A Counterblaste

For once we saw through a glass, darkly; but now, not at all.

✟

These insights will, perhaps, be least surprising to the bespectacled among us, for they alone have cultivated the habit of seeing the world through non-reflective glass. That is, they see through their glasses, rather than the mere reflections of their pupils; which, like most of the reflections of our pupils nowadays, would be entirely pointless.

But things were not always so. When glass was at its least reflective, it was, paradoxically, at its most reflective. I refer, of course, to stained glass windows. They do not show us our own reflections, as modern glass does. Rather, through them, we see the lives of the saints and the deeds of heroes. Through them, we see beyond ourselves to reality itself. This, perhaps, is what Wilde meant by “nature imitates art”; or, more precisely, we see in these windows the art than our nature is meant to imitate.

In this sense, I have always fancied that art is higher than nature, for in the art of the stained glass window, we see nature perfected; that is, we see the Perfect Man, and men more perfect than we. “Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere,” (Chesterton). Or, “art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame,” (Chesterton). It is in the strict terseness of stained Gothic windows that their true beauty consists, just as in duty our true freedom subsists.

And it is in this sense that the eyes are said to be the windows of the soul, for windows must be seen through in order to be of any value. Incidentally, this is the meaning of that wonderful French phrase, “la vie en rose,” for to focus upon the grandeur depicted in these stained glass windows is to see what is really rosy and good in the world, to the exclusion of the bad. Thus, these windows are translucent where our modern mirrors are opaque: they show only what is good and block what is not. This is the exact opposite of modern glass, which shows us only ourselves — in short, all that is really wrong with the world.

Modern politics consist in the pure assertion of one’s own beliefs and preferences, rather than truly pursuing the highest human goods, such as truth, justice, and virtue, for which the politics of old always sought. That is, modern politics consists chiefly in puffed-up moralizing, which in fact only shows us our immorality. This, since it shows us only ourselves, and we are nothing if not immoral.

Since, according to Davila, the definition of modern is that which seeks to liberate us from the human condition, there is nothing more modern than mirrors, for mirrors show us only ourselves, and we have sought to liberate ourselves from the human condition. This, in short, is the problem of modern politics. It is a game of smoke and mirrors that purports to show us the higher plane of human existence, or utopia; this plane, however, is best visible in the pane of a stained glass window.

“It is incomprehensible to me that any thinker can calmly call himself a modernist. He might as well call himself a Thursdayite.”

– G. K. Chesterton, The Case for the Ephemeral, 1908

“[The Catholic Church] is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.”

– G. K. Chesterton, Why I Am a Catholic, 1926

✟

Modernism shall fail precisely because it is modern. Either it shall endlessly adapt to the current fancy and fad, which would please the Evolutionists on account of its constant change, or it shall remain as it is, unchanged by all subsequent evolutions, which would please the archaeologists, who love to search for fossils beneath the sands of time.

To define itself by the spirit of any age is to become as fluid as water. To define itself by the spirit of this age is to become as hard as ice. Either way, it shall be destroyed by the fire of the Faith or the flames of Hell.

The mass of men do not live by principles but by punctuation; that is, by periods. They are beholden more to the times in which they live than the philosophies that have made them, or the philosophers that have dreamt them. For us, they are nightmares.

Now, all that is modern in the modern political system is based solely on meanness, lies, and deceptions; the chief lie being the authority of the opinions of the masses, or, as it is known by its supporters, democracy. There is not here enough room to discuss this modern monstrosity; suffice it here, in good Catholic fashion, to examine our political consciences, or should I say, consciousness.

Now, to be of an opinion quite obviously does not mean that the opinion is of you. You belong to it, not it to you. Our opinions make us who we are — and we do not make our opinions. They are given us by philosophers and the propaganda of the schools. Thus Charles Péguy has rightly said that “all begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” For our politics do not create our thoughts; rather, our thoughts create our politics, even as our minds animate our bodies.

Thus, that which is called the spirit of the age is nothing other than the sum of our thoughts, which often result in a mere atmosphere of thought. Indeed, once a thought proliferates and forms part of this zeitgeist, it ceases to be a specific and rational thought, and begins to be a mere general feeling.

When anything goes from being accepted without reason to being defended, however vigorously, with reason, then it is only one step away from being decried without reason. That is, when a thing is now being rationally asserted, it is one step away from being irrationally rejected.

Thus, the spirit of the age is our mind, and politics our body. The zeitgeist, or poltergeist, since in our times always from the pit of hell, is to our politics what our minds are to our bodies. The former animates, the latter reacts. Thus the human body is mirrored – “ah, bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!” Politics are indeed a suitable helper — and like Eve, are the cause our fall and cursed forevermore.

