Column 12/03/2022: Orthodox Schism, Orthodox War

Orthodox Schism, Orthodox War 

I have written a great deal on this blog before over the Orthodox Schism between Moscow and Constantinople, which was for several years one of the biggest Christian news stories in the world and one of the least reported on or discussed. In the last year, however, this story has mutated in ways that would have been impossible to predict, entirely because of the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

(If you have no idea what I'm talking about in regards to an "Orthodox Schism," I suggest you go and read this helpful explainer I wrote at the time of the initial break).

Put simply, the war has transformed the schism and now looks to extend it so far that global Orthodoxy is now perhaps on the verge of dissolution.

As I chronicled here, the early years of the Schism--once the OCU had been formed and Moscow had broken all communion and ties with Constantinople--featured increasingly extreme and increasingly ineffective efforts by Moscow to gain the allegiance and support of other autocephalous churches in the presumed hope of some form of sanction or excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. After the general failure of these efforts and increasing successes by Constantinople in getting autocephalous churches to recognize and enter into communion with the OCU, Moscow shifted tactics decisively towards aggression and attempts to divide the other churches from within. 

Even in the first phase, Churches that entered into communion with the OCU saw the ROC break off all ties with them--increasingly, though, Moscow began to aim at internal division of these Churches, selectively breaking communion with some bishops while retaining others. This culminated in the decision in January of this year to create an entirely new schismatic offshoot of the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria under Russian control--an act without precedent in modern Orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, however, while Moscow had largely failed in its efforts to gain the support of other autocephalous churches out of Eastern Europe, it had succeeded within Ukraine to a much greater degree than most observers would have predicted. The new independent, Constantinople-sanctioned "Orthodox Church of Ukraine" had suffered from significant growing pains, including problems caused by its relatively young and inexperienced leadership, the loss of its main political sponsor Petro Poroshenko, disappointment with the merely metropolitan and not Patriarchal status granted by Constantinople, and a painful internal schism that drew away many adherents. The old Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, meanwhile, had reasserted itself strongly thanks to its seasoned episcopal leadership, the loyalty of its believers, and a massive infusion of cash from Moscow, challenging the transfer of parishes, making the government step back from open support for the OCU, and rapidly building new parish buildings to replace their losses.

By earlier this year, then, the Schism seemed to be cementing a new longterm status quo, ending in what was more or less a draw on the initial terms of the conflict. Constantinople had succeeded in retaining its position as primary leader and point of contact for most autocephalous churches, fending off the clumsy Russian attempts to claim the status of alternative leader of global Orthodoxy; the ROC, meanwhile, had succeeded in retaining the key dioceses and parishes in Ukraine necessary for it to continue being the dominant force by population in Orthodoxy. Both had suffered significant losses--Constantinople in the loss of its ability to speak for and act in relation to the roughly half of all Orthodox believers in the ROC and in the dividing and diminishment of already-weak autocephalous Churches in the Middle East and Africa and Europe, Moscow in the halving of its parishes and population in Ukraine and the loss of positive contacts with most of the rest of global Orthodoxy--but both had retained the things most essential to their continuing existence. So it seemed it would proceed for the foreseeable future.

Then, of course, the Russian government invaded Ukraine.

Column 11/22/2022: An Apologia for American Evangelicism

An Apologia for American Evangelicism

There is a great need for narratives of the present and recent past that are not simply based on mass media or partisan politics.

The problem with most narratives of the recent past is that they are typically based on nothing--neither small-scale empirical experience reflected upon over time nor large-scale rational analysis of trends over time--and they are even more typically driven by unexpressed, hidden external goals: to win elections, get back at family members, salvage projects, denounce enemies, win arguments, and/or "own the libs."  Direct experience, even anecdotal experience, is extraordinarily valuable--so that in that way at least recent history is the ideal kind of historiography--but it becomes far more valuable when reflected upon and placed into a broader context, and not merely thrown into a blender with "other stuff" and served cold as one soggy inedible mass.

Economic history has made something of a comeback over the last decade, as incoherent, disorganized Leftism and increasingly organized Labor have had a general resurgence. It is still very much needed, however, and still very much not the norm. Religious history remains much rarer, and is just as much needed.

The history of American Evangelicism will prove, I think, to be one of the most important accounts for understanding the last roughly fifty years of American political and social history. But that history will have to leap over many high hurdles to make it into existence. At the present moment, accounts and analyses of Evangelicism are not wanting, but mostly come from (1) the crowing hatred of its partisan enemies, who have never understood it but have been growing ever more enraged by being defeated by it for so many decades, (2) the disdain and contempt of its natural enemies, the upper classes, the academics, the intellectuals, who always despised it but understand it now no better than they did in the '80s, and finally (3) its own former adherents, the "exvangelicals," who hate it and blame it as only disappointed sectarians can, for many genuine sins, but also for falling short of their current sectarian causes and failing to establish the utopia they were promised.

Evangelicism is, to say the least, no longer popular. Not only that, but it is increasingly, oddly obscured in the public and political world and mass media, as though it were entirely a thing of the past--except for among the exvangelicals, who speak of it like John Birchers of the United Nations, trying to constantly warn everyone of its crimes and its conspiratorial plots and its sole responsibility for all the problems of the world.

Yet for all that, it is simply true that the Evangelical movement was one of the most important religious and cultural and political events in America since WW2--and that things would have been, would be, very different without it.

This essay, then, is, if not an apologia in a strong sense, simply a basic, analytical theory of Evangelicism that places its nature in a broader context, and so works against accounts of it as a bizarre, uniquely wicked aberration. 

Column 11/04/22: Technological Criticism

Technological Criticism

To be unable to criticize technology is to be insane. This particular kind of insanity is the hallmark of modern society.

Allow me to justify the preceding statements. 

The Logos of Techne

It is difficult to think of a word for what we call "technology" in any ancient tongue or culture. In fact, it occurred to me recently that the word is rather bizarre in itself--something approaching a contradiction in terms. Logos and techne were fundamental categories to the Greeks and especially the Greek philosophers, but they existed in strong contradistinction to each other. Logos is the realm of knowledge, of discourse, of accounting for a particular reality, whether by means of abstract philosophy, mathematical calculation, or narrative. Techne, in contrast, is the realm of craft, of skilled practice aimed at creation and action.

It is by this time a very old intellectual-history commonplace to point to the connections between magic and technology, even to say, as C.S. Lewis did, that the main or only distinction between magic and technology is that one worked, and the other did not. There is truth in this, but it is nonetheless somewhat deceptive. Techne or craft in the pre-modern sense is in fact closely allied to magic, precisely because by its very nature it defies logos in the sense of pre-determined abstraction and calculation. The magician is a practitioner of a craft, but like many pre-modern craftsman, his craft cannot be neatly set out in a mathematical simulation or technical manual; he operates on a mixture of innate skill, honed practice, habit, planning, improvisation, and technique. Wizardry operates on the guild system, with masters and apprentices; there is no magical proletariat. Books of spells or alchemical texts read much like the Byzantine recipes for paints and metal alloys that I translated earlier this year: succinct sets of directions for already skilled and practiced craftsmen to achieve practical ends, given in imprecise proportions, with many options and lots of freedom to alter and experiment baked in.

