AND YET…. LES

Essays or entries by myself will henceforth and forever more have “les” with the titles or subjects. LES

I’ve been thinking, always a dangerous enterprise. What I have been considering this time [good luck, old man] is the way in which God [who, of course, may or may not be real] intervenes in our lives. What led me to this subject is the current novel I am reading: Poor Banished Children, Fiorella De Maria, a Christian novelist. I am on page 232 out of 300 and I am delighted by the story. The thing is, I came across this novel when I had finished her third Father Gilbert mystery novel. I read the description on Amazon and decided that this was not a novel I wished to read. And yet here I am reading it and being profoundly moved by the story. Secondary Causes: my Christian friend Fred showed up several days ago and mentioned that the author is soon to release a fourth Father Gilbert novel. We talked; he mentioned that Poor Banished Children sounded really interesting. I said I would look again; I did, taking his interest as a sign; it did sound interesting this time; I bought it for my kindle and here I am excited by what I have read thus far and eager to get back to it. And yet here I am writing down my thoughts on secondary causes because, otherwise, I would forget. Okay—for some reason God [who may or may not be real] wants me to read this novel. Why? I can think of various reasons why that might be the case, 3 or 4 or more; honestly, I have no real idea though, for that is not the way secondary causes work.

This morning I was reading in the April Magnificat about Saint Catherine of Sienna, one of my favorite saints, that I might have such a clear and commanding vision of Christ and be as ardent as all the saints described in Magnificat each month. Just one little clarifying vision, dream or appearance. And yet, nothing—until I happened to remember how I came to be reading Poor Banished Children.
I keep thinking, my pain is nothing like Christ’s must have been on getting nailed, nailed, for God’s sake, or hanging there for three hours, for our sakes. Talk about agony! And yet, last night it felt as though someone was driving a needle through the back of my already painful left hand. Fortunately, I have Biofreeze and Diazepam! A divine hand manifested itself above my nightstand and plopped them down there. They helped; I could sleep. Or, secondary causes made them available. Andrew, my Commonwealth care giver, ordered the ointment I had never heard of; Dr. Schloemer, the diazepam; he is also the doctor who is initially responsible for helping to save my leg.

Secondary Causes: And yet… there are my numerous on-going medical problems, top of body to bottom; left eye; stopped up nose; hearing; broken tooth; neck—fused vertebrae; both hands [numb and perpetually painful]; urine—with catheter [can’t pee well]; prostate [probably why I can’t pee well]; vascular blockage—legs [3 operations]; knees—rheumatoid pain a.m.]; feet—right, gangrene [defeated, finally]; feet—left, 3 wounds, infected, bones visible—bleah>mostly healed. I frequently feel like Job; my wife has said, “Why don’t you just ‘Curse God and die?’” And yet, I believe secondary causes are at work here too.

After all, my eldest son, who doesn’t seem to like me much at the moment, was there for me almost every day at the hospital and got me through a very painful wait at the hospital eye doctor’s office, as well as supervising my meals at Berea, making sure they were edible; fortunately for me [and him too] he married an excellent woman who participated in my super hospital care; numerous hospital staff, Lexington and Berea. Then there are the 3 men who go above and beyond super home health care, including daily cleanup: my daughter’s husband, actually my favorite son-in-law, who does numerous clean up things, including sponge baths and the nasty, as well as driving me to the Lexington foot doctor once a week lately; my second son who also does numerous things, some of them nasty as well, and who still seems to like me, thank Goodness; and third, my good friend, who shares the nasty with the other two and visit’s regularly in addition and brings the Eucharist on Sunday mornings. In addition there is my daughter who unselfishly shares her husband and does visits and food and the nasty paper work associated with my illness. Finally there is my wife who takes care of all the other things at home, meals, laundry, night medicine, and some of the nasty every day (that damn catheter bag) and from time to time chores. According to her I am the champion catheter bag filler. Among other things! Let’s hear it for the letter P! At least she still has a sense of humor, mostly; seems to go along with her temper. Mostly! “I’ve got a wife at home! I’ve got a wife at home! I’ve got a wife, she’s the apple of my life, but I…. “ er, forget.

Then there are the fantastic Commonwealth care-givers: Andrew who is most present most frequently and excellent in foot care and Marvel TV series; and Chris who has been doing the once-a-month catheter switch, as well as foot wrapping, along with the various others from Commonwealth who had other tasks—upper body exercise, Steve; lower body exercise, Jason; etc.

The more I think about it, the more I have come to believe that secondary cause is always operative. Amen!

Image: looks like Simon!

THE GREEN KNIGHT: rev. By Justin Lee


[I’ve seen the movie once and wasn’t sure what I thought. This review is thoughtful and insightful and makes me want to see the movie again. The image I put with this entry was created by my son, Michael; the image certainly goes with the subject of the Lee review, and it also reminds me of the Narnian creature Reepacheep, the chivalrous, courtly mouse from C.S.Lewis’s Voyage of the Dawn Treader, one of my favorite Narnian characters. Truly though I loved the image the moment Michael showed it to me, and I was glad of a good reason to include it here. LES]

FIRST THINGS. 9/29/21
“The Moral Heart of the Green Knight”. By Justin Lee
J. R. R. Tolkien considered Sir Gawain and the Green Knight one of the greatest works of medieval English literature, an example of “literary alchemy,” “when old deep-rooted stories are rehandled by a real poet with an imagination of his own.” It goes without saying that the anonymous author of the poem was one such “real poet.” David Lowery, who wrote and directed its latest film adaptation, The Green Knight, is another. 

Some critics have bemoaned the film's departures from its source material. But such criticism misapprehends the nature of adaptation, which requires interpreting and resituating a work of art. In this case, a quest narrative that cleverly subverted conventions to interrogate the values of its fourteenth-century audience must itself be subverted, even deconstructed, in order to effect an analogous interrogation today. The moral heart of the poem is what matters most, and Lowery keeps it beating through defamiliarization. 

Whereas the poem depicts King Arthur's court at the height of its power, the film opens on a Camelot whose glories have dimmed. Arthur (Sean Harris) and Guinevere (Kate Dickie), both aged and homely, preside over a Christmas feast shared by their equally exhausted knights. As in the poem, Arthur desires to hear some great story before he eats. Gawain (Dev Patel), when asked for a story of himself, has none to share. The great battles have all been fought; the Saxons are well underfoot. As a result, Lowery's Gawain is a layabout who skips Mass to carouse with his peasant lover, who lives in a house of ill repute. 

These changes speak to an American context in which young men are aloof and unstoried. Our nation's decline is everywhere apparent, but perhaps nowhere more so than in the vast armada of failsons foundering on the reefs of recession, spiritual vapidity, neutering feminism, deconstructed national myths, therapeutic culture that pathologizes anyone unsuitable to the information economy, and the endless anesthesia of pornography, pot, and video games. Lowery was born in 1980, but he understands the plight of Millennials and Zoomers, and what it portends for those unwilling to content themselves with Call of Duty campaigns: The yearning for a story of one's own will eventually produce action. 

One need not discern echoes of Weimar in the thuggery of Antifa and the Proud Boys to know that much of that action will not be virtuous. We are in dire need of public grapplings with the nature of virtue, and models thereof. Lowery seems to intuit with Tolkien that there is “no better medium for moral teaching than the good fairy-story.” Hence this resituation of Gawain and its lessons. 

The essentials of the original story are still there. The Green Knight comes to Camelot and challenges someone to land a blow on him, one that he will return in a year's time. Gawain accepts and cuts off the knight's head, but this does not kill the interloper. One year later, Gawain must journey to the knight's Green Chapel and fulfill his promise, on his honor as a knight (in the film, an aspiring knight). 

The poem exposes where chivalric codes of courtesy conflict with the moral order established by God, and ridicules those who make idols of merely contingent norms. If Lowery had mapped its lessons directly onto our anti-culture, the results would be farcical, nullifying essential elements of the fairy-story, and thus also the lessons themselves, which are inextricable from their genre.

To preserve those elements, Lowery deemphasizes courtesy. The third canto, in which Gawain undergoes his three temptations at the castle of Lord Bertilak (Joel Edgerton) and his Lady (Alicia Vikander), is much condensed. As in the poem, the Lady makes advances; she gives Gawain an embroidered girdle that she says will protect him from harm, and kisses him while he lies in bed. In the film, however, their exchange is so sexually charged that Gawain ejaculates onto the girdle. Whereas in the poem the girdle symbolizes to Gawain his failures of chivalric courtesy, the film bestows a symbolic weight more comprehensible to contemporary audiences: the dishonor and moral pollution of adultery.

The film's closing sequence is worth considering at length. Gawain goes to the Green Chapel as promised, wearing the magic girdle. As in the poem, he flinches as the Green Knight attempts to deliver the first blow, and is chastised. But then the film departs radically from the text. Before the next blow, Gawain asks, 

“Is this really all there is?” 

“What else ought there be?” says the Green Knight. 

Gawain gives no answer, though it's clear he expects some grand meaning to come and drive away the sheer absurdity of it all. And it does, though not in the way he or the audience expects: He receives a vision of who he will become if he chooses dishonor in this moment. He is knighted and declared Arthur's heir, but he proves to be a heartless ruler and the kingdom falls to war and ruin. In the end, alone as Camelot is sacked, he removes the magic girdle—and his head topples from his neck. 

Gawain is so disgusted by the vision that he removes the girdle and casts it aside, thereby honoring the original terms of the game. “There,” he says. “Now I'm ready.” 

“Well done, my brave knight,” says the Green Knight. “Now . . . off with your head.” 

The film concludes with that line and the Green Knight's wry smile. It's tempting to read this truncation of the story as an exercise in nihilism. If both honor and dishonor end in death, what meaning can be extracted from Gawain's trials? But this is a misreading. 

In the beginning of the film, Gawain, having no story to tell Arthur, accepts the Green Knight's challenge in order to write a story for himself. But the moment the Green Knight proves unharmed by the beheading, it is clear to Gawain that he is not in control of his story, that he has stumbled into an order larger than himself. In the film's ending, Gawain accepts that he did not write his own story, did not choose the givens of his existence; by removing the protective girdle and offering his neck, he chooses to embrace those givens, to live that story as his own, and thereby participate in a transcendent moral order. 
Gawain's choice repudiates our modern understanding of authenticity, under which he would have lived out the vision and transvalued his cowardice and dishonor into virtues. Such “authenticity” actually leads to its opposite: enslavement. Lowery captures this when the Lady “paints” Gawain using a primitive method of photography. The resulting portrait—dark and nubilous despite its photorealism—reappears in Gawain's vision, representing the version of Gawain he will become if he fornicates with the Lady or reneges on his covenant with the Green Knight by keeping the girdle on—the version, in effect, created by the Lady's will.

In the end, The Green Knight's message is one my own generation desperately needs: Self-creation is slavery, but freedom and wonder await those who embrace their role in a story far greater than any they could have written for themselves.

Justin Lee teaches undergraduate writing at the University of California, Irvine.

First Things



NEW STUFF…LES

The problem is that I have no new stuff; nothing new to write; only the old faith in Christ and the resurrection, which in a way is both old and forever new. The truth of Christianity and the faith that I have comes from understanding that the resurrection really happened. Thus I included the two essays in the preceding blog entry. Either he came out of the tomb or he didn’t. If he didn’t my faith is null and void; an illusion; if he did then my faith is substantial. Once I didn’t believe it to be true; then I met God at my kitchen table in grad school who gave me the knowledge that JESUS IS LORD and the resurrection is true. For Yeats, “the center cannot hold”; for me this faith is the center that holds: JESUS IS LORD. I may doubt t from time to time, but the truth was put in me and it always remains, regardless.

Another thing: all the Christians I read are a lot more intelligent than I am—C.S.Lewis Anthony Esolen, Reno, Weigel, Tolkien, Fa, Spitzer, Fa. Barron, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.—if people smarter than I am hold the faith to be true, why shouldn’t I too?

Well, there it is: faith reaffirmed on Easter Sunday. Time to get back to trying to think about Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” as well as to finishing my latest Alex Delaware mystery. In the meantime I shall find a good poem to finish with:

Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–89). Poems. 1918.

13. Pied Beauty

GLORY be to God for dappled things—

For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;

For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;

Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;

Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough; 5

And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;

Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)

With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;

He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change: 10

Praise him.

An interesting day, a moment of coherence. Hour or so after I had written the above [4 to 5 p.m.probably], my friend arrived unexpectedly with the Eucharist from the morning’s Mass, with permission. The Eucharist was the perfect, much needed climax to the Easter Day. Where I see pattern, others might see simply random coincidence. I received the Eucharist at a time when it was much needed and appreciated. Interpret how you will. For me, however, it was an unexpected, surprising moment of coherence and completion: Evidence of love in several important ways—human and divine. And for me there is only one appropriate response: my deepest, sincerest gratitude all around—human and divine.

Praise him!

RESURRECTION: 2 ESSAYS


Essay #1 George Weigel [First Things;
“Easter Changes Everything”. 4/4/12

Christmas occupies such a large part of the Christian imagination that the absolute supremacy of Easter as the greatest of Christian feasts may get obscured at times. Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, an Italian biblical scholar, suggests that we might begin to appreciate how Easter changed everything—and gave the birth of Jesus at Christmas its significance—by reflecting on the story of Jesus purifying the Jerusalem Temple, at the beginning of John’s Gospel.

In this prophetic and symbolic act, Ravasi writes, Jesus draws a sharp contrast between a religion of superficiality and self-absorption and a pure faith, centered on his person. God can no longer be present in a Temple that has ceased to be a place of encounter, the “meeting tent” of the ancient Hebrews; that Temple, however magnificently constructed, had become a place of superstition and self-interest. In cleansing the Temple, Jesus is declaring that God is now present to his people in a new and perfect way and in a new “meeting tent”: the incarnate Son, “the Word . . . made flesh” who dwells among us, “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). He, Jesus, is the new Temple, and to recognize that and live in this new mode of the divine Presence one must “remember,” as St. John writes at the end of the Temple-cleansing story (John 2:22).

And remember what? Remember Easter. Remember the Resurrection. Through the prism of that extraordinary event that changed both history and nature, everything comes into clearer focus. Only a mature, paschal faith—an Easter faith—can perceive who Jesus is, understand what Jesus taught, and grasp what Jesus has accomplished by his obedience to the Father. Only in the power of this paschal “memory,” Cardinal Ravasi concludes, can we recognize that Jesus is the Christ, the Holy One of God.

Easter faith—the faith which proclaims that “he . . . rose again on the third day”—is not one article of Christian conviction among others. As St. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15, Easter faith is that conviction on which the entire edifice of Christianity is built. Without Easter, nothing makes sense and Jesus is a false prophet, even a maniac. With Easter, all that has been obscure about his life, his teaching, his works and his fate becomes radiantly clear: this Risen One is the “first-born among many brethren” (Romans 8:29); he is the new Temple (Revelation 21:22); and by embracing him we enter the dwelling place of God among us (Revelation 21:3).

In the Gospel readings of the Easter Octave, the Church annually remembers the utterly unprecedented nature of the paschal event, and how it exploded expectations of what God’s decisive action in history would be. No one gets it, at first; for what has happened bursts the previous limits of human understanding. The women at the empty tomb don’t understand, and neither do Peter and John. The disciples on the road to Emmaus do not understand until they encounter the Risen One in the Eucharist, the great gift of paschal life, offered by the new Temple, the divine Presence, himself. At one encounter with the Risen Lord, the Eleven think they’re seeing a ghost; later, up along the Sea of Galilee, it takes awhile for Peter and John to recognize that “It is the Lord!” (John 21:7). These serial episodes of incomprehension, carefully recorded by the early Church, testify to the shattering character of Easter, which changed everything: the first disciples’ understanding of history, of life-beyond-death, of worship and its relationship to time (thus Sunday, the day of Easter, becomes the Sabbath of the New Covenant).

