Book Recommendation: “The Spiritual History of English,” by Andrew Thornton-Norris

A new edition, revised, expanded and published by Os Justi Press

What makes literature or art Christian? Some would say just the content, that is, what is said; others would say both the content and the form, because the way in which certain truths are conveyed can communicate them more fully. It’s not just what you say that’s important, but also how you say it.

If this is the case, the style of prose or poetry can be Christian (or un-Christian), as much as the meaning of the words considered apart from that style. As an artist and a teacher of art, I have long maintained that the style of art is every bit as important as the content, and that since the Enlightenment, style has declined because artists have rejected the traditional Catholic forms.

In this slim volume, the English Catholic poet Andrew Thornton-Norris does for poetry and prose what I have been trying to do with visual art. He relates the actual structure of the writing and the vocabulary used in it to the worldview of a given age. He shows us, for example, that even if the poet or novelist is sincerely Catholic and trying to express truths that are consistent with the Faith, he is at a great disadvantage if he is seeking to express those truths with vocabulary and poetic forms that reflect a post-Enlightenment culture.

I agree with the author’s analysis of the phases of modernity, which he sees as ever-greater degrees or manifestations of the Protestant heresy. Chapter by chapter, he analyses and critiques the worldview of the Enlightenment, down to the present day. The philosophies behind Neoclassicism, Romanticism, Modernism, and Postmodernism are each presented as differing reactions against Christianity, and ultimately, against the authority of the Catholic Church. He then connects each with the cultural forms it engenders. Because he is dealing with the English language, he first describes the rise of the language as a distinct vernacular, and connects this with the presence of the Faith.   

He argues that the very idea of the English as a nation comes from the Church, through Pope Gregory the Great and his emissary, St Augustine of Canterbury. He then describes how the language and its literature developed in light of the spread of Christian teaching, through the influence of figures such as Bede, Alcuin of York, and King Alfred the Great. Then, after the great heights of writers such as  Chaucer and finally Shakespeare, he argues that the trajectory has been downhill from there. As he puts it in the beginning of his concluding chapter: “This book has argued that English literature has declined, almost to the point of non-existence. In this and previous chapters we examine what remains: the entrails, or shipwrecks, so to speak. It has argued that this decline has been concurrent with that of English Christianity, and it has examined the relationship between these two phenomena.”

This means that Mr Thornton-Norris is much more suspicious of the Romantic poets than many other Catholic commentators. I like the idea of this, firstly because it makes me feel less of a philistine for finding them dull, but also because this parallels exactly my analysis of painting—that the Romantics and all thereafter are, in substantial and important ways, inferior to earlier Christian artists and artisans. The same seems evident to me in Neoclassicism, Modernism, and Postmodernism.

Thornton-Norris clearly believes that through the prism of literature, one can identify problems with the whole culture, which are at root related to the rejection of the Faith and its forms of worship. This idea is also very similar to my own about visual art, and appeals to me on a similar level.

The author is discussing general trends; he has no intention of dismissing all examples of English literature in these later periods. Rather, he points out the great disadvantage suffered by those poets and novelists who were trying to express something that is consistent with the Faith in an era that breathed a different atmosphere. They were restricted, generally, to the vocabulary and structural forms of the language at the time in which they lived, and because these were affected by one form or another of a post-Enlightenment anti-Catholic worldview, they always faced a struggle to rise above the cramping conventions and assumptions of their time.

The source of hope for the English language and English literature is, for Mr Thornton-Norris, the same as it is in the Church. As he puts it:

“Whereas Christianity provided an external discipline or control of the emotions and ego, romanticism exalts them, as does psychoanalysis and the cult of therapy and self-development, especially in its Freudian or theoretical form. The logical conclusion is that if we want to resist the relativism of artistic and religious values, a fundamental rehabilitation of English relations with the papacy is the only solution.”

This is true for the culture in general. The task here is one of an authentic renewal of the Catholic Faith. 

The Spiritual History of English is full of luminous ideas that deserve careful pondering. May this new edition from Os Justi Press place its insights into the hands of many more readers who are seeking to understand the cultural crossroads at which we stand and the conditions necessary for the rebirth and flourishing of all the arts, especially the art of the poetic word.

To order: Os Justi Press or Amazon

A Beautiful Recording of Newly Rediscovered Classical Music

Sonatas Venezolanas - music for violin and piano performed by Marjory Serrano-Coyer and Hsin-Yi Chen. This music, composed by Venezuelans in the second half of the 20th century is a symbol of how a culture that is simultaneously national and Christian ought to develop. Sample and buy the recordings at marjorysc.hearnow.com.

Sonatas Venezolanas is a recently released recording of compostions for violin and piano by Ángel Sauce and Nelly Mele Lara, both of whom died in the 1990s. I was surprised to discover how recently they lived, given that the style of their music evokes a much early age. My personal impression is of 19th century or early 20th century romantic music of the highest quality, combined with some elements of more contemporary classical composition, and intermingled with a distinctive flavor that I couldn’t place, and presumed to be the individual mark of each composer. The musicians tell us in the video below that there are uniquely Venezuelan elements in these works too, so perhaps that is what I am picking up on. I do not claim any expertise in musicology so I encourage you to listen and decide for yourself!

The musicians, both of whom live in Virginia, are violinst Marjory Serrano-Coyer, who grew up Venezuela, and pianist Hsin-Yi Chen, who was born in Taiwan. Here they describe how the scores were discovered, and the project to record this music for the first time was realized.

The wonderful music and great artistry in the performances are, of course, the best reason to buy this record. But there are lessons to be learned about the nature of Christian culture here too. These pieces demonstrate how Christian culture simultaneously embodies universal principles of beauty and goodness, and bears the characteristics of a particular people, in this case the Venezuelans, and time. The basic structure is that of Western classical music, a form that developed uniquely in the Christian world and out of Christian sacred music. However, it also bears the mark of an organic development in style that has taken place since the Spanish first introduced these forms to Venezuela. 

I argue that the Christianization of local cultures, which has produced these particular works, is a good thing. Authentic Christian cultures always incarnate the universal principles of the Christian faith, which simultaneously and uniquely direct us to the common good. These principles encourage personal and societal flourishing and freedom by design, and from this there emerges also a pattern that characterizes a particular society or nation. And the mark of such a culture is its beauty. 

