Of Two Worldviews

Christ the True Vine, 16th-century Greek Icon

In our moment in history, it seems there are, broadly speaking, two perspectives on the past, two approaches to education, and really two distinct worldviews that are in competition. 

At the outset, I concede that I am painting with broad strokes; I find the distinction has some merit, nonetheless. 

These two views may be encapsulated in these two sentiments:

“The Ancients were children compared to us.” (Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle, Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds)

Vs.

We are as “dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants…. we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature.” (John of Salisbury quoting Bernard of Chartres in the Metalogicon)

---

The first is what I might call the “progressive” or “Enlightened” view.  This perspective assumes the superiority of contemporary thought and sensibility in most every respect to what has come before; it has a great confidence in the “progress” of human society.  This perspective does not look to the past for wisdom or with a reverence for previous generations, but rather looks down on past ages as inferior to our own time; it was backward in what is most important.  It views the past and what has been inherited primarily in terms of its faults, and by extension, prioritizes re-making society today according to its own ever-evolving ideals.  This view seeks revolution and not reform in facing societal evils.

We see this perspective in the way in which the contemporary teaching of the humanities is approached.  The goal in this view is not only to promote such “social progress,” but to encourage the student to decide who they are and empower to follow that impulse while expressing themselves in whatever way they choose.  There is an emphasis in all of this on the sex, race, and sexual orientation of the person.  Happiness is understood as coming from following what you feel makes you happy.

In presenting history with this perspective, the focus is typically on social movements and societal reforms that confront of the faults of the past.  History is viewed as the slow work of humanity overcoming its inequalities and injustices as it gradually arrives at our own superior time and society.  The characters in history most worthy of imitation, in this view, are usually the ones that are “ahead of his time” and who reject the norms of their society.  The hero is the one who is not bound by custom or tradition, but who rejects the status quo to promote “equality,” “fairness,” and a “better world.”  The heroes are the revolutionaries, protesters, and dissenters.  How could it be otherwise when past societies were so characterized by injustice?

In literature and the arts, this view manifests itself, once again, in highlighting the vices and failings of the inheritance of previous generations and in prioritizing self-expression.  The works that are read often champion the wisdom of the young over and against that of their elders; it’s the activist teenager that knows better than his grandfather who is “stuck in the past.”  These works seek to inspire their readers to promote social change and “progress” according to contemporary sensibilities.  At the same time, there is a profound nihilist and dystopian streak in such literature, as hope for such progress and change is often bleak, and there is no deeper or more profound purpose to human life.  Since the arts and literature are viewed as especially about self-expression, it seems obvious that the frustrated protester would express feelings of despair and of the disorders of society.

This worldview views religious faith with a great deal of skepticism.  Indeed, the notion of Divine Revelation is implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected, as religious doctrines are subject to contemporary standards and attitudes.  If religion is practiced at all, it is primarily a sentimental exercise that focuses almost exclusively on affirming the practitioner and addressing questions of social justice and promoting humanitarian goals.  In the end, appeals to science are preferred and, at times, take on the role of religious faith.  There is a profound confidence in the ability of the natural sciences to explain reality.

In the last analysis, from this perspective the humanities might be useful for encouraging social action and self-expression, but it is the fields of science and technology that are really the most important for human flourishing.  Hence the prominent place for “STEM” education.  The goal is to promote a world ever more thoroughly based on science and equality.

---

On the other hand, we have what I might call the “traditional” or “Classical” view.  This perspective is grounded in a profound respect for history and for past generations.  Indeed, it views the inheritance of past ages as one of the greatest gifts we enjoy and a source of great wisdom.  It readily admits the progress of society in some areas, especially in terms of technology, but it also has a profound humility in realizing that any such progress is only possible because of the achievements of our forefathers.  Further, while it concedes that society has advanced in some areas it would also view it as regressing in others.  This perspective grounds itself in ideals received and truths handed on.  The heroes in this view are those that manifest virtue; the one that confronts evil and disorder, not by remaking society, but calling it back to its core ideals.  In facing societal evils, it seeks reform, not revolution.

In the humanities, this traditional view prioritizes the pursuit of the true, good, and beautiful, with an emphasis on looking to the wisdom of the past.  Student are encouraged to learn who they are by nature and to conform themselves to reality in seeking after their proper end.  There is an emphasis on the humanity of the person, rather than the accidents of race or sex; his being a rational animal with unique dignity distinct from the other animals is the decisive truth about the person.  Happiness is understood as coming from accepting what you are by nature and seeking after your proper end.

