John Ruskin's Criticism of Modern Ephemerality

I was doing my usual bit of reading in Mr. Ruskin's works and came across this passage (below) in his (mostly forgotten), The Political Economy of Art (1857). It is about one of the ubiquities of our modern lives, television, or perhaps now, streaming video. In either respect, it is remarkable for its prescience. But, then, such presciences is what makes Ruskin Ruskin.

One note as you start to read. The passage appears to be, for the most part, about woodcuts. But that is an illusion for, as we've learned as these posts have gone on their not always merry way, Ruskin, like other great artists, often worked in allegory, letting his readers have the pleasure of going to that deeper level where not only the more profound meaning lives, but where the greater fun is.

[As we consider the kind of world in which we would like to live and work, it should be noted that, when it comes to the creation of art,] the first great secret is to produce work that will last. Now, the conditions of work lasting are twofold. It must not only be in materials that will last but it must be itself of a quality that will last. It must be good enough to bear the test of time. If it is not good, we shall tire of it quickly and throw it aside; we shall have no pleasure in the accumulation of it. 

So that the first question [to ask of someone concerned about] any work is: “Will it lose its flavor by keeping? It may be very amusing now and look much like a work of genius, but what will be its value a hundred years hence?” You cannot always ascertain this…[but] of one thing you may be sure: that art which is produced hastily will also perish hastily; and that what is cheapest to you now is likely to be dearest in the end. 

I am sorry to say the great tendency of this age is to expend its genius in perishable art of this kind, as if it were a triumph to burn its thoughts away in bonfires. There is a vast quantity of intellect and of labor consumed annually in our cheap illustrated publications. You triumph in them, and…think it so grand a thing to get so many woodcuts for a penny. Why woodcuts, penny and all, are as much lost to you as if you had invested your money in gossamer. More lost, for the gossamer could tickle your face and glitter in your eyes; it could not catch your feet and trip you up. But bad art can--and does: for you can’t like good woodcuts as long as you look at the bad ones! 

If we were, at this moment, to come across a Titian woodcut, or a Dürer woodcut, we should not like it, those of us at least who are accustomed to the cheap work of the present day. We don’t like, and can’t like, that for long! But when we are tired of one bad cheap thing, we throw it aside and buy another bad cheap thing, and so keep looking at bad things all our lives! 

Now, the very men who do all that quick, bad work for us are capable of doing perfect work. Only: perfect work can’t be hurried, and therefore it can’t be cheap beyond a certain point. But suppose you pay twelve times as much as you do now, and you have one woodcut for a shilling instead of twelve pence—and the one woodcut for a shilling is as good as art can be, so that you will never tire of looking at it. And is struck on good paper with good ink, so that you will never wear it out by handling it, while you are sick of your penny papers by the end of the week, and have torn them mostly in half too. Isn’t your shilling’s worth the best bargain?

Not infrequently during the days when I taught regularly, I would ask my students to read this passage, and ask them after if they had seen that it was about television. Most would look back at me, perplexed. But a few would get it right away. These fews [sic], as you encounter them over the years, are the great joy of teaching. We'd then have a general discussion where we tried to determine the value of the video world in which they increasingly live. Before the class ended, I would ask them if they'd be willing to apply, the next time they were tempted to indulge, what I consider to be the great test of anything that's on television (or streaming!): to ask the question, after the indulgence, whether, as a result of that indulgence, they were better human beings because of the experience, where I defined better as smarter, kinder, warmer of heart, more appreciative of the world in which they live, or wiser. Most looked at me, perplexed. But not those few!

---

Source: James L. Spates, "Will It Last? Ruskin's Criticism of Modern Ephemerality," http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/spates4.html.

John Ruskin on Taste and Morality

The following is a wonderful application of the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of virtue to culture and taste: a truly virtuous man takes delight in doing the good. A sign of his lingering viciousness is if he still finds it distasteful to do the good. And St. Thomas further suggests that art disposes us either to good or evil by how it affects us.

