Dr. Roger Scruton on Reductionism

The term 'reductionism' is sometimes used in another way and another context, to denote the attempt to rid the human world of the values, myths and superstitions that supposedly encumber it. For instance, a sexologist of the Kinsey variety may describe human sexual behaviour without reference to the thoughts of the participants, and 'reduce' it to a biological function, or a pleasurable sensation in the sexual parts. A Marxist may describe the legal system of a country without reference to the rights and duties that it defines, 'reducing' it instead to the power relations which are enforced by it. Here we encounter a peculiar use of the phrase 'nothing but'. Sex is 'nothing but' the means whereby our genes perpetuate themselves; or is 'nothing but' the pleasure felt in the sexual parts; justice is 'nothing but' the power requirements of the ruling class; gallantry is 'nothing but' the means we have devised for reminding women of their servitude. (See the argument of Thrasymachus in the first book of Plato's Republic.) Reductionism of this kind does not merely involve a host of philosophical confusions. It is essentially anti-philosophical, based in the desire to simplify the world in favour of some foregone conclusion, whose appeal lies in its ability to disenchant and so demean us. The reductionist 'opens our eyes' on to the truth of our condition. But of course, it is not the truth at all, and is believed to be true only because it is shocking. There is, here, a contempt for truth and for human experience that a philosopher should do his best to overcome. Even if a genetic strategy explains human sexual behav-[29] iour, this does not entitle us to conclude that the thing explained is identical with, reducible to, or 'nothing but' the thing that explains it. (After all, a genetic strategy explains our belief in mathematics.) One task for philosophy in our time is to teach people to resist this kind of vulgar reductionism. Unfortunately, modern universities devote a great amount of their energy to endorsing it.

---

Source: Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey (New York, NY: Penguin Books USA, 1996), 28-29.

The "Hoped Liturgy" of Sacrosanctum Concilium

Below I've copied an interesting article published today at the New Liturgical Movement website. It's followed by a user comment.

---

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the promulgated of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963). If I may borrow a rhetorical strategy from Fr. Fessio, here is what your local liturgical scene would look like if we were all following, to the letter, the teaching of Vatican II:

1. The Eucharist would be perceived by all as a “divine sacrifice,” in which, as in the Church herself, action is subordinated to contemplation (cf. SC 2). The Mass would be understood to be, and would be called, a “holy sacrifice” (SC 7, 47, et passim) and the liturgy in general “a sacred action surpassing all others,” whose purpose is “the sanctification of man and the glorification of God” (SC 10; cf. 112). Indeed, the liturgy would seem like a foretaste on earth of the heavenly liturgy of the new Jerusalem (SC 8).
2. The faithful would be well catechized and well disposed to receive the sacraments fruitfully (SC 11), and would understand the nature of the liturgy and how to participate well in it (SC 14), led by the example and instruction of the clergy (SC 16-19): “through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration” (SC 48). In this way, they would be unlike the majority of Catholics today, who, according to many surveys, are unaware that the Mass is the re-presentation of the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary or that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ—and who also don’t sing very much, in spite of decades of cajoling.
3. The liturgy would look much as Catholic liturgy has looked for centuries, since “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23).
4. The ordained ministers would be the only ones performing the actions they are supposed to do, while the laity would be involved in those ways that pertain to them: “in liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy” (SC 28; cf. 118).
5. No one, “even if he be a priest,” would ever “add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (SC 22.3).
6. The use of the venerable Latin language would be a frequent and appreciated occurrence, since “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (SC 36.1). The vernacular, of course, will be utilized, but only for certain parts of the liturgy (SC 36.2), and the clergy would remember the Council’s request that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (SC 54).
7. Liturgies would frequently be celebrated in their most noble form, namely, “solemnly in song” (SC 113). Most of the singing would be closely connected with the actual texts of the Mass (cf. SC 112, 113) and the music would be such as “adds delight to prayer, fosters unity of minds, or confers greater solemnity upon the sacred rites” (SC 112). There would be an important role for trained choirs or scholas, which preserve and foster the treasure of sacred music—a treasure of inestimable value (SC 112, 114-115). The people, for their part, would sing acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs—and everyone would observe reverent silence at the proper times (SC 30). None of the texts of the songs would be in any way objectionable from a doctrinal point of view, since they would be drawn directly from Scripture or the liturgy itself (SC 121).
8. Notably, Gregorian chant, being “specially suited to the Roman liturgy,” would be given “pride of place in liturgical services” (SC 116). Other forms of sacred music would not thereby be excluded—such as, preeminently, polyphony (ibid.). And of course, the pipe organ would be “held in high esteem” as “the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church’s ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things” (120). Other instruments would only be used if they “are suitable or can be made suitable for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful” (ibid.). Hence, such instruments as piano, guitar, and drums, which, in the Western world, originated in profane settings and are still associated with genres like jazz, folk, and rock, would never be used for sacred music. None of this is surprising, since the Council Fathers announced their purpose of “keeping to the norms and precepts of ecclesiastical tradition and discipline, and having regard to the purpose of sacred music, which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful” (SC 112).
9. Communion under both kinds would be rare—e.g., to newly professed religious in the Mass of their religious dedication or to the newly baptized in the Mass that follows their baptism (SC 55). Similarly, concelebration would be relatively rare (SC 57).
10. Sunday Vespers would be a much-loved weekly occurrence, to which large numbers of faithful flock: “Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually” (SC 100).
11. The liturgical year would be of enormous importance in the life of the community, marked by the observance and promotion of each season’s traditions and customs (cf. SC 102-110). Images and relics of the saints would be publicly honored (SC 111). Sacramentals and popular devotions would abound, such as Eucharistic Processions, Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the Brown Scapular, and customs connected with saints’ days, because all of these things deepen the spiritual life of the faithful and help dispose them to participate more fully in the sacred liturgy (cf. SC 12-13).
12. The church architecture and furnishings would be “truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world” (SC 122), “turning men’s minds devoutly toward God” (ibid.). There would be nothing that could disturb or distract the faithful, since the bishop would have “carefully remove[d] from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity, and pretense” (124), since what are rightly sought are “works destined to be used in Catholic worship, to edify the faithful, and to foster their piety and their religious formation” (SC 127).

