Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 262
» Latest member: aasonlittle2854
» Forum threads: 6,317
» Forum posts: 11,827

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 292 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 290 Guest(s)
Bing, Google

Latest Threads
Pope Pius XI : Lux Verita...
Forum: Encyclicals
Last Post: Stone
8 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 3,717
Feast of the Maternity of...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
8 hours ago
» Replies: 2
» Views: 4,795
Where did those lies abou...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 01:56 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 7,208
Pope St. Pius X's prophec...
Forum: Catholic Prophecy
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:51 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,705
Holy Mass in Georgia [Atl...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:42 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 55
Holy Mass in New Hampshir...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:37 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 55
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 478
St. Louis de Montfort: Af...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
10-09-2024, 11:52 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,607
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
10-09-2024, 11:30 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 82
Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
10-09-2024, 04:01 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 626

 
  A Happy and Holy New Year to you all!
Posted by: Stone - 01-01-2022, 10:08 AM - Forum: The Catacombs: News - Replies (3)

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]


The Catacombs would like to wish you all a Happy and Holy New Year!


"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre

Print this item

  Commentary: How to Eat Like a Hobbit
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 10:34 AM - Forum: Health - No Replies

How to Eat Like A Hobbit
Written By Robert Hutchinson

[Image: Capture.png]

If there is one area of life most people can change in order to return to the Shire, in a metaphorical if not literal sense, it’s their eating habits. You can live in a 20-storey high-rise in Manhattan or Paris and still adopt a Hobbit lifestyle when it comes to eating. That’s because Hobbits are different from most of the enslaved subjects of Mordor not only in what they eat ... but also in how and why they eat it. 

Hobbits, along with most of the free peoples of Middle-earth, eat pure, naturally grown, mostly wild foods from their own gardens or nearby fields: lush berries, fresh bread, cheese, cold meats, mushrooms (lots of those!), wine and beer. They eat frequently, usually in groups and often accompanied by poetry readings and songs. Hobbits are not vegetarians but they have a varied diet of whole, local foods, including Nimcelen, the hobbit version of potato salad; Soroname, a warm soup filled with pasta, meat, tomatoes, beans and onions; and Lembas, Elvish waybread. They drink wine and, when they can get it, such invigorating liquors as Ent-draughts and Mirror, the life-giving and energizing elixir of the Elves.[note]Those interested in preparing Hobbit foods themselves should consult Emerald Took’s Regional Cooking from Middle-earth: Recipes of the Third Age (Trafford Publishing, 2003).[/note] 

Food has a spiritual as well as a biological purpose for them. As even cursory readers of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings know, Hobbits like to eat well and often. They also take their time. “And laugh they did, and eat, and drink, often and heartily, being fond of simple jests at all times, and of six meals a day (when they could get them),” Tolkien notes in the famous “Prologue” to The Fellowship of the Ring. Indeed, foods of all types feature prominently in the long saga of The Lord of the Rings. The entire epic begins with a magnificent feast for Bilbo’s eleventy-first birthday party. As many commentators have pointed out, there is more eating than fighting in The Lord of the Rings, despite the gore of Hollywood’s over-amped CGI film versions. 

After what Tolkien calls “a very pleasant feast” at Bilbo’s birthday and going-away party—“rich, abundant, varied and prolonged”—Tolkien goes on to describe Frodo’s meal with Gildor Inglorion and the High Elves and another magnificent dinner at the Prancing Pony in Bree. The Elves describe their travelling food as “poor fare,” and yet Pippin recalls the food as “bread, surpassing the savour of a fair white loaf to one who is starving; and fruits sweet as wild berries and richer than the tended fruits of gardens” and a cup “that was filled with a fragrant draught, cool as a clear fountain, golden as a summer afternoon.” The fellowship leaves the Elves to share a few meals with the strange, primeval creature known as Tom Bombadill—including such delights as “yellow cream and honey-come, and white bread, and butter; milk, cheese, and green herbs and ripe berries gathered”—and then head for the small village of Bree. There, at the inn known as The Prancing Pony, they gather their strength for their quest, and Tolkien describes the food in detail:

Quote:They were washed and in the middle of good deep mugs of beer when Mr. Butterbur and Nob came in again. In a twinkling, the table was laid. There was hot soup, cold meats, a blackberry tart, new loaves, slabs of butter, and half a ripe cheese: good plain food, as good as the Shire could show, and homelike enough to dispel the last of Sam’s misgivings (already much relieved by the excellence of the beer).

In Tolkien’s vision, the growing, preparation and enjoyment of food take up most of the hobbits’ time—and serve a much higher purpose than the mere utilitarian re-fueling of Mordor’s orcs or modern society. The meals of the hobbits and the elves have social, even spiritual, purposes, helping to cement the bonds of friendship and strengthen the soul for hardships to come. In this, Tolkien is echoing an ancient spiritual tradition that extends back through his own Catholic faith, and the Anglo-Catholicism of his friends at Oxford, all the way through the Jewish and Christian testaments. ... To put it simply: What and how we eat matters ... and there is a vast chasm existing between the nourishing, fresh, locally grown food eaten in the Shire (and in most traditional societies)... and the manufactured, pre-packaged, artificial “food products” consumed by the harried worker-bees of consumer society.


The Shift to Industrial Mass Production of Food

Ironically enough, the growing and eating of food also provides a startling case study in just how radically different is the social and economic vision that informed Tolkien’s formative years—the Third Way de-centralized economics of G.K. Chesterton and his circle—and the dominant economic paradigm of our own world, the literal fusion of Big Government and Big Business in the modern corporate state. That’s because at the heart of Distributist or Third Way thought is a belief in radical de-centralization, diversity and local control—particularly when it comes to the production of food. 

In contrast, the very essence of modern industrial food production is centralization, lack of diversity and national or corporate control. In the early 20th century, there were approximately 6.4 million farms in the United States producing food for a population of 76 million people. By the year 2008, that number had fallen to just 2.2 million producing food for 300 million in the U.S. and for tens of millions more abroad. Even those statistics don’t tell the real story of consolidation and monopolization, however. That’s because most of the “independent” farms that still exist are really controlled by a handful of agricultural conglomerates—aided and abetted by Big Government regulators, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Big Business and Big Government work together to create regulations supposedly for the public’s benefit but really designed to put small competitors out of business. As a result, by some estimates just four companies now produce 90% of the food consumed in the United States: Cargill, Tyson Foods, General Mills and Kraft.

The success of global agribusiness is well-known. In some ways, it’s a triumph of modern science and technology. Beginning in the 1920s, large agricultural conglomerates began applying the techniques of the Industrial Revolution to the growing and marketing of food. In place of diverse crops and animals grown in a variety of places, the big companies began a program of standardization, mechanization and centralized control. Efficiency became the prime directive. In place of small family farms dotted across the landscape, a handful of enormous factory farms were created that produce assembly line “food products.” The goal was to produce vast amounts of standardized foods at extremely low prices ... and the big conglomerates, with the help of government subsidy programs and regulations tailor-made for big companies, succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Thus, the twin forces of globalization and industrialization have created an enormous and inter-dependent multinational food industry that has resulted in supermarkets, at least in prosperous First World countries, being stuffed full of seemingly limitless amounts of pre-packaged “ready to eat” foods. 

A typical North American or European family is a virtual United Nations of food consumption, eating “beef products” produced in Argentina, coffee grown in vast plantations in Columbia, wheat grown in Nebraska, and strawberries from Turkey. But as many food analysts have pointed out, the diversity that appears on store shelves is really an illusion carefully designed to mask an ugly truth: mass standardization. While there may be dozens and dozens of different “brands” of cereal on the shelves, mostly owned by the same one or two corporations, the underlying reality is that what’s inside the boxes is virtually identical. The negative health consequences of this relatively monotonous diet of pre-processed food products are only recently becoming apparent to average people.


The Health Consequences of Industrial Food

In recent years, ordinary consumers and health researchers have come to realize that this centralized industrial food production comes at an enormous cost in human health. The “virtual foods” we see on store shelves are mass-produced, chemically enhanced synthetic products like the “fake butter” on movie popcorn, that look like real food but have all the nutritional value of chewable plastic:

1. High-yield, genetically modified (GMO) fruits and vegetables grown in depleted soils drenched in pesticides, picked weeks early and filled with chemical dyes and preservatives so they arrive in stores looking “fresh”.

2. Corn- and animal-fed industrial meat products filled with potentially dangerous synthetic antibiotics (such as Zeranol, Trenbolone, and Melengestrol)[note]http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones.[/note] and growth hormones—BANNED, for health reasons, from the European Union.[note]http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/hormones_meat.htm.[/note]

3. Dairy products, from milk to ice cream, produced from cows given a genetically engineered hormone called rBGH to increase milk production.

4. Refined carbohydrates designed for maximum shelf life rather than nutritional content.

5. Laboratory-created “fat substitutes” that were designed to pass through the human body undigested.

6. Synthetic “instant” fast food products pumped full of chemical preservatives, partially hydrogenated oils and High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HGCS) to increase hunger and encourage increased consumption.

... and on and on. The result is a tragic paradox: Despite record levels of obesity and despite gobbling fistfuls of chemical vitamins, millions of people in the industrialized west suffer from real nutritional deficiencies without even knowing it. 

Medical researchers first suspected that people living in modern industrialized societies may suffer from unknown but potentially dangerous nutritional deficiencies when they began looking at two sets of facts:

1. The unexplained explosion in the rate of certain ailments since 1920, when modern industrial food manufacturing began in earnest; and,

2. The extremely low rates of these same chronic health problems among traditional peoples who don’t eat from tin cans or plastic boxes.

The first set of facts has been known for decades. Beginning about 1920, about the time when industrialized farming and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides by crop dusters became common, the death rate from heart problems in the U.S. more than doubled [note]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zULJExxrW54/SgpFHc2NURI/AAAAAAAAAec/rx0al9r5J30/s1600-h/Colpo+CHD.jpg.[/note] and the death rate from cancer nearly tripled.[note]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html.[/note] 

At the same time, Americans also became afflicted with dozens of other ailments almost unknown to their grandparents and great-grandparents, including numerous food allergies, autoimmune ailments, joint problems, chronic breathing difficulties, migraine headaches, sexual infirmities, and the list goes on and on. The truth is: Thanks to improvements in medicine (antibiotics) and public hygiene (sewer systems), Americans today live longer than their pioneer ancestors but are sicklier, weaker, and prone to health problems that didn’t even exist in 1900.

A second set of facts is even more alarming. Traditional societies that remain isolated from modern industrialized farming remain remarkably healthy, virtually free of the chronic health problems that plague modern North Americans and Europeans. “On my arrival in Gabon, in 1913, I was astonished to encounter no cases of cancer,” wrote the medical missionary Dr. Albert Schweitzer, of his decades spent among African nations. “I saw none among the natives two hundred miles from the coast.”[note]http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml.[/note] 

Nor was Schweitzer alone in his observations. When anthropologists, medical missionaries and others visited isolated groups all across the world, they were struck by the same fact: a remarkable absence of chronic disease! As the nutrition writer Michael Pollan writes in his magisterial expose of the food industry, In Defense of Food, these early researchers found “little to no heart disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, or stroke; no appendicitis, diverticulitis, malformed dental arches, or tooth decay; no varicose veins, ulcers or hemorrhoids. ”The typical response to this has been that “primitive” peoples simply didn’t live long enough to get such “western” ailments as cancer and heart disease. But we now know that this is not true. A recent study of longevity among the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies [note]http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf.[/note]—such as the Yanomami in the Amazon rainforest or the Kung people in Africa—found most traditional peoples live almost as long as their western counterparts, despite their utter lack of modern medical care.[note]Without access to any modern medicine, the Yanomami live, on average, to about 75 years of age, mostly in very good health.[/note] 

What’s more, when doctors examine the older members of hunter gatherer peoples, they find that they are largely free of the diseases that plague modern Americans. What Pollan and other nutrition researchers now believe is that the recent explosion of chronic health problems in developed societies is due almost entirely to the nutritional deficiencies of modern industrial food production. To put it simply: Modern industrialized farming and mass-production meat factories have traded quantity for quality. For convenience and shelf life, the giant food companies inadvertently strip out the vital plant nutrients that keep you strong and healthy—and, in their place, pump in synthetic sweeteners, chemical preservatives and other additives. This makes abundant “food” that can last almost indefinitely on store shelves, but which lacks almost all of the vital nutrients you need for health, healing and longevity. 