Easter also changed the first disciples’ understanding of themselves and their responsibilities. They were the privileged ones who must keep alive the memory of Easter: in their preaching, in their baptizing and breaking of bread, and ultimately in the new Scriptures they wrote. They were the ones who must take the Gospel of the Risen One to “all nations,” in the sure knowledge that he would be with them always (Matthew 28:19-20).

They were to “be transformed” (Romans 12:2). So are we.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

ESSAY 2

“He Is Risen” R. R. Reno

5/2/11 [First Things]

I spent Easter in Omaha. The Great Vigil liturgy at St. Cecilia’s Cathedral was transcendent, with the music of Vittoria, Palestrina, and Byrd providing exquisite accents to contemporary plainsong. But it’s the beginning that always hits me in the gut. My heart beat faster with each urgent declamation of the Exsultet, the ancient hymn sung after the procession of the paschal candle that culminates: “This is the night when Jesus Christ broke the chains of death and rose triumphant from the grave.” 

The Resurrection. It’s the central truth around which the Christian faith turns. And when I went home after the service while savoring a glass of bourbon filled to a decidedly post-Lenten level, I chuckled over a Nebraska memory. Some years ago I spent a spring evening at the University of Nebraska engaging a fallen-away Fundamentalist in a debate: Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus was raised of the dead? 

There’s no doubt that the writers of the New Testament thought of themselves as giving reasons. Aside from the disputed ending of Mark, the gospels give eyewitness testimony to the risen Lord. So to a great degree the question is whether  this evidence counts for anything. That evening in Lincoln, Nebraska, the skeptical former Fundamentalist argued that the scriptural accounts are untrustworthy.

One argument he made drew attention to the diversity of resurrection accounts that portray Jesus differently. Reliable testimony, he suggested, requires agreement.

But is that right? Imagine that you are on a jury and all the witnesses provide identical accounts. Wouldn’t you become suspicious? It’s not normal for people to observe and remember events in the same way, especially not unexpected and traumatic events. Moreover, as we know, the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection, and in the case of the Gospel of Luke by someone who admits that he relies on the testimony of others. Given the passage of time, it becomes even more unlikely that the accounts would match up nicely. 

An analogy might help. Imagine that there was a lynching in a small town in Georgia in 1920. Now imagine that some forty or fifty years later town leaders and their now grown children feel compelled to write about the event, one fraught with intense emotions and painful memories. Imagine further that their accounts agree in detail, emotional tone, and sequence of events. Remarkable! Indeed so remarkable that a reasonable person would begin to suspect that communal mythology has come to replace actual memories, creating a false and perhaps reassuring harmony. Thus, it seems to me that the overall harmony rather than detailed agreement between the gospels makes it  more rather than  less reasonable to believe their testimony. 

Another argument the ex-Fundamentalist made that night concerned the obvious partisanship of the New Testament. Yes, that’s quite true, but does zeal and conviction undercut testimony? 

Here another analogy helps. Imagine that you want to know about the Game of the Century (which for the uninitiated refers to the epic struggle between Nebraska and Oklahoma in 1971 that featured a brilliant punt return by Johnny Rogers and, of course, the ultimate triumph of the Cornhuskers). You visit an older couple. The husband was and remains a rabid fan who has attended every home game since 1963. His wife has little interest in football, though she went to the Game of the Century because, as a newlywed she had yet to figure out how to absent herself.

Now I ask you: Whose account is more likely to be accurate? Yes, the husband may embellish, and his memory may be gilt with nostalgia. But in all likelihood he paid close attention, and his passion for football keeps his memories alive. His wife? True enough, she’s dispassionate and in a sense more “objective.” But that counts against her testimony, for she’s far less likely to have brought her mental powers fully to bear upon the game—and far less likely to sustain in her memory what she experienced.

The same goes for the writers of the gospels. Their passionate belief in the resurrection of Jesus does not necessarily count against the value of their testimony. On the contrary, in many ways we rightly trust a committed, living memory much more than an uncommitted and dispassionate memory.

Thus I think it’s reasonable to say that Christians have scriptural reasons for believing in the resurrection. A skeptic might judge these reasons insufficient (and on this point I’m inclined agree). Few believe simply because of the direct testimony of the New Testament. But that doesn’t mean that the gospels provide empty or inconsequential reasons for an Easter faith.

There are more powerful, indirect reasons in favor of belief in the resurrection, ones that stem from the fact that, as I pointed out above, the Easter affirmation plays a central role in the Christian faith. As St. Paul put it: If Christ is not risen, your faith is vain (1 Cor. 15:17). In view of this centrality, our broader reasons for believing in the truth of Christianity in general support our belief in the resurrection in particular. 

Some are like the travelers on the road to Emmaus. They are struck by the way in which the death and resurrection of Jesus throw a striking light upon puzzling passages in the Old Testament. Others feel the transformative power of Christian teaching, or encounter the remarkable and enduring substance of the Church and her sacramental life, or find the witness of the saints inspiring. In each case and countless others, the evidence suggests that there’s  something to Christianity, and thus, insofar as one understands the logic of Christian affirmations, to the resurrection as well. 

Of course, many think that the  something is best understood as a sociological need for institutions, or a psychological need for belonging, or a credulous instinct that has evolutionary value, and so forth. None of the evidence in favor of the resurrection compels us in the way that a scientific experiment might. But, again, that’s not the point. What’s reasonable need not be so certain or self-evident that it generates a strong consensus. 

In fact, a strong consensus is rare, not common. Consider politics. Should we say that our greatest challenge is income inequality or lack of economic opportunity? Climate change or stagnant growth? Indeed, people cannot even agree about whether or not an unborn child is a person. Should we be surprised, then, that the evidence in favor of Christianity is interpreted in many different ways, sometimes as reasons in favor, and at other times as reasons against? 

No, of course not. Given the profoundly personal and consequential character of Christian faith—eternal life!—it’s absurd to imagine that its central affirmation, the resurrection, can be supported a cool, objective, widely shared consensus. Or more precisely: it’s a cynical debater’s trick to conjure such a possibility, and then call Christians irrational for failing to secure it.

As I sipped my bourbon in the late hours of that most blessed of all nights, chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead, I found my warm recollections of debate drifting toward a cooler state of self-observation. “Yes,” I thought to myself, “Jesus may not have risen from the dead, and my faith may be empty.” Unlike square circles, that’s a real possibility. Fair enough, it conceded to the debater in my mind. “But,” I replied, “it’s very foolish indeed to think that what might be false cannot be true.” 

R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible  and author of  the volume on GenesisHis previous “On the Square” articles can be  found here.

Image: A modern iconic representation of the 11th-century fresco known as the Anastasis, located in the former Chora Church in Istanbul, which was converted into a mosque in the 16th century, then into a museum in 1945, and, in 2020, became the Kariye Mosque.

KUBLA KHAN: 3 stanzas with Commentary: LES

Kubla Khan

BY SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE

Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment.

1.

In Xanadu* did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree
Where Alph*, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea. 5
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round;
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills, 10
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

2.

But oh! that deep romantic* chasm* which slanted
Down the green hill athwart* a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted 15
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst 20
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail:
And mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion 25
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean;

And ’mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war! 30
The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device, 35
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!

3.

A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian* maid
And on her dulcimer she played, 40
Singing of Mount Abora.*
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight ’twould win me,
That with music loud and long, 45
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair! 50
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.*

NOTES:

*”Xanadu may refer to:

  • a metaphor for opulence or an idyllic place, based upon Coleridge's description of Shangdu in his poem Kubla Khan

  • Shangdu, the ancient summer capital of Kublai Khan's empire in China”

  • *”Alph River, a river in Antarctica; Alph Lake, a lake in Antarctica; Alph, a fictional river in the poem Kubla Khan by Samuel Taylor Coleridge.”

  • Image:

  • William Chambers’s Designs of Chinese Buildings, Furniture, Dresses, Machines and Utensils (1757) was drawn from the author’s years spent in China; it described Chinese design in a way that was more authentic than most previous writing on the subject.

  • *The Ethiopian Empire, also formerly known by the exonym Abyssinia, or just simply known as Ethiopia, was an empire that historically spanned the geographical area of present-day Ethiopia and Eritrea. Wikipedia

  • *1 : across especially in an oblique direction. 2 : in opposition to the right or expected course and quite athwart goes all decorum— William Definition of romantic

    *Entry 1 of 2) 1 :consisting of or resembling a romance. 2 : having no basis in fact : imaginary. 3 : impractical in conception or plan : visionary.

  • *a yawning fissure or deep cleft in the earth's surface; gorge. · a breach or wide fissure in a wall or other structure. · a marked interruption of continuity; gap ...

  • *”Some critics have suggested that Mount Abora is Coleridge's name for Mount Amara, the mountain described by John Milton in Paradise Lost at the source of the Nile in Ethiopia (Abyssinia) -- an African paradise of nature here set next to Kubla Khan's created paradise at Xanadu.”

  • *The only gaps in the text are at the 3 numbers; the other gaps between lines are my inability to format texts properly.

COMMENTS;

In the first stanza the narrator is looking at an exotic, “Xanadu,” a distant foreign place where the ruler, Kubla Khan, a despot of sorts, one assumes given his famous ancestor, has ordered the construction of a “stately pleasure dome.” The interesting element is the perspective of distance and perhaps holiness present in the first stanza. Xanadu is not next door; Alph is a fictional “sacred” river (like the Ganges, perhaps), and it disappears underground in images again suggesting distance ( as well as darkness) from the narrator (and reader): the caverns are “measureless to man.” That area then suggests an unattainable distance and reality.

Immediately, however, the narrator returns to the idea of distance—“So twice five miles of fertile ground—enclosed with human structures that contain wonderful, enchanting, perhaps, gardens. The language continues the idea of beautiful, exotic places, desirable but not really specific. The ground is “fertile,” the many gardens are “bright with sinuous rills,” and the trees, no flowers though, appeal to the senses since they are “incense-bearing.” Also within this ten mile enclosure there are “forests ancient as the hills” which enfold “sunny spots of greenery.” Now there are more trees, “ancient” suggesting distance again but the only specific element there is a color—green. Thus, in stanza one, we have a series of images that suggest sensuality and pleasure but that are also distant from us. It’s a reality that is essentially created by the vague and suggestive language that seems to present us with a yearning for it, only to have it yanked from us in stanza two.

The change in stanza #2 is suggested immediately in the narrator’s “But oh!” The “chasm” and its violent nature seem to be the primary subject or image of stanza #2. Presumably he is referring to the place where the river disappears into a deep fissure in the ground, though calling the chasm “romantic” suggests an emotionally pleasant place, which the rest of the language almost immediately cancels or denies. From a suggested waterfall (“slanted”) in an intense landscape tumbling down a steep incline opposite to a possible grove of cedars. Now the narrator experiences nature, no longer a garden, but a “savage place!” To convey the nature of the savage place and the enchantment he compares it to a “haunting by a woman bewailing her demon-lover” beneath a “waning moon.” Here again we experience a real sense of distance and otherness as he focuses on a possible demonic presence in nature through the behavior of the river and chasm, as well as the image of the woman yearning for her “demon lover”.

At this point nature as chasm becomes incredibly violent, eventually throwing up a fountain as well as huge “dancing rocks.” The energy released in the imagery is powerful on the one hand—“ceaseless turmoil seething,” the fountain forced up, the entire earth seeming to “pant” from the activity, then the image of hail rebounding, and “chaffy grain” being separated by more violent activity, “the thresher’s flail; and finally the river itself seems to re-emerge only to “meander” this time with “a mazy motion / Through wood and dale the sacred river ran.” It seems to be meandering for five miles and then be running only finally to sink to where the poem began:

“Then reached the caverns measureless to man, /
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean,” instead of to a sunless sea.

This odd “tumult” is picked up in the next line by Kubla Khan where the nature or substance of it is shifted from the violent behavior of nature to the violent nature of humanity: now the distance involves the past, “ancestral voices,” that are “prophesying “ war! The tumult of nature and the tumult of war seem to be mixed together in the sounds heard by Khan (and the narrator) only to become surprisingly quiet or perhaps unreal as what we see is only the shadow of the pleasure dome reflected in the waves of the sacred river. And given the value of the sacred we now have before us a “miracle of rare device / A sunny pleasure dome with caves of ice.” Two senses come into play, seeing and hearing, and yet, much as I delight in the language of the poem, the images, the sounds and sights, I find that I do not believe any of it, for the poem exists for its tremendous effects in the mind of the narrator rather than in any truly imagined reality. Thus the images may contradict one another and be inconsistent—sunny / sunless; five miles / ten miles / measureless; dancing boulders / hail / grain and chaff; “momently” (twice) / yet time to meander five miles in a “mazy” like lazy motion. What the poet / narrator really seems to be doing is playing with the language as it comes to him in rhyme and rhythm because, like the image of the stately pleasure dome, the exercise is extremely pleasurable. Thus whether the images cohere or not does not really matter, and the poet / narrator can turn to a new series of somewhat magical, mystical images in the third stanza.

Stanza #3 involves another somewhat startling shift of new elements, as well as of the inclusion of old ones, the original images of stanza #1. The third person narrator of stanzas 1 and 2 now fully enters the poem in the first person, but again introduces an exotic image once more distant from him (and us) yet one he truly yearns for. The alliteration catches us immediately: “A damsel with a dulcimer / In a vision once I saw:” The rhythm of the first line is the regular iambic 8 (-/ -/ -/ -/), but the second line contains only 7 syllables, thus forcing us to emphasize “once” (/ -/- / -/), and thus removing that experience from the immediate presence. Past tense: “It was an Abyssinian maid / And on her dulcimer she played / Singing of Mount Abora.” In a rhythmic way the first 5 lines of this stanza [37-41] remind me (us?) of the first 5 lines of the poem [1-5]: (8 / 8 / 8/ 8 / 6 ; vs 8 / 7 / 8 / 8 / 7; and a / b / a / a / b [assuming “Khan” to rhyme with ran and man]; vs a / b / c / c / d ). While the first 5 lines of the poem are enclosed in a sense in the rhyme, “decree / sea,” the first five lines of the third stanza [37-41] are not, “dulcimer / Abora.” Remembrance seems to be the key to the section of the verse that immediately follows [42-47], for if he could “revive,” bring back to life within his mind, remember, the “symphony and song” she sang and played, one that possibly reminded him of Paradise, as the first lines of the poem seem to have as well with its garden imagery, he would then have won (as if it were a contest) the power from the pleasure and delight in the music to create the original images of the pleasure dome and the caves of ice, substantially, but in the air because what is bringing that about is music, thus hearing as well as bringing about seeing. Here again I experience in the narrator a sense of yearning for an exquisite pleasure, the pleasure of Eden or of Heaven from which he appears to be eternally cut off or separated.

The surge of creative power that the music “would” give him [48-54] would be such that all who heard and then saw would be should be terrified, he believes, and would immediately express their fear of that creative power in a dire warning with voice—“Beware! Beware!”—and with violent action—bind him—“Weave a circle round him thrice.” Particularly revealing is that the poet is telling the see-ers and the hear-ers what they “should” do to keep the tremendous power in check. He attributes his powerful, magician-like (a necromancer, perhaps, as suggested from Purchas’s text ?) appearance to the crowd: they should see this: “His flashing eyes, his floating hair.” Not only should (again) they cry out a warning, not only should they bind him, but they should also “close your eyes with holy dread.” And another reason for those actions, besides the power of his creativity, is indicated: “For he on honey-dew hath fed / And drunk the milk of Paradise.” While the poet / narrator has a yearning for that which has been lost—the language, the music, and the power—he also reveals, I think, that there is something demonic about his desires, the desire for a particular personal pleasure in fact. Perhaps, pleasure not grounded in the love for God is perverted; none of the pleasures in the text suggest that desire. Instead, they are all images and pleasures that enhance the human ego, especially the ego and power of the poet with language. Thus the poem is powerful in its use of language but always suggests a person cut off from his desire, thus alienated from a reality that he desires. Even though he may have drunk the milk of Paradise, he is none the less cut off from the Paradise that he ought truly to desire. One might say finally that this poem is about the power of the poet and that it suggests the possible right use of that power, one that the poet / narrator does not himself truly see.

