April 01, 2007
"he did not have much company on the road now so well known..."
For Sunday, here's yet another quote from Meriol Trevor's Newman (vol. II, Light in Winter):
...True son of Philip Neri, he had no desire to repudiate the new techniques of knowledge or to oppose theories which seemed at first sight to contradict Christian tradition: patience would reveal the truth in time. But he wanted Christians so to exercise their minds as to assimilate and contribute to what was good in natural science and social improvement, without losing their grip on the supernatural reality which was the source of true happiness and real power. He wanted to help the young generations so to orientate themselves as to be able to explore the new worlds of knowledge and yet be firmly rooted — not in the old, but in the eternal.
It was here that Newman's vision went beyond the view of many who misunderstood him, of whatever Christian allegiance. It was the partial identification, in the nineteenth century, of the eternal with the old that led to the loss of so many from Christian belief. The nostalgia for an imaginary medievalism, imitation Gothic churches, effete naturalism or unreal sentimentality of religious statues and pictures — all this was the secondary effect of deep fears, an inability to shed the habitual in order that the eternal might work freely in a world that was changing. Of course there is danger in mere novelty, but it is rarely a pressing one in the Cathulic Church, which on the human side is ruled by a multitude of old men and the customs of hundreds of years.
Newman always puzzled his contemporaries by being at the same time so ancient and so modern. He was at home with the Martyrs and the Fathers — and with scientists and factory girls. He practised fasting and penance — and was an immediate and inveterate train traveller. He read St. Athanasius and Anthony Trollope. He was a venerable man, but he talked the slang of the moment. Puseyites were disconcerted by his modernity. Catholics by his antiquity — for most of them had forgotten what their spiritual ancestors were like. Protestants are apt to imagine that it is only they who renew themselves by a return to the beginnings, but there are Catholic renascences too. Since Newman was a pioneer in the return to the Fathers, and to a new understandins of the Scriptures, he did not have much company on the road now so well known. He was regarded with suspicion by those for whom the last hundred years was the standard measure, and who could not conceive that the next hundred would be very different. Psychologically the great difference between Newman and the Ultramontanes and Anglican conservatives was that they were ridden bv fears and he was not...
Vatican Council II is associated in our minds with "dangerous mere novelty," and certainly there has been a catastrophic lot of that! A great many Catholics used the council as an excuse to say, "Wheee, I'm freee.....time to party!" But that was never the intent, and not what is in the actual documents produced by the council. The true spirit of which is now reasserting itself in the Church in a myriad of ways. (Historically, councils have usually produced 50 years or so of turmoil in the Church. So I'm signing up at the right time.) The actual results of the council will probably have their effect over centuries. The world needs them.
And it is a commonplace to say that the Venerable John Henry Newman is the "father of the Council." More than anyone else, Vatican II was about his ideas. (Such as ecumenism, return to the teachings of the Fathers, Development of Doctrine, and the correct approach to the modern world.) He saw and understood our world more than anyone else.
That's certainly been my conclusion (in my own humble realm). 9/11 was a revelatory event, and my 5½ years of blogging has been a process of peeling the onion to try to see what it was that was revealed. And then I recently discovered Newman, and found that he had explained it all 150 years ago! So he's my hero, no doubt about it.
"...An inability to shed the habitual in order that the eternal might work freely in a world that was changing." "...without losing their grip on the supernatural reality which was the source of true happiness and real power."
If you are going to "shed the habitual," you have to have a firm grip on some things that are solid and unchanging. Not just religious truths, but authoritative traditions of other kinds, such as you might find reading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Which are themselves based on the authoritative and immemorial tradition called "the Rights of Englishmen." And, brothers and sisters, I have to tell you that you are going to have to discard the habitual whether you like it or not! Because we are all trapped in a science fiction story. We are being shoved into a time-machine and sent into the future at fearsome speed. Our world is changing drastically. Mere habits or prejudices won't be weighty enough to keep us in ballast.
That's what I'm talking about when I complain that left-leaning people are nihilists. In my generation and after, being "Left" is just a habit of thought, not the philosophical system (false though it was) that used to ballast many people's lives. (If you don't believe me, try to get a leftist in a real philosophical argument, one that goes down to first principles.) But mere habits won't cut it anymore; change is happening too fast and too scary. Which is why leftists are so brittle and angry of late. (And some rightists too—think of Paleocons like Pat Buchanan.)
Here's a link to the splendid St Phillip Neri.
Posted by John Weidner at April 1, 2007 06:31 AMOne of the lessons I learned very young was the value of "flexible." In fact, my second-grade teacher defined the word and explained it in relation to some class schedule that had been overset.
I know from observation that being adaptable to change is not an innate quality, and in fact human nature says rather the reverse, that we are happiest with a routine that doesn't change and if it does, adapt to it— and defend the new version as you did the status quo.
The fact that I am adaptable to change means that I am also very aware of when change happens. However, I am also very aware of certain things that do not seem to change over time. Human nature, in certain ways, does not change.
For example, one innate human trait seems to be to love the similar and to hate the other. The definition of "other" changes all the time— some people can, through much effort, discard the concept altogether, but most people simply shift it to some other group. ("Polluters" as a category springs to mind.) Another trait is the unwillingness to do something for nothing. Communism always fails on this fundamental point. (One could postulate a society which was communist in theory but capitalist in practice if you could substitute praise and affection for money. Be very good friends with the baker...)