Pollan and other food researchers claim, therefore, that it almost doesn’t matter what your specific diet is—the fish-oriented diet of Greenland, the Mediterranean diet of Greece, the rice diet of Japan—you will be far healthier eating that way than eating the processed foods of modern developed countries. How the food is produced turns out to be far more important, in terms of its effect on your health, than what you eat! Put another way, you’d be better off eating organic whale blubber every day than you would eating frozen pizzas. Increasingly, medical researchers are agreeing with this assessment. Research now links poor or inadequate nutrition to four of the top 10 causes of death in the developed world: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.[note]http://www.cortlandtforum.com/5-nutritional-deficiencies-and-how-to-correct-them/article/121111/.[/note] Research done by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion found that a staggering 74% of Americans suffer from inadequate nutrient intake.[note]http://www.cortlandtforum.com/5-nutritional-deficiencies-and-how-to-correct-them/article/121111/.[/note] Another study found that only 41% of the U.S. population gets enough phytonutrients from vegetables and only 24% get enough from fruits [note]http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/phytonutrients-faq?page=4.[/note] —and of some vital phytonutrients, such as the vision-supporting nutrients found in yellow vegetables like squash, they get almost none. In other words, the harried citizens in modern industrial democracies have access to vast amounts of what looks like food yet are suffering from nutritional deficiencies that are seriously undermining their health and even shortening their lives.


The Political and Economic Costs

As you might expect, the early Distributists, writing in the 1920s when large industrial farms were just being created, foresaw this development clearly. They advocated a return to family owned farms (not necessarily small) for financial, spiritual, political and health reasons. An early Distributist manifesto was even entitled Flee to the Fields. They maintained that a decentralized system of food co-ops and farmers’ markets, seen in Europe for generations, was the best way to ensure the security of food production and quality. In this, they were a voice crying in the wilderness, dismissed as “anti-modern” and old-fashioned. Distributist thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc believed that modern political parties of the Left and Right were essentially different sides of the same coin: Marxists and Fascists, Democrats and Republicans, Labour and Conservative, all believe in big factories, standardization, uniformity, centralized control and mass production. They just quibble over who should be in charge, government bureaucrats or corporate executives. 

Stalin and Mao created vast industrial farms every bit as large and uniform as those of ConAgra and Tyson Foods. Distribustists, in contrast, have been the only serious movement to question the orthodoxy of the modern corporate state, to insist on decentralization over centralization, local over national control, diversity over uniformity, smaller over bigger. In this, Distributists are quite in harmony with the growing local and organic food movement, a movement that is embraced by people across the political spectrum. While many people associate local and “slow food” efforts to be pre-eminently left-wing and hippie-like ideals, many conservative and libertarian-minded folks also embrace the same ideals. One reason for this is because there is a growing awareness among ordinary people that large-scale industrial farming, controlled by a handful of agribusiness monopolies, comes with a startling number of hidden economic as well as political costs. 

Many organic and small farmer organizations even question whether, when all these hidden costs are taken into account, large factory farms are really as efficient and productive as they claim to be. “Many of the costs of industrial agriculture have been hidden and ignored in short-term calculations of profit and productivity, as practices have been developed with a narrow focus on increased production,” says the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a special report issued in 2008. “The research establishment that underpins modern industrial agriculture has until recently paid little heed to the unintended and long-term consequences of these systems (emphasis added).” The UCS is calling for a fundamental re-thinking of the modern system of food production. “A new awareness of the costs is beginning to suggest that the benefits [of industrial farming] are not as great as they formerly appeared. ”One obvious hidden cost of industrial agriculture cited by the UCS is the high energy requirements of transportation—not just of the foods themselves (transporting oranges from New Zealand to the USA, for example) but of the myriad products that go into industrial food production itself. For example, the corn and soybeans that is used as feed for most industrial livestock—in place of the ordinary grass used by organic ranchers—must be transported from gigantic farms to the ranches. The petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides used to growth that wheat must, in turn, be transported to the farms, often over long distances. Then there is the energy costs used in industrial farming itself: the enormous combines and harvesters. In addition to transportation, there are refrigeration costs: again, all from limited energy sources. Finally, that’s not counting the indirect costs of damage to the environment or to other food-producing systems, including,
  • “damage to fisheries from oxygen-depleting microorganisms fed by fertilizer runoff...”
  • “the cleanup of surface and groundwater polluted with... waste...”
  • “the increased health risks borne by agricultural workers, farmers, and rural communities exposed to pesticides and antibiotic resistant bacteria.”
It’s little wonder that the USC concludes that “the full costs of industrial agriculture... call into question the efficiency of this approach to food production.” [note]http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/costs-and-benefits-of.html.[/note]

Of greater concern to Tolkien and the early Third Way thinkers, however, were the political costs of industrialized, large-scale, centrally planned food production. When hundreds of millions of people are utterly dependent upon just a handful of large multinational corporations for their very survival—or, for that matter, a centrally controlled State—it gives new meaning to Belloc’s term for the modern citizen: servile. For both Tolkien and Belloc, industrialism brings with it a radical dependence that undermines society and encourages a subtle despotism—particularly when it concerns food production. When the agents of Mordor take over the Shire in The Lord of the Rings, this is precisely what happens. As Matthew Akers describes it in the St. Austin Review:

Quote:This environmental destruction [of industrialization] has also destroyed the indigenous culture of the hobbits. They have become industrial serfs rather than agricultural freemen. Now, the hobbits depend upon the industrial work they perform at the new mill for their livelihood rather than enjoying the fruits of their agricultural labor. They also crouch in fear before the big government that has taken over the Shire, for this new government controls the mill, the hobbits’ source of livelihood. Once the hobbits are severed from nature, they are severed from their very essence: they are no longer free and fun-loving. Instead, they have become industrial slaves, both to their masters at the mill and to their bureaucratic masters in government.

Tolkien and the distributists did not believe everyone should be family farmers. In the Shire, as in the Middle Ages, there were tradesmen, repair men, merchants and lawyers. Tolkien himself was a university professor, Chesterton a newspaperman. Yet they did believe that the “means of production” should be de-centralized, controlled by the many and not by the few. This is in stark contrast to the aims of both Big Government liberals and Big Business conservatives who seek to ensure that the means of production, in this case food production, are controlled by the few. Big Business does this through its relentless quest for monopoly; Big Government does this through myriad regulations that drive smaller companies and farms out of business. 

“Loathing Capitalism, however, Chesterton loathed Socialism more,” writes the Catholic philosopher Michael Novak of G.K. Chesterton, one of Distributism’s chief theoreticians. “He took his stand on two values which Capitalism claimed to stand upon but, he thought, destroyed: private property and personal self-determination.” [note] G.K. Chesterton, The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, Vol. 5 (San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 1987), 20.[/note] Chesterton was one of the few thinkers to see clearly that both Big Business and Big Government want the same thing—total control— and that this is not in the best interests of the average person. This is especially true, we are now discovering, when it comes to the production of food.


The Fox Guarding the Hen House

One of the most troubling aspects of the corporate state’s control over food production is the way in which Big Business operatives infiltrate and control the very government agencies that are supposed to be regulating them. For example, many of the top officials of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration—charged with protecting the health of American food consumers—are themselves former employees of, or paid consultants to, the large multinational agribusinesses. Talk about the fox guarding the hen-house! For example, former U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner Lester Crawford was actually convicted for lying about his financial ties to companies the FDA regulates (Pepsico). Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion that the Monsanto Corporation could legally patent its genetically modified seeds, was once a corporate lawyer in the pesticide and agriculture division of, yes, Monsanto.


Practical Steps

There are a number of practical steps you can take to begin eating more like a Hobbit and, thereby, contributing to both your personal health and your political liberation. Here are a few.

1. Go organic. Whenever possible, begin buying organic food, especially when it comes to meat and dairy products. Organic products are more expensive so every family and individual has to adjust their purchases for their own economic situation. Many people believe that, for health reasons, switching to organic, free-range meats and dairy is more important than organic vegetables because of the use of growth hormones and antibiotics in meat and dairy.

2. Buy local only. Almost every town and city in North America and Europe hosts farmer’s markets where the few remaining family and small farms come to sell locally grown produce. There are now also hundreds of websites where you can quickly and easily identify stores in your area that sell locally grown produce.

3. Eat in season. This is the hardest step of all to take. That’s because globalization means that consumers in prosperous nations have gotten used to eating whatever they want, whenever they want it, regardless of the season. But again, convenience comes at a high cost: the fruits you buy in January are picked unripe and artificially ripened with ethylene gas or calcium carbide (yum, yum!). Buying foods in season, however, has the effect of encouraging a far more diverse diet than would otherwise be the case: apricots in April, cherries in May, blueberries and raspberries in June.

4. Start your own garden. One reason to start your own garden is because it sensitizes you to what you’re missing by eating only mass-produced industrial food. Anyone who has ever tasted a homegrown heirloom tomato grown on the vine has trouble going back to the tasteless, “pre-ripened,” dyed-red globules sold in most supermarkets. Even if you only have a few green pepper plants sprouting on your balcony in your high-rise apartment, it is a vivid reminder of the Shire and why you should go out of your way to find “Hobbit-grown” foods whenever you can.

5. Join the Urban Chicken movement. Thousands of families in urban and suburban settings have set up small chicken coops in their back yards, sometimes disguised as children’s playhouses. The fun of growing chickens is heightened by getting dozens of “farm fresh,” organically produced, nutritious eggs.

6. Eat less meat. Hobbits are not vegetarians and neither are most human beings. Yet their favourite foods are grown in the wild, particularly mushrooms. Many people are finding that a return to the so-called “paleolithic diet,” the diet of our hunter-gather ancestors, can result in surprising health benefits and even weight loss. This is a diet made up primarily of fruits and vegetables with occasional lean meat dishes.

7. Lobby for labeling. The industrial food lobby, aided by most national governments, has fought tooth and nail against food labelling requirements. The Big Food lobby has been especially fierce in its opposition to labels for Genetically Modified (GM) foods since so many consumer food products today now contain genetically altered plants, such as corn. It is also opposed to mandatory labelling for products that contain growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and so on. That’s because the food industry does not want consumers “voting with their pocketbooks” and choosing organic foods that do not contain these chemical additives.

Print this item

  What We Can Learn from the Guilds
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 09:47 AM - Forum: General Commentary - Replies (1)

What We Can Learn from the Guilds
Written By Russell Sparkes [slightly adapted]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...%3DApi&f=1]

The global credit collapse, and the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, has discredited the universal application of market solutions to social problems, and its associated syndrome of ‘globalisation’. There seems to be a clear need for a replacement philosophy in a variety of areas, not just in economics and politics, but also in the voluntary sector.

