Headnote
Snow over Parkdale, at last. It was so intensely beautiful last night: our city neighbourhood from our eyrie. And today is the Feast of Saint John Evangelist, the one apostle who never denied Christ; the one apostle who died in his sleep. One is generally quite attached to the Gospels. But at the words, “In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum,” one’s hair stands on end. Genesis told us the story of Creation; but here is Saint John witnessing it. “Et Verbum caro factum est.”
*
Let us explain the title of our last post, to our Chief Texas Correspondent. “The cure” must be ironical, for it refers in the first instance to the Tylenol, which as we said only masks symptoms. “Cure” is played with then in relation to a few other things: Purolator delivery to defunct addresses, Mongol problems, the Bubonic Plague, &c. We were trying to establish a rhythmic background here: there are no cures. Nothing can be fixed.
In the body of the post, we are defending not a Utopian cure, but 1K years of explicitly Catholic Christendom, wherein no “cure” of anything was attempted, in our modern sense of “fix it permanently.” But the term itself is now revolving, backwards. Consider the French “curé,” for pastor (Italian “curato,” Spanish “cura,” English “curate,” &c). The “cure of the parish” i.e. the pastor’s “care” of it, & specifically, care of its souls. The parish in this case being Christendom. (We’d mentioned some adjoining parishes.)
At the end, the term completes its revolution. How do you “cure” lightless, aggressive idiocy? We echo Paul: walk away.
There is also a “curative” subtext, throughout. In plainest language: The defence of Catholicism must necessarily involve an intelligent & positive defence of the whole “Middle Ages,” against centuries now of appalling lies & misrepresentations. The world knows, “we had our chance.” The world needs also to know that we didn’t entirely blow it.
The Enemy needs these lies. If they ever broke down, people might actually look at the whole history, not just for warning but for inspiration, to see how much was possible. In our own case, the discovery from broader reading that we had been lied to about many big & basic facts of history, that these lies were far from innocent, & also far from impossible to trace, was a liberation. So what if some inconvenient historical facts could be inserted into the chronicle of what “everybody knows”? Just a few little bombs in all the right places? The Enemy would be embarrassed. Many of his followers would be left defenceless against huge Catholic truths.
As we said explicitly: “Perhaps even better Christendoms are possible.” We put it in that plural way as Blake put the indefinite “a Heaven” (in a Wild Flower). But really, there is only one Heaven, & one Christendom, still living in our hearts. It might need to be rebuilt from scratch; it might fall together on a different scheme; it might outwardly look very different. But it would be animated by the same Faith, precisely. It was here, it is here, it will be here.
Is this totally irrelevant to the next two election cycles? Not entirely, but yes, mostly irrelevant to that. Nobody voted for the original Middle Ages; they just happened through God’s grace, expressed partly through the God-assisted, & quite heroic labours, of many many many truly improbable men & women.
The alternative title we rejected, by the way, was Thomas Traherne’s “News from a forein Country came.” Too smart, too cute, in this context.
I stand on the proposition the world cannot be made “better”. This isn’t to say that particular individuals or particular groups cannot improve their lot. They can, provided they are prepared to pay the price. What bothers me about what you have written is the notion man’s lot was better in the good ol’ days.
We did give examples.
And yes, we think our CTC is right to be bothered that so many things were so obviously better in the good ol’ days.
That nothing in this world can be made “perfect” — by any human being not Christ — is a sound principle of Christian teaching, & we are delighted he agrees. (Hence, too, that old useful observation that the perfect may become the enemy of the good.) We have not knowingly departed from this view of worldly imperfection on any occasion that we can remember.
But on a comparison of, say, Stalin’s Russia to Truman’s America, we think even our CTC might agree that there is better & worse. We’re willing to fly alone on the proposition that we should try for better.
I almost typed “spurious” notion, but erroneously assumed you would grasp my meaning.
Trying for “better” is the ambition of every progressive, as when BHO says, “We can do better.” Now we see a regressive with the same ambition.