As a suggestion one might turn to “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” to see how the poet fulfills the proper task of the poet, the revelation of the truly transcendent. As in Eliot’s “Hippopotamus” this narrator does not see what his powerful, beautiful language truly reveals, his failure to see that which is truly desirable, the transcendent in the human and in the natural. That he is alienated from both is evident in the poem; what is not evident is his understanding of the reason or his failure to understand the reason. I think the poem is complete and takes us as far as it possibly could, especially ending with the word “Paradise.”

[Somehow I accidentally screwed up the formatting again, accidentally hitting something I shouldn’t have hit! Frustrating! Just as I was doing so well. Perhaps second son can help me out when he returns. Sigh!]


New Criterion vol. 40 #8 April 2022. Essay on AI by Carmine Starnino: On artificial intelligence and creativity.

“Stephen Marche, writing an article for The New Yorker, assigned gpt-3 [the AI computer program] maybe the trippiest poem in the English canon: Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s fifty-four-line “Kubla Khan”—an opium dream interrupted in the middle of its composition in 1797 and never completed. gpt-3’s mission? Finish the fragment. What the program fantasized was so sophisticated (“The tumult ceased, the clouds were torn,/The moon resumed her solemn course”) that readers unfamiliar with the original poem might have had a hard time discerning where Coleridge ended and the computer began.”

SCIENCE And HEAVEN: BARR

[Another essay I wanted to keep track of and reread. Published in the U of Notre Dame’s Church Life Journal April 5, 2022. A Journal of the McGrath Institute for Church Life] LES
Stephen M. Barr
“Is Science of Any Help in Thinking About Heaven?”

Catholics and other Christians believe that those who are saved shall have eternal life. But where will that life be lived and what shall it be like? Will it be within the confines of this physical universe or altogether beyond it? Will it be anything like the present state of things, physically speaking, or utterly different? Is science of any help in thinking about these things, or is it completely irrelevant? 

The Destiny of the Physical Universe

Perhaps the best place to start is by asking what will happen, ultimately, to the physical universe we currently inhabit. Many scriptural texts say that it will pass away. In Psalm 102 we read, "Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing, and they pass away."

Christ himself declared, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt 24:35). St. Paul told the Corinthians, “The present form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7:31). The First Letter of St. John says, “And the world and its desire are passing away” (2:17). The Second Letter of St. Peter foretells that “the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire . . . the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire” (2 Pt 7, 10).

What does present science tell us? According to the standard Big Bang theory, the universe has two possible fates. One is that it will continue to expand forever, growing ever colder, darker and emptier. Eventually, all the stars will burn out, having consumed their nuclear fuel, and all other forms of usable energy will be exhausted. This has traditionally been called the “heat death” of the universe, because all heat would be gone and all life with it.

The other possibility is that the universe will eventually stop expanding and start contracting. As it contracts and compresses, it will become increasingly hot and dense, ultimately reaching such an inconceivable temperature that even space and time will shrivel away. This is the so-called “Big Crunch” (like the Big Bang in reverse), at which point the universe and physical time itself would presumably abruptly cease. Obviously, in this case, too, all life in the universe would have an end.

Which fate is more likely? Before 1998, they seemed equally so, but in that year it was discovered that the expansion of the universe has been speeding up for the last few billion years, which points away from a Big Crunch and towards a heat death; but there is a lot we still do not know and the question remains open. In any event, long before any cosmic disaster occurs, the Sun will explode to become a “Red Giant” in about five billion years, incinerating any life that might still exist on earth. A 1920 poem by Robert Frost began, “Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice.” We now know that the earth will end in fire. As for the universe itself, we do not know which way it will end, but that it will end as a place where any life can exist appears certain.

It would seem, then, that modern cosmology and biblical revelation are in basic agreement. However, theologically, things are not quite so clear-cut. Scripture and tradition are somewhat more ambiguous about the fate of the cosmos than at first appears. For, although Scripture speaks in many places of heaven and earth passing away, it also speaks of the coming of a “new heaven” and a “new earth.” “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (Rev 21:1). This echoes Isaiah 65:17: “For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.”

The “new heavens” and “new earth” could be understood in two ways: either as a total replacement of the present heavens and earth, or as their transformation and renovation. Many scriptural passages are suggestive of the former, since they speak of the present world simply “passing away.” And, as we saw, Psalm 102 uses the image of a garment being changed. On the other hand, the passage from First Corinthians quoted above says more specifically that the “present form of this world” is passing away, which seems to imply that although the world will have a new form, it will still be “this world.” Theological tradition supports this understanding. Section 1047 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, states that “the visible universe . . . is itself destined to be transformed.” Moreover, Romans 8:20-21 speaks of the universe ultimately being “set free”: “The creation was subjected to futility . . . in the hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

Many theologians take this pregnant but mysterious passage to mean that the universe will “redeemed” by being transformed in such a way that it will no longer be a place of death and decay. That last notion would be problematic, however, if one were to assume that the transformed universe would be a “physical universe” strongly resembling the present one, i.e., a realm in which there are matter, space, and time that are governed by the same or similar “laws of physics.” For, in that case, it would seem unavoidable that the law of entropy and therefore death and decay would continue to hold sway. As we shall see, however, there are strong theological and scriptural reasons for doubting that the new heavens and new earth will be “physical” in that sense. 

A point about Romans 8:20-21 that seems significant is that it links the liberation of the cosmos to the “freedom of the glory of the children of God.” This suggests that its redemption will be achieved in and through the redemption of human beings and their ultimate glorification in heaven. One way to think of that is as follows. If God’s intention for the physical universe was that it should bring forth the children of God, and his intention for the children of God was that they should attain eternal life with him in glory, then through the redemption of those children the universe would attain its goal and fulfillment and overcome the “futility” to which it otherwise would have been condemned.

St. Thomas Aquinas understood the redemption of the physical universe as occurring through human redemption, since human beings carry within themselves all the levels of being found in the cosmos: the physical, the organic, the sentient, and the rational. Joseph Ratzinger, in his book Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, summarized St. Thomas’s view as follows:

It is in that movement [of the human person toward God] that the material world, indeed, comes into its own, by stretching forth towards God in man. In man’s turning to God “all the tributaries of finite being in all its variety of level and value, return to their Source.”

Following that train of thought, one could even imagine that what continues of this world into the next is redeemed humanity.

The Resurrection of the Body

The question of what the next world will be like leads, of course, to the question of what kind of bodies the redeemed will have after the “resurrection of the dead,” a question that St. Paul himself confronted in his first letter to the Corinthians. “But someone will ask,” he wrote, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (1 Cor 15:35). On the one hand, the very word “resurrection” (“rising again”) implies that the “risen” body will be the same body as that which died, something that the early Church Fathers and subsequent tradition have unanimously affirmed.

It is, indeed, de fide Catholic teaching. On the other hand, the precise sense in which the risen body will be “the same body” has never been defined. While historically the great majority of Catholic theologians have understood this to imply some material continuity, a minority have held that what will make it the same body is that it will be united with the same spiritual soul. There is, however, no definitive magisterial teaching on this question.

In any case, any hypothesis that posits a continuity that is physical—in the sense of “that which physics studies”—between this universe and the “new heaven and new earth” and between human bodies in this world and resurrected bodies in the next raises some thorny questions. The chief one, already mentioned, has to do with the fact that things in this physical universe are inherently “corruptible” or “perishable,” i.e., subject to inevitable aging, decay, and dissolution, whereas in the next world there will be no decay or death.

The corruptibility of things in this universe is a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of entropy). And it would apply not only to this universe with its particular physical laws, but probably to any physical universe that resembled ours in basic respects. And that is because the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a rather general consequence of the laws of probability and depends very little upon the details of the laws of physics. The idea that a physical realm continuous with and strongly resembling this universe could be immune to corruptibility, death, and decay, is problematic.

One person who grasped the basic issue with great clarity was St. Paul himself, who discussed it at length in First Corinthians 15:35-55. There he states flatly that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” And for this reason, he says, an abrupt “change” must occur at the resurrection: “We will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability.”

How this will happen, he confesses, is “a great mystery.” He emphasizes that the resurrected body, being imperishable, must differ greatly from the earthly body, differing as much from it as a wheat plant differs from the “bare seed” from which it sprang. A “spiritual body,” he says, must replace the “animal body” (or, as it is usually translated in English, the “physical body” or “natural body”). Joseph Ratzinger in his Introduction to Christianity summarized St. Paul’s teaching on the resurrection of the body in this way:

Thus, from the point of view of modern thought, the Pauline sketch is far less naïve than later theological erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be eternal physical bodies. To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurrection of physical bodies, but the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the “fleshly body,” that is, the biological structure, an idea he expressly describes as impossible (“the perishable cannot become imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.”

The “Bodily” and the “Physical”

In thinking about these issues, it might be helpful to consider human bodies from two distinct, though obviously related, perspectives: the physical-biological on the one hand, and the personal on the other. From a physics perspective, the bodies of plants and animals have a single purpose, namely maintaining the organism (and its kind) in existence against the universal tendency of all that exists in this world to perish. As some have pithily put it, biological organisms are “survival machines.” In order to understand better what this entails, some basic physics explanations are needed.

What the Second Law of Thermodynamics says is that “entropy” (a mathematical measure of physical disorder) always increases with time, and order decreases. At first sight, this principle would seem to rule out the growth and development of plants and animals, for in organic growth and development matter in less ordered forms (e.g. water, air, soil, and nutrients) becomes incorporated into the highly ordered structures of an organism’s body. However, what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says, more precisely, is that disorder, as measured by entropy, always increases (or at least never decreases) on the whole. This qualification is important, for the Second Law allows entropy to decrease (and thus order increase) in one place or in one physical system as long as entropy increases elsewhere by even more. It is the total entropy that cannot decrease.

A good illustration of this is that you can decrease the entropy of a glass of water by putting it in the freezer of your refrigerator, causing the disorderly motions of the H2O molecules in the liquid to give way to the orderly arrangement of the molecules in the crystals of ice that form. But that decrease in entropy inside the freezer is more than compensated by an increase of entropy outside the freezer. In particular, energy flows into your freezer in the more ordered and usable form of electrical power, and comes out again in the less ordered form of heat (as you can tell by feeling the warm air coming out of the back of the refrigerator). As this example illustrates, for a system to go against the universal tendency to disorder generally requires an input of usable energy from outside the system. If you unplug the refrigerator, the food inside will eventually spoil and the ice melt. 

The key point is that the growth, development, and life of organisms is able to “buck the trend” of the physical world toward disorder because they are able to make use of external sources of energy. (The ultimate source of energy for all life on earth is the Sun, or in some cases geothermal energy.) The same is true of the evolution of living things from less organized forms.

The struggle of living things in this universe for survival is thus largely a matter of obtaining usable energy. That is why animals have to eat and breathe. Every part of the body of a biological organism has a function that in some way serves the purpose of counteracting the universal entropic tendency toward corruption and decay. That is why the human body has an alimentary system for the ingestion, digestion, and absorption of nutrients; a respiratory system; a multiplicity of sensory systems that enable it to find nourishment and avoid dangers; a host of defense mechanisms, including an immune system and bodily integument, that allow it to avoid becoming nutriment for other organisms, both macroscopic and microscopic; a reproductive system to carry the species forward; and so on with every organ and cell of the body. 

Of course, human beings are much more than survival machines. We are persons, endowed by God with reason, free will, and the capacity for love and self-transcendence. And this leads us to consider the other, higher purpose of our bodies: interpersonal communion. Human beings interact with each other not only physically but personally, and we do both only through our corporeality. Only through external signs and gestures and deeds can we know each other’s minds and hearts and receive and express love. Our communion with God is also only through our corporeality, through Word and sacrament. 

This is not to say that the two purposes of the human body, the physical-biological and the interpersonal, are not related to each other; they obviously are. Our capacity and need for interpersonal communion are rooted in our sociality, which has its roots in that of our animal forebears. And the sociality of animals clearly plays many roles in survival, otherwise it would not have evolved. But what began at the animal level as cooperation, care, and even affection is raised to a higher level in human beings. A family meal is not just a matter of physical sustenance, but of deep spiritual bonds.

If our bodies have a twofold purpose in this life, what about in the next life? Well certainly their role as mediators of interpersonal communion, both with God and other human beings, will remain. It is precisely through our incorporation into the Body of Christ that we will have such communion. Indeed, it could be said that the completed Body of Christ, including both its Head and all of its human members, is heaven itself, which is achieved (as the Letter to the Ephesians says) when “all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (4:13). Joseph Ratzinger in Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, put it this way:

The perfecting of the Lord’s body in the pleroma of the “whole Christ” brings heaven to its true cosmic completion. Let us say it once more before we end: the individual’s salvation is whole and entire only when the salvation of the cosmos and all the elect has come to full fruition. For the redeemed are not simply adjacent to each other in heaven. Rather, in their being together as the one Christ, they are heaven.

But what of the other purpose of the bodies we have in this life, the physical purpose as “survival machines”? Clearly that purpose is gone in the next life, as there will be no “corruptibility” and death that must be staved off by physical activity. The medieval Scholastic theologians agreed that what they called the “vegetative” functions of the human body would not be needed and would therefore not operate in heaven, though it was their belief that the organs associated with those operations would remain, in order that the risen bodies be perfect and complete.

There are several hints, or more than hints, in Scripture that various physical functions of the body are not present or not needed in heaven. The Book of Revelation, referring to the New Jerusalem, which is an image of heaven, says, “And the city has no need of Sun or Moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb” (21:23). This suggests that the kind of light that Sun and Moon shed—physical light, made up of electromagnetic waves—will no longer be present because no longer needed. Those in heaven will not need to find their way by such light, as they did in this physical universe; and that would seem to imply that they will have no physical need for such things as retinas, optic nerves, and so forth. Their only Light shall be God himself, “For in Thy light shall we see light” (Ps 36:9).

Nor will physical food and the organs and processes of digestion be needed to provide physical energy. St. Paul tells the Corinthians that “’Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,’ and God will destroy both one and the other.” He then immediately goes on to talk about the body’s role in communion: “The body is meant . . . for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1 Cor 6:13-15).

Those in heaven will need no physical food, for their food will be Christ. Not earthly bread, but the Word that “proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4; Sir 24:3). In his Confessions, St. Augustine recounts a mystical experience he and his mother St. Monica shared at Ostia shortly before her death, where they both ascended in spirit and had a glimpse of “that region of never-failing plenty, where Thou feedest Israel for ever with the food of truth.” The food of truth is, of course, Christ himself, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. 

Nor will the reproductive functions of the body be needed, for, as Jesus told the Sadducees, who were arguing against the resurrection of the dead based on their overly physicalist conception of it, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30). Of course, the fact that certain bodily parts and functions that are needed in this life to deal with the challenges imposed by physical “corruptibility” will no longer be needed for that purpose in the next life does not necessarily imply that they will not be present or serve other purposes. Their roles, in that case, would no longer be so much physical and biological, but would subserve the purpose of interpersonal communion. 

Moreover, none of this is to say that resurrected bodies, because less “physical” in a certain sense will be somehow wispy, etherealized, and less real than our bodies in this life. If anything, our corporeality in the next life will be more real, more substantial, and our present forms will seem ethereal in comparison to it—to use St. Paul’s words, as a mere “tent” compared to a solid “building”:

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling—if indeed, when we have taken it off we will not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life . . . So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord (2 Cor 5:1-6).