However, the experience of the last twenty years also indicates that the simple alternative of even more large-scale government intervention does not work either. Firstly, it is simply not feasible. The economic crisis has left government budgets in huge deficit in virtually all developed economies; the future will see less, not more, public spending. Secondly, the UK evidence of the past ten years indicates that it does not work; the government has invested massive amounts in the health service and in education, but it is not certainly not self-evident that standards in either of these has increased.

Finally, there seems a growing feeling that government intervention leads to a kind of ‘systemic monoculture’ where the only thing that matters is meeting the government’s latest set of standards; and the underlying values of a creating a liberal education or of a caring environment are thrown out of the window. A good example of the latter might be the way hospitals have sold off their gardens to turn into profit-making car-parks; all the evidence suggests that the presence of a garden has significant positive therapeutic value, yet that is neglected in the current system.

So where do we go from here? I want to suggest that one answer may lie in a revival of mutual self-help groups, inspired by spiritual values, which we might call by their old medieval name of ‘guilds’. Of course I am not suggesting an exact return to the medieval guilds, any more than I am advocating that people should go around talking Chaucerian English. However, I do argue that the guilds provide a model answer to two major problems of modern economic and social life. The first of these is the rapid shift in the labour market from life-time employment for most people to a world of self-employment and temporary contracts. The second, partly as a consequence of the former, is the reduction in the safety net provided by the welfare state and corporate health and pension provision.


What Were the Guilds?

Although for some people the word ‘guild’ may be seen as signifying a kind of proto-trade union, nothing could be further from the truth. Trades unions grew up as a mass movement, an essentially negative phenomenon in reaction to the Industrial Revolution. In contrast, the guilds were an association of freemen, of craftsmen working together to sustain each other, and through apprenticeship and training to ensure the quality of what they produced. Generally speaking, they were groups of craftsmen in medieval England and elsewhere who submitted themselves to a system of mutual aid, but also of mutual discipline. They were not communes; each workshop was led by a Master who worked for his own profit. The nearest modern analogy would be the farmers of Denmark and the Netherlands, who own their own land and take the profit of it, but who market their produce through great co-operatives.

The guilds sprang up all across Europe when trade revived alongside the growth of towns towards the end of the eleventh century. In Germany they were called Zuenfte, in Italy Arte, in France corps de meters, and in England guilds or ‘gilds’, which comes from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning to pay. However, there was relatively little that was distinctive about English guilds compared to those in the rest of Europe. There were also two types: wealthy merchant guilds, who were relatively small in number but great in wealth and importance, and craft guilds organised of workmen who worked with their own hands and which were overwhelmingly the most numerous.

In circumstances where supreme political power was lacking and where the merchant guilds derived great wealth from trade in luxury goods they could become a corrupt oligarchy embroiled in battles for political control. This was most true in Italy and the Low Countries in cities such as Florence, Genoa, Bruges and Ghent. In England this was only true of London, and here I will concentrate upon the craft guilds as they existed in England and Wales in their heyday of the late Middle Ages, from 1350-1500.

It is worth briefly noting the background to the period. Economic life in Western Europe had collapsed along with the Roman Empire around AD 400. For roughly seven centuries a greatly reduced population lived on the basis of subsistence farming, with trade and the circulation of coins virtually ceasing. (Inevitably there is academic dispute about how severe the collapse was, with the French historian Pirenne arguing that what he called ‘le grand commerce’ or long-distance trade of luxury goods continued after the fall of Rome. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the mass production of well-made standard goods ended in Europe when the Empire fell, and it only began to recover around the year 1100.)[note]See B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation, Oxford University Press, 2005. Also G.A.H. Hodgett, A Social and Economic History of Medieval Europe (Methuen: London, 1972).[/note]

Although trade had revived it was very local; the absence of decent roads meant that very few goods were transported over any distance. The combination of weak government and poor roads meant that each local community was to a very large extent self-sufficient. I mentioned that people are looking at alternatives to globalisation and ‘free markets’, and guilds certainly provide a good example of a functioning localised economy in practice.


The Spiritual Role of the Guilds

When modern historians discuss the guilds they tend to focus on their economic function, and they often use phrases such as ‘monopolising trade’, which suggest that their prime objective was to maximise profits. Nothing can be further from the truth, and the use of the word ‘monopolise’ is really a glaring anachronism. The prime objective of the guilds was religious, based as it was upon a desire to sanctify their work, and to bring honor to themselves within the community as a religious brotherhood. This is why they regulated trade; it was done to protect consumers and prevent one tradesman dragging down standards, although it also had the effect of leading to the best pay and working conditions for the ordinary working man for five centuries! As a French scholar wrote 90 years ago:

Quote:Historians are almost unanimous in holding that, taking into consideration that less was spent on food, rent, and furniture, and above all on intellectual needs, it was easier for a workman’s family to make both ends meet in those days than it is now ... it is not too much to say that, materially the position of the journeyman was at least equal, if not superior, to that of the workman of today. It was also better morally. He sometimes assisted in the drawing up and execution of the laws of the community; he was his master’s companion in ideas, beliefs, education, tastes. Above all, there was the possibility of rising one day to the same social level... [in the case of] the lesser guilds where the workshop remained small, intimate, and homely. [However], directly we go on to study the great commercial and industrial guilds profound inequalities appear.[note]G. Renard, Guilds in the Middle Ages (G.Bell: London, 1919).[/note]

When the anarchy and violence of the Dark Ages began to end around the first millennium, the only thing that had just managed to hold civilisation together was the Catholic Church. Indeed, many future great cities were founded during this period as adjuncts to religious centres. Tribal chiefs who wanted to become effective kings needed the organizing skills that were only to be found in the Catholic clergy. At the same time it is a remarkable fact that while the barbarian tribes who overran the Roman Empire were all pagans, by the millennium they had all become deeply Christian societies, even in Scandinavian countries which had no Christian history.

The medieval guilds can only really be understood against this background. In essence they were religious brotherhoods which had a variety of interlocking functions: spiritual, economic, social, and even political. It is worth stressing again that the world of late medieval Europe was alien to us in two ways; it was explicitly based on Christian principles, and it was intrinsically local. As the great medieval historian Christopher Dawson observed:

Quote:One of the most remarkable features of medieval guild life was the way in which it combined secular and religious activities in the same social complex. The guild chantry, the provision of prayers and masses for dead brethren, and the performance of pageants and mystery plays on the great feasts were no less the function of the guild than the common banquet, the regulation of work and wages, the giving of assistance to fellow-guild members in sickness or misfortune.[note]C.H. Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (Sheed & Ward : London, 1950).[/note]

Indeed, as the German historian Troeltsch wrote about a hundred years ago, the medieval town with its guild system exemplified Catholic Social Teaching in action:

Quote:The medieval city was a pattern of Christian society as we find it in Thomist theory... with its cathedrals and its intensive church life, its religious confraternities and guilds, its care for the spiritual and material welfare of its inhabitants, and its educational charitable institutions (it appears) as the highest point of the medieval spirit.[note]E. Troelscht, The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches (1912).[/note]

A modern historian has come to a similar conclusion:

Quote:To the extent that medieval man theorized about his society he regarded it not as a Gesellschaft or association like a firm, but as a Gemeinschaft or community like a family: as an organism with the Pope as the head, the warriors as the arms and the peasants as the feet.... The economy of medieval Europe in general, leaving aside a few highly unusual areas, was an agrarian peasant economy which was characterized by a high degree of self-sufficiency within each community.[note]Hodgett, op cit.[/note]

Each guild was at the same time a legal entity in the life of the town, and also as a religious brotherhood or fraternity. Generally speaking the membership of the two bodies was identical, although in certain cases external membership of the brotherhood were allowed. Every guild was therefore a local group based at a particular church and usually devoted to a particular saint linked with the trade, for example: St Vincent of the vine growers, St Fiacre of the gardeners, St Blaise of the masons, etc. Every fraternity had its appointed church in which candles were kept burning, and it celebrated an annual festival or prairie on the guild’s patron saint’s day. As the anonymous Yarmouth chronicler wrote in about 1350:

Quote:If the bond of love and friendship is laudable among mere rational men, then how much more is that which is between Christians who are tied by the strongest bonds of faith and religion; but above all by those Christians who form one fraternity bound and linked together by a solemn oath.[note]Quoted in C.H. Dawson, Medieval Religion (Sheed & Ward: London, 1935).[/note]

Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of late medieval Christianity was its obsession with death, and with the inevitable judgement to follow on the souls of the departed. This of course was reflected in the spiritual role of the guilds, one of the important of which was to found chantries to pray for the souls of dead members. As one historian writes:

Quote:The support of chaplain to celebrate for the souls of former guild members and for the welfare of those still living makes it clear that the fraternities can be regarded as a kind of collective chantry, supported in some cases by men who could not afford to endow one on their own account. Behind such foundations was the fundamental outlook of those who established them, the belief that life on earth was but a passing phase of existence, that man’s true destiny was eternity, and that the sacraments which were necessary for salvation could be administered by the priest alone.[note]J.F. Thomson, The Transformation of Medieval England 1370-1529 (Longman : London, 1983).[/note]

Indeed, the common aim of all guilds was to arrange prayers in their guild church, particularly for the souls of deceased members. There is a recurring theme of keeping lights burning at regular masses for the souls of dead members. For example, the guild of St Stephen of St Stephen’s church in London funded a permanent chaplain, provided 5 candles for the mass of a departed brother, and brought home his body if he died within 20 miles. Eamon Duffy writes about England on the eve of the Reformation in his superb book The Stripping of the Altars:

Quote:With some variations all medieval guilds were modeled along the (same) lines—the maintenance of lights before images and the Blessed Sacrament, the procurement of attendance, and prayers, of the whole guild at funerals of deceased members, and finally the exercise of sociability and charity at a communal feast associated with the saint’s day.[note]E. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars (Yale University Press, 1994).[/note]


Economic Significance

I have noted that the guilds had a number of interlocking aims: spiritual, economic, and social. Having discussed their spiritual objectives I will now look at their economic function, which was to protect the welfare and honour of the craft via regulation of production and sale. As one expert notes:

Quote:With regard to production, the guilds prided themselves on giving an official guarantee to the consumer. Hence the many articles contained in the statutes in which they boast of their good faith, or make a mark of emphasizing the honesty of their trade dealings; hence the complicated regulations for the prevention of bad work; hence the minute instructions prescribing the number of vats into which the Florentine dyer was to dip his materials and the quality and quantity of the colouring matters he was to employ.... The guild prided itself on letting nothing leave its shops but finished products, perfect of their kind; it examined and stamped every article, and further required that it should bear a special trade mark stating where it was made and its just price.[note]Renard, op cit.[/note]

No one could become a member of a guild without serving a long apprenticeship, normally seven years. Indeed, another old word for guild was ‘mystery’ in recognition of the hard work required to master a craft! Only the members of the guilds (the Masters) had a say in the running of it. Each Master was assisted by journeymen (a skilled worker paid by the day, from the French ‘journee’) and by apprentices. No Master was allowed to employ more than a certain number of apprentices or journeymen, and to ensure that trade was fair there were restrictions on production. For example, it was forbidden to work by artificial light. In Norwich at the beginning of the sixteenth century for example there were some 80 craft guilds, which was typical for major cities outside London. They fell into certain natural groups such as: food (bakers, brewers etc); textiles and clothiers; wood-workers, metal workers and leather workers; and distributive trades. Their essential role has been described thus:

Quote:Their most potent economic function was to control entry into the craft or ‘mystery’, thereby preserving a local monopoly and by the enforcement of apprenticeship, maintaining both the standards of the work and the level of wages. Full membership of the guilds then became a formal path to the “freedom” of the town and thus the right to carry on business there.[note]D.C Coleman, The Economy of England 1450-1750 (Oxford University Press : London and Oxford, 1977).[/note]

In modern city life local worthies are sometime honoured by being granted ‘the freedom of the city’. Few people probably ever think that this dates back to the guilds and the very practical right, which had to be earned, of being free to trade in a particular town. It is important to stress that the guilds did not exist in isolation; they were part of a clearly defined political and social order. Indeed, they played a crucial role in the development of representative local government in medieval Europe. They were closely association with the town corporation and therefore played a key role in the development of the independence of towns from feudal authority. As such, Dawson claimed that they facilitated the birth of democracy in England.[note]Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, op cit.[/note]

The modern world is based upon the abundance of goods and services. In such a situation controlling production is normally done with the aim of making excess or “monopoly” profits. In contrast medieval life was based on want, and on the constant likelihood of starvation. Drought, plague, or war could, and often did, lead to hunger and famine. In such a background of scarcity, the guilds not only maintained standards of quality but insisted that goods should be freely and fairly available, so that craftsmen should not extort undue prices from their customers.