Technology, though, is not techne. It is not a skill inhering in a skilled laborer operating on technique and instinct beyond the realms of abstract knowledge and calculation. It is, by its very nature, totally calculated and determined in advance, through the distinctively modern and scientific obsession with applied mathematics. 

Neither, though, is technology logos in the general sense of that word. Plato in many of his dialogues provides what could be rather more fittingly described as technologies: that is, rational accounts of techne in general and its particular species, describing their rational ends, the skills involved, and how to become a better practitioner. Technology, while totally calculated, is aimed emphatically at merely practical and immediate ends; it is rarely analyzed in philosophical or moral terms, and no practitioner of technology would regard such analysis as essential to its nature or operation.

Column 09/27/2022: The Catholic Church and Coercion

The Catholic Church and Coercion

For the last five years or so, the American Catholic Internet-o-sphere has been awash with discussion and debate over "integralism," or more broadly over the political doctrines of the Catholic Church. I have been following these debates closely, and have a great deal of respect for participants on many "sides." However, I have been consistently annoyed by the failure of many participants to define one key term that comes up again and again in these debates.

This term is "coercion."

If one reads, as I have been doing, D.C. Schindler's recent book on Catholic political theory (based in turn on his father DL Schindler's excellent scholarship), one discovers that his central disagreement with the "integralists" is his insistence, following Dignitatis Humanae and Vatican 2, that certain forms of religious coercion must be excluded. Or, if one reads the "integralist" Thomas Pink's scholarship on Dignitatis Humanae, one finds that the heart of his (polemical) argument, following Leo XIII and the 19th century magisterium, that the Catholic Church is not a voluntary, but a "coercive" society with the right to apply punishments and sanctions to her children to compel them to keep their baptismal promises. Or, again, if one reads the great Pater Edmund Waldstein, the modern originator of the term and base definition of "integralism," one likewise finds an insistence, along with a genuine concern for the dangers of religious coercion, on the necessity of stronger societal and pastoral coercion for the salvation of souls. Or, again, if one reads many of the less interesting enemies and alies of "integralism," one finds on the one hand a visceral disgust at, and on the other hand a gleeful exulting in, the idea of religious coercion as such. From such debates, one could get at times the (absurd) idea that the heart of these disagreements lies in the simple question of whether or not the Catholic Church can ever apply coercion to any people under any circumstances--or the (even more absurd) idea that "coercion" is a simple and univocal concept.

But what is coercion?

Column 09/05/22: We Are All Fascists Now

We Are All Fascists Now

The funny thing about contemporary American politics is that everyone seems to watch and read news constantly but no one actually seems to process and remember it.

The President of the United States traveled to a historical patriotic site and delivered a rousing speech, on the eve of an important election to rally the base against his radical, violent opponents, miscreants opposed to American Democracy and all the principles and values and traditions this country is based on: freedom, liberty, truth, and justice for all. Accompanied prominently by members of the military, he described these monsters' wicked refusal to accept their election losses and willingness to resort to political violence and rioting and conspiracy--in the process demonizing and committing acts of violence and intimidation against law enforcement and government officials. Most fundamentally, he accused them of doubting the essential goodness of America and the American people and the American government and openly denying the crucial dogma that "America is the greatest nation on earth" by attacking the heroes and accomplishments of American history and tradition. To support these people and their beliefs and their efforts, the President declared, was to attack the very basis of American identity and Democracy and so for all intents and purposes to cease to be an American. Against this existential threat, the President promised to fight with all his might and all the power of the American government and law enforcement--so long, of course, as you vote for him and his party in the upcoming elections. 

(ahem)

Yes, I'm of course talking about President Trump's July 4th, 2020 Mount Rushmore rally against the "Radical Left" and Black Lives Matters protesters.

And yes, I'm also talking about President Biden's September 1st, 2022 Philadelphia speech against "MAGA Republicans" and Stop the Steal protesters. 

The similarities between the two speeches show, more clearly than anything else could, that we have entered into a new phase of American electoral politics: one absolutely defined by (1) a widespread crisis of legitimacy, (2) an incoherent, reactionary, nationalism, and (3) the amoral appeal to State power and violence against one's enemies. 

To recognize this symmetry is not to hold that the two sides are simply the same, in fundamental beliefs, principles, or goals. It is rather to acknowledge that, at least in mass-media electoral politics, both sides are responding to the same basic circumstances, and being shepherded, to the degree that each side loses its principles and is led and embodied by incoherent amoral media figures like Trump and Biden, toward the use of the same methods in response to these circumstances. 

Column 09/03/2022: Mini-Art-Criticisms: Star Wars, Fellowship of the Ring, There Are Doors, Star Trek The Motion Picture

Mini-Art-Criticisms: Star Wars, Fellowship of the Ring, There Are Doors, Star Trek The Motion Picture

[I am experimenting with various formats in this column as I continue to be quite busy (and also because experimenting with various formats is what this column is all about). This week, I decided to collect some thoughts on a few books and films I have read/watched recently.]

In the last week or so, I have read the following books in their entirety, and watched the following films. The latter is a bit unusual, as I rarely watch films these days. Nonetheless, it occurred to me that they really dovetail in various ways quite nicely.

Column 08/26/22: Hilary of Poitier's Argument For Human & Divine Equality

Hilary of Poitier's Argument For Human & Divine Equality

[I was a bit under the weather and very busy this week, so instead of taking the time and effort to flesh out one of my existing column ideas, I decided to just write up what I've been immediately thinking about lately. As it turns out, I've been thinking a lot about Hilary of Poitier's doctrine of equality.

Hilary of Poitiers is a Doctor of the Church of the 4th century AD, known mostly for his stand against Arian doctrine. He played a big role in my dissertation, and ever since then, I've been fascinated by his concept of (human and divine) equality, which he makes absolutely central to both his theology and anthropology. Since then, I've been working on a paper on the topic, and trying to puzzle out both his essential argument, and especially what his sources and influences might have been. I haven't solved the latter one quite yet, but I thought it might be helpful to try to flesh out and write out in my own words what I take to be his essential argument and definition of equality. 

(It's sad to think how many people in the modern world don't realize that the centrality of equality in Christianity and modernity ultimately traces back to 4th century Trinitarian theology in general and Hilary of Poitiers in particular!) 

The below, then, is based on Hilary's work, especially De Synodis, with a smattering of De Trinitate, Ad Constantium, and In Constantium; it includes a few quotations from De Synodis at key points. However, while I believe the main arguments and conclusions are Hilary's, it also includes my own attempt to think through the implications and possible additional arguments and defenses for his concepts. Probably no one will find this interesting, but I enjoyed writing it. Ora pro nobis!]

I. That All Human Persons Are Equal, and Are Defined by Relations of Equality

(1) Postulate: The fundamental, basic category of experience and philosophical reflection is res: that is, "a thing" or "a reality." 

(2) Postulate: res can only be spoken of and made the subjects of philosophical thought to the extent that they exist and are rationally comprehensible.

(3) Argument: "Essentia (=ὀυσία, essence), and natura (=φύσις, nature), and genus (=γένος, natural kind), and substantia (=ὑπόστασις, substance), are able to be predicated of every res whatsoever."

