“Dominicans, even when they preach on the frontiers, speak from the heart of the Church, where the Gospel is, where the living tradition is. No ecclesial heart transplants for us. We are the Church’s preachers.” — Most Reverend Anthony Fisher, O.P.
Wondering what a Dominican priest is? Me too! Take a look at this talk given by Anthony Fisher, O.P., Bishop of Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia, in Dublin to the Friars of the Irish Province for the close of the Year of the Priest.
Para los pocos que hablan español y se han tropezado con este blog… (and also for those who are learning Spanish) here’s an awesome link I just found today.
Jóvenes OP (una parte del pastoral juvenil abarcado por la familia dominicana de España y Portugal). No lo he investigado con mucha profundidad, pero me parece bastante útil en la nueva evangelización. Espero que tenga éxito en España––un país que ha sufrido mucho en cuanto a la secularización de la juventud.
Haz clic aquí para escuchar música de Jóvenes OP.
“I want so badly to believe that there is truth and love is real.
And I want life in every word, to the extent that it’s absurd.”
The above is a quote from the song “Clark Gable”, by the electronic indie pop band The Postal Service. The song has for quite some time interested me. Aside from its catchy sounds and clever lyrics, these few verses stand out for me as an authentic cultural cry for help. What I mean is this: these few words encapsulate the very essence of a contemporary problem. That is, the horrible split that exists in our reality between a desire for authentic love and the “realization” that all is either a social-construct or simply relative to other so-called rarefied “truth claims”. The problem could be defined as a Post-Modern one, but the deep and sincere cry that is heard in these words confronts a reality that we are all too aware of: we, as a culture, want to claim that all “truths” are questionable, that everything depends on perception, on your culture, your “point of view”, while personally we recognize a deep-seated desire for something solid to base our reality on. We have a tendency to establish that on science, an ideology, the mainstream media, conspiracy theories, false religion, etc. Whatever the method, it’s a kind of idolatry that temporarily alleviates the existential achiness that plagues our postmodern consciences.
How many times I have heard from sincere and intelligent people: “it is true for them” or “that’s your truth” or “that’s how I feel, you may feel differently”. Let’s consider science in all of this… that is, Science with a capital “S”. When it comes to medicine, for example, is there anyone who will say to his dentist, “Personally, I believe that brushing your teeth is a social construct of the 19th century that is restrictive on my freedoms… if I love my teeth for what they are and accept them, they will be clean for me. My teeth are clean for me, in fact, and so I don’t need to have them cleaned by a dentist so that I can live up to an antiquarian, rigid, puritanical idea of hygiene. When you tell me my teeth will fall out, you don’t know that, you are just threatening me so that you can get my money.” ? Anyone?
In other words, is there any one of us who would deny that, absolutely speaking, teeth need to be cared for in order to be kept, and that, absolutely speaking, having one’s teeth is a benefit to the person? This is a “truth claim”… and it is generally accepted (I hope widely!) within the realm of Science that it is the truth: there are certain ways to care for teeth that are helpful, and others that are not, and that not caring for one’s teeth at all is a bad idea, perhaps even, biologically speaking “wrong.” So when I go to the dentist, I am rightfully afraid, especially if I have not cared for my teeth as I should have. I expect him to say something! I expect him to have to remedy what I have bungled in order for me to have healthy teeth… I expect this to hurt to some degree!