In many cases the guilds enforced the sale of goods only in public markets, so that less aware buyers could not have their ignorance abused. The system was meant to be fair to both buyers and sellers, and most historians agree that it was. The practice of forestalling, of buying goods before they were brought to market, was prohibited, as was regrating, buying things in a market and selling them again for a higher price. Engrossing, the idea of buying up goods with a view to restrict supply and force up price was particularly despised. The system was meant to be fair to both buyers and sellers, quite unlike the rapacious tax collectors of Ancient Rome. The historian Tawney captured well the medieval world-view:

Loans are made largely for consumption, not for production. The farmer whose harvest fails or whose beasts die, or the artisan who loses money, must have credit, seed corn, cattle, raw materials, and his distress is the money-lender's opportunity. Naturally, there is a passionate popular sentiment against the engrosser who holds a town to ransom, the monopolist who brings the livings of many into the hands of one, the money-lender who takes advantage of his neighbors' necessities to get a lien on their land and foreclose.[note]R.H. Tawny, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (John Murray : London, 1964).[/note]

On the other hand, while most people lived a life little above subsistence, this did not mean starvation. Indeed, foreigners commented how well fed the English people were, although for the poor this probably meant a basic diet of bread, cheese and milk, with meat reserved for Sundays and feast days. On the other hand, trade flourished within localities. In England and Wales there were some 700 market towns where a weekly market was held, which meant that virtually everybody could walk to market, do their business, and walk home, all within a day’s work.

To sum up, economically the guilds were a key part of the medieval objective that commercial life should be an integrated expression of the Church's teaching. There was a code of mercantile ethics decreeing that craftsmen should make their goods honestly and well, that sellers should give good weight and be satisfied with reasonable profits. Let me quote from one of my favourite works of G.K. Chesterton, Chaucer. In it Chesterton examines two wealthy and respectable citizens making that famous pilgrimage towards Canterbury. They are a Doctor and a Dyer, the latter a master chemist and supplier of pigments. As Chesterton put it:

Quote:The Doctor, in short, still exists as a roughly recognizable figure. The Dyer has totally disappeared.... The reason why the Doctor is recognizable, and the Dyer is unrecognizable, is perfectly simple. It is that the Doctors not only were, but still are, organized on the idea of a Medieval Guild.... The British Medical Council, which is the council of a Guild ... does what a Guild was supposed to do. It keeps the doctors going; it keeps the doctors alive, and it does prevent one popular quack from eating all his brethren out of house and home. It sets limit to competition; it prevents monopoly.[note]G.K Chesterton, Chaucer (Faber & Faber : London, 1932).[/note]


Charitable Objectives

Another most important aspect of the guilds was the way they promoted works of charity in a poor society where the poor would otherwise have starved. This ranged from direct alms-giving to the running of hospitals and schools, as well as self-help between guild members, such as establishing the first ever pension scheme to help the aged or infirm who could no longer work. As the French guild expert Renard noted, there was a genuine attempt to integrate the ideals of brotherhood into their economic role, with the ties of unity strengthened at regular intervals by guild feasts and banquets:

Quote:The merchant or craftsman found in his craft guild security in times of trouble, monetary help in times of poverty, and medical assistance in case of illness. At Florence the carpenters and masons had their own hospital. When a member died, shops were shut, every one attended his funeral, and masses were said for his soul.[note]Renard, op cit.[/note]

He goes on:

Quote:Apart from the obligatory assistance at certain offices and at the funerals of its members, the fraternity owned a chest, that is to say a fund maintained out of the subscriptions and voluntary devotions of the members, as well as the fines which they incurred. Of these funds, collected from various sources, part was given to the poor, to the hospitals, and to the expenses of worship. Thus at the Rennes the fraternity of bakers ordained that in every batch of bread one loaf of fair size should be set apart, called the tourteau-Dieu, which brings to mind the portion for God or the poor.[note]Renard, op cit.[/note]

In modern English the phrase ‘bakers dozen’ is still used for the number thirteen. However, I doubt if few if any people who use it realise that it goes back to the medieval guild custom of baking a batch of 12 loaves for the customer, with one extra to be given to the poor. Sadly, the wealth they accumulated attracted the attention of a greedy and self-willed king. In the words of Jack Scarisbrick's The Reformation and the English People:

Quote:When the royal commissioners went out in 1546, and again in 1548 to survey the colleges, chantries, obit land, guilds and fraternities which the crown was about to seize, they were interested in institutions with permanent endowments of land and property—that was what the government was after.[note] J.J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English People (Wiley Blackwell; 2nd edition, London, 1985).[/note]

This ‘landgrab’ ushered in the most severe hardship for the poor. A flourishing network of local hospitals, schools, and almsgiving was abolished. Henry VIII pledged to use the money to refound such institutions on a ‘purer basis’, but totally failed to do so. It is a striking fact that fifty years after the Reformation, the term ‘poor law’ appears. After fifty years of using whips, branding tools and amputation to try and control the poor, Elizabeth I finally gave up and in 1601 passed the first Poor Law in English history. This seems an obvious consequence of the Reformation, but it is one which is seldom mentioned by historians. Rather like the State's absorption of local hospitals and friendly societies in 1945, local initiatives which worked had been abolished by force. The State was then forced to set up large cumbersome attempts at great expense to itself.

While almsgiving was a major social function of the guilds, perhaps their most distinctive feature was that of a ‘mutual self help group’, and this is the point I really want to stress today as important for the future of the voluntary sector. We should always remember that life remained intensely local during the Middle Ages, and that very often secular and religious motives were intertwined. For example, poor roads and robbers made travel highly dangerous, so it was natural for travelers, like Chaucer’s Canterbury Pilgrims, to travel in groups under the protection of a patron saint.

Many of them had social as well as religious functions, the most important providing support members who had accidentally fallen into poverty. The most common rate of benefit was 7d per week.[note]Thomson, op cit.[/note] Indeed, the guild chest or fraternal treasury had a close resemblance to modern friendly societies, as there was not only help when somebody was unable to work, but a pension for the infirm, and they also supplied dowries to the poor girls of the fraternity, an important consideration at that time.[note] Renard, op cit.[/note]

As such groups they enabled the ordinary workmen to receive payment in case of sickness or old age, something swept away with the guilds and not re-appearing until Lloyd George’s Pension Act of 1908! Indeed, the earliest known example of a pension scheme comes from the Guild of St. James Garlickhythe in 1375:

Quote:If any of the forsaid brotherhood falls into such mischief that he hath nought for old age or be able to help himself, and have dwelled as the brotherhood for 8 years and have done thereto all duties within the time, every week after he shall have of this common box 13 pence for the term of his life or he be recovered of his mischief.


Modern Lessons from the Guilds

I believe the guild model may be of use in the modern world. Firstly in the economic sphere, where in developed countries small business are the main engines of job creation. The guilds provide one answer to the problem of how small independent businesses may efficiently use the complex equipment and access scarce capital they need, as well how they can market themselves in an increasingly suspicious world. (Mutual guarantee schemes for small businesses exist and have been very successful in Italy.) Note however that the aim is not the classic trade union one of combining together to extort higher wages. Rather it is to enable the self-employed to guarantee quality, to efficiently use finance and equipment, and lastly as a self-help mechanism. Finally, mutual guarantee schemes also enable small businesses to access economically and share capital, something that is increasingly scarce in our credit-crash world.

I think that mutual self-help groups can also provide an answer to another problem: the increasing failure, both morally and financially, of the welfare systems set up in the U.S. and Europe after the War. In the context of a rapidly aging population, unfunded State pensions schemes may be described as financial pyramids, something quite illegal in the private sector. At the same time, company final-salary pension schemes, which guaranteed workers a secure retirement, are increasingly being closed. There is a wealth of evidence that less and less of the funds spent on welfare actually goes to the deserving poor, and more and more is used up in an ever-increasing bureaucracy. The complexity of much welfare law tends to discourage the honest applicant to the benefit of the professional scrounger. Finally, as the MP Frank Field has bravely stated, the system encourages moral hazard—with a rising proportion of the population happy to rely solely on the State.

There is much furious thought going on about how to reform welfare and pensions. Self-help groups, in contrast, offer the advantages of economies of scale with the detailed knowledge which deters moral hazard. Most of today's insurance companies and building societies started life in the nineteenth century as friendly societies, groups of poor men who joined together to buy a house or insure their lives at a much better rate than the companies of the day offered them. When you see ‘permanent’ on the side of a building society, it is a reflection of those days. Many building societies were ‘temporary’ i.e. when the last of its original members had bought his house, the society was wound up.

It seems to me that modern technology allows people to form self-help groups and buy their pension or healthcare insurance in bulk, bypassing the insurance companies and their like. A self-help group will work best if its members have an interest or some area of activity in common, so that they feel ties of loyalty to each other and have a forum where they can meet. This is called the essential ‘common bond’ of credit unions. A ‘guild’ of workers such as writers or computer consultants has members with similar needs, and is a perfect vehicle for a self-help group. The common bond of faith is of course normally the best that there is.

One of the fastest growing areas in finance is so-called ‘microfinance’, where seed capital is introduced into poor communities, and which has been highly commended by the World Bank for its role in reducing poverty and helping growth. The lenders get good rates of return, while the borrowers pay far less than they would to money-lenders. The system only works because a ‘common bond’ among the local community prevents significant defaults, and in fact it is really a credit union by another name. Credit unions never really took off in the UK, partly because of the relative insignificance of the Catholic Church in the UK in the 19th century. Yet in many parts of the world the Catholic Church played a major role in alleviating poverty with priests and laymen devoting their time and expertise to setting up credit unions; this was true in much of Europe and Ireland, and it was true for example in Canada and Australia.

We should also not forget that many hospitals and educational centres around the world are run by the Church, and the example of the guilds shows us an old model of how this can work in the future. To take but one example, the Antigonish Movement was set up in the 1920s in Canada’s Eastern coastal provinces by a group of priests. It blended adult education, co-operatives, microfinance and rural community development to help small, resource-based communities. The well-known Mondragon co-operative and bank in Northern Spain is another good example of Catholic Social Teaching in practice. The key point is this help is local, and it is centre around giving time and expertise, rather than simply handing out welfare cheques. The example of micro-finance proves beyond doubt that it works in getting very poor people out of poverty.

