Ernest Hello on the Mediocre Man

It is said that the after reading the following passage by Ernest Hello in L'Homme, among others, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange left medical school and became a Dominican priest in order to dedicate his life to the highest excellence in pursuit of God.

---

Is the mediocre man silly, stupid, idiotic? Not in the least. The idiot is at one extreme of the world, the man of genius is at the other. The mediocre man is in the middle. I do not say that he occupies the center of the intellectual world, that would be quite another matter; he occupies a middle position.

The characteristic trait of the mediocre man is his deference for public opinion. He never really talks; he only repeats what others have said. He judges a man by his age, his position, his success, his income. He has the profoundest respect for those who have attained notoriety, no matter how, and for authors with a large circulation.

The mediocre man may have certain special aptitudes; he may even have talent. But he is utterly wanting in intuition. He has no insight; he never will have any. He can learn; he cannot divine. Occasionally he allows an idea to penetrate into his mind, but he does not follow its various applications, and if it is stated in different terms, he denies its truth.

The mediocre man may, and often does, respect good people and men of talent. He fears and detests Saints and men of genius--he considers them exaggerated.

Of what use, he inquires, are the religious Orders, especially the contemplative Orders? He approves of the Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul because their work relates, partially at least, to the visible world. But the Carmelites, he says, what can be the good of them?

The mediocre man admires everything a little; he admires nothing warmly. If you confront him with his own thoughts, his own sentiments, expressed with enthusiasm, he will be displeased. He will declare that you are exaggerating. He prefers enemies, so long as they are cold, to friends who are warm. What he detests above all is enthusiasm.

To escape the reproach of intolerance aimed by him at all who think with consistency and decision, you would have to take refuge in absolute doubt; but even then you must be careful not to call doubt by its name. He considers every affirmation insolent, because every affirmation excludes the contradictory proposition. You must represent it as a modest opinion, which respects the rights of the contrary opinion, and appears to affirm something while affirming nothing whatever. But if you are slightly friendly and slightly hostile to all things, he will consider you wise and reserved. The mediocre man says there is good and evil in all things, and that we must not be absolute in our judgments. If you strongly affirm the truth, the mediocre man will say that you have too much confidence in yourself.

The mediocre man regrets that the Christian religion has dogmas. He would like it to teach only ethics, and if you tell him that its code of morals comes from its dogmas as the consequences comes from the principle, he will answer that you exaggerate. If the word "exaggeration" did not exist, the mediocre man would invent it.

The mediocre man, in his distrust of all that is great, maintains that he values good sense before everything. But he has not the remotest idea what good sense is. He merely understands by that expression the negation of all that is lofty.

The man of intelligence looks up to admire and to adore; the mediocre man looks up to mock. All that is above him seems to him ridiculous; the Infinite appears to him a void.

The mediocre man appears habitually modest. He cannot be humble, or he would cease to be mediocre. The humble man scorns all lies, even were they glorified by the whole earth, and he bows the knee before every truth.

The mediocre man is much more wicked than either he himself or anyone else imagines, because his coldness masks his wickedness. He never gets in a rage. He perpetrates innumerable little infamies, so petty that they do not appear to be infamous. And he is never afraid, for he relies on the vast multitude of those who resemble him.

When, however, a man mediocre by nature becomes a true and sincere Christian, he ceases absolutely to be mediocre. He may not, indeed, become a man of striking superiority, but he is rescued from mediocrity by the Hand that rules the world. THE MAN WHO LOVES IS NEVER MEDIOCRE.

---

Source: Ernest Hello, Life, Science, and Art, trans. by E. M. Walker (London: R. & T. Washbourne, 1912), 112–115.

Repost: "Judge Not"

A good, short article on the misrepresentation of Christ's admonition to "judge not."

---

I envision a lost man standing before Jesus Christ at the final judgment, having a strong sense of the fate that awaits. He cries out, ‘Judge not Jesus! You said it yourself! I read it in red!’

I then imagine that Jesus goes on to explain to the man that he has misinterpreted Jesus’ words: ‘Did you not also read that you are to remove the log from your own eye so that you can see clearly to take the splinter out of your brother’s? I have no log in my eye. My eye is clear, and I see you as you are. I judge accordingly, and my judgment is true and right.’

