MUSING: EPISTEMOLOGICAL: On why scientists need a course in the history of science

One thing that Karl Marx got right was his concept of the sociology of knowledge. Our thinking is largely affected, for better or for worse, by our social environment. If that is so, then even the theories of science are products of their time, that is, they are not as objective as scientists suppose.

Examples abound. Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species during the heyday of the Industrial Revolution. Consequently, his evolution theory, the process by which one species evolve into another according to the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection, is highly mechanical. That is exactly what one might expect from a 19^th century scientist working in the country wherein the Industrial Revolution began.

This is not to say that Darwin was wrong. Perhaps his theory was correct, but was dependent on the advent of industrial thinking. If so, that serves to explain why no one in the feudal age thought of it.

There are related examples of the effect of the Industrial Revolution in other academic disciplines. In psychology, think of how mechanistic is Behaviorism, emerging as it did from the time when America joined the industrial age. Behaviorism's simplistic stimulus--->response explanation for human behavior, is altogether mechanistic. Also, to a degree that even most psychologists seem unaware, Freudian psychology, developed also during the period of heavy industry, is also mechanistic.

I repeat, the fact that the environment affects the development of scientific theories does not necessarily mean that those theories are wrong. However, and this is the important point, scientists should be aware of the concept of the sociology of knowledge and therefore, when evaluating any major thesis, they must consider the effect of the social environment in which it was developed.

Not to mention, of course, that if they are evaluating a theory of their own time period, both the theory and their evaluation may be strongly affected by the same social environment.

Furthermore, when evaluating a theory postulated in the distant past, they must take into account the social environment that influenced the theorist, and they must be aware of the social environment that is influencing their own evaluation.

Science is not immune from external forces. Knowing the history of science would help scientists to think objectively and/or to at least be cognizant of biases of which they are often no more than dimly aware, at best.

MUSINGS: LITURGY

FOOTBALL SATURDAY AND LITURGY, OR, WHAT BIG TIME COLLEGE FOOTBALL PROGRAMS KNOW ABOUT LITURGY THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LEADERS DO NOT

As I recently watched the University of Michigan marching band go through their pre-game and post-game program, all of which are choreographed perfectly and without deviation from other times, I could not help reflect on how what they were doing was an inspiring liturgy, a glorious paean to the University.

For some 25 seasons starting with 1983 I had seasons tickets to the Michigan football games. During that time and beyond, not much ever changed. Michigan usually wins, of course, but in this essay I wish to focus on the fact that the band members as well as cheerleaders come and go, and yet, the “liturgy” changes hardly at all. Moreover, in the stadium, the thousands of students, almost none of whom were even alive in 1983, follow along with the festivities as if they had been born knowing what to do. What changes there have been have come about almost organically.

There is good reason why so little is allowed to change. The liturgy serves the purpose, sociologically speaking, of making new University members, mostly students, and some faculty and administrative staff personnel, know how to re-produce an important aspect, specifically sports, of the the University culture. It also serves to make the Alumni in the stadium feel that nothing essential has changed and that they remain part of something greater than themselves. College sports does serve to bind the people to their respective universities. 

All of which of course made me think of how the Catholic Church made an incredibly stupid decision to change the liturgy of the Mass in 1970. Apparently, the liturgical “experts” gave no thought to acculturation, the process of making newcomers feeling that they are part of an ongoing social environment, and what is more, feeling a strong tie to it. The insipid and frequently changing liturgical changes left young Catholics unable to reproduce the Church's society. The Novus Ordo, bad enough as it is, permitted priests to “experiment” with the liturgy, to say Mass as they saw fit, to ad lib the readings, and to allow the congregation to do their own experimenting, which now results in hand holding during the praying of the Our Father. Frequent change does not lend itself to an ability to re-produce society. Moreover, older Catholics, the Church's Alumni so to speak, have lost their sense of belonging to an ancient society, to be a member of the Church Militant, on their way to the glorious Church Triumphant.

Also, beneath the stadium stands I noted posters of many of the greatest Michigan football players of long past seasons. It was a secular form of veneration of the saints, something else the contemporary Church all but ignores.

In other words, I am saying that the secular University of Michigan has a better sense of liturgy than does the Catholic Church. After all, the University can take newcomers and in many ways, but including the Saturday football games, instill the University of Michigan ethos into newcomers, such as our daughter Dr. Rose Cory, an incoming University professor; and strengthen the sense of belonging to those already acclimated.  All the above has plenty to do with why so very many Michigan graduates stay close to their Alma Mater and generously fund it too. The modern Church on the other hand has little holding power. That has been unfortunately proven by the hundreds of millions that have left the Church in recent decades. The Church leaders could take a lesson from a secular university.

In 1974, Michael Novak wrote The Joy of Sports. Among other astute observations, he noted that people were getting something from sports that, as I understood him to mean, was absent in their daily lives. Which is to say that sporting events were filling a void in modern man. Now, I never trace any cause to a single variable, but I must note that the Catholic Church gave modern American man an uninspiring liturgy at the worst possible time, that is, when the culture was in flux with what amounted to a full scale cultural revolution. Instead of fighting back by keeping to the old ways, which would identify the Church as the counter-cultural institution that it is meant to be, the Church more or less joined the revolution by enjoining an “up-to-date” liturgy (read: a liturgy that more or less apes contemporary forms of personal interaction, music, and art; minus the liturgical conventions of attention, dignity, and reverence).

As I recall, there was a demeaning of college sports at that time. It did not last. The sporting events prevailed. I dare say they prevailed because they provided something the social revolution did not. To put it another way, big time college sports, and professional sports also, serve as a partial default to spiritual emptiness. Granted, sports are not sufficient onto salvation, but they are doing something that Catholicism,which is charged with bringing man to salvation, is not.

FICTION: THE GREAT GATSBY, by F. Scott Fitzgerald

“Thou hast made us for Thy Own O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” St. Augustine

“A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for.” Robert Browning.

PLOT SUMMARY

Excess! Excess is the theme of F. Scott Fitzgerald's splendid novel, The Great Gatsby. The theme can be captured in one simple principle: Every excess is disorder and thus leads to sin. Even excessive love leads to disorder.

Background: The novel is set in 1922, when Americans emerged from World War I. After a brief period of economic stagnation and high unemployment, the stock market crashed. In fact, the market lost more, percentage wise, in 1921 than it did in the great crash of 1929. President Warren G. Harding did nothing. Left alone, the stock market self-corrected and recovered rapidly. The result was an economic boom that lasted almost the entire decade. Except for farmers, most people lived well, and many people lived excessively well.

Gatsby, the protagonist, was fabulously wealthy. The source of his wealth was a mystery. Apparently he was involved in some kind of illegal bond trading. Gatsby lived by himself in a mansion facing Long Island Sound. His frequent parties were attended by crowds of the most prominent people dressed in extremely expensive clothing. Those parties were excessive—guests feasted to the point of gluttony on a vast variety of the best foods available. Champagne flowed as Prohibition was ignored, just as drug laws are ignored today. Drunks were all over the luscious landscape.

Gatsby's excessive parties were a diabolical aping of God's Celestial Banquet. Diabolical because the deadly sins were on display---pride, gluttony, drunkenness, lust, greed, and envy. Gatsby;s house was a kind of diabolic Eden, a pleasure garden of visceral delights not to be enjoyed in this side of Heavenly Reality. “Lots of people come who haven't been invited...They simply force their way in and he [Gatsby] is too polite to object.” Note that people came to his parties, but are not interested in the Celestial Banquet. This is a recurring theme in world literature—a longing to return to the original Garden of Eden.

Strangely, Gatsby himself remained aloof from his guests. At most, he would occasionally wave goodby from an upstairs porch as people left. The few that were allowed entrance into his living quarters noticed that he eschewed the sumptuous food and drink. Only much later does the reader learn the purpose of his parties—they were attempts to impress a woman. Some five years previous, Gatsby was in love with Daisy. She came from a well-to-do Louisville family. While Gatsby was away in Europe during World War I, she married Tom Buchanan, also from a wealthy family. Gatsby felt that he lost Daisy because he had could not provide her with the life style to which she was accustomed. When he became wealthy, he contacted a scheme to win her back from her spouse. He purchased a house on Long Island across the water from Daisy's house. He figured that he would find a way to meet her and thus impress her with his new found wealth.