Is this what you experience, week in, week out?

Is not the monumental failure to implement much of Sacrosanctum Concilium a scandal?

What became of the great promise of the original liturgical movement? It is hard to escape the impression that Sacrosanctum Concilium was largely a dead letter within a year or two of its promulgation. Should we be happy or sad about that? Indifference seems to be far the greatest reaction. And surely that is unworthy of Catholics.

---

Source: Peter Kwasniewski, "Is Your Liturgy Like What Vatican II Intended?," New Liturgical Movement Website, December 4, 2013, accessed December 4, 2013, http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/12/is-your-liturgy-like-what-vatican-ii.html?m=1.

---

The user comment below the article has written:

No one seems to be mentioning 1) Paul VI; 2) John Paul I; 3) John Paul II; 4) Benedict XVI; and 5) Francis. 

If there is no leadership from the top on sacred liturgy, how in the world does one expect the rest of the Church to follow? Zero leadership = total chaos. We should not be surprised by this. 

Admittedly, Benedict at least tried, and had a growing number of disciples, but as an opt-in system. Nothing was mandatory. Thus, hardly anything he did trickled down to the average (key word = average, not the churches of this blog) parish. His actions indeed strengthened the conservative-leaning ones, but pick a church at random this Sunday (not the <1% known to have a sprinkling of Latin, but a truly average parish) and it's the same old nonsense as under JPII. 

Sacrosanctum Concilium was a horrible document to begin with, and its pastoral reforms need to be ignored if Mass is ever to be taken seriously again by the universal Church. At the same time, the last 50 years did not happen as a result of magic. Until someone at or near the top takes control of the situation, we should not expect the average (that random, round church in the suburbs) parish to improve. The conservative ghetto will improve, but not the average parish.

Source: Kenneth J. Wolfe, comment, December 4, 2013 (approx. 7:00 a.m. PST), on "Is Your Liturgy Like What Vatican II Intended?," New Liturgical Movement Website, December 4, 2013, accessed December 4, 2013, http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/12/is-your-liturgy-like-what-vatican-ii.html?m=1.

---

Is leadership the only problem? Certainly not, but it's a big one. The bigger problem, I think, is identified here, and it helps explain the poor leadership: http://www.chastitysf.com/q_celibacy2.htm.

Yes, the bigger problem is the continual one: most of us, myself especially, do little to become Saints, to truly break free of the lies of the world, flesh, and devil.

The Temporal Cycle and Our Sanctification

In her liturgical cycle the Church, to whom God has committed the work of our sanctification, has instituted a method of holiness whose aim is to make our souls like Christ Himself, for as St. Paul tells us, the Father has predestined us "to be made conformable to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29).

Every year, therefore, the Church keeps the different anniversaries connected with our Lord's life to enable us to take part in all His mysteries, to offer them in homage to Almighty God at the Holy Mass, and ever more and more to experience their salutary effects within our souls. Thus it follows, that each liturgical season represents one particular aspect of our Lord's life and has a special efficacy for our sanctification.