Indeed, the beloved democracy of the modern world is the only thing they really love. No longer do we think as united Christendom, or as Western civilization, but as a loose collection of democracies. It is thus that they say, for instance, that an Islamist has attacked our democracy. This is, of course, only partly true. In reality, it would be truer to say that he has attacked us because of our democracy, and I mean this in two ways. First, it is our democracy that has led to the policy of ‘cultural enrichment’ (though, of course, this policy has been anything but democratic). Second, the Islamist hates democracy because it is not his Caliphate. Of course, he has also attacked what used to be for us, and perhaps still symbolizes to him, Christendom, but the media does not permit us to speak of this. He has thus attacked us, as people, and not our abstract (and absurd) mechanism of government.

In actual fact, the real attacks on democracy itself come from the Left, its formerly liberal champions. Thus, they deny that the Islamist really meant it when he yelled ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Of course, they know better; he has been disenfranchised, and marginalized, victimized by ‘phobia,’ ‘othered,’ &c.

Now, this is an exceedingly dangerous game for any proponent of our so-called democracy to play. If we cannot trust a man that he means it when he yells Allahu Akbar, why should we believe that he supports a man just because he voted for him? If we cannot publicly debate Islam lest we radicalize its adherents, how can we debate politics without destabilizing our democracy?

Being a monarchist, this poses no problem for me. I do not doubt a man’s sincerity, only his competency. The democrats, however, having blindly affirmed the equal competency of man, are now questioning his sincerity. And this is, of course, because they are not democrats but oligarchs. Hence they call it populism when the people decide against the elites. Hence the election is called “hacked” because it was the defeat of the political hacks.

Thus the progressives continue to regress, and the modern world dooms itself to die. And this, my friends, is no mere political opinion. Bless us, Father, for we have sinned.

“The paradox of … chivalry [is] that the weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, that the more indefensible a thing is the more it should appeal to us for a certain kind of defence.”

– G. K. Chesterton, Heretics

✟

It was Pope Leo XIII who famously wrote, “the world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God.” Today we are in need of a revised dictum: “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of woman.’ Let it hear something of the duties of man.” That is to say, let it hear something of the chivalry of our fathers who slew the dragon and kissed the frog, so they could kiss the damsel in the dragon’s castle.

The world cannot stand another wave of feminism. For, as with all waves, it erodes what stands in its way, castles of sand and stone alike. It leaves nothing behind except what does not resist, smoothing all and levelling aught. Of course, as with all waves, feminism is unstable, shallow, on the fringes, and collapsing on itself. Like waves, it is constantly encroaching upon the solid ground. And, as with the tide, it is rising to ever more absurd heights. Yet, surely it has reached the zenith, for every wave recedes, and every tide must fall.

I am told it is the moon, a feminine symbol, that influences these tides. And yet the moon itself teaches the secret of the feminine glory: it reflects the glory of the sun. Only together do the sun and moon enlighten the world, in a cosmic dance of love. The sun, imperious, strong, majestic and bright in itself. The moon, coy, soft, full of grace, and through a veil. The perfect complement. Herein lies the secret of chivalry, the only source of harmony between the two sexes. For man and woman are entirely different, and yet become one flesh, completing each other. Like perpendicular lines, they must needs meet. That is, they are in the image of the Cross.

The simple truth is, feminists hate women, whereas most men love them. Feminism wants nothing to do with femininity; it is rather a crude man-worship combined with man-hate. It is as though they were full of envy while held in awe. For the whole premise of feminism is that men and women are the same, in that they can both be men. It argues that women should enter the workforce like men, fight on the front lines like men, rule nations like men. It has never occurred to them to esteem femininity for all the things that men cannot do. Feminists care nothing for the ability to have children, run a home, and exert that unique feminine charm that so enraptures the hearts of men. Instead, it seeks to create woman in the image of man, ignoring her special privileges and destroying her place in the family.

Of course, feminism has nothing to do with respect for women. As has been shown, it is merely fanatical about remaking women in the image of men. But what’s more, feminism is at its root an arm of Marxism, seeking to effect a classless society that can only be brought about by the destruction of differences between the sexes. This, in turn, can only be brought about by the economic equality of men and women, which requires that women leave the home and join men in the workplace. Hence the declining birth rates in the West, as women are told to disregard family life and instead pursue education and occupation.

For years, however, feminism has not been at home, even on the Left. This is because feminism at once affirms and denies biological differences between men and women. That is, it says that there is a real and biological basis for the differences between men and women (thus the oppression of the latter by former), while simultaneously asserting that women can emulate men. By so doing, it makes itself a strange bedfellow with the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ community, with as many contradictions as letters in its name. For this community also affirms the reality of different, concrete gender identities (ex. being gay is not a choice but an in-born orientation) while simultaneously asserting that these gender identities are entirely fluid and open to personal choice. To have one’s cake and eat it too seems to be the desire of the modern Left, never mind that the 20th-century Left neither had nor ate much cake (nor bread — just ask the Ukrainians).