(4) Definition: "An essentia (=ὀυσία, essence), is a res which exists, or it is those things from which a res exists, especially a res which stably exists (subsistit=subsists) in that which is enduring. Most properly, however, a res is called essentia insofar as it always exists." (De synodis 12)

That is to say, essentia designates a thing, a reality, insofar as it truly exists, and therefore insofar as it endures stably and in an orderly and knowable fashion over time. In particular, it describes a res insofar as it is either actually capable of, or at least tends toward, perpetual, ongoing existence. All res that possess essentia therefore in some sense tend towards perpetual existence.

(5) Definition: "The res, therefore, is also a substantia, because it is necessary that the res which it is should stably exist (subsistit=subsists) in itself." (De synodis 12)

That is to say, substantia (=ὑπόστασις, substance) designates a thing, a reality, insofar as it stably exists in and of itself. In this sense, substantia is not strongly distinguished from essentia: both designate a res insofar as it exists stably in such a way as to tend toward perpetual existence, with essentia describing this in terms of being and substantia laying the emphasis on stability and enduringness and their containment within the res itself.

(6) Definition: "Whatever stably exists, without a doubt is enduring in its genus or natura or substantia. When, therefore, we speak of essentia in order to signify nature or natural kind or substance, we understand them as belonging to that res which always stably exists in all these things." (De synodis 12)

Genus, natura, and substantia, then, are all essentially aspects of essentia, ways of designating and further describing those aspects or elements of a res by which it is enabled to exist stably in a way tending toward perpetual existence.

(7) Context: From among these terms, focus in on natura (=φύσις, nature). The Greek φύσις is etymologically tied to concepts of "birth" or "origination," as well as to broader ideas of "growth," "life," "movement," "springing up" (a la plants), and so forth. Natura, however, is derived from the more limited Latin word nascor="to be born, to be produced, to be procreated."

In speaking of natura, then, Hilary specifically intends to zero in on the aspect of a res's continuing existence that are tied to origination in general and procreation in particular. 

(8): Argument: Among those aspects of essentia that allow a res to exist stably in a way tending toward perpetual existence, central to many of our experience is the fact that the res was itself procreated by a res of the same genus and natura, and it in turn possesses the capability of procreating another res of the same genus and natura. 

(8.1) This is especially important for res like animals or human beings existing in time, and so in at least some aspects impermanently. 

(8.2) For res such as these, without procreation, in a very short time there would be no animals or human beings in actual existence, and so by necessity human being and animal would not be rationally comprehensible or knowable res.

(8.3) Furthermore, without procreation, humans and animals would be fundamentally temporary and transitory res, not in any genuine way tending towards perpetual existence, and so not describeable in terms of concepts like essentia and substantia. These res would not, therefore, truly subsist, and therefore they would fail to exist and to rationally knowable in a fundamental sense.

(8.4) Procreation is therefore metaphysically essential to the existence of these res, and possibly of all res.

(9) Argument: The process of procreation consists of two necessary elements: two entities who are truly distinct, of which one originates the other, and also a single natura which endures through the process of procreation and is shared in toto by both entities.

(9.1) If the two entities were not truly distinct, there would be nothing to distinguish natura from the simple enduring existence of an entity in itself designated properly by substantia. 

(9.2) If the two entities were not truly distinct, then it would be logically impossible, as happens in our experience, for one of the entities to die and cease to exist, and the other to continue existing.

(9.3) Hence, if the two entities were not truly distinct, then procreation would be absolutely useless in ensuring the continuing existence of the res and its tending toward perpetual existence. 

(9.4) If, on the other hand, nothing endured or continued to exist through the process of procreation, then procreation would have no relevance for the essentia of the res, and the res would therefore fall afoul of (8) and no longer truly exist or be rationally comprehensible.

(9.5) That the natura is shared in toto by both entities follows self-evidently from the definition of the term (see 10 below).

(10): Definition: Natura designates precisely that aspect of a res which stably exists and endures through the process of procreation.

(11) Argument: Natura must include all substantial and essential and generic properties possessed both by the progenitor and the natural kind as a whole.

(11.1) We in fact find, in our experience, that the offspring of a particular member of a natural kind is of the same natural kind as its progenitor. The child of a human being is a human being, the offspring of a cat is a cat, the offspring of a horse is a horse, and so on.

(11.2) If natura in the offspring lacked any property essential to the progenitor's own existence as a substantia and essentia, then again, procreation would not in fact extend the stable, substantial existence of the res and, per (8), that res would lack substantial existence and not be rationally comprehensible.

(11.3) If natura in the offspring lacked any property essential to its existence as a member of the same natural kind as its progenitor, then that natural kind or genus would lack stable existence and fail to be comprehensible, also as per (8).

(12) Definition: A virtus is a "natural power," that is, a power essential to the substantial existence of a res and included among its essential properties.

(13) Argument: Per (11) and (12), natura also includes the totality of virtus or natural power.

(14) Definition: Equality (=aequalitas) designates the relationship between a progenitor and an offspring, such that the two are both truly distinct (see 9) and share one and the same natura (see 10) and so all essential and substantial properties.

(15) Argument: "Every child, according to natural birth, is the equality (=aequalitas) of its parent." (De synodis 73).

In other words, the relationship of equality is fully constitutive of the existence of both child and parent qua child and parent, such that both child and parent can and must be described and defined, at least qua child and parent, as subsistent (that is, enduring, existing, rationally comprehensible) relations.

(15.1) Given (11) above, the only thing essentially and substantially distinguishing offspring from parent is the relationship between the two, which per (14) is designated by equality.

(15.2) Given that equality involves the true distinction of the two participants (see 9), this relation is all that is necessary to distinguish the two terms of the relation.

(15.3) Given (15.1) and (15.2), the only thing essentially and substantially distinguishing child and parent is the relation of equality. It therefore essentially and substantially constitutes their relation as child and parent.

(15.4) Furthermore, given that the relationship of procreation is fundamentally a relationship of origination, by which one entity produces another, there is a fundamental sense in which that relation constitutes not only the existence of the child qua child, but the existence of the child simpliciter, which is to say, the existence of the child merely as a res.

(15.5) Likewise, given that for the progenitor procreation extends the stable, essential existence of their own res and grants it a substantiality and essentiality otherwise lacking, there is at least one sense in which the relation of equality also constitutes the existence of the parent, not merely qua parent, but qua substance, qua essence, and therefore qua existence in a fundamental sense.

(16) Conclusion: All human persons without exception are equal (=aequalis, ἴσος) to one another in the sense given in (14).

(16.1) All human persons participate in the process of procreation as defined in (9) either as offspring alone or as both offspring and progenitor, and therefore participate in the relation of equality in a constitutive way with at least some other persons.

(16.2) All human persons belong to the natural kind "human being," which is defineable and knowable only in light of the essentia and substantia and natura whose res exists stably and is known through the process of procreation, and therefore through the relation of equality.

(16.2) Per Scripture and Tradition and dogmatic teaching, all human persons without exception are descended from one original human being, and therefore are related to one another through the relation of procreation, and therefore are equal to one another.

Part Two: That This Equality Has Necessary Implications For Society and Politics

(1) Postulate: Societies consist of human persons.

(2) Postulate: Societies and institutions can be said to exist and subsist and therefore be rationally comprehensible only in a manner analogous to natural res.