---

Now, pardon me for telling you frankly, you cannot have good architecture merely by asking people’s advice on occasion. All good architecture is the expression of national life and character; and it is produced by a prevalent and eager national taste, or desire for beauty. And I want you to think a little of the deep significance of this word ‘taste;’ for no statement of mine has been more earnestly or oftener controverted than that good taste is essentially a moral quality. ‘No,’ say many of my antagonists, ‘taste is one thing, morality is another. Tell us what is pretty; we shall be glad to know that; but preach no sermons to us.’

Permit me, therefore, to fortify this old dogma of mine somewhat. Taste is not only a part and an index of morality — it is the only morality. The first, and last, and closest trial question to any living creature is, ‘What do you like?’ Tell me what you like, and I’ll tell you what you are. Go out into the street, and ask the first man or woman you meet, what their ‘taste’ is, and if they answer candidly, you know them, body and soul. ‘You, my friend in the rags, with the unsteady gait, what do you like?’ ‘A pipe and a quartern of gin.’ I know you. ‘You, good woman, with the quick step and tidy bonnet, what do you like?’ ‘A swept hearth and a clean tea-table, and my husband opposite me, and a baby at my breast.’ Good, I know you also. ‘You, little girl with the golden hair and the soft eyes, what do you like?’ ‘My canary, and a run among the wood hyacinths.’ ‘You, little boy with the dirty hands and the low forehead, what do you like?’ ‘A shy at the sparrows, and a game at pitch-farthing.’ Good; we know them all now. What more need we ask?

‘Nay,’ perhaps you answer: ‘we need rather to ask what these people and children do, than what they like. If they do right, it is no matter that they like what is wrong; and if they do wrong, it is no matter that they like what is right. Doing is the great thing; and it does not matter that the man likes drinking, so that he does not drink; nor that the little girl likes to be kind to her canary, if she will not learn her lessons; nor that the little boy likes throwing stones at the sparrows, if he goes to the Sunday school.’ Indeed, for a short time, and in a provisional sense, this is true. For if, resolutely, people do what is right, in time they come to like doing it. But they only are in a right moral state when they have come to like doing it; and as long as they don’t like it, they are still in a vicious state. The man is not in health of body who is always thirsting for the bottle in the cupboard, though he bravely bears his thirst; but the man who heartily enjoys water in the morning and wine in the evening, each in its proper quantity and time. And the entire object of true education is to make people not merely do the right things, but enjoy the right things — not merely industrious, but to love industry — not merely learned, but to love knowledge — not merely pure, but to love purity — not merely just, but to hunger and thirst after justice.

But you may answer or think, ‘Is the liking for outside ornaments, — for pictures, or statues, or furniture, or architecture, — a moral quality?’ Yes, most surely, if a rightly set liking. Taste for any pictures or statues is not a moral quality, but taste for good ones is. Only here again we have to define the word ‘good.’ I don’t mean by ‘good,’ clever — or learned — or difficult in the doing. Take a picture by Teniers, of sots quarrelling over their dice: it is an entirely clever picture; so clever that nothing in its kind has ever been done equal to it; but it is also an entirely base and evil picture. It is an expression of delight in the prolonged contemplation of a vile thing, and delight in that is an ‘unmannered,’ or ‘immoral’ quality. It is ‘bad taste’ in the profoundest sense — it is the taste of the devils. On the other hand, a picture of Titian’s, or a Greek statue, or a Greek coin, or a Turner landscape, expresses delight in the perpetual contemplation of a good and perfect thing. That is an entirely moral quality — it is the taste of the angels. And all delight in art, and all love of it, resolve themselves into simple love of that which deserves love. That deserving is the quality which we call ‘loveliness’ — (we ought to have an opposite word, hateliness, to be said of the things which deserve to be hated); and it is not an indifferent nor optional thing whether we love this or that; but it is just the vital function of all our being. What we like determines what we are, and is the sign of what we are; and to teach taste is inevitably to form character. As I was thinking over this, in walking up Fleet Street the other day, my eye caught the title of a book standing open in a bookseller’s window. It was — ‘On the necessity of the diffusion of taste among all classes.’ ‘Ah,’ I thought to myself, ‘my classifying friend, when you have diffused your taste, where will your classes be? The man who likes what you like, belongs to the same class with you, I think. Inevitably so. You may put him to other work if you choose; but, by the condition you have brought him into, he will dislike the other work as much as you would yourself. You get hold of a scavenger, or a costermonger, who enjoyed the Newgate Calendar for literature, and “Pop goes the Weasel” for music. You think you can make him like Dante and Beethoven? I wish you joy of your lessons; but if you do, you have made a gentleman of him:— he won’t like to go back to his costermongering.’