In my imagination, Jesus continues, ‘Did you not read that I told my disciples not to cast pearls before the swine? Did I not mean that they had to be able to judge a swine when they saw one? Clearly you do not understand my words.’

To which the man replies: ‘Judge not Jesus! You said it yourself! I read it in red, you hypocrite!’

And he goes to hell, continuing to justify himself for eternity, still thinking that Jesus is the judgmental one.

---

Source: Heath, "Judge Not," Tides and Turning (blog), June 21, 2013, accessed February 24, 2015, https://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/judge-not/.

Distinction: Critical vs. Cynical

Cynicism as we commonly use it refers to the idea that every person is inherently selfish and that all altruism is actually selfishness in disguise; it is the automatic tendency, for whatever reason, towards a negative conception of the other. Criticism historically has been free of this leaning towards negative judgment and simply meant an evaluation of something (usually literary or artistic work) based on a standard of aesthetics (e.g. a movie critic) with the purpose of revealing faults constructively and opening a space for reflective self-consideration. In English, criticism has taken on the denotation of a negative judgment—hence "why do you have to be so critical?" implies almost "why do you have to be so judgmental?"

Some may say that criticism is observing, interpreting, and appropriating the observations into one's framework in order to entrench current viewpoints. I think this is an inherently cynical perspective and actually too generalized (I think the determination of how an observation was appropriated should be evaluated by the case rather than generally; our experiences may however lead us to generalize that most people appropriate their observations uncritically). I'm not satisfied with it; the critical aspect could conceivably fall under only that last stage of appropriation, opening up the twofold possibility: 1) either to challenge one's beliefs, or 2) to confirm one's beliefs (if one views this confirmation as always negative, one might use the connotatively laden word "entrench" as I did above, but I suspect one would agree that sometimes the confirmation of an already held belief is not necessarily negative but simply always possibly dangerous).

Reflecting on criticism, I realize that it is a form of judgment, where judgment is simply, when stripped of its contemporary negative connotations, that function of our intellectual capacity to determine something either to be or not to be the case with respect to some explanatory principle or standard; in other words, to conclude whether something is or is not this or that way. Criticism implies a certain form of judgment. Off the top of my head, I distinguish different qualities a judgment may take on, in the form of binaries, and this list is by no means exhaustive:

A judgment may be:

reflective or not
thought through or not
positive or negative
informed or uninformed
self-oriented, other-oriented, or inclusive

I distinguish between reflective and thought through. Even if someone thinks something through, they may not be in a place of reflectivity, the capacity to see oneself, to bracket one's 1st person viewpoint into a 3rd person viewpoint or even a 2nd person viewpoint; reflectivity leads almost immediately to empathy, whereas simply thinking something through may just be the fodder of a tirade. A reflective criticism is that which opens the space of reflectivity, either towards myself, for others, or for all of us; the space of reflectivity is where we can truly begin to face our strengths and weaknesses in honesty and mutual support. It is a "democratic" space of rational, informed dialogue and public application to put it pragmatically.

I distinguish also between positive/negative and constructive/destructive. By positive/negative I mean something like affirmative/disapproving. We can affirm/praise and be constructive or destructive, destructive if what we affirm really ought not be affirmed. We can disapprove in a way that is constructive or destructive. Usually a destructive form of disapproval is shaming another person. I think shaming is one of the worst things a person can do to another person.

A judgment can be informed about its subject matter or not. We see people talk about things and make judgments based out of ignorance and out of information; we appreciate those judgments made out of information even if we disagree with them because at least the judgment is less likely to be coming from a place of bigotry or in other words non-reflective, unconscious prejudice.

Self-oriented/other-oriented simply refers to the direction of the judgment—is it directed to myself, to others, or to all of us?

I think criticism in its best form should be inclusive, reflective, thought through, informed, and constructive. It may be positive or negative depending on the context, but if negative, at least sensitive to the other. Criticism as it usually is referred to, however, is other-oriented, non-reflective, uninformed, destructive, negative, etc.

Judgment Is the Only Sin

I have heard some people claim that their philosophy is that "judgment is the only sin." They proceed to act as they please and allow others to do likewise so long as the twain shall ne'er harm each other or get in each others' way against their wills.