(3) Postulate: All societies, including political societies, are formed out of entities that are themselves constituted to a large extent by their direct relations as offspring and progenitor, and therefore by the relationship of equality. 

(4) Postulate: Per I. above, all societies, including political societies, are formed out of entities that are equal to one another in essence, nature, and natural power (virtus).

(5) Argument: The existence of political, social, or religious offices, institutions, and societies as stably existing, rationally comprehensible entities is likewise necessarily dependent on relationships of equality.

(5.1) The constitutive relationship between child and parent is analogous to the          relationship between (political, social, or religious) predecessor and successor inasmuch as both extend the existence of the office, institution, and society over time in such a way as to give it (analogously) substantial, essential existence and make it rationally comprehensible. 

(5.2) Therefore, the existence of all political, social, or religious offices, institutions, and societies is dependent for existence, stability, and knowability on the equality of predecessors and successors. 

(5.3) Political, social, and religious societies are analogous to natural kinds. 

(5.4) Therefore, all political, social, and religious societies exist in a stable and comprehensible fashion only inasmuch as all members without exception share some (analogous) essence in common. 

(5.5) Hence, all political social, and religious societies exist and are rationally knowable only inasmuch as the members are equal to one another.

Part Three: That God is Defined by Equality Between the Persons of the Holy Trinity

(1) Postulate: God may be defined as a res that exists and subsists in the maximal way, such that he not only tends toward, but actually achieves, eternal, stable existence and total rational knowability.

(2) Postulate: Therefore, God may be defined as the only res for which res is absolutely synonymous with essentia and substantia.

(3) Postulate: Given (1) and (2), there is a direct relationship between God and the fundamental metaphysical categories ascribeable to all res, and therefore it is both possible and fruitful to reason about God by analogy from created beings and natural kinds, especially human persons. 

(4): Argument: Given the above, and given that as established in I. natura is fundamentally synonymous with essentia and substantia, and given that, as Hilary argues in I.3 above, natura, like essentia and substantia, is able to be predicated of every res whatsoever, it is reasonable that God be equated with natura also, and therefore be defined necessarily by a procreative relationship.

(5) Argument: In applying the terms Father and Son to God the Father and God the Son, the Scriptures and Tradition intend to assert that the necessarily concomitant sense of equality described in (I.14) is the defining feature of the relationship between Father and Son.

(5.1) God is incapable of deliberate deception, and aims fundamentally at the salvation of all human persons. 

(5.2) Given (5.1), God uses in their natural significations the essential words of the Sacraments necessary for salvation. 

(5.3) The confession of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit belongs to the necessary words and actions of the Sacrament of Baptism and therefore is necessary for salvation. 

(5.4) Therefore God in designating himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is using the terms "father" and "son" in their natural significations: that is, to designate fundamentally the relationship of natural equality. (See Ad Constantium)

(5.5) Moreover, the Scriptures (Philippians 2:6-11, John 5:18) in fact designate the relation between Father and Son by the term equal (=aequalis, ἴσος), and in Philippians connect this with being "in the form (=essentia, οὐσία) of God," while in John this is treated as the logical, natural consequence of Christ "calling God his Father." (See De Trinitate)

(6) Argument: If the Father and Son are in fact equal in even an analogous sense to that given of human persons in I., they are necessarily equal in a maximal, absolute sense, inapplicable to any other entities.

(6.1) Since Father and Son by procreation share a single natura that includes all essential properties, and since in God there is no distinction between res and essentia, the natura conveyed to Son by the Father in the process of procreation necessarily makes the Son God in the fullest possible sense. 

(6.2) Besides substantial and essential properties, all created res possess various accidental properties, which lead to differences among human persons that are not rooted in substance and essence. 

(6.3) God does not possess any accidental properties; hence, it is impossible for Father and Son to differ in any way whatsoever. 

(6.4) In particular, since virtus or natural power is an essential property, and since all accidental powers or accidental differences in the exercise of natural powers are excluded from the definition of God, it is impossible for Father and Son to differ in power.

(7) Argument: The Father cannot exist without the Son, and so cannot precede the Son in existence. 

(7.1) Given the analogy with human equality, it is reasonable to define the Son as the equality of the Father, and hence as constituted qua Son by his relationship with the Father; it is also reasonable to see the Father as constituted qua Father by his relation with the Son. 

(7.2) However, there is in Father and Son no possibility of distinction between essential existence, existence simpliciter, and existence qua Father and qua Son. Hence, both Father and Son are fully constituted as such by their relation. 

(7.3) Given (7.1) and (7.3), and even given (6.1) it is impossible for the Father to precede the Son in any way, and especially impossible and even inconceivable that he could precede the Son in the temporal sense in which human fathers precede sons. 

(7.4) Moreover, to be essentia in the sense ascribed to God is per (1) to actually exist eternally; therefore the Son actually exists eternally in the maximal possible sense; hence, the Father cannot precede him in existence.

(7) Conclusion: The Father and Son are truly distinct, possess one and the same substance, essence, and nature, are co-eternal with one another, do not differ in any way in essence, substance, nature, glory, power, or honor, and are absolutely equal and consubstantial (=ὁμοούσιος) to one another.

Column 08/13/22: Death of the Son (EP 1)

Death of the Son (EP 1)

[A mathematician friend recently challenged me to do something which he wanted to do but couldn't but which he claimed I could: namely to write, with some minimal degree of historical and especially character verisimilitude, a murder mystery set in the 4th century AD. Since I can't resist such a challenge or such flattery, since my writing time is limited, since I've never tried writing fiction in installments before and since the whimsical Dickensian/Flash-Gordon-y quality of such a format appeals to me, especially for a self-consciously pulpy genre pot-boiler like a 4th century murder mystery, I decided to do it in installments in this column. The next installment will come at some later point (definitely not next week); and who knows how many there will be?]

He stood in the dusty sand of the arena, shaded (but barely) by the brick wall beneath the stands, as they led the day's victims forward: ten men, women, and children, clothed (but barely), stony-eyed and defiant. When they reached the center of the arena, where the black-clad carnificines shuffled nervously, they and their guards alike stood fast, turned, and waited, their eyes fixed to a point above his head.

After only a few moments, the chief guard (not a centurion or even the leader of a cohort, but a mere auxiliary commander, and a German) nodded, then drew his long spatha from its sheathe as theatrically as he could manage, rounded on the prisoners, and grasped the first victim firmly by the arm.

The crowd in the arena seemed to have been holding its breath, and now released it. It was a young woman, thirty at most, but pale and thin, with long, dark hair and dark eyes that stood out of her face,

In that one moment, the mood in the arena had shifted, subtly but definitely.

Many different things drew men (and women, and children) to the arena on days like today, just as many different spirits animated the magistrates that presided over such displays. One could always tell, however, absolutely and infallibly, what kind of familiar spirit would preside on that particular day by the first victim chosen. 