Modern “progressive” insanity is best exemplified in the poet Percy Shelley’s well expressed notion of human perfectibility. He loved “humanity”, but typically for a liberal progressive, was a monster to those close to him. In addition, he believed in utopia, so was a firm supporter of the diabolical French Revolution (as was Blake by the way, to a more limited degree.)
The medieval folks didn’t believe in “heaven on earth” but heaven after death. Anyone who believes in heaven on earth is a Robespierre, communist, fascist, Nazi, New Age wackjob etc.
When we look at medieval man we notice that he was not superstitious, gullible, willfully ignorant, treacherous, full of hate, nearly to the degree that modern man is. The reason for this is that medieval man knew his limits (via knowledge of God). Modern man knows nothing but himself, and since he is a fallen creature, the society that he rules is fallen as well. Modern Western society may look “civilized” on the surface, but it is not. The best evidence of its total barbarism is that it murders its young in the millions with the full sanction and tolerance of its rulers. It is on a path to oblivion because it has nothing to describe to it the difference between right and wrong.
Man as a creature stays much the same over the centuries. When God is believed in, however, the worst of man is suppressed to a limited degree. When God is denied, hell with all its minions comes to the forefront very quickly.
Yairs, CTC. … We’re travelling the opposite way from Obama, & therefore we’re travelling, just like him. … Would rather play a game we could win.
David, I will, in all honesty, admit to being somewhat baffled by your writing at times. I will also admit to being new to your essays, their tone, and language. Nonetheless, may I request, sincerely, a bit of clarification? (Please excuse any misunderstanding, and/or ignorance on my part).
It seems that you are connecting Obama (and those who voted for him) with the Enemy (and by “Enemy” I presume you mean Satan?) You say you’re “travelling the opposite way from Obama” — which is? The suggestion is that it is God’s way. Would then Mr Romney’s “way” have been “God-assisted” and thus “better”? Or maybe I’ve completely misunderstood you?
I would also be interested to know more about who lied to you about many big and basic facts about history and what some of those lies were (I too came to realize quite young that I was being lied to about many basic facts — by textbooks, journalists, politicians, ministers, etc.)
Mr MKD is excused. We often baffle people.
The remark on President Obama was merely in response to Texas; he has nothing to do with today’s sermon, or yesterday’s. It would not be Christian to hope he’ll fall off the fiscal cliff, or change into a bag of marchpane candies.
[We just used our Diktator's Privilege to delete & replace these next few remarks.]
We grew to like Romney (rather as we came to like Bush before him), when we realized he is in fact a decent honest man — who was in over his eyebrows. The Dem attacks on him were unspeakable; genuinely depraved. And despite our continuing respect for some politicians (Santorum & Ryan come to mind), we think the time has passed when a decent man belongs in politics. He should not be exposing himself or his family to the filth.
Romney was incidentally dead right on how Obama won the election, with extravagant gifts to clinch the support of his key constituencies. There was more & worse to say; but that much was true. Tactless, perhaps, but in this & his “47 percent” remark he correctly explained the Republican fix: they cannot win, & be honest, at the same time.
Under such circumstances, we’re inclined to leave God out of it. It would be like asking Him to pick numbers on a horserace, or in this case, rats in an open sewer.
Our list of liars would include your own, & we could go into tedious detail, but won’t.
Romney was a flip flopper on abortion, so therefore suspect to describe as a decent, honest man. He claimed, like Obama, to do something about the American deficit, but that was and is impossible at this point. To change anything to a substantial degree, a state of seige would have to be imposed at least temporarily. Americans would simply not tolerate what has to be done. All the jerks in Washington know that.
Americans are cursed with the Republicans who are bound to move further to the left as per David Frum’s suggestion. We in Canada are cursed with Harper who is a liberal democrat who cares nothing about addressing the crucial moral issues of our time.
Get ready for the appalling chastisements of the near future. The Virgin Mary warned that they are coming, and she is always right about such matters.
Lord Dochart should be reminded that we set our standards for politicians extremely low, & keep dropping them until someone passes.