In history, for example, there is a two-fold focus on moral formation and an appreciation for the inheritance of the past.  History from such a view seeks to train the moral judgment of the student, presenting exemplars for imitation along with cautionary tales of vice.  It also imbues the student with a profound reverence for past generations, a gratitude for the wisdom received, and a foundation upon which to flourish in one’s own time.  There is a skepticism toward dismantling what has been inherited.

In literature and the arts, the traditional view seeks to preserve the beautiful and ennobling.  The mission of the artist is not just self-expression, but the profound expression of the truth about reality.  The story and the work of art is valued for its ability to inspire and to convey truths in a compelling way.  Newer forms of literature and art from this point of view are grounded in the history of their craft.

This worldview, in its perspective on religion, has an attitude of reverence and expects that humanity should rise to the moral imperative and challenges of Divine Revelation, rather than seek to change it.  Virtue is difficult, but worth the struggle, as it makes us most human.  The natural sciences and human reason are seen in concert rather than conflict with true faith.  Nevertheless, the limits of human learning are acknowledged and there is a humility about our ability to unfold the mysteries of the universe.

In the end, there is an appreciation for the need for the human person to be well-rounded to flourish, and hence the prominent regard for the liberal arts in education. The goal is to promote a world that grows in continuity with the wisdom of the past ever more marked by truth, goodness, and beauty.

---

To be clear, I would also affirm the good intentions of folks in both categories; I do not intend to demonize anyone.  Also, as I noted at the outset, I freely acknowledge that I over-generalize and this division is imperfect and certainly open to debate.

At the same time, I find this does usefully tease out some of the profound divisions and differences in our society today.  In questions of education, especially, we see not just a matter of different pedagogical techniques, but of different worldviews.

In considering questions of the past, I would observe a particular danger in viewing it primarily or exclusively through the lens of failures and “progressive” change: even if such a view spoke truthfully of past faults, it prejudices the audience against that past if there is not a similarly true highlighting of past heroes and wisdom.  For example, if in presenting your family history, I only spoke of the faults and failures of your ancestors, you would not have an accurate understanding of that family, even if everything said was true.  No person, family, or society is characterized solely by its faults.  Further, a love and appreciation of those strengths can surely provide a reason for seeking to preserve and improve that thing rather than dismantle or destroy it.

For the Catholic, with our belief in the Blessed Trinity, Divine Revelation, the Incarnation, and the historicity of the Church founded by Christ, along with our understanding of the human person made in the image and likeness of God, we should have a reverence for the past, for ancient institutions, for tradition, and for the harmony of faith and reason.  The Catholic who subscribes to the “progressive” worldview cannot help but come into conflict with the history, the doctrines, and the saints of the Church.  It is no wonder such Catholics seem to ignore the theology of the Church dating to before the mid-20^th century.  Unfortunately, in assuming the superiority of the ideals of contemporary society, they effectively deny the legitimacy of Divine Revelation and the Church’s perennial teaching.

Further, a truly Catholic education must aim at the greatest good for the human person: salvation.  If assisting students in knowing their purpose as human beings – to know, love, and serve God in this world, so as to be happy with Him in the next – is not the priority, it is not a Catholic education worthy of the name. 

The beauty of this priority is that when love of God and His revelation is the priority, the love of neighbor and appreciation for the aspects of reality gleaned from the various disciplines are added on as well.  This is not a vision that stunts or narrows the person but opens them to the reality of existence itself!

Live well!

Of Monuments

The Monument of James Oglethorpe in Chippewa Square, Savannah, Georgia

I have watched as across the United States, and even the world, there have been not only calls for the removal of a great number of historical monuments and statues, but even mobs proceeding to do so on their own initiative.  What of all of this?  Should we have public monuments to men whose positions are, at least in part, no longer societally acceptable?  Here are this blogger’s own thoughts on the question, for the fair minded.

To start with, I must grant that I obviously cannot speak to how an individual feels about a particular monument or statue.  I have no doubt that a great number of monuments are the cause of distress and anger in individuals.  There are certainly monuments in our world to individuals whose legacy I do not approve and whose example I would not seek to imitate.  At the same time, I am concerned that it would be short-sighted to remove a monument simply because it elicits a negative reaction in some folks.  Maintaining such historical monuments should be a matter of reasoned consideration, not of the passion of the moment.  In such considerations, I am convinced that making distinctions is key to arriving at the most prudent course.

I would also note, at the outset, that the mob-destruction of monuments and statues is, to me, a clear sign of anarchy and barbarism.  If a monument must go, it must depart according to the rule of law.  What we are witnessing today is outrageous and disturbing.

