Bp. Tobin on Nelson Mandela’s “shameful promotion of abortion”

This is from NBC10 in Providence:

Tobin: Mandela’s support for abortion ‘shameful’

PROVIDENCE – The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence weighed in on Nelson Mandela’s death by calling his support for abortion “shameful.”

Bishop Thomas Tobin, in a statement posted Sunday on the diocesan website, said that while there is much to admire in Mandela’s life and public service, there’s a part of his legacy that is “not at all praiseworthy, namely his shameful promotion of abortion in South Africa.”

Tobin’s comments stand in contrast to those of Pope Francis, who in a telegram to South African President Jacob Zuma last week praised Mandela’s steadfast commitment to “promoting the human dignity of all (his) nation’s citizens.”

The bishop in his statement took issue with Mandela’s decision in 1996 to sign legislation liberalizing South Africa’s abortion laws.

“While we pray for the peaceful repose of President Mandela’s immortal soul and the forgiveness of his sins, we can only regret that his noble defense of human dignity did not include the youngest members of our human family, unborn children,” Tobin wrote.

Mandela, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and anti-apartheid icon, died last week at age 95. His funeral is scheduled for Tuesday and is expected to draw nearly 100 world leaders and tens of thousands of mourners.

Tobin has frequently taken on public figures over abortion, including elected officials, and even Pope Francis. The bishop in September said he was “a little bit disappointed” the pope had not addressed the topic of abortion during his first six months as pope. He also asked then-Rep. Patrick Kennedy not to take Holy Communion because of his support for abortion rights, and withdrew two hospitals sponsored by the diocese from membership in a Catholic hospital group that supported health care reform because of fears it would allow for public funding of abortion.

In his telegram, Pope Francis focused on Mandela’s work to forge a South Africa “built on the firm foundations of non-violence, reconciliation and truth.”

“I pray that the late president’s example will inspire generations of South Africans to put justice and the common good at the forefront of their political aspirations,” Francis wrote.

But… Mandela promoted abortion, big time.  That is not praiseworthy.

Fr Z kudos to Bp. Tobin.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Fr. Z KUDOS, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
15 Comments

An observation for Mr. Novak on Pope Francis and “trickle-down” in EG 54

I note that Michael Novak has tackled the issue of the Pope’s comment on economics in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium.  He had an interview with National Review.

Alas, I think Mr. Novak got a couple things wrong.

In a summary/commentary on the long interview (I haven’t reviewed the whole thing yet) Novak says:

“Note first that “trickle-down” nowhere appears in the original Spanish, as it would have done if the pope had meant to invoke the battle-cry of the American Democrats against the American Republicans … Only those hostile to capitalism and Reagan’s successful reforms, and to the policies of Republicans in general after the downward mobility of the Carter years, use the derisive expression “trickle-down,” intended to caricature what actually happened under Reagan, namely, dramatic upward mobility. “

No.

First, we assume, reasonably, that Spanish was the language Francis worked in the most. I have little doubt that others worked on the draft of the Exhortation, and that probably parts of it were written in Italian (maybe even in German!).  But parts of it were also certainly composed in Spanish (consider whom Francis tasked on the Gang of Eight Committee).

So, the phrase “trickle-down” does appear in the Spanish in the Spanish form of the phrase.  HERE 

54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.

“Las teorías del «derrame»”.  That’s “trickle-down” economics.

Anyway, I am glad that Novak has joined the conversation.  It is good to keep the ideas kicking around.

Diverging a bit…the real problem with the way that the sentence is translated into English rests on the distortion of the phrase “por sí mismo” into “inevitably” rather than “by itself”.

In the (distorted) English translation the Pope’s criticism seems to land heavily on people who back “trickle-down” economics (which is already a loaded term used by liberals to denigrate a more free-market model).   But the Pope really seems to be criticizing, in Spanish, those who think that the “trickle-down” approach (and yes, that term is a distortion) can help the poor on its own or by itself, that is, without people as individuals taking personal responsibility to help the poor.  People in business have to act morally and responsibly, with an eye on their neighbor, and not just sit back and say that “A free market will eventually help all those poor people all by itself“, thus exoneration them of any personal obligation to do their part.

