Medieval Shame

For the last couple of weeks, I have been praying with The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary It is a liturgical prayer book which offers a simplified version of the Divine Office, which is the liturgical prayer based on the Psalms that has its roots in pre-Christian Jewish prayer. This book follows the form of the Divine Office which was used in the Catholic Church until Vatican II, but which Pope Benedict recently allowed to be used again.

This copy of The Little Office is dual-column, English on the left, and Latin on the right. The Latin text has changed very little since the Middle Ages, and the English Biblical texts come from the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible that dates back to the 16th century. It has a very traditional feel, and the language is very beautiful. It is not difficult to read, but it would not be mistaken for a modern translation.

Until I got this book, I had been praying with the Liturgy of the Hours, which is a modern reworking of the Divine Office created after Vatican II. While comparing the Liturgy of the Hours to my new Little Office book, I came to the following conclusion. It appears to me that the Liturgy of the Hours does the best it can to remove all traces of the Middle Ages from this ancient form of prayer, including all traces of Latin. Even the traditional Latin names of the prayers, such as Matins, Lauds, Terce, None, Sext, and Vespers, have been replaced with Office of Readings, Morning Prayer, Midmorning Prayer, Midday Prayer, Midafternoon Prayer, and Evening Prayer.

I have the feeling that many Catholics in the 1960s and 70s were ashamed of how much the Catholic Church had held on to its Medieval roots, and they took the changes that came out of the Second Vatican Council as license to jettison everything that was the least bit Medieval.

At the root of this Medieval shame seems to be the belief that the Middle Ages were an unmitigated low-point of human history. I strongly challenge that belief. From what I’ve seen so far in my exposure to Medieval writings and history is that the Middle Ages, like every age of history, has its faults and blind-spots, but it also has much of great value.

There is a Cistercian monks at the Abbey which runs the school where I work who recently retired after many years of teaching history at University of Texas at Arlington. He has come to me a few times with some computer questions, and has talked to me about my graduate work at University of Dallas. One day he told me I should study the Middle Ages because that was the age in which faith and reason worked together. I think we need to discover how to bring that aspect of the Middle Ages to our world today.

Sedevacantist Sisters Reunite With Church

This is a fascinating story about a group of faithful Catholics who rejected the Catholic Church because of radical changes they experienced in the wake of Vatican II. (Sedevacantism is the belief that there is no valid Pope in the Catholic Church. “Sede” is Latin for “chair”, so sedevacntism is the belief that the Chair of Peter, representing the Papal office, is vacant.) It is a chapter in the story of the Catholic Church’s struggle with modernity. We see some Catholics, including clergy, who embraced modernity to the point of rejecting Catholic tradition, resulting in this group’s complete rejection of modernity along with the Catholic Church.

This story illustrates that the whole subject of modernity is complicated, requiring thoughtful and careful examination. Knee-jerk reactions in either direction are problematic.

Mother Kathryn Joseph sat down to have it out with [her brother] on the whole sedevacantism issue. She recalled, “I had an epiphany in one sitting. I realized that I had been wrong for 35 years. But I was happy to have been proven wrong.”

via Sedevacantist Sisters Reunite With Church | Daily News | NCRegister.com.

The Root Cause of the Climate Change

I will not get into the controversy over whether there is actually a global change in climate going on caused by human activity. I think it is likely to be true, but if it’s not, there are certainly plenty of other things we are doing to adversely affect our environment, and these also spring from the same root. I will begin by saying I believe the root cause of these environmental problems is greed. I think that greed for more comfort, convenience, and profit works against attempts towards moderation of energy consumption and pollution.

Since greed has been a human problem throughout history, this raises the question of why are we having environmental problems now rather than earlier. There are two reasons which are related to each other. The first is that our technology has enabled a larger population, and greater ability to consume energy and produce pollution. However, the other reason has to do with my previous post about René Descartes.

One of the characteristics of a modern mindset, which is found in Descartes’ Discourse on Method is the desire to be “masters and possessors of nature.” We want to master nature so that we can have comfortable, trouble-free lives, with good health for many years. This has become so much a part of our thinking that for most people that they don’t even think about it. So, if you couple this modern philosophy that we should be masters and possessors of nature for the sake of our own comfort and health with the enduring problem of human greed, it is no wonder that nature suffers as a result.

For these millennials, faith trumps relativism

Why would these young people belong to, much less celebrate, such a backward, oppressive institution as the Roman Catholic Church? And why do they seem to find Pope Benedict, 84, not just endearing but also inspiring?

via Column: For these millennials, faith trumps relativism – USATODAY.com.