Gatsby was certain that Tom did not love Daisy. He was right. Tom was a louse. At the moment, he was in an adulterous affair with a low class woman, Myrtle, whose husband, George was a mechanic barely eking out a living.

Nick Carraway, the narrator, lived in the house next to Gatsby's. After Gatsby made a name for himself among wealthy New York people, he prevailed upon Nick to invite Daisy to Nick's house. The plan was for Daisy to unexpectedly meet Gatsby whereupon their romantic relationship would reignite. Gatsby then invited Daisy to tour his own house. She was suitably impressed.

Gatsby's romantic plan worked. Soon enough, Tom realized that Gatsby was systematically stealing his wife. Tom, extremely possessive even though he kept a mistress, provoked a showdown with Gatsby in front of Nick and his close lady friend, Jordan. To ease tensions, Daisy suggested everyone drive into town. Tom commandeered Gatsby's sporty automobile. They left in separate cars. Just at the same time, Myrtle broke up with George, and drove off at high speed.

Gatsby, Jordan, and Nick drove in Tom's car. Tom and Daisy drove in Gatsby's car. Myrtle, driving at reckless speed, collided with Gatsby's car, driven by Daisy. Because the car was identified as Gatsby's, George believed that Gatsby was responsible for the accident. Moreover, George supposed that Gatsby was the cause of Myrtle's infidelity. Desperately lovesick and excessively angry, George sneaked into Gatsby's yard. Finding him in floating in his swimming pool, he shot him to death and then shot himself.

THEME COMMENTARY

That's the plot summary. What was F. Scott Fitzgerald telling his readers? Note: as in all my reviews, I attempt to understand exactly what the author intended. However, I concur with G. K. Chesterton who said that authors often tell us more than they intended. I look for those meanings also.

Consider the most revealing symbol. From a billboard, the eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg, “blue and gigantic” stared at the various characters, keeping watch as if to say, “What fools these mortals be.” Cars had to pass over a drawbridge by the billboard, which was was near a foul smelling valley of ashes. The scene suggests the River Styx over which the damned souls pass to enter Hell.

One thing for sure is that the story is basically autobiographical. Fitzgerald's wife Zelda said once said to him that “Everything you write is about us.” So we must understand Daisy and Gatsby as Zelda and Scott. Zelda was from a well-to-do Southern, i.e., Alabama, family. They met when Scott was in the Army.

Daisy seemed less than intelligent. She often replied in non sequitors. Daisy described herself as sophisticated. Like many others, she confused sophistication with world-weariness. And she had, as Nick said, turbulent emotions. Self-centered, she had little interest in her infant daughter. When the girl was born, Daisy said, “I hope she'll be a fool—that''s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.”

Zelda, to make a long and bizarre story short, was often highly irrational, possibly bi-polar—as was Daisy. She and Scott frequently engaged in terrible quarrels, but he could not leave her. He may even have lost his soul because of her. I say that because the novel foreshadows Scott's eventual demise. He wrote the story in 1925. He died in 1940, aged 44, due to a heart attack likely bought on by chronic alcoholism. Gatsby was murdered on account of Daisy; Scott was possibly damned on account of Zelda.

Love may be psychologically described as what happens within the psyche when all the unconnected notions of the ideal mate coalesce upon meeting the person who fits those notions. It is always powerful. According to Charles Williams, a lesser known but profound writer and friend of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, Dante had just such an experience when he first saw Beatrice and he spent the rest of his life reflecting on it. Williams deemed it the Beatrician experience.

Daisy constellated Gatsby's archetype. Zelda did likewise with Scott. Usually such constellations last 18-24 months. However, because Gatsby's love for Daisy was not requited, it continued for several years. In Scott's case, his love for Zelda continued because he could never fully possess her.

Daisy is best understood as what the psychologist Carl Jung defined as a primordial female. Such women captivate men, but have little authentic feeling for them. Like the black widow spider, she spins a web out of which her men cannot escape and then she destroys them. When her men pass out of her life, she forgets them and seeks another. Like all primordial females, she reduced her lovers to the point of foolishness. When Gatsby finally met her after a separation of five years, his suave demeanor dissipated and his talk was virtually senseless. As Nick said to him at that moment, “You're acting like a little boy.” Gatsby acted like a grouse in mating season when he toured Daisy through his elaborate house. He clearly felt that he had to show her that he was now in her financial league.

The primordial female does exactly the opposite of what good women do. Good women transform men. That is one of their most important tasks—to transform, to civilize, beastly men. Think of the Beauty and the Beast fairy tale in which the love of a girl transformed the beast. When women refuse that task, men live like half-civilized, and often dangerous, animals. Or, as someone said, they live like bears with furniture. That is exactly the situation in contemporary America. When women attempt to function as equals to men, they lose their ability to control men. Men then prey on such women, as is now all too common.

One strange phenomenon of primordial females is that men and even women associated with them often experience horrible consequences, accidents in particular, even though nothing happens to the primordial female herself. Recall that Daisy was uninjured while driving the car that was in the fatal accident. How such consequences come about is unclear; suffice to say that I have seen examples myself. We do indeed live in a reality possessed of things still undreamed of in contemporary philosophy.

This is not all. Men, unaware of their deep need for the transforming power of women, nevertheless seek women, but for the wrong reasons. The English critic, Malcolm Muggeridge, said that sex is the “mysticism of the atheist.” He had that right. Men, and women too, seek psychological transformation in ongoing sexual adventures. Great fun perhaps, but doomed to failure. In the finest line of psychology ever written, St. Augustine said that “Thou hast made us for Thine Own O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” We are primarily made for God, not for other humans. No loving relationship can raise anyone to the level to which we are created.

So we have a need for transformation, but instead of seeking God, contemporary men seek a woman capable of producing a lesser kind of transformation. Unfortunately, the most powerful women, those who seem most capable of strong transformation, are the primordial females, but they do not transform men, they destroy men.

Daisy, like Zelda, was a God substitute. They functioned as idols, replacements for God, a common practice, but insufficient to reach the proper end of all humans. Gatsby felt that that in reaching for Daisy, he was reaching for a woman out of his league, so to speak. What he failed to understand is that his love for Daisy was a really a love for his proper end, God. Ironically, God dwells in an the infinitely higher Celestial Realm which was nevertheless within his reach. His desire for transformation to a higher self, to achieve that for which he was created, was proper. He simply sought the wrong person. Robert Browning knew better. “A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for.”

COMMENTS ON THE MINOR CHARACTERS

People sin either out of maliciousness or from weakness. And, while not all psychological anomalies are sinful, sin is always accompanied by one or more psychological anomalies.

Gatsby sinned out of weakness. His excessive love for Daisy was disordered. But his love for her was admirable in itself. By contrast with Gatsby, Tom Buchanan was malicious. He was totally self-centered with little or no concern for his wife. When his mistress Myrtle irritated him, he smacked her so hard he broke her nose.

In his youth, Tom had been a successful athlete. Unfortunately for him, he, like so many other men and women who had achieve high status while young, he never outgrew his early triumphs. Such people tend to employ the same dynamics they did when young. That is not uncommon. There is a strong tendency in all people when they find themselves in a crisis to employ the last dynamic that worked. Knowing this phenomenon,incidentally, makes for predicting the behavior of those in high positions, political, business, military, whatever.

Relying on his collegiate status as an excellent athlete, Tom insulted everyone, and he threatened to violently attack Gatsby. “Now, don't think my opinion on these matters is final...just because I am stronger and more of a man than you are.” That insecurity and possessiveness was motivation for his potentially horrific reaction when he learned that Daisy planned to leave him for Gatsby.

Tom imagined himself as a superior example of the human condition. And yet, he was oblivious to his own failings. Speaking of George, whose wife was Tom's mistress, Tom said that “George is so dumb he doesn't know he is alive.” Maybe so, but Tom, who lives only a little above the animal level, has no idea that created in the “image and likeness of his Creator,” he possessed a rational intellect. Aside from his financial work, he used that rational intellect to advance his animal inclinations. Furthermore, Tom, supposedly a superb example of the dominant race, married one stupid woman and was in an affair with another.