This view of culture is not a fashionable one. Marxist ideology, which dominates cultural commentary in the West today, says the precise opposite - that any culture is good as long as it isn’t Christian - and is therefore directed to the destruction of the beauty of all aspects of Christian culture, such as that found in music, visual art and architecture. Christian culture, so the Marxists claim, reflects and upholds the values of the oppressor class which is the white patrimony, and so all trace of this should be erased.

This highly stilted interpretation of Western history, which ignores the many moral contributions of the West, including human rights, rule of law, democratic governance and limited government, etc., nevertheless has a powerful hold over the intellectual classes, and especially those who dominate our universities, including the musical conservatories, art schools and literature departments. This is remarkable and disconcerting, to put it mildly.

Venezuela is no longer the country it once was, and is radically different even from the Venezuela of the 1990s. It has been all but destroyed by corrupt and evil Marxist forces. It is now barely a functioning state, and its people have been suffering to such a degree that the numbers of refugees from Venezuela that are flooding its neighbors are on a par with those that have fled Ukraine and Syria. Perhaps this music, which is emblematic in many ways of what used to be so good about that country, can play some small part in sparking the national memory of what was, so that it can become something even better in the future. Saving any nation from Marxism is as much a task of evangelization as it is political. And beauty is one of the most powerful tools that Christians have in their work to achieve that transformation.

A Bill To Prescribe Traditional Architectural Styles for Federal Buildings

Beautiful architecture by the people, for the people, and of the people?

Last Wednesday, Rep. Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, introduced legislation to codify an executive order by former President Trump that made classical architecture the model for new government buildings, an order which was axed by President Biden. He was recently interviewed on the subject by on Fox News.

The “Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act” declares “traditional and classical” architectural styles to be preferred for new Federal government buildings. This offers hope, at least, that we might again see a national culture that is beautiful and is in harmony with Christian values.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Russian dissident, famously said on coming to the US (quoting Dostoevsky) that, ‘Beauty will save the world.’ I would assert that in order to save the world, we must first save America, and that in order to do that, beauty must save America. I write as one, incidentally, who recently became an American citizen, because I want to help save the West through beauty.

Those who wish to see a strong American society rooted in traditional values focus, quite rightly, on the political battles, but can forget at times that this ought to be an urgent cultural battle as well. This is a shame, because a noble and accessible culture of beauty is the greatest ally that those politicians who strive for what is good in America can have. As the British conservative philosopher, the late Roger Scruton, put it, when the world around us is beautiful, ‘it tells us that we are at home in the world.’

When we are at home in the world, our desire is to conserve and develop further what is good, rather than to destroy the institutions of society. Furthermore, beauty inspires in us love for our fellow men, generates a culture of faith and virtue that supports the generation of wealth, and our desire to care for the poor. I have previously written about this principle here.

The neo-Marxist theorists who have steadily gained control of the institutions that influence culture in the West understand this well. They have nothing but disdain for the common taste, and for decades, they have deliberately sought to further their political goals by promoting a contemporary culture of ugliness, despair and death, in order to spark revolutionary and destructive anger directed against the America of the Founding Fathers. Beauty raises our hearts and minds to God, and in so doing, reinforces our desire to live by American values, which are rooted in Scripture and Judeo-Christian values. The Marxists know this, even if many Christians seem not to. Accordingly, the Marxists push ugliness, because they know it undermines traditional values. Their architecture of despair distracts our gaze from ‘heavenly things’, as St Paul puts it, and hence from an adherence to objective truth, leaving us vulnerable to manipulation by false propaganda.

The brutalist US Dept of Health and Human Services, the Hubert H Humphrey building. This speaks directly of the disdain that the elites who push this style have for those whom they serve. It says, ‘You may not like it, but we know better than you, as with everything else we do.’

I was delighted therefore to see in December 2020, right at the end of his term, that President Donald Trump (not a man popularly associated with high culture) issue a barely noticed Executive Order mandating that federal buildings should adopt the traditional American style of classical architecture. I wrote about it at the time as a move that would set a standard for American buildings that could be a visible symbol of the traditional American values of faith, freedom and justice. At last, I thought, at the highest level, we have a move that recognizes the importance of culture in preserving and promoting American values, which are rooted in Judeo-Christian values. “If the EO survives the next administration, it will, contrary to what it’s critics on the left claim, likely encourage creativity, authentic originality, and a new richness in architectural style that can be the driving force for a beautiful American culture that speaks authentically of its past and directs us hopefully to its future.”

It turns out that was an important ‘if’. Within a month of Joe Biden becoming President, the EO was scrapped.

Now, thanks to Rep Jim Banks, there is a proposed bill that seeks to do the same, and which adds more detail and direction to the original mandate. For example, as his press release tells us, it specifies that: 

“The term ‘traditional architecture’ includes classical architecture; and the historic humanistic architecture, including Gothic, Romanesque, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and other Mediterranean styles of architecture historically rooted in various regions of America, the bill states. 

The bill denounces modern, ‘brutalist’ styles of buildings made popular in the 20th century, defined as a ‘massive and block-like appearance with a rigid geometric style and large-scale use of exposed poured concrete.’ Buildings should instead be modeled after ‘Greek and Roman antiquity’ like the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court. 

Banks said his bill aims to restore respect for the beauty of traditional American culture. 

A 2020 poll from the National Civic Art Society found that 72% of American respondents prefer classical and traditional design for federal buildings. Justin Shubow, president of the National Civic Art Society, said he is fully behind Banks' bill. 

"It is crucial that the design of federal buildings reflects the preferences of ordinary Americans — namely, that such buildings be beautiful, uplifting, and designed in a classical or traditional style.”

I am hoping that this bill might make progress, and even if not made law, might set the standard for how legislation can have an impact on the culture. 

Setting an example that will drive a wider American culture of beauty. 

On the whole, I believe that the culture is not created from the top-down, but from the bottom up. It is a pattern of how ordinary people interact and behave. So it is appropriate that a federal bill limits its attentions to the aspect of American architecture that it should properly be concerned with, that is federal architecture. This way, its influence beyond that is by example only. If people like what they see, they will be inspired to follow suit in the building design that they have an influence over. 