I am of the opinion that sunlight is the best disinfectant. To shine the light of reason upon these Leftist contradictions is surely warranted, though I am aware that sunlight does not penetrate too far in deep water. Luckily, the tide seems to be turning, and the feminist wave receding, as, in a 2015 poll by PerryUndem, only 18% of respondents identified as feminists.

Indeed, the constant dance of sun and moon contains the secret of chivalry that only we poor moderns have forgotten. If there is to be an end to this battle of the sexes, the only hope is a complementary view of men and women that celebrates both male privileges and female privileges, and I daresay male duties and female rights, as in the grand old code of chivalry. Men and women should never compete with each other — after all, they complete each other. Anti-cliché lobby be damned.

Now the faith is old and the Devil bold

Exceedingly bold indeed.

And the masses of doubt that are floating about

Would smother a mortal creed.

– Hilaire Belloc, Pelagian Drinking Song

✟

If you are like me (which I hope you aren’t, for it is becoming an increasingly unenviable position), you cannot help but notice the rampant contradictions borne aloft on the Winds of Change these days. And since most people are blown by the wind, this is a catastrophic forecast. “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell from whence it comes or where it goes.” Substitute “man” for “wind” and one has a fairly good idea of the current state of things.

There was a time when the Four Winds blew with the high and holy fire of the Holy Ghost. ” And suddenly a sound like a violent rushing wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. And divided tongues like fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.” For all fire needs air. And yet with all the hot air floating about it seems we have smothered the fire with fuel.

One of the most damaging consequences of this tempest is surely the farcical relationship the Left claims to have with Science. Anyone who follows politics knows that it is the special prerogative of the Left to appeal to Science. It is their dogma to accuse Conservatives, particularly Christians, of a dogmatic fundamentalism that is fundamentally incompatible with Science. Now, apart from their diatribes against Young Earth Creationism (with which I am inclined to agree, but that is an article for another day), I find most of their positions laughable. This is mostly because they do not have any positions. Like the sands in which their heads are buried, they are constantly shifting — and many are fast sinking in this ideological quicksand. The Holy Wind blows, the Ocean swaggers and sways, and the walls of their sandcastles come tumbling down like Jericho at the Final Trumpet. I fear (and hope) we ourselves are approaching our own Final Trumpet (and perhaps our first Trump — yet another article for yet another day, however many we have left).

Now, it seems their heads are in serious danger while so buried in the sand. And I mean this almost literally. For the relationship between the Left and mental illness is here my primary concern. And it seems, on the sandy beaches in which their heads are stuck, their close proximity to the deep sea has had a most curious effect: they have sprouted many sticky hands, like the squid, with as many contradicting opinions as hands. For on the one hand, they move to de-stigmatize mental illness (and indeed deny its existence), and on the other, they label their opponents with entirely fictitious pathologies. And like the tentacles of the squid, it is difficult to pry loose these fallacies for the strength of the suction. Like their one-eyed deep sea approximation, these Leftists would do well to hide in the deep, fearing lest they be exposed to the light.

Think of the rampant gender ideology that is dominating the social sphere today. As the ocean is said to be the final frontier of exploration, transgender rights are said to be the final frontier of civil rights. Personally, I am more inclined to see them as the first frontier of uncivil wrongs, but be that as it may. In saner times, this phenomenon was known as gender dysphoria — a disorder. Yet, today one would be called insane for so much as insinuating this scientific fact. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” Proponents of transgenderism seek to normalize a legitimate mental illness, much to the detriment of those who truly suffer from it. Instead of normalizing delusion, we ought instead to treat it as the mental illness we once understood it (rightly) to be. In fact, those who suffer from gender dysphoria have the highest attempted suicide rates of any single demographic the USA, at roughly 40%, both before and after gender surgery. This is clear scientific evidence of a mental illness. However, the Left in this case does not appeal to science, and for obvious reasons. If one appeals to the Science, which the Left does whenever convenient but rarely otherwise, one finds that there are two possible sets of chromosomes marking the DNA of every cell — XX and XY. There are two sexes. And there are two genders. For gender is not a construct of society. On the contrary, society is a construct of gender. For the fundamental unit of society, the family, relies upon precisely such a natural and indeed supernatural design in order to perpetuate the human race. The family, under attack as it is by feminists, atheists, pro-choicers (that is to say, the Left), is the most precious of human relationships and must be protected, or else we will have nothing left. There was a time when families had nearly as many children as there are letters in LGBTQQIP2SAA. And children, in all their holy innocence, are indeed among the most vulnerable targets of radical Leftism.

There is in our perverse times a move to “de-stigmatize pedophilia.” One need only Google this most evil phrase to see of what I speak. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association has updated its syllabus of psychiatric disorders by distinguishing between pedophiles who act on their desires and those who do not. The latter are no longer classified as mentally ill. The incomprehensible folly of seeking to normalize an immense perversion is frankly disgusting, not to mention unscientific. That one does not act on a desire does not mean that it is not a disordered desire. This is a non sequitur and plainly non-sensical,  not to mention gravely evil.