And so completely and unexceptionally is this so, that, if I had time to-night, I could show you that a nation cannot be affected by any vice, or weakness, without expressing it, legibly, and for ever, either in bad art, or by want of art; and that there is no national virtue, small or great, which is not manifestly expressed in all the art which circumstances enable the people possessing that virtue to produce.

---

Source: John Ruskin, "Traffic," in The Crown of Wild Olive. Found at https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/ruskin/john/crown/lecture2.html

---

James Spates's comment on the above passage when he was a professor:

On the not too distant past, I often read the Ruskin passage below to my students; after which, I passed out copies of it. I told them they could easily test out what he had in mind. They could go back to their dorm rooms and take a careful look at the posters, art, or pictures they had put on their walls and make a list of them. That done, they could make a second list: Of the music--titles of albums, songs, names of artists--they listened to regularly. Then they could make a third list: Of all the things they had posted on Facebook and Twitter during the past week. After that--always trying to get them to do a little sociology!--I suggested they might go and do the same sort of gazing at their friends' dorm room walls, asking those familiars to create similar lists of their own music favorites and social media "interactions," an request which, surely, these friends, being such, would be more than happy to oblige. (As it turned out, some of these folks weren't so eager to be friendly regarding such requests.) The last step was obvious: After thinking carefully about what was on their own walls and in their lists and comparing these with whatever friends' versions they had collected, they'd have a fairly accurate sense of what their, and these others', tastes were. I can honestly say that not a few of my young reporters reported being fairly appalled at what their taste appeared to be, appalled by what they found, or did not find, on the lists! (It might be useful to generate such lists ourselves.)

Source: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/spates5.html

Accepting the Pre-1955 Holy Week Requires Accepting the Novus Ordo

[Emphases mine.]

This came to mind last week when people were posting pictures of the pre-1955 Holy Week now celebrated in “approved” Latin Mass venues. For me, this seems like overcompensation. I do think the unreformed pre-Bugnini Holy Week is preferable, even the supposedly nonsensical celebration of the Paschal Vigil the morning of Holy Saturday. I still think that the concession to celebrate the unreformed Holy Week is bought at the price of acknowledging the legitimacy of the Vatican II liturgy. I knew this would happen when Summorum Pontificum was published in 2007. The Catholic Church is adopting the “Anglo-Catholic / High Church / Low Church” model of the early 20th century Anglican Communion. Instead of liturgy being an expression of communion, it is a personal preference that is rubber stamped and approved by the institution. The only thing holding it all together is bureaucracy. You can thus have a Mass that is essentially a reconstruction from the 11th century, with a rood screen and music by Hildegard von Bignen, and it’s okay as long as you also deem the bland liturgy down the street equally valid. Maybe others could live with that, but part of me cannot.

---

Source: Arturo Vasquez, "Notes on Liturgical Maximalism," Reditus blog, April 30, 2019, https://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/notes-on-liturgical-maximalism/.

Warning of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) at Notre Dame de Paris (1937)

Be vigilant! Yes, there are many who, like the apostles in Gethsemane the moment their Master was about to be arrested, seem to fall asleep in their blind unconsciousness, convinced that the threat hanging upon the world does not affect them, that they bear no responsibility and run no risk in the crisis in which the universe struggles in anguish. … How many remain deaf and inert to Christ’s warning to his own Apostles: Vigilate et orate ut non intretis in tentationem! … Be vigilant!

---

Source: Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, "ISIS and a Jesuit Priest Rejoice as Notre Dame Burns," The American TFP, April 23, 2019, https://www.tfp.org/isis-and-a-jesuit-priest-rejoice-as-notre-dame-burns/.