Modernism says to forget the ignorant ideas of past generations, and always move forward. Modernism promises “progress”; things will just get better and better. These young people are not buying it. They recognize there is value in their heritage.

The advantages of pessimism

We may derive some benefit from the availability of hot baths and computer chips, but our lives are no less subject to accident, frustrated ambition, heartbreak, jealousy, anxiety or death than were those of our medieval forebears. But at least our ancestors had the advantage of living in a religious era which never made the mistake of promising its population that happiness could ever make a permanent home for itself on this earth.

via BBC News – A Point of View: The advantages of pessimism.

The Father of Modernity

Portrait of René DescartesAlthough there are many people who have contributed to our modern way of thinking, if I were to choose one person who caused the radical shift of thinking that led to modernity, I would choose René Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650). He certainly saw himself as creating a new way of thinking that he hoped would change the world.

According to his Discourse on Method, although he attended “one of the most renowned schools of Europe,” he was “confounded by so many doubts and errors” that he was frustrated in his desire to “acquire a clear and assured knowledge of everything that is useful in life” (5). The one subject he admired from his schooling was mathematics, “because of the certainty and the evidence of its reasonings,” but he was surprised that it had not been put to more practical use (8). He was most disappointed with philosophy, “seeing that it has been cultivated for many centuries by the most excellent minds that have ever lived and that, nevertheless, there still is nothing in it about which there is not some dispute, and consequently nothing that is not doubtful … I deemed everything that was merely probable to be well-nigh false” (9). In other words, even though great minds have studied philosophy over the centuries, they don’t come up with solid conclusions that can be known with certainty. To Descartes, anything that can’t be proved as certain might as well be taken as false.

Descartes goes on to attempt to build a system of thought that has the certainty of mathematics, but can be applied to solving the problems of life, which he believed the great philosophical minds of the past had failed to do. He did this by systematically discarding every bit of knowledge of which he could not be certain. As he went through this process of doubting, he realized that he could be certain at least that he was doubting, which led to his famous statement, “I think, therefore I am.” He realized that his experience of thinking established the fact of his own existence, and he used this fact as the first principle of his philosophy (32). However, his knowledge of his own existence is only as himself as a thinking thing distinct from his physical existence, and this leads him to make a distinction between “intelligent nature” and “corporeal nature” (36), which has come to be known as Cartesian Dualism.

By making this separation, Descartes was able separate concerns of the mind and the soul from concerns of the body, allowing him to treat the body as a machine. Descartes wanted to take the principles of mechanics that allowed a building to be constructed, and apply them to the physical world, and the human body (36).

In the last part of his Discourse on Method, Descartes goes into detail about what he thinks can be accomplished with this new thinking.

For these notions made me see that it is possible to arrive at knowledge that would be very useful in life and that, in place of that speculative philosophy taught in the schools, it is possible to find a practical philosophy, by means which, knowing the force and the actions of fire, water, air, the stars, the heavens, and all the other bodies that surround us … and thus render ourselves, as it were, masters and possessors of nature. This is desirable not only for the invention of an infinity of devices that would enable one to enjoy trouble-free the fruits of the earth and all the goods found there, but also principally for the maintenance of health, which unquestionably is the first good and the foundation of all the other goods of this life… (62)

Decartes wants us to be able to understand nature in order to control it, invent useful devices, and to improve our health and quality of life, and he thinks a mathematical and mechanical approach is the best way to accomplish this. Even though Descartes still believes in God and the human soul, his dualistic approach allows him to separate issues concerning them from issues concerning the physical world. By contrast, in the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was dominant before Descartes, the physical and the spiritual are seen as tightly integrated, and all human activity, including the study of the natural world, is directed to the goal of salvation and growth in the knowledge of God. Descartes made a substantial break from Aquinas, and is much more aligned with today’s modern thought.

In summary, here is a list of important aspects of modern thought which are found in Descartes’ Discourse on Method.

  1. A new, practical philosophy (science) must be developed that is a break from the philosophy of the past.
  2. It must only deal with that which can be known with certainty.
  3. The physical world, including the human body, is understood in a mechanical way, in isolation from the mind or spirit.
  4. The purpose of this knowledge is for us to become masters and possessors of nature in order to improve our health and quality of life.
I will come back to these points repeatedly in future posts as I look at the problems we wrestle with today.