The Left, while denying and de-stigmazting plain mental illness, turn around and label their conservative opponents with fake pathologies — all of which it seeks to stigmatize. For instance, those who reasonably hold that Islam is a threat to the West are called Islamophobic. Their error is clear. A phobia is an irrational fear and an uncontrolled impulse. A reasoned and entirely legitimate opinion is neither irrational, fearful, nor impulsive. And, in a cruel twist of irony, those who oppose the Islamization of the West (i.e. the implementation of Sharia law) are in fact doing more to protect homosexuals and transgenders than their Leftist allies. Further, those who hold the perfectly reasonable view that gay marriage is a teleological impossibility and that religious people ought to be free to refuse to conduct gay marriages, are labeled as Homophobic. For their error, see the explanation above. Further, those who believe that gender dysphoria is an illness to be treated, not an expression to be celebrated, are called Transphobic. See above. This contradiction, like so many others, lies at the heart of the regressive Left of our time, and it is, ironically, damaging above all to themselves. At a time when we are removing pedophilia from the syllabus of mental illnesses, the Left has added Rational Thought as its replacement. There are two ways of achieving a mentally healthy society. One is to promote mental health. The other is redefine mental illness as mental health. I greatly fear we have chosen the latter.

I believe holding such contradictory opinions is known among psychologists as “cognitive dissonance.” Of course, all of this psychobabble is a result of the thoroughly modern reduction of man to an animal, governed by mere instincts and the subconscious. This school of thought (which, like most schools these days is not a place of any great learning or thought), pioneered by men like Freud, practices psychology without the psyche. A precarious position indeed. To sum up my opinion on the man, I defer to the words of G.K. Chesterton:

The ignorant pronounce it Frood,

To cavil or applaud.

The well-informed pronounce it Froyd,

But I pronounce it Fraud.

This technocracy of the psychologists has made this world unintelligible. But Brain Science (BS) has taught us at least one thing of value: the Left would do well to learn from the side of the brain which shares its name. Their beloved Science tells us that the Left brain is the seat of reasoned analysis, the antithesis of the current Leftist movement, which is full of cons and contradictions. Until we return to an understanding of man that is rooted in his divine origin, and his soul, we will continue to render him unintelligent and unintelligible. It is evident, on every level, that the Leftists are not Right. We are no longer directed by the Wind of the Holy Spirit, but by the Wind which is the Spirit of the Age. One can only hope that it will blow over quickly. I take courage from nature: masses of hot air cannot survive a good storm.

But lo, within that ancient place 

Science had reared her iron crown, 

And the great cloud of steam went up 

That telleth where she takes a town.

Modern Elfland, G.K. Chesterton, 1927

✟

I’m sure we are all familiar with Pavlov’s dog. I’m also sure that we have all missed its meaning. The truth of Pavlov’s dog is the truth of Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” The Propagandist knows this one thing, and with it, tries to re-make the world: the conflation of repetition with reality is at the heart of every lie. Do you not know that God’s Word alone creates the world?

Pavlov’s proverbial dog rears his ugly head in every communist regime and in every common advertisement. He did nothing that had not already been done or that is not done or that will not be done.

BUT LO, WITHIN THAT ANCIENT PLACE

Pavlov, in fooling his dog to expect food at the ring of a bell, has only done what has been done since the dawn of man: mastery of the beasts. This is no feat at all. “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, … into your hand are they delivered.” To fear something is to empower it. And to empower something is half-way to believing it. This truth is as old as the animals themselves. What Pavlov really proved, and what no one has realized he proved, is this: anyone will believe anything if it is echoed in the corridors of power.

Truth is the food, science is the bell, and we are all dogs.

SCIENCE HAD REARED HER IRON CROWN

I fear the atheists do not even believe themselves when they proclaim the death of God. What they really mean is that the scientific revolution has overthrown him and usurped his throne. As that first rebellion of Lucifer made of him a devil and of the world death, so too in a devilish coup d’état has Science been made God, and the world died.

Now I do not say that science is evil. That would be absurd. Nor do I say that Lucifer was evil, but that he chose to be. And there is a frightening parallel. Pride fashioned Satan from that Angel of Light and doomed him to darkness. Pride took science, that light of human reason, and made blind the world to the Light of the World.

AND THE GREAT CLOUD OF STEAM WENT UP 

Today, there is no mere science, but Scientism — the absolute authority of science. The great scientists of the past, even in their greatness, humbled themselves with the idea that they were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” The Scientists of our age think their own thoughts and call them gods. We have been conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to expect from scientists the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We salivate at the very thought. But this nothing other than a lie. This is the case, for example when Sam Harris derives morality from biology in The Moral Landscape. Biology is no mother of morality — they are Cain and Abel, brothers at odds and and only one is immortal. They share one Father who curses the former for sin and preserves the latter through saints. Morality is eternal — God’s faithful servant;  biology is but soil and blood and groans on the earth for want of renewal — the prodigal son.

