers “Rebuttals to Arguments for Same Sex Marriage,” and it has been cited at Catholicvote.org and other rightwing Catholic sites. It’s bad. Very bad. It’s full of pseudo-logic and straw men, and it even misleadingly trots out the Mark Regnerus study for good measure. Most heinously, it ignores the real argument for gay marriage, which is that marriage is good for society and good for its participants (gay or straight) for lots of reasons, reasons that go beyond procreation.

Rob Tisinai at boxturtlebulletin.com and wakingupnow.com is patiently taking apart Vogt’s article, point-by-point. You should check out his work: here he is having fun with Vogt’s lame attempt to explain why elderly and infertile couples should be allowed to marry but not gays.

Enjoy!