Yet in the spiritual realm, we are led astray. We have reduced sin to a sociological or psychological phenomenon… the Care of Souls can no longer be considered in any way “scientific”, nor can religion, for it is entirely personal! It depends solely on the personal wishes of each human being––what he or she believes to be “true for me”. Yet how can this be so!? If we accept on a basic level that each human person is composed of some kind of body and soul, if we admit of the spiritual in any way shape or form, we must accept that if all men are created equal… then their souls are likewise created equally. There must be, in a real, scientific, true sense, a right way to care for the soul, and a wrong way to care for the soul. There are many ways to clean one’s teeth, just as there may be more than one way to confess one’s sins––and as a result some are going to be better than others––but both brushing your teeth and confessing wrongdoing are necessary for the health of a person… and absolutely so!*
There’s something more to be said about the quote from the Postal Service. In all our attempts to relativize and rationalize, we might fail to recognize that if there is no absolute truth, there is no such thing as love, let alone “true love”. Two people could never “feel the same way about each other” because they would forever be relativized in relation to one another. My feelings are mine, yours are yours. But love is more than a feeling (thank you, Boston), love involves a choice, it involves the intellect… in order to love a person “for who she really is” we have to know the person for who she truly is, not just who we think or want, or imagine her to be. That is, we have to know the truth about her. But the truth about that person is not “my truth” about that person… instead, it’s the simple, absolute truth about who she really is. We cannot love, in fact, without Truth. We cannot love absolutely, with all we are, unless we know truly, the One who is Love, the One who absolutely loves, the One who is Truth and truly loves.
There is Truth. Love is real. There is life in every word.
So saddle up, and approach the Dentist of souls, Jesus Christ, with confidence and love, knowing that there is true love.
* edited for clarity June 3, 2010
Some have wondered why I screen all the comments that come into the blog. That would be because I get more than 20 Spam comments a day and Wordpress’ filter doesn’t seem to be capable of actually filtering anything. Spam tends to come in waves… one week it will be constant advertisements for certain drugs made for gentlemen, the next week it is random strings of links repeated. Other times I get comments that look like a Spambot is trying to pretend to be a person posting to a forum. Other times it’s “I like your post on ‘X’, please post more like this” posted over… and over… and over again.
Anyway, I’ve decided every now and then to present an award to the most interesting spam comment. The last one can be found here.
Here’s the winner from this time around:
That’s right. It’s says “cool! never memory hither that, but you are unreservedly as the crow flies!“ I think this is an awesome comment, and would that some of my real living, breathing, commenters would write like this! Seriously though, props to anyone who can figure out where this might possibly have come from or how it evolved into its current form.
In the past several weeks there has been increased coverage of immigration in the media, especially as a result of Arizona passing SB 1070, which you may read (all 17 pages of it) at this link, and I’ve heard commentary from more than a few people about a young woman who was denied a scholarship to a school in California when it was discovered that she was living illegally in the country. Now, I know little about this case in California, but I have taken the time to read the law in Arizona, and I’ve heard some of the rhetoric on both sides––not all of it, mind you. At this point, since I’m somewhat resting on my laurels, I thought I would put some thought to this subject, as it hits so close to home for me, having worked with Hispanic immigrants––documented and undocumented––quite a bit.
*Disclaimer: I’m not a politician, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a social worker, nor an economist, bishop, priest or theologian, but these are my initial thoughts based on what I think, and what I have read that the Church has said as a body and through individual bishops, and what everyone else is saying and doing.
On the first page of SB 1070:
“The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.”
Something to be said about this: to make attrition the public policy? Really? Attrition is defined as reducing something by constant attack… a “war of attrition” is a battle that goes on in which both sides sustain heavy casualties, with the main goal being the “wearing down” of the enemy’s resources. Wars of attrition are associated with “Pyrrhic victories” in which the winning side suffers so heavily that, although they have won, they could not possibly afford another such battle. In other words, the winning side is completely exhausted, destroyed, or otherwise incapacitated.