When science is made the only authority, then Truth is made subservient. If there is no Truth to which science is accountable, when there is no master to watch over it, it moves when no one is looking to the Fruit of the Forbidden Tree — the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. And yet science cannot see its own nakedness. It feels no shame. Modern Scientists have tried to make themselves like God, but have only become devils.

There lies at the heart of Scientism an absurd contradiction: Science cannot live in a vacuum. It cannot justify itself. It relies on assumptions that it cannot prove. For example (per William Lane Craig):

• Logical and mathematical truths

• Metaphysical truths

• Ethical truths

• Aesthetic judgments

• Science itself

As Dr William Lane Craig famously pointed out, to try and prove any of these by science would be to argue in a circle, since science presupposes them all. Science can only be justified in a rationally intelligible world, spoken into existence by a Creator God. It cannot live in a vacuum without suffocating to death. Scientism is but smoke and mirrors — or steam and hot air — obscuring the truth in a thick fog.

THAT TELLETH WHERE SHE TAKES A TOWN

We wonder at the death of truth in our world today. The fog of Scientism has descended upon us and suffocated Truth. And we haven’t noticed because we have been conditioned to expect nothing else. God speaks from the cloud: “Do not give what is holy to dogs.”

It is apparent, I think, that in our time, truth is a concept very much under attack. And I do not mean the sense in which it has always been under attack, among the ancients or the medievals. In the great debates of the past, every man stood for the truth; he was very often wrong, but never for want of sincerity. The pagan was definitely wrong, but not because he couldn’t be right. The heretic was wrong, but he never questioned the existence of orthodoxy. The Christian was right, and he never believed he was wrong.  Truth was debated, but its existence never doubted. There was then, at least, the notion that there was such a thing as truth, a first principle that fostered the great debates of the world. And it was precisely this belief in truth that encouraged men to question it. If somebody can be right, then one must be vigilant lest he be wrong.

The Moderns, however, have abandoned this belief altogether. We have a culture of epistemological dumpster-divers and waste pickers, proclaiming in unison, “one man’s lie is another man’s truth,” attempting to prove themselves right while denying rightness — and righteousness. In our time, people do not care so much about what is true, but about what is expedient or fashionable to believe. A chorus of liberals proclaims the secular shehada, “there is no Truth but that there is no Truth, and we are its messengers.” I am sure that the ancient philosopher, in all his wisdom, if he had the distinct horror of finding himself suddenly in our modern environs through some rift in time, would not hesitate to ask, “if there is no truth, how can that statement be true?” I am sure that the medieval peasant, in all his noble simplicity, would perceive that some sick joke were being played, and that the laughter which would greet him upon this observation was surely with him and not at him. I am equally sure that the laughing liberal would delight in the “progress” to which he feels he has contributed and which he believes has so eclipsed the ancients and medievals that he would feel no surprise at the confusion of the men of old. The contradiction that is inherent to this belief, and which in fact makes it self-refuting, is not only lost on liberals, but is celebrated by them. Progress, indeed.

The truth, of course, is that the joke is on them. The truth, of course, is that, for progress to really be progress, there must be a destination. Otherwise, who can tell whether we are moving steadily forward or inexorably backward (or whether there is any direction at all). And I think it is obvious which direction we are going. The ironic thing is that the idea of a direction to history is thoroughly theological, rooted in the belief that all of history looks forward and backward to the central moment of the world: the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. Heck, our Gregorian calendar is divided between B.C. and A.D. (or B.C.E. and C.E. for those who like to deny the obvious reason for the division of the common era) around the approximate birth of Christ! And yet, secular humanists have transplanted this idea into a secular context, and, not realizing that it could never survive there, have redefined it as a vague notion that whatever comes next must be best, in an effort to create a world that tolerates anything and affirms everything — except, of course, intolerance — because there is no absolute truth. It is a sort of principle of abrogation, akin to that of the Mohammedans when they try to explain Allah’s self-contradictions in the Koran: whatever comes later must be truer. (You would think a god who suffers from such indecision would be more merciful than to prescribe death to those who change their Islamic religion (Bukhari 52:260), but hey, “Allah is the best of deceivers” – Koran 3:54)

I, however, am of the firm belief that “tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction.” (G.K. Chesterton). After all, “the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” (Chesterton, once again). The whole purpose of debating what is true is to reach a conclusion at the end of it, not to remain in a permanent, directionless fog, chanting from the darkness the mantra “each man has the light within himself”. This will quite obviously never do anything for us, except keep us in the dark. The supposed light within man is far too dim to penetrate the fog — only a brilliant light from without could accomplish this. “For a Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

I am further reminded of Chesterton’s great prescience in his epic poem The Ballad of the White Horse:

They shall not come with warships,

They shall not waste with brands,

But books be all their eating,

And ink be on their hands. . .