If the magistrate was congenitally reluctant about his task (and this was becoming increasingly common, as the angry Imperial missives read aloud almost daily in the piazza testified), the first victim would be a strong, hale man, otherwise undesirable, perhaps (many in the crowd, he knew, would say), not a real Christian, a real believer at all, but just a criminal. He, of course, knew like the magistrates that the matter was hardly that simple: Christian and criminal were by no means mutually exclusive categories, and it was always possible to find some margin of Christians diverging from the Way or doomed criminals succumbing to the allure of a sudden conversion and dramatic death. Such events rarely drew large crowds; by this point in the Campaign, even the magistrates knew that the audience would be mostly pious Christians who felt duty-bound (and safe) enough to support their weaker brethren.

If the magistrate was weak, insecure, afraid of both his task and his superiors, the first victim would be a young man, a child, really, or an old man near death--anyone who looked both weak and fearful enough to resist badly and die quickly. He had seen magistrates break down and cry at a denunciation from a strong victim, or even flee in terror from the arena; and then ever after preside over the torture of no one but small boys and elders so decrepit that their voices could not be heard from the stands and they died at the first bodily shock. These events drew the largest consistent crowds, for reasons he could not be sure of; at first, he had though it was merely perversion, such as drew a small, determined crowd of devotees to the regular executions, but had gradually realized that such crowds were in essence as fearful as their masters.

The truly fanatical among the Imperial service, as well as the truly bureaucratically committed, the truly insane, and the true careerist climbers (groups not easily distinguished) naturally targeted the leadership, intellectual and official, of the Church, always beginning with the bishop, or if not he, then his right-hand priest, or if not he, certainly some important layman in Imperial service, some brilliant intellectual from a school of philosophers, to test their mettle in open conflict, descending into the arena themselves to argue with their victims and offer salvation up to the very moment of death. There were few of such magistrates, and fewer every day; either because by now, after a long, failed Campaign, they had been rewarded by Diocletian and Dia with promotion, or because they had been driven from office by the hatred of the people.

When a magistrate selected a young woman as the first victim of the day, though, it could mean only one thing; and the crowd knew it as well as he. There were no more cheers, no more hum of regular activity and happy anticipation, and as he looked up towards the stands he could see the largest section of the already small crowd (the crowds had been smaller every day...) filing slowly towards the exits. Those that remained were either ashamed, shifting their feet and not looking at their neighbors, or wild-eyed and beyond shame; one old woman sitting far off by herself, certainly a Christian, perhaps a relative of one of the condemned, was quietly weeping. 

Young, female victims produced shame and, eventually, sympathy; if they showed any endurance at all, lasted at all longer than the minimum expected (and crowds always underestimated with women), it would be seen by the crowd as a defeat and a humiliation for them, the magistrate, the Emperors, and the Jovian Kingdom itself. Mixed into a larger crowd of victims, women could draw little attention; but put first, they showed nothing other than the personal desires of the magistrate. He could almost see him, the Logistes himself, looking as he always did, his eyes bulging, his thin hair plastered to his face, sweating with the heat, rubbing his hands together again and again as though to protect them from the cold.

It was then that he what he had felt it so many times before, what he had felt on every such day since the Campaign had begun: a wave of overpowering, deafening shame, washing over his whole body, making his hands shake, his knees buckle, his teeth chew bitterly at his tongue, his eyes close, burying him in darkness. How much longer, my Lord...?

He was no longer by the wall, now, but dressed in the garb of a carnifex, and looking into the eyes of the young woman. She opened her mouth to speak--

"Theodotus."

For a moment after he had woken up, he did not know where, or even who, he was. His first emotion was confusion, and his first thought, absurdly, that is not my name. As he always did when he woke, though, his first action, before even thought, was to bring his hand up to his face, to his right eye and the empty socket from which it had been plucked many years before. 

Yes, he thought, as he caressed it with his fingers, yes, I am he.

With that, as it always did, memory and will returned to him. His eyes snapped open, and he rolled out of his cot.

Column 08/06/22: Pornographic Politics

Pornographic Politics

They whip him through the streets and alleys, there,
the gormless and the baying crowd, right there:
They can't get enough of that Doomsday song,
They can't get enough of it all.

I've seen the Future, brother: it is murder.

I stopped watching American presidential debates many years ago. I could write a whole article about the evil and incoherence of this process, the result of the tiny, unchecked cabal of Hollywood networks that once collectively controlled all political information realizing that it would be very profitable if they could convince everyone that they had a civic responsibility to watch Wheel of Fortune every election year. Presidential debates are not formatted like debates; they are formatted like Family Feud with a slathering of Civic Responsibility Frosting. They are entirely a negative phenomenon, and no one should watch them.

However, for the 2020 election, I made an exception. As a televized matchup, Trump vs Biden seemed bizarre beyond belief, bizarre to a degree that could only be called artistic, and for that reason intrigued me on a deeply aesthetic level. Two uncannily, bizarrely similar figures: old men with poor impulse control, swollen, sensitive egos, an overpowering impulse for the pettiest kind of bullying towards rivals and subordinates, long histories of "creepiness," "handsiness," and sexual assault towards young women; two men who have never been particularly good at the so-called "details" or "substance" of politics; two men who have spent their lives in the public eye, on video, in camera, from youth to old age; two men who out of the above qualities have developed bizarre, unique, utterly inimitable styles of thinking, reacting, emoting, and speaking; two old men in decline. I admit that, like Augustine's friend, I simply could not resist the spectacle.

What I saw for those two hours still haunts me. 

Column 07/27/22: Manifesto of an Ultramontanist

[I would like to apologize for missing a few weeks with my column due to family vacation, starting a new job, and getting terribly sick. I will likely occasionally miss weeks in the future, of course. In the meantime, here is a column that answers a desire of mine to write a bit more on specifically Catholic issues.]

An Ultramontanist Manifesto

Of all my various claims to fame (author of the comic strip Bob, director and star of Star Groove, food prep for Mimi's Sodas), one that I'm actually fairly proud of is that I have played a role in a number of people becoming more Ultramontane. 

Ultramontanism is not, as you might suspect, a rare disease of the feet, but a theological and personal and pastoral and ecclesiastical emphasis within Catholicism: namely, an emphasis on the authority of the Pope, the bishop of Rome, as the central, universal, infallible, practical authority of the Catholic Church. 

In this column, I will aim to give a brief analysis of what this means and why I think it's important:

Column 07/07/22: How I Met Elon Musk at Waffle House

[Please note that none of the below events have ever actually occurred.]

I met Elon Musk at Waffle House recently. Given the stature of Waffle House's contributions to American society, I think we can all agree the story is worth recounting.

Pope Leo I, Sermon 82 (for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter & Paul)

 [A quick translation for the feast today, from the "most Roman of Popes," whose Latin eloquentia shines through very strongly in the original. A very important document for understanding Late Antique Rome and the Papacy.]

The whole world, Beloved, truly participates in all the Holy Solemnities: and the piety of the One Faith demands that, whenever any deed, done for the salvation of all, is being recalled in worship, it should be celebrated everywhere with common rejoicings.

Nonetheless, today's feast demands a special honor and exultation unique to our own City, beyond the reverence which this feast merits throughout the whole circle of lands. In this place where the departure of these preeminent Apostles was first glorified, let there be a primacy of joy on the day of their martyrdom!