But what is judgment? The person may reply, "It is to condemn another for their beliefs and their way of life." In other words, it is to say that something that a person is doing or the way a person is—that is wrong. It is to declare something wrong. A judgment in its most simple form is an assertion that something is or ought to be this way. But then to say "judgment is the only sin" is itself a judgment against judgment. Furthermore, to say, "People can do as they please" is also a judgment, a judgment of freedom; it is an apparently positive judgment but still a judgment. To qualify a statement that one can do as one pleases so long as it harms no one else is a restriction imposed by judgment: behavior is good insofar as it isn't harmful. And what is harm? It is up to the judgment of the individual (and practically speaking, the law).

Why is judgment the only judgment prohibited? These same people will then also assert, when pressed, that obviously things such as rape, genocide, pedophilia, etc., are wrong. But who are they to pass judgment? Why can a person do anything they please except those things that harm others? And who determines what it means to harm others? The individual?

This is a morality of solipsism, of individualism. It allows the individual to get away with anything he wants without responsibility for consequences and without regard for others.

Remember, Christ never forbade judgments in Matthew 7; He forbade hypocritical judgments. Christ Himself made many condemnations and was fully justified in doing so.

Judgment is fundamental to human action. Every action presupposes a judgment. Even animals make judgments. This morality of solipsism is simply a justification for sin, and it seeks to alleviate guilt by removing the possibility of judgment, of condemnation for bad behavior. That is why judgment is the only sin: because the presence of judgment means the possibility that I have to own up to my sins, that I can't simply do as I please without regard for consequences, that I am not an isolated individual who schizophrenically has no regard for others and regard for others only when I desire, when I determine.

Tolerating People vs. Tolerating Sins

In the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11), Jesus tells the woman, "Neither do I condemn you." People usually stop there when recounting the story, but it doesn't end there. Our Lord then tells the woman, "Go and sin no more."

Why do people stop before the last line? Because they usually tell this story as an example of what compassion and tolerance look like. They say, with Pope Francis, "Who am I to judge?" They end up mistaking compassion with blindness, and divesting mercy of truth, they end up with self-congratulation that will lead them all straight into Hell.

Christ made a judgment of this woman's behavior but not her being. Look at His words:

"Neither do I condemn you" in your very being, which is good, created in God's image, and called to a life of union with Him. No matter what you do or fail to do, I love you in your being, being a person, being a creature, called to be a daughter.

"Go and sin no more" because what you are doing and have been doing will lead you only to destruction. If you therefore value your life and what is good, you will do what is good because our actions follow our desire and our values.

Christ tells the woman to stop sinning. By implication, Christ is judging her actions and saying, "You have been sinning." We might say in protest, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" But Christ is truth, and He knows better. Christ doesn't threaten her because He doesn't need to. Why doesn't He need to? Because he made clear the distinction between who we are and what we do. Who we are is good, but what we do is not always good.

Compassion is for people, not for actions. Tolerance is for people, not for actions. Actions and beliefs are open to praise or rejection. People are more than their actions and beliefs, and their value is determined by neither.

"But I'm a 'Good Person'!"

This article by John-Mark Miravalle really hits the nail on the head about this phenomenon of "I'm a good person." I'll add more below.

---

In my experience, some people just don’t want to talk about the big questions – Does God exist? Is Jesus Lord and Savior? What must I do to be saved? – and their dismissal of these kinds of questions almost always appeals to the notion of “good person.” It usually goes something like this:

“If God exists, then all He cares about is whether you’re a good person. Because at the end of the day, all that really matters is being a good person. And I’m a good person, so I don’t really need to worry about anything else.”

What are we supposed to say to this? What do we say when someone pits “being a good person” against the urgency of accepting and spreading the Gospel?

Well, I think there are a couple of things you can say to a “good person” who doesn’t feel the need to worry about God or His Christ or His Church:

First off, ask the person: have you ever really tried being a good person? I mean a really good person? Because if you have, if you’ve really made an effort to be fair and courageous and to think your decisions through carefully, and only to say what should be said, and not to act on cravings or impulses you know are addictive and hurtful, and to really behave as though other people are just as important as you are – if you’ve ever tried to do that, then you know it’s incredibly difficult. It’s hard even to know how to be good, let alone actually being good. In fact, one of the best preparations for understanding who Jesus is and why we need Him as our Savior, is actually, sincerely putting “being a good person” as the number one priority of you life. When you make that your main goal, you’ll really see how desperately you need help–how desperately you need Christ.