By terror and the cruel tales

Of curse in bone and kin,

By weird and weakness winning,

Accursed from the beginning,

By detail of the sinning,

And denial of the sin.

The modern invaders of the West do not come bearing arms. They come writing weird and wicked books, advancing ideas as new as they are wrong (incidentally, novelty and error are excellent bedfellows), announcing the death of God and His absolutes (and His absolution), amounting to a denial of the great tradition we have received from our forebears: the pursuit of truth. And yes, truth exists, because God exists.

Sadly, these so-called leading lights such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the ironically-named Christopher Hitchens, who are called the ‘Four Horseman’, and whom I fear fit that bill in a way far less ironic than they know, are really a case of the blind leading the blind. And yet they are the most zealous advocates of the New Creed in today’s apathetic world. But this mustn’t come as a surprise. The heretic is always a zealot. He knows what he believes, because he knows what he doesn’t believe. The faithful man may be tepid in belief, but thank God he doesn’t know what he doesn’t believe; ignorance of heresy is a divine bliss. We shouldn’t admire the former for his sincerity if he is wrong, but we should exhort the latter to zeal since he is right.

One of the most troubling manifestations of this denial of absolute truth is the denial of morality. And I do not mean that atheists merely disagree over what constitutes morality — I mean they fundamentally deny the existence of it, because they deny any objective moral standard. For an atheist, all they are left with is personal preference, very often based on perceptions of pleasure and pain. A more arbitrary standard there never was. They often believe that if something is healthy, that makes it good. What they fail to consider is that it is healthy precisely because it is good. “God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” There is absolutely no reason to equate physical flourishing with goodness, unless you start with an absolute good and reason that the good must be healthy because the universe is a moral one. From God comes both the law and the body.

However, the atheist clings to the belief that sentience, of the kind specifically found in humans (which they somehow do not see as evidence that man is not a mere animal, but be that as it may), means that we must empathize with others as a sort of evolutionary adaptation beneficial to survival. What they fail to see is that this argument is patently incoherent unless one believes that the moral value that sentience apparently creates is rooted in God as the Creator. Unless we are made in the image of God and are animated by his Life, sentience does nothing to create a moral argument. Or indeed a political one. Incidentally, “there is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man. If people were not created equal, they certainly evolved unequal.” (Good ole’ Chesterton)

The atheist claims (rightly or wrongly) that he can be just as moral as the religious person; what he doesn’t say is why he should be — nor can he say. It is as absurd as the Anarchist claiming he could be a better king than the Monarchist — and then crowning himself King of the Anarchists (— thus denying his creed in order to prove it right). By definition he has no truth, since none exists at all. Therefore he is left with preference, but since, on atheism, free will is an illusion, morality too is illusory. Without free will, there is no moral accountability, and therefore no such thing as sin. And yet atheists claim that Christianity, wherein every man is accountable to perfect justice, is mere wishful thinking. Strange, isn’t it.

There is no moral imperative for the atheist — everything is mere preference, and preference can be anything. Morality as preference is no morality at all; it is, quite obviously, nothing other than preference. It means you cannot disagree with a man without condemning him. That is small-minded. It means you cannot agree with a man without deifying him. This is idolatry.

Morality as preference is a flat contradiction, akin to saying a cat is a dog and a dog is a cat — or worse, that they’re the same.

It is obvious to me, and it has been remarked by many in the past, that original sin is the most readily provable of all Christian doctrines. Quite simply, we know we are fallen. We do not feel at home on the earth. If we fail to live up to our own standards, how much more do we fail to live up to the standards of a holy God? Why do we alone of all the creatures on the earth feel nakedness and shame? C.S. Lewis has rightly argued that every desire within mankind proves that there exists a fulfilment of this desire. This would make sense even in an evolutionary framework: how should we evolve a desire for something that does not exist? We feel hunger, and there is food. We feel thirst, and there is water. And we feel a want for meaning. So there must be meaning. “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.” (C.S. Lewis)

The atheist, however, is left with a meaningless world. As Bertrand Russel, the famous atheistic philosopher, wrote, “Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.” Meaninglessness, as Russel rightly points out, is the only possible outcome of atheism. Atheists may try to create a narrative of meaning in their life, but make no mistake, it is nothing but artificial. A world devoid of moral absolutes and objective values can be nothing other than meaningless. Only the religious man can lay claim to meaning. As Christ taught, the meaning of life is this: to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your strength, and with all of your mind, and to love your neighbour, and even your enemy, as yourself. On these hang all of the Law and the Prophets. This is the meaning for which the human heart longs. And C.S. Lewis applauds.