The Supreme Court building

Architecture for the people, not the elites 

This bill reflects a proper government concern for serving the people. If the views of ordinary people were taken into account, then I am pretty sure there would be no modernist architecture ever. (I am using modern in a broad sense to mean those styles that arise from a conscious rejection of Western tradition). A poll referred to by the drafters of the bill indicated that classical was the preferred style of the public and of federal workers - those who will actually have to look at and work in the buildings. This does not surprise me. In my experience of decades of talking to people about art and culture, it is the many - ordinary people (who don’t consider themselves members of the cognoscenti) who prefer traditional designs. On the other hand, it is the few - elites who are inclined to tell us what we ought to like - who advocate modernist designs, and who dominate the teaching institutions that form the architects who go on to design such buildings. 

A move that will encourage originality and creativity 

One argument that I am sure will be used against the bill is that it will stifle creativity. In fact, in my opinion, the opposite will happen. It will encourage a richer and more authentically American diversity of beautiful architecture than that produce by modernist architects.

As a rule, in art, if you define limits to creativity in one direction, creativity finds room for maneuver in other directions. Rather than being a prescription for sameness and sterility, it is exactly the opposite: a mandate for beautiful creativity and variety. 

History confirms this. Some of the most admired architectural styles began as attempts to copy the past. Without deliberate intent from the architects, their work was a product of the time and place in which it was created as well. So, for example, the High Renaissance classical style began as an attempt to recreate the classical style of the ancient Romans and Greeks. It quickly became its own distinct form of classicism known as Palladian architecture and in turn morphed into English Georgian and the American colonial style.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

The Philosophy of Mainstream Art Education and Criticism: Part 3

How Marxist theory has entered the mainstream, and more on how radical, Christian ‘counter-revolutionary’ beauty is the response that will save the world.

This the third in the series. In part 1 and part 2, I discussed how the contemporary art world presents itself as Postmodern, but in fact is in fact just Marxist ideology intent on destruction of the tradition, faith, family and the Church. Here I consider the various forms that it appears in the contemporary worldview, going beyond the art world, and how a Christian culture of beauty ought to be part of the response.

Giotto, fresco, St Francis Preaching to the Birds, Italian 13th century.

The assumptions of Marxist ideology have seeped into the mainstream and have been adopted by people who very often are not aware of the implications of what they think. This is true of many who call themselves Christian. As already stated, many Catholics, for example, accept the Marxist critique of capitalism and the free economy without realising that this critique promotes a worldview that is contrary to their own faith. It is not common for people to see private property as necessary evil rather than a good upon which a Christian society must be founded. Similarly there are many Christians who are sympathetic to other socialist or Marxist ideas and who are unaware that they are working with a force that is directed towards the destruction of their Christian faith and all the main institutions of society. It sounds virtuous to be in favor of diversity and equality, for example, as long as we don’t investigate too far the consequences of the policies proposed to rectify the supposed lack of diversity and inequality.

We should be under no illusions that Marxism and Christianity are mutually exclusive and one cannot profess both simultaneously.

It is difficult to know why the art world claims that post-modernism as defined above is the ethos of contemporary art when it is clearly following a Marxist path. One suspects that this is not subterfuge. Rather, that the Marxist worldview is so deeply embedded in the psyche of modern academia that many are simply unaware of the axiomatic principles that become the measure of truth. So perhaps Chris Ofili, described in part 1, thinks he is a postmodernist, and does not realise that he is only permitted to be one insofar as it doesn’t contradict the Marxist narrative of what constitutes truth. To highlight one other example of how the battle of ideas has played out in the art world. Marxist philosophy is the main driving force behind the frequently stated, but false, claim that Christ is traditionally painted as a Caucasian, and that this has been done in order to promote a white patriarchy. It displays a shocking ignorance of Christian art (as I described in this article here), and of the origins and attitude of Christians through centuries, yet it is a story that surfaces regularly.

For example, a random search on the internet revealed that on April 19th, 2019, an article appeared in the New York Times headed, ‘As a Black Child in Los Angeles, I Couldn’t Understand Why Jesus Had Blue Eyes’. If the writer in question had seen authentic Christian liturgical art, and had a good appreciation of the traditions from which it comes, then he wouldn’t have asked such questions. There are images of Christ with blue eyes, no doubt, but they are not representative of the norms of Christian tradition through centuries.

A Byzantine image of Christ, a mosaic, created in the 13th century in modern day Turkey. There is no Western European influence on either the style or content of Byzantine art of this period. I’m looking in vain for blue eyes, by the way. The white highlights are not representative of the skin color (which is brown) but artistic portrayals of uncreated light emanating from the Light of the World

Consistent with this broader narrative, art history for the cultural Marxist is always described through the lens of class struggle, defining categories of people by race or gender, for example, in which one category, for example, caucasian males, are oppressors who exerts power and domination over all others, who are the oppressed. Rarely, for example, is an artist or his patron of the past assumed to be motivated by an authentic faith and by the love of the Church. Human motivation, in their eyes, is always attributable to socio-economic factors and to promote the power, the wealth and the status of the oppressor class.

As Christians we must be aware of this narrative and be ready to counter it forcefully. Striving for an authentic and beautiful culture is part of how we wage the war for the good and, contrary to the effect of Marxism, the measure of our victory is peace. The culture war is a real one, and those against whom we are pitted are setting a trajectory that has the elimination of the Church as one of its goals.

As part of our response, we must first appreciate the importance of culture in transmitting values, just as the socialists have done, and then strive to create a beautiful culture that reflects our values and will displace the Marxist inspired culture. We should reject the assertion that cultural diversity is a good and assert, rather, that a Christian culture is superior to, and more beautiful, than all other cultures.

In the context of sacred art it means that we assert the value of the traditions of Christian sacred art forcefully and counter the Marxist narrative of history with the Christian salvation history. It means also, working to change or replace existing art schools, and providing a more compelling critique of art than that of the critics in the mainstream media. Nearly every newspaper or TV station art correspondent is pushing Marxist ideology in the form of Critical Theory. In order to do this we must be aware of both what we stand for and what the Marxist theorists stand for.