Tom was a reader of Stoddard,'s The Rise of the Colored Empires who taught that the era of Caucasian civilization was nearing its end, soon to be replaced by the colored peoples of the world. This caused him to feel a “terrible pessimism” about the future. Actually, his calculated pessimism was more a way of asserting his superiority given that he was such a fine specimen of the Caucasian race, by his own definition of course. Fitzgerald had Tom say “Goddard” not Stoddard, just to emphasize that Tom could not get even the small things right.

There were many minor, or even unmentioned characters. These were the party goers. Essentially they lived to amuse themselves. They were easily bored, which is why they sought ever more exciting parties. Boredom is not a sign of mental health or of intellectual well being. Boredom is what happens when nothing in the external environment makes contact with one's inner self, with one's intellectual resources. For mentally healthy people, no matter what happens, no matter what situation one is in, there is always something to reflect on about it. (Faculty meetings are an exception.) Guests at the parties “conducted themselves according to the rules of behavior associated with an amusement park.” There was talking, dancing, and singing all without inhibitions. One lady sang a sad song, but then fell into a drunken stupor during which her tears flowed over her colored eyelashes causing inky rivulets to flow down her cheeks—thus did pathos become bathos.

Naturally, vapid people seek amusements, just as our contemporary young people are amusing themselves to death, while living in denial of the realities of an ongoing war carried on by millions of hate filled militants, and of an impending economic collapse. The same young people were common in Rome, circa, 450 A. D.

Charles Williams presented an excellent exegesis on the love of money as root of evil. He said that the real spiritual problem with money is that wealth permits one to replicate his experiences, and thus one becomes spiritually and psychologically stuck at that level, never getting to the proper source of all that is truth, beauty, goodness, and justice, that is, God. Here again as we read of Gatsby's super lavish parties, we see that excess leads to disorder. When one gets stuck on something, excessive behavior results. To put it another way, because for vapid people, there is nothing beyond the moment, people default to everything but God and attempt to find satisfaction with worldly attractions.

St. Paul said “Sensuality kills the spirit.” That was undoubtedly true in Tom's marital relationship with Daisy. And, of course, we may assume that the many sensual attractions of the parties killed whatever spirituality may ever have been possessed by the party goers.

Nick Carraway was fascinated by Gatsby albeit with mixed emotions. Carraway worked for a living. Undoubtedly he would have liked to live as Gatsby did. But he sensed that something was wrong with those frequent, pointless parties. His name, “Carraway,” suggests that he is Gatsby's other self—the personality held aloof from everyone. Nick is Gatsby's alter ego. He is also the one character that truly cares for Gatsby, who loves him as he is, not for what he might be able to do for him.

DIGRESSIONS FROM THE THEME

Great literature tends to lead to related subjects. Herewith a digression on the subject of rape. Psychologists say and people believe that the rape is motivated by a desire to assert ultimate control over a woman. I am not so certain. It fits too nicely with the so-called feminist insistence that men have an irrational urge to control all women all the time, and therefore rape is only the most dramatic form of control. And of course they believe that men are so motivated because in our Western Civilization masculine and feminine roles are culturally constructed to that end. But as the intellectually honest feminist, Camille Paglia asks: If society constructs masculine and feminine roles, what constructs society? See her Vamps and Tramps. Her answer: Biology. Therefore, while I do not altogether dismiss the control motivation, I offer another motivation: Transformation.

If, as I wrote above, women have the power to transform men, then I suspect that rape is a desire for instant transformation. The key word is “instant.” Yes, rape is gravely sinful; stupid in the original sense of “stupid” , i.e., the act is contrary to the purpose of sexual intercourse and thus cannot possibly produce the hoped for instant transformation; and of course is devastating to the victim.

Herewith a digression on the subject of racial inferiority. Stoddard's views were not uncommon in the 1920s. In fact, they were the common sense of most Europeans and many Americans. In England, H. G. Wells shared the same fears and advocated eliminating the mentally and psychically deficient. In the United States, few took issue with Margaret Sanger who advocated birth control for the expressed purpose of ridding the country of Negroes. See John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses for an extended treatment of this subject. Hitler was no anomaly. He was simply the one willing and possessed with the means to carry those racist views to their logical conclusion. For the college educated Tom to venture such racism and to have his positions accepted by his college educated friend would be perfectly in keeping with Americans, circa 1922. Whereas racism is now pretty much marginalized to America's lowest social class, in the early 20^th century, it was, as Carey amply proves, the common sense of the intellectuals.

Contemporary eugenics, far more sophisticated than the Nazis imagined, has encouraged the production of designer children—kids with high intelligence and excellent physical conditions and perhaps athletic abilities as well.

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND

Seeking God, Scott found Zelda. She took over and eventually ruined his life. To say they quarreled, is not even close to their destructive relationship. Did Zelda intend to act as she did? Who knows. Suffice to say, it was in her nature to be the primordial female

In college, Scott was the lone practicing Catholic student at Princeton. Coming from upstate Minnesota to Princeton's White Anglo-Saxon Protestant environment was more than Scott could bear. He tried excessively hard to be one of them. Many years later, he famously said to his friend Ernest Hemingway, “The rich are different from us.” Hemingway, who came from a well-to-do family, famously responded, “Yeah, they have more money.” And yet, in terms of intelligence and talent he was, as Nick said to Gatsby, better than all of them put together. Scott lost to the world, the flesh, and the devil. Gatsby's death was a foreshadowing.

Zelda did nothing to lift Scott. To emphasize what was stated above--There is a hint that Scott anticipated that Zelda would somehow destroy him. Considered the symbolism of Gatsby's death. He died floating on a pool of water, which may suggest a rebirth, except that he does not emerge from it, but dies there. F. Scott Fitzgerald seemed guilty of damnable despair many years before his death.

FOR CATHOLICS: ABOLISH SPECIAL LITURGIES FOR CHILDREN

Assuming that we hope Catholic children mature into serious, well informed, practicing Catholics, we must abolish children's liturgies because such liturgies are, psychologically speaking, counter-productive. The primary purpose of childhood is to become capable adults. Yes, children need to play, to even be occasionally silly as they try out roles for themselves. But even those activities are psychologically designed, so to speak, to advance their way to maturity.

However, in contemporary society the process of maturation is retarded in far too many ways, including movies, television programs and commercials, computer games, clothing, even what passes for so-called character formation in most schools. Consequently, childhood continues well into adolescence. Adolescence continues unabated also, but that is a topic for another essay.

Countering these factors is not easy. Entertaining children, which is what children's liturgies are designed to do, is counter-productive. The Church cannot successfully compete with the secular world by entertainment. St. Augustine defined sin as the act of the will curving inward on itself. And yet, to appeal to children by employing entertainment is a concession to self-centered behavior. Is that really what we want?

There is one strong counter factor—maturing is a natural inclination and therefore children do possess a desire, weakened at present but lurking a little beneath the conscience level, to mature. They do want to grow up.

I won't delineate what school instructors can and should do to help maturation along. Suffice to say that as much as possible, treat children as adults. In this essay, I simply want to argue against liturgical celebrations designed for children.

The Catholic Church must be a counter-cultural institution. If not, there is no need to be Catholic. Liturgies for children, by their very nature, cannot be counter-cultural. Hymns with a “me” focus; singing the Gloria to a rock beat; the use of instruments such as pianos and guitars and even tambourines; along with agitated moving around as generally prevails during the Kiss of Peace; and the overall noise as opposed to holy silence, works against what is really necessary for assisting in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and worthy reception of Holy Communion. After all, the Church teaches that the sacraments are only as efficacious as we are prepared to receive them.

By itself, the need to create a holy environment should be sufficient to abolish children's liturgies. There is another reason, perhaps even more compelling reason. That is, as kids grow older, not mature, but merely grow older, they lose their Catholic Faith. As they do, they usually recall their early religious experiences as something they did when they were kids. As it was.

The massive abandonment of Faith lends itself to sociological analysis. In the social sciences, history is a laboratory. A caution: In human affairs, attributing a single variable to any cause is always reckless. However, identifying powerful variables is not precluded. And the historical evidence of the last 50 years is clear—religion reduced to an elementary level with an attendant liturgy has little holding power. Succinctly, liturgies specifically for children freezes children, so to speak, where they psychologically are, instead of assisting in their maturation.

