Ember Days in Advent

Today, Wednesday, and this Friday and Saturday, are Ember days in Advent.  What is that you ask?

The Ember Days were traditionally a Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, occurring in Lent, the Octave of Pentecost, after the Triumph of the Cross in September, and in the third week of Advent.  These "Quatuor Tempora" had as their purpose, "besides the general one intended by all prayer and fasting, was to thank God for the gifts of nature, to teach men to make use of them in moderation, and to assist the needy." (Old Catholic Encyclopedia: Ember Days).

Specifically, it is traditional on these days to fast and to observe partial abstinence (blood meat only at the main meal) on Wednesday and Saturday, and full abstinence on Ember Friday.  This, of course, is not canonically required, beyond the Friday abstinence/penance.  This penance and prayer was offered especially for the clergy.

These days, then, four in number, like the seasons, were a time of gratitude, penance, and prayer.

For more on the Ember Days, you might note: Fisheaters: Ember Days

That the practice and celebration of Ember Days has largely disappeared, and is now restricted to traditional communities, is tragic and seemingly contrary to the instructions of Holy Mother Church.  Indeed, in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it provides that: "In the drawing up of the Calendar of a nation, the Rogation Days and Ember Days should be indicated (cf. no. 373), as well as the forms and texts for their celebration, and other special measures should also be kept in mind." (USCCB GIRM: Chapter IX)

Perhaps if it is not a custom you have, this is the year it will be revived in your family or parish?

Live well!

Feast of St. Albertus Magnus, OP

St. Albert the Great in a Fresco at Treviso, Italy dating to 1352 by Tommaso da Modena.

Today is the feast of St. Albert the Great (+1280), Dominican and Doctor of the Church.

St. Albert was a rather notable philosopher, scientist, and professor in his day, famously teaching St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274).  Born in Swabia, Albert began his studies at the University of Padua in Italy, where he came across the new Order of Preachers, the Dominicans.  In 1245, he was sent to the University of Paris to receive his doctorate.  It was there that he first came into contact with St. Thomas Aquinas, the two proceeding to the University of Cologne in 1248 where St. Albert became Studium Generale.  From 1254-1257 Albert served as Provincial of the Dominican Order in Germany.  He would end up coming to Rome during those years to defend the new mendicant orders.  St. Albert ended up as Bishop of Ratisbon, appointed to that see in 1260.  St. Albert remained a friend and ally of St. Thomas Aquinas, and after the younger man's death in 1274, St. Albert defended his memory from attacks of those suspicious of the Angelic Doctor.

Here is a link to the Church of Saint Andreas in Cologne, where the Universal Doctor is buried: Church of St. Andreas, Cologne

Although now overshadowed by his pupil, St. Thomas, St. Albert was a great scholar in his own right, penning treatises on a host of subjects.  His scientific experimentation is worthy of note.  He noted: "The aim of natural science is not simply to accept the statements [narrata] of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature." (De Miner., lib. II, tr. ii, i).  Of St. Albert, it is written: "he was an authority on physics, geography, astronomy, mineralogy, chemistry (alchimia), zoölogy, physiology, and even phrenology. On all these subjects his erudition was vast, and many of his observations are of permanent value."  It is for this reason that he remain the patron saint of scientists.

Here are a couple of accounts of the rather remarkable life of Albertus Magnus:

Old Catholic Encyclopedia: Albertus Magnus

Catholic Saint Info: St. Albert the Great

Live well!

Pope St. Martin I & the Monothelite heresy

Today is traditionally the Feast of Pope St. Martin I, a great pontiff of the 7th century, and opponent of the Monothelite heresy.  His new calendar feast falls on 13 April, for reference.  So, what follows is an account I wrote of his rather interesting times:

Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople (610-638), trying to reconcile the Monophysites (an earlier heresy, centered in Egypt, that claimed Christ had one nature), came up with a new heresy that appears on the scene in 630.  He argued that Christ has only “one will,” and two natures: this is the Monothelite heresy.  The Armenians liked the idea, but the Patriarch of Alexandria objected.  Rome, under Pope Honorius I (625-638) responded with a vague letter that was taken as consent.  The Emperor Heraclius (610-641) threw his weight behind this idea in 638, and signed a Monothelite statement [Ecthesis] proposed by the Patriarch Sergius.

Here is an article with more detail on the Monothelite heresy: Old Catholic Encyclopedia: Monothelites

The next Emperor, Constans II (641-668) did, however, initially withdraw the Monothelite statement.  In 648, though, Constans II actually ended up sided with the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, Paul II (641-654), by forbidding discussion of the issue [the document was called the “Type”].

Pope St. Martin I (649-655)

In 649 a new Pope took the Chair of Peter: St. Martin I (649-655).  He convened a synod in 649 at the Lateran, condemned the heresy, and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople – for which he was arrested in that same Church in 653 by Byzantine troops (Pope St. Martin I would die in exile in the Crimea in 655).  This was a real persecution.