 

Liberation theology, condemned by the Church, is a failed attempt to reconcile Marxism and Christianity

The most powerful way to counter this threat to the Church is by creating a culture that reflects the beauty of God and the divine order that is more desirable than all others. A Christian culture is a beautiful gift that should be offered to all peoples, along with the Faith that it emanates from and directs us to. A Christian culture should characterize the society from which emanates and so, as Americans, we should aim to reestablish American culture, a culture that is beautiful, Christian, and characteristically American.

American gothic: Duke University Chapel, exterior and, below, interior

The Beautiful Culture Speaks of Freedom, Love, and of Christ

The Christian connection between culture, conservative values, the common good and the natural law

In my post one week ago (entitled What is Culture), I described how a beautiful culture emerges through the loving interaction between the people in a society and their love of God. Now, love is by nature freely given (the moment we are compelled to love, it is no longer love!). Therefore, freedom - the freedom to love God and neighbor - is a necessary condition for a beautiful culture. 

What is freedom? Many feel that freedom is simply the absence of constraint and compulsion. That is part of it, but the traditional approach has a deeper understanding. We can define freedom in the traditional understanding as the capacity to choose the practicable best. For us to be in full possession of freedom and be able to choose the course that is best, therefore, three components must be present.

The first component is the absence of constraint or compulsion; the second is a full knowledge of what is best for us; and the third is the power to act in accordance with what is best. The good that is best for each of us in the context of a society is known as the ‘common good’. When we act in accordance with the common good, then we also do what is best for ourselves. In the proper order of things, the personal good and the common good are never in conflict with each other. The most obvious guides to seeking the common good are the moral law and the principles of justice as prescribed by Christ’s Church. All authentic and beautiful Christian cultures emerge from the freely taken actions of the members of a society toward the common good.

The Capitol Building, Washington DC. This building has become emblematic of America and American values

It is in the interest of a Christian society therefore, to promote freedom by a system of laws that are just, and so give security to the individual to act in accordance with the freedom to be moral and good. Such a system of laws would be directed to restraining people from interfering with the freedom of others. The state also encourages the formation of people through an education that will help them to know the common good. The state fulfils its role by enabling good teachers, and most especially parents as teachers of the children, to teach well. If these conditions are satisfied then I believe a culture of beauty will emerge organically from the bottom up. 

Analogously, and in regard to supporting the arts themselves, I believe that it is better to strive to create the conditions that promote the freedom to pursue art as a career, than to try to impose the elitist vision of what art ought to look like onto people from the top down. The freedom given to an artist in this context is understood as consisting of a knowledge of what sort of art might benefit society, and the skill and means to create it. A top down imposition of artistic standards almost always tends to restrict freedom, and so undermines the chance of creating an authentically beautiful culture.

One might think that an exception to this rule would be those arts that are to be used directly by government, for example the design of civic buildings, for which government must, by necessity, be involved. However, even then the government ought to be mindful that it serves the people and does not direct them, and hence be aware both of tradition (the people of the past) and what most people want. Also, because architecture and public spaces have an impact on the whole community and not just those who occupy them, then the community that it will impact most immediately must have a say on the style of buildings. The authority that specifies such buildings must reflect the principle of subsidiarity as far as possible. A state Capitol building should reflect what the people of the state want and used to want, i.e. tradition, while the small city government would select the architecture for the town hall, reflecting what the neighborhood wants.

Boston public library

For example, the Hungarian government recently undertook a building program to replace the brutalist style of buildings built by communists in its capital Budapest with more elegant architecture. In the last 10 years, it has rebuilt or renovated in the style that is in accord with the traditional architecture of the city, and this has been a highly popular program. Furthermore, the level of tourism in the city has increased dramatically, with the new buildings being the attractions as much as the old.

Returning to our focus on the role of the state and its connection to culture: the pattern of positive law (those laws created by human government) of a society will inevitably be different from one nation to another, even for those nations that are seeking to create laws for all the right reasons. The truths of the natural law which inform positive law are eternal and universal principles; but this universality of the principles themselves does not mean that human society immediately and instantaneously comes to know and apply these principles universally, in all places, in exactly the same way. Human knowledge, like human society, must progress slowly, in stages, step-by-step, and organically, or else it is not a true “human society” at all. It does so through a process of trial and error, gradually seeing what works best. Therefore each society will take a different path towards this knowledge.

The good Christian society recognizes the difficulty of knowing fully, and applying well, the universal principles of the natural law, and thus the good Christian society seeks the aid of revelation, Tradition, and the experience of past laws to help guide reason. God revealed truths for two reasons, St Thomas Aquinas tells us, first because some truths are beyond the grasp of reason (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the resurrection of the body); and second, God also revealed moral truths that, although part of the natural law and accessible to natural reason, would “only  be discovered by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of errors.” (ST Ia Q1,1 co.) Arising from this there are two important reasons why the pattern of the exercise of freedom will be different from one Christian nation to another. First, principles that are understood well can still be applied in different ways by different societies without contravening those principles; and second, the knowledge or understanding of a principle is very likely not perfect or full and will vary from nation to nation, each thinking that it knows best.

Accordingly, different Christian nations are free to observe the experience of other nations, imitate  what is best in them, and adopt what is beautiful and good from them. This way, in the proper order of things, each nation is part of a family of distinct and autonomous nations, each helping each other to find what is best.

As mentioned in my earlier post, a culture is a sign of the core values of the society that produces it and as such it is beautiful to the degree that it is Christian. This is true even in those societies or countries that would not think of themselves as Christian. An Islamic nation, for example, has a beautiful culture to the degree that its culture is consistent with an expression of the Christian truths, even when those truths are communicated to them by the Koran.

Further, it is the Christian characteristics of different cultures that connect them to each other; and it is the different national expressions of that Christian faith manifested in characteristic patterns of loving interaction and free behaviour that distinguish different Christian cultures from each other.