Anyway, semantics aside: I will speak first to some practical concerns. In most of the situations where I hear people speak negatively about illegal immigration, they tend to say things like “serves them right” or “they’re taking what’s not theirs” or “they’re criminals” or “they have no right to things that they demand” or something along those lines. Now, most of these kinds of comments are what we might call in the biz “demonization” and they serve to do nothing except depersonalize those who are being discussed. I do not know the specifics of the case of the young lady mentioned above, I can’t seem to find any articles about it online, but here’s a likely reality that we need to consider: children are brought into the United States by their parents when their parents immigrate legally or illegally. A child who immigrates to the U.S. with his parents is not responsible for entering the country illegally or legally… he cannot legally or morally be held responsible. Most children of immigrants (legal or illegal) in this country (who are not born here, and thus not citizens) learn English, go to school, etc. and cannot be expected to return to their country of origin and flourish any more than an animal can be returned to the wild after years of captivity [NB: don't carry that analogy too far, I'm not saying they're in captivity]. Said child is, under United States law, entitled to all the same rights as anyone else inhabiting this country, namely, an education. The following is from the Supreme Court’s 1982 overruling of a Texas law barring illegal immigrants from public schools:
“Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”
Personhood. It is true that immigrating to the United States through illegal means, or remaining illegally in the United States beyond legal time periods is breaking a law… but it does not revoke one’s personhood. Persons break immigration laws, not soulless entities, demons, born-criminals, robots or animals.
Anyway, back to the law in Arizona. Here’s, I think, the gist of what the law says, quoted below.
(article 8, lines 20-26, on the very first page):
“For any lawful contact [can you define that?] made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the Federal Government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c).”
There’s more to it and anyone who wants to argue about it should read it first, as the following video from Arizona so cleverly suggests:
At any rate, there’s more to consider here. In all my limited reading of what the Church, in general, has to say about this issue, there’s an overarching concern for the family, and I have seen it personally in the people that I have worked with. Immigration can make or break a family. Many men leave families behind to make money to send home. Others come with their families––a very dangerous task. Others come single and start families in the U.S. Their children become citizens by birth, and are then placed in a precarious situation with undocumented parents. In a lot of small towns in Central America there is a lack of young men––they have all gone north. Not in hopes of getting rich, but in hopes of supporting their families. It’s true, many think that the streets are paved with gold in the U.S., and they are surprised to find that they are not. To a certain extent, our country has exported this image through all the media that is sent throughout the world. Mexico, or many other central American countries are not the lands of opportunity that we think America is known to be. Their governments can often be corrupt, top-heavy with rich officials––there is no lack of wealth in Latin America, it just happens to belong to a select few.
A LOT of the rhetoric out there against illegal immigrants, which supports this idea of attrition through enforcement (which seems to mean: “We’re going to fight until we get all 7-20 million of them deported” because how else will they be squared away with the law, because we’re not going to naturalize them) is built around the evidence of immigrants who have broken other laws. That is, undocumented immigrants who have become criminals. I note an argument between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly that can be seen on YouTube. Rivera argues that the case of an undocumented man who was driving drunk in Virginia has nothing to do with his immigration status and everything to do with his drunkenness. O’Reilly claims negligence on the part of the authorities for not deporting him before he could have done it in the first place. Whichever side of the argument you find yourself on… take a look and see what you think of these two men and their arguments:
Let me ask a question:
1. If these immigrants never committed any other crimes except entering the country illegally… not a single crime, none, not a one, if that were the case, would you then support amnesty for them?
If you still wouldn’t, then that means the issue is not whether or not they commit crimes, the issue is that they are in the country illegally.
Here’s a hypothetical situation:
You are a United States citizen, living on a farm that you rent from a landowner. You have no more than a third grade education. You have a basic reading level, and your English is not stellar, but you get by enough to squeeze out a living for you, your wife and four young children. You have no electricity, no internet, no running water, no hope that your children will attend high school, let alone college.