The Glory of Heaven

A common argument—which is very traditional, and thus very weighty—is that we have a fairly good idea what resurrected bodies will be like, as we have descriptions of how Christ’s resurrected body appeared to the disciples. That is true; and that body certainly was very physical—the resurrected Christ ate fish with the disciples; they saw him with their eyes and heard him with their ears; and he invited doubting Thomas to put his hand into his pierced side. But, of course, Christ had to appear to the disciples in a physical way if they were to be witnesses to his resurrection, as they were still living in this physical universe and could only perceive him with physical senses. This raises the question of whether what the disciples were capable of witnessing in this way was the full reality of resurrected bodies as they shall be in the world to come. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in section 659, suggests otherwise:

But during the forty days when he [the resurrected Christ] eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity. Jesus's final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God's right hand.

What the redeemed shall have in the world to come is bodies that have “entered into divine glory.” As St. Paul told the Philippians, “He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself” (Phil 3:21). What that will be like remains “veiled” from our sight.

There is a curious contrast between two post-Resurrection appearances of Christ, which may have some significance with respect to the two purposes of human bodily existence. Christ tells St. Thomas to touch him—indeed to put his finger into the nail marks and his hand into his side; but he tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him: “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father” (Jn 20:17). Perhaps the difference was in what they were seeking. Thomas was seeking mere physical proof of a physical body. He was the prototypical scientific skeptic! But Mary was seeking something far more profound: communion with her Lord. But the level of communion she was seeking had to await Christ’s ascension. 

We are left then with “a great mystery,” as St. Paul told us. One of the striking features of the New Testament is that we are not tantalized with descriptions of heaven in terms of earthly delights, as in the numerous, sensuous (not to say sensual) descriptions of paradise given to Muslim believers in the Quran. The New Testament is remarkably reticent on the details of the next life. One might have expected otherwise, if believers were to be given added incentive, beyond the promise that they will be with God and participate in the divine life.

But, as St. Augustine said in the Confessions, even the “very highest delights of the earthly senses” are “not worthy of comparison” with “the sweetness of that life” or “even of mention.” We are told in Scripture that what awaits the redeemed in the world to come is far beyond our present capacity to fully understand or imagine: “What we will be has not yet been revealed” (1 Jn 3:2) and “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Cor 2:9).


Author

Stephen M. Barr

Stephen M. Barr is professor of physics and director of the Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware. He is the president of the Society of Catholic Scientists and author of bestselling books on science and religion such as Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame) and The Believing Scientist (Eerdmans).

EDITORIAL NOTE: This article is part of a collaboration with the Society of Catholic Scientists (click here to read about becoming a member). A version of this article with extensive foonotes is available here.

Image: Featured Image: Photo taken by Harro52 Fresco of the flattened dome ceiling in Wieskirche by Johann Baptist Zimmermann; Source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.

“THE JEWISH DIFFERENCE…” (Casey Chalk)

The Jewish Difference and the Difference It Makes

[I thought this essay from “The Catholic Thing” does an excellent job of explaining the difference between the Hebrew / Israelite understanding of prophet and God [YHWH] from those understandings present in surrounding pagan cultures. After all, the Jewish / Christian concept of God the Father comes from the name God [YHWH] gives to Moses when Moses encounters God in the burning bush in Exodus, Chapter 3.] LES

Casey Chalk

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2022

For those who do not come from a Christian background – and thus are likely to have little if any familiarity with the Old Testament – Judaism and the Jewish people must seem very odd indeed. Only Jews have a word designating prejudice against them: anti-Semitism. Though we speak of bigotry against others (blacks, Latinos, Irish, etc.), there’s no equivalent term in our public lexicon. Jews comprise only about 2.4 percent of the United States population but are renowned for their successes in every major profession – medicine, academia, law, media, entertainment. Undoubtedly, Judaism, the Jewish people, and even the State of Israel play an outsized role in our public square.

That might lead a gentile unfamiliar with the Bible or Jewish history to ask: What’s so special about the Jews? The answer is not a what, but a Who: namely, their God. It was YHWH – whose name was considered so holy it couldn’t be spoken – who determined to make the Jews “a people for his own possession.” (Deuteronomy 26:18). French theologian Louis Bouyer, in his classic book The Bible and the Gospel, helps us appreciate how it was the Jewish God and His relation to men that forever differentiated them – and later Christians – from the other ancient Mediterranean cultures.

First, there’s the character of the religion, often manifested by prophecies. The oracle of Apollo at Delphi offered its visitors “very practical and down-to-earth consultations,” with “formulas flexible enough not to be flatly contradicted by the facts.” At Delphi “no continuous line of development, no overall view of the history of the people or of the destiny of man can be discerned from among this disparate conglomeration of predictions and warnings.”

The Delphic oracle was slowly supplanted by mystery religions, some of which were imported from cultures in what are now Iraq and Iran. These cults were defined by strange initiation rites and oracles that focused not on divination of daily events, but on increasingly obscure hermetic revelations that Bouyer calls “banal abstractions.” Their practitioners sought to enter into a transcendent if indecipherable world.

Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, e.g., among the Canaanites or the Assyro-Babylonians, the words of the gods – who were typically associated with fertility, the elements, or the stars – were communicated by a professional class of prophets via bizarre, often incomprehensible messages. Innumerable local divinities could be exploited through “the bond of a quasi-magical alliance.” These covenants had a magical quality to them, assuring an individual or people that their god would provide material payments (e.g. abundant harvests, fertile fields, victory over enemies), which “formed the entire substance of the transaction.” Through the transaction, the god effectively becomes the property of the people.

Contrast this with how the God of Israel communicates with His people. The great Jewish prophets were not professional seers like those in other Mediterranean cultures. One early prophet, Amos, was a simple shepherd. “He belongs in no way to the world of what might be called professional prophets, who were methodical practitioners of an ecstasy uniting them by confused processes with a divinity no less confused, like the Pythia on her tripod, chewing the Delphic laurel.” Amos describes himself as “no prophet, nor a prophet’s son, but a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees.” (Amos 7:15)

Nor did the prophets approach God looking for some sign. “It is not man who takes the initiative in consulting YHWH. Nor is there any question of snatching from Him an answer,” writes Bouyer. Rather, it is YHWH who intervenes, contrary to the “intention, the foresight, the natural aspirations of man.” Jonah, for example, is called by God to preach to the wicked people of Nineveh. There is autonomy in YHWH’s oracles, which “contradicts all the impulsive views of Israel and even the inclinations of those very Israelites who were chosen to transmit it.” The themes are typically the absolute requirements of justice, the demand for repentance, or God’s infinite mercy.

Unlike the garbled, obscure messages of the Mediterranean gods, the God of Israel communicates with a “singular clarity, marked by an incomparable grandeur and an unequaled purity.” In His prophecies, there is consistency, richness, and reference to a history He controls. If the Jewish people do not cooperate with Him, the God who governs the past and future “will crush them as a worthless obstacle.” He declares: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2)

Unlike the localized nature of the fickle, malleable divinities, YHWH is “Master of all things, free in relation to His creation.” He “inhabits no house built by human hands, since the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him.” He is firmly sovereign over Himself and creation. It is Israel, not God, who is appropriated. He cannot be manipulated via repetitive incantations. “Do not trust in these deceptive words ‘This is the temple of the LORD! The temple of the LORD!’” (Jeremiah 7:4)

Israel’s God is not shackled to a quasi-magical contract, but exhibits “absolute freedom through an act of supreme generosity.” He declares: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you: For the world and all that is in it is mine: Do I eat the flesh of bulls? Or drink the blood of goats?” (Psalm 50:12-13) YHWH is no beggar. His eternal promises carry demands of an ethical and religious nature, transcending the materialist focus on fertility and power.

The result of all of this is a markedly different understanding of the divine. For the Jews, God is both fully transcendent and immanent. He cannot be controlled, but graciously descends to man and communicates in the intimate language of friend, father, and husband. His covenants are eternal. This, more than anything else, explains the Jewish difference: though the Jewish people have failed to recognize the fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises in the Incarnation, they remain a people peculiarly His own. Their survival and presence remind, us that whatever our own failings and disobedience, God’s promises remain secure.

 Casey Chalk is a contributor for Crisis Magazine, The American Conservative, and New Oxford Review. He has degrees in history and teaching from the University of Virginia and a master's in theology from Christendom College.

Image: God the Father by Pieter de Grebber, 1654 [Museum Catharijneconvent (St. Catherine’s Convent Museum) Utrecht, Netherlands]. This is the left section of Grebber’s God Inviting Christ to Sit on the Throne at His Right Hand: [That was the image referred to in the middle of the article; I suspect that this image below is the complete image. My ignorance is staggering! LES]

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: an Account

Strange things have been happening in my life lately; it occurs to me that I ought to try explain both for my own clarification (I have the feeling that I may be close to the end of my life) and because these things may be helpful to others [not otters!] who are close to me and for those others who also see life as a pilgrimage. My realization, in fact, where I began putting “things” together, more or less, occurred this morning after I spilled a new prescription of pills [90 + or minus; 88 actually], blood thinners, that had to be retrieved from virtually everywhere around and near me: bed, briefcase bag attached to bed, floor, under the bed, box of gelatien, gown, etc. I called my son-in-law, Bobby, who lives in another county. He came, crawled all over the floor for the little pink bastards, then counted them, without me asking, 88, though he discerned that I was anxious, to say the least. He also did a number of other things for me for which I am very grateful.

The oddness of the day—that something beyond the ordinary was going on and that I actually noticed—occurred a little later. Perhaps it would be as accurate to say that something “within and beyond” the ordinary was going on. For example, I have been interested in reading and writing about certain favorite poems: two by T.S. Eliot. (“Published below”); then Coleridge’s Kubla Khan , almost finished; still reading it and still thinking about it. One “entry” on the poem is published below; another with my comments is still in progress. The only really “odd” thing about all this literary activity is that I feel somewhat compelled to do it rather than to be reading one of the 3 or 4 mystery novels unread in my kindle. In fact my compulsion led me last night to read Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner, ha, the entire text! Well, the poem is wonderful; I have an art copy of it next to my bed with all of Gustave Dore’s illustrations. My friend and frequent visitor Fred got it out of the bookshelves for me the other day; I was going to read that copy but my hands do not work well enough to keep from damaging the beautiful text. I found a copy of the poem online, downloaded it, and read that instead. Wonderful! But I still hadn’t thought about the compulsion behind my desire to read and write about literature rather than read and do other “usual” things.

This morning after the pill accident I had a thought about the poem and the clear, explicit contrast with which the poem begins. On the one hand, we have a Wedding Guest going to a wedding that he was obliged or obligated to attend, being related to one of the couple being married. On the other hand, an Ancient Mariner has a compelling story to tell and, interestingly, a compulsion to tell it. My possible insight into the situation and meaning led me to look up Coleridge on the sometimes untrustworthy Wikipedia. I read the entire long entry for him; I was interested in his theology. He was essentially an Anglican though he had spent several years as a Unitarian. The thought that had occurred to me was that the entire poem presents us with a sacramental experience. Now I shall have to reread the poem, no hardship, to see what I see and experience. I still had not quite noticed the oddity of my behavior and the direction it was moving me.

I “felt” as though I needed a little more theology, so having just finished Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos I turned to Fa. Robert Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God. Not what I wanted, though interesting so far. I then remembered he had a quartet of books on somewhat elementary Catholic theology that might just be the thing. I went to Amazon, put in Spitzer’s name and came up with not only the quartet but a number of other interestingly titled books on evil, etc. I selected the first book in the 4 on Happiness and hauled it up—with a note at the top of the entry saying that I had purchased said book in 2017. I had no recollection of either buying it or reading it. I downloaded it and opened it. I apparently had at least tried it; it opened to Chapter 9, deep into the book, found two highlighted passages and nothing else. I turned to the beginning of the book and saw that it was really a book for beginners. Well, I certainly wasn’t a beginner, but I read his description of all four of the books, as well as his description of what was going on in this book. What I discovered was that the section on prayer, contemplation and the Holy Spirit was worth reading. At one point, his text sent me back to Chapter 6 and his section on the Eucharist. I also found Chapters 7, 8, and 9 spiritually helpful. Chapters 7 and 8 deal with “Contemplation in Action” (7) and Prayer in relation to contemplation. What was useful and helpful was his reliance on Saint Ignatius of Loyola and his spiritual exercises, especially his section on the “Discernment of Spirits,” as well as what Spitzer himself had to say about the Holy Spirit. The following quote is his introduction to Chapter 8:

“Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to help us deepen our relationship with Him, live our faith, and share the gospel with others. When I was a young man, I was somewhat unimpressed by the power of the Holy Spirit because I had not really noticed it in my life; however, today, after almost forty years of discipleship in the Society of Jesus, I can personally attest that the remarkable power of the Holy Spirit is one of the most obvious manifestations of the divinity of Jesus in my life. I will address the two primary ways in which the Spirit will manifest Himself in the lives of most readers who have given themselves to Jesus: inspiration and guidance. In order to do this well, it will be essential to give a brief overview of Saint Ignatius Loyola’s Rules for the Discernment of Spirits, so this chapter will be divided into three parts: (1) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, (2) discernment of spirits, and (3) the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

It was in his section on the “Rules for the Discernment of Spirit” that it finally occurred to me what was going on in my own life. My to me odd (I noticed that from time to time) and somewhat compulsive behavior was the presence of “something else,” the Holy Spirit, working in and through my life. I used to complain that the Father and the Son were understandable but that I never understood or felt the presence of any divine Holy Spirit moving in my life. Earlier today I read Spitzer on evidence for the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit in one’s life:

“The most important rule is the following: if a particular spiritual idea, decision, or direction leads in the long term to an increase in faith, hope, and love, it very probably is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but if it leads to a decrease in faith, hope, and love, it probably comes from an evil spirit. The rationale for this is clear: the Holy Spirit would never lead a person away from faith, hope, and love (in the long term) any more than an evil spirit would want to lead anyone toward them. This would be contrary to the nature of the Holy Spirit and the Evil One.”

It was at this point that I began to consider more carefully my own behavior and the works I was reading and the works I was writing about. All of the things I had been doing were different from the things that I usually do which suggested the presence of the work of the Holy Spirit as Spitzer and Saint Ignatius described it. This entry is not an attempt to convince anyone else of that presence, only to clarify for myself one of the aspects of my long ago conversion to Christianity that I am now beginning to understand. I find that rather exciting.
Another aspect that Spitzer asserts is that for him this aspect of his experience is evidence for the reality of Jesus in his life:

”Jesus…makes an unconditional promise to His disciples that the Holy Spirit will inspire them, particularly in times of challenge and persecution: “[D]o not be anxious about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Mt 10:19-20). Jesus extends this promise to all of life’s situations, and speaks of the Spirit teaching us all that we need for a life of faith: “[T]he Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn 14:26). I have had these promises validated in my life hundreds of times. Every time I write a book or an article, I begin with a vague or general idea that suddenly turns into a very clear, detailed tractate, expressing ideas and wisdom far beyond my own.”

What this book which took me five years to find and read made me realize is that it’s no wonder I have lived to be this old, for I am frequently too dense to see and understand what is truly present before me and within me. Now that I think about what I felt when I was watching American Gods I have a way of putting that into perspective too. There was much that was good about the series; however, over all there was also something very wrong about the entire series too, which might just account for the feelings of disgust and unpleasantness I felt many times throughout and after the series was finished.

Well, since I have the rest of Chapter 8 to read in Spitzer, as well as Chapter 9, there is no telling what further knowledge and insights I just might acquire. Of course, seeing how long it took me to get here, there is no telling how long I might have to live to gain that final, perhaps, necessary insight before God takes me home.

Image: Notre Dame in Paris. It felt as though it belonged there or rather here.

GOOD FRIDAY: FA. S. WHITE, O.P.

Father Sebastian White, o.p.