Personal reflection: I was born in 1940. On Sundays, Holy Days, week days, my generation attended the same Mass that adults did. Mass was one of the few occasions where we could feel like adults. Moreover, when I first began going to Sunday Mass, the Mass was in Latin and the sermons were in Polish. Did I have a sophisticated understanding of the Mass? Of course not. But I did grasp something that children today cannot—something was happening that was beautiful in an other-worldly sense, something that did not happen the other six days of the week. That feeling never left me, even in my misspent adolescence. In short, the traditional liturgy had holding power. That I never left the Church must be, of course, attributed to grace, but as the Church also teaches, grace works on nature. My early associations with the Church provided a nature upon which grace could work.

I am certain that the Extraordinary Liturgy is perfectly suitable for contemporary children. However, for pastors who think otherwise, I do wish that the Novus Ordo liturgy be conducted so that the congregation will be quiet and attentive, and that the Mass be celebrated with dignity and reverence.

I cannot imagine how any child that regularly participates in a children's liturgy can come to a correct understanding of the Mass. How many today know that the Mass is the re-presentation of the original Sacrifice on the Cross? That can be explained in religious class, but that all important concept will not be internalized if the Mass is not offered with proper solemnity. Most Catholics of any age will get their Catholicism primarily from the liturgy. Not that the primary purpose of liturgy is teaching. It is not. But liturgy does teach indirectly, and powerfully.

Another salient point: As they grow older, adolescence will likely have negative recollections of priests, deacons, and teachers who encouraged or even demanded, participation in children's liturgies. Goodness knows Catholics need to respect priests. But our young people will someday feel embarrassed for priests they recall singing “This little light of mine.”

Herewith a word on homilies for children. Elementary level children hear almost nothing but appeals to do good deeds. They can learn that by joining the Boy or Girl Scouts. They need to know that while good deeds are a prerequisite for salvation, God demands supernatural goodness. Natural goodness is not sufficient for salvation. And after all, too many do good deeds mixed with worldly concerns--making a good impression or convincing one''s self that one is a good person. Such corporal works of mercy may fail to reach the supernatural level. Children should also be encouraged to perform the spiritual works of mercy. Granted, even those good works may be tainted. Still, because the spiritual works are usually not obvious to others, there is at least less possibility that they will be corrupted.

Preach doctrine. That's right. There is a psychological connection between the infallible Church doctrines and the infallible Church moral teachings. When Catholics know doctrine, the moral teachings are much easier to accept and live by. There is good reason why the Baltimore Catechism taught that we are to “know, love, and serve God” and to do so in that order. Serving God has to do with moral behavior. But we unlikely to serve what we do not love and we cannot love what we do not know.

Knowing God, His nature and attributes; knowing angels—good and evil angels; knowing what is known about Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell; knowing why even Hell is a mercy, as are all God's punishments, are important doctrinal matters that will likely catch the attention of young people.

I write from many years personal experience—children, and adolescents also, actually enjoy, not to mention respect, being treated to a religion that requires intellectual effort to understand. Even elementary school children can learn basic doctrines. I know that I have a lasting respect for the Catholic Church because of my early religious instruction. I realized early on that any objection I had to the Faith had been countered centuries ago by holy men blessed with finer intellects than mine.

In summation, the contemporary Catholic Church has little holding power. Entertainment and/or going down to the young Catholics level has not worked and never will. Reaching them on their level is okay, if, and only if, the priest or religion instructor does not remain on that level. The objective must be to bring the young people as rapidly as possible to an adult understanding of the Faith.

THE MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY, by Edward Everett Hale

“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land.” Sir Walter Scott: The Lay of the Last Minstrel

Edward Everett Hale wrote The Man Without a Country in 1864 as subtle but stern criticism of Americans tiring of the Civil War. Generations of school children, including me, read and were much affected by this story. As patriotism is now all but politically incorrect, it deserves to become well known again. I highly recommend it for upper elementary and secondary students. It serves as a vital corrective to our “hate America” professors, teachers, and political leaders.

Caution: It reads like a documentary. Actually, it is a good example of historical fiction. Herewith a few rules for that genre. The plot must be based on an actual incident or an historical era. This story is based on the infamous albeit murky Burr conspiracy. Aaron Burr, a Vice President remembered now for fatally shooting the former Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton in a dual, seemed intent on breaking away a few southern states, combining them perhaps with northern Mexico, and creating a new country. Burr does not appear in the Hale story, which is congruent with the requirement that major historical characters do not play a role or if they do, they are background characters. If they do appear at all, they must not do or say anything out of character. Example: Portraying George Washington as a prankster, even though he was so socially powerful and overbearing that his very presence intimidated visitors, would create a ridiculously false image. Certainly, for those who know anything about Washington's character, it would cause a willing suspension of disbelief, something a fiction author must never to do. Also, everything in the social environment must conform to conditions as they were then. I once noticed jet trails in the sky of a movie supposedly set in the 19^th century. That laughable gaffe immediately destroyed my willing suspension of disbelief.

Well done historical fiction serves many useful purposes. Perhaps its most important purpose is that it can tell us what contemporary people were really feeling during an historical period. Impartial histories rarely convey those crucial motivations. I know the causes of the American War for Independence, but until I read historical fiction, I found it hard to understand why colonial Americans were willing to kill British soldiers. There is a vast difference between saying “I am willing to die for my cause” and “I am willing to kill for my cause.” Historical fiction explained the latter.

Plot: In the early years of the Republic, the protagonist, Philip Nolan, a young army officer in Texas became involved in Burr's bizarre scheme. Arrested, Nolan was bought to trial before a court martial. Asked about his loyalty, Nolan rashly cursed his country and said he never wanted to hear the name of United States of America again. Shocked, the judge, who had served in the Revolutionary Army, gave Nolan his wish. Sentenced in 1807, Nolan was to live out his life aboard navy ships wherein he was never to hear mention of his country.

Nolan's outburst in court was a classic instance of the danger making rash statements. He spoke without the requisite prior thought and thus sentenced himself to a life unconnected to his country.

Aboard ship, he lived a mostly solitary life. Occasionally he spoke to naval officers, but they were hesitant to talk with him as they were strictly ordered to avoid mentioning the United States. Even news was censored. Newspapers had articles and whole pages torn out so that Nolan would not even read the name of the United States. The United States became the story's antagonist; always present, always in the background.

As the years and then the decades went by, Nolan engaged in scholarly pursuits. He collected wildlife specimens bought aboard by sailors. As a result of numerous voyages, he understood sailing procedures nearly as well as commissioned officers and thus was an invaluable source of help for young officers.

Prior to all that, he was almost released when he heroically manned a cannon and helped defeat an English ship in the War of 1812. Unfortunately, nothing came of his captain's praise and request for release; official Washington had forgotten about Nolan.

A most poignant moment came when Nolan, following his usual routine, joined officers in poetry reading. Ironically, that day they read Sir Walter Scott's Lay of the Last Minstrel. Nolan chocked up and broke into tears as he, of all people, read “This is my own, my native land.”

He died in 1863. Aware that Nolan bitterly regretted his early attitude, a kind officer told him the story of America's expansion over the past half century. However, he spared Nolan the depressing fact of the Civil War.

Reflection: What can be learned from The Man Without a Country? Hale intended that readers develop a sense of patriotism. That is a virtue now too often sneered at. Why is patriotism a virtue? It is rooted in human nature. Therefore, because human nature is the basis for natural law, everyone is obliged to love his or her country. That patriotism is rooted in human nature should be obvious. The universal sense of all mankind testifies to an inherent emotional affection for one's country.

After all, a country proceeds from human nature. Think about it. At some point in far distant history, men and women married, had children, and eventually a village was formed. As additional villages were formed by people possessing similar characteristics but above all a common language, cities formed. All together, the many municipalities became an entire country. So we say that a country proceeds from human nature. And, because human nature is basically good because it was created by God, therefore countries are inherently good. Consequently, just as it is obligatory to love one's parents, one must love one's country.