Leo XIII on When Christendom Existed

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies.

---

Source: Leo XII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885, no. 21, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html.

Aleister Crowley on the Signs of the Age of Horus

Horus rules the present period of 2,000 years, beginning in 1904. Everywhere his government is taking root. Observe for yourselves the decay of the sense of sin, the growth of innocence and irresponsibility, the strange modifications of the reproductive instinct with a tendency to become bi-sexual or epicene, the childlike confidence in progress combined with nightmare fear of catastrophe, against which we are yet half unwilling to take precautions.

Consider the outcrop of dictatorships, only possible when moral growth is in its earliest stages, and the prevalence of infantile cults like Communism, Fascism, Pacifism, Health Crazes, Occultism in nearly all its forms, religions sentimentalized to the point of practical extinction.

Consider the popularity of the cinema, the wireless, the football pools and guessing competitions, all devices for soothing fractious infants, no seed of purpose in them.

Consider sport, the babyish enthusiasms and rages which it excites, whole nations disturbed by disputes between boys.

Consider war, the atrocities which occur daily and leave us unmoved and hardly worried.

We are children.

---

Source: Aleister Crowley, The Book of Law and the Book of Lies (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2017), 7.

The Book of Law, of which the above is an excerpt, was originally published in 1938.

Fr. Ripperger RIPS a Fellow Exorcist Priest – A Response

A response to Okie Traditionalist's post "Fr. Ripperger RIPS a Fellow Exorcist Priest": https://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/fr-ripperger-rips-fellow-exorcist-priest.html

Update: It seems Okie Traditionalist has blocked me from accessing his blog and also not posted my response, despite claims that the comment box would be open for thoughts about this issue. Comments were welcome except the unwelcome ones such as the one below. Seems only a further proof of what I was saying: too sensitive. This isn't an ad hominem. I address each of his points with a reasoned argument. It's a response given in good will and intended for constructive consideration.

---

I can't tell if this is a joke or serious, but will respond as if it is serious.

My opinion is you seem to be way too sensitive to Fr. R's comments. It was a joke, an obvious joke. Everyone in the recording took it as a joke—they laughed. Should they apologize too? Did it use hyperbole to make its point? Yes, but jokes often do that. Honestly, this type of reaction to a joke is what you see with stereotypical SJWs and snowflake liberal millennials. Was it a joke made in poor taste? Was it even particularly funny? Ok fine. But honestly, shameful behavior? If this is shameful behavior, then what would you call how Catholic prelates have dealt with the sex abuse scandals, going all the way to Pope Francis himself? What would you even call the behavior of actual celebrity priests like Fr. James Martin, SJ? Shouldn't we reserve words like "shameful" for behavior that is...well, actually shameful?

There's nothing unusual about Fr. R's tone here; he's speaking with the same cadence he always brings to his talks. Maybe that tone annoys you, but to each his own in that case.

Your first paragraph doesn't make much sense. You admit Harry Potter has witches, witchcraft, etc., and then say so does a lot of other children's books, thus repeating one of the objections Fr. R has already responded to—yet as if he hadn't responded to it.

There is a world of difference in the atmosphere that surrounds the use of magic between classical children's fables and literature and modern, post-New Age portrayals of magic. Even secular critics have pointed this out. It's not the result of navel-gazing, overly sheltered, tin foil hat wearing, conspiracy theorist types. Aside from Harry Potter, another clear example of this difference would be iterations of Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Now with the Netflix version, the dangerous use of magic is part and parcel of empowering women in the age of #MeToo. It is also tied explicitly to satanic practices. It's blatant propaganda and garbage with serious spiritual effects.

But where your paragraph is contradictory is that you end it by saying: "While talking about such a serious subject?" But you just dismissed the issue as non serious because of the presence of witchcraft in lots of literature. This is an obvious strawman. The issue isn't whether a witch is present; it is how the magic is portrayed that is problematic.

