Beyond Being Based: hot takes on Dignitas Infinita

on Bad Catholics, sins crying to heaven for vengeance, transitioning methods, & the desperate need for charity

So once again, the Vatican reaffirmed its position on transgenderism. Per usual, gender theory is called out for their lack of logical coherence, and gender reassignment/confirmation surgeries are criticized on moral grounds, while we are reminded that trans people are to be welcomed and treated with dignity.

I’m not interested in analyzing this new text. If you’re truly interested in hearing more of our take on trans issues, read the footnote below¹, and check out my review of Mark Yarhouse’s book on youth with dysphoria (among the best books out there on the topic), and my interview with Limpida on his detransitioning experience. Also see our footnotes on the desperate need to revive “Bad Catholicism”² and our trans readership³.

Pinning down the Pope

The Pope is been labelled a “woke” leftist agitator one minute (see Jordan Peterson’s comments), and a “based” ideological reactionary the next (see the “Pope of Gender” Judith Butler’s comments). He has affirmed that people in same sex relationships who are earnestly seeking to live in conformity to God’s will can receive blessings from priests and that trans people can be baptized, and also has condemned gay marriage as a “movement of the Father of Lies” and that teaching children gender theory is a form of “ideological colonization.”

Surely, I don’t want to act as if Francis never falls into cognitive dissonance, or that he couldn’t speak with a tad more prudence and clarity (for more on this, check out these measured critiques of his approach to queer peeps and same sex blessings…and check out my long list of concerns about the Francis papacy here). But in general, his thought embodies the coherent yet paradoxical “both/and” logic of Catholicism. In this regard, the Church challenges the West’s current ideological landscape on two fronts:

• Its “traditional” positions on personal morality and “progressive” positions on economic issues are not an example of cognitive dissonance, but rather go hand in hand with each other. The fact that both sodomy and depriving the poor of their wages constitute sins “crying to heaven for vengeance” actually makes sense when you look at the Church’s foundational social texts like Rerum Novarum, or at the witness of social activists like Dorothy Day (articulated concisely in America and First Things). For more examples of this, check out the American Solidarity Party’s platform, the &Campaign, and, of course, Compact Magazine.

• The “based vs. cringe/woke” dichotomy is an inadequate paradigm for framing the Pope’s (and the Church’s) positions.

The woes of being based

I attempted to define this dichotomy in my pieces on Paglia and Matty Healy, and Fr.

Aric Serrano, SJ

wrote eloquently for Cracks in PoMo about the specter of a “based” form of Catholicism. But for the sake of this article, I’ll define being “based” as affirming the bare “facts” without sugar-coating them or trying to make them more palatable. Calling a spade a spade. Speaking about objective realities with little regard to other people’s subjective opinions about them.

Being based can be quite satisfying on several levels. It is refreshing to affirm that reality has objective meaning or value (whether good or evil), and that it is neither neutral nor relative. Reality is not just a formless gnostic soup of nothingness that we can define as we wish. It is “charged” with a meaning—in the Taylorian sense, with an energy that precedes us. It can draw us closer to forces that transcend us—both sacred and diabolical.

Put bluntly, Paglia’s enchanted view of the cosmos is more enticing than someone like Butler’s. And I’d argue less college students would be depressed if they replaced Butler’s books with Paglia’s on college syllabi.

For those who are based, living a good life does not entail the moral duty to constantly do and say the correct thing (thus defying the reality of original sin—which impedes my ability to always do what is “correct”, as well as the reality that people’s subjective feelings do not always line up with objective truths). Rather, it invites me on an adventure—full of promise and horror…risk, danger, and surprises. Life is jouissance, enjoyment, even when it’s not considerate of other people’s subjective feelings.

Also, it’s just kinda fun to own the libs.

And yet, herein lies the problem: When based people speak of “truth,” it is in a purely mechanistic sense. For them, truth solely consists of the raw “facts” of reality, and is devoid of any moral framing…except for a vitalistic pagan one, which is pretty amoral in nature.

This falls more along the lines of a Hobbesian, Nietzschean, or Randian thought than Christianity. Christianity—precisely because of its foundational and paradoxical beliefs in the Incarnation and the Crucifixion—embraces both objectivity and subjectivity. It is both true that there is a gender binary, and that some people experience themselves to be alienated from said binary, and deserve to be embraced, affirmed, and accompanied as they are. That doesn’t mean telling them that they are objectively wrong and then walking away from them, nor does it mean telling them that their subjective experience supersedes objective truths.

While Christians have every right to applaud based people like Peterson, Paglia, and their ilk for not being afraid to oppose the “woke” identitarian hegemony, we ought not confuse their musings with an actual Christian approach to “culture war” issues.

As Pope Benedict said, the measure of Christian morality is not a set of moral ideals or values, but the Person of Jesus himself, who embodies and integrates both objective ideals AND the messiness of our subjective human experiences. Affirming truth without charity, mercy, and regard for the subjectivity of individual people and their experience is not What Jesus Would Do. Thus, to be satisfied with regurgitating lines from the Bible or Catechism without actually accompanying people, staying close with them and forging bonds of love and trust, is to ignore the fullness of the “Truth.”