Print this item

  Tertullian: Ad Martyras - Address to the Martyrs
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 09:23 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

Ad Martyras - To the Martyrs
by Tertullian d. 220 A.D.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibleblender.com%2F...f=1&nofb=1]


Chapter 1

Blessed Martyrs Designate — Along with the provision which our lady mother the Church from her bountiful breasts, and each brother out of his private means, makes for your bodily wants in the prison, accept also from me some contribution to your spiritual sustenance; for it is not good that the flesh be feasted and the spirit starve: nay, if that which is weak be carefully looked to, it is but right that that which is still weaker should not be neglected. Not that I am specially entitled to exhort you; yet not only the trainers and overseers, but even the unskilled, nay, all who choose, without the slightest need for it, are wont to animate from afar by their cries the most accomplished gladiators, and from the mere throng of onlookers useful suggestions have sometimes come; first, then, O blessed, grieve not the Holy Spirit, who has entered the prison with you; for if He had not gone with you there, you would not have been there this day. Do you give all endeavour, therefore, to retain Him; so let Him lead you thence to your Lord. The prison, indeed, is the devil's house as well, wherein he keeps his family. But you have come within its walls for the very purpose of trampling the wicked one under foot in his chosen abode. You had already in pitched battle outside utterly overcome him; let him have no reason, then, to say to himself, They are now in my domain; with vile hatreds I shall tempt them, with defections or dissensions among themselves. Let him fly from your presence, and skulk away into his own abysses, shrunken and torpid, as though he were an outcharmed or smoked-out snake. Give him not the success in his own kingdom of setting you at variance with each other, but let him find you armed and fortified with concord; for peace among you is battle with him. Some, not able to find this peace in the Church, have been used to seek it from the imprisoned martyrs. And so you ought to have it dwelling with you, and to cherish it, and to guard it, that you may be able perhaps to bestow it upon others.


Chapter 2

Other things, hindrances equally of the soul, may have accompanied you as far as the prison gate, to which also your relatives may have attended you. There and thenceforth you were severed from the world; how much more from the ordinary course of worldly life and all its affairs! Nor let this separation from the world alarm you; for if we reflect that the world is more really the prison, we shall see that you have gone out of a prison rather than into one. The world has the greater darkness, blinding men's hearts. The world imposes the more grievous fetters, binding men's very souls. The world breathes out the worst impurities — human lusts. The world contains the larger number of criminals, even the whole human race. Then, last of all, it awaits the judgment, not of the proconsul, but of God. Wherefore, O blessed, you may regard yourselves as having been translated from a prison to, we may say, a place of safety. It is full of darkness, but you yourselves are light; it has bonds, but God has made you free. Unpleasant exhalations are there, but you are an odour of sweetness. The judge is daily looked for, but you shall judge the judges themselves. Sadness may be there for him who sighs for the world's enjoyments. The Christian outside the prison has renounced the world, but in the prison he has renounced a prison too. It is of no consequence where you are in the world — you who are not of it. And if you have lost some of life's sweets, it is the way of business to suffer present loss, that after gains may be the larger. Thus far I say nothing of the rewards to which God invites the martyrs. Meanwhile let us compare the life of the world and of the prison, and see if the spirit does not gain more in the prison than the flesh loses. Nay, by the care of the Church and the love of the brethren, even the flesh does not lose there what is for its good, while the spirit obtains besides important advantages. You have no occasion to look on strange gods, you do not run against their images; you have no part in heathen holidays, even by mere bodily mingling in them; you are not annoyed by the foul fumes of idolatrous solemnities; you are not pained by the noise of the public shows, nor by the atrocity or madness or immodesty of their celebrants; your eyes do not fall on stews and brothels; you are free from causes of offense, from temptations, from unholy reminiscences; you are free now from persecution too. The prison does the same service for the Christian which the desert did for the prophet. Our Lord Himself spent much of His time in seclusion, that He might have greater liberty to pray, that He might be quit of the world. It was in a mountain solitude, too, He showed His glory to the disciples. Let us drop the name of prison; let us call it a place of retirement. Though the body is shut in, though the flesh is confined, all things are open to the spirit. In spirit, then, roam abroad; in spirit walk about, not setting before you shady paths or long colonnades, but the way which leads to God. As often as in spirit your footsteps are there, so often you will not be in bonds. The leg does not feel the chain when the mind is in the heavens. The mind compasses the whole man about, and whither it wills it carries him. But where your heart shall be, there shall be your treasure. Matthew 6:21 Be there our heart, then, where we would have our treasure.


Chapter 3

Grant now, O blessed, that even to Christians the prison is unpleasant; yet we were called to the warfare of the living God in our very response to the sacramental words. Well, no soldier comes out to the campaign laden with luxuries, nor does he go to action from his comfortable chamber, but from the light and narrow tent, where every kind of hardness, roughness and unpleasantness must be put up with. Even in peace soldiers inure themselves to war by toils and inconveniences — marching in arms, running over the plain, working at the ditch, making the testudo, engaging in many arduous labours. The sweat of the brow is on everything, that bodies and minds may not shrink at having to pass from shade to sunshine, from sunshine to icy cold, from the robe of peace to the coat of mail, from silence to clamour, from quiet to tumult. In like manner, O blessed ones, count whatever is hard in this lot of yours as a discipline of your powers of mind and body. You are about to pass through a noble struggle, in which the living God acts the part of superintendent, in which the Holy Ghost is your trainer, in which the prize is an eternal crown of angelic essence, citizenship in the heavens, glory everlasting. Therefore your Master, Jesus Christ, who has anointed you with His Spirit, and led you forth to the arena, has seen it good, before the day of conflict, to take you from a condition more pleasant in itself, and has imposed on you a harder treatment, that your strength might be the greater. For the athletes, too, are set apart to a more stringent discipline, that they may have their physical powers built up. They are kept from luxury, from daintier meats, from more pleasant drinks; they are pressed, racked, worn out; the harder their labours in the preparatory training, the stronger is the hope of victory. And they, says the apostle, that they may obtain a corruptible crown. 1 Corinthians 9:25 We, with the crown eternal in our eye, look upon the prison as our training-ground, that at the goal of final judgment we may be brought forth well disciplined by many a trial; since virtue is built up by hardships, as by voluptuous indulgence it is overthrown.


Chapter 4

From the saying of our Lord we know that the flesh is weak, the spirit willing. Matthew 26:41 Let us not, withal, take delusive comfort from the Lord's acknowledgment of the weakness of the flesh. For precisely on this account He first declared the spirit willing, that He might show which of the two ought to be subject to the other — that the flesh might yield obedience to the spirit — the weaker to the stronger; the former thus from the latter getting strength. Let the spirit hold convene with the flesh about the common salvation, thinking no longer of the troubles of the prison, but of the wrestle and conflict for which they are the preparation. The flesh, perhaps, will dread the merciless sword, and the lofty cross, and the rage of the wild beasts, and that punishment of the flames, of all most terrible, and all the skill of the executioner in torture. But, on the other side, let the spirit set clearly before both itself and the flesh, how these things, though exceeding painful, have yet been calmly endured by many — and, have even been eagerly desired for the sake of fame and glory; and this not only in the case of men, but of women too, that you, O holy women, may be worthy of your sex. It would take me too long to enumerate one by one the men who at their own self-impulse have put an end to themselves. As to women, there is a famous case at hand: the violated Lucretia, in the presence of her kinsfolk, plunged the knife into herself, that she might have glory for her chastity. Mucius burned his right hand on an altar, that this deed of his might dwell in fame. The philosophers have been outstripped — for instance Heraclitus, who, smeared with cow dung, burned himself; and Empedocles, who leapt down into the fires of Ætna; and Peregrinus, who not long ago threw himself on the funeral pile. For women even have despised the flames. Dido did so, lest, after the death of a husband very dear to her, she should be compelled to marry again; and so did the wife of Hasdrubal, who, Carthage being on fire, that she might not behold her husband suppliant as Scipio's feet, rushed with her children into the conflagration, in which her native city was destroyed. Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions. Woman has voluntarily sought the wild beasts, and even asps, those serpents worse than bear or bull, which Cleopatra applied to herself, that she might not fall into the hands of her enemy. But the fear of death is not so great as the fear of torture. And so the Athenian courtezan succumbed to the executioner, when, subjected to torture by the tyrant for having taken part in a conspiracy, still making no betrayal of her confederates, she at last bit off her tongue and spat it in the tyrant's face, that he might be convinced of the uselessness of his torments, however long they should be continued. Everybody knows what to this day is the great Lacedæmonian solemnity— the διαμαστύγωσις, or scourging; in which sacred rite the Spartan youths are beaten with scourges before the altar, their parents and kinsmen standing by and exhorting them to stand it bravely out. For it will be always counted more honourable and glorious that the soul rather than the body has given itself to stripes. But if so high a value is put on the earthly glory, won by mental and bodily vigour, that men, for the praise of their fellows, I may say, despise the sword, the fire, the cross, the wild beasts, the torture; these surely are but trifling sufferings to obtain a celestial glory and a divine reward. If the bit of glass is so precious, what must the true pearl be worth? Are we not called on, then, most joyfully to lay out as much for the true as others do for the false?


Chapter 5

I leave out of account now the motive of glory. All these same cruel and painful conflicts, a mere vanity you find among men— in fact, a sort of mental disease — as trampled under foot. How many ease-lovers does the conceit of arms give to the sword? They actually go down to meet the very wild beasts in vain ambition; and they fancy themselves more winsome from the bites and scars of the contest. Some have sold themselves to fires, to run a certain distance in a burning tunic. Others, with most enduring shoulders, have walked about under the hunters' whips. The Lord has given these things a place in the world, O blessed, not without some reason: for what reason, but now to animate us, and on that day to confound us if we have feared to suffer for the truth, that we might be saved, what others out of vanity have eagerly sought for to their ruin?


Chapter 6

Passing, too, from examples of enduring constancy having such an origin as this, let us turn to a simple contemplation of man's estate in its ordinary conditions, that perhaps from things which happen to us whether we will or no, and which we must set our minds to bear, we may get instruction. How often, then, have fires consumed the living! How often have wild beasts torn men in pieces, it may be in their own forests, or it may be in the heart of cities, when they have chanced to escape from their dens! How many have fallen by the robber's sword! How many have suffered at the hands of enemies the death of the cross, after having been tortured first, yes, and treated with every sort of contumely! One may even suffer in the cause of a man what he hesitates to suffer in the cause of God. In reference to this indeed, let the present time bear testimony, when so many persons of rank have met with death in a mere human being's cause, and that though from their birth and dignities and bodily condition and age such a fate seemed most unlikely; either suffering at his hands if they have taken part against him, or from his enemies if they have been his partisans.

Print this item

  Hillaire Belloc: Communism, The Theory
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 09:11 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

Communism: The Theory
Written By Hilaire Belloc
Originally published in Social Justice Weekly (June 13, 1938)

[Image: Capture.png]


Communism, like every other political system, has two aspects: the Abstract and the Concrete. It is based on a theory, an idea: and also it has in real life a certain way of going on, habits and practices, which do not seem at first sight to be necessarily connected with that idea, but which are found appearing in connection with it. In this first article we will go into the idea of Communism and see why it is a false remedy. In the next we will go into the practice and see how abominable in practice Communism becomes.

The economic idea of Communism in itself, that is, the mere plan or pattern, seems at first sight neither good nor evil, any more than a mathematical proposition is good or evil. You can state Communism in this fashion so that it is apparently quite free from any moral taint, and appears as a system which anyone is free to accept or to let alone, according to his inclination. Stated thus, theoretically, the principle of Communism is simply this: that public authority shall not protect the property of any man when that property is used for production, distribution, or exchange. Communism proposes that there shall be no right of property in land or houses or ships or stores of food or machinery of any kind, when those things are used for producing further wealth, because this leads to poor men working the advantage of rich men.