Or maybe this “good person” dismissal is trying to say that the only thing that matters is to be an okay person. An average person. Not a psychopath or a sociopath. Maybe what some people mean by “good person” is just a “pretty good person.” But is that really all that matters? Would anybody really say that the main thing in life is to be mediocre? Because if mediocrity is your priority, if that’s what matters to you, then you actually have some very serious problems – you are lost in life, and you badly need to get some direction. You need to ask God for help, and you need to be open to the help He sends you.

Here’s another point: either Christianity is true or it isn’t. If it’s true then the things it says about how to be good are true as well. And if you don’t recognize that then you won’t know as much about how to be good. In other words, if Christianity is true then it matches up with reality – but in that case your ignoring or rejecting Christianity will set you in opposition to reality. And if you’re acting against reality then it doesn’t matter whether you’re a well-wishing sort of person, you’ll actually be doing a lot of harm. So if you really care about being good then you simply can’t ignore the special claims of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And finally, let’s talk about what God cares about. Remember, according to the Scriptures, God is our Father who loves us dearly. So He wants to be close to us, the way every good Father wants to be close to His children. Do you think it’s “good” to ignore the loving Father who gave you everything? To ignore His Son, to ignore his family? Do you think it would be admirable for a child in a loving family to ignore all his relatives because he was too busy being a “good person”?

Consider this illustration: one thing every schoolteacher notices is the difference in class between the students who have a strong, positive relationship with their parents and the students who don’t. All the students may be “good kids,” but that parental relationship makes a big difference, a difference in the way the students relate to their peers, to authority figures, to assignments. It makes a big difference even to the students’ self-image. Better to be a “good kid” with a positive parental relationship then to be a “good kid” on your own.

So too, it’s better to be a good person with a positive relationship with God the Father, and that’s precisely what Jesus Christ came to offer. You can be a good person and an orphan, but it’s a harder life without that core relationship. You can be a good person and a non-believer, but it’s a harder life without that core relationship.

---

Source: John-Mark Miravalle, "Is It Enough to Be a "Good Person"?," Prayer and Perspective Website, April 12, 2014, accessed April 14, 2014, http://www.prayerandperspective.com/2014/04/is-it-enough-to-be-a-good-person/.

---

See this article for a deeper psychological analysis into this issue of being "nice": http://www.chastitysf.com/q_nice.htm

---

If a sick person desires health without limitations, with greater reason we should desire the love of God, without limiting our desire to a certain degree. We do not know the degree to which God wishes to lead us and will lead us if we are faithful and generous. St. Thomas says: "Never can we love God as much as He ought to be loved, or believe and hope in Him as much as we should" (Ia IIae, q. 64, a. 4). In contrast to the moral virtues, the theological virtues do not consist essentially in a happy mean: their object, their formal motive, their essential measure is God Himself, His infinite truth and goodness. [...]

We cannot love God too much, believe too greatly in Him, hope too much in Him; we can never love Him as much as He should be loved. Thus we see more clearly that the supreme precept has no limit. It asks us all ever to strive here on earth for a purer and stronger love of God.

If hope is the mean between despair and presumption, this is not because the presumptuous man hopes too greatly in God, but because he displaces the motive of hope by hoping for what God could not promise, such as pardon without true repentance. Likewise, credulity does not consist in believing too greatly in God, but in believing what is only human invention or imagination as if it were revealed by him. [...]