So for example, historically, the United States began as a nation that adopted and then adapted a system of law from the English constitutional tradition. The English constitutional tradition is a system of laws, rooted in Christian values, yet expressed in a characteristically English way that is quite different from, for example, that of its neighbor France. In time the American system of law developed its own national characteristics, while still owing much to its English beginnings, but now expressing it in a characteristically American way. If American culture is to be transformed into one of beauty it will be one that asserts the importance of America as a distinct nation with characteristic values that are simultaneously Christian and of a particular American-English expression. As such one would expect to see similarities to English culture in American culture. It is no accident for example, that in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century, American churches and universities were modeled on the English neo-gothic style. They even hired English architects to build them, but quickly an American character emerged from these, and so while we can see the similarities between Princeton and Oxford universities, one reflects America while the other reflects England. All this was before the decline of culture in both America and England, which took hold strongly after the Second World War, and by which both nations lost a sense of the importance of the Christian faith to the defining principles of their nations, and the principles of common law that underlay each.

Oxford

Yale

Princeton

The task of transforming the culture in our country, America, then, is clearly one of evangelization. We hope for and work towards a society in which the culture’s ordering principle is the transfigured Christ. And people must be aware again of what that looks like in America. This latter aspect requires more than an understanding of the principles of the American constitution. It requires an appreciation also of the cultural mileau from which it emerged and a love for it.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

The Mysteries of the Mandorla in the Our Lady of Guadalupe Icon

The story of the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe is remarkable in many ways. An important part of that story, that of the image that was given to St Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, is itself enigmatic. What follows is personal speculation - I am describing what strikes me as so mysterious when I look at this image.

As a revealed image, it is a rare Western example of a small category of sacred art called in Greek acheiropoieta - not made by human hands. In this example, we have some details clearly derived from Aztec culture and some from traditional Christian culture, including some features not normally associated with the Spanish Christian culture of the day. Something else that is striking about this image is how these aspects are combined so as to create something that has great power to convince one of the truth of what it conveys. This apparition caused millions to convert, and a large part of that was due to the persuasive influence of the visual vocabulary employed by the “artist” of this image. It spoke simultaneously to both the Aztecs and the occupying Spaniards, and continues to draw devotion today from Christians from all over the world.

The subject of this sacred image came up in a lively podcast in which I was in conversation with Christopher West (of the Cor Project and the Theology of the Body Institute). We discussed the broader subject of the place of contemporary popular culture in a Christian culture and whether or not it has a place for Christians as a tool for evangelization. In the course of this, we touched on subjects ranging from 1970s rock music (British, Irish and American) to Gregorian chant. (You can listen to the podcast here, or watch it on YouTube, here).

In the course of this exploration, we spoke of how the liturgy is the wellspring of Christian culture, and it is the culture of faith, connected to the liturgy, that is the strongest contributor to the universal human aspects of culture. In addition, this can be integrated discerningly with the contemporary culture so that it also reflects a particular time and place. If this integration is done well, the effect of the combination is to powerfully connect the universal truths to contemporary society; if, on the other hand, it is handled clumsily, it will have the opposite effect, and will lead people away from salvation.

As an example of such an integration that is successful, Christopher referred to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and spoke beautifully of some of its elements that are particular to the culture, and of which I had not been fully aware before. So referring to this detail:

Our Lady’s hairstyle, parted in center, was in 16th-century Aztec culture the sign of a maiden, a virgin, but the ribbon and bow around her waist signified that she was pregnant. This is therefore a young woman who is portrayed simultaneously a virgin and pregnant. The quatrefoil roses articulated in sepia lines on the pale brown-ochre shawl signify royalty in the visual vocabulary of Aztec culture.

But this image spoke to the Aztecs of more than their own culture, because it has elements that come from traditional Christian culture as well. These are universal in that they speak to all Christians (one might make an argument in some cases for non-Christians too). It is these that speak to 16th-century Spaniards and to many Christians from all over the world since.

We can see, for example, the blue shawl, a common color for Mary’s outer robe. It is said to denote royalty. and Marian chapels often have their walls painted in this color. The exact shade of blue is unusual in that it is not lapis lazuli blue (French ultramarine), which a contemporary painter of the High Renaissance period might have used, but rather a turquoise blue often described as cerulean. I have no explanation for this difference. Also, I am curious to know more about the pigment that provides this color than Wikipedia can tell me. Cerulean blue pigment is only known since the late 18th century, when it was chemically created; it is not from a naturally occurring mineral. It might be that there is no great mystery here and that it is an effect created by a simple combination of other, naturally occurring green and blue pigments available at the time.

The eight-pointed stars represent her connection with the “eighth day” of Creation, her Son, Jesus Christ, who rose on the eighth day of the week. Traditionally in Eastern icons, there will be just three stars, symbolizing the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos - God-bearer - before, during and after her pregnancy. There are many more than three stars here. Perhaps it was deemed unnecessary by the Divine Artist to stay with three stars because her virginity is indicated in a different way, as already mentioned. There is also the moon, which is consistent with Scripture in that it shows Our Lady as the woman of the Apocalypse (12, 1), with the upturned crescent moon.

Another feature which interests me greatly is the nimbus of light around her. The account of the woman in the Book of the Apocalypse describes her as being “clothed in the sun.” The golden nimbus around her whole person might correspond to this. However, this is more complicated, there is something else going on here I believe that relates to the symbolism of the mandorla.

A mandorla is an iconographic symbol in the shape of a circle or an almond-shaped oval signifying heaven, divine glory, or light; mandorla is Italian for “almond.” It is an indication of the divine light of sanctity, but the mandorla of this type is generally reserved for Christ, at least in traditional iconography. I suggest that it is included here to indicate the presence of Christ within her womb. It is not there so much for the God-bearer, but for God! This is the Christian way of indicating that Our Lady is with child, the divine child, which complements the symbolism of Aztec culture. Remember that if this image had not spoken to the Spanish occupiers too, no one would have taken Juan Diego seriously.

Furthermore, take a close look at the gold envelope that surrounds her. This is not, as one might first suspect, a series of bright gold darts emanating from Our Lady. Rather it is a series of dark darts emanating from her on a gold background, the outer limits of which describe the mandorla shape, which is a smooth almond. In other words, this mandorla is getting darker the closer it is to her. Why should this be?

She really is, to use a familiar phrase, a riddle wrapped up in an enigma!

The answer is that this is how it is painted in traditional iconography. As I wrote in a previous article on the subject, “The mandorla surrounding Christ usually shows concentric bands of shading which get darker toward the center, rather than lighter. It is painted in this way so as to communicate to us, pictorially, the fact that we must pass through stages of increasing mystery in order to encounter the person of Jesus Christ. This encounter, which takes place in the Mass with the Eucharist at its heart, is one that transforms me supernaturally so that I can begin to grasp the glory of Christ more directly.”