In a sense, a country is a father writ large. That's even clear from the fact that “patriot” is related to the Latin “pater” meaning father. Therefore, on a deeper level, the sin, yes sin, against patriotism is another instance of father hatred. The first sin was Lucifer's when he sinned against his Father Creator. Adam and Eve's original sin was also a sin against their Father Creator. Human families have been marked by father hatred ever since. Sigmund Freud based his oedipal complex theory largely on Shakespeare's plays. Recall Shakespeare's tragedies such as Macbeth when the protagonist murders King Duncan, an obvious father figure, or King Lear in which daughters Goneril and Regan hate their father/king.

What causes anti-patriotism; hatred of one's own country? As stated above, it's part of father hatred. Undoubtedly there are multiple causes. Keep in mind that in the social sciences, such as psychology, there are no single variable interpretations. A great many American school teachers and college professors have passed their anti-American attitudes, father-hatred in a thin disguise, onto their students. Schooling is thus another causative factor. As we educators say, one generation without education and an entire civilization can be lost. In the United States, patriotism is no longer a norm because there have now been a couple of generations insufficiently educated about their own country. Students learn only the evils done by Americans; they know little of the immense good.

Be sure of this: Human nature is so constructed that everyone has a deep seated need to believe in institutions greater than one's self. One institution common to everyone is one's 's country. Be also sure that whenever a person proceeds contrary to his nature, there will be attendant penalties. If a critical mass of people proceed likewise, there will be widespread social pathologies. Consequently, as patriotism is relegated to the trash heap of history, so too are the many, various, and related so-called welding institutions such as traditions, customs, and ways of doing things that mark one culture from another and thus produce in their actors a feeling akin to kinship that is necessary for the culture to function cohesively. If not lost, these welding institutions are at least being severely damaged.

To a greater or in some cases lesser degree, patriotism is boxed with love of other attachments, such as love of church, family, community, one's alma mater, and the like. Those dismissive of patriotism will generally be, more or less, dismissive of those other institutions. Sociologically, that is not good. From working in soup kitchens to donating huge funds to art museums, societies depend on a critical mass of volunteers.

Granted, there are many persons that ladle out soup that are not patriotic. Now no one can be active in every worthwhile cause, but a socially good person should have at least some degree of attachment to all his social institutions. Patriotism is especially important. On a day-to-day basis, patriotism may not even occur to most persons. Its importance comes into play when one's country is endangered. During wartime, all institutions must mesh. All citizens must be supportive.

Those rootless people who lack a love of country have no long range concern for its well being, for the nation's future generations. Thus they favor government policies that act to their immediate benefit. Over time, and this is happening now, government agencies usurp the place of families and other social institutions such as churches and schools. When people receive various forms of welfare—Social Security, aid to dependent children, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and now even government sponsored health care, the inherent need for families breaks down. Which is why we can say that when governments engage in tasks contrary to their purpose, horrific social pathologies result. The paradox is, that as patriotism becomes weaker, government becomes stronger.

Not that government is any cure for family breakdowns. Herewith a relevant universal principle: Governments are only good at tasks involving force. That's why the American government should stick to its primary purposes—defending the populace from foreign enemies and domestic criminals and enforcing contracts. Yes, there are other legitimate tasks but for good social order, the fewer tasks government takes on, the better is the country.

Of course, horrific social pathologies serve as an invitation to government to Do Something. That's an irresistible invitation. Consequently, government acts and the inevitable result is counter-productive social programs, which intensifies the existing social pathologies and brings about even more trouble. The ultimate consequence is an endless loop of well intentioned programs and more social breakdowns. My native city, Detroit, is an embarrassing example.

In conclusion, patriotism is, for many good reasons, an obligation under natural law. And, when practiced well, it is also a virtue. It should be once more enshrined as such.

OF MICE AND MEN, by JOHN STEINBECK

THEMES: PEOPLE TEND TO DESTROY THE THINGS THEY LOVE, and MOST PEOPLE LIVE SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE ANIMAL LEVEL

As Mark Twain knew, one must sometimes exaggerate to make a point. For that reason, Steinback used Lennie as an exaggerated case of how people destroy what they love, and/or of what they really need.

Lennie is an extreme example of what all those who function slightly above the animal level so often do—Ruin their own lives. Lennie inadvertently kills what he loves. True, Lennie kills in dramatic fashion. And yet, as one sees in the characters in the novel, others do likewise, albeit in more or less socially approved, less-dramatic ways.

Examples: George knows he needs money to purchase a plot of land. But he wastes his salary on an outing at a “cat house.” Moreover, although neither he nor the prostitutes are aware of the more subtle consequences of their sexual malfeasance, their loose sexual morality works against their best interests. George undoubtedly develops a less than wholesome attitude toward women in general that will prevent him from even recognizing a good women if and when he ever meets one. Neither George nor the prostitutes will likely ever perceive that the primary purpose of marriage is not sexual gratification, but the procreation of children. That ruins their chances for a good marriage and in the long run, works against the whole idea of a family. Moreover, taking taking this concept to the social level-- without a critical mass of strong families, a society will not function. One sees this is contemporary America in which large masses of young people are endlessly amusing themselves rather than creating families.

Consider Curly. He assumes that he owns his wife, as if she is his personal property. His determination to protect his “property” inevitably leads him into a pointless fight leaving him with a permanently injured hand. Curly protected his wife much as a bull elk protects his harem. With good reason, he feared that his promiscuous wife will stray. And there were plenty of would-be other bull elks just waiting for an opportunity. How true it is, the veneer of civilization is thin indeed; man quickly descends to an animal level.

Curley's wife may be defined as a “primordial female.” They are beautiful, they are clever manipulators, they attract men, and they delight in destroying the men they attract. Because she was married to an overly possessive male, their marriage was a formula for disaster. In a way, she was similar to Lennie. Lennie killed what he loved; had she lived longer, she would have caused the death of a loved one herself. Nevertheless, although she was the archetype of the primordial woman, she actually showed a maternal concern for Lennie. Ironically, that moment of goodness was fatal. She allowed Lennie to touch her soft hair. He did, she panicked, he went berserk, and he carelessly killed her.

Sigmund Freud famously asked, “What does women want?” It was, of course, a rhetorical question. Whatever it is, Curley's wife never came close to it while living more or less like an animal confined like a caged animal, to living in Curley's house.

SUPERNATURAL DESTINY

Steinbeck's characters have difficulty living as rational humans. Worse than that, no character even suspects that man is called to a higher than natural destiny. St. Augustine famously said, “Thou hast made us for They Own O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee.” (Confessions of St. Augustine). Herewith a crucial point all but forgotten by contemporary Catholic theologians. As Cardinal Newman put it, Natural goodness is not sufficient onto salvation. That's correct. God calls everyone to, and demands, supernatural goodness. C. S. Lewis said it this way—We are not called to be something better than what we are; we are called to be something other than what we are. And of course that Other is to be one with Christ. S teinbeck's characters were barely on the natural level of rational beings, let alone on the supernatural level.

Lennie was described in animal terms, i.e., “he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws... he drank [from a pool] with long gulps, snorting into the water like a horse.” Lennie lived close to the animal level; the other characters only incrementally above that.

George's wants are also animal like, only they are more socially acceptable. He says that without Lennie he would have money, which he would spend at a “cat house all night, [and] I could eat any place I want … and order any damn thing I could think of.” In other words, George seems different than Lennie in degree, not in kind.

Be that as it may, George does show goodness that is of a supernatural level. He cares for Lennie, even at great personal expense. In that sense he is doing something God-like because adopts persons as His children. So, strangely enough, George shows that man is indeed made in the “image and likeness” of God.

George's last name, “Milton” suggests the 17^th century English poet John Milton and although George Milton is no John Milton, the name suggests that he has a more profound personality than is evident in his everyday life. Lennie's last name is “Small,” which is contradictory to his size and strength. That suggests that he is vulnerable, which he is, given that he is doomed to function in a society he cannot adequately understand.

Note that ranch owner. He is suspicious of George. He cannot understand why George burdens himself with Lennie. “Well, I never seen one guy take so much interest in another guy. I just like to know what your interest is.” Principle: Evil cannot understand goodness. Consequence: Be suspicious of those who are always “looking for an angle.” Here again, one sees the primary value of reading literature—good authors know and therefore reveal what we need to know about human nature.