If we wish to be convinced of this, we have only to study the Missal and we shall find that the Church, whose petitions are always heard by almighty God, asks for us the graces which correspond to the different feasts which she keeps, varied as these are, and differing also in the effect which they have upon our souls. For this reason it is of the greatest importance that we should recognize the characteristic spirit of each season of the Church's liturgical year, that we may always put ourselves in the necessary dispositions for rendering to almighty God that peculiar glory, which the season brings and to benefit by its special graces.

If we permit ourselves to be guided in this way throughout the whole year by our Holy Mother the Church, we shall accomplish our sanctification most methodically and we shall glorify God, as the psalmist says, "according to the greatness of His power."

This is the great assurance that liturgical prayer can give us as being the official prayer of the Church and, for that reason, a sacramental full of power.

---

Source: Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, "Temporal Cycle," in The Saint Andrew Daily Missal, Great Falls, MT: St. Bonaventure Publications, 1999, 74-75.

Robert Twigger on How Anyone Can Become a Polymath

I travelled with Bedouin in the Western Desert of Egypt. When we got a puncture, they used tape and an old inner tube to suck air from three tyres to inflate a fourth. It was the cook who suggested the idea; maybe he was used to making food designed for a few go further. Far from expressing shame at having no pump, they told me that carrying too many tools is the sign of a weak man; it makes him lazy. The real master has no tools at all, only a limitless capacity to improvise with what is to hand. The more fields of knowledge you cover, the greater your resources for improvisation.

We hear the descriptive words psychopath and sociopath all the time, but here’s a new one: monopath. It means a person with a narrow mind, a one-track brain, a bore, a super-specialist, an expert with no other interests — in other words, the role-model of choice in the Western world. You think I jest? In June, I was invited on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 to say a few words on the river Nile, because I had a new book about it. The producer called me ‘Dr Twigger’ several times. I was flattered, but I also felt a sense of panic. I have never sought or held a PhD. After the third ‘Dr’, I gently put the producer right. And of course, it was fine — he didn’t especially want me to be a doctor. The culture did. My Nile book was necessarily the work of a generalist. But the radio needs credible guests. It needs an expert — otherwise why would anyone listen?

The monopathic model derives some of its credibility from its success in business. [...]

Classically, a polymath was someone who ‘had learnt much’, conquering many different subject areas. As the 15th-century polymath Leon Battista Alberti — an architect, painter, horseman, archer and inventor — wrote: ‘a man can do all things if he will’. During the Renaissance, polymathy became part of the idea of the ‘perfected man’, the manifold master of intellectual, artistic and physical pursuits. [...]

Science, for example, likes to project itself as clean, logical, rational and unemotional. In fact, it’s pretty haphazard, driven by funding and ego, reliant on inspired intuition by its top-flight practitioners. Above all it is polymathic. New ideas frequently come from the cross-fertilisation of two separate fields. [...]

Invention fights specialisation at every turn. Human nature and human progress are polymathic at root. And life itself is various — you need many skills to be able to live it. In traditional cultures, everyone can do a little of everything. Though one man might be the best hunter or archer or trapper, he doesn’t do only that. [...]

However, the pessimistic assumption that learning somehow ‘stops’ when you leave school or university or hit thirty is at odds with the evidence. It appears that a great deal depends on the nucleus basalis, located in the basal forebrain. Among other things, this bit of the brain produces significant amounts of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter that regulates the rate at which new connections are made between brain cells. This in turn dictates how readily we form memories of various kinds, and how strongly we retain them. When the nucleus basalisis ‘switched on’, acetylcholine flows and new connections occur. When it is switched off, we make far fewer new connections.

Between birth and the age of ten or eleven, the nucleus basalisis is permanently ‘switched on’. It contains an abundance of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, and this means new connections are being made all the time. Typically this means that a child will be learning almost all the time — if they see or hear something once they remember it. But as we progress towards the later teenage years the brain becomes more selective. From research into the way stroke victims recover lost skills it has been observed that the nucleus basalis only switches on when one of three conditions occur: a novel situation, a shock, or intense focus, maintained through repetition or continuous application. [...]

‘Use it or lose it’ is the watchword of brain plasticity. [...]

An intriguing study funded by the Dana foundation and summarised by Dr Michael Gazzaniga of the University of California, Santa Barbara, suggests that studying the performing arts — dance, music and acting — actually improves one's ability to learn anything else. Collating several studies, the researchers found that performing arts generated much higher levels of motivation than other subjects. These enhanced levels of motivation made students aware of their own ability to focus and concentrate on improvement. Later, even if they gave up the arts, they could apply their new-found talent for concentration to learning anything new. [...]