That, I think, is what the Pope is saying.   It is less a criticism of the free-market (though he clearly isn’t a great fan after his limited personal experience in the disaster that is Argentina) than it is of people who think that a “system” alone will take care of the poor without personal involvement.

So, if I understand the Holy Father correctly, I entirely agree with that first part of EG 54, so long as it is properly translated.  I add that I think a free market is, in fact, the best way to help the poor rise from poverty.  Socialism, Communism… no.   And before some liberal nut suggests that I am for a free-market wholly unfettered by laws, rules, government, …. no.  That’s just stupid.  It could also be mendacious (a liberal tactic).  There must be basic rule of law and regulation so that people can work together with clarity and trust each other in transactions and have recourse when there are disputes or misunderstandings or when people with bad will don’t fulfill their part.  At the same time, no economic system, free or not, will function in an acceptable way if the people involved don’t share good values.  I think they should be religious values and virtues (let’s just say it… Catholic).

That said, even when those values are absent, a free market is probably the worst system we could adopt…. except for all the others.

Posted in Francis, The Drill | Tagged , , , , ,
39 Comments

Effects of the “AFFORDABLE” Care Act

There has been some heated discussion about how the USCCB did or could have been more or less supportive of Obamacare… which we should really all be calling the “AFFORDABLE” Care Act, perhaps with a quizzical twist of “uptalk”.

Over at American Catholic find the observations of The Motley Monk.  A taste:

[…]

Prior to the passage of Obamacare, eminent economists were sounding the alarm that the so-called “Affordable Care Act” would have deleterious consequences. It would end freedom of choice in healthcare. Large large numbers of doctors would have to leave the practice of medicine or form “concierge” practices catering solely to people of means. The health insurance market would be altered in such ways that carriers would have to drop individual policies in the short term and perhaps corporate policies in the long term. And, despite all of the promises, millions of Americans would be left without healthcare insurance. Some economists even warned that Obamacare had the potential to bankrupt the United States within a couple of decades.

Having fallen for a political promise that would translate their assumptions into law, the USCCB—similar to most Catholic members of Congress—either didn’t read the bill’s contents or allowed their experts to tell them that Obamacare presented no substantive problems. It’s also pretty clear the economists the USCCB may have consulted failed to warn that Obamacare would ultimately hurt the very people Bishop Murphy and the USCCB were lobbying so hard to protect.

The outcome of those efforts?

Currently, 4.8M+ Americans have lost or will lose their health insurance (with perhaps 100M+ more to come, if competent economists are to be believed). Thousands of doctors have been dropped by health insurance carriers, are leaving (or likely to leave) the practice of medicine, or forming concierge practices. The doctor shortage is expected to grow, perhaps creating long waiting lines for people who need immediate medical care. Untold numbers of Americans cannot keep their doctors or medical treatments, as the President himself promised on many occasions.

[…]

Posted in Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
20 Comments

BLECH! *splik* BLECH! GAK!

I read this at the BBC and it disgusts me.  I believe it.

Men!  Talk like men!

More men speaking in girls’ ‘dialect’, study shows

More young men in California rise in pitch at the end of their sentences when talking, new research shows.

This process is known as “uptalk” or “valleygirl speak” and has in the past been associated with young females, typically from California or Australia.

But now a team says that this way of speaking is becoming more frequent among men.  [GAH!]

The findings were presented at the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in California.

“We found use of uptalk in all of our speakers, despite their diverse backgrounds in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, bilingualism and gender,” said Amanda Ritchart, a linguist at the University of California who led the research.

“We believe that uptalk is becoming more prevalent and systematic in its use for the younger generations in Southern California,” she added.

The team recorded and analysed the voices of 23 native Californians aged between 18 and 22. The researchers were therefore not able to infer similar language patters in older Californians.

Sounding ditzy
People who speak uptalk are often misunderstood to be insecure, shallow or slightly dim, according to the team, who say this was not necessarily the case.  [Not… necessarily?  ?]

Speaking to the BBC’s Inside Science programme, co-author Amalia Arvanati, from the University of Kent, said it was hard to know how this process started.

“People talk about Frank Zappa’s song, Valley Girl. Finding out where it started is very difficult because we don’t have good records of how people use pitch.