You can see an iconographic mandorla here in an icon of the Dormition painted, by Theophan the Greek in 1392.

In the following icon, the sense of a mandorla getting darker as it moves towards the center is done in a different way.

As we can see above, the hidden “heart of darkness” is suggested visually by darts of darkness that come from a point obscured by the figure of Christ. This is similar, but not identical, to the device used by the artist in the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Notice also, incidentally, that while the Apostles are able to perceive the glorified Christ, they still do so dimly. They are partially and temporarily deified, but not fully, and so are partially blinded by the Light and knocked off their feet. To indicate this we see the rays that strike them as shafts of darkness, and the Apostles themselves will not receive halos until Pentecost, in contrast with the Prophets who are already in heaven, flanking Our Lord.

It is interesting to note that virtually every copy of the Our Lady of Guadalupe icon gets this detail wrong and inverts the direction of the lines. For example, here is one painted around 1700.

Continue Reading this Article. . .

The Theology of Legoland

How can a fairground with a McDisney aesthetic and made of plastic bricks be so popular?

On a trip to England a few years ago, I visited a number of attractions for children in or around London. Two of them were the modern style of themed parks, Legoland and Kidzania, which have a range of highly interactive activities and rides that are free once you pay the entrance fee. They seem to be modeled on Disneyland in this regard.

We also went to the more conventional London Museum of Water and Steam, which is in the old water pumping station on the banks of the Thames, at Kew, built in 1820. This has the 19th-century pumps and engines on display, including a miniature steam train looking not unlike Thomas the Tank Engine. It is made interesting for children with some interactive explanations of what they are seeing.

Finally we went to Regent’s Park Zoo, which doesn’t really need to do very much to please most kids and parents other than show us the animals, but, perhaps in order to keep the eco-warriors at bay, it has had to reinvent itself as an environmentalist educational park (a marketing veneer, in my opinion, that can be ignored if eco-politics doesn’t interest you).

First, here are thoughts on the most popular of these attractions by far, Legoland. I was struck by just how exciting and entertaining these places are for kids aged 5 - 10. Legoland is a large permanent open-air fairground on a hill that overlooks Windsor castle, and so presumably the Queen can see it from her bedroom window if she cares to look in that direction. It is so popular that it has a hotel onsite, made out of real bricks...I think. Pretty much everything else in the place is made out of Lego. The general idea seems to be that there is a range of fairground rides - a ghost train, a rollercoaster, a merry-go-round, a boat on artificially created rapids, etc. - into which we are all strapped for safety, to which some themes from popular culture are applied. These themes are chosen to tap into whatever is running high in children’s popular culture at the time, so that might be the latest Disney hit or anything to do with pirates, princesses or fairy tales. Then they make a string of giant Lego models on that theme, perhaps have some of them waving their arms mechanically, and open the doors for business. And boy, does this work as a business model. Thousands and thousands attend.

This shows the power of anything that stimulates the imagination. These children are transported in their imaginations and they love it. The fact that the imaginary world is so obviously recreated by images made out of plastic bricks does not put them off; rather, it seems to attract them even more. They are thrilled by the Lego sculptures and, it seems to me, by the way, it stimulates their natural facility for seeing prototypes when presented with images. To my mind, the fact that Legoland stimulates this so powerfully is the attraction. It’s not just the themes, it’s the fact that there are images of the themes! This is the way of thinking that St Thomas describes in his 4th ‘proof’ of God and which he says is the most powerful way of evangelizing of all his proofs.

As I describe in a previous blog post, 4th-Way evangelization is a method underutilized by Christians today. The Lego company understood the power of this, even if Christians today haven’t, and have made a spectacular business success out of it. (So striking is Lego’s skill at doing this that one wonders if some secret Thomist has finally stumbled upon a commercial application for all those years studying the Summa and medieval philosophy. About time!) Christians should learn to tap into the same power. We could create something, perhaps, that without necessarily being explicitly Christian taps into the themes of Salvation History which are hardwired into us. The McDisneyland aesthetic of the Legoland is not great, but this is not a necessary component of what is on offer - it just says to me that there is a place for something even more powerful if we wanted to provide it. Whoever does this successfully will corner the market!

We do not need to compete with Legoland if we don’t want to (I don’t see that it is doing anything bad). They are so good at what they do, we might choose instead to observe how they tap into this natural facility in mankind and then build on what they do in order to further the Faith. People whose imagination is stimulated powerfully will respond even more powerfully to more explicitly Christian themes if presented well in a Christian context, such as the liturgy.

Kidzania is an indoor facility in West London which uses a similar psychological device to draw people in. Rather than transporting us to imaginary worlds for pure entertainment (with perhaps some incidental moral message) as Legoland does, Kidzania presents the world of adult work to children as an exciting place to which they can aspire. They can become for about twenty minutes at a time, airline pilots, aircrew, policemen, window cleaners, cooks, firemen, paramedics in an ambulance. Typically, an instructor firefighter welcomes them to the activity classroom. The door is shut and parents are excluded. They can’t hear what is said so are trusting that what they are told is good - we watch them through a glass screen. The children put on firemen’s hats and in conjunction with a video are told about this profession. Then they are told that there is an emergency to attend to. They are ushered into something like a golf cart that is made to look like a fire engine. They go to the scene of the accident and douse the fire with hoses spouting real water. As a result of this ‘work’, they earn 12 Kidzania pound notes. The moral message is more apparent here than the Lego experience. The goal is to introduce the idea of work to them and make it seem worthwhile. Again, what is fascinating is how exciting they make this by using the children’s imaginations to connect them to the reality they portray.

The last two places - the Museum of Water and Steam, and London Zoo - were more of what you would expect and much more interesting to me. The beauty and grace-in-motion of the old pump engines and even the elegance of the pumphouse (made in harmonic proportions of course) caught my eye. Interestingly, it was the rides and the interactive models, that seemed to me to be incidental to the main attraction, that the children were most interested in.