You hear, however, from friends, that in Canada, you can get a job, performing the same kind of tasks you do on the farm, or maybe in construction, something manual, and make in an hour what you make in a day. In a year you might have enough money to build an extra bedroom onto your concrete-block house, or to send your child to a private school… but the journey is difficult, you have no money to buy a plane ticket or a bus ticket, you’ll have to hitchhike, walk, jump on trains. While you make the trek, your wife will have to provide for the family. You seem to have no choice though, there’s no money left, and the crops this year are not doing very well. There’s no hope moving to the city, where there is crime, corruption, violence, hunger, filth… you’re better off in the country at least. So you save up some money, pack your bags, and head north to Canada. By the time you get to North Dakota though, a group of thieves have stolen your bags and most of your money. You don’t even have your American passport anymore. There’s no turning back, however… it’s just as dangerous to go back, and you barely escaped Colorado with your life.
You get to the border and reality starts to hit you. This is an almost impossible task, to get across the Canadian wilderness to a decent town without freezing, drowning or getting mauled by a bear. What’s more, how could you have known the laws for getting into Canada? You can barely read, let alone know that you might want to ask someone for legal help. “What’s a consulate? I just want to work hard and make some money.”
You protest: but this isn’t a real situation in the U.S.! But it is in many of these countries where these immigrants come from.
You protest: ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps not. My point is not to defend their actions, but to put things in proper perspective. Many immigrants who come to this country illegally do not know the basic things that we do, they do not understand things we might take for granted.
You protest: should have stayed at home where he at least had a job and his family. This is potentially true, but something like this does not occur to the immigrant in most cases until he has been in the U.S. for some time and realizes the difficulties involved. By then, it is just as hard getting back home as it was coming to the U.S. INS will drop you off at the border––they don’t do door-to-door service.
You protest: immigrants take away American’s jobs. This is an old chestnut. The usual response is: they do jobs that Americans don’t want or won’t do. This is true to a great extent in my experience. Many of the immigrants I work with do things that would never have even occurred to me that I could work in, let alone consider doing for a living. Yet still, does a person not still have a right to work? Does not every human being have a basic right to work? If they cannot find suitable work where they are, do they not have a right to migrate in search of that work? If they are forced to leave their home because of corrupt government policies, do they not have a right to migrate?
All of that aside. I have read the Arizona law. On the face of it, it encapsulates most things that I basically assumed were law already. This may be due to my ignorance, or differences between Arizona laws and laws in other states. I think that human law has value, that it should be upheld, and those who disobey it should be punished reasonably––you’re talking to a guy who usually thinks twice before J-walking. But I also think that it is important to consider all those involved and the ramifications of a punishment like imprisonment or deportation. Will you imprison a whole family who is in the country illegally? With their 6, 7, or 12 year old children? How long, and where will you detain them? What will you tell them that they have done to deserve this? Have you ever been in prison with your whole family? Or will you only imprison the parents? Then what will you do with their children? Is this a punishment that is equal to the crime committed? What exactly is the crime committed by an illegal alien?
Would you have whole families deported? What would you say, “They’re Mexico’s problem now” or “They’re Guatemala’s problem now” just like some said after Katrina: “Houston’s problem now”? Do you really think that immigrants are more inclined to crime and terpitude than American citizens?
Would you really propose deporting an estimated 7 to 20 million people living in this country? An amount of people rivalling the size of New York City? Is this humane? What will happen to them when they arrive at the Mexico border? Who will pay for their deportation?
There are no easy solutions to this real problem. I don’t propose to have any. My main purpose here is to throw some thoughts out on the table for those of my few readers who might disagree with me or the Church on this issue. There are many other factors involved, including scriptural and moral issues such as Christ’s command (Matthew 25) to give shelter to the homeless, and the stranger. Hospitality is a part of what it means to be a Christian. The young man asked Jesus “Who is my neighbor?” and Jesus replied with a parable to demonstrate that even a Samaritan could be neighbor to a Jew.
I don’t pretend to take the moral highground on this issue. I merely want to put my two cents in and offer some of my own thought to this raging debate. I think the key here is to remember that these people are persons, who have lives that affect many other innocent persons. They deserve respect according to their dignity as human persons.