There is often something rather obvious about people with narrow interests — they are bores, and bores always lack a sense of humour. They just don’t see that it’s absurd to devote your life to a tiny area of study and have no other outside interests. I suspect that the converse is true: by being more polymathic, you develop a better sense of proportion and balance — which gives you a better sense of humour. And that can’t be a bad thing.

---

Source: Robert Twigger, "Master of Many Trades," Aeon Magazine Website, November 4, 2013, accessed December 3, 2013, http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/anyone-can-learn-to-be-a-polymath/.

J.F. Powers and American Catholic Culture

An interesting blog post explained how all cultures require the presence of literature and art, active writers and artists who draw from the soil of their culture in order to produce its written and visual fruit. The author writes,

One way to describe the present situation of the Church in the United States is to say American Catholicism is in a state of cultural crisis. And if that is true, then restoring a healthy Catholic subculture is necessary not just for the Church's flourishing but for its very survival. 

Literature and art have to be part of it. There's a powerful link, a genuine two-way street, between culture and art. Writers and artists are products of their culture, which they also do much to create and shape and sustain. A religious body lacking writers and artists is impoverished at its roots and at risk of stagnation and atrophy.

Source: Russell Shaw, "Literature and Art: Two Great Pillars of Any Great Catholic Culture," Aleteia Website, December 2, 2013, accessed December 3, 2013, http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/literature-and-art-two-great-pillars-of-any-great-catholic-culture-20824002.

Shaw goes on to highlight the late American Catholic author J.F. Powers as such an example of a Catholic writer during the height of American Catholicism in the early 20th century. Now, there is another piece that highlights Powers's work found at First Things. There the author notes,

When J.F. Powers died in 1999, there wasn't left a single book in print by the man who was declared by the likes of Evelyn Waugh, Frank O'Connor, Allen Tate, and Robert Lowell to be the most delicate Catholic writer they knew.

Source: Joseph Bottum, "Bottum: The Greatest Catholic Writer of the 20th Century," First Things Website, September 7, 2006, accessed December 3, 2013, http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/09/bottum-the-greatest-catholic-w. 

Bottum attributes the disappearance of Powers's work in the Catholic and larger reading public to the cultural chaos that ensued after the '60s and especially Vatican II. He concludes,

And the catastrophic collapse of religious vocations through the 1970s—together with the defections from the religious life and the failure of nerve with which the American clergy abandoned the clerical authority that had held together the parish system—stripped Powers of a major part of his specialist's vocation. [...] 

But Powers had narrowed his vision down to a point where it could not survive the passing of its moment.

A comment at the bottom of the blog post challenges Bottum's analysis as analogous to the premature dismissal of the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer shortly after his death but who after the passage of time has come to be regarded as a master.

One thing that I wonder about when I reflect on the American Catholic culture is how it could have dismantled so easily if it was as strong as some claim it to have been. Perhaps there was a misjudgment about its vitality. The second thing that I wonder is in what ways is a Catholic culture different from "natural cultures," that is, how does a culture that finds its roots in supernatural faith differ from cultures that do not? If literature and art are pillars of culture in general, where do those elements stand in Catholic culture? 

Are literature and art pillars of culture? If I recall correctly, I remember the late Sir Kenneth Clark in his Civilisation series observing that one difference between the Vikings of the north and the Roman and eventually Celtic and other cultures of European civilization is that the Vikings never developed into a civilization per se. He argued that the difference consisted in that the Vikings never settled down or never even had a sense of permanent settlement but were always pushing forward to the next conquest. There was no, as Fr. Michael Maher, S.J. would put it, core and periphery. With the presence of a core and periphery as in Roman civilization came leisure, from which the "useless" things (this is how Fr. James Schall, S.J. calls it with tongue in cheek) of civilization and higher culture might develop. After all, there is no point to fiction and science if your main priority is to find your next meal for survival. So while the Vikings certainly had art, their art was markedly different than the art of monasticism or the French Gothic cathedrals. In the end, perhaps there needs to be a distinction among the kinds of art or literature produced, distinctions based on their function at large and context. 

The only thing that I've noticed about the great works of art in Catholic culture is that it is consistently born out of the Faith itself and individuals' faith. It is faith that motivated and directed all of the monumental accomplishments. Would that mean, then, that if faith is lacking, Catholic culture is lacking? And if the social forces leading up to and following Vatican II shattered American Catholic culture, I have to wonder—what happened to the faith such that it could so forcefully vanish?