“One possibility is that this is an extension of a pitch pattern that we actually find in most varieties of English which is used when you’re making a statement but you’re [also] asking indirectly for the interlocutor to confirm if they are with you,” Prof Arvaniti said.

She added that “uptalk” had negative connotations which made men less likely to admit to using it, but what was clear was that it was spreading.

“It grates on people, some people think it sounds really ditzy or insecure. This does not accurately come across like that to the native speakers.”

Women leaders
Claire Nance, a linguistics lecturer at Lancaster University, commented that the research reinforced the fact that uptalk was “increasingly widespread across all kinds of people”.

“Typically, women are trail-blazers in language change and take up innovative features first, then males start using them later. [Innovations… hmmm I believe that linguists will agree that language tends to simplify.]

“No spoken language ever remains stable and constant change is very much the norm. However, change often causes alarm among people who do not use an innovative feature, and uptalk appears to be another example of this trend,” Dr Nance added.

She explained that speakers may use uptalk to convey politeness or empathy with the listener, but that this was not always understood by non-uptalkers, perhaps due to its similarity to question intonation. [It sounds insecure.]

Alas, I am a language chameleon.  I quickly pick up the sounds of people as they speak.  That can be a curse and a blessing.

I will start monitoring myself for uptalk

?

UPDATE

A reader sent this.  Fun!  And… RIGHT!

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , , ,
42 Comments

Critic of Pope Francis loses gig with Catholic News Service

Remember that piece in which Adam Shaw, a writer for Fox blasted Pope Francis in Evangelii gaudier? HERE  It seems he also wrote a bit for the Catholic News Service, bankrolled by the USCCB.

It seems that CNS let him go.  HERE

Criticize the Pope and you are gone?

Criticize the Pope – in that way – and you are gone?

 

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Francis | Tagged , , , ,
47 Comments

QUAERITUR: Deacon tried to intimidate me out of wearing the cassock.

From a priest reader:

I recently spoke with the permanent deacon in our parish after he saw me hanging up my cassock after hearing confessions. He asked me, is the cassock again being proposed as normal attire for priests in the seminary? Of course, not having been in the seminary in 14 years, I don’t know the answer to that, but it seems many younger priests choose to wear it. He then proceeded to lecture me [?!?] about how wearing a cassock is not pastoral, and scares the people, who see it as a throwback to the “old” Church with its “doom and gloom” and “long list of rules.” Again, its the Church of Nice against the Church of Christ…Hermenutic of Rupture against the Hermenutic of Continuity. While the wearing of cassocks is becoming more widespread among younger priests, the older “generation” still tries to shame the younger out of wearing it, and it seems that the people also do not understand what the wearing of the cassock is about, and what it means, since many leave parishes where the pastor wears one, at least around here. I wish I could find a way to explain to people, including our deacon, in a way that they can relate and understand that the “new” church isn’t new at all, and that the “long list of rules” still exists, and that they protect the deeper values and principles of the Gospel that Jesus preached for us all, in every time and place, and that the wearing of a cassock in no way means that the priest is any less pastoral or caring for his flock than a priest who chooses not to wear one. It does make me wonder what the deacon and the people think “pastoral” really means…rightly shepherding, or anything goes.

Soooo many thoughts and responses.

What flashes through my head is:

  • “Reverend Mister X, when you hear confessions, wear what you want to wear.  Oooops!  No, wait!  You can’t hear confessions, can you.  So, how about BUTTING OUT?”
  • “If you have a problem with the cassock, send a complaint to the guy whose name is on the signature line on the bottom of the check I give you each week.”
  • “O dear deacon, I’m sure that people are not so shallow as all that. If someone is ‘scared’ by a cassock, then surely there’s a need for some psychological counseling, wouldn’t you say?”
  • “May I remind you, cleric, of the canons about sexual continence for all clerics, including deacons?”
  • “Stick it. Get back to work.”
  • Yawn.  Did you say something?”

The generation to which I presume your deacon belongs has been long accustomed to scare techniques – and largely successful at using them.

Does this sound familiar?