Are these people who seek their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” truly infringing on our own pursuit? Or is it perhaps more likely that their pursuit coincides with ours? That we have much in common that we might seek out together?
Some links:
The Secret Immigrant Jails of Homeland Security from Casa Juan Diego, Houston Catholic Worker
Immigration Reform Can Wait No Longer, Most Rev. José Gomez, Coadjutor Bishop(-elect) of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together (MATT)
Caritas in veritate, Encyclical Letter of His Holiness, Benedict XVI. See especially No. 62 on migration of peoples
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Homily at Vespers, St. Dominic Priory
on Revelation 5:11-14
(1st reading, 3rd Sunday of Easter)
There was once a little village, recessed deep within a valley sourrounded by a high mountain range. Within this town there was a man who rarely left his home, always set in front of his piano, playing away and composing. For many years he worked on a great symphony, until one day, in his old age, he simply disappeared. A few weeks later, while looking for him, the people of the town discovered his great symphony, and recognizing it for what it was, wished to have it performed. They gathered the greatest musicians from all around the region to come together and perform this magnificent work, so that the town could hear the beautiful music this man had composed. Yet, when the prepared day came, they realized that for all the preparations they had made, they forgot to employ a conductor–after all, it would have been natural for the composer to conduct the first performance of his symphony, and no one had ever heard it played before. Who could possibly conduct this incredible piece of music?
On the appointed day almost everyone from the mountains and the village had gathered at the town hall, anxiously awaiting the fabled music to be performed. All of the musicians were tuning their instruments, excitement was high, but a conductor was nowhere to be found. As everyone slowly began to realize the awful mistake, a wave of whispers rolled over the crowd until silence prevailed. A baby could be heard crying in the background. But no one dared say a word…
They must have waited ten, fifteen minutes in silence, but it seemed like hours. Until, rather abruptly, a young man appeared on the stage, handsomely dressed and confident, he strode out to the conductor’s podium, bowed and turned to the orchestra. Jaws dropped, eyes opened wide, and everyone was in awe. They were about to hear the greatest symphony ever written.
As he tapped the podium with his baton, the orchestra rustled to attention, the crowd braced themselves and the music began. The concert must have lasted for hours, but no one could have measured the passage of time. Trumpets blared, violins and cellos sang, drums thundered… At its conclusion, again there was utter silence. Suddenly the entire crowd erupted in elation. Applause rang out from everyone, it seemed to echo through the mountains, there were shouts, calls, whistling, clapping, dancing, singing, everyone in the entire town seemed to rejoice, in fact, the whole ground shook with a kind of laughter… a great joy fell resounded through all who were present, they stood in triumph, in exultation… no one remembered how long they had been there, no one wanted to stop applauding… the thundering ovation seemed even to be a part of the symphony, to conclude it, to extend it.
And everyone remembered the day. It never seemed to end.
Just before the section of Revelation that we have heard from today, John presents us with the moment in his vision in which no one can be found to open the scroll. John begins to weep… a great sadness, a silence, falls over him. How can it be? Is there no one? Father, where is the lamb? as Isaac said long ago. Who will open the scroll?
The angel speaks comfortingly to John, however, that he should not worry… and the Lion of Judah appears like a slain lamb, and he opens the scroll. The rejoicing of the angels, the living creatures, the 24 elders and all creation that we see in this reading today, then, is in response to the opening of the scrolls. It is the high point of John’s vision: John sees the heavenly worship eternally offered to Jesus Christ, the slain lamb who is worthy to open the scrolls.
Christ has appeared, he is the only one worthy to open the scrolls because he has been slain. He is the only one worthy to conduct the symphony of praise to God the Father, the only one prepared to lead the performance of the Fathers grand and magnificent work of Creation–that all things, all persons, angels above, men, women and children below, animals, trees, plants, flowers, fishes and all the earth might praise God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in harmony, their hearts redounding with love and gratitude.