That said, now let us consider what should be portrayed and what should stay.

I will take for granted that we should not honor a truly wicked character, like Adolf Hitler, and that it is obviously right and good to honor those supremely good as Our Divine Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Disagreement at this level betrays such a radically different worldview that we’d be better served discussing the nature of that reality than the places of monuments within it.

For the purposes of these reflections, I wish to wade into the question of monuments celebrating a complex character.

What do I mean by a complex character?  Here I am looking at someone whose life was a mixture of the good and bad, and while he or she may have had traits or accomplishments worthy of honor, they also had failings or problematic characteristics.  It is important for us to recognize and respect the virtues in men revered by past generations and for us to be able to recognize these virtues in regional or local figures.  I think it is possible that a character be honored for their virtue or accomplishments, without implying an endorsement of their failings or of all that they did or believed; or, at the very least, we can appreciate that virtue for which they were honored, even if it seems less relevant for our own time.  While it might not make sense to put up a new monument to such a complex character whose relevance is no longer so significant to our own time, we should certainly maintain what past generations erected to honor them.  That is an important part of our public history.

I will take as an example four historical figures that I can see being “complex” in some respect, that admittedly not equally so: James Oglethorpe, George Washington, and two notable Southern figures associated with the late Confederacy: the famous Robert E. Lee, and the Georgian John B. Gordon.  Along with them, I want to consider monuments to all of the men that served that cause.

James Oglethorpe was the founder of the Colony of Georgia, a member of Parliament, and an English general.  He was a famous philanthropist, whose idea for Georgia was as both a buffer to Spanish expansion, but also as a haven for debtors, where he forbid the institution of slavery.  At the same time, the Charter for the new Province of Georgia included this line: “there shall be a liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all persons inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within our said provinces and that all such persons, except papists, shall have a free exercise of their religion, so they be contented with the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the same, not giving offence or scandal to the government.”  Oglethorpe, like so many others in the English-speaking world, was anti-Catholic and denied religious liberty to Catholics, like myself.  Hence, whatever his other accomplishments, he is a character of some complexity.  Nevertheless, the monuments to Oglethorpe are not fundamentally meant as monuments to anti-Catholicism and bigotry; the represent a man of great talent and ideals who motivated by a desire to help the disadvantaged, founded a new colony.

George Washington is honored as the great military leader of the American Revolution and first President of the United States.  His fortitude during that conflict and his combination of prudence and humility as President surely merit praise and honor.  Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Longinqua wrote that, “at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed.”

He is, of course, a complex character, as he was a slaveowner.  There is no defending his participation with that immoral institution; but that association is not why he has been honored for generations – and is not why the same Pope who wrote an encyclical condemning slavery would call him “the great Washington.”  Surely we can separate the symbolism of Washington and reason he is honored from his personal faults and failings.

Let us consider the Confederates.  I do not think we need approve or endorse the Confederate cause to appreciate the place of a monument to a complex character associated with the conflict. 

Before proceeding any further in discussing these Confederate figures, though, I would encourage you to read my earlier post on the causes and complexities that led to the Civil War: Why Civil War?

To dismiss out of hand anyone associated with the Confederacy as nothing more than a traitor and promoter of slavery is a gross historical oversimplification.  For instance, it was a real contested question as to where loyalties should rest: Home State or Federal Union.  Further, the respective attitudes and actions of the Cotton States (seceding before Lincoln was inaugurated) and the Tobacco States (seceding only after Lincoln demanded they contribute troops to invade the Deep South - Virginia having earlier voted against secession) certainly present two different paths to an attempted separation from the United States.  All of these states sought, in part, to defend legal slavery as it had been protected under the United States Constitution, and all of these states sought to depart the Union through elected conventions and in an orderly and legal fashion, based on the political ideals of the American founding.  Not only slavery, but whether a free Union should be maintained by coercion, was very much a matter in question.

Robert E. Lee was honored by a resolution of Congress to name the Arlington House in Arlington, Virginia as the Robert E. Lee Memorial in 1955, wherein was proclaimed:

“Whereas Robert E. Lee had graduated from West Point, dedicated himself to an Army career, and became a colonel in the United States Army, then the commander of the Confederate forces, attained world renown as a military genius, and after Appomattox fervently devoted himself to peace, to the reuniting of the Nation, and to the advancement of youth education and the welfare and progress of mankind, becoming president of the Washington and Lee University at Lexington, Virginia; and Whereas the desire and hope of Robert E. Lee for peace and unity within our Nation has come to pass in the years since his death, and the United States of America now stands united and firm, indivisible, and unshakable.”