To quote the based god St. Paul, “If I…can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge…but have not love, I am nothing.”

The based have no basis (and are basically psyops)

Pure basedness is also faulty on a pragmatic level, in that it offers a purely reactionary response to its opponents, rather than actually (1) engaging intelligently with their opponents claims and arguments and (2) offering a substantial alternative that is capable of appealing to the concerns of their opponents. Figures like Peterson bank on explaining why poststructuralism (“cultural Marxism”) is wrong and dumb, yet he never asks why people are drawn to it, if there are any plausible claims it makes (there are plenty if you look close enough), and how his alternative proposal can answer better to the concerns of his opponents than the ideologies they already ascribe to.

Thus, without a substantial foundation [basis], based people will continue speaking past their enemies, winning none of them over, and most likely fanning the flames of their opposition to “based” positions. People who harp against Drag Queen Story Hour, rather than engaging in reasoned discussions about the issue at hand, further fuel the opposition of pro-LGBT activists to “hate” and “bigotry,” as they plant their feet even deeper into their camp. The arguments of their opposition no longer represent claims that they can disagree with while still recognizing are rational and have merit in their own right—now they are “evil” ideas that must be shut down at all costs.

Can you blame me for thinking that most of these so-called based reactionaries are merely controlled opposition, puppet-like psyops put in place to maintain the status quo of the culture war, rendering us allergic to nuance and critical thought, and—more importantly…rather, more disturbingly—distracting us from the real issues that plague us…the real “enemy.” (I flesh this point out more in my piece on Andrew Tate’s “queerness”.)

Of course, the divide-and-conquer method is nothing new. But as long as those in power can keep us distracted with our Twitter battles while they bring the plot of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis to life, history is bound to repeat itself.

I’d also like to emphasize how much the problem is one of both intelligence and morality. Many based pundits have no desire to even try to be charitable to their opponents. And plenty of them, even if they wanted to, are incapable of doing so, because they lack the intelligence to do so coherently. One might look to Dr. Cornel West, who often engages with his ideological opponents in public, or to Justin Giboney, the founder of the &Campaign who often asks his audiences to identify five strengths in their opponents’ ideologies and five weaknesses in their own. (Really though…you should try it).

Accompaniment and the Field Hospital revisited

As much I acknowledge that the Pope’s reliance on the concepts of accompaniment and the field hospital have been grossly misinterpreted (primarily by German and US clergy), I’ve strongly defended them. The scandal of some toward these concepts seems to be a derivative of the greater scandal toward the Incarnation and Cross—that He who is the objective Truth incarnate chooses to enter into the messy and erroneous subjectivity of human beings, to the point of allowing himself to be victimized and killed by it. Yet our incoherent subjectivity is not a threat to Jesus and the objective Truths he embodies, thus why we are free to accompany people in their brokenness.

The other point about the field hospital logic which seems to get lost (and which I fleshed out in this essay several years ago⁴) is that believers and “saints” are distinct from non-believers and “sinners” not because we are somehow more morally coherent than they or that we have all the answers to life’s problems. We do NOT have it all figured out. We are just as broken, wounded, sinful, as everybody else. This is especially so in a culture ravaged by secularism and modern individualism—we may profess the “correct” beliefs, but the culture we live in…the air we breath, makes it increasingly difficult for even the most devout believers to live a Christian life. Rather, what makes the believer distinct is that she knows where to look, she knows Who to turn to, in the face of life’s difficulties and her own sinfulness.

Thus, to “spread the Gospel” consists not so much in telling people the truth (which Pope Benedict reminded us we “do not possess”), but in inviting them to walk with us on our journey toward It. Evangelization consists less in explaining, and more so in facing our struggles and questions with others, and seeking the answers together.⁵

[actually tho, read the footnes]

---

Please consider signing up for a paid subscription to this page for more riveting content.

If you’re new to Cracks in Pomo, check out the About page or read up on our Essentials. Also check out our podcast on Spotify, Apple, and YouTube and follow us on Instagram and Twitter.

MASA tortilla chips by Ancient Crunch is offering our followers 10% off their order with the promo code CRACKSINPOSTMODERNITY. Click here to redeem.

graphics by @revolvingstyle

1. It is possible to hold reservations about the moral and intellectual difficulties posed by gender theory, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, and transition surgeries, while respecting people who identify as trans—which means respecting their dignity, their narrative about their personal identity, and their right not to be victims of violent crimes.

Does everyone who identifies as trans actually have an actual neurological condition? Are some just choosing to jump onto the latest trend? Are some willfully rebelling against God’s design? I’m not a psychiatrist nor am I a spiritual director, so I can’t answer those questions very well. All I can do is be open to people as they are, even if I disagree with some things they say or believe (with the awareness that my own lifestyle does not always line up with my convictions).