I think, when it comes to the praising of the heavenly host, the eternal worship of Jesus Christ, the lamb who was slain, there is perhaps no better image, no more successful and meaningful analogy than that of a symphony. From the exquisite violin and powerful drums down to the humblest triangle or chimes, the unity of a well-tuned and trained orchestra expresses a kind of holiness that only music and represent. There is a deepness to music, a primordial quality that is difficult to bring to full expression through words… in joy and in sadness our hearts cry out to make music.
When I was a teenager (and I think many of you can relate to this) one of the greatest freedoms of having a car to drive was not just the freedom of the open road, but the freedom of a very powerful moving stereo system. There is something glorious about the ability to broadcast music to the heavens above…
I think this is one of the great discoveries of teenage life: the spiritual nature of music. The uplifting of the soul to greater things beyond this world…
And so to compare the praise offered to the slaughtered Lamb seated upon the throne of God to choirs upon choirs of heavenly singers is a powerful, moving image. It speaks to the heart of human nature. What lifts us up…
St. Augustine wrote: He that sings praise, not only praises, but only praises with gladness. He that sings praise not only sings, but also loves him of whom he sings. In praise, there is the speaking forth of one confessing; in singing, the affection of one loving.
He that sings praise, prays twice.
We are at times unappreciative of the value of worship, adoration and praise. We might even recognize that from time to time we are reticent, unwilling, to join in songs of Praise and Worship—not my style—or to offer ourselves in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. We might place emphasis only on the reception of communion, to the detriment of worship and adoration of that which we receive. Our work, as a people, as a Church, is the praise and worship of our God. He is utterly worthy of all our adoration, our praise, our admiration, our singing of his glory.
I think that this is key to understanding how heaven will never be boring, will never grow old, we will never tire of it—because at the heart of who we are as human beings is the need for offering praise. Dorothy Day said that when she first saw Catholics on their knees praying, she realized that the human person was made for something better… that worship was at the center of what it means to be human!
This evening and all evenings, we hear the sounds of praise of one great yet humble soul. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s praise of the Heavenly Father, in the Magnificat, ring out throughout history, and we are privy to this glorious praise. Can you hear the Virgin’s praise of her Creator?
Can you hear the joy of the angels? Can you feel the rumbling of thunder from the heavens, the drums and trumpets, the sweet hymn of violins, of countless numbers of voices, praising, singing, holy, holy, holy … WORTHY IS THE LAMB??
And can we join them today… and forever?
The great ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle writes (Metaphysics, XII, 7):
“That a final cause may exist among unchangeable entities is shown
by the distinction of its meanings. For the final cause is (a) some
being for whose good an action is done, and (b) something at which
the action aims; and of these the latter exists among unchangeable
entities though the former does not. The final cause, then, produces
motion as being loved, but all other things move by being moved.”
It turns out, actually, that love does make the world go round—at least according to the Philosopher. In fact, in order to solve the world’s growing energy problem, it appears that we can power all things, eternally, by sheer love.
Let me explain further… you be the judge. Aristotle explains that the Unmoved Mover, what Thomas Aquinas will later associate with God himself, is good, perfect, entirely act (without potency) and unchangeable. The celestial sphere that is closest (outermost) to the Unmoved Mover—the Primum Mobile—perceives its goodness, beholds it as beautiful, and begins to spin. For Aristotle, the spheres were in some way intellectual, that is, they could conceive of ideas and desire things. So, desiring to imitate the perfection of the Unmoved Mover, the Primum Mobile goes “gaga” (to borrow a phrase from an Aquinas Institute professor) and begins to spin interminably. Why does it spin? Because when it comes to motion, the circle is the closest one can get to continual, perfect motion: it can go on infinitely, and by rotating, one stays in the same place. It is the closest that that which is changeable can get to being unchangeable—perfect.