To wish to make the theological virtues consist essentially in a golden mean as the moral virtues do, is characteristic of mediocrity or tepidity, erected into a system under pretext of moderation. Mediocrity is a mean between good and evil and, indeed, nearer evil than good. The reasonable, golden mean is already a summit, that is, moral good; the object of the theological virtues is infinite truth and goodness. This truth has at times been brought into relief by the comparison between the mediocre man and the true Christian. [1]

---

Footnotes:

1. Cf. Ernest Hello, L'homme, Bk. 1, chap. 8: "The truly mediocre man admires everything a little and nothing with warmth.... He considers every affirmation insolent, because every affirmation excludes the contradictory proposition. But if you are slightly friendly and slightly hostile to all things, he will consider you wise and reserved. The mediocre man says there is good and evil in all things, and that we must not be absolute in our judgments. If you strongly affirm the truth, the mediocre man will say that you have too much confidence in yourself. The mediocre man regrets that the Christian religion has dogmas. He would like it to teach only ethics [à la Kant], and if you tell him that its code of morals comes from its dogmas as the consequence comes from the principle, he will answer that you exaggerate.... If the word 'exaggeration' did not exist, the mediocre man would invent it.

"The mediocre man appears habitually modest. He cannot be humble, or he would cease to be mediocre. The humble man scorns all lies, even were they glorified by the whole earth, and he bows the knee before every truth.... If the naturally mediocre man becomes seriously Christian, he ceases absolutely to be mediocre.... The man who loves is never mediocre."

---

Source: Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Ages of the Interior Life, trans. by M. Timothea Doyle (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1989), 200-201.

---

Would God send a "good person" to hell? Ultimately only God knows who will go to hell, for He alone will make the judgment. That being said, God has given us this little bit of insight into the process, which I think should make us pause (Matthew 7:13-27, DR):

[13] Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. [14] How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! [15] Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 

[16] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?[17] Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. [19] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. [20] Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. 

[21] Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.[22] Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. 

[24] Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. 

[26] And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

---

Remember St. John of the Cross's commentary on verse 14 of the above passage. He calls attention to our Lord's choice of words—"How narrow!"—as if to say, "Yes, the gate is very narrow, narrower than you think" (cf. Ascent of Mount Carmel, 2.7.2 ff.).

Catcalls, Photography, and Making Judgments

Hannah Price, a photographer, has captured otherwise uninteresting images with a very interesting motivation and narrative, namely, since her move to Philadelphia, she has captured images of men who catcall her and put them together into a photo project.

Though she does not believe her response causes these men to reconsider their actions, she feels that documenting the encounter allows her to take control of the situation, turning the attention to their behavior rather than her physical appearance. Claiming that the series is neither a judgment on men or a comment on race, the MFA Yale candidate uses her photography as a means of understanding something unfamiliar, hoping to find some sort of common humanity in the process.

Source: Jenna Garrett, "Female Photographer Approaches Men Who Catcall at Her and Takes Their Portrait," Feature Shoot, October 30, 2013, accessed October 31, 2013, http://www.featureshoot.com/2013/10/female-photographer-approaches-men-who-catcall-at-her-and-takes-their-portrait/.

You can see the entire project here at Ms. Price's website: http://www.hannahcprice.com/cityofbrotherlylove.html

What I find interesting about Price's comment that the series is "neither a judgment on men or a comment on race" is that all of the pictures of men who catcalled her are of an ethnic minority. Even if there was no intention on Price's part to comment on that obvious pattern, the very nature of a series of photographs with the narrative provided by Price is not only an explicit revelation of this aspect of our society but an implicit commentary, not only on race or men but on social norms and the female identity and status in relation to men.

The difficult tension of claiming that the series is not a "judgment" or a "comment" is that it emerged out of, as Price herself says, a motivation to "take control of the situation," probably a somewhat humiliating if not outright degrading one, and "turn the attention to their behavior rather than her physical appearance." It is a rather ingenious reversal of "intentional image emphasis," where the human intention towards an image is focused or emphasized. The motivation itself implies a judgment about the entire situation, namely, that it is wrong or at least not pleasant or ideal.

Finally, is it possible to have an "unspeaking" or "non-commenting" photo series, a series that by its very nature speaks meaningful images, put together with human intentionality that narrates those images in a coherent context? I am inclined to think it isn't possible. If a computer slideshow program randomly selected photographs from a database collected by images uploaded by humans everywhere, then I would be inclined to believe that there is no narrative or comment being made, and any perception of continuity or narrative would be accidental or projected on my part. But if it is an intentional human putting together such photographs from a database specifically made in response to a specific situation that arises in a specific social context, I would think otherwise.

But this isn't to put down Price's work. I think it's great, and it draws more attention to an experience that many women suffer from and a social practice that should stop but most likely never will until the end of time.