Let us return to a time when truth, under attack though it was, existed as something that could be attacked. In our day, to look backwards through time is to see forward progress. Relativism, in all its forms, is a devastating symptom of the greater problem: the cancer of Modernism, caused by a denial of the source of Absolutes and Objectivity — God. To see the life of Christ — the division of history, however you abbreviate it — is the only antidote to so grave an illness.

Likelier the barricades shall blare

Slaughter below and smoke above,

And death and hate and hell declare

That men have found a thing to love.

– G. K. Chesterton, The Napoleon of Notting Hill, 1904

✟

When men really love a thing, they will sacrifice themselves for it. Otherwise, it is no love at all, but mere preference. Love, by its nature, binds together. When men really love life, they will die for it. “For whoever would save his life must lose it.” When men really love their friends, they will die for them. “Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” When men really love peace, they will fight and die for it. “Blessed are the peacemakers.” And this is the supreme paradox of peace — it must be fought for. “Blessed are the peaceful” is perhaps one of the most popular notions that Our Lord never taught. The real verse, of course, is “blessed are the peacemakers,” and between the two there is a world of difference. Between the two there is a gulf as wide as the ocean; yea, even the Pacific.

To violate peace with conflict, if the conflict be just, is no sin at all. “For there must be division among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” There cannot be truth without condemnation of error, so there shall be conflict until the Day of Judgment. There cannot be peace without justice, so there shall be no peace until the Day of Judgment. Anything less would be unjust, and therefore anything but peaceful. “There is no rest for the wicked.” The truth is, Jesus did not come to bring peace, but a sword. And this is because peace is, in and of itself, no virtue at all. It is the child of virtue. It is subservient to justice. This is why the saints shall not find perfect peace until they come into the New Earth where the will of the Father is done as it is in Heaven.

Peace for its own sake cannot bring justice; justice alone will bring peace. Not to resist evil with your life is the surest way to die. “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of blood.” Injustice and inaction are fundamentally incompatible; the first is a grave evil, and the second an evil grave. Now, it is true that our struggle is not “against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” And I do not say that violence is good. It is morally neutral. Its morality depends upon the aim to which the violence tends. This is why self-defence is different from terrorism: the intent of the action condemns it or exonerates it. Contrary to popular wisdom, the road to hell is not paved with good intentions: “that is the one thing it cannot be paved with” (Chesterton).

If our fighting be reduced to mere revenge, we have already been defeated. “Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.” And this is the meaning of “turn the other cheek.” This is the meaning of “resist not an evil person.” To take revenge for personal insult, to repay evil for evil, is roundly condemned in no uncertain terms. And this is the meaning of “put your sword back in its place, for all who live by the sword shall die by the sword.” Those who respond to evil with evil shall perish by the same token — a double-edged sword. We are no longer under the Law; we must no longer take an eye for an eye, but we must gouge out our own lest we sin against the justice of God and be condemned by His law.

But in this statement there is no notion of karma. There is no karmic law that governs the universe. This is instead a prohibition against revenge, and a recognition that taking the Law into our own hands will not bring justice; we must instead cut off our own hand lest we use it to sin. Vengeful vigilantism is no virtue when God is vigilant of all — it merely makes us the villain. And this is why we must be people who love justice and hate revenge. “For what does the LORD require of you but that you act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God?” As long as we are fighting because we love what we are fighting for, and do not hate what we are fighting against, our fighting shall be just. As long as we are fighting because we love justice, our fighting cannot be unjust. As long as we are fighting because we love peace, we shall be at peace — for even if we die, we shall finally rest in peace.

But lest I neglect the great virtue of mercy, let me do justice to it here. Some will no doubt ask whether mercy does not preclude the justice of which I speak. I answer, what is more merciful than to uphold justice for the unjustly wronged? Indeed, what is more merciful than to prevent a man from committing further sin? Some will no doubt wonder whether it is unloving to conduct violence. I answer, what is more loving than to love those for whom you fight? Indeed, what is more loving than to physically stop a man from committing evil to save his soul? Some have claimed that to kill a man is to judge him, that we are not to judge, and therefore must never strike a blow. I answer two things. First, to strike a blow to incapacitate is wholly different than to strike a blow to kill. Both may be justified, although it is true that the former is often more justified than the latter. But secondly, and more importantly, to kill a man is not to judge him — but to judge a man is to kill yourself. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” But to fight a man, or even kill him, you need not judge him. You must, however, discern the justness of his means and the morality of his ends. And even if he should be found guilty, and even if it be deemed that he must be physically stopped as a last resort, you need not judge him; that is to say, you need not condemn him to hell in your heart. God is the only Judge. “We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Instead, we must judge ourselves. How shall we answer on the Day of Judgment if we knew of grievous wrongs and did not set out to right them? if we knew of gross injustice and did execute justice? “For whatever you fail to do for the least of these, you fail to do for Me.” And though Christ did not allow Peter to fight for him, this is because he was able to call down legions of angels. He was not defenceless by necessity but by choice. He did not allow Peter to fight for Him precisely because He had to die for Peter. The Scriptures had to be fulfilled. But those who are defenceless by necessity, who are poor and vulnerable and unjustly wronged, these are not able to call down armies, so we must fight in their place. The unjust aggressors must be resisted, if necessary by force, so that the just may live in peace. And this is why the State, to whom the protection of the vulnerable is institutionally entrusted, bears the sword on behalf of God. “It is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out the wrath of God on those who do wrong.”