To the point: if we could simply employ the Primum Mobile as the motor for a turbine, the world would be forever powered by love. The more puppy dogs, babies and dandelions in the world, the more power we would have. On the other hand, the more talk-show hosts, telemarketers and unfaithful spouses we have: the less power. Brownouts? Check your moral meter.
Props to Fr. Dominic Holtz, O.P. of The Specious Pedestrian, for helping out with this one.
This just in… at least in my world.
I don’t normally talk about ministry here—it’s true—and maybe I should more often, but this was too amazing for me to pass up. I wanted to share with “the world” (that is, all 3 of my faithful readers) what I learned this past week. According to Instituto Fe y Vida (Faith and Life Institute, a highly useful clearing house for information about Hispanic ministry): the majority of Catholic Youth in the United States (ages 0-30) are Hispanic.
You might be thinking big deal, but consider it again. The majority! And they are growing. Seriously. They generally have larger families and their numbers increase continually through immigration. Regardless of what you think about immigration laws in this country, this is a huge deal for the Church. The reality is there, and a lot of organizations have a lot of great stuff on paper (all of our seminarians are supposed to learn Spanish, for instance) but is that happening?
There’s a wonderful opportunity in all of this, for the renewal of religious congregations and their ministries as well as for the possiblity of an influx of vocations—if only we can encourage them before it’s too late. Consider all the Irish vocations in the U.S. Church of the past, where every 3rd priest was named McDermott!
I’m doing some research about all of this… and hopefully I’ll have some more to say as the semester progresses.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of All the Americas… Pray for us.
This past week while in Memphis visiting my family I was pleased as punch to again have the opportunity to give a presentation on Architecture and Church History to Seventh Graders at a nearby Catholic school. Last year I did the same, only via video-conferencing. No matter what they tell you, there’s still no technology quite like the real thing of a classroom.
Anywho, the presentation went well, but I came nowhere near finishing in 45 minutes. Afterwards, (because in Seventh Grade, when the bell rings… the bell rings) I was able to stay and visit with the majority of each of the Church History classes that day (broken into 5 blocks). Each class had its particular interests, questions and enthusiasm for various aspects of architecture and history, but what stuck around in my mind at the end of the day was the ensuing conversation we had about a question one of the students asked…
You see, I started out talking about the Greeks—everything seems to go back to the Greeks, for better or for worse. I noted in the presentation that Greek temples like the Parthenon exhibit a slight (or sometimes rather pronounced), but clearly calculated, curvature on their surfaces (columns, stylobate, etc.). This is called “entasis”. Now, I was taught that entasis was used to ‘correct’ what the Greeks observed to be an optical illusion: that straight lines, depending on thus and such, can appear to the eye to be curved concavely. As a remedy, the Greeks, so I learned, designed a slight convex curve into their stylobates and columns. Likewise, elements placed together at regular interval can appear unevenly spaced at their ends and so the Greeks corrected this by actually spacing the last two columns closer together at the end of a colonnade… and so on and so on—extensive geometric proportions and mathematics were clearly integral in the design of Greek architecture. Furthermore, the Parthenon is situated on the Acropolis in such a manner that when viewed from the Propylaea it can be observed from the ‘perfect’ perspective such that the depth of the building and the width appear equal despite their obvious difference. Suffice it to say, the Greeks were highly interested in precision, detail and hardly noticeable effects.
Why? That was the question the student asked. Why was this so important to them? Well, I suppose we can only conjecture, in the end, as to why these seemingly insignificant things ‘mattered’ so much to the Greeks. It seemed, someone observed, that the Greeks were a bit OCD (obsessive compulsive, that is, not Discalced Carmelites). My answer was, OK, we can think about it that way… but there’s bound to be a lesson in all of this. Turns out, the lesson I found was that of “Why is architecture, art, beauty, anything like it, important anyway?” And what better question to ask at what better place than here?