  • “If you don’t allow guitars at Mass, communion in the hand, felt banners, and liturgical dance, then…. *sputter*… dogs and cats! living together!… people will be leaving the Church IN DROVES!”
  • “If we don’t soften the academics in our seminaries, if we continue to exclude the same-sex attracted, if we demand that they spend time each day in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, we’ll drive out the best and most ‘pastoral’ candidates!”
  • “If we sister keep wearing our habits, our strict community life and discipline, our common apostolate, no young girls will want to join!!”

It’s time to call their bluff.  They were demonstrably wrong in the past.  They are demonstrably wrong now.

Perhaps the best explanation to the people and to the deacon is simply to wear the cassock whenever and whenever it pleaseth you to wear it.

Also, I remind you of what I wrote here: Who are these ‘c’atholic liberals? Young Catholics don’t know and don’t care.

Aging-hippie liberals interpret everything within the Church still through the lens they formed during the anti-authoritarian civil-rights and anti-war protest movements.

When we try to uphold hierarchy and authority or rubrics or the older form of Mass or obedience to the Magisterium or decorum in liturgy and sacred music, or in the clerical life, an involuntary subconscious switch clicks in their heads. They take your faithful Catholic position of continuity to be an attack themselves and on Vatican II, on … niceness… on bunnies … on the poor… on the Democrat Party….

Vatican II cannot, in their minds, be separated from the protest movements they have idolized until they are actually paradigmatic, iconic, even mythic.

A myth that is now itself dying, and they don’t like it one little bit.

I am pretty tired of this B as in B, S as in S.  I have been tired of it for decades.  Yes, the Biological Solution is working on these aging hippies, but… sheesh!  Patience is called for with most lay people, but with a cleric… and from your deacon… and in your sacristy…?

No.

Every young priest who has toyed with the idea of wearing a cassock, but has been intimidated by the nattering nabobs of negativism (or blustering Boomers of bellicosity?), should make a New Years’ resolution in 2014 to wear his cassock in public one day a week – or every day! Or maybe band together. Steal a liberal hippy Boomer technique and stage a sit-in, a “cassock-in”, somewhere really public and visible.

Furthermore, former-Father Greg Reynolds is still excommunicated.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liberals, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , ,
140 Comments

QUAERITUR: Second Confiteor… should I refuse to do it?

From a reader:

I’ve often been left feeling confused about the second confiteor, and have trawled through a few posts on the WDTPRS site regarding this issue.

However, I find it that much more difficult a position to be in being a server at Mass, when our Priest expects me to say it.

I believe in holy obedience, but which way do I go?  Obedience to Pope John XXIII’s Rubricarum Instructum (where it is omitted), or obedience to my Priest, who expects me to recite it again?

… Or would you suggest I not serve any more (which won’t necessarily stop the 2nd Confiteor from being recited again at these Masses)?

Your thoughts please?

I will not suggest that you do not serve.   I am sure it is helpful for the priest and, spiritually, for you.

If there is an expectation that you start the Second Confiteor, then do it.

The provisions of Ecclesia Dei adflicta and Summorum Pontificum are for the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum.  By the time of the 1962MR the Second Confiteor had disappeared from the rubrics (except for Good Friday, before Communion – that section had been plugged in from an earlier edition – but I digress).  So, in a technical sense, there is no call for the Second Confiteor and it should not be done.  As I have been known to write, we have permission for the 1962MR, not an earlier edition.

On the other hand, one hears there are indications received from the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” that, in some communities, it is okay to use it.  Furthermore, there is a long custom of saying the Second Confiteor.  There is a strong expectation from many in the congregation that there should be one.  There is often strong puzzlement when there isn’t one.

This is one of those situations in which I think we have to have a little flexibility and allowances for local usage.  Also, this is a practice which as a really long pedigree.  It isn’t as if the Second Confiteor is an importation from the Novus Ordo.  It isn’t as if it is something profane.  It isn’t as it isn’t in the 1962 Roman Missal at all.

When I travel and I say the older Mass in some parish, I do not ask about the Second Confiteor before Mass begins.  If the server or the deacon begins it, I simply go along and do my part, turning to give the absolution.  If the server or the deacon doesn’t begin it, I simply go ahead with my part, preparing for the Ecce Agnus Dei.