I can only ask questions because I'm not qualified to talk about what culture is or isn't or especially what Catholic culture is or isn't, so I have to end here.

Gerard Nadal on Gay Marriage and the Church's Failure to Evangelize

Fox News reports that Cardinal Dolan, in an interview with David Gregory of Meet the Press, claims that the Church was “outmarketed” on the issue of gay marriage.

Asked why the church is losing the argument on gay marriage, Dolan responded, “Well, I think maybe we’ve been outmarketed sometimes. We’ve been caricatured as being anti-gay.” 

He said the church supports “traditional marriage and is not “anti-anybody,” adding, “When you have forces like Hollywood, when you have forces like politicians, when you have forces like some opinion-molders that are behind it, it’s a tough battle.”

Without knowing it, Cardinal Dolan has identified the core of the problem. Our leadership, with few exceptions, have adopted the superficiality of branding and marketing as a cheap substitute for the grittiness and tenacity of evangelization. Worse still, while we have abandoned evangelization and hewing to the hard line of the Gospel, it is the other side who have been engaged in the grit and tenacity of evangelization.

That’s right. The other side has been engaged in three decades of evangelization, while the majority of our priests and bishops have endeavored to be “non confrontational” and “nonjudgemental”.

The results speak for themselves. [...]

[It] begs the question as to how such a coup could have happened.

In truth, more than 85% of married Catholics ignore the Magisterium when it comes to the right use of sex in marriage and the use of contraception.

58% of Catholics approve of gay marriage.

To say that those numbers are the result of marketing is to suggest that the Gospel has roots shallower than grass. And on that matter, Pope Francis has spoken loud and clear.

Many priests reacted with scorn to the challenge by Francis that they and their bishops get out of the rectory and go out among the people in a bold new way. Francis sees clearly that the Church is dwindling in influence because the people don’t know who they are. They have lost sight of their great dignity while so very many of our clergy refuse to engage the culture for fear of alienating people or seeming judgmental. That timidity is often defended as the cardinal virtue of Prudence.

It isn’t.

It’s cowardice, pure and simple. [...]

In fact, when gay marriage passed in New York State, Cardinal Dolan was quoted in the NY Daily News as saying:

“Our Senate leaders, we highly appreciated them being with us all along,” he explained. “When they kind of assured us it didn’t have much of a chance — not that we let up, but we probably would have been much more vigorous and even more physically present if we knew there was a chance.”

Perhaps. But activism built on an unevangelized church is like building a house on a foundation of sand. The truth is that a solidly evangelized Church would be much more resistant to the evangelists from the culture of death. As Chesterton observed, the man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. And that’s what has happened. A people who have been abandoned by their shepherds are being torn apart by the wolves. Now a chief shepherd chalks that up to “marketing.” [...]

The truth is that there are a fair number of gay clergy. There are an even greater number who do not stand with the Church on abortion, contraception, or the right use of sex in marriage. So, these issues never get preached or taught, or when they do, it is the Magisterium that gets pilloried.

It wasn’t a marketing issue that has led to the disintegration of Western Civilization.

In the wake of Vatican II our seminaries descended into chaos at every level, with some earning the moniker of “pink palace,” so notorious were they for their homosexual subcultures. Many of those seminarians were ordained. When Pope Benedict XVI was elected to the Papacy he undertook an Apostolic Visitation of our seminaries to address this problem, among others.

Today we see the fruits of that chaos from the 60′s and 70′s, even the 80′s. We see the fruits of nonevangelization on our part and the fruits of the other side’s evangelization.

They have a positive view of themselves, of their lifestyle, and of their contribution to society. They preach that vision in season and out of season with a singularity of focus that resembles the singularity and tenacity of St. Paul the Apostle. They push and push and push. Then they push some more. They go into the schools, and businesses, and the public square. They preach in churches and synagogues, and in civic associations. They boldly challenge any who stand in their way, and took singular aim at Cardinal O’Connor, even going so far as desecrating the Eucharist in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

Perhaps we could learn a lesson in evangelization from the other side, clergy and laity alike.

We weren’t outmarketed.

We were outevangelized.

That’s our great failure and our great shame.

---

Source: Gerard M. Nadal, "Responding to Cardinal Dolan: We Were Not 'Outmarketed' on Gay Marriage, We Were 'Outevangelized'," Coming Home Blog, December 1, 2013, accessed December 3, 2013, http://gerardnadal.com/2013/12/01/responding-to-cardinal-dolan-we-were-not-outmarketed-on-gay-marriage-we-were-outevangelized/.

Bl. Newman on the Incomparable Evil of Sin

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.

Source: John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a History of His Religious Opinions, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909, 272-273.