For these are the men through whom the Gospel of Christ, O Rome, dawned for you in splendor, and through whom you, who were the Teacher of Error, were made the Student of Truth. These are your Holy Fathers and True Shepherds, who founded you in a much better and much more fortunate way, grafting you into the Heavenly Kingdoms, than those men by whose efforts the first foundations of your walls were laid: of whom the one who gave you your name defiled you with his brother's blood.

These are the men who have raised you to this glory: that through the Holy See of Blessed Peter you have been made a Holy Clan, a Chosen People, a Priestly and Royal State, and the Head of World, and now preside over a wider area through divine religion than through earthly dominion. For although you once extended the sway of your Empire throughout land and sea, increasing it by many victories, nevertheless that which violent labor subdued is less than that which the Christian Peace has embraced.

For God is good, and just, and omnipotent, who has never denied his mercy to the human race, who by his most abundant acts of beneficence has always taught all mortals in common to know him, who has had mercy on the blindness and wickedness of those who wandered at their own will, rushing headlong to ever worse things, by his even more discerning prudence and his even deeper piety, and sent his own Word, equal to him and coeternal with him. This one was made flesh, and thus united divine nature to human nature, so that his bending down to the lowest things might become our exaltation to the highest things.

But so that the effects of this unspeakable grace might be diffused throughout the whole world, with his divine providence he prepared the Roman Empire. Additions were gradually made to its borders, so that the totality of all nations everywhere might be made neighbors and acquaintances. For it was suitable for that work which was being divinely prepared that many kingdoms be made allies under one Imperium, so that the universal proclamation might quickly find accessible peoples, held under the discipline of a single state.

This state, however, ignorant of the author of her exaltation, although she was master of nearly all the nations, was herself a slave to the errors of all nations, and believed that she had made religion great because she had rejected no falsehood. But then, as tenaciously as she had been bound fast by the devil, so miraculously was she set free by Christ.

For when the Twelve Apostles, having received the ability to speak all languages through the Holy Spirit, had undertaken to pervade all the world with the Gospel and had distributed the parts of the earth among themselves, Blessed Peter, Primate of the Apostolic Order, was destined for the citadel of the Roman Empire: so that the light of truth which was being revealed for the salvation of all nations might diffuse itself more effectively from the Head itself through the whole Body of the World.

For what nation did not then have people in this City? Or what nations were ever ignorant of what Rome had taught? Here the divergent opinions of Philosophy must be trampled underfoot, here the vanities of earthly wisdom must be dissolved, here the worship of demons must be suppressed, here the impiety of all sacrifices must be destroyed, in the very place where every practice and belief that had ever been established by the varied errors of mankind had been collected and was being maintained with very diligent superstition.

To this city you, Most Blessed Peter the Apostle, were not afraid to come, and while the sharer in your glory, Paul the Apostle, was still occupied with setting the other churches in order, you, far more constant than when you walked upon the sea, entered this forest of raging beasts, this ocean of most turbulent depths. And you, who in the house of Caiphas had trembled at the servant-girl of the High-Priest, did not fear Rome, Master of the World.

For surely neither the power of Claudius nor the cruelty of Nero was a lesser thing than the judgment of Pilate and the fury of the Judeans?

Therefore it was the violence of your love which conquered all the reasons for fear; and you did not think it right to tremble at those whom you had undertaken to love. Indeed you had already conceived this passion of fearless charity at that time when the profession of your love for the Lord was strengthened by the mystery of threefold questioning. For from this intention of your mind he asked nothing else but that, pasturing the sheep of him whom you love, you give out that same food with which you yourself had been filled.

Your confidence had also been increased by so many signs of miracles, so many gifts of charisms, so many experiences of virtues. Already you had taught those peoples who had believed from the circumcision; already you had founded the Antiochene Church, where first the dignity of the Christian Name had arisen; already you had imbued Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithinia with the laws of the Preaching of the Gospel. You were not doubtful about the outcome of your work, nor were you ignorant of the extent of your own life, as you brought to the Roman citadels the Trophy of the Cross of Christ, a Cross through which, by divine pre-ordination, the Honor of Power and the Glory of Suffering awaited you.

To this same place your fellow Apostle, the Vessel of Election and special Teacher of the Gentiles, Paul, arrived and was joined to you at that time when all innocence, all decency, and all liberty were suffering under the Imperium of Nero. The fury of this man, inflamed through his excess in all vices, fell headlong into this fire of his own insanity, so that he was the first to inflict atrocity of a general persecution on the Christian Name, as though the grace of God was able to be extinguished through the murder of the saints, for whom in fact this was the greatest reward, that their contempt for this life become the gaining of eternal happiness.

'Precious,' therefore, 'in the sight of God is the death of his saints': nor is that religion founded on the Sacrament of the Cross of Christ able to be destroyed by any kind of cruelty. The Church is not diminished by persecutions, but increased: and always the Field of the Lord is clothed with richer fruit while the grains, which die alone, are born multiplied.

Thus the thousands of Blessed Martyrs testify to how much offspring those two shoots of divine seed have produced. These thousands of imitators of the Apostolic Triumphs have filled our city with bands robed in purple and shining far and wide with red, and have as it were crowned her with one crown assembled out of the honors of many gems.

In this garrison, Beloved, which has been divinely prepared for us to show us examples of patience and to strengthen our faith, we must indeed rejoice universally by the commemoration of all the saints, but in the preeminence of these fathers we should deservedly glory even more exultantly, whom the grace of God raised to so high a peak among the members of the Church that, in the body for which Christ is Head, he has established them, as it were, as the twin lights of the eyes.

About their merits and virtues, which surpass all ability to speak of, we ought to think nothing different, nothing divergent: because their election made them peers, and their labor made them the same, and their end made them equal.

As we ourselves have experienced and as our ancestors have demonstrated to us, so we believe and have confidence that, among all the labors of this life, in obtaining the mercy of God we will always be helped by the prayers of our special patrons: so that, as much as we beg mercy for our own sins, so much will we be raised up by the merits of the Apostles.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom belongs one and the same Power with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one Divinity, forever and ever. Amen.

Column 06/27/22: Abortion, Infanticide, and the Hubris of Technological Modernity

Abortion, Infanticide, and the Hubris of Technological Modernity

For anyone living under a rock (or in a blessed state of not-following-the-news, which I highly recommend), this past Friday, June 24th, on the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart and what would normally be the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, denying the presence of a Constitutional right to abortion and returning the issue of abortion regulation to the states. 

The issue of abortion is in many ways a unique one in American politics; from its very beginning until now, it has cut across the typical lines of partisan affiliation and disrupted and forged ideological alliances almost at random. Starting out as a "Catholic issue"--one of a bevy of Eugenics-related progressive causes favored by almost every American social and religious group but bitterly opposed by Catholics--in short order it succeeded in breaking apart practically every existing political alliance that had defined American politics prior to the 1960s and forging (very unexpected) new ones. It would be difficult to overstate the potential of the present decision to alter American politics and aid in large-scale "realignment" of American coalitions, alliances, and ideologies.

I don't want to talk about any of that, though. What I instead want to talk about is what the abortion issue--and especially the terms in which it is debated--tells us about the society we live in and its underlying, broadly shared assumptions.

What is abortion?

Column 06/22/22: A Short Guide to Barefoot Walking

A Short Guide to Barefoot Walking

I do a lot of walking, and a lot of walking barefoot, regularly exploring roads, sidewalks, fields, and woods in this scandalous state of undress. When people learn this, they generally have some questions for me, questions like: why? 