Contrary to popular opinion, I think Dave Chappelle’s trans friend Daphne Dorman said it best: “I don’t need you to understand me. I just need you to believe that I’m having a human experience.” Life is messy. People are complicated. God knows I’m far from perfect. Thus, holding to certain moral and intellectual principles should not translate to expecting everyone to conform to them perfectly…at least not for Catholics.

I’ll also highly recommend Marc Barnes’s take on gender as a source of suffering. It’s probably one of the most compelling Catholic takes on gender that I’ve ever read. We discuss it in detail in our pod episode together. Also, check out my take on the Vatican’s 2019 document on gender identity.

I also want to emphasize that temporarily cross-identifying (cross-dressing, using mild hormones) is vastly different from getting an invasive, permanent, and often extremely dangerous surgery. Someone deciding to cross-dress for a while—under the guidance of a psychiatrist, spiritual director, and a community of loving friends—in order to relieve some of the symptoms of their dysphoria is clearly not the same as someone spontaneously deciding they were born into the wrong body and demanding an irreversible surgery of their own accord.

2. I must admit to being a horrible gossip. I know it’s a sin. And yet I can’t seem to stop myself from doing so. I confess it, and go through periods of time where I can avoid it. But I usually start doing it again. Sometimes people judge me for it. But I have no interested in trying to convince people that gossiping is not a sin. Because it is. Furthermore, gossiping is fun precisely because it is sinful…to pretend it is a morally neutral or virtuous act would rob it of its spiciness.

A lot of these conversations about the Church and sexuality would be much simpler if we learned to embrace sinning and “sinners” as a normal part of life. People will sin no matter what. Some people will manage to avoid grave sins for long stretches of time, and others won’t. Of course, it’s terrible to make people feel like shit for their shortcomings, to oust them from communities (unless they pose an actual threat to the community) and treat them like pariahs.

But in Puritanical/dualistic cultures, loving the sinner and hating the sin seems to be impossible. Incapable of handling tension, nuance, paradox…we end up either hating sinners or loving sin. One extreme or the other. Even Catholics—especially in majority Protestant countries like the US—are falling into this mentality. This is something I’ve written about in my pieces on Bad Catholics, on “making gay ok”/recovering a phenomenology of sodomy, and in my pod discussion with the host of Contra Gentiles on Making America Sinful Again.

The idea that Catholics can embrace trans people and active sodomites while affirming that sex is ordered toward unity and procreation and that there is a gender binary (and that bottom surgeries are morally problematic) is becoming more and more unheard of. We are capitulating to the logic that says either one must be a holy roller who never sins, or we must normalize people’s sins. This is a recipe for disaster, as the mainline Protestant churches have demonstrated.

The point is, if you’re gonna sin, stop wasting your time making a project out of projecting your guilty conscience onto other people, and just let yourself have some fun!

3. Also, just wanted to acknowledge that our readership represents a wide array of positions and experiences: We have gender essentialists and gender deconstructionists, trans and detrans, trad wives and gender queers. Thus, we’re more interested in generating intelligent and nuanced discussion on said topics than taking a hardline “position”. All are welcome!*

*just don’t be a snowflake about things

Similar to a non-believer, the believer is subject to the same temptations of doubting God, and what he expects of us. He must stand with the revolutionary, asking with him the same questions, and point him to the possibility of a greater Truth. While many lack the awareness of the possibility of a broader horizon of fulfillment, they will only be able to begin to see that the true trajectory of their desire reaches the stars, the Infinite, God, if someone is willing to stand side by side with them on the battlefield, and direct their gaze upwards. It is here that we realize Pope Francis’ vision of the field hospital for the wounded warriors of the Sexual Revolution. His call to the faithful to act as “doctors and nurses” implicates our position standing by the side of those wounded, which exemplifies the paradoxical nature of our faith.

4. Continue reading at HPR.

5. Pope Benedict spelled this out much more eloquently in the early chapters of his seminal work Introduction to Christianity, most explicitly in his interpretation of Claudel’s story about the shipwrecked Jesuit priest

Compared the position of the contemporary theist to that of the shipwrecked Jesuit priest in French writer Paul Claudel’s 1929 play The Satin Slipper. The believer can no longer hold on to dilapidated frameworks of belief—he must accept that he, along with the non-believer, is stranded in the abyss of doubt. Rather than trying to impose on the non-believer, he must begin his search for God not beyond but within the abyss, thus rehabilitating a space for God to “incarnate” himself in the concrete circumstances of everyday life as he did two thousand years ago in a manger in Bethlehem.

Ratzinger closes the chapter with a reminder to atheists that their anti-foundationalist position cannot establish that God does not exist, just as the theist cannot assert the opposite absolute certainty. He includes Jewish philosopher Martin Buber’s story of the young “enlightened” philosopher who explains to an old rabbi his proofs of God’s non-existence, to which the rabbi replies “perhaps.” Perhaps he is right, perhaps there is no God...perhaps there is. Any position that precludes the fragility of human logic is doomed to crumble.

Continue reading

Benedict’s position was taken up by Julian Carron and applied to our present cultural moment in his books Disarming Beauty and Where is God?, which I highly recommend checking out.