PSYCHOLOGICAL REFLECTION

Lennie is a tactile person. Jungian personality theory refers to such persons as sensates. They are the ones that must feel everything. One sees them in the produce department of the local supermarkets squeezing the fruit or at the department stores touching the clothes. There is nothing per se wrong with being a sensate. However, as psychologists know, excessive behavior is the mark of a neurotic. Lennie's need to touch soft material of any kind was clearly excessive.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that “all know ledge comes through the senses.” Lennie had a compelling need to gather knowledge by touching, but like an animal, he had limited ability to understand what he felt.

Note on human intelligence: When Crooks starts telling Lennie his life story, Lennie's response is a non sequitor—he asked about the puppies. Principle: Low intelligent persons rarely follow a train of thought. Personal success in the academically driven, high tech environment of contemporary America requires the ability to follow complex chains of thought. That was difficult enough in the time and place of the novel; it is now far more important. And too many people lack the requisite thinking skills.

Living alone. Because Crooks is a Negro, he is forced to live by himself. He has little company. Only persons with an active prayer life can handle that. Crooks, talking about himself, says “Sometimes he gets thinkin, and he got nothing to tell him what's so an' what ain't so. Maybe if he sees somethin', he don't know whether it's right or not. He can't turn to some other guy and ast him if he sees it too. He can't tell. He got nothing to measure by.” There is indeed an intellectual danger in prolonged isolation.

Freudian psychology seems appropriate to understand the two major characters. According to Freud, the id is the unconscious level, so to speak, wherein arise inclinations towards violence and sexual activities, many of which are perversions. Everyone has such id level contents, but Lennie's id inclinations are near the surface.

Moreover, the ego is the conscious level that controls id desires. Lennie had a weak ego, too weak for a man to function in society. George functioned as Lennie's ego. Note how he continually warned Lennie about misbehavior.

The superego is the social equivalent of the personal ego. In other words, society tells persons that some behaviors are socially inappropriate. In contemporary times, America has a weak superego, except for actions considered politically incorrect. But that is another story. In the novel, the fellow employees function as a supergo.

Note on Curley: “Curley's like a lot of little guys. He hates big guys. He's alla time picking scraps with big guys. Kind of like he's mad at 'em because he ain't a big guy.” Steinbeck had that right. Small guys often attempt to compensate for their size.

SOCIOLOGICAL REFLECTION

Note two more recurring themes: A desire for land, and a desire to be self-employed. The desire for land, for a place of one's own, is a universal desire. The Russian Communists took control of their government in 1917 by promising the peasants that they would soon have land. What they meant was land held collectively, not that they told that to the peasants. Joseph Stalin, future Party Secretary, said the peasants would side with the Communists because, “The peasant dreams of land in his sleep.” George and Lennie hoped to purchase a small plot of land. Two other workers, when learning of the plan, expressed a strong desire to join them. One of the best things about living in America is that the desire for land is a desire that can be fulfilled. However, as George knew, hard work and money is necessary and both demand delayed id gratification. Think about that. Man wants land. Moral behavior can make that desire happen. In other words, American capitalist society has a built-in way of strongly encouraging good moral behavior.

The desire to be self-employed is akin to the desire for land. To desire land masks a strong desire to be independent, to not be required to answer to a superior. America makes that possible also. In the novel, Candy feels confident to stand up to Crooks when he believes that soon he will be at least a partial landowner. In sum, two strong universal wants are capable of fulfillment is America, thanks to a system that favors self-reliance.

Lennie attempted to excuse his violent action, “I didn't mean no harm.” That a common “excuse,” especially among young people. It points out something that ought to be engraved above every school door in the country: “Stupidity kills more people than maliciousness.”

Curley's wife: Most violence is committed by unattached males. Women therefore have the God given, or one may say, Nature given, task of civilizing makes. The primordial female does nothing to fulfill that socially necessary task. That has always been true. Now, however, so many American females, obsessed with some form of self-fulfillment, are indifferent to their civilizing obligation.

MANAGEMENT REFLECTION

The ranch boss manages with a strict, no nonsense approach. Obviously he has had lengthy experience with the kind of rough men he employees. As the men are one step above the animal level, he treats them as such. Perhaps,in the context of the ranch work they had to do and the time in which they were living, that was necessary. However, management theory has come a long way since then. Threatening employees with dismissal is a legalistically way of compelling effort. Unfortunately, such bosses receive nothing more than that which is legalistically required. A demanding yet sensitive, caring boss is rewarded with employees willing to go beyond requirements. This proves an important point still not understood by too many bosses—people like to work. Treat them well and they will rise to any occasion.

Slim, the man in charge of the day-to-day operations, managed more effectively. His men respected him because he could do every ranch job well. There are three reasons why employees do as they are ordered. The boss and Slim possessed legal authority. Men obeyed them simply for that reason. Slim also possessed referent authority. Men respect a boss with referent authority because they know he has adequate expertise. A third type did not appear in the novel. Some managers possess charismatic authority. Excuse the digression, but in any organization, there is nothing more damaging than a charismatic leader who lacks expertise.

MORALITY REFLECTION

Strictly speaking, there is no Catholic morality. Morality is based on natural law, which is based on human nature. In other words, all humans have an in-built sense of right and wrong. They discover this law simply by thinking about it. Because people oftentimes misinterpret natural law, the Church has the God-given task of clarifying and serving as the final authoritative source of natural law.

As stated above, two in-built desires are for land and independence. Or, to put it another way, those desires are specific to human nature, and so they are legitimate desires. How very nice that America law makes possible the realization of these basic human desires. Morally, George was wrong to shoot Lennie. However, it was a humane act because George thereby saved Lennie from the wrath of Curley.

FARM MECHANIZATION

Many men were required to buck the barely bales. Bucking bales means piling them. Today, a single farmer with the requisite equipment can do the job. Despite the high expense of the equipment, in the long run, the job is done less expensively now that a farmer need not pay personnel costs. This means that ranch produce, usually beef, will cost less. The consumer benefits. Granted, men lost jobs due to mechanization, but men can be better employed than they were doing those backbreaking jobs.

The Birthmark, by Nathaniel Hawthorne

NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE, THE BIRTHMARK



Are Hawthorne's stories too ambiguous to be well understood? That's a common accusation. I don't agree. Yes, his stories admit of more than a single interpretation, but reality is like that. I recommend getting started with Hawthorne by reading his exceptionally profound short stories.



Hawthorne wrote during the middle 19^th century when American optimism reigned. Hawthorne's well known nearby neighbor Ralph Waldo Emerson, essayist and poet, eschewed his Puritan past in favor of a pantheistic god indistinct from creation. His contemporary intellectuals ignored personal sin, thus laying the groundwork for our contemporary sense that mankind is progressing toward some higher state.



Hawthorne was an intellectual anachronism. Think of him as the last Puritan. He knew that our immutable human nature was flawed and that people were strongly inclined towards sin. In The Birthmark, he took issue with those who were the forerunners of our contemporaries who suppose they can create a perfect society.



In the plot, Alymer, a brilliant scientist, is married to the stunningly beautiful Georgiana. Her beautiful features were marred only by a crimson birthmark, shaped like a small hand, on her left cheek. Already the story may remind you of Sleeping Beauty, the girl blessed with everything. She was a princess, possessed of beauty, intelligence, and wealth. However at her Baptism, an evil fairy cursed her with endless sleep. The point is that we all are blessed with at least some positive attributes. Nevertheless, because of original sin, we all share the curse of death.
Alymer became obsessively determined to remove Georgiana's
birthmark, “a visible mark of earthly imperfection.” The mark was a “symbol of his wife's susceptibility to sin, sorrow, decay, and death.” Eventually, he convinced Georgiana to perceive her birthmark as repulsive. Alymer is a figure of those Americans that morphed into the religious and political Progressives of the early 20^th century. Today we call them liberals. They are determined to build a perfect society, to cure every ill. Idealistic secondary teachers and college professors now encourage students to “make a difference” in the world.



Herewith an apropos note on conservative as opposed to liberal political theory. The fundamental difference lies in their respective perception of human nature. Like Hawthorne, the conservative believes, along with the Catholic Church, that human nature is immutable, and, according to the doctrine of original sin, it is basically good but flawed. As G. K. Chesterton said, original sin is the only Church doctrine that can be proved. The evidence is in the daily news.



The liberal believes that human nature is not immutable but malleable. Therefore, human social engineers can reshape human nature and thus bring about the inevitable perfectibility of mankind.