Communism has no objection to a man consuming wealth on a large scale, even luxuriously. If you can earn a large income as a singer, for instance. the Communist state is quite agreeable that you should spend it on anything you like for your own pleasure. But you must not invest any of it. For when you invest you are creating a capitalist function. If you invest in railway shares, for instance, you do so in order to get an income without working for it: an income which is produced by the labor of some other man. In the same way, and for the same reasons. Communism forbids inheritance. You may spend what you earn, you may even spend it luxuriously, but you must not accumulate it and leave it to your children, lest they should use it for the capitalistic exploitation of their fellows. If I have a fine schooner which my sons and I can sail together, Communism makes no objection to our doing so as an amusement bur it forbids us to use that vessel for carrying goods or for any other useful purpose associated with profit.

Stated thus, the moral argument in favor of Communism seems a strong one. The exploitation of one man by another is not a moral act, nor the forbidding of it, apparently, an immoral act. Moreover, thousands of good men and great numbers of actual saints have lived under purely communistic conditions, for those are the conditions of most religious orders. The Community owns everything, the individual owns nothing, save what he really consumes, and this ownership of all by the community is (apparently) Communism. So far, so good. And Communism, thus stated as an ideal, appeals to the generous and the simple. Where, then, is the snag in the mere theory of Communism? The defender of Communism will say “No doubt such and such a group of Communists did behave very badly, but that has nothing to do with the Communist theory. The violence and the outrages and the rest of it are not logically connected with this simply conception of common ownership of all the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

There is another cogent argument in favor of Communism which we often hear used, and which seems at first sight irrefutable. It is this: when we are actually using, as a community, goods belonging to the community, when we are therefore acting in the Communist fashion, no suffering results but rather good. In Switzerland, (Switzerland is the freest and perhaps the happiest of all democracies), where the railroads are owned by the community, no one using the railroads feels any different from men using the railroads which belong to capitalist organizations in England or the United States. When you enjoy the amenities of a public park you are enjoying communal property. So your Communist can say again “Where is the snag?” expecting the answer, “There is none.”

Every thing about Communism in theory at least, seems good, and it manifestly gets rid of a lot of evils which accompany private property. But the man who says “Where is the snag” and expects the answer “There is none” is shortsighted. There is a serious and obvious snag indeed, which is this: that though the public ownership of this or of that creates no injustice and does no violence to human nature, the public ownership of everything, the forbidding of the private citizen and his family to own land or house or plough or cattle, means that whoever owns those things—that is, the State—is the absolute master of the dispossessed Communist citizen.

Why that is the very argument the Communists, themselves have used, (just as anybody else has, who has thought at all about the industrial problem) when they condemn capitalism! “The capitalist class,” says the Communist, “by retaining in its power the land and the instruments of production, is the master of the mass of citizens who do not own those things.” Exactly! And the same is ten times truer of universal public ownership. The State (which means, in practice, the Officials) is as much the master of the Communist masses as a slave driver is of his slaves. He may wish the slaves well or he may wish them ill. That has nothing to do with the system. He may be generous or he may be cruel. His absolute power has nothing to do with that. Communism, even as a theory, denies the most elementary right of making: the right of choice, the right of ordering one’s own life.

It is no reply to this major accusation (which of itself damns the whole system irremediably) to say that present conditions are intolerably bad. No doubt they are: but one must not fly to a remedy worse than the disease. There is, indeed, one type of man who apologists for Communism, rather reluctantly, something like this: “No doubt Communism is a bad thing, but it is the only chance we have, for, under the effect of modern machinery, monopoly is inevitable. When monopoly is inevitable it is better to vest it in the State than in a few individuals.” When such a reply is made we touch on the very heart of Communism. We see its nature plainly exposed. It is the fruit of Capitalist mentality. It is an evil remedy bred of an evil thing. Industrial Capitalism talks in exactly this way of “inevitable monopoly” which is not inevitable at all. Under Communism we should have all the worst spiritual effects of industrial Capitalism extended and emphasized because their tyranny would be universal. It would be the killing of the soul of man and its dignity. Now it is precisely because of this character in it that Communism only comes into being under conditions of horror. It is because the thing is theoretically inhuman that its fruits are the fruits of inhumanity, appalling cruelty and an appalling contempt for human life.

It is a most superficial, false, analysis which can see no connection between Communist theory and the abominations which accompany Communism in action. When you destroy the family and the sanctity of the individual, when you make war on the tradition of human culture, you are making war on the Image of God. And because you are making war on the Image of God, which is Man, with his human dignity and free will, you find yourself at once at war with God Himself. It is not an accident that Communism should produce wholesale massacre, arson, torture, and the destruction of all lovely things. A perverse theory produces perverse acts. The story has been told over and over again but it can never be told too often.

Print this item

  G.K. Chesterton: Fun in the Field
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 08:46 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

Fun in the Field
Written By G.K. Chesterton

[Image: Capture.png]
Illustration by Theodore Schluenderfritz. G.K.'s Weekly, 2 July 1932.


Politicians will not make a land fit for heroes to live in. It is heroes who make a land fit for all the other poor people to live in; even such poor little people as the politicians. A vivid illustration of this may be seen in those small but bright patches, already beginning to appear on the map of England, in which men have really devoted themselves to the reclamation of the land and the restoration of the family. In some cases the work really has to be heroic in the sense of ascetic. In several cases it has actually been led and inspired by ascetics. Nay, by that profound Christian paradox which so much puzzles the pagan stupidity around us, the men who have restored these things are often the very men who have renounced them. Friars who have flung away all property will be the first to re-establish property; monks who have turned their backs on the family will be the last to defend the family. In this respect there is a great resemblance between the Distributist Movement, as described in the pamphlets of Father McNabb and Father McQuillan. Father McQuillan, member of the Catholic Scottish Land Movement and Commander Shove. Herbert W. Shove was an associate of the Guild of St. Joseph and St. Dominic, the author of The Fairy Ring of Commerce, and one time head of the London Distributist League branch and the original work done by monasteries in their first days. It is not only that the Christians exist already, but that their institutions exist already. There were monks and nuns long before there had ceased to be priests and priestesses of Apollo. Great councils of the universal Church had already met when great emperors were still thinking of Nazarenes as a new sort of food for lions; and the missionaries were preaching in the ends of the earth while the bishops were still prisoners in the Capital. And the reason is that both types of reaction are appeals to the individual; even to the salvation of the soul of the individual; though the sins and diseases of different societies make it necessary to emphasise things that seem different, and may even seem directly opposed.

The old pagan world was far too personal, with its personal government, its personal and almost simple greed, and its only too personal gods. Therefore it was often necessary to protest against it by the renunciation of personal property. The modern paganism is far too impersonal with its impersonal bureaucracies, its impersonal fantasy of finance and usury, its impersonal and therefore more than imbecile god. Therefore it is often necessary to protest against it by the assertion of personal property. But both are modes of the assertion of personal dignity; and you will note that it is the same spiritual philosophy, stretched across the ages, that has made possible these two contrary forms of protest against these two contrary forms of pride. There is one aspect of the heroic venture, made by the working Distributist, of which I feel free to speak, because it is quite unheroic; and I am not a hero. I hope everybody understands that the Land Movement of the Distributists does not mean that men are to sell turnips as other people sell top-hats; or to manufacture cabbages in a cabbage machine like sausages in a sausage-machine. Distributism dies when men sell their land; but it is rather off colour, even when people sell most of the produce of their land. And the obvious inference is that men living by grubbing roots out of the ground are not living at all. The more the experiment succeeds, the more effort will be made to show that it means life on a lower level than that of the modern town; which, God knows, would be very low indeed.

Now, because this is a frivolous point, and because I am a frivolous person, it is one on which I think I can really give advice; as I cannot give it on serious things like sowing and reaping. On work I am a very doubtful witness; but on holidays I am all there. On sustaining life—I could learn from the poorest peasant. But on enjoying life I will not learn from anybody. And I really think this question of the fun or sport of a Distributive State is one about which I can see the truth more clearly, either than the good men who have been stupefied by modern labour, or the bad men who have been staled by modern pleasure-seeking. For the truth is that the latter are much too stale with pleasure-seeking not to be stupid about pleasure-finding. And when the case against Distributism is that men will never desert the film for the farm, or that life on a farm is always dull, or that common sport and fun will be forgotten, I feel almost personally moved to reply. For the fact is that the fun will begin with the new life, not that the fun will end with it. The fun is already ending without it. For the whole thing called Sport is now absolutely staggering on its last legs; staggering on the rickety ridiculous stilts, on which plutocracy and professionalism have hoisted it above the crowd, for the purpose of advertisement. We are always reading of dying creeds or crabbed sciences petering out in petty quarrels about details, in hairsplitting about trivial applications of trite and tiresome rules. And all this is visibly happening to Sport or Games, if it ever happened to anything in this world. There is not really more fun out of golf; there is only more fuss about golf. There are only more golf-clubs or more technical articles in magazines, drawing fine distinctions between one ungainly attitude and another.

Also, as is invariable in such decadence, nobody dares to deny or alter the original dogmas of the game; nobody dreams, for instance, of inventing a new game. There was never a golfer who went forth to golf and then suddenly decided to do something else; to throw his clubs about like a juggler, or fence with the caddy. Exactly what has gone out of all sports is sport; the spring or spontaneous jerk towards doing something fresh and free. Very slowly and intricately will the technical ceremonies end; but we are still waiting for the fun to begin. And where did the fun begin? It began on the farm. It began with the sort of tools, tricks and hiding-places that can most easily be found on the farm. Our fathers made the great English game of cricket out of a stool and a stone. The very terms of tennis and many old games refer, not to new engines bought at Gamage’s,[note]Gamages was a department store located in central London.[/note] but to new uses found for the buttery-hatch or the milking-stool. No; we shall have no lack of games; for the world's great age begins anew; and we shall have some new ones.

Print this item

  G. K. Chesterton: The Circular Argument
Posted by: Stone - 12-31-2021, 08:39 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors - No Replies

The Circular Argument
Written By G.K. Chesterton

[Image: Capture.png]
Illustration by Theodore Schluenderfritz. G.K.'s Weekly, August 1, 1925


The argument underlying most of the arguments of our critics against our ideal is a sort of argument in a circle. It is very necessary to understand and yet it is not very easy to explain. It is like the old oriental symbol of a snake with its tail in its mouth; the occult and mystical image upon which whiting are sometimes made to model themselves. One would think that such a symbol was a simple matter; but in fact it is like the Figure in the Carpet of which Henry James wrote; a thing really recurrent and regular but at the first glance bewildering and even invisible. It is not always easy to trace the pattern of the carpet, even if it be a pattern of self-devouring snakes. It is not always easy to follow the large returning curve in what appears a chaos of intersecting lines. But we for our part are sorry when snakes bite their own tails. We are sorry for the snake and we are sorry for the tail. We weep over the reptile who has such an unsatisfactory meal. We also weep over the tail which has such an unsatisfactory time. And we shall try to explain the point, although it is difficult and may even be dull.