Years ago — quite a few to when we were a student anywhere — we scored 37 percent in a final all-or-nothing Physics exam. The teacher, a Mr Beer, was a notoriously tough marker, gruff & not especially approachable. Nevertheless, when awarded a pass, curiosity overcame us. (He wasn’t easy to find, either.)
“Mr Beer, how could we possibly pass with a 37 percent?”
“It was the highest mark in the class.”
Gentlemen your exchanges fit right in with my overstuffed end of year belly, my sore back from lifting my granddaughter, and my dull headedness from the lack of summer sun. May you all find the peace that passes understanding as the new year lifts us from the darkness. There is always happiness to be found in abundance and I wish it upon your houses.
Two people may pursue the same goal while traveling in opposite directions. Even if the goal is a geographical destination, this is true (if they travel on a sphere, such as the one we occupy).
Hmm, Texas scholasticism. With a smell of Nominalism about it.
We’ll have you know we are all Moderate Realists up here in the High Doganate.
I see your point O Otiosus as regards Romney. He is far less detestable than someone like Harper.
In hindsight, however, I think I am glad that Obama won another four years in the White House. It is best that America go into bankruptcy internally, and complete disgrace in foreign policy externally, at the hands of an obvious Democrat.
As a general rule, people are incredibly stupid, but they do remember who brought them extreme pain and shame. If there is another election, the Republicans (if they ignore left-leaners like Frum) may elect presidents from their ranks for many decades to come.
I agree with you, David, some of the attacks on Mr Romney were depraved, as were some of the attacks on Mr Obama. I’m 60 now, and this year was the worst I’ve seen for mud-slinging, foolishness, and downright mendacity.
Interestingly, I happen to live in Texas too. But I will spare you (and your gentle readers) anecdotes about my encounters with the Lone Star state’s current governor.
A ninth century bishop (name now missing from my various registers) proclaimed that no one in that present time believed in witches. Superstition was seen clearly for what it was. It took the enlightenment and protestant revolt to make the lady safe for burning.
Man’s lot is always poorer when the common culture is premised on a lie. It got us kicked out of the garden. The same lie, that we can be as God if we eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, keeps getting us kicked out of various belle epochs in our time and the time to come. Yes, it was better in the old days, but not for long.
Here’s a quote to get us back from the recent election side-track:
“Catholicism is the law of life, the life of the intelligence, the solution of all problems. Catholicism is the truth, and everything that departs from it one iota is disorder, deception, and error.”
Juan Donoso Cortes
I like to think that in the Middle Ages men and women looked out at the world through Catholic eyes. We’d say these days that was their “filter.” When I try to look at my world through my Catholic eyes, things do indeed look rosier. I see God’s Providence, not the mess the Devil’s Pawns have made.
I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, or a historian, but I do know that if I were born in the Middle Ages I probably would have died as a baby when I contracted pneumonia, or in my teens when I had a collapsed lung, or in my thirties if my severe scoliosis wasn’t corrected. Give me modern times any day.
David sees the past through rose coloured glasses. The Catholic Church has done many noble and wonderful things (hospitals, charities, etc). But it has also done many horrendous indefensible things (attempted cultural genocide of aboriginals, Inquisition, etc). I am not one for blaming the Church for past evils, but I will call them to task when they deny their complicity in these acts. You can’t take credit for something unless you are also willing to take responsibility for your failings. After all, Mussolini did get the trains to run on time.
Civilization has gone through many ebbs and flows. But to credit the Church for all of the improvements, and “progress”, “liberals” and “secularism” for all of the evils simply is not supported by the facts. The first false assumption is that society is worse off and less moral in our modern “secular” version than it was in the “Catholic” Middle Ages version.
I think what bothers David most is that when people have the real ability to decide whether or not to financially and personally support the Church, without reprisals, more and more people are opting not to. It is true that support for the church in the Middle Ages was almost universal in Europe, that support was not coerced. Tithing was not optional. Those that openly opposed the Church could be arrested and executed. Those that failed to come up to the Church’s standards could be excommunicated and/or shunned from society. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for true belief.
We think all the points Mr Acartia raises were anticipated in the post next preceding. If we missed one, we’re sure it will come up again.