The latter two attractions offered an experience of something which was not using imagery, but presenting us with directly with something real. The children were thrilled to be at both of these places too, and enjoyed what was on offer, whether it was a water pump, a steam engine, tropical butterflies, gorillas, giraffes or penguins. The tendency of the more culturally conservative, such as myself, would be to argue that the higher, nobler, experience for the children is that in which they relate to reality directly. But now I’m not so sure. As I have pointed out in the past, the stimulation of imagination and the ability to relate the image to the prototype is almost universally necessary for one to have faith in God. Moreover, for all the beauty of the animals, we will not see them as God’s creatures unless we have that capacity for awe and wonder, and the power of imagination, to connect image to prototype, and creature to Creator. So, in fact, London Zoo needs a Legoland if it is to avoid being a neo-pagan, eco-warrior homage to Nature, rather than an authentic glorification of the Creator.

Perhaps Legoland is onto something profound here!

Book Recommendation: A Journey with Jonah, Part Three - Art and Literature Through Centuries

Life Imitating Art: How the Culture Communicates the Faith to the Skeptical and So That They Might Convert 

A Journey with Jonah - The Spirituality of Bewilderment, by Fr Paul Murray O.P. including God Took Pity a commentary of the Book of Jonah by Joseph Ratzinger. Pub. Word on Fire Institute, 2021.

In this third posting about this little book, I consider how artists might apply an understanding of both the Faith and the beliefs of non-Christians to channel their creativity, and create works of art to engage with all people through contemporary culture. I focus mainly on visual art, and secondarily on literature and poetry, but the principles apply just as much to any creative field.

In his extended essay on Jonah, Fr Paul Murray refers to the fresco painted by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel of Jonah awakening under a shrinking gourd. Michelangelo’s image is unusual, although certainly not unique in the canon of sacred art, as we will see, in showing Jonah under the gourd. 

The most common representation of Jonah tends to focus on his being swallowed by, present within, or emerging from the fish. For example, this contemporary icon carved by Canadian iconographer Jonathan Pageau follows a typical iconographic prototype.

We see Jonah emerging from the fish with the city of Ninevah in the distance. He is holding a scroll of the prayer of Jonah, sung at Orthros in the liturgy of the Byzantine Churches:

I called to the LORD, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and thou didst hear my voice. For thou didst cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was round about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me. Then I said, 'I am cast out from thy presence; how shall I again look upon thy holy temple? The waters closed in over me, the deep was round about me; weeds were wrapped about my head at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet thou didst bring up my life from the Pit, O LORD my God. When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the LORD; and my prayer came to thee, into thy holy temple. Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their true loyalty. But I with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to thee; what I have vowed I will pay. Deliverance belongs to the LORD!

The following Western examples from the late Romanesque and gothic periods follow similar themes. This one dates from 1280:

This next one is from a 17th-century Armenian hymnal, completed in Constantinople by a priest named Yakob Pēligratc‘i:

Continue Reading this Article. . .

Book Recommendation: A Journey With Jonah, Part 2 - The Themes of Jonah in Non-Catholic Cultures

By What Authority? Understanding the Persuasiveness of Argument from Authority to Transform the Culture

A Journey with Jonah - The Spirituality of Bewilderment by Fr Paul Murray O.P. including God Took Pity a commentary of the Book of Jonah by Joseph Ratzinger. Pub Word on Fire Institute, 2021.

I am recommending this short book, just 84 pages long, as part of a formation in the Faith for creative artists who wish to contribute to the evangelization of contemporary culture. In part 1, posted last week, of this three-part article I summarized the message of the book of Job itself. This week, I will consider the value of the wide range of commentators and biblical authorities whom Fr Murray presents in The Journey with Jonah in order to illustrate his points. He draws on sources both Catholic and non-Catholic, and from the early days of the Church until now. Finally, in part 3, I will consider how artists might apply this understanding of common ground, and differences between different groups in society, to channel their creativity into the making of artworks that engage with all people through contemporary culture and draw them to the Faith.

The value of citing a variety of sources
Fr Murray quotes a wide variety of sources, some commenting on the book of Jonah, while others are more broadly theological writers whom he uses to illustrate the broader points he is making himself. He cittes, for example, both Catholics such as Augustine, Methodius, Jerome, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Louis Reau, and Protestants such as Luther and John Jewell from the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as more recent figures like Geoffrey Bull and Hans Wolf. He draws also on medieval rabbis and Islamic commentators, and contemporary secular theorists such as Erich Fromm (a Marxist who helped develop critical theory), psychologist Carl Jung, and philosopher Martin Buber. He does not, of course always endorse their views; sometimes he is quoting them so as to illustrate non-Christian counter-arguments that he wishes to address.

What is the value of doing this? Why not stay firmly in the Catholic tradition, by, for example, relying solely upon early Church Fathers?

The answer lies, I believe, in the desire to demonstrate the book of Jonah’s broad appeal, and what it has to say about the human condition to all cultures and times. In many ways, each of the people he quotes is representative of beliefs and cultures of the time and place that they lived in. It is by understanding both what those outside the Church believe, as well as orthodox Catholicism, that Christians are able to engage with others constructively.

By ‘constructively’, incidentally, I do not mean in order to seek agreement, so that we might respect each other (although that might be a starting point for discussion); rather, I mean engaging with people with evangelization and their conversion to Catholicism as the end in mind. As a Catholic, I want to persuade others to agree with the Church and become Catholics too, so that they might also be blessed with the joy that comes with the fullness of truth. We should never apologize for our apologetics!

In order to be able to do this, we need evangelists who not only know and believe what the Church teaches, but also know (or at least be prepared to find out) what their colloquist believes, and consequently, what the differences and similarities in belief are. We use this knowledge first to connect by highlighting the common ground, and then we aim to convert by demonstrating, where there are differences, the error of their stance, and the correctness of ours. By focusing, with the help of this book, on how this all applies to the book of Jonah, we learn to develop this approach as a skill that can be applied in many other scenarios.

