We would remind people that it is the law of nature that all things must be of gradual growth. - Blessed John XXIII
Over the years, I've had a few friends who 'dropped out' of the Church. Some left because of bad example, others left because they felt unable to live up to the perfection fellow Catholics seemed to expect of them. As if they were expected to become saints overnight. Indeed, some even thought they had become saints, only to crash and burn when the bubble burst. Uber-Catholics, fiery apologists, traditional, orthodox - no longer...
Anyway, I came across the following from Dr. Alice von Hildebrand which really surprised me, coming from her, that is.
"The most we can do is to pray to be God’s instruments. To be an instrument we must strive to live the Gospel every day and in every circumstance. Only God’s grace can give us the desire and ability to do that.
It is one of the fears I have about traditional Catholics. Some flirt with fanaticism. A fanatic is one who considers truth to be his personal possession instead of God’s gift. We are servants of the truth, and it is as servants that we seek to share it.
I am very concerned that there are “fanatical” Catholics who use the Faith and the truth it proclaims as an intellectual toy. An authentic appropriation of the truth always leads to a striving for holiness. The Faith, in this present crisis, is not an intellectual chess game. For anyone not striving for holiness, that’s all it will ever be. Such people do more harm to the Faith, particularly if they are proponents of the traditional Mass. - Dr. Alice von Hildebrand
I also came across this...
"Salvation and justice consist not in the uprooting of an outdated system, but in a well designed policy of development. Hotheadedness was never constructive; it has always destroyed everything. It has inflamed passions, but never assuaged them. It sows no seeds but those of hatred and destruction. Far from bringing about the reconciliation of contending parties, it reduces men and political parties to the necessity of laboriously redoing the work of the past, building on the ruins that disharmony has left in its wake." - Pius XII's address to Italian workers, Rome, Pentecost, June 13, 1943
Ah, that fine line between gently leading someone to Christ and clobbering them over the head.
ReplyDeleteI really like Dr. von Hilderbrand's comment: "It is one of the fears I have about traditional Catholics. Some flirt with fanaticism. A fanatic is one who considers truth to be his personal possession instead of God’s gift. We are servants of the truth, and it is as servants that we seek to share it."
I am slowly learning that it really comes down to humility, which is all about being a servant, as Dr. von Hilderbrand says. I am also beginning to think that Traditionalists can actually be much more destructive than liberals. As Dr. von Hilderbrand says: "Such people do more harm to the Faith, particularly if they are proponents of the traditional Mass."
We have a cunning foe in Satan.
+JMJ+
ReplyDeleteI was so disappointed when I saw that the guy in the image wasn't Freddy Kreuger. =P Although I flatter myself that he wouldn't scare me away from the Church! I'm Final Girl, right?!?!
Or am I . . . ?
The third example in your first paragraph reminded me of the (non-Catholic) blog The Last Psychiatrist, which I've been reading a lot of lately. It would take me all night to explain the connections in bright detail, so let me risk being as cryptic as I am concise instead.
One of his pet theses is that so many people today think of themselves as the main character in a movie, with everyone else as supporting characters. And if you think it's hard for us when the movie of our lives doesn't turn out the way we think it should, imagine how much more devastating it is when we realise that we are just supporting characters in another person's movie. I can easily see how someone who cast himself in the lead role of "Uber-Catholic, fiery apologist, traditional, orthodox" would drop out of the Church upon realising he is actually not the star.
With respect to real movies, The Last Psychiatrist has a couple of reviews that criticise stories in which a totally ordinary protagonist does nothing worthwhile with his life until his superhero powers suddenly kick in. Then he saves the whole world and proves he was special all that time. (The Matrix, Spider-man, Wanted, et. al.) Perhaps a convert or revert thought that being Catholic was enough to get the superhero powers to kick in and let him prove to the world (or just to himself) how freaking special he always was. Which brings me back to the previous paragraph. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Those people who were once "Uber-Catholics, fiery apologists, traditional, orthodox"? Ask them what they are now. They may have a brand new role they believe they are more convincing at.
Embrethilil writes : "The Last Psychiatrist has a couple of reviews that criticise stories in which a totally ordinary protagonist does nothing worthwhile with his life until his superhero powers suddenly kick in."
ReplyDeleteSomewhat akin to the apostles, and the martyrs, and many of the saints we follow as example.
I've never met any of these uber Catholics who are now fallen away, unless of course you mean those whose seed sprouted on hard soil to begin with, and very few of those.
+JMJ+
DeleteAre you trying to imply that being a fisherman is akin to doing nothing worthwhile with one's life?
There's also the salient point that the saints likely did not see themselves as the stars of their own movies, with everyone else as supporting characters. If you're just converting to prove to the world that you're special, then you're bound to be disappointed.
Nothing worthwhile is inaccurate, ordinary is more accurate. Peter Parker was an ordinary photographer. And yes, the Apostles were ordinary fishermen.
DeleteAs to the Apostles seeing themselves as the star of their movie, that's a different issue, and no, they would not have because the rampant self centeredness we see is a defect, and a very modern one stemming from a number of interrelated causes.