I have never really been able to answer this question, so here is an essay on the topic.

The simplest and probably most truthful answer to the question is that I've been doing it since I was a kid, when my brothers and I would spend summers on a cattle farm in rural Ohio, and I kept doing it when I got older because some of my brothers did too and I thought it was kinda cool and I don't know, it was something to do, you know?

In the eyes of the general public, though, barefoot walking has gained a great deal of mystique that is almost entirely unjustified. I promise that I do not walk barefoot to gain health benefits in regard to my posture, or because I want to be in closer touch with the Earth my mother. Barefoot running is supposedly good for you, and lots of people now wear barefoot-shoes to imitate the barefoot stride, but to be honest every time I've tried to run barefoot I've gotten horrible shinsplints. Go figure.

Still, I think the above qualifies this essay as CULTURALLY RELEVANT. So if you, dear reader, ever feel compelled to try to get into walking barefoot, here is a Guide to the topic, which mostly explains in great detail why you absolutely should not get into walking barefoot. It is divided into BULLET POINTS and STEPS, which are all out of order, and culminates in a mystical ramble on the nature of intelligence and divinity. I'm sorry.

Column 06/13/22: The Earth in Anarchy

The Earth in Anarchy

This is most likely the last thing I will ever write in this space on mass shootings.

This is not an issue I prefer to comment on for a very large number of reasons, the most emphatic of which is that it has become clear to me that it is precisely the writing and proclaiming and glorifying of such events that is most responsible for their continuation, as a virtually unique, imitative, mass-media-driven phenomenon. Mass shooters commit mass shootings first and foremost because they have heard and read about other mass shootings, have become deeply impressed by the cultural and social and political impact of such events, the fear and grief and anger they inspire, the iconic and symbolic nature of the killings, the manifestos and disaffection and claims and identities of the killers, and the deep, universally-acknowledged sense of meaningfulness about all the above, and so have decided to imitate them. The most directly impactful thing I, and probably most of you, can do to prevent mass shootings is to ignore them unless you are directly or indirectly affected by them. Even then, it is quite clear to me that the mass-media and political circus around such events deeply harms the actual victims of shootings, preventing them from grieving and moving forward by cynically channeling their grief into the news cycle. I have no desire to participate in any of the above, however remotely.

Nonetheless, in the current mass media landscape, such events as these are supposed to lead to conversations and policy debates about "gun control" and "gun violence." These conversations now commonly involve direct accusations of opponents being responsible for murder and the death of children, and lead, in practice, mostly to an increase in the generally violent valence of American society. 

Despite the above cautions, probably for the only time, is my own contribution to this discourse. It will not be repeated.

I should perhaps repeat at the outset that I do not own a gun, have no desire to own a gun, and in fact possess a fairly strong personal aversion to firearms, which was perhaps inherited from my maternal grandfather, who despite owning a firearm as a practical necessity (in his career as a cattle farmer), had a strong aversion to guns and avoided using them as much as possible.

Column 06/01/22: City of Valleys

City of Valleys

I want to write something about the place where I was born.

Birmingham is the largest city in Alabama, but it is hard for me to think of it as a city at all. Here is a definition of a city: a place where the signs and efforts of human habitation have overwhelmed and defined the landscape. This is not what I feel when I am in Birmingham.

The people who built Birmingham were businessmen. Far from what was then considered civilization, it was discovered that the mountains contained iron ore. Railroads were built, and certain industrialists succeeded in getting them to intersect here, instead of somewhere else; and with an odd but characteristic mixture of simplicity and grand aspiration, they decided to name this conjunction for the greatest industrial city of the contemporary world.

Beginning as an aspirational Birmingham, England, it gradually transitioned into an aspirational Detroit, "the Steel City of the South." Now, the steel furnaces, mills, and factories that once darkened the sky have disappeared so entirely that it is difficult to believe they were ever there; and Birmingham has passed to presenting itself as an aspirational Atlanta.

All these urban and civilizational trappings sit lightly on Birmingham. When I am there, as I was recently, it is not these things of which I think.

Column 05/23/22: The End of the Armistice

[A new concept: after years of reading G.K. Chesterton's newspaper columns, I have really come to like the format. There is something interesting about seeing an essayist with a broad variety of interests comment in real time on things as they come up, whether general events or politics or religion or literature or life. This is not true of most modern newspaper columns, which are short and narrowly focused on partisan politics. With this in mind, I have set myself the task of writing a weekly "column" in which I comment on whatever the hell I want, with very little editing, and while limiting myself in length (c. 2000-3000 words) and complexity. I make no claims whatsoever that these "essays" will be even a hundredth as interesting as Chesterton's.]

The End of the Armistice

Prices are high, cost of living through the roof, inflation peaking, workers desperate for steady employment and higher wages, businesses desperate for labor, productivity down, resignations endemic, corporate profits through the roof, traditional sectors of the economy being hollowed out and replaced by new, creative forms of gambling and get-rich-quick schemes, reports of new, localized but increasingly apocalyptic conflicts appear daily on the news, there are rumblings of labor strikes and even revolution, and many people seem to find it impossible to do the most basic things.

What year is it? 1920.

At the beginning of the event known colloquially as "the Pandemic" (much as people in 1920 spoke colloquially of "the War"), I made a few observations and predictions which I have had no cause to retract:

1) That the Pandemic was the most significant global event since the World Wars, precisely because it was an event affected almost everyone, in every stratum of society throughout the world, immediately and extremely.

2) That in predicting how society and individuals would respond and react to the Pandemic, we should look to the World Wars.

3) That therefore the period after the Pandemic, like the periods after both Wars, would be marked by significant societal and political and international instability.

4) In particular, I believed that the immediate impact of Pandemic conditions would lead to an increase in stress and stress-related behaviors, a sense of personal and global instability a la "anything can happen," and therefore to simultaneous and staggered increases in both extreme risk-averse behavior and extreme risk-prone behavior. That is, faced with the knowledge that Events with extreme personal and global effects can happen apart from normal, societally- and intellectually-approved calculations and systems, people would spend a significant period of time oscillating between an irrational desire to flee from all dangers, and an equally irrational desire to risk anything and everything since they're probably doomed anyway. And the result of both of these impulses would be social and political instability.

Mary Worth & French Postmodernism: 2/3/22

 

Pope St Martin I, Epistola XVII

Another quick translation for the feast of Pope St. Martin I:

"We always have every desire of consoling your love with letters and alleviating that anxiety which you have about us: and along with you also all the saints and our brothers who care about us because of the Lord.

Look, I am writing to you for the present about the things that oppress us. I speak the truth in the name of Christ our God. For we have been removed from all earthly disturbance, and separated from our sins, and look, we have even been deprived of life itself.

If only the people who live in this region were all pagans! Indeed the people who are known to dwell here have accepted pagan morals, and no longer have that love, with abundant compassion, which human nature shows even among barbarians. God knows that this is how it is, except in regards to the people from the ships which come from 'Romania,' as those who are here call those regions, that is to say, that is what they call the regions of Greek Pontus. For from this region I have not once been able able to get hold of even a single trimensis of grain or food of any other kind, except, as I said above, from the ships which rarely come here to depart again loaded with salt. In this way we have been able to buy with money three or four measures of grain during the period up to the present month of September. And til now we have not been able to buy any fresh produce except four measures for one coin.