And this leads to the problem with your analogy: it's too weak. If witchcraft is indeed a serious issue as you somewhat suggest in your first paragraph, then it would be more correct to compare it to medical professionals discussing a very serious health issue, such as a life-threatening cancer. And if the vast majority of the medical profession, having studied the issue, concludes that the issue is serious and life-threatening in the vast majority of cases and give us a series of steps to prevent said issue and maintain good health, we the laity would be the worse off for ignoring them. If one such professional disagreed with the established majority, we would have to see if there is legitimately good reason to do so.

If magic is not a serious issue, then this is like doctors discussing the health impact of eating too many potato chips. In such a case, obviously for one doctor to accuse another doctor of "not being worth his weight in salt" would be a bit extreme and certainly unprofessional. Would that be a "rip"? Well, it depends on context, such as when and where and how the statement was made. Between two friends and colleagues, it might be a lighthearted jab, etc.

Is this really a way to disagree with a fellow exorcist? If the issue is serious, that is, may even affect salvation of souls, then YES. In fact, Fr. R could have been a lot more serious and heavy about it. Charity would demand it. In the context of the audio, and from how the audience responded, it's clear that Fr. R was not "ripping" (to make a bad pun off his name), but merely "ribbing." It was clearly a joke that charitably covered over the fact that, if this is a potential salvation issue practically for people, then Fr. R could have skipped the joke and stated the plain truth, as a serious and ethical medical professional would tell the plain truth about the seriousness of a life-threatening health issue.

As Aquinas says: The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain ones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude (Summa Th. 3.42.2).

If Fr. R uses his "celebrity" status to promote the right view of the issue, we should praise his proper use of his reputation for promoting the truth and well-being of souls. I find it strange that you would call him a celebrity, importing very problematic secular notions into his ministry as a traditional priest. By any conscientious conservative analysis, celebrity culture and status are overwhelmingly negative and problematic. Even from a Marxist point of view, there is much to be criticized. Hence why would you attach that label to Fr. R? Or to any good priest for that matter? Rhetorically you seem to be implying an ad hominem here, that perhaps his celebrity status has gotten to his head, or that good theologians shouldn't be well known? I don't know what you're going for by calling him a celebrity, but I can't see where the charity is in that.

Fr. R says almost every exorcist he knows agrees that Harry Potter is dangerous and should be avoided. If this is a serious issue, if it is dangerous, and if the exorcists are in agreement, it seems incumbent on Fr. R to be as clear as possible on this issue. He is doing the public good by making this clear, especially for laity who need the authority and expertise of such priests. He would in fact be acting in an objectively shameful way if he HID the truth because he was embarrassed to point out that there are naysayers, even among exorcists, about the spiritual harm of magic.

Is this "shameful" behavior? Even if it's granted that Harry Potter is not a serious source of harm, at most Fr. R is clearly making a passing joke that lasts less than five seconds. And what is the name of the priest mocked? I don't know from the audio you shared, which comes from several years ago. Who is seriously going to take the time to look that priest up and them continue a smear campaign? What have been the negative consequences of Fr. R's passing joke on this priest's ministry? Anything at all?  But here you are publicly blowing up a passing joke Fr. R made several years ago? It's easy to find faults in the person in the limelight.

But regardless, what Fr. R said hardly counts as "ripping." To suggest so reminds me of the increasingly frequent clickbait titles one finds in the media and on Youtube of some person "ripping apart" some opponent, and the disappointment that half of these titles are greatly or fully exaggerated. Retract and publicly apologize? To whom? The priest in question? Then why does the apology have to be public? And how do you know that Fr. R hasn't apologized? Do you keep close tabs on his private and public life?

To repeat, if the matter is serious, it's best that we laity know about it since we are the ones raising families and determining what our children will be exposed to. If anything, it would be a shame if that one exorcist who said Harry Potter isn't dangerous led other parents and children into spiritual harm! So I say, good for Fr. R for warning us. This is serious stuff. We should firstly be disposed to listen to someone like Fr. R who has training and experience.

Finally, what seems shameful is to open up speculation in a relatively well-known blog about private matters, i.e. about Fr. R's exorcist society, especially based on one person's overly sensitive reaction to a passing joke made years ago! Isn't this a textbook example of gossip?