Here is a link with more information on Pope St. Martin I: Old Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope St. Martin I

Here is a second: Catholic Saints Info: Pope St. Martin I

Finally, a third: Butler's Lives of the Saints: Pope St. Martin I

In 663, Byzantine Emperor Constans II actually came to Rome; the first time an Emperor had been in the city in 200 years.  Constans II settled in Sicily, but was murdered in his bath in 668 -- beaten to death with a silver bath bucket -- and followed on the throne by his son, Constantine IV (668-685).  Constantine suggested to the Supreme Pontiff that the Monothelite matter be laid to rest.

Pope St. Agatho (678-681) responded with a letter that reaffirmed the teaching of the Popes, and a council – the 6^th Ecumenical Council, the Third Council of Constantinople, was opened in November 680.  It would meet until September 681.  The Emperor presided, and Papal legates led the theological discussions.  The Council not only condemned the heresy, but made a list of condemned heretics – a list that included Pope Honorius I!  Before he could approve the Council’s acts, though, Pope Agatho died.  The new pope elected in his place was Pope St. Leo II (681-683).  He was versed in Greek and looked through the documents.  He reworded the condemnation of Honorius, to merely condemn his lack of vigor in fighting the heresy, and then approved the council.  Indeed, the case of Pope Honorius is a good reminder of how popes may not officially promulgate heresy, but they can be negligent in teaching the truth with clarity.  If a pope fails to uphold and teach the truth of the Faith, and this clearly, he has much to answer for!

Remember, of course, that this is happening in the context of the lightening strikes of the Islamic Conquest, which began against the Byzantine Empire during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius and threatened Constantinople itself by the late 600s, having overwhelmed the Holy Land, Syria, Egypt, and much of North Africa.

Live well!

Feast of St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church

Today is the feast of St. Jerome, Confessor and Doctor of the Church.

Saint Jerome in His Study by Antonio Fabriano II,  1451.

St. Jerome (+AD420): This irascible doctor is most famous for his translation of the Sacred Scriptures into Latin -- the Latin Vulgate.  A native of Dalmatia, he spent time both in Rome, working for Pope St. Damasus I, in the wilderness of Syria, and he ended his life in Bethlehem.

He is well known for his quotation: "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

His exchange of letters with the younger St. Augustine is entertaining, indeed.  St. Jerome was known for being a bit of an irascible character and a number of his writings affirm that characterization.  He "plays to win" a wise man once observed to me.

Fore more you should consult:
Old Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Jerome

Catholic Saints Info: St. Jerome

On this site, you can find the text of a number of writings of St. Jerome in English translation.  Just scroll down the page to his alphabetical entry:
New Advent: Fathers of the Church

Of course, St. Jerome is buried in the Roman Archbasilica of Santa Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline Hill.  You can make a "virtual visit" here: Papal Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore official site

I close with this text, the preface to his translation of the Gospels, addressed to Pope St. Damasus:
"BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER
To the blessed Pope Damasus, from Jerome,
You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books? Against such infamy I am consoled by two causes: that it is you, who are the highest priest, who so orders, and truth is not to be what might vary, as even now I am vindicated by the witness of slanderers. If indeed faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books! If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us ². Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false.

Therefore, this present little preface promises only the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books. They do not disagree with many familiar Latin readings, as we have kept our pen in control, but only those in which the sense will have been seen to have changed (from the Greek) are corrected; the rest remain as they have been.
We have also copied the lists which Eusebius the bishop of Caesarea, following Ammonius of Alexandria, set out in ten numbers, as they are had in the Greek, so that if any may then wish through diligence to make known what in the Gospels may be either the same, or similar, or singular, he may learn their differences. This is great, since indeed error has sunk into our books; while concerning the same thing, one Evangelist has said more, into another they have added because they thought it inferior; or while another has differently expressed the same sense, whichever one of the four he had read first, he will revise the other to the version he values most. Whence it happened how in our time that all have been mixed; in Mark are many things of Luke, and even of Matthew; turned backwards in Matthew are many things of John and of Mark, yet in the remaining others, they are found to be correct. When, therefore, you will have read the lists which are attached below, the confusion of errors is removed, and you will know all the similar passages, and the singular ones, wherever you may turn to. In the first list, the four agree, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; in the second, three, Matthew, Mark, John; in the third, three, Matthew, Luke, John; in the fourth, three, Matthew, Mark, John; in the fifth, two, Matthew, Luke; in the sixth, two, Matthew, Mark; in the seventh, two, Matthew, John; in the eighth, two, Luke, Mark; in the ninth, two, Luke, John; in the tenth some peculiar ones are given which the others don't have. Separately in the Gospels are numbered sections of unequal length, beginning with one and increasing to the end of the books. This is written before the passage in black, and it has under it a red number, which shows to which of the ten (lists) to proceed, with the first number to be sought in the list. Therefore, when the book is open, for example, if you will wish to know of this or that chapter in which list they may be, you will immediately be shown by the lower number. Returning to the beginning (of the book) in which the different lists are brought together, and immediately finding the same lists by the title in front, by that same number which you had sought in the Evangelist, which you will find marked in the inscription, you may also view other similar passages, the numbers of which you may note there. And when you know them, you will return to the single volumes, and immediately finding the number which you will have noted before, you will learn the places in which either the same things or similar things were said.