The point is this. When we describe our ideal, our opponents always deride and reject it because it is an ideal; which means in their language a dream. When we denounce existing conditions or current proposals, they ask us what is the use of denunciation which could only lead to destruction; which in their language means to mere negation. We say, for instance, that the only tolerable ideal for a man is that of a free man; and the only tolerable ideal of a free man is that of a man free over a fairly wide area to choose and to create. We say that while this ideal is nowhere ideally realised, it can be really realised. We say there was more of it in a free craftsman than in a modern mechanic; more of it in a farmer's wife doing as she liked with her own herbs and cordials than in a factory girl doing as she is told by a capitalist combine. We do not desire to produce this precise example of this precise state of things. We do not limit the craftsman to carving gargoyles; we do not force the critic to drink cowslip wine. We give these things as examples of the various ways in which a healthy humanity has attempted to approach this ideal, rather than the other ideals. But when we describe the ideal in such general and ideal terms, we are accused of describing a legendary Arcadia or a mythical Golden Age. We are asked why we should profess to be propounding a social solution like that of Mr. Sidney Webb or Mr. Henry Ford, when in fact we are only describing a Land of Heart's Desire like Mr. W.B. Yeats.

In a word, they say we waste time in describing an unattainable dignity and independence. Very well; let us merely note that complaint and keep it clearly in mind. It will come round again, like the serpent's tail. So, on the other hand, they complain of our complaints. They say that the industrial system, like its alleged author, is not so black as it is painted. They say we paint it blacker than it is; and that this (under the circumstances) is a mere waste of blacking. They suggest that it is mere pessimism to insist that things are indefensible when they are really indestructible. They say we are merely throwing away dirty water before we can get clean. Or rather they say we are merely analysing the animalculae in the dirty water, while we do not even venture to throw it away. Why, it is asked, do we waste so many words in making men discontented with conditions with which they are forced to be content? Why do we talk of a thing as an intolerable slavery when we know that it must for a time be tolerated? We say that the rule of mere rich men is far more shameful and benighted than the rule of any king or squire, of any priests or princess. We say there has never been a tyranny pressing so closely upon man as this tyranny of trade gone mad. Individual rulers have done much worse things to individual subjects. But in the matter of the daily bread and the breath of life, the ruler has never been so powerful, the subject has never been so impotent. We say that a hatred of this condition is not a question of a sociological theory, but a question of a sense of honour. And we are asked why we put it with so much heat; why we think it worth while to appeal to such hatred. It is all futile; because nothing can really be done. That is their argument; and again we only ask that it should be realised and remembered. We denounce what we cannot destroy. Therefore we are a pack of idiots.

Let us make a note of the fact; and proceed. Now what follows in practice is this. We are eventually, and very rightly, asked to give some sort of account of how we should set to work. As a matter of fact, we are very much more prepared to go into detail about definite and practical proposals than most of the literary men who have been counted legitimate critics and even reforming influences. Still, we are not parliamentary lawyers and have never pretended to be industrial experts. We can, in the ordinary sense of human speech, suggest a number of things that could be done. They range from things that could be done tomorrow, like turning down a side street to a small shop, to things that are not likely to be done even a hundred years hence, though they could easily have been done six hundred years ago; such as putting a man in prison for making a corner in wheat. We think these proposals practical; but it is not their practicality that is the point here. It is the way in which our critics prove them unpractical. Their argument always amounts to this, in one form or another. You cannot thus reverse the trend of the time and alter the mind of the society. It would mean an effort that men will not make, a sacrifice they cannot be expected to make, a crisis they will not face, a paradox they will not entertain. You cannot get the mob of a modern town to boycott the biggest and best advertised shop. You cannot get a plunging and pleasure-seeking crowd to hunt out the hole and corner homes of a lost liberty or a dying self-respect. Similarly, you cannot make medieval laws against trusts and tricks of the trade; or if you made them you could not enforce them. Your legal campaign would break down; your Anti-Trust law would be checkmated and evaded; your lawyers would be bribed; your witnesses would be brow-beaten; the mob would be turned against you in the end. In short, the real argument against us is just that. We cannot make our cause really practical because we cannot make it really popular. The modern mind is set in its weary ruts. There will not be a change of mind without a change of heart; and we cannot effect it. Perhaps; but at least you cannot logically blame us because we try.

At least you cannot say that people do not hate plutocracy enough to destroy it; and then blame us for asking them to look at it enough to hate it. At least and at last, you may begin to have some notion of why we do think it worth while to attempt to make the ideal inspiring as an ideal and the reality intolerable because it is a reality. At last our critics can find the answer to the question which they asked first; which they have possibly already forgotten. This is why it is worth while to insist on the merely moral beauty of simplicity and sanity. This is why it is worth while to emphasise the mere repulsiveness of corruption and servility. We do not say that we can do it; but we do say it would be worth doing. We do not say that we can be eloquent enough to persuade degenerate Christians of what even the heathens understood; the glory of the household gods and the closeness of the hearth to the altar. But if we preserve the protest of that human tradition, heathen and Christian, men may arise who can sing and speak of it as did the great poets of heroic times. We do not say we can find words foul enough to describe modern wealth, and all that world of bullying and bribing and fawning which vulgar plutocracy offers us as a final home. But the resources of civilisation are not exhausted; and somebody with a richer reserve of bad language may find fitting terms, for it yet.

But the point is that it is not illogical, but strictly logical, that we should appeal to the abstractions which our critics deplore, because the actualities are as our critics describe. It is they who are arguing in a circle, when they complain of our merely describing desirable things; and then go on to complain that they cannot be realised unless they are shown to be desirable. It is they who are arguing in a circle, when they object to our denouncing things as detestable; and then object again because it is idle to denounce them until we can get people to detest them. The thing they insist would have to be done is exactly the thing which we, in our humble way, are trying to do. It is to get people to desire the one thing and to detest the other. That is why we describe the virtues of peasants who we know cannot be exactly copied. That is why we describe the corruption of profiteers who we know will never be really punished. We are doing what our own opponents say would be the only practical preliminary. And when we do it, they call us unpractical.

Print this item

  95.58% of the #Omicron cases in Germany are fully vaccinated
Posted by: Stone - 12-30-2021, 04:53 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - Replies (1)

Print this item

  Latest COVID Restrictions Based On What Govt 'Thought People Would Tolerate'
Posted by: Stone - 12-30-2021, 04:50 PM - Forum: Socialism & Communism - No Replies

CDC Director Admits Latest COVID Restrictions Based On What Government "Thought People Would Be Able To Tolerate"


ZH | THURSDAY, DEC 30, 2021
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted Wednesday that the agency’s latest guidance on COVID was based on what the government perceived people would accept.

Appearing on CNN, Walensky addressed the fact that the CDC suddenly updated its guidelines after Joe Biden declared that “there is no federal solution” to the virus.

Restrictions including quarantine times were lessened from ten days to five.

It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate,” Walensky starkly admitted.

She added, “We really want to make sure we have guidance in this moment where we were going to have a lot of disease that could be adhered to, that people were willing to adhere to, and that spoke to specifically when people were maximally infectious. So it really spoke to both behaviors and to what people were able to do.”

Watch:


Walensky’s comments dovetail with those of Anthony Fauci, who yesterday (after two years of isolating everyone) admitted that isolation is ‘not good for society.’

Rumble Video: Fauci admits that isolation is not good for society

Elsewhere in her interview, Walensky said that the government is considering opening booster shots for 12 to 15 year olds, urging “the first thing to note is to get your children vaccinated.”

“I know that the companies and manufactures are working towards data for under five year olds. That will not be in the months ahead, but we’re working to get there soon,” the CDC head added.

Full interview for context:

Print this item

  Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ is a marvelous conversion tale best explained by GK Chesterton
Posted by: Stone - 12-30-2021, 04:32 PM - Forum: General Commentary - No Replies

Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ is a marvelous conversion tale best explained by GK Chesterton
The moment of Scrooge’s conversion is legendary, and is the closest depiction I have ever read of what happens in a man’s soul 
when he accepts the logical justice of damnation and undeserved privilege to repent.

[Image: Scrooge-810x500.jpg]
Scrooge and the Ghost of Christmas Present look through a window at the Crachet family around the hearth.


Fri Dec 24, 2021
(LifeSiteNews) – Without a doubt, we have all read, heard, or watched a rendition of A Christmas Carol, the classic English novella by Charles Dickens (1812-1870). Whether from a cartoon, a play, a Hollywood production, or by reading a children’s version of the story, we can all call to mind the story about the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future. Our common parlance in all the of English-speaking world knows exactly what is meant when someone is labeled a ‘Scrooge.’

Popular authors who seek to transmit the ‘true meaning of Christmas’ in their works are often only able to imitate a Dickens-esque motif wherein a miser comes to find the true meaning of the Christian celebration through some sort of interior conversion. The famous Dr. Seuss story The Grinch Who Stole Christmas is perhaps nothing more than a whimsical rendition of the theme set out by the great English author a century prior.

It might seem a bit of a stretch to some, but I believe the argument could be made that we see shades of Dickens in the classic film It’s a Wonderful Life. Themes of childhood trauma, greed and financial obsession, and inevitable conversion brought on by a preternatural visitor who helps the protagonist see the real “reason for the season,” are paramount in both stories. In addition, the depths of human despair and the brink of nihilistic suicidal ideation are palpable as we watch George Bailey see a glimpse of life without his existence, just as we see Ebenezer Scrooge perceive the veritable contempt that so many have for him.

In Frank Capra’s motion-picture masterpiece and in Charles Dickens’ literary classic, the profundity of sadness at certain points is almost too much. Our hearts ache along with the characters as we simultaneously despise them to a degree that might only be matched by how much we come to pity their tragic lot.


Enter Chesterton

G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the famous English writer and convert to the Faith, wrote a biography of Dickens that T.S. Eliot said was the “best on that author that has ever been written.” This is high praise coming from a highly praise-worthy source. It would be a mistake for us to consider the biography that Chesterton published in 1906 as part of post-modern biographical literature. So often in our day, biographies are written mostly like elongated encyclopedia entries wherein the focus is on the minutia of historical factoids. This is not to say that great attention to detail is not sometimes extremely relevant and helpful, but it was not Chesterton’s style — not at all.

Anyone familiar with G.K. Chesterton’s works will know very well that in each book, chapter, and even phrase, there is a story told that gives us a glimpse of the exuberance that filled his mind on the very idea considered. When Chesterton wrote biographies, he was not always focused on the empirical facts of a man’s life as the primary means of knowing a man; instead, he took the reader on a journey into the meaning of what meant most to the person about whom he wrote.

When he published St. Francis of Assisi, for example, he went beyond what other biographers had done before him and brought us into the romance that St. Francis had with God’s creation, void of any ‘earth-worship’ nonsense that so many tragically associate with the Seraphic Father. One passage in his biography encapsulates the man in a way that only a Chestertonian prose could accomplish:

Quote:“Now for St. Francis nothing was ever in the background. We might say that his mind had no background, except perhaps that divine darkness out of which the divine love had called up every colored creature one by one. He saw everything as dramatic, distinct from its setting, not all of a piece like a picture but in action like a play. A bird went by him like an arrow; something with a story and a purpose, though it was a purpose of life and not a purpose of death. A bush could stop him like a brigand; and indeed he was as ready to welcome the brigand as the bush.”

In St Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, we find ourselves falling in love with the magnificent mind of the Angelic Doctor, in a way that only a 20th-century fun-loving English author could accomplish. One quote comes to mind that portrays the child-like wonder behind the great theologian’s contemplation of God: “I can hardly conceive of any educated man believing in God at all without believing that God contains in Himself every perfection including eternal joy; and does not require the solar system to entertain Him like a circus.”