My answer was simple, but I still stick by it: the Greek’s so-labeled obsession with ‘getting it right’ might be taken in several ways, but I chose to point out that their emphasis on entasis (1) gave an insight into what was most important to them. Greek philosophy, namely Plato, gave us the One, the Good and the True… the transcendentals, the ‘attributes’ of God… to which we can add beauty because, as St. Thomas Aquinas will direct us, that which is good is pleasing to ‘apprehend’ (i.e., behold, see, hear, experience) and thus beautiful. Now, beauty is a heavily-charged word, but at this point all we need to hang onto is that beauty is related to the transcendentals—those things which we seem to be able to legitimately say that God is. (God is one, God is good, God is true… and likewise, God is beautiful.)
All of this means, for the ancients, beauty was of the gods, beauty was something for the gods. What appears to our modern minds as OCD-piety was likely to be seen by them as the appropriate reverence due toward all things divine. In other words, entasis matters because the gods matter. The art (music, poetry, great literature, sculpture, architecture, etc.) of a culture tells you what is important to that culture. That’s a no-brainer, I know.
Now, art is important—it is intrinsically human (but, for an interesting discussion, read this)—and it expresses the deepest desires, fears, hopes, dreams and values of a person, a community, or an entire society. Thus, that which we do as artists, as imitators of the one true Creator, is fundamental to what it means to be who we are and to express that and develop in understanding that. It seems right, meet, and just, in fact, that we might be so interested in the intricacies of the things that we do.
Just as ornamentation, in many ways, has been seen as superfluous in the past century-or-so, we can look back at the detail of the ancients and think “wow!” or “why?” or we can say “Why not?” I question and struggle with my modernist training that says ornamentation is anathema. I see that the modernists had their own obsession for straight lines and perfect curves, perfectly aligning window shades and soffit corners. But I’ve also visited a few Modernist buildings—one of my preferred Modernists, Rudolf Schindler and his King’s Road House come to mind—and they are imperfect. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater leaks like a sieve, Corbu’s Villa Savoye was a nightmare in a rainstorm, and the King’s Road House couldn’t keep an ice cube warm in the winter time it has so many cracks and gaps and holes. Their detail is different, but it is ornamentation in its own right.
After all, a bird can make a nest, a termite can build a mound, a gopher can burrow a hole, an ant can dig a tunnel, but only man can build a monument, sculpt a gargoyle, paint a battle scene, make a movie about aliens, or sing an anthem to the abstract concept of a nation or a god. God, I am beginning to believe, truly is in the details. Perhaps not in the way that the die-hard modernist might say, but rather, because detail, intricacy, even superfluousness, is at the heart of humanness. Ornamentation and all the trappings of human life that can appear to be ‘ornamental’, ‘traditional’, or ‘excessive’ speak precisely to what it means to be human: to be able to contemplate the ‘extras’—and by ‘extra’ I mean what goes beyond our daily bread, what goes beyond bread and circus, what goes beyond commuting, texting, and drinking, what goes beyond simply functioning, and into thinking, believing, laughing, praying, and loving.
***
(1) That’s right, I just rhymed using the word ‘entasis’.
An addition and some highlights of the blogroll:
A brother of mine from the Southern Province—newly ordained (August 2009) Fr. Gerald Mendoza, O.P.—alerts me to the presence of his blog In Spiritu et Veritate. Give ‘er a look-see.
And, in the off chance that all my talk about architecture (no, it won’t go away any time soon) has excited your interests in design… take a look at the section I added some time ago: “Blogs about Architecture”. Pretty self-explanatory.
Especially of note is one that I have taken interest in, but only reading a few times: Architecture and Morality.
Enjoi.
Blessed Father Dominic, Preacher of God's grace, you promised to assist us even after your death. Intercede for us before God to help us encourage more men and women to follow our way of life, the way of a preacher. Bless us in our common life, study, prayer and ministry, that our lives together may be a joyful witness, creating in others a desire to join the Sacred Preaching.