Thanks David. And thanks for correcting the spelling. Still trying to get used to the Kobo keyboard. Progress!!!
Acartia, please I beg of you do some homework before you make statements like this:
“But it has also done many horrendous indefensible things (attempted cultural genocide of aboriginals, Inquisition, etc). I am not one for blaming the Church for past evils, but I will call them to task when they deny their complicity in these acts. You can’t take credit for something unless you are also willing to take responsibility for your failings.”
Acartia, don’t be a coward. If you call out the Church for perpetrating an evil don’t weasel out by saying you don’t “blame” them for it.
It is tiresome to read comments like yours. As a Roman Catholic I will not let this slur pass. Solzhenitzyn’s admonition to not let a lie stand unchallenged is my aim. I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you are simply ill-informed.
David is more charitable and suggests you read his past post on this topic. But I beg you to stop simply parroting the same old tripe written by nasty Protestants in the 19th Century. The truth is out there if you are willing to find it.
Barbara, when I said that I don’t blame the church, I am referring to the present day church. Something along the line of not blaming the son for the sins of the father. Blaming the current church for the inquisition, or convicting Galileo, would be stupid unless they continue to follow the same policies, which they don’t.
But the attempted cultural genocide of the North American natives is a different story. True, many of these events are ancient history but the residential school system in Canada is not. This policy, removing native children from their families to assimilate (destroy their culture) them into the Christian culture, was not formulated by the church, but they were more than willing to jump right in to help implement it. But again. I don’t blame the church because their intentions were for the good. But they were horribly misguided and the actual implementation, in many cases, was criminal, immoral and unethical. I am not saying that the church was aware of all of these horrible events, but they were ultimately responsible.
There is no such thing as cultural genocide.
There is such a thing as culture dominance. Perhaps the correspondent would like to try practising Christianity amongst the Islamists? Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the secular culture demands that parents surrender their children so that they may be assimilated into the state culture. I am not saying that the smug are aware of these horrible events, but they are ultimately responsible. But I don’t blame the smug for their criminality, immorality and unethics because their intentions are good.
Cultural genocide versus cultural dominance.
Would “Other Joe” agree with Sir Winston Churchill’s statement, in reference to the Palestinians? “I do not agree that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
By “state culture” do you mean an adherence to consumer capitalism, unquestioning admiration for the so-called wonders of science and technology, and a generalized trust in local, state, and federal governmental agencies?
Who are “the smug” you speak of? My own experience has been that there are smug individuals — I’ve met them in all walks of life, from corporate executives to university professors, construction workers to housewives, entrepreneurs to preachers. I can’t say I’ve seen “the smug” fall into any particular class, or go under any particular banner, so to speak.
For what it’s worth, I can understand Barbara’s feelings, as well as Acartia’s points.
MKD – please pardon my “punchy” words. Briefness, while the soul of whit, usually inhibits subtlety. There is no such thing as cultural genocide. It is a punchy term. The same people that worship “progress” decry the “loss” of Stone Age customs when progress boils over in one part of the world and a more “advanced” group displaces (both in culture and in numbers) the less natural selection advantaged. If it had not been the Europeans, it would have been others somewhat later. Perhaps it would have been the Japanese militarists with their thought police, since the European Americans would not have been there to stop them. The smug are found in all social functions and arrangements. I was attempting to use ironic inversion to reflect your attitude. I’m happy that you don’t blame the modern Church. There is that. Since you are in the position to assign blame, I was just wondering if the actual practitioners of genocide might get a look in. But there is a fork in the garden path. We either believe in the truth of our faith, or we think our faith is a personal matter customized for our particular circumstances and not something with which to bother the natives.
Other Joe. When Stalin tried to wipe out the church in Russia, was that not cultural genocide? There is a difference between passive and voluntary assimilation and forcing a culture to give up all of their traditions, traditions that were not being imposed on others.
The Canadian government decided that the Indians would be better off assimilating into Canadian culture. To do this, they removed native children from their parents, without any due process, and placed them in residential schools run by the church (Catholic and Anglican) and physically punished them if they tried to speak their native language. This was a clear attempt to destroy their culture. If you can come up with a more accurate term than cultural genocide, I am all ears.