While some may choose to view Lee simply as a traitor leading troops for a pro-slavery secessionist movement, the reality is that he was a man of deep honor or decided to remain loyal to his home state, and who worked for reunion and reconciliation after the conflict.  He could have chosen to urge his men to wage on-going guerilla war or refuse to accept their place in the United States once more.

John B. Gordon, a Georgia native, served in the Confederate army, rising through the ranks to end up one of Robert E. Lee’s chief lieutenants by the end of the war, having a prominent role in the formal surrender at Appomattox.  After the war, he would write, that, "The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State." Cf., General Gordon's Reminiscences

It is true that he was an opponent of Reconstruction – and some even allege a connection with the KKK, though he denied any such connection and the evidence of his participation is rather circumstantial.  It is without question that he would serve in the U.S. Senate from 1873-1880 and 1891-1897 and Governor of Georgia from 1886-1890.  When a monument was erected of him at the Georgia State Capitol, he represented not only military heroism but the resumption of Georgia in the life of the United States. 

Gordon was not the only prominent Georgian to have a leadership post in the Confederacy and then take a leading role in the post-war United States government – I might observe that Alexander Stephens, who voted against the secession of Georgia but was Vice President of the Confederacy, was later both U.S. Congressman (1873-1882) and Georgia Governor (1882-1883) after the war.  Like so many of his time, he was certainly a racist in his views (his Cornerstone Speech makes that clear), but he also represents a reconciliation of the defeated South to the American Republic.

Not only were men like Gordon and Stephens willing to reenter the halls of Congress, but they were allowed to do so, in a show of clemency that made reconciliation possible.  They certainly had views on race that were simply wrong; as wrong as Oglethorpe was about Catholics.  Like Oglethorpe, however, they represent a key historical role and contribution, as well.  When monuments were erected to Lee and Gordon, these men represented not only the pride and honor of their region, but also reconciliation and reunion after the terrible conflict of the Civil War.  It is peculiar to see less tolerance for the memory of such former Confederate leaders from our contemporaries than from those who had personally fought against them. 

Let us move to my last category: monuments commemorating common soldiers, but of such a cause as the Confederacy.

In considering whether it is appropriate to maintain monuments to the common soldier that fought for a Southern state during the Civil War, I think of my great-great grandfather.

In the summer of 1864, my great-great grandfather, Thomas J. Cole, a lad of 16 years of age from Butts County, Georgia, joined the 3^rd Georgia Reserve regiment.  He had never been far from his family’s farm in Middle Georgia – a family farm that did not include any slaves.  That same summer the State of Georgia was being invaded by the armies of US General William T. Sherman which would go on to burn Atlanta and devastate Middle Georgia on his way to Savannah.  My great-great grandfather responded to the call of the State of Georgia in that moment of crisis.  The historian William Marvel, who wrote about him and his service at the terrible prison of Andersonville, describes his ordeal:

"Nor were the prisoners the only victims. Sixteen-year-old Thomas J. Cole joined the 3rd Georgia Reserves during Rousseau's cavalry raid, in July [1864]. He had never wandered far from his father's farm in Butts County, midway between Macon and Atlanta, and shoes had never served as part of his daily wardrobe. He arrived at Andersonville with a pair of brogans on, however, and they irritated an insignificant scratch on his left foot, just below the ankle. The nearest he ever came to the stockade was the sentry box, and he did not approach the prisoners' hospital at all, but, just before the evacuation of prisoners began, his foot turned so sore that he had to be relieved from duty. A week later his comrades carried him from his tent over to Sumter Hospital -- the parallel pair of two-story barracks buildings alongside the railroad. In seven weeks the wound had grown to look like a carbuncle, but ten days in the hospital transformed it into a gaping, putrid lesion four inches in diameter. The flesh dropped away to reveal his ankle joint, his lower leg started to swell and ulcerate, and he wailed piteously whenever the doctors tried to touch it.

Cole would survive, however. He would live into the twentieth century and raise five children, but he would have to sacrifice the leg in order to save the rest of his hide."  [William Marvel, Andersonville: The Last Depot, pgs. 209-210]

He was not a slave-owner, and neither was his father.  He responded to a call for help from this state, served with honor, and lost a leg in service to his state.  He, while just a boy, responded to Georgia in her moment of need; surely the State of Georgia must continue to honor him, and others like him, who gave life and limb for their home.

We must reject the legacy of slavery and racism that has surely tainted the history of our country.  At the same time, we cannot ignore honor and sacrifice on behalf of their homes, even if the cause is not all that it might have been or all that we would wish it to be today.