Despite the protestation of the Pacifist, the police and military are not necessary evils; they are necessary goods and noble vocations. They are not without their angelic counterparts in the legions of St. Michael. It is true that in the world to come their office may be rendered void, but this in no way implies they are evil now or ever. A great many things shall pass away with this world which have been agents of great good. Take, for instance, marriage. “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” Human companionship is indeed an eternal good, but was not marriage a concession after the fall? And yet, it is a cause of joy and great good. In the same way, justice is an eternal good. Its enforcement against evil and its agents is but a temporary struggle, and indeed a noble one, until the great and terrible Day of the LORD, when the Devil is defeated and the iniquitous destroyed, when death will die and evil cease to be. Perhaps this is why the Pacifist decries the police and military until the moment he really needs protection; he cannot destroy the eternity which is written on his heart, least of all by peaceful means.

Let us not forget the sin before original sin, against the Throne before the mortal State, that of Lucifer’s pride and fall: the first revolution. From that day there has not been peace in heaven or earth, nor can there be, for there cannot be peace until justice has triumphed. And let us not forget the war before the world began, between the primordial beings before Adam, that of angels against demons: the first counterrevolution. The first war was waged by the Devil, and won by God Himself as Satan fell like lightening. If violence is used by the highest powers, it cannot be inherently wrong, for God can do no evil. If God commanded that the ancient Jews use violence to establish their embattled state, it cannot be inherently wrong, for God cannot command evil. “For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone.” God does that which pleases Him, and He is only pleased by perfect virtue. “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Some will argue that God alone can command violence on a case-by-case basis, and that anything else is unjustified. I answer, God has commanded justice. He commands this precisely because He wants us to be at peace, and only justice can bring it about. “And the work of justice shall be peace, and the service of justice quietness, and security for ever.”

To reduce an argument to its extreme is an excellent way to test whether it becomes absurd under duress. Pacifism has done this work for us; it is already an absurd reduction. It teaches that, if you see a woman being beaten on the street, you must not help her. It teaches that, if a robber intrudes in the night and attacks your family, you cannot strike a blow against him. Is there anyone, save the Pacifist, to whom this is not a grave affront? Surely common sense has not yet been so greatly lost. And these teachings reveal the grave error at the heart of pacifism. The problem with pacifism is that it is fundamentally idolatrous. This is because it makes a god of the body. “Do not fear the one who can kill the body, but who can kill the soul.” Likewise, do not fear to kill the body when it will save the soul, or many souls. “Turn his body over to the Devil for the destruction of his flesh for the salvation of his soul.” Pacifism makes the body inviolable, and then stands idly by while it is being violated. Pacifism is inherently unspiritual. Ironically, while proclaiming its pure spirituality, it is unhealthily obsessed with material things, though these things are but shadows and passing away. “For we walk by faith and not by sight.” And “faith is the hope of things unseen.”

In the words of Chesterton, “pacifism does not announce any aim; it only announces that it will never use certain means in pursuing any aim.” And the means which it calls physical violence and denounces as evil, are the same means it allows its enemies to pursue uncontested at the expense of justice. If we ought to fear doing violence, it is waging violence against the spiritual world — or neglecting to do so. For we must do violence to ourselves and put to death the deeds of the flesh, or else we shall certainly die. “The wages of sin is death,” but the violent bear away the Kingdom of Heaven. We ought to fear trampling the Son of God underfoot and doing violence to the Law of God by ignoring the demands of justice. These are the spiritual things which shall never pass away. Make no mistake, peace is a great good. It comes from a noble lineage; its father is justice, and its mother is mercy. But it is not to be pursued for its own sake, or it will never be attained. Peace alone will never bring justice; in fact, it prohibits it, for to avoid conflict for its own sake is no virtue at all and certainly unjust. Justice alone can bring true peace by casting out the enemy of peace: injustice. Indeed, as St. Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians, the sexually immoral Christian who persists in reprehensible sin must be “turned over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh for the salvation of his soul.” This is by no means a call to violence. It is by no means a prohibition against mercy. It is, in fact, an immense truth: if anyone causes those in Christ to stumble, “it would be better for him to have a large millstone tied around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the ocean” — yea, even the Pacific.