As one example used in this book, after describing the passage from Jonah in which he is asleep below decks while the storm is raging, Fr Murray looks to Martin Buber to articulate an error of the modern age that we can seek to understand for the purposes of evangelization, that is the tendency of people to identify themselves as ‘spiritual’ and not religious:

There is a new fascination amongst our contemporaries amongst the things of the spirit. Unfortunately, that interest doesn’t always translate into a capacity to attend to the living voice of God or to surrender with faith and hope and love to the transcendent beauty and pressure of divine revelation. Instead, there is a tendency to live one’s spirituality within the bubble of the self, and practice what Martin Buber has called, in a memorable phrase, ‘the religion of psychic immanence’.

Buber describes this further, Murray writes as

An exclusively immanent spirituality at least in extreme manifestations, and represents a regress back to a safe, controlled environment, a ‘return to the womb’. In terms of religion, it is nothing less than a spiritual manifestation of ‘the Jonah syndrome’.

Spiritual but not religious! 

If we recognize this and explain the good of reaching beyond the self to God, and demonstrate in our lives the joy this brings to us, then those who accept this will convert.

Both religious and spiritual

This approach to evangelization, if applied well, will be successful; of this there is no doubt. And on the face of it, it all sounds quite simple, but there is one big problem. How do we find people who want to talk to us and are open to the persuasion of such an approach?

This is where the artist steps in and helps us. It is the role of a contemporary Catholic culture of beauty to open people’s hearts so that they are willing to engage with us. An authentic Catholic culture that manifests these themes with grace and beauty will open people’s hearts so that they desire to know more about the source that inspired such beauty. When knowledge is imparted in this way, the more people know, the more they want to know, and this ultimately will lead them to Christ.

We need creative artists who are capable of creating such a contemporary Catholic culture. Next week, we will discuss in more detail how reading this and other books like it might help them in their formation to be capable of fulfilling such responsibility.

The risk of quoting a variety of non-Catholic or heterodox sources
The risks of this approach are that, like it or not, in quoting someone, the author is also giving each person the status of some sort of authority on the matter, and this can create dangers. For all that an argument from authority is considered weak in logic, it is often the most persuasive. Propagandists and advertisers make use of this principle all the time, because they know that most people rely on authorities for their opinions and understanding of most things that they claim to know. In short, we think something is true, usually, because someone has told us that it is. Most of us simply don’t have the time to test every assertion by running through the train of logic from first principles.

So in the case of A Journey with Jonah, most readers will not judge the validity of the assertions made as a Scripture scholar would judge them, for they are not academically equipped to do so. Instead, they try to make a judgment as to whether or not they can trust the source who is making the claims.

For example, I am for the most part assuming that I can trust the book, not because I know Fr Murray (I had never heard of him before), but because it accords with the little bit of Scripture interpretation that I do know and received from other trusted sources; because I trust the publisher; and because I trust the other contributor, Joseph Ratzinger.

This is not a bad thing in itself, but there is a risk, therefore, in using non-Catholic sources. Catholics who are uncertain in their faith may, on seeing quotes from Luther or Jung made by a Catholic, assume that these non-Catholics might be trusted on other matters too and so be prone to accepting error from them. The result of this is, in extreme cases, a universalism that undermines the Faith and leads people out of the Church - why remain Catholic when I believe, albeit falsely, that Lutherans and Jungians believe what Catholics do? For similar reasons, it might communicate a message to Lutherans and Jungians that there is no point in becoming Catholic, as they may conclude that Catholics think that Luther or Jung have as much authority as the Church does.

On the other hand, there may be Catholics who are pious believers, and who are accustomed to relying unthinkingly on authorities they trust as sources for the Truth, perhaps their local priest. They may not likely be swayed from their faith by a statement from Luther or Jung. Rather, being unable or unwilling to make a critical judgment for themselves as to its validity, their knee-jerk response may be that Luther and Jung can’t be trusted as a source of information on any matter, and therefore conclude that Fr Murray is heterodox, pandering to the woke mob by trying to be culturally diverse. They might simply not bother to read the book further and miss out on the value of what it contains. The result of this general attitude, incidentally, is the reinforcement of the Catholic-ghetto mentality that leaves people within it less able to engage self-confidently with contemporary culture.

The way to counter all the above risks is, it seems to me, to make explicit the principles by which truth is being judged. As we know, without an understanding of the Tradition of the Church, even Scripture is robbed of its authority. Tradition is the measure of the truth of any personal interpretation of the modern age. An emphasis on the Scriptural interpretation of the Church Fathers is foundational to establishing this, the assumption being that those who lived close in time to that of the Apostles, and those who had direct contact with Christ, are likely to reliably reflect Tradition. Fr Murray assumes an awareness of this, but does not make it explicit. This is fine for the narrow and highly Scripturally literate readership for whom it was originally intended, but not for a wider readership. However, the hope in republishing it now, one imagines, to appeal to a readership beyond the narrowly academic, and I am guessing this is why the publisher included the Joseph Ratzinger interpretation in this edition. Aside from the great value of its content, the weight of authority attached to his name for many Catholics might also reassure the doubting and guide the credulous. 

A 12th century mosaic of St John Chrysostom, the “golden-mouthed” interpreter of Scripture, who lived in the later 4th century and early 5th century.

The risk is necessary

The fruits of looking discerningly at commentaries and ideas from outside the Church go beyond the ability to understand their way of thinking so that we can convert them. We should always be ready to concede that sometimes non-Catholics, and even non-Christians, may have fresh insights that we can learn from. Again, the caveat applies that such insights cannot be contrary to Tradition and must be in harmony with it. Christianity has always looked to incorporate the good, the true, and the beautiful from other intellectual traditions and other cultures - including visual art, as I will discuss in part 3 of this posting - and it is the better for it. It is well known, for example, that St Thomas cited Aristotle as an authority whom he quoted so often that he simply referred to him as “the Philosopher”. I will admit I hadn’t realized until recently that he also regularly quoted the 12th-century Jewish commentator Maimonides, as well as Cicero, an authority with whom he at times agreed and at others disagreed (for example, ST IaIIae Q24,2), and the Islamic philosopher Averroes, whom he quoted so often that he simply called him “the Commentator”. 

If we are to build a Christian society once more, one that is founded on Christian teaching, we must continually refresh the presentations of the Faith to tell the story anew to each generation. Self-confidence in the truth of the Faith as we engage with others outside the Church, and as displayed by St Thomas, Fr Murray, and Benedict XVI, is a necessary component of this.