April is the cruelest month,” wrote T. S. Eliot in the oft-quoted opening line of the poem The Waste Land. Being more of a dilettante than a scholar when it comes to English literature, I will not attempt a complete analysis of that long and at times impenetrable work—which, it is generally agreed, expresses the near-despair that was felt after the first World War in Europe by those who would come to be known as “the Lost Generation.” (In any event, I prefer Four Quartets—even longer and plenty cryptic, but written after Eliot’s conversion to Christianity and containing a lot of rich theological imagery.) 

The beginning of The Waste Land is memorable though—hauntingly so. With “the burial of the dead,” it appears hope is buried too. Despite the indications of life that arise in springtime, the narrator feels, we inhabit a “dead land.” In comparison, a wintry numbness seems preferable: “Winter kept us warm, covering/ Earth in forgetful snow.” Now we see nothing but “a heap of broken images.”

The remembrance of mercy

This year, as is often the case, April is the month when we enter into Holy Week, remembering the Passion of our Lord in all its detail. In doing so, the Church effectively reminds us that it is precisely because a fierce war has been waged (and won) that hope springs eternal, that life springs eternal. 

If there is some truth, then, in saying April is the cruelest month—and the slaughter of the meek and innocent Lamb of God is cruel if anything ever was—from another perspective April is the sweetest month. “Sweetest wood and sweetest iron, sweetest weight is hung on thee” we sing on Holy Thursday in Aquinas’ beautiful hymn, Pange Lingua Gloriosi. And as we’ll hear in the first reading on Good Friday: Because he surrendered himself to death, he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.

Seventeen centuries ago, Saint Athanasius captured why this most cruel event was glorious as well. His words remain as fresh as ever:

All bend their knees at this Holy Name, and acknowledge that the Incarnation and cruel death of the Son of God, instead of derogating from, do rather lead to the glory of God the Father. For it is indeed to the glory of the Father, that humanity, created and afterwards lost, should be found again; and should be snatched from death and given life once more, and should become the very temple of God. For this would not have happened unless he, who is in the form of God, had taken upon himself the form of a servant, and had been pleased to humble himself to suffer the cruel death of the cross.

After the fall, the entire human race was the lost generation: lost in sin, lost to the happiness attained only in friendship with God. In Jesus, however, the words of the merciful father in the story of the prodigal son can apply to each of us: let us celebrate with a feast, because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found. In Jesus, we have become the found generation.

We must never forget, then, what was accomplished for us on a certain Friday two thousand years ago: cruelty was overcome by love, and the burial of a dead Man was the burial of death itself. 

The presence of mercy 

Yet, for all of this emphasis on recollection, the Church also teaches that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, “Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present” (CCC 1104). Consequently, as Cardinal John O’Connor once explained, Holy Week is “not a stage show, not simply a memorial of something that took place two thousand years ago. Our divine Lord spiritually and mysteriously is present once again in the power generated by his sufferings.” 

This means that even today the sacrificial love of Christ that was consummated on Calvary is poured out upon us. The historical event of his Passion occurred in a particular place at a particular time, but the interior oblation of his heart lives eternally. Year in and year out—day in and day out, in fact—we unite ourselves to the saving Passion of the Lord in the liturgy of the Church. And as we endure our own “passions”—the sufferings and trials that each of us faces—we know that he is with us. Importantly, we can also entrust to Jesus the circumstances of our own death, whenever it will come, hoping to share in his resurrection.

We call this Friday good

One of the other famous lines from The Waste Land is “I will show you fear in a handful of dust,” an allusion to the traditional funerary practice of tossing a handful of dirt into the grave as a casket is being lowered. The words we heard on Ash Wednesday also come to mind: “Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.” 

Put simply, a handful of dust evokes the fragility and impermanence of human life, which is fearful indeed without the light of faith and the promise of the resurrection. The antidote to fear in a handful of dust is found in the open hand of the Savior: a pierced hand, a hand full of love, full of life. 

Since I mentioned earlier the Four Quartets, allow me to conclude by quoting some of its most moving lines: “The dripping blood our only drink,/ The bloody flesh our only food…/ in spite of that, we call this Friday good.”

Yes, this Friday is good indeed, for the waste land of a world broken by sin is now a fruitful garden, bearing the Tree of Life.

NEW STUFF: SIMON

Simon Too has been in the hospital with me, and now that I’m home in my hospital bed, he sits in my room either beside or in my bed or somewhere on my metal bedside tray. Last night he was on the tray over the bed looking down at me with his glassy plastic eyes and imitation leather nose. He has the same colors that real Simon had, black and brown, though over time, 13 years, real Simon turned gray in places.
I have well over 40 photos of Simon in one of my photo albums, and one image of him peering out at me from inside a pink blanket on my iPad Home Screen, or whatever it is called. In any case he is always there in one form or another so that I am always aware of his absence, “lent for a while.” I know. So was Biscuit, so was Pookie, so was Lancelot and Max and Buster and Hollie. So are Schuster and Chipper (AKA Cricket or Checkers). So are we all, yet we always seem to forget that and frequently behave badly. Dead man walking! Or in my case lying down or sitting. Dead man sitting.
And yet the world is such a lovely place that I got to see last Wednesday, on my way to and from the doctor, with all the yellow forsythia blossoms and the white Bradford pear blooms, etc. And the clouds, as so frequently, were magnificent, whisks of defiant moisture or ice or thick masses of such moved about above us by the wind.

Simon in Miniature

I have a little dog named “Simon Too”;

He’s filled with plastic pellets through and through.

His coat is polyester black and brown;

I hide him in my bed under my gown.

He has a big nose that I’ve grown to love;

And never tries to oust me with a shove!

Small Simon Too is all that’s left behind;

Real Simon’s left now only in my mind,

And in my sad and sorely troubled heart

Wherein the little guy still plays his part.

Thanks for the gift I surely would outlast

And all good memories from a happy past!

Amen

Image: there he is, looking somewhat put upon, having me hold my iPad pointing at him for the picture. The wooden thing in the picture is a cheap little tray that snaps on the arm of the chair. Simon always sat beside me on the large chair until I was taken to the hospital. With gangrene and wounded feet. Simon couldn’t move his hind legs, two years; I couldn’t walk. Still can’t very well. Sometimes I just want to have him beside me again for the flesh and blood contact, the physical touch. Amen!

Clouds: image from Johanna

”Simon Too”

POPE FRANCIS ON GOD’S LOVE

I can’t say that I always appreciate and value Pope Francis, but I thought this quote (meditation) from him was good. I found it in Magnificat for today, March 31.

The second entry by Fr. Landry from The Catholic Thing is on the scriptural passage where the woman taken in adultery is hauled before Jesus. The two entries seem to go together nicely. LES

“The Testimony of the Father

Putting all else aside, I wish to speak about the one thing we should never keep quiet about. It is a message that all of us need constantly to keep hearing. The very first truth I would tell each of you is this: God loves you. It makes no difference whether you have already heard it or not. I want to remind you of it. God loves you. Never doubt this, whatever may happen to you in life. At every moment, you are infinitely loved. 

Perhaps your experience of fatherhood has not been the best. Your earthly father may have been distant or absent, or harsh and domineering. Or maybe he was just not the father you needed. I don’t know. But what I can tell you, with absolute certainty, is that you can find security in the embrace of your heavenly Father, the God who first gave you life and continues to give it to you at every moment. He will be your firm support….

In God’s word, we find many expressions of his love. It is as if he tried to find different ways of showing that love, so that, with one of them at least, he could touch your heart. For example, there are times when God speaks of himself as an affectionate father who plays with his children: I led them with cords of compassion, with bands of love. I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks (Hos 11:4). At other times, he speaks of himself as filled with the love of a mother whose visceral love for her children makes it impossible for her to neglect or abandon them: Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you (Is 49:15). He even compares himself to a lover who goes so far as to write his beloved on the palm of his hands, to keep her face always before him: See, I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands! (Is 49:16). At other times, he emphasizes the strength and steadfastness of his invincible love: For the mountains may depart, and the hills be shaken, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be shaken (Is 54:10). Or he tells us that we have been awaited from eternity, for it was not by chance that we came into this world: I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you (Jer 31:3). Or he lets us know that he sees in us a beauty that no one else can see: For you are precious in my sight, and honored, and I love you (Is 43:4). Or he makes us realize that his love is not cheerless, but pure joy welling up whenever we allow ourselves to be loved by him: The Lord, your God, is in your midst, a warrior who gives victory. He will rejoice over you with gladness, he will renew you in his love; he will exult over you with loud singing (Zeph 3:17).

Pope Francis

His Holiness Pope Francis was elected to the See of Saint Peter in 2013. / Christus Vivit, # 111-114, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. Used with permission of the Libreria Editrice Vaticana. www.vatican.va.”

SECOND ENTRY: from The Catholic Thing

(John 8: 1-11)

Fr. Roger Landry

SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2022

In a dozen countries, there remains a death penalty for adultery and, in several others, mob justice inflicts it extra-judicially.

Most people in “civilized” countries find this shocking. That someone should suffer consequences, not to mention ruthless punishment, for presumably consensual sexual activity – involving only “private” action that supposedly doesn’t injure or impact anyone else – seems ethically outrageous.

The same condemnation by modern sensibilities normally accompanies the discovery of the Levitical imperative, “If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev 20:10) People ask, “How could a merciful God have allowed this?” – even just for a time, not to mention commanded it.

Such a question, however, often betrays a lack of seriousness about the harm of sin in general and the damage of adultery in particular. How can we be soft with regard to what led to Jesus’ crucifixion? How can we be indulgent with regard to the infidelity that ruptures a covenant of love with a spouse and with God, and that severs so many families?

Today 22 percent of American men and 14 percent of U.S. women admit in surveys they have engaged in extramarital affairs during their marriage, percentages that shame and fear likely deflate. Many more, who have not committed adultery in the flesh,  commit regularly what Jesus labeled “adultery in the heart” (Mt 5:28) through pornography use, frequently with similarly seismic results to their marriages and families.

That’s why it’s important for us to slow down and ponder why some societies have retained capital punishment for adultery and, more importantly, why God would have commanded it: it’s so that people might learn the gravity of the sin by the severity of the penalty.

That gravity has never changed. Neither, in reality, has the punishment: there is still a death penalty, indeed an eternal one, associated with the sin of adultery, which is why we call such a sin “mortal.” When committed with knowledge and deliberate consent, adulterers experience death in their soul, by choosing to cut themselves off from the Lord of life.

And as God has revealed to us through the prophets Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel, every serious sin is analogous to adultery, since it breaks the spousal covenant of love we have entered with God.

That makes Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in the very act of adultery highly personal for every one of us. It is a real-life illustration of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, starring someone living a dissolute life, several stone-carrying “older brothers,” and God – who, rather than condemn, reconciles and restores.

Even though none of us, by God’s mercy, has probably had our sins humiliatingly revealed before the crowds like a modern Hester Prynne, each of us has indeed “greatly sinned. . .by [our]. . .own most grievous fault” and constant public confession. We have caught ourselves red-handed in sins against love of God and found ourselves exposed before Him.

Yet even though, with His sinless mother, He was the only one who fully merited to cast a stone, He rather took the stones, the nails, and punishment merited by us and suffered the death penalty so that we wouldn’t have to.

The woman caught in adultery, without realizing it, was ultimately dragged not before a sympathetic arbiter whom her accusers were similarly trying to entrap, or a gallant rabbi who would sagaciously save her life, but before the loving spouse of her soul against whom she and her partner were cheating.

And He responded not with justified anger, or with cold justice, but as he promised He would through Hosea: not condemning her, not permitting her to die as her deeds deserved, but restoring her to the marital bond.

“Neither do I condemn you,” He told her. “Go and sin no more.”

Elsewhere in St. John’s Gospel, Jesus underlined that he had come not to condemn but so that the world might be saved through him. (Jn 3:17) He had come to forgive and fortify, to defend and deliver, to ransom and reunite. Out of love, He would hand himself over to death for his bride, to sanctify and cleanse her, so that she might no longer cavort with lusters but live holy and without blemish in faithful love. (Eph 5:26-27)

And that’s what Jesus seeks to do to each of us sinners who drag ourselves before Him in the temple area.

Preaching on this scene nine years ago on the first Sunday of his papacy, Pope Francis declared, “God never tires of forgiving us. It’s we who tire of asking for forgiveness.” And he prayed, “May we never tire of asking for what he never tires to give.”

The Divine Bridegroom indeed never ceases to love His bride with cleansing mercy, which He lavishly dispenses in the most precious one-on-one dialogue in life. He hopes that we will never cease to trust in that spousal love and its restorative power.

In the midst of a harsh world that seeks to accuse, summarily condemn, and kill, He wants to forgive, save and give life. In response to the eternal death penalty due to adultery, He seeks through mercy to give eternal life and bring us to the eternal nuptial banquet.

That makes His dismissal, “Go and sin no more,” not just a summons to grateful love, but a motivation to try to “drag” before Him as many as we can to receive the same life-giving fresh start.

Father Roger J. Landry, a priest of the Diocese of Fall River, MA, is a papally-appointed Missionary of Mercy and ecclesiastical assistant to Aid to the Church in Need USA.


Image: 2014 Pastoral Visit of Pope Francis to Korea Closing Mass for Asian Youth Day August 17, 2014 Haemi Castle, Seosan-si, Chungcheongnam-do [Que Susto!] LES

Image: The Woman Taken in Adultery by Rembrandt, 1644 [National Gallery, London]

COLERIDGE: KUBLA KHAN

Kubla Khan

[I had trouble copying the formatting from the website, but it is close now. Sometimes lines are separated more than they should be, but mostly this version of the poem is accurate. I’m not sure how the poem means yet, but I thought the essay that went with the poem was interesting and worth reading. If I discover a different way the poem works, or a different way of thinking about the poem, I shall open a new page instead of continuing here. Thus far the poem is a delightful mystery. LES]

BY SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE

Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment.

1.

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan

A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran

Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round;
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

2.

But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail:
And mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,

Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean;
And ’mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!
The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!

3.

A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight ’twould win me,
That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread
For he on honey-dew hath fed,

And drunk the milk of Paradise.


An introduction to Kubla Khan: or A Vision in a Dream

Article written by:Seamus PerryTheme:RomanticismPublished:15 May 2014

Dr Seamus Perry considers the composition and publication history of Kubla Khan, and explores how Coleridge transforms language into both image and music.

Coleridge’s famous and mysterious poem was written, probably, in the autumn of 1797. According to a note written at the bottom of the one manuscript that survives (it is in the British Library) Coleridge was taken ill at a farmhouse, presumably while out walking; and he took some opium to quell the pain. Opium has an exotic or transgressive tang to a modern reader, but it was the pain-killer freely available in Coleridge’s day: he didn’t take the drug to provoke a dream vision, but that (so he claims) is what happened, ‘in a sort of Reverie’.

The pleasure dome

What did he see? The short answer is, to begin with, an extraordinary piece of architecture, ‘A stately pleasure-dome’ (l. 2), which was built in the Mongolian summer capital by one of the great Emperors of ancient Tartary, Kubla, the grandson of Genghis Khan; but Coleridge’s interest does not seem especially drawn by the cruel despotism that would probably have been his reader’s first association. Coleridge’s Khan is a kind of artist, summoning into being with a God-like command not only the beauty of the pleasure-dome but the ordered loveliness of its cultivated gardens, full of sweet smells and tinkling streams, all sheltered from the outside world by robust ‘walls and towers’ (l. 7).