+JMJ+
DeleteThe point is that the belief these movies pander to is that which says an ordinary life isn't worthwhile. One must be extraordinary or else one is a loser. But in these stories, the only way to be extraordinary is to have your natural superpowers magically kick in. Which is a way of saying that you were already extraordinary all that time; the problem was that no one recognised you as extraordinary. And yes, it's a modern thing.
It's rather difficult to imagine any guy thinking Peter Parker's ordinary life isn't worthwhile. The lovely Mary Anne is part of Peter Parker's ordinary life, not part of his spider-life.
DeleteAs to the larger issue, Little House in the Big Woods and similar fare of ordinary life have their place, but seriously, where's the catharsis in those books?
Literature has always been of extraordinary exploits. Even when they really are nothing more than the boys taking the around about way home enjoying the women along the way and then dressing it all up in tall tales as Ulysses did.
+JMJ+
DeleteI finally see why we are getting derailed. Spider-man was my example and not one from The Last Psychiatrist. And I was only thinking of the first Toby Maguire movie. So while I might apply his reading to it as well, he himself might not. My apologies for confusing everyone.
However, I think you will find millions upon millions of guys who think that Wesley Gibson's and Thomas Anderson's ordinary lives were not at all worthwhile.
Extraordinary exploits are one thing. We're talking about characters who are extraordinary before they even do anything. The exploits are superfluous.
A boy who reads Homer's Odyssey might be inspired to sail around the world. A boy who watches Wanted and The Matrix will be more inspired to wait at home for a hot chick to knock on his door.
And to answer your question: the catharsis is in Chapter 24 of Little House on the Prairie.
Enbrethiliel writes : "Extraordinary exploits are one thing. We're talking about characters who are extraordinary before they even do anything. The exploits are superfluous."
ReplyDeleteThe exploits are the sign of the virtue that lies hidden and made visible by the conflict and resolution.
Some men, like the Virginian, are larger than life to begin with, others such as the farmers in Shane find hidden resolve in themselves. They're stories of men proving themselves on the field of battle.
Neo may follow the white rabbit, a far hotter babe than Trinity 'definitely', to find his inner hidden The Oneness, but I suspect that for most guys Neo is more of the character of signifying the fighting the suppression of modern man where his venues for proving him manliness in feminizing modern society are becoming always more scarcer and always less natural.
Modern society emasculates men, and those like Neo are an outward expression of men vicariously expressing their manliness by the only means modern society gives them.
As to the catharsis in Little House in the Big Woods, I suppose it can be found in the same way as someone could find the chase scene in the play Harvey, but they lack the drama and joy of sticking it to the well deserving Uriah Heap.
+JMJ+
DeleteSo you would now like to redefine "extraordinariness" as "virtue"? No worries! I can still play along! =)
While it's certainly true that virtue can exist long before it is made manifest, you have a problem when people who think they are the stars of their own movies apply that to their own lives.
It's what lets a heroin addict who has just prostituted himself declare, "I can quit at any time!" It's what lets a promiscuous person who has cheated on all previous partners say, "I still deserve a good spouse because I will be faithful to The One." It's what lets someone who has been fired from three jobs in three years argue, "I'd be just as successful as everyone else if I had just been given the breaks that they had."
At what point do you start judging people by their actions rather than their beliefs about themselves?
The problem with men vicariously expressing their manliness through Neo is that it changes nothing. They're still emasculated. That is the point.
Well, okay, that's not entirely accurate. One thing has changed: they feel better about themselves. Like a serial killer who has finally realised he had Mommy Issues all this time. A breakthrough in self-knowledge!
Now may I ask how you ever concluded that Chapter 24 of Little House on the Prairie lacks drama and joy without ever having read it? If I had your literary superpowers, I wouldn't bother to read anything any longer. I'd just know. =P
Great comments Enbrethiliel.
ReplyDeleteEnbrethiliel,
ReplyDeleteI have four daughters, and three older sisters. Of course I've read the books. I didn't go to the book shelves and count the chapters, but I do remember well the story about the panther. It's persistent movement through the trees at the speed of a horse hunting down Pa was highly interesting.
I've not arguing against the self centeredness of the culture, I simply think the examples you initially used to make your argument actually are counter productive because taking away those venues by excoriating them exacerbates the suppression.
No doubt, those venues leave much to be desired, but bad venues are better than none or even worse ones.
+JMJ+
DeleteWith respect to Little House on the Prairie, I was actually referring to the Indians riding away. The panther didn't occur to me at all!
I see your point more clearly now, LTG, so let me also clarify that my point was never that we should stop watching The Matrix or Wanted. It was merely that they have the wrong idea about what makes a person a hero.
But you and I may never agree upon that point. =)
PS -- Even The Last Psychiatrist doesn't recommend censorship or a media blackout as a solution. In a post about TV, the blogger said that the only reason TV has been able to corrupt the youth is that parents allowed it. I'm sure he'd say something about the influence of these two movies.