I wish that in Christ you may be well, and that you will remember me, most blessed Pope.
END OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER"

Translated by Kevin P. Edgecomb, 27 July 1999, Berkeley, California.  As far as I am able to find, this is the first translation of the full letter into
English, modern or otherwise.  

cf., http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_gospels.htm

Live well!

Ember Days

The Seasons pass, and for each, there is a set of three Ember Days.

Today is Ember Wednesday.  What is that you ask?

The Ember Days were traditionally a Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, occurring in Lent, the Octave of Pentecost, this week in September, and in Advent,  These "Quatuor Tempora" had as their purpose, "besides the general one intended by all prayer and fasting, was to thank God for the gifts of nature, to teach men to make use of them in moderation, and to assist the needy." (Old Catholic Encyclopedia: Ember Days).

Formerly, these were days of fasting and partial abstinence (only meat at the "main" meal).

For more on the Ember Days, you might note: Fisheaters: Ember Days



These days, then, four in number, like the seasons, were a time of gratitude, penance, and prayer.  Indeed, in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it provides that: "In the drawing up of the Calendar of a nation, the Rogation Days and Ember Days should be indicated (cf. no. 373), as well as the forms and texts for their celebration, and other special measures should also be kept in mind." (USCCB GIRM: Chapter IX)

Why the practice and celebration of Ember Days has largely disappeared and is now restricted to traditional communities is tragic, and seemingly contrary to the instructions of Holy Mother Church.

Perhaps if it is not a custom you have, this is the year it will be revived in your family or parish?

Live well!

Feast of St. Joseph of Cupertino

On this 18th of September we celebrate the feast of St. Joseph of Cupertino, and Italian Franciscan priest that is famous as patron saint of pilots and of test takers.


St. Joseph of Cupertino by Ludovico Mazzanti (+1775)

St. Joseph of Cupertino was born in Apulia in a stable, as his mother turned out of their home to pay for his deceased father's debts.  St. Joseph was known for both his spiritual experiences and his poor intellectual talents.  It took multiple tries for him to successfully enter religious life.  Eventually he was accepted into the Conventual Franciscans in 1625, after some time working for them and impressing them with his simplicity and devotion.  In a series of events that make him a patron of test takers, he managed to receive ordination to the priesthood in 1628, despite his poor academic abilities.

As a priest, St. Joseph was noted for, among other things, his falling in ecstasy when around holy thing and his practice of miraculous levitation.  Aside from earning for him a place as patron saint of pilots, it also resulted in him being restricted in his public ministry, and being denounced to the Inquisition.

St. Joseph of Cupertino died in 1663, and was canonized in 1753.

He is buried in Osimo, in the region of Marche.  The official website of the Church where he is buried can be found here: San Giuseppe Da Copertino

For more information on this saint, you might note:
Old Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Joseph of Cupertino

Catholic Saints Info: St. Joseph of Cupertino

Live well!

Angelic Warfare Confraternity

A spiritual brotherhood certainly worthy of being better known is the Dominican-affiliated Angelic Warfare Confraternity.

The Confraternity is under the patronage of the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274AD).  Indeed, it takes its name from the episode in the life of St. Thomas when, in defense of holy purity, he drove off a woman-of-ill repute that his brothers had sent to his room to tempt him away from chastity.  At that point he was gird with a cord by angels and shielded from further attacks against purity.

Thomas Girded by the Angels by Velazquez

The Confraternity seeks to encourage holiness and purity in its members under the patronage of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Blessed Virgin Mary.  To that end, the members pray for one another, and wear the cord and/or medal of St. Thomas.

The Angelic Warfare Confraternity was approved as a Confraternity of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) for the whole Church by Pope Benedict XII in 1727AD.

Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical letter, Studiorum Ducem, on St. Thomas Aquinas, 25, writes:
"Inasmuch, therefore, as We see the majority of young men, caught in the quicksands of passion, rapidly jettisoning holy purity and abandoning themselves to sensual pleasures, We instantly exhort you, Venerable Brethren, to propagate everywhere, and particularly among seminarians, the society of the Angelic Militia founded under the patronage of Thomas for the preservation and maintenance of holy chastity and We confirm the privileges of pontifical indulgences heaped upon it by Benedict XIII and others of Our Predecessors. And that the Faithful may be persuaded the more eagerly to enroll in this Militia, We grant members of it the privilege of wearing instead of a cord a medal round the neck impressed on the obverse with a picture of St. Thomas and the angels surrounding him with a girdle and on the reverse a picture of Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary." [N.b., Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem]

Members of this brotherhood include, "St. Aloysius Gonzaga, Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati, Blessed Columba Rieti and Blessed Stephana Quinzan (who actively promoted the Confraternity among women)."

The website of the Confraternity can be found here: Angelic Warfare Confraternity

This is the site where one can purchase the necessary items for membership: New Hope Publications

For what it is worth, yesterday marked the anniversary of this blogger's entry into the Confraternity.

Certainly a Confraternity emphasizing the Angelic Doctor, whose sublime writings do so much to increase our understanding of the Faith, and Holy Purity, so ignored and ridiculed in our world, is of great contemporary relevance.

Live well!

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!