The natural history of Xanadu

The second verse then turns to picture that outside world, which it places in stark antithesis to the pleasures of the garden: ‘But oh!’ Outside, nature is exuberant, tumultuous, violent, ‘savage’, full of erotic feeling (‘woman wailing for her demon-lover’), and punctuated chiefly by exclamation marks (l. 12; l. 14; l. 16). The energy of the scene is superbly conveyed through breathless, on-running sentences, and the verse comes to a close with a vivid sense of that energy’s potential for destruction: ‘And ’mid this tumult Kubla heard from far / Ancestral voices prophesying war!’ (ll. 29–30). We learn no more about the character of this strange family curse, if that is what it is; but the mention is enough to cast some doubt on the survival of the pleasure-dome, a magnificent creation which now feels perhaps somewhat over-shadowed by the unruly splendour of the sublime scenery that surrounds it.
A miracle of rare device’

At this point Coleridge pulls off one of the great surprises of the poem: having set before us two antithetical territories of the imagination, he now finds a way of blending them together, as though a fuller kind of creativity should partake of both. The blending happens, not in the objective world, but within an act of consciousness: we are to imagine someone standing by the river, seeing the dome’s ‘shadow’ (which can mean ‘reflection’ at this period) on the water, and at the same time listening (‘Where was heard’) to the sound of the mighty fountain, which is its source, and the noise of the dark underground caverns into which it crashes (l. 31; l. 33). The opposing ingredients of the poem are brought together in ‘a miracle of rare device’ (‘device’ meaning ‘devising’, ‘inventing’): this act of artistry feels like it surpasses even what the mighty Khan had managed in the first verse (l. 35). Many years later Coleridge would describe how the imagination reveals ‘itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant qualities’[1], a view which his early poem seems to anticipate in more intuitively sensory terms.

A damsel with a dulcimer

But then the poem makes its second surprising turn: when it felt like it had done its dialectical business, miraculously synthesising opposites into reconciliation, it changes tack with an almost comic abruptness, introducing the ‘I’ of the poet for the first time. He imagines an enigmatic ‘damsel’, playing on a musical instrument, and singing about ‘Mount Abora’ or, as Coleridge originally had it, ‘Mount Amara’ (l. 37; l. 41). Like the poem at large, this is as much a lovely piece of word music as it is a gesture to a real geography; but it carries meaning too: Mount Amara was one of the candidates for the site of Paradise that Milton mentions in Paradise Lost (Book 4, l. 283); and the thought of Eden, once set loose in the poem, now casts its retrospective influence on our sense of the fragility of Kubla’s walled garden. The damsel is a figure of poetic inspiration, but her powers are evoked here only to be felt missing: were she to sing, the poet would then be able to recreate the dome and its landscape; but the conditional mood of the lines (‘Could I …’, ‘I would …’) conveys this to be a wish rather than any realised achievement (l. 42; l. 46). The troubled reception his possible act of creation would gain is very striking, and suggests one last bursting out of the disruptive energies which the poem, like the Khan, has struggled to restrain: the hypothetical audience treats the inspired poet as a danger, best kept within the safety zone of the woven circle.

So, Coleridge ends his poem on an unexpectedly ambiguous note, with the triumphant act of creativity that we might reasonably have thought we had just witnessed turning out to be deferred to another day and more propitious circumstances. Coleridge’s attitude towards his ‘Kubla Khan’ is correspondingly hard to pin down. He did not print the poem for years, and when finally he did publish it, in 1816, he added a preface which described it as a mere ‘psychological curiosity’ and told an elaborate story about its composition. The poem, he says, was inspired by a sentence from the Renaissance historian Samuel Purchas: ‘Here the Khan Kubla commanded a palace to be built, and a stately garden thereunto. And thus ten miles of fertile ground were inclosed with a wall’. (What Purchas actually wrote was closer to the poem: ‘In Xamdu did Cublai Can build a stately palace, encompassing sixteene Miles of Plaine ground with a wall …’.) The poem arises magically unbidden in Coleridge’s sleep (‘all the images rose up before him as things’); and upon waking he begins to transcribe what his inward eye had seen – at which point he is interrupted by a tenacious ‘person on business from Porlock’ who detains him so long that when he gets back to his desk he has forgotten the rest. It is a great piece of mythmaking, and in its funny and rueful way, it rehearses the note of incomplete creativity that the poem will generate much more charismatically. But is the poem itself really unfinished? It is hard to think of a poem that sounds more utterly completed when we arrive at its last lines (‘And drank the milk of Paradise’); but then, as the distinguished scholar John Beer once remarked, ‘One can continue a poem in the middle ... as well as at the end’.[2]

[A] work by Samuel Purchas (1625) was the source for Coleridge’s information about Xanadu, ‘Xamdu’ in Purchas’s text. The book describes the flora, fauna and architecture of the palace and its grounds.

Footnotes

[1] Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Biographia Literaria (1817), chapter 14.

[2] John Beer, Coleridge the Visionary (London: Chatto & Windus, 1959), p. 275.

Written bySeamus Perry

Seamus Perry is a Fellow of Balliol College and an Associate Professor in the English Faculty, University of Oxford. He is the author of books and articles about, among others, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Tennyson, Matthew Arnold, T S Eliot, and W H Auden.

The text in this article is available under the Creative Commons License.

[At line 24 in the second image, the page from the text, you can read the passage Coleridge used or borrowed from. Having worked through the poem myself, to be published later, I find Perry’s analysis compelling, for the most part, though I am not sure he is completely right about what is taking place in the poem. LES]

ELIOT: THE CONVERSATION GALANTE with commentary

Conversation Galante

I observe: "Our sentimental* friend the moon!
Or possibly (fantastic, I confess)
It may be Prester John's balloon
Or an old battered lantern hung aloft
To light poor travellers to their distress."
She then: "How you digress!"

And I then: "Some one frames upon the keys
That exquisite nocturne
, with which we explain
The night and moonshine; music which we seize
To body forth our vacuity."
She then: "Does this refer to me?"
"Oh no, it is I who am inane."

"You, madam, are the eternal humorist,
The eternal enemy of the absolute,
Giving our vagrant moods the slightest twist!
With your air indifferent and imperious
At a stroke our mad poetics to confute—"
And—"Are we then so serious?"

critical comment:

First it is important to note the physical context of the situation in the poem. Essentially, we have a man and a desirable woman presumably on a balcony outside a room wherein someone is playing a little night music, an “exquisite nocturne.” Above the man and the woman is presumably the full moon. Seeing the poem from the inside, we have two perspectives: the man, it seems, is trying to talk the woman into a sexual relationship by denying meaning to the setting, the moon and the music, and thus by extension to their (sexual) relationship.

In the first stanza, for example, his observations try to deny any real, inherent romantic meaning in the moon. His language and images are all reductive: from “sentimental friend,” to the legendary and thus “fantastic,” unreal and religiously reductive “Prester John’s balloon,” to “an old battered lantern hung aloft”: the final image is smallest and most dangerous from the man’s perspective: “to light poor travelers to their distress.” If we believe in the real romantic emotions (love) inspired by the presence of the moon [as in the Merchant of Venice, for example], not sentimental feelings, a relationship could just be a disaster and lead to unhappiness. Those affected are already in trouble, “poor travelers,” and thus he has tried to deny meaning to the situation, and of course relationships.

The woman, however, is no fool and sees what the man is doing; therefore, she responds appropriately, cuts to the chase, immediately, reducing his language to its underlying intent: “How you digress!” She sees what he is doing, trying to put out the beautiful, meaningful light of the moon, instead of talking about his real desire which is for her. The really clever and interesting thing she does here is lock in a poetic union by rhyming his poetic “distress” with her “digress.” [Notice how the rhyme scheme works throughout his poem]. On the one hand a possible real relationship (unity) is suggested by her three precise word analysis of his language, rhyming with his verbiage (34 words). He is trying to turn the real meaning of human presence [Buber’s I—Thou] into a violation of that meaning, making her an object of his desire [Buber’s I—It]. If the woman is merely an object, an IT, as he would have her, then the troublesome possibility of respect and love (THOU) will not enter in to cause any real distress, for him! Her real insight is reinforced in her using his poetic form to make him face his real failure to take her intelligence, her transcendent being, seriously, forcing him to respond, defend his behavior, and continue his “attack” from a different perspective or direction.

In the second stanza he attempts to diminish the meaning of the beautiful music, “that exquisite nocturne,” which leads him to admit his own nonsense, “moonshine” suggests it and “our vacuity” makes it clear; she doesn’t miss the pronoun though that attempts to implicate her in his own emptiness, for she immediately responds, “Does this refer to me ?” At that point the would-be lover is forced to admit his own folly: “Oh no, it is I who am inane.” He denies that the emptiness applies to her and that his perspective is essentially that of a fool.

Having confessed his folly, however, he attacks her substantial presence and perspective by pretending (I think) to be outraged. He accuses her, now “madam,” of making fun of him and waxes stupidly rhetorical until she cuts in with the question that will force the relationship to a new level, or end it completely: “Are we then so serious?” A good romantic relationship involves humor and serious respect. Again, good art is transformational, and this short, delightful poem, good art, leads to that moment where he must truly decide the real nature of their relationship.

There is an English Renaissance poem by—hmm—Sir Thomas Wyatt that begins, I think, “they flee from me that sometime did me seek.” I seem to remember the same kind of thing happening in that poem, forcing another human situation to a new understanding.

Ah well, maybe some day, should I live long enough, I may try Ash Wednesday, or one of the Four Quartets, or something else entirely. Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner stands across from my hospital bed downstairs, and I keep having the urge to reread it. Perhaps I shall give that a try.

I haven’t proofed much of this entry yet, but I think I will send it out there anyway; who knows, I might die tonight. At least after supper, I hope, if it must be. Ha! LES

NOTES:

,*sentimental:

“of a work of literature, music, or art) dealing with feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia, typically in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way.”

"a sentimental ballad”


*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Prester John (LatinPresbyter Johannes) was a legendary Christian patriarch, presbyter, and king. Stories popular in Europe in the 12th to the 17th centuries told of a Nestorian patriarch and king who was said to rule over a Christian nation lost amid the pagans and Muslims in the Orient.[1]: 28  The accounts were often embellished with various tropes of medieval popular fantasy, depicting Prester John as a descendant of the Three Magi, ruling a kingdom full of riches, marvels, and strange creatures.

At first, Prester John was imagined to reside in India. Tales of the Nestorian Christians' evangelistic success there and of Thomas the Apostle's subcontinental travels as documented in works like the Acts of Thomas probably provided the first seeds of the legend. After the coming of the Mongols to the Western world, accounts placed the king in Central Asia, and eventually Portuguese explorers came to believe that they had found him in Ethiopia.”

*from the poetry website, or somewhere thereabouts. An awful photo though!

ELIOT: THE HIPPOPOTAMUS: poem and commentary by Dr. Tearle and me!

Every time I save the poem it throws off the stanza form though the form is fine before I save it. Well, I have the feeling I have quoted the poem before and maybe even discussed it. In any case here we go again. Perhaps! Ah, I believe that I have fixed the format problem.

Got it this time. I love this poem. I copied a (somewhat typical?) critical analysis from the poetry website and then way down below added my own (more brilliant—ha) critical thoughts.

THE HIPPOPOTAMUS

by: T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)

    • THE broad-backed hippopotamus

    • Rests on his belly in the mud;

    • Although he seems so firm to us

    • He is merely flesh and blood.

    • Flesh-and-blood is weak and frail,

    • Susceptible to nervous shock;

    • While the True Church can never fail

    • For it is based upon a rock.

    • The hippo's feeble steps may err

    • In compassing material ends,

    • While the True Church need never stir

    • To gather in its dividends.

    • The 'potamus can never reach
      The mango on the mango-tree;

    • But fruits of pomegranate and peach

    • Refresh the Church from over sea.


    • At mating time the hippo's voice

    • Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,

    • But every week we hear rejoice

    • The Church, at being one with God.


    • The hippopotamus's day

    • Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;

    • God works in a mysterious way--

    • The Church can sleep and feed at once.

    • I saw the 'potamus take wing

    • Ascending from the damp savannas,

    • And quiring angels round him sing

    • The praise of God, in loud hosannas.


    • Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean

    • And him shall heavenly arms enfold,

    • Among the saints he shall be seen

    • Performing on a harp of gold.


    • He shall be washed as white as snow,

    • By all the martyr'd virgins kist,

    • While the True Church remains below

    • Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

"The Hippopotamus" is reprinted from Poems. T.S. Eliot. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1920.

A SAMPLE of critical comment; my comments follow Dr. Tearle’s comments, probably:

“The ‘quatrain’ poems which make up all but one of the English poems in Poems (the volume also contains a few poems written in French) were inspired by the French example of Théophile Gautier (1811-72), whose volume Émaux et Camées Eliot had been encouraged to read by Ezra Pound. The hard, sculptured feel to these quatrain poems was the result of Pound’s influence: this precise and controlled kind of poetic form was something which Pound thought Eliot could work with to good effect.

“In summary, the poem is an extended comparison between the hippopotamus and the Christian church, both ‘weighty’ things, albeit in very different ways, one literal and the other theological. This argument, presented in polished quatrains rhyming abab, is offered in plain terms but we must not take it at face value. For, whilst the majority of the poem weighs up the hippo and the Church, with the church coming out on top, ultimately it is the hippo that ascends to heaven – despite its considerable bulk – while the Church remains on earth, apparently unworthy of a place in heaven after all.

“Why? Because the Church is corrupt and out for its own ends, while the hippopotamus is innocent of such corruption. The hippo may be associated with laziness, lying in the mud all day; but it has a simple existence, trying to feed itself when it isn’t asleep. By contrast, Eliot tells us, the Church can sleep and feed itself at the same time. This is offered, on the face of it, as a virtue, but it is ironic – because others donate food and wealth to the Church, the implication is that the Church has done nothing to deserve such donations, and gives nothing back. The hippopotamus cannot reach the mango up on the mango-tree, but the Church can dine on exotic fruits from overseas because of its vast imperial power and its colonisation of other lands. This is presented as an argument in favour of the awesome might of the Church, but it leaves us feeling sorry for the hippo, and viewing the Church as rather greedy and exploitative.

“Every one of T. S. Eliot’s polished quatrains has the same double-edged meaning, which is reminiscent of the speech from Mark Antony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, which ostensibly praises Brutus as an ‘honourable man’, but subtly and cleverly undermines this by drawing attention to the fact that the things Brutus has done, which the Roman people perceive as honourable, are actually anything but. Eliot’s ‘argument’ in ‘The Hippopotamus’, similarly, is deliberately offered to us as specious and flawed: the hippopotamus may be ‘merely’ flesh and blood, in contrast with the Church which was ‘based upon a rock’, but this line itself reveals the speciousness of the argument being offered. It’s an allusion to Jesus’ words from the Gospel of Matthew: ‘And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (16:18). The ‘rock’ on which the Church was founded was, in fact, a pun on the name of Peter – very much a man of flesh and blood.
“At the end of the poem, the hippopotamus ascends to heaven while the Church remains here on earth – engulfed by the very same ‘miasmal mist’ that the hippo formerly sat beneath. Yet Eliot’s excessively comical images – of the hippo playing the harp, for instance – render the conceit ridiculous, bordering on the surreal. Any analysis of this poem must address this comicality: does it render Eliot’s ‘argument’ frivolous? Or does it underscore the extent to which the heavy, cumbersome hippo is still nevertheless more likely to be lifted up to heaven than the corrupt, grasping church?”

The author of this article, Dr Oliver Tearle, is a literary critic and lecturer in English at Loughborough University. He is the author of, among others, The Secret Library: A Book-Lovers’ Journey Through Curiosities of History and The Great War, The Waste Land and the Modernist Long Poem.

STARTZMAN’S COMMENTS: it seems to me that Dr. Tearle almost gets the clues to the meaning of the poem, “the excessively comical images,” etc., but that he is caught between looking at the poem rather than looking from the poem, that is from the perspective of the narrator himself—not necessarily “Eliot.” Eliot is dead; the narrator lives before us in the poem, and I would argue that the real meaning (sigh, I know) of the poem is about the narrator and his flawed perspective, I am almost tempted to say his blindness.

The first six lines of the poem are the narrator’s attempt to define the hippopotamus, with the emphasis on “flesh and blood,” an image which also calls to mind our own humanity, as well as perhaps distantly suggesting the Eucharist. The phrase “flesh and blood” though specifically calls to mind that the hippo is not the only flesh and blood creature; so is humanity, I.e. man.