I guess my point is that human nature is particularly well-suited to taking what passes for normal now and mentally thinking of it as "forever and always." A good study of history might be a partial antidote for this, but you'd have to start young.
Posted by: B. Durbin at March 31, 2007 08:18 PMI'm putting this anecdote in a separate comment because it doesn't go with the previous one.
I waas having a discussion with a well-spoken liberal colleague of mine at the bookstore where we worked, where I was speaking of a website I had found with vintage lynching photos. (Incidentally, I *loved* talking with him because while our philosophies were very different and we had divergent views on many things, he'd always listen and address the points I was making. I wish more of the internet was like him.)
Another coworker came in— a twenty-year-old who we loved dearly but who was a little sheltered— listened a bit, and wondered aloud, "Why didn't they move?" We tried to explain about the society of the time, of the expense and pain of moving, and sometimes the sheer impossibility of the fact, but she obviously didn't quite get it.
She left, and Craig and I looked at one another, until I finally said, "She's never been poor and hungry." And he nodded in complete agreement.
Much of this country has never been poor and hungry. Sometimes the only thing you can say is "They just don't know."
Posted by: B. Durbin at March 31, 2007 08:26 PMThere is really a ton in that quote - way too much to digest at once...you should have broken this one up into a month of Sundays, John!
The first thing that struck me was the first line: he had no desire to repudiate the new techniques of knowledge or to oppose theories which seemed at first sight to contradict Christian tradition: patience would reveal the truth in time.
I've long argued that Christianity has done more to cut its own balls off (to use the colorful phrase my brother used to describe the NFL's Plan B Draft) by not being mature enough, or having enough faith, to trust exactly this. Because history teaches that every time Christianity has married itself to a specific scientific explanation of anything, when belief in Christ is contingent on belief in a particular school of scientific thought, then the demise of that school of thought necessitates the demise of the faith that was married to it.
For example, if a good Christian is not allowed to believe in the Heliocentric Universe, then when the Copernican Revolution comes along, the church pushes its most rational people out the door. If a good Christian is not allowed to believe in evolution, then as the evidence mounts, the pews empty. And they often empty of the best thinkers first.
The Catholic Church as an institution learned this lesson long ago - but how much damage was done by those of immature faith in positions of power, who limited God to whatever tiny box they were able to comprehend?
Whenever a Christian says he didn't come from a monkey, I don't think about his ignorance - I think about the damage he's doing to what he loves most...
B,
The study of history is surely what's needed. The problem with history is, like so many things, you can only really SEE it if you love it. Or at least are starting to fall in love. Otherwise it is just a collection of odd facts. (But forcing people to learn facts is probably good—some of them will eventually be intrigued.)
Your sheltered friend probably sooner or later found herself in the situation of feeling stuck in her life because she had no capital to finance a move or a change. (Unless she has a trust fund.) One wonders if she ever made the mental leap, to understanding how others might be trapped?
Ethan, I always wondered what "month of Sundays" meant, and now I know! ;-)
I agree with your comment, and when I hear people say they don't believe in evolution (with Darwinian natural selection being the best current explanatory model) I want to shake them and say, "Can't you SEE it? All around you? The whole world is just rippling and quivering with genetic flux!"
I have in my garden two angiosperm trees that look just like conifers, with needles and all. I have a Fuscia that's a tiny creeping vine, tropical Rhododendrons, and dry-loving ferns...I think God gave the whole universe "free will."
What also grabs me about Newman is his understanding that we can't shrink from the future, can't avoid it, that we have to plunge into it with courage, and hope we find a path through.
He founded the Birmingham Oratory because he thought the future lay in the industrial cities, and his hope—cruelly thwarted—was to expand to other ones. To his contemporaries Brummagem was more obscure and contemptible than Patagonia. But he wasn't thinking like any of them; he was miles ahead. That's why the quote refers to "factory girls." He was hearing their confessions while Manning and Faber and Vaughan and WG Ward were hob-nobbing with dukes and duchesses. In the 1860's and 70's Newman seemed like an utter failure, and people were often surprised to hear that he was still alive!
Yet somehow just the opposite was true, and his enemies are mostly remembered only because of him.
Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2007 05:34 PMRecently the Touchstone blog had a discussion on Darwinism and it was pointed out that the main stumbling block on the meeting of Evolution and Christianity is the Fall that Evolution doesnt seem to allow for a primitive state of innocence.
Also, in my opinion more people get turned off Christianity not by scientific clashes but by the worldiness of Churches. All that I read about the Great Schism says the main factor was the greed of local lords for vast endowments and estates of the Church. Also the same factor comes up in Cathari Crusade.
Posted by: Bisaal at April 1, 2007 10:26 PMRecently the Touchstone blog had a discussion on Darwinism and it was pointed out that the main stumbling block on the meeting of Evolution and Christianity is the Fall that Evolution doesnt seem to allow for a primitive state of innocence.
The main stumbling block for reconciling Evolution and Christianity is the failure of Christians to accept that just because they cannot reconcile scientific fact with their understanding of God, does NOT mean that God is also unable to do so.
Also, in my opinion more people get turned off Christianity not by scientific clashes but by the worldiness of Churches.
No doubt, and no argument from me. There are a host of reasons one might be turned off from the church - when its hierarchy acted for its own benefit, and when today it reduces itself to pop psychologist - that worldliness is extremely high on the list!
I wouldn't say clashes with science are the prime mover, by any means - just another chink in the armor. And a completely self-inflicted one.