I have been amazed, however, and I still am amazed at the lack of understanding and lack of compassion of all those who once belonged to me, even my friends and family, because they have entirely forgotten my plight, and do not even want to know, as I have learned, whether I am above the ground or not. I have also wondered much more at those who belong to the Most Holy Church of Peter the Apostle, because they have given so little effort about their own body and their own body part--that is, my love--in order to bring us back, and are without concern even for the necessities of my body and my daily needs. For even if the Church of Holy Peter does not have gold, nevertheless by the grace of God she does not lack grain and wine and other necessities, so that she could show her concern by giving me even a little.

What sort of conscience do you think we have to display before the tribunal of Christ, at that time when all people, who have arisen from the same mud and the same mass, will accuse and render accounts? What fear is this which has fallen upon people so that they do not at all do the commandments of God, or what fear can there be where there is no fear? Or have malignant spirits buried us in slander to such an extent? Or have I appeared to be an enemy of the whole fullness of the Church, and their enemy?

Nevertheless may God, who wills that all be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, through the intercession of Holy Peter preserve their hearts in the Orthodox Faith, and strengthen them against every heretic and every person opposed to our Church, and guard them immovable, especially that pastor who is now appointed to preside over them, and therefore let them neither fall away, nor turn away, nor let go of, any of those things which in the sight of God and his Holy Angels they have professed in writing, even to the smallest part, and let them, together with my humility, obtain the Crown of Justice of the Orthodox Faith from the hand of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For the care for this humble body of mine will belong to the Lord himself, as it pleases him to govern it, whether in unceasing troubles, or in a little respite. For the Lord is near; why am I anxious? I certainly hope in his mercies, because he is not now delaying in bringing an end to my race, to which he ordered me.

Keep safe those who belong to you because of the Lord, and all those who for the love of God have had compassion on my chains. May the Most High God with his powerful hand protect you from every trial, and keep you safe for his kingdom."

 -Pope St. Martin I, Epistola XVII

Mary Worth & French Postmodernism: 1/30/22

"The reabsorption of critical negativity is echoed by an even more radical form of denial: the denial of reality.

In simulation, you move beyond true and false through parody, masquerade, derision to form an immense enterprise of deterrence. Deterrence from every historical reference, from all reality in the passage into signs. This strategy of destabilization, of discrediting, of divestment from reality in the form of parody, mockery, or masquerade becomes the very principle of government, is also a depreciation of all value.

The question is no longer of a power or a 'political' power connected to a history, to forms of representation, to contradictions and a critical alternative. Representation has lost its principle and the democratic illusion is complete--not as much by the violation of rights as by the simulation of values, general uncertainty and the derealization of all reality. Everyone is caught in the signs of power that occupy the entire space--and that are shared by everyone communally (take for example the resigned, embarrassed complicity in the rigged workings of the political sphere and polls).

From there, the system works exponentially:

--not starting from value, but from the liquidation of value.
--not through representation, but through the liquidation of representation.
--not from reality but from the liquidation of reality.

Everything in the name of which domination was exercised is terminated, sacrificed, which should logically lead to the end of domination. This is indeed the case, but for the sake of hegemony.

The system doesn't care a fig for laws; it unleashes deregulation in every domain.

--Deregulation of value in speculation.
--Deregulation of representation in the various form of manipulation and parallel networks.
--Deregulation of reality through information, the media, and virtual reality.

From that point on: total immunity--one can no longer counter the system in the name of one's own principles since the system has abolished them. The end of all critical negativity. Closure of every account and all history. The reign of hegemony.
[...]
The most serious of all forms of self-denial--not only economically or politically but metaphysically--is the denial of reality. This immense enterprise of deterrence from every historical reference, this strategy of discrediting, of divesting from reality in the form of parody, mockery, or masquerade, becomes the very principle of government. The new strategy--and it truly is a mutation--is the self-immolation of value, of every system of value, of self-denial, in differentiation, rejection and nullity as the triumphant command."

-Jean Baudrillard, The Agony of Power

Mary Worth & French Postmodernism: 1/9/22

"At the supreme moment of the crisis, the very instant when reciprocal violence is abruptly transformed into unanimous violence, the two faces of violence seem to be juxtaposed; the extremes meet. The surrogate victim serves as catalyst in this metamorphosis. And in performing this function he seems to combine in his person the most pernicious and most beneficial aspect of violence. He becomes the incarnation, as it were, of a game men feign to ignore, one whose basic rules are indeed unknown to them: the game of their own violence.

It is not enough to say that the surrogate victim 'symbolizes' the change from reciprocal violence and destruction to unanimous accord and construction; after all, the victim is directly responsible for this change and is an integral part of the process. From the purely religious point of view, the surrogate victim--or, more simply, the final victim--inevitably appears as a being who submits to violence without provoking a reprisal; a supernatural being who sows violence to reap peace; a mysterious savior who visits affliction on mankind in order subsequently to restore it to good health.

To our modern way of thinking a hero cannot be 'good' without ceasing to be 'evil,' and vice versa. Religious empiricism sees matters in a different light; in a sense, it confines itself to recording events as it sees them. Oedipus is initially an evil force and subsequently a beneficial one. It is not a question of 'exonerating' him, because the question of blaming him, in the modern moralistic sense of the term, never arises.

[...]

The beneficial Oedipus at Colonus supersedes the earlier, evil Oedipus, but he does not negate him. How could he negate him, since it was the expulsion of a guilty Oedipus that prompted the departure of violence? The peaceful outcome of his expulsion confirms the justice of the sentence passed on him, his unanimous conviction for patricide and incest.

If Oedipus is indeed the savior of the community, it is because he is a patricidal and incestuous son."

-René Girard, Violence and the Sacred

Mary Worth & French Postmodernism: 12/22/21

"The mechanism of reciprocal violence can be described as a vicious circle. Once a community enters the circle, it is unable to extricate itself. We can define this circle in terms of vengeance and reprisals, and we can offer diverse psychological descriptions of these reactions.

As long as a working capital of accumulated hatred and suspicion exists at the center of the community, it will continue to increase no matter what men do. Each person prepares himself for the probable aggression of his neighbors and interprets his neighbor's preparations as confirmation of the latter's aggressiveness. In more general terms, the mimetic character of violence is so intense that once violence is installed in a community, it cannot burn itself out.

To escape from the circle it is necessary to remove from the scene all those forms of violence that tend to become self-propagating and to spawn new, imitative forms.

When a community succeeds in convincing itself that one alone of its number is responsible for the violent mimesis besetting it; when it is able to view this member as the single 'polluted' enemy who is contaminating the rest; and when the citizens are truly unanimous in this conviction--then the belief becomes a reality, for there will no longer exist elsewhere in the community a form of violence to be followed or opposed, which is to say, imitated and propagated.

In destroying the surrogate victim, men believe that they are ridding themselves of some present ill. And indeed they are, for they are effectively doing away with those forms of violence that beguile the imagination and provoke emulation."

-René Girard, Violence and the Sacred