Just as the narrator uses “flesh and blood “ twice, he also uses the phrase “the True Church” twice in the beginning though it is clear that the narrator sees the Church as corrupt and much like a nasty parasite on flesh and blood or human life. It seems as though the narrator labors his comparisons and/or contrasts to make the Church deliberately look bad; his perspective is essentially satirical; the narrator is a secularist who apparently has no real use for the “corrupt grasping” Church—Anglican or Catholic, his “True Church.”

Dr. Tearle notices the comic nature of the final series of images regarding the hippopotamus; the question is how the narrator intends them and what is the effect of that intention? The narrator says “I saw the ‘potamus take wing/Ascending from the damp savannas.” Here, I believe, we see the narrator betray the poor, ungainly hippopotamus. The hippo sprouts wings? Imagine it! And flies upwards to be met by “quiring angels.” Something is wrong with the narrator’s imagination as he has labored his contrasts throughout the verse and now literally sends or puts the flesh and blood creature in Heaven where he is totally out of place.

If real art involves transformation, the transformation here is in the realization that the narrator has totally failed to see the real possibility inherent in his metaphors and language. Flesh and blood has no place in Heaven unless it has been transformed into the Body of Christ. The real agent of transformation on earth is the Church. On earth the hippopotamus/human self is shown by the narrator to be struggling and unsuccessful, while the Church as institution is quite successful. That one could criticize the Church is certainly true, but what the narrator does not see is that the Church as agent of transformation is exactly where it should be to be successful. And a flesh and blood hippopotamus with its huge foot would find it impossible to play on a harp of gold or any other substance. The essential ridiculousness or silliness thus reflects back on the narrator who has simply put the hippo where he doesn’t really belong as such. The real problem here then, once more, is in the narrator’s mind and imagination who has become the real ridiculous figure and worthy of our laughter. The narrator is the one truly transformed in this delightful work of art.

Image: A submerged hippo at Memphis Zoo, c. 2009, by Alexdi; via Wikimedia Commons.

ESOLEN ON CREATION

Getting Our Creation Wrong

Anthony Esolen

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2018
When the Pharisees came to Jesus to ask for what reasons a man might put away his woman, Jesus does not refer to the opinions of Hillel or Shammai, the titans of the previous generation of rabbis – the one liberal, the other conservative.  He goes even behind the law of Moses, which he says does not express the intention of the Creator from the beginning, but which was, in this matter, a concession to the hardness of men’s hearts.

“From the beginning of creation,” he says, echoing the first word of Scripture, “he made them male and female.  And for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his woman, and the two shall be one flesh.  So they are no more two, but one flesh.  Then what God has yoked together, let man not put asunder” (Mark 10:6-8; translation mine).  When the disciples, stunned, ask Jesus about it privately, he does not soften his judgment: “Whoever puts away his woman and marries another, commits adultery with her.”

That is as stunning a condemnation as you can find. The Greek verb moichaomai is used in the Septuagint to refer also to unfaithfulness to God, as in the worship of idols.  The association is common in the Old Testament.  If you worship Baal or Moloch or Dagon, you are like a man going after whores.

We must not think that the authors have in mind only an attitude of unfaithfulness.  Baal and Moloch and Dagon are not gods: they are not the Creator.  It is an offense to the Creator to worship them, and stupid to boot, because they are the works of man.  You might take a block of wood and carve an idol or a chamberpot; it does not matter to the wood.  You might take your idol and toss it into the fire to warm your fingers.  How stupid, to worship a thing like that!

To get creation wrong, to fall in adoration of your chamberpot, is as filthy a thing, then, as to go a-whoring, and as stupid and self-destructive; but to go a-whoring, which is what Jesus says a man does when he puts away his woman and marries another, is to get creation wrong, and the Creator.

Here we see the apostasy of our time, tumescent and foolish, in broad daylight.

The Pharisees were seeking a good social custom. Jesus does not refer to custom. He refers to creation, and the intent of the Creator as manifest in the creation.  He points out the plain fact: we are made male and female, and male and female are what they are so that they will come together and become one flesh.

The word one and the idea it expresses are central to Jewish and Christian faith: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord, the Lord your God is one,” not two, and since that is so, we must love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, not parceling out our love, some to God, and some to Baal or the chamberpot. Because the Lord our God is one and not two, we must love our neighbor as ourself; the same God who made us made him too.

In none of this do we hear anything about a man’s feelings.  For we are not talking about interior dispositions, but about bodily beings, obvious to all.  The man is for the woman, the woman is for the man.  Indeed, there is no special word, in Hebrew or Greek, to denote “husband” and “wife,” because a man is to be a man for a woman, and a woman to be a woman for a man.

Many languages reflect that ontological fact: in German, a woman who refers to her “Mann” means her husband, and a man who refers to his “Frau,” his “woman,” means his wife.  Early modern English too: the word “wife” in “I now pronounce you man and wife” meant “woman” in the general sense; a “fishwife” is not the wife of a fish, but a woman who sells fish.

That being-for, in the mutuality of sexual distinction and sexual congress, is inscribed in the forms of our bodies. Every sexual sin is in some way an attack on the body and its objective meanings, which are conferred not by man but by God.

If I believe, however, that I am the one who endows my body with its meaning, even if I appeal to feelings over which I think I have no power, I have displaced the Creator.  Nowhere does Scripture suggest that God has created our passions, and nowhere does Jesus suggest that our passions are justified because we happen to have them.

To commit fornication, even with the best will in the world, is to deny the obvious, that the child-making thing is for making a child.  To commit adultery is to tear the one flesh in two.  To riffle through a porn magazine, one-handed, is to turn sex into a disembodied and lonely passion.

Sodom now forges the artillery of attack against the body created by God.  Soon it will be scientists in the grip of ennui and ambition, denying a meaning to “human,” and longing to merge us with the beast or the machine.

The intermediate term between Sodom and the Borg is the madness of the “transgender,” replacing natural sex with the mechanical and pharmaceutical, all to be dictated by the individual will, which says, as in all sins, “I am my own.”  Beneath it all lies a hatred of created reality.  It is either evil or meaningless, mere stuff for our manipulation.

Persons warrant our mercy, especially the sick, and who is sicker than a man at odds with his own body?  Principles, never.  Jesus never gave up one inch to an evil principle.  It is hard for us wretches to be both merciful with men and merciless with evil principles.  Too bad; it is our task.

*Image: The Kiss by Gustav Klimt, 1907-8 [Österreichische Galerie Belvedere, Vienna]

© 2022 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

WILSON on NAGEL


[an essay from the catholic thing]

A New Theism?

James Matthew Wilson

SATURDAY, MARCH 19, 2022

Just over a decade ago, a spate of books by the so-called New Atheists began to appear in bookstores. Their numbers, though not their contents, made it seem as if scientific rationalism and Darwinian materialism had at long last found the arguments necessary to beat back the forces of darkness and superstition. It turned out, however, there were no new arguments – just more severe floggings of old ones.

Less noticed at the time was a smaller number of books written by atheists or former atheists who did not aim, in the words of Pascal, to “prove God,” but who, by careful argument, showed the failure and inadequacy of rationalism and materialism alike. The philosopher Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (2012) was especially compelling.

Nagel proposes that the modern practice of “reducing” the world to its physical properties, to matter and energy, has failed. While certain scientific advances have been “made possible by excluding the mind from the physical world,” the exclusion itself is irrational. Materialists propose that the mind is a mere emergent property of matter, a “side effect of physical law.” But we have strong reasons to believe that mind is as much a “basic aspect of nature” as matter itself is. Mind is not a mere effect of material reality, but something other than it.

Nagel does not provide an alternative model, but settles for outlining why such a model is necessary and what it would have to explain. He observes that nature as a whole gives rise to mind as a fundamental feature. The appearance of mind is not incidental to the processes of Darwinian evolution, but rather plays an active role in it. And, further, science is “driven by the assumption that the world is intelligible” – knowable as true by the mind, and this intelligibility seems to be part of the explanation for why things are as they are.

He offers three further arguments for why nature must include a non-material mental dimension. First, our consciousness as a mental event cannot be experimentally reduced to physical events. Evolution includes the development of consciousness, and consciousness clearly plays a role in evolution, but materialism cannot explain consciousness. Therefore, nature and its evolutionary processes must not be merely material.

A second and stronger argument is cognition. If we are tempted to dismiss the experience of consciousness, it’s impossible to dismiss that our reason grasps truth. This grasp of truth cannot be reduced to the senses’ perception of this or that local situation, but rather comprehends general laws and an abstract perception of the orderliness of reality as a whole. Further, the capacity to know truth clearly plays a role in our models of evolutionary development; it is part of evolution not epiphenomenal.

One of the deliverances of cognition is to see that things act for ends. Nature has some sort of intention or purposefulness built into it. Things act for some good. If that is the case, then a third argument emerges. Value, or the perception of and direction toward good ends, must also be fundamental to nature because such directedness governs how nature operates. Nagel concludes that there must be a “cosmic predisposition to the formation of life, consciousness, and value that is inseparable from them.” Value is a fact of nature.

Nagel believes himself no theist and has confessed an aversion to the idea of God: “I don’t want the universe to be that way.” He tells us that theist and materialist accounts of the world are both “circular.” But the materialist account is also self-contradictory; it presumes we can have a universal mental account of nature even as it denies the reality of the mental.

Nagel’s rejects theism because it seeks to find the intelligibility of nature outside of nature rather than an intelligibility intrinsic to and within it. In this, he is correct in one respect and incorrect in another.

As the philosopher Hans Jonas once argued, the modern age came about when it inverted the fundamental, traditional assumptions of primitive cultures. The ancient world was “panvitalist.” It had an “ontology of life” that presumed all nature was living and purposeful and that death was the unusual fact demanding explanation. We modern people tend to be “panmechanistic.” We have an “ontology of death” that sees matter and its physical laws as constituting almost all of reality; the rare, strange presence of life is the vexing question. Many modern Christians share in materialism’s ontology of death.

When, in Human Generis, Pius XII affirmed that Darwinian evolution was plausible, he did so only for the origin of the human body. The soul must be “immediately created by God.” Pope Francis, in Laudato Si’, repeats this teaching: the emergence of personal being in the universe requires the “direct action of God.” In both cases, a mechanistic account of reality is taken to explain everything except for that strange presence of the human mind.

But Nagel and the Church are not so far apart as these isolated statements make it seem. They both in fact affirm Aristotle’s classical account of nature as structured by the intellectual principles of formal and final causality. Mind or intellect is present even in a rock as its “formal” principle, causing it to be the kind of thing that it is. Indeed this formal principle is the immediate act of the eternal God’s creation that causes all things – not just human minds – to exist. Nagel holds that formal and final causality are wholly present in nature. Christians simply affirm this as the effect of God’s simple, eternal act of creation, which is more fundamental to nature than nature is to itself.

The God in which Nagel disbelieves, only distantly related to the physical world, we also disbelieve. The God in which we believe explains why mind – his eternal logos – is not merely a fundamental fact of nature but the principle par excellence of reality itself.

A quote from Nagel’s MIND AND COSMOS: Chapter 4: “Cogniition” (85; kindle):

“This, then, is what a theory of everything has to explain: not only the emergence from a lifeless universe of reproducing organisms and their development by evolution to greater and greater functional complexity; not only the consciousness of some of those organisms and its central role in their lives; but also the development of consciousness into an instrument of transcendence that can grasp objective reality and objective value. Certain things can be assumed, if there is such a thing as reason. First, there are objective, mind-independent truths of different kinds: factual truths about the natural world, including scientific laws; eternal and necessary truths of logic and mathematics; and evaluative and moral truths. Second, by starting from the way things initially appear to us, we can use reason collectively to achieve justified beliefs about some of those objective truths—though some of those beliefs will probably be mistaken. Third, those beliefs in combination can directly influence what we do. Fourth, these processes of discovery and motivation, while mental, are inseparable from physical processes in the organism. It is trivially true that if there are organisms capable of reason, the possibility of such organisms must have been there from the beginning. But if we believe in a natural order, then something about the world that eventually gave rise to rational beings must explain this possibility….”

Image: Creation of the Animals by Tintoretto, c. 1551-52 [Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice, Italy]

[After reading Wilson’s essay several times, I decided that Nagel’s book sounded interesting; sometime ago I bought his VIEW FROM NOWHERE and can’t remember much about it at this point. In any case I am over halfway through the MIND AND COSMOS book, currently on the chapter called “Cognition” and would say that though I have to do some looking up and some rereading, the book is worth the effort. [see above] And it is only 137 pages. Ha! LES]

PSALMS & DESIRE #3

The first Psalm in the Psalter essentially defines two perspectives: that of the “Blessed,” the self whose heart is centered in the Lord, who as we saw in #139 is “closer to us than we are to ourselves,” (a quote either from Augustine or Aquinas, I think.) That Psalm, as I hope I made clear in P&D #2, is my understanding of the intimacy and omnipresence of God in my life and in the world, though most of the time what I experience is the profound hiddenness of God. The second perspective of the first Psalm of course is that of the self centered in something other than God: those the Psalmist identifies as “the wicked, the sinners, the scorners,” each with a different verb and identifying phrase. There are thus for the Psalmist: Two ways; 2 directions; 2 very different images.

The experience of the self whose heart is grounded in the Lord, the first way, “the law of the LORD,” is “delight”; he is the person “who ponders his law day and night.” Since “the law” here is an expression of God’s being and “day and night” mean essentially always, the way of the self here means, for me, always centered in God. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart…”

The image the Psalmist uses of the tree planted by the ”flowing waters” whose roots are thus always at the source of life (in God) indicates the fecundity of the life so centered, the substance: fruit in season, never fading green leaves, airways prospering.

The image for the wicked, for those whose hearts are essentially elsewhere, is a startling contrast to the image for the blessed: they are “like winnowed chaff,” useless husks to be simply blown away by the wind.

For me the language in verse 6 echoes that of #139: “for the LORD knows the way of the just” (italics mine). The intimacy of #139 is suggested here but used in, one might say, a less intimate way since the Psalmist is defining the two very different ways.

Psalm 1

1 Blessed indeed is the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the path with sinners, nor abides in the company of scorners,

2 but whose delight is the law of the LORD, and who ponders his law day and night.

3 He is like a tree that is planted beside the flowing waters, that yields its fruit in due season, and whose leaves shall never fade; and all that he does shall prosper.
4 Not so are the wicked, not so! For they, like winnowed chaff, shall be driven away by the wind.

5 When the wicked are judged they shall not rise, nor shall sinners in the council of the just;

6 for the LORD knows the way of the just, but the way of the wicked will perish.

I was delighted to discover that Thursday’s OT reading from Jeremiah for Lent (3/16/22) was obviously chosen to go along with the first Psalm in the Psalter. Here again the imagery is pronounced and explicit, and also from nature: “a barren bush in the desert,” sterile and eternally unchanging like, for example, the unrepentant sinners in Dante’s Inferno, “a lava waste,” “a salt and empty earth.” Those are rather terrifying images, again calling to my mind the hot sterile sands of the runners always chasing the body (flesh) in Dante’s Inferno.

Jeremiah’s image for the (same word) “blessed” man whose heart again is essentially grounded in the LORD, who is the man’s trust, his hope, is like the person whose roots are extended to the flowing stream with similar consequences.
The turn that Jeremiah’s verse takes at this point in his text is rather wonderful and precise: “More tortuous than all else is the human heart, beyond remedy; who can understand it?” The situation looks hopeless given the tortuous nature of the human heart, “full of twists and turns.” But as in #139 there is the LORD: “I, the LORD, alone probe the mind and test the heart, To reward everyone according to his ways [see Psalm #1], according to the merits of his deeds.” Jeremiah like the Psalmist in #1 also clearly understands that there are two ways and that even though the human heart is tortuous what it can choose to be centered in is clear. LES

A reading from 
the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah17:5-10

Thus says the Lord:/ Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings,/ who seeks his strength in flesh,/ whose heart turns away from the Lord./ He is like a barren bush in the desert/ that enjoys no change of season,/ But stands in a lava waste,/ a salt and empty earth./ Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,/ whose hope is the Lord./ He is like a tree planted beside the waters/ that stretches out its roots to the stream:/ It fears not the heat when it comes,/ its leaves stay green;/ In the year of drought it shows no distress,/ but still bears fruit./ More tortuous than all else is the human heart,/ beyond remedy; who can understand it?/ I, the Lord, alone probe the mind/ and test the heart,/ To reward everyone according to his ways,/ according to the merit of his deeds.