And your argument that we do the same thing in our secular school system is simply false. The only legal requirement is that your child be educated. You can choose a public school, a public Catholic school, a private religious school or you can home school. These choices were not afforded to native children for the simple reason that they were native children.
Mr Acartia is parroting the mendaciously over-simplified account of the history of Canada’s Indian residential schools, which has been alas officially adopted for very political reasons. It leaves out all background, in order to reduce the issue to a simple black-&-white “morality tale.”
A fuller background would have to acknowledge the state of squalor, alcoholism, moral disintegration into which many Indian Reservations had fallen; the fact that many Indian children were sent by their parents voluntarily to these schools to save their very lives; the fact that (as we discovered some years ago when mixed up in the controversy) many, & almost certainly most graduates of these schools were very grateful to the missionaries who had saved them from terrible fates, & had happy & even proud memories of their schools. Which is not to say it was an entirely edifying history, either; nor could it have been given the circumstances to which both government & churches were responding.
It is an immensely complicated history, in which efforts not only to omit the obvious, but also to impose our contemporary attitudes anachronistically upon often very well-intended men & women of another generation, are not helpful.
David, I don’t deny that the schools were set up for all the right intentions. In fact, there were many positives that came out of them, not least of which was a dramatic reduction in infant mortality. That is why I have said that I don’t blame the government or the church for implementing the system. They did what they thought was best at the time. I was only pointing out that it was horribly misguided.
But the idea that the original native culture was bad and had to be destroyed is just arrogant. The only argument I have with the church is their unwillingness to admit that their approach may have been wrong.
Mister Ack, this is ridiculous. Ye churches in question all jumped up & down on their heads singing “mea culpa mea maxima culpa mea maxima maxima sorry” & paid out millions. They didn’t have the guts to defend the reputations of (mostly dead) men & women who had selflessly devoted their entire lives to their churches & to helping these Indian children, according to their own best lights. They agreed to let them all be demonized, all be tarred by the same brush.
We, too, are outraged by the behaviour of the (liberal bureaucracies of) these churches, & by government officials who knew far more of the history, some of which was recent, & chose to shut up & take the easy way out from personal convenience. We realize that you may be yourself perfectly sincere in repeating the received storyline from our liberal media, but you & they have got this whole case Ack-backwards.
David, you criticized me of being rude and humourless, yet you have called me an ass, which I believe is rude.
Yes, the church has made many mea culpas about the criminal behaviour about some of those involved. And, yes, I agree that many were tarred with a brush that was not deserved. But they have never said that the actual concept was wrong, that the idea of forced assimilation (conversion) was wrong.
David, I respect your faith, and I think that the church has done far more good than bad, but denying that they did harm in this case does not help anybody.
But that aside, I wish you and yours a very happy new year.
OJ — Yes, “cultural genocide” is a “punchy term” and perhaps questionable. On the other hand, genocide does exist and can often result in that which is referred to by the term “cultural genocide.”
I’m not intending to mince words; I only wish for a clear understanding.
The word “progress” seems to have varied shades of meaning. Do we speak of scientific progress or social progress or technological progress, etc? As for natural selection, the usage here suggests that “it” is responsible for the displacement and/or subjugation of a people rather than outside individuals or organized groups. Moreover, history informs that such “natural selection” is usually accompanied by a culling of the so-called dogs (be they Palestinians, Native Americans, or Jewish “rats” as per Hitler’s estimation).
What I seek is an understanding beyond “Deus Lo Volt” or “natural selection.”
I’m very late to the party and I see everyone has gone home. But, I think my original point must stand. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has nothing, NOTHING, to apologize for. She is the Bride of Christ. She is His Mystical Body. He will be with her until the end of time. She is guided by the Holy Ghost. This is the truth of the matter.
Another truth is that many of her members are sinners, who (wait for it!) commit sin. But to say we are sorry for that is simply not the same thing as to apologize for whole swatches of history in which God’s plan is worked out in man.
I will always say this because it’s true.