In all these cases, I think fair-minded folks can reasonably debate and discuss the merits of these figures whose life and legacy are complex.  In the end, however, I would think a deference to the public goods celebrated by past generations is a healthy tendency, and that we can distinguish between the good honored and the failings tolerated.  Even a monument to a figure whose ideals were problematic can serve to teach us a lesson about our own past and need to improve as a society.

Live well!

Of a Dream

Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, says Mass in the London Oratory for the Sacra Liturgia conference, July 6, 2016. Credit: Lawrence OP via Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

The contemporary world, for a variety of reasons, is very much in a tumult, with questions of race and racism in the forefront of the discussion and protests.  It is in this context that I propose to offer a few thoughts.

In the first place, I must note that my Catholic Faith is the root and source of my view of the world; I seek to conform my intellect and will to the truth and goodness of Christ, and not the spirit of the age or the fads of society. I don't want to undermine or contradict the Truth. Ever.  Making distinctions and being precise is critical; especially in moral and theological matters.

In considering any question of race, then, the starting place for me is the call of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, to make disciples of all nations.  Racism is a sin.  If you find yourself hating individuals of a particular race because of their race, or seek to make another ashamed of their own race, you have drifted from the charge of Christ to love one another and baptize all nations. As St. Paul says: in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. (Gal 3:28)

Every human person has equal dignity, being made in the image and likeness of God. Our race is not our identity; neither is our nationality -- that comes from our Baptism in Jesus Christ.

I appreciate the particular wisdom and truth in the famous line of the Atlanta, Georgia native, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:  "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character."

Two points immediately present themselves in response to that statement.

In the first place, I think the statement is so moving and memorable because there is a solid grounding in truth that underlies this "dream."  We should, indeed, be concerned with the character of a man, rather than on his particular race.  All men ought to be equal under law, insofar as reason allows and permits.  Law is, after all, "an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated."  It is incumbent on everyone, regardless of their own race, to treat others with charity, respect, and at the very least, in justice.  Certainly, public officials have a grave obligation in this regard.  In addition, we should by all means extend charity to the poor and the disadvantaged -- of any and every race!

The second thought regards the interpretation of this statement and the larger, and more difficult question, of race relations, especially in the United States.  To a great many people, equal rights seems to mean not a matter of equality under law, or in treating folks justly, but of something rather different.  Many seem to assume that equality should mean either equal societal status in terms or wealth or power on one hand, or reparation for past wrongs, on the other.  History is filled with accounts of injustice, inequality, and tragedy.  That of the United States is certainly no exception; and a single ethnic group can by no means claim a monopoly on being the object of such injustice.  An agenda of revenge, of coercive redistribution of wealth, of legal preferences -- these hardly contribute positively to society or truly right the wrongs of the past, however.

At the same time, while the law and justice demands that we treat all equally, nature and experience tells us that folks do have cultural and ethnic differences.  As well it should be.  Equality can not and should not mean that there is no recognition of such differences in people.  Different peoples have different customs, music, foods, histories, heroes, and languages.  We should not deny to a race or ethnic group its strengths or unique characteristics.  At the same time, it makes little sense to ignore the prevailing faults or strengths of a people, especially if you are charged with the common good.  Denying someone their legal rights based on race alone is an injustice.  Ignoring statistics and failing to remain vigilant of trends within ethnic groups seems naïve.

Also, for reference, here is a link to the full text of the speech: "I Have A Dream," 28 August 1963.

Finally, in addressing real questions of racism and injustice, I close with these reflections from C. S. Lewis:

"Beware lest you are making use of the idea of corporate guilt to distract your attention from those humdrum, old-fashioned guilts of your own which have nothing to do with 'the system' and which can be dealt with without waiting for the millennium. For corporate guilt perhaps cannot be, and certainly is not, felt with the same force as personal guilt. For most of us, as we now are, this conception is a mere excuse for evading the real issue.
When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we can go on to think of the corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much. But we must learn to walk before we can run....
From considering how the cruelty of our ancestors looks to us, you may get some inkling how our softness, worldliness, and timidity would have looked to them, and hence how both must look to God.
...pity for the oppressed classes, when separated from the moral law as a whole, leads by a very natural process to the unremitting brutalities of a reign of terror."
-- Problem of Pain, pages 54, 58, & 59

In the end, we should dream of a "a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character."  We should treat individuals with justice, respect, and charity; we should acknowledge and appreciate the strengths and contributions of various races and ethnic groups and commit ourselves to working for equal justice under law and the end to the evil of racism.

That is this blogger's two cents, anyway!

Live well!