Chesterton’s biography of Dickens

Chesterton wrote about Dickens before he tackled the stories of great saints. Leafing through the pages written about the progenitor of the most well-known Christmas story of the past 200 years is like being guided through a reliquary by a holy man, who has true devotion to each saint represented. It is obvious when reading the Dickens biography that Chesterton had something of an encyclopedic memory of his works — littering his phrases with timely references from any of Dickens’ works with ease. 

It is certain that Chesterton had comprehended Dickens’ style as if it were his own. There is a moment in A Christmas Carol when Ebenezer Scrooge arrives home for that fateful night of his preternatural sojourn with the ghosts that haunted his conscience. Scrooge happens upon the most mundane of things, a door-knocker, but sees something so real that it must not be real at all. Dickens masterfully describes the moment in the following manner:

Quote:“Now, it is a fact, that there was nothing at all particular about the knocker on the door, except that it was very large. It is also a fact, that Scrooge had seen it, night and morning, during his whole residence in that place; also that Scrooge had as little of what is called fancy about him as any man in the city of London, even including — which is a bold word — the corporation, aldermen, and livery… Scrooge, having his key in the lock of the door, saw in the knocker, without its undergoing any intermediate process of change — not a knocker, but Marley’s face. Marley’s face. It was not in impenetrable shadow as the other objects in the yard were, but had a dismal light about it, like a bad lobster in a dark cellar. It was not angry or ferocious, but looked at Scrooge as Marley used to look: with ghostly spectacles turned up on its ghostly forehead… and its livid color, made it horrible; but its horror seemed to be in spite of the face and beyond its control, rather than a part of its own expression.”

There is a certain dread that creeps up the reader’s spine when entering into that eerie scene, and the uncanny nature of such an impossible event piques curiosity for a realm of things heretofore invisible. Chesterton describes the texture of the moment perfectly:

Quote:“There are details in the Dickens descriptions — a window, or a railing, or the keyhole of a door — which he endows with demoniac life. The things seem more actual than things really are. Indeed, that degree of realism does not exist in reality; it is the unbearable realism of a dream. And this kind of realism can only be gained by walking dreamily in a place; it cannot be gained by walking observantly.”


Could there be a more accurate way of describing that dreadful moment in Scrooge’s journey than how Chesterton describes the hyper-realism of Dickens? If my experience is any barometer, I believe I can say that there is a transportation to another literary world that takes place when following Scrooge to his home that night. It is that sort of moment that feels as mundane as buttering toast, almost unconscious, only to be interrupted by a textured shadow that fills the corner of your eye; a figure that disappears when you try and focus, but was definitely real. 

In Dickens’ personal life, he was something of a tragic man, and his battle with his Christian conscience was something that he could never avoid. I dare not speak ill of the dead in the way that modern writers love to do — bashing the character flaws of every man who represents an older and wiser way — but it is true that he struggled with personal demons, like all of us. His Christian faith was not orthodox, and he toyed with agnostic and materialist conceptions of religion, but his psychology was as Christian as England once was.

It would be too simplistic to say that Scrooge was Dickens, or that Dickens wrote Scrooge to consciously project himself, but it is a fact of literature that every good author includes a piece of his soul in his work; it is unavoidable. Bad writers are capable of leaving themselves out of their work, like the Hollywood foot soldiers who crank out vapid blockbusters that have as much depth as the computer software that creates the graphics for the film. Dickens was too honest, he was too great, he was too real not to offer his own conscience as a central theme in his work.


Dickens and the spirit of Christmas

There is something about Christmas, even more than Easter, that ‘baptizes’ the secular world, even if just for a night. Please don’t misunderstand what I mean — the gloominess of Good Friday and the levity of Easter Sunday are palpable — but on the night of Christ’s Birth, there is a triumphant expectation that accelerates when little children spring forth from their beds on that following morning of Christian Mirth.

Even those who have fallen away from the Faith allow themselves to be Christians, if just for a few hours each December, as there is no greater song that the human heart can sing in thanksgiving for all that has been given, than a Christmas carol. There are a select few who actively work against this inescapable yearning, and they find themselves miserable. There is no sadder or more darkened soul than the man who spends Christmas alone in defiance of the joy that is offered him; if only he let his tears of gratitude flow down his cheeks with the musicality of that Angelic Visitation to the Shepherds.

Scrooge is one of those men. This reality is depicted soon after he passes through the preternatural initiation of the ghostly door-knocker, while he sits in front of a fire that gives him no warmth. “It was a very low fire indeed; nothing on such a bitter night. He was obliged to sit close to it, and brood over it, before he could extract the least sensation of warmth from such a handful of fuel.”

Dickens then projects his struggle with God in the proceeding phrases:
Quote:“The fireplace was an old one, built by some Dutch merchant long ago, and paved all round with quaint Dutch tiles, designed to illustrate the Scriptures. There were Cains and Abels, Pharaoh’s daughters, Queens of Sheba, Angelic messengers descending through the air on clouds like feather-beds, Abrahams, Belshazzars, Apostles putting off to sea in butter-boats, hundreds of figures to attract his thoughts…” 

The Biblical imagery that brought Scrooge’s mind to higher and holier things was interrupted by the ghost that depicted his greatest sin: “… and yet that face of Marley, seven years dead, came like the ancient Prophet’s rod, and swallowed up the whole. If each smooth tile had been a blank at first, with power to shape some picture on its surface from the disjointed fragments of his thoughts, there would have been a copy of old Marley’s head on every one.” 

The Saints of Holy Writ offer the story of salvation and repentance, but the demons in Scrooge’s conscience lust for his attention and despair.

Chesterton offers a most succinct view into the religious atmosphere and struggle that plagued Dickens in the first chapter of his biography:
Quote:“But the strength of religion was that it did not care for Cromwell; did not care for him, that is, any more than for anybody else. He and his footman were equally welcomed to warm places in the hospitality of hell. It has often been said, very truly, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary.”

Dickens was an ‘extraordinary’ man who came from very ordinary beginnings, going from relative poverty to the height of English literary celebrity. He amassed considerable wealth as well. Scrooge was of course also wealthy and great in the material sense, if we consider money to be a sign of greatness. But any man who sits alone with his conscience knows that the heaviness of his sins outweighs any accumulation of currency. 


Dickens the mythologist

It would be a mistake to portray the journey that Scrooge takes with the phantoms as representative of Christian doctrine, or even as plain theological musings. As Chesterton writes,
Quote:“Dickens was a mythologist rather than a novelist; he was the last of the mythologists, and perhaps the greatest. He did not always manage to make his characters men, but he always managed, at the least, to make them gods.”


Mythology is a misunderstood term by so many, as the word ‘myth’ is commonly used to describe anything that is false. In addition, we are rightly weary of pagan religious relics such as mythological books that promote a bent religion. However, we might say that mythology cannot be defined so narrow as a ‘genre’ but is instead a mood of literature. There is an ineffable mystery about our sojourn between Heaven and hell, and often there are things that can only be described with fantasy that are in some way more real than real.

In Christendom, this mood of mythology was purified and became folklore, or fairy-stories. La Fontaine baptized Aesop’s fables, giving the characters the complexity of Christian moral theology, and thereby improving on the calculated naturalism of the ancient lessons. Legends about witches that frightened little children in the heart of winter were replaced by fits of make-believe played by parents with their children on the Eve of Christ’s Birth about a man named Father Christmas who exists in an eternal state of Christmas joy and generosity.

England at the time of Dickens was going through a century of moral despair and progress. The old religion had been lost, first with the tragedy of King Henry VIII, and then with the continual splintering of Christian sects that became tiresome in their efforts to rebrand the Gospel. The horrors of chattel slavery were brought to light by William Wilberforce in parliament, and there was a level of drunkenness so rampant amongst the population that a national effort in the reform of manners was necessary to right the intoxicated nation.

Perhaps it was only an organic English mythology, written by a troubled English soul and inspired by the light of Christmas, that could speak to England at the time.

The journey that Scrooge takes with the mythical spirits through time and eternity is too much to discuss in detail in this piece. It reads like a breathless tale all contained in a lasting moment that is too full to comprehend; “a kind of philanthropic dream, an enjoyable nightmare, in which the scenes shift bewilderingly and seem as miscellaneous as the pictures in a scrap-book, but in which there is one constant state of the soul, a state of rowdy benediction,” says Chesterton. 


Conclusion: Chesterton on Scrooge’s conversion

The moment of Scrooge’s conversion is of course legendary, and is the closest depiction I have ever read of what happens in a man’s soul when he accepts the logical justice of damnation and undeserved privilege to repent. I could not describe the culmination of A Christmas Carol any better than the author who knew him best: 

Quote:“The beauty and the real blessing of the story do not lie in the mechanical plot of it, the repentance of Scrooge, probable or improbable; they lie in the great furnace of real happiness that glows through Scrooge and everything around him; that great furnace, the heart of Dickens. Whether the Christmas visions would or would not convert Scrooge, they convert us. Whether or not the visions were evoked by real Spirits of the Past, Present, and Future, they were evoked by that truly exalted order of angels who are correctly called High Spirits. They are impelled and sustained by a quality which our contemporary artists ignore or almost deny, but which in a life decently lived is as normal and attainable as sleep, positive, passionate, conscious joy. The story sings from end to end like a happy man going home; and, like a happy and good man, when it cannot sing it yells. It is lyric and exclamatory, from the first exclamatory words of it. It is strictly a Christmas carol.”

Print this item

  Propers for the Feast of the Circumcision [Octave Day of Christmas] - January 1st
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:57 AM - Forum: Christmas - No Replies

Propers for the Feast of the Circumcision [Octave Day of Christmas] - January 1st
Taken from here.


[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_DAM...f=1&nofb=1]



Except for the ALLELUIA, these Propers are identical to Christmas Daytime

Introit • Score • Puer natus
Gradual • Score • Viderunt
Alleluia • Score • Multifarie olim Deus
Offertory • Score • Tui sunt caeli
Communion • Score • Viderunt

Print this item

  Propers for the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:50 AM - Forum: Christmas - No Replies

Propers for the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas
Taken from here.


[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2Fimages%...f=1&nofb=1]


Introit • Score • Dum medium silentium
Gradual • Score • Speciosus forma
Alleluia • Score • Dominus regnavit decorem induit
Offertory • Score • Deus enim firmavit
Communion • Score • Tolle Puerum et Matrem ejus

Print this item

  Plastic Waste from Increased Testing will be Enormous
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:36 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

Print this item

  FDA to decide on booster shots for 12-15 year olds in coming days to weeks
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 10:34 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

Print this item

  Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine: Please pray for Mrs. Kathleen Donelly
Posted by: Stone - 12-29-2021, 09:30 AM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer - No Replies

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]

Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescat in pace. Amen.


In your charity, please pray for the soul of Mrs. Kathleen Donelly who passed away on December 29th from cancer at age 91.
Some of you may recall that Mrs. Donelly ran the Cor Mariae website. Many of us remember her fighting spirit in the early days of the Resistance. 
Kathleen had a great love of the Faith and in these times of great confusion,
we must pray very much for our fellow Catholics and remain humbly attached to the true Faith without compromise. 

May her soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.  Amen.


✠ ✠ ✠


The De Profundis  - Psalm 129

Out of the depths I have cried unto Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.
Let Thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication.
If Thou, O Lord, shalt mark our iniquities: O Lord, who can abide it?
For with Thee there is mercy: and by reason of Thy law I have waited on Thee, O Lord.
My soul hath waited on His word: my soul hath hoped in the Lord.
From the morning watch even unto night: let Israel hope in the Lord.
For with the Lord there is mercy: and with Him is plenteous redemption.
And He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord And let perpetual light shine upon him.

Print this item