Denying original sin, the liberal must postulate other basic causes of human misbehavior. In 1789, French revolutionaries attributed evil acts to inequality. The 19^th century socialists taught that evil resulted from an unequal distribution of wealth. The Russian Communists created a socialist society, expecting that, in time, there would emerge “the new Soviet man.” Unfortunately, after 70 years of socialism, Russians were still engaging in stealing, lying, and violence. Freudian psychology, dating from 1900, taught that repressed sexual desires caused evil and thus insisted on the need to express ones volcanic inner inclinations. Contrary to that theory, there are good reasons for disciplining concupiscence—a strengthened will is not only good in itself, but also produces an elevated and more powerful intellect. I may cover that in a future review. Freud may be all but forgotten by now, but unleashed sex is now the American norm. It has done nothing to eliminate evil. Americans have historically put their hopes in education. Educate the masses and they will behave. Except that even well educated people commit crimes, even violent crimes. Now the so-called feminists think they know the cause of violence—testosterone. And so the American schools are attempting to re-socialize boys so that they will be more like girls. Truth be told, some re-socialized boys will be more docile and thus unable to function as males must. Moreover, many will counter their socialization and become super-masculine, more prone to violence.



There is partial truth to the liberals' belief of why evil is rampant. But the various claims of root causes are actually vices associated with and in support of the original sin doctrine.



Because they deny the concept of an immutable human nature, they deny conservative objections that all proposed liberal solutions are contrary to human nature. Why is that important? Because--any attempt to remake humans will produce some intended results, but only at a huge price—the price being the necessity of police and/or cultural control of the populace. The Soviets, for example, forbid people from unauthorized buying or selling of goods, but compliance necessitated strict policing. Few realize it, but buying, selling, trading, swamping, or bartering of goods and services is inherent in human nature. It must be; archeologists now know that humans have been freely exchanging goods and services for centuries prior to recorded history. The book to read is The Rational Optimist, by Matt Ridley, c2010.



Alymer's refusal to accept Georgiana's barely visible birthmark is akin to a fairly common phenomenon. In this less than perfect world, all too often the perfect is the enemy of the good. For a social example, think of people who refuse to vote for a particular candidate because they find fault, a real fault perhaps, with his stance on a particular issue. Their ideologically pure refusal often leads to a more seriously flawed candidate taking office.

That Georgiana became convinced that her spouse was right—that her birthmark was hideous, speaks to another contemporary phenomenon. Given time and frequent propaganda, a large mass of people can even come to detest themselves for what they are. Caucasian liberal Americans, descendants of those who made America the greatest country in the history of the world, are now ashamed of what they are—ashamed even to the point that they tolerate any accusation hurled at them, no matter how ridiculous, as long as it is hurled from approved minorities—blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans.



Alymer had a laboratory assistant named Aminadab. I first read the story long ago, as an undergraduate. Only on later readings did I notice that Aminadab spelled backwards is Bad Anima, anima being Latin for soul. Clearly Aminidab was an evil soul mate, a demon no less, to Alymer.



When Georgiana expressed doubt about surgically removing the birthmark, Alymer responded with confidence bespeaking hubris. “I have spent much thought upon the subject...I am convinced of the perfect practicality of its removal.” That reminded me of the liberals' theme song of the 1960s, the one about dreaming the impossible dream. So they gave us the Great Society, as President Lyndon Johnson labeled it, and now, a couple of generations later, his unprecedented spending ladled out money to all kinds of groups, has metastasized into the entitlement society, for which there are insufficient funds to pay for its upkeep, not to mention horrendous unintended consequences. To make a deplorable story short, the net result is millions of people burdened with counter-productive dependency needs. Such people live in a culture of poverty in which they believe they are incapable of functioning without government aid. And so they don't.



To his credit, Alymer addressed the possibility that scientists might discover nature's secrets and then misuse their power. To his discredit, he said that “a philosopher [read: scientist] who should go deep enough to acquire the power would attain too lofty a wisdom to stoop to the exercise of it.” Don't believe it. In the 1930s, the German Nazi government decreed, and their scientists implemented, a eugenics policy. Supposed super men and women, i.e., Ubermenschen, would inter-marry thus producing super children. Now because what is known about DNA allows medical professionals to more or less predict certain positive qualities in offspring, many unwed women have opted for pregnancy via sperm from unknown, but presumably superior, donors. As if fathers in the home are superfluous. I don't doubt that our contemporary biochemists will produce much that is good. However, I am also certain that scientists, well funded and highly knowledgeable but not religious and unbound by moral limits, will produce unfortunate and unintended consequences and even some monstrosities.

Alymer believed that we should trust science. But science, which deals only with material things, is itself value-neutral. Our most troubling problems come from the intellectual and/or spiritual realm. In other words, what scientist do with their knowledge is the problem, not the knowledge itself. History certainly affirms that weakened human nature cannot be trusted with certain matters. Besides test tube babies, there are other sinful consequences, include the destruction of soul-bearing embryos. Expect eugenics to make a sophisticated comeback, and this time many of the consequences will be horrific.
Georgiana, awed by Alymer's successes, said “It has made me worship you more than ever.” The keyword is “worship.” In our time, science, disdainful of religion, has taken on the cult status of a pagan culture.

Near the end, Alymer realized the danger into which he was placing his loving, trusting wife. “Know then..that this crimson hand [birthmark], superficial as it seems, has clutched its grasp into your being with a strength of which I had no previous conception.” But he was not deterred.



To begin the operation, Georgiana drank from a goblet. “She quaffed the liquid and returned the goblet to his [Alymer's] hand. ““Methinks it is like water from a heavenly fountain.”” The Eucharistic symbolism is clear—Science is crossing into matters reserved to religion.



The operation was a success, the birthmark was removed, but with unforeseen and most unfortunate consequences. Lesson: Solving human problems at the expense of limiting freedom inherent in human nature leads to dreadful consequences.



Incidentally, Hawthorne's religious thinking, whether he realized it or not, was essentially Catholic. That Catholic sense must have affected his daughter Rose. She joined the Church—something highly unusual in 19^th century New England, and became a Catholic nun. Well known for her work with the sick and for her exceptional sanctity, she has been proposed for canonization.

Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo, Part 2

PART TWO
"She had never desired any man or been able to live without a cat."  I like that one, but I am not sure what to make of it. I do know that in some mythologies, woman are said to possess feline qualities—beautiful, graceful, dangerous, and especially inscrutable. Perhaps that accounts for the fact that a fairly large number of men hate cats. Now not liking cats is perfectly okay, but when I see more effect than apparent cause, as when men have an irrational hatred of cats, I know I am not seeing the whole cause. Note to young ladies: Do not date, do not marry a man that has a strong hatred of cats. Quite likely he will have a deep seated hatred of women, and will eventually take it out on you.



"...there seemed to be a contradiction between the look in her eyes, which tended to be melancholy, and the brightness of her smile.  This had a somewhat disconcerting effect, so that at moments her charming face was puzzling without ceasing to be beautiful."  That is a description of a yearning look, that most rare and most powerful look of any woman.  That is, there seems to be something mysterious about such rare women, as if they are yearning, even sensing for something not part of this world.  It's a look that a man may want to satisfy, but never will.

Hugo expanded on that a little later: "Knowing herself to be beautiful, she lost the grace of unawarenesss; an exquisite grace, for beauty enhanced by by innocence is incomparable.  Nothing is more enchanting than artless radiance that unwittingly holds the key to a paradise."

"... a woman's gaze is like a mechanical contrivance of a kind that is harmless but in fact is deadly...the machine swallows us...we are the grip of forces against which we struggle in vain...and according to whether we have fallen into the clutches of a base creature or a gentle heart we shall be disfigured by shame or transformed by worship."  If Hugo were here today, he would wonder why why contemporary American women, in their  if their determination to ape men, have lost that power.  What's worse, is that contemporary men have lost their fear of such women, thus the men tend to prey on woman as a bear that has lost its fear of man. 

 

“Effrontery is an expression of shame...In the animal world no creature born to be a dove turns into a scavenger. This happens only among men.” Which is to say that, as the Church teaches, human nature is basically good but weakened by original sin. Therefore, there is always a tendency to fall into animal nature.