The word of the Lord

PSALMS & DESIRE #2

When I think about Psalms & the Desire for fulfillment, the desire for God, one of the first Psalms to come to mind is #139: “O Lord, you search me and you know me.”
One of the problems of being human, I find, is that frequently I experience what I would call an existential loneliness. I am aware that I am awake and alone in a beautiful but seemingly uncaring universe. I know that the first “and great” commandment is to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength; I try and nothing seems to happen or make a difference. My interior seems like a desert waste needing water. As in Psalm 130 I find myself in the depths, close to despair, in an abyss of that existential loneliness. Sometimes my capacity for feeling sorry for myself seems to know no bounds. Then again there is Psalm 139 to provide the reverse perspective, in a sense seeing myself from God’s perspective, which is not necessarily always a good thing, it turns out, and might in fact be downright scary.

First the Psalmist, speaking for himself and for me, defines the intimacy involved in his relationship with God. God knows him thoroughly, the most telling line for me being: “For it was you who formed my inmost being, knit me together in my mother’s womb.” That sense of individuality I have was given to me; from my beginning God made me to be who I am and in that sense I was never alone. I couldn’t escape from the presence of God if I wanted to. Suddenly this divine intimacy is overwhelming. On the one hand I desire to see the Face of God; on the other hand seeing the Face of the God who is goodness itself might be terrifying for God knows that I may try to be good but that I am always missing the mark (hamartia).
Yet the knowledge of this divine intimacy is finally a rich and wonderful thing, something for which we owe God thanks and praise.

It is interesting that the Psalmist’s full realization of his relationship with God and the wonder of God turns him to desire God to slay the wicked Who betray the very nature of the divine goodness that ought to stand at the center of their lives. When I look at the movement of this Psalm, the parts become clear.

Verses1–6: the divine knowledge of the self ( from “You search me…”)

Verses 7–12: the impossibility of escape from the divine presence, the realization

Verses 13–16: God as creator and maker of the self

Verses 17–18: the wonder of God

Verses 19–22: the excoriation of the wicked in relation to the goodness and wonder of God

Verses 23–24: the appeal to God to maintain the relationship, the knowledge, and the goodness of the speaker in the sense in which he began the Psalm; in a sense we have come full circle. ( to “Search me”)

Psalm 139 (138) 1 For the Choirmaster. Of David. A Psalm.

O LORD, you search me and you know me.

2 You yourself know my resting and my rising; you discern my thoughts from afar.

3 You mark when I walk or lie down; you know all my ways through and through.

4 Before ever a word is on my tongue, you know it, O LORD, through and through.

5 Behind and before, you besiege me, your hand ever laid upon me.

6 Too wonderful for me, this knowledge; too high, beyond my reach.
7 O where can I go from your spirit, or where can I flee from your face?

8 If I climb the heavens, you are there. If I lie in the grave, you are there.

9 If I take the wings of the dawn or dwell at the sea’s furthest end,

10 even there your hand would lead me; your right hand would hold me fast.

11 If I say, “Let the darkness hide me and the light around me be night,”

12 even darkness is not dark to you, the night shall be as bright as day, and darkness the same as the light.

13 For it was you who formed my inmost being, knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I thank you who wonderfully made me; how wonderful are your works, which my soul knows well!

15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being fashioned in secret and molded in the depths of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw me yet unformed; and all days are recorded in your book, formed before one of them came into being.

17 To me how precious your thoughts, O God; how great is the sum of them!

18 If I count them, they are more than the sand; at the end I am still at your side.

19 O God, that you would slay the wicked, that men of blood would depart from me!

20 With deceit they rebel against you, and set your designs at naught.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, abhor those who rise against you?

22 I hate them with a perfect hate, and they are foes to me.

23 O search me, God, and know my heart. O test me, and know my thoughts.

24 See that my path is not wicked, and lead me in the way everlasting.

From the Revised Grail Psalms

PSALMS & DESIRE

As I draw close to the end of my life, I realize more fully than ever that there is only one thing in life worth truly desiring and perhaps actually receiving and that is the love of God. Everything that we love and delight in in our lives has its being and beauty from God; how can we not help following that goodness back to its source in God—Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

How did I get to be the unique individual that I am? How did I get to be born to these particular parents in this particular place at this particular time? We are so accustomed to being who we are, this self, that we forget what an astonishing miracle it is that we even exist at all.

The philosopher/theologian/self’s fundamental question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

The line from that question to the awareness of our own unique presence in this cosmos is direct. Particular life and being itself and the human awareness that goes with that awareness are an astonishing mystery, one that every rational creature, every human being, is called upon to face, to reflect on. And yet night after night as we look at the news and see the continual violation of this mystery unfold before us, we wonder, I wonder how such senseless ignorance can exist.

The book of Psalms—as I understand what exists at the heart of these texts is the self’s desire to see the Face of God. Augustine told us that our hearts are restless until they rest in God! The Psalmists all see that in terms of their inspired verse. They desire God.

Why then are the Psalmists so outraged at the presence of evil in their lives? Is it that they know and understand that evil is an absolute violation of the Goodness of God and of all His creation and of the way that life ought to be?

Our lives ought to be centered in that which is Truth, Beauty and Goodness, the reality of the presence of God. And day after day in our culture we see images of the exact opposite of that reality manifested in the evil that is the terrible violation of the human mystery of goodness. Augustine in The City of God defines the nature of the two cities each bound by that which is at its center—love of God or love of self. And every night on our news broadcasts is that image of what the city of man truly looks like: a city in ruins, the consequence of that unspeakable war in Ukraine and one man’s idolatrous substitute of greed, power and barbarous egotism for the reality of divine Goodness, Forgiveness and Love.

The Psalms are like a handbook pointing us clearly to that desire that ought to be the central reality for our lives, the Face of God, the reality of the City of God in which God is truly present.

Psalm 130, one of the seven penitential psalms, might be the cry of the person who finds him or herself in the center, in the depths, of the ruined City of man, yet who truly desires the presence of God in the heavenly City. “My soul is longing for the Lord / more than watchmen for daybreak.” In some sense our sin helps contribute to the ruin of the City of Man, but our sin does not have to be our underlying reality as the Psalmist makes clear throughout the various texts, as is especially clear in Psalm 42, following.

We are all, as the phrase defines us, “dead men walking.” The question is what are we walking toward, what do we really want to know and understand, where do we really desire to go? There are only after all two cities.

Psalm 130

From the depths of sin, of sorrow, of suffering, of pain, we call with confidence upon the Lord, whose promise is life.

Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord,
Lord, hear my voice!
O let your ears be attentive
to the voice of my pleading.

If you, O Lord, should mark our guilt,
Lord, who would survive?
But with you is found forgiveness:
for this we revere you.

My soul is waiting for the Lord,
I count on his word.
My soul is longing for the Lord
more than watchman for daybreak.
Let the watchman count on daybreak
and Israel on the Lord.

Because with the Lord there is mercy
and fullness of redemption,
Israel indeed he will redeem
from all its iniquity.

“Psalm 42 (41) 1 For the Choirmaster. A Maskil. Of the sons of Korah. 2 Like the deer that yearns for running streams, so my soul is yearning for you, my God. 3 My soul is thirsting for God, the living God; when can I enter and appear before the face of God? 4 My tears have become my bread, by day, by night, as they say to me all the day long, “Where is your God?” 5 These things will I remember as I pour out my soul: for I would go to the place of your wondrous tent, all the way to the house of God, amid cries of gladness and thanksgiving, the throng keeping joyful festival. 6 Why are you cast down, my soul; why groan within me? Hope in God; I will praise him yet again, my saving presence and my God. 7 My soul is cast down within me, therefore I remember you from the land of Jordan and Mount Hermon, from the Hill of Mizar. 8 Deep is calling on deep, in the roar of your torrents; your billows and all your waves swept over me. 9 By day the LORD decrees his merciful love; by night his song is with me, prayer to the God of my life. 10 I will say to God, my rock, “Why have you forgotten me? Why do I go mourning oppressed by the foe?” 11 With a deadly wound in my bones, my enemies revile me, saying to me all the day long, “Where is your God?” 12 Why are you cast down, my soul; why groan within me? Hope in God; I will praise him yet again, my saving presence and my God.”

— The Revised Grail Psalms: A Liturgical Psalter by Francis Cardinal George, Abbot Gregory J. Polan

I would call this Meditation another perspective on the nature of the City of God. Found in Magnificat, Tuesday, March 15, 2022: [LES]

Raissa Maritain:

“You have but one Father in heaven”

From the words of Christ, the Word Incarnate, we know in a very certain way, henceforth unveiled and glowing in our hearts, that we have a Father in heaven, a God who loves with paternal tenderness, and not only a Creator. God takes delight in all that he has made—God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good (Gen 1:31)—but he loves only men and angels as his children.

For the pagan sages also, in particular for the Stoics, the name Father was doubtless befitting to God, but in an entirely different sense, referring only to the Principle of the cosmos as the universal First Cause: God was our Father because he had begotten us, and because his spark in us caused us to be marked with a resemblance to him. Even in the Old Testament the true meaning of divine Fatherhood remained implicit and was not unveiled. “Fatherhood was the attribute of God the Creator and the God of providence” (Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange, o.p.). It was the Only Son, who dwells in the bosom of the Father, who told us of this God whom no man has seen at any time (Jn 1:18). 

All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son may choose to reveal him (Mt 11:27)—Father in an absolutely unique sense for Jesus, whose Person is consubstantial and identical in nature with the First Person of the Trinity. God is Father for his adopted sons in a sense which Jesus alone revealed: He calls us to share, through the supernatural gift of grace, in his intimate life, his possessions, his beatitude, in the heritage of his incomprehensible and infinitely transcendent Godhead, and to become perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt 5:48). As Saint John Chrysostom said, “By the very name Father, we confess the remission of sins, sanctification, redemption, adoption, inheritance, our bond of brotherhood with the only Son, and the gifts of the Spirit.”

Raïssa Maritain

Raïssa Maritain († 1960) was born in Russia. She was a convert to Catholicism and the wife of philosopher Jacques Maritain. / From Prayer and Intelligence & Selected Essays. © 2016, Cluny Media, P.O. Box 1664, Providence, RI. www.clunymedia.com. Used with permission.



MEDITATION: CONVERSION; EVIL!

1st entry: This Meditation on “conversion” reminds me of my “kitchen table experience.”[LES]

“Follow me”

[Father Donald Haggerty]

Conversion is the spark that allows a soul to catch fire with God. It strikes the flint and begins the early burning of a passion for God. It is the first leap of flame that can quickly become a fire lasting a lifetime. Conversions are necessary for deeper spirituality, as many saints can testify. It would seem that no one without an experience of a serious conversion will be taken to the more profound depths of a personal encounter with God or invited by grace into a contemplative life of prayer. This seems to be almost a private maxim of our Lord with souls. He wants us to know the experience of being finally conquered and subdued in the presence of his love. For being vanquished by him is essential to all greater love for him. And then, once he is known, he wants us to taste a longing and a pure desire for himself.

We do not have to be sullied with terrible corruption in our lives to need this experience of conversion. We simply have to be ignorant of our Lord to some degree. The flame ignites all the same whether sins are small or great for one primary reason. Whenever an overpowering encounter with Jesus Christ on his cross at Calvary pierces our soul, he draws the deeper desire of the heart, and a conversion is ready. The sight of Jesus Christ crucified gazing down on us in a single hour of our life is sufficient to change us forever. But we must choose to seek such an hour. We cross a threshold in spiritual perception in looking at the eyes of this crucified man who is God himself, perhaps overcome by an incomprehension of what he may be asking of us in his suffering.

Father Donald Haggerty

Father Haggerty, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, is currently serving at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. / From Conversion: Spiritual Insights into an Essential Encounter with God. © 2017, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA. www.ignatius.com. Used with permission.

Saturday, 3/5/22; Magnificat [LES]

2nd entry: LES

Novel Review: Fiorella De Maria: See No Evil [LES]

I just finished the third novel in a set by a “new” [to me] author: Fiorella De Maria, a Catholic Christian mystery author. The three novels follow the crime-solving adventures of a Father Brown-like character, another Catholic priest, Fa. Gabriel. The three novels, in order—The Sleeping Witness; The Vanishing Woman and See No Evil—are entertaining and astonishingly good.

What makes me take the time to write this recommendation is the surprising and exquisite ending of the third novel, See No Evil. The novel is properly exciting and attention-holding; I couldn’t put it down, not that it is that long. The secondary characters from the first two novels develop consistently—Abbot Ambrose and Inspector Applegate (adversaries to Fa. Gabriel, and friends of sorts—) and held my interest and affection; the “new” characters who are the source of the crimes and the evil at the heart of this mystery are compelling. What raises this novel above the good, ordinary crime story is the character of Fa. Gabriel and the ending. Just as it looks as though the author is going for the usual sentimental (feel good) ending, the character, Fa. Gabriel, does the right thing and chooses the difficult Truth over Sentiment. The novel has a terrible evil at its center and the priest says and does the difficult, right thing throughout rather than acquiescing to the popular easy thing, as our culture does. I didn’t expect his steely, consistent choice for the truth in the end (my bad) and his consistency and eloquence, and the consequence of his choice, brought many tears to my eyes. [LES]

Image: The Temptation of Christ by the Devil by Félix Joseph Barrias, 1860 [Philbrook Museum of Art, Tulsa, Oklahoma] With the Catholic Thing essay, “Bow Down in His Presence,” 3/6/22, by Bevil Bramwell OMI.

The first Sunday of Lent; The 3 temptations of Christ—fitting image for essay and novel.
I bought a 4th novel by her because of what I found in the 3rd. [LES]

3rd entry: Magnificat
A Light Unto My Path

First Sunday of Lent

Bishop Robert Barron


Lent is a time to return to spiritual basics: to explore, with particular focus, some of the most fundamental dynamics of the soul. By nature, we are all oriented to God. As Scripture has it, my soul rests in God alone (Ps 62:2). But in our sin, we foolishly seek after substitutes for God. During his time of temptation in the desert, Jesus himself entered into the deeply human experience of being lured by these simulacra of our true happiness.

Hungry after forty days of fasting, Jesus hears the words of the devil: If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread. What the tempter is suggesting is that the Lord should make sensual pleasure the center of his life. How many of us sinners are drawn in this direction! Replying, one does not live on bread alone, Jesus insinuates that the deepest hunger of the soul can never be satisfied by mere bodily contentment. 

Leading him up a high mountain and displaying all the kingdoms of the world, the devil says, I shall give to you all this power and glory. This is the temptation toward power, an inclination that multitudes of men and women over the ages have found irresistible. Responding, you shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve, Jesus stipulates that no position of authority in this world could ever quiet the heart’s deepest longing.

Placing the Lord on the very pinnacle of the Temple, the devil urged Jesus to throw himself down, confident that God would send angels to protect him. This is the subtle but devastating temptation toward pride, putting oneself at the center of the universe, making God himself into one’s attendant. Every single one of us sinners, to varying degrees, falls prey to this sin—which is, of course, Satan’s own sin. Jesus resists him: you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.

Spend some time this Lent honestly asking yourself to what degree you are tempted toward sensual pleasure, power, and pride. And ask the Lord to help you stand firm against these seductions.