"Bodies huddle together in poverty as they do in cold, but hearts grow distant." Furthermore, "Moments of danger occur when these two extremes, of poverty and intelligence, come together."  Cold hearts, impoverished people, and intelligent leadership is a witches brew producing horrific social upheaval. Think French Revolution, 1789.

"The state of a soul that loves and suffers is sublime." Later Hugo added, “There are women with warm hearts whose instinct is to give...Often they give their hearts where men take only their bodies. Their heart remains their own, for them to contemplate in shivering darkness.” That should serve as a warning to young women—be careful about men.

“In a first love it is the soul that is first captured, then the body. Later the body comes before the soul, which may be forgotten altogether.” There is a lot of human marital history in that precise statement.

“A real man avoids display, as much as he does effeminacy.” Drawing unnecessary attention to one's self is spiritually dangerous. Moreover, think of our political leadership. Democracy attracts the ambitious rather than the able. And to be politically successful, politicians must constantly attract attention to themselves. Those who delight in being public spectacles are not likely to have the masculine qualities necessary for leadership during a crisis.

“A civilizing race must be a masculine race. It must be Corinth, not Sybaris. Those who become effeminate basterdize themselves.” And our contemporary schools attempt to remake masculine nature, to make boys with a girl's mindset. Personally, a man takes charge of social situations for which he is responsible (and only those situations). Boys should be encouraged to do so because when they are adults, they must take control, albeit it gentle control, of a family.

“The plight of a child concerns its mother and the plight of a young man may concern a girl. But the plight of an old man concerns no one. It is the most lonely of all despairs.”

“The smell of money attracts women like the smell of lilac.”

“The ennobling quality of danger is that it brings to light the fraternity of strangers.”

“There is a lucidity inspired by the nearness of the grave—to be close to death is to see clearly.” That is God' gift to the dying.

“What is the turmoil in a city compared to that of the human heart? Man the individual is a deeper being than man in the mass.”

“Panic, such as occurs in human nature, may lie down as irrationally as it arises.” That is true for both individuals and their society. In re the latter, social scientists know that riots, for example, follow a certain course, and then end after a few days. Revolutions last longer than riots, but they too follow a well defined course and then the revolutionary fervor subsides.

“People have to look important and the end result is they all look insignificant.” That reminds me of a quote from St. Alphonse Liguori, “Quid hoc ad aeternum” Or, “How does this look to eternity?” I keep in mind that I belong to the Communion of Saints; therefore I am in their presence at all times, and any time I am tempted to call unnecessary attention to myself, I will look like a fool to them.

“Unwitting innocence is sometimes more penetrating than cunning.”

END OF PART TWO

Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo

LES MISERABLES

Two of the most important reasons for reading fiction is that we learn human nature, and we learn of the various kinds of human personalities.  Victor Hugo's Les Miserables fulfills those requirements marvelously.  

PLOT SUMMARY
The story is lengthy, 1200 pages, but worth reading.  You can omit some of Hugo's tangents, such as the details of the Battle of Waterloo and the engineering details of the underground Paris sewer system.  All very interesting, to be sure, they do not advance the plot.  Read them if you wish, but don't feel guilty if you do not.  However, do read the unabridged version, not the 400 page abridgement.  Too much valuable material is omitted.  The novel is easy to read.  Hugo wrote in French, but I have always found that French translates easily into English.   

Notwithstanding the length, the plot is easy to follow.  For merely stealing a loaf of bread, the protagongist, Jean Valjean ends up serving 19 horrid years in the galleys.  Upon release, his "yellow ticket-of-leave marks him as a  social outcast.  Only a bishop treats him kindly, but Valjean returns the favor be stealing his silver candlesticks.  Caught again, he expects to return to the galleys, but the bishop saves him by telling the police that the candlesticks were not stolen, because  "I gave them to him."  

That is a famous scene and herewith an example of why, as T. S. Eliot said, we should all read some of the same books.  When our third daughter was three years old, we visited a priest friend for a weekend.  Upon return, my wife discovered a silver spoon in Cathy's belongings.  We immediately returned it along with an apologetic note comparing Cathy to Jean Valjean.  The priest, educated in the days when priests were well educated, wrote back to say that "Cathy did not steal the spoon, I gave it to her."  Perfect response.  Reading some of the same great works of literature does bring people together and makes communicating more delightful.  

Valjean decides not to report to his parole officer, a criminal offense, but taking an assumed name, he becomes Monsiuer Madeleine, a highly successful businessman.  Along the way, he adopts Cosette, a mistreated orphan girl.  Unfortunately the local police official, Inspector Javert, suspects that Madeleine is actually Valjean.  Jalvert is all justice, no mercy.  Valjean and Cosette escape.  After many adventures, Cosette falls in love with Marius, a student revolutionary.  The climax is reached during the unsuccessful revolution of 1830.  Javert is revealed to be a police spy.  Valjean has an opporunity to kill him, but spares his life.  Marius is shot.  Valjean, who had compelled his daughter to leave Marius, saves the young man by carrying him through the sewers of Paris while being pursued by Javert.  Valjean is eventually captured but Javert, makes an out of character decision.  He gives Valjean his freedom.  Tortured by guilt for doing the right thing, Javert ends his life by throwing himself into the River Seine.

That's the plot outline.  Outline is right.  To describe the entire plot would fill several pages.  But we are dealing with more than a series of adventures.  Hugo includes penetrating insights into human nature, perhaps more than I have ever read in a single novel.  Herewith examples, along with my commentary:

"The first proof of a priest, above all a bishop, is poverty."  Personally, I can understand the need for a priest or bishop to live in comfortable surroundings, one amendable to office work and for receiving visitors.  But it can easily go too far.  I recall Pope Pius XII in the 1950s cautioning Jesuits not to take expensive vacations.  Priests should be careful not to give scandal by living too well.

"He was superiorly skeptical of all things, which gave him great authority with lesser souls."  "Skepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had left him without a whole thought in his head."  As a former university professor, I know how easily skeptical professors corrupt students.  A cautious suspicion is admirable but chronic skepticism is intellectually damaging.  G. K. Chesterton said that if he had to chose between doubting everything and believing everything, he would choose belief.  I concur. 


"Fantine is wonderful, always amazed at ordinary things."  Contrast that with the skeptic.  God delights in ordinary things, and even the recurrence of everyday events such as a sunrise; I dare say it is a sign of goodness to do likewise.  


When Madeleine funded several local institutions, "town gossips said, "He's simply out to make money."  When it was found that he enriched the community before enriching himself, they said "He has political ambitions."  Again, contrast those reactions with the skeptical attitude.  The envious always find fault with charity.

"A man who is not loved preys like a vulture on the lives of other men."  That explains a lot of jealousy.

"It is our belief that if the soul were visible to the eye every member of the human species would be seen to correspond to some species of the animal world and a truth scarcely perceived by the thinkers would be readily confirmed, namely that from the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger, all animals are found in men and each of them exists in some men, sometimes several at a time."  That forces me to think of my particular animal self.  Sorry, I'll keep that image private.  I'm sure that my many adversaries could do a more honest job of it.  I can't resist matching persons I have known to their animal likeness.  My seventh grade school teacher is a rabid rhinoceros.  I picture many former students as sloth hanging from trees.  Jackals conduct business in Congress.  

"Give a youngster what is superfluous, deprive him of what is needful, and you have an urchin."  Numerous contemporary American youth speak to that truth.  Personally, among the superfluous items I include video games.  

Expanding on the above, Hugo wrote: "The well-to-do young man is offered a hundred dazzling and crude distractions--occupations for the baser nature at the expense of everything that is high-minded and sensitive."  We know that the Holy Spirit speaks in "still, soft, whispers."  That Holy voice is not likely to be heard by those engaged in noisy distractions.  Furthermore, the Holy Spirit does not wait for us to be ready to hear Him speak.  We must be alert in order to hear Him.

"Poverty is like everything else.  In the end it becomes bearable."  Marmaladov, in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, said about the same thing, "Men are scoundels; they can get used to anything."   This is happening in our inner cities.  A culture of poverty takes over.  People become used to penury.  They quit striving, and are willing to become wards of the state.

"Contemplation carried to this [excessive] point becomes a form of sloth."  I like that.  Even a good practice can become sinful.


END OF PART ONE