When I have been asked about it before Mass, I make the point that the rubrics no longer call for it, but I will do what they are used to doing.   This is important especially when the servers/deacons are used to doing it.  You don’t throw hard curves immediately before Mass unless there is a matter of serious liturgical abuse.  Saying the Second Confiteor is, technically, a bit offshore, but isn’t anywhere near the Island of Liturgical Abuses.

I warmly urge that this not become a point of contention.  If you have discussions about the Second Confiteor, let them be amicable and brief.  In the end, serve as the priest desires.  This is not in the category of violation of some rubric or principle which constitutes a liturgical abuse.

You can unclench about this one, I think.  If you can’t, well… you are free to serve or not to serve.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , , , ,
26 Comments

The Feeder Feed: Of Storks and Self-absorbed Promethean Neopelagians

Do you remember the fable by Aesop about the Fox and the Stork?  Sometimes it is the Fox and the Crane.

The fox invited the stork to supper.  Fox serves a bowl of soup. Fox can lap from the bowl, but our stork, with its long bill can’t get at it. So, Stork then invited Fox to lunch. This time the soup is in a long necked vase. Stork can eat, but our fox can’t. MORAL: If you are deceitful, expect deceit in return.  Reversed: Do unto others….

Here is a fun piece from English soft-paste porcelain set from about 1770 depicting Aesop’s fables, yes, in the Detroit Institute of Arts.

And here is another version of the same tale, but from a larger, more complete service.  Again, English soft-paste but from about 1815 (think about something that Mrs. Aubrey might have in her cupboard).

And if you don’t like soft-paste porcelain, here is an 18th c. Italian hard-paste which I post in honor of self-absorbed promethean neopelagians everywhere.

And just because it is sweet and such a contract, we have Merrymakers, French from 1870 by Carolus-Duran (+1917).

In any event, I was met by a priest friend for lunch at the museum.  He reminded me of a few other posts I have made when in Detroit.

Remember my investigative report of Michael Voris’ studio?

Then there was the time I went into the belly of the beat, the Call to Action convention when I took the photo of what looked like a gathering of Willy Nelson impersonators.

And then there was the time we went to the hat store and had an adventure with complete strangers and a tire iron.

Ah Detroit!

Posted in O'Brian Tags, On the road, The Feeder Feed, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged , , , , , ,
8 Comments

Fishwrap attacks Francis AGAIN in the matter of women’s ordination

I have written before that the ordination of women is the flagship issue for liberals.

So long as Pope Francis won’t change Church “policy”, he will remain in their dog house.

Some conservatives frown when the Pope gets out over his skiis in matters of economics, but liberals attack Francis when he upholds defined faith and morals.

Jamie Manson at the Fishwrap, lesbian activist, tutored at Yale by Margaret Farley (of the CDF Notification), favored speaker of the LCWR, attacks Francis for editors this time.

The good thing about Miss Mansons’ piece is that she totalizes her analysis of Pope Francis: Francis can’t be wrong about gender and right about anything else. Obviously NSR disagrees with that judgment!

On lack of vocations, Francis’ diagnosis comes up short

Like many who care passionately about a fully inclusive priesthood in the Catholic church, I read paragraph 104 of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium with deep sadness, though not surprise.  [Remember when I wrote that Francis had created a split on the left?  Remember also that Sr. Maureen Fiedler already attacked Francis on this point … as the surrogate for the NSR.  The editors work thought surrogates.]

“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion,” Francis wrote, “but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general.” [For true liberals, priesthood is about power, nothing less.  That is one reason why the ordination of women is a liberal flagship issue.]

“It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power ‘we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness,’ ” the document continues. “The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all.

“The configuration of the priest to Christ the head — namely, as the principal source of grace — does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others.”

[And now the Popette speaketh…] Much as Francis would like to erase the dynamic of domination from the priesthood, his teaching will remain unrealistic if he continues to reinforce an unjust power structure [DING!  Say da magic woid, win a hundred dahlahs!] in which only celibate males are permitted to consecrate the Eucharist.

[…]

Even as Francis perpetuates the same rigid restrictions on who may and may not answer God’s calling to the priesthood, just three paragraphs later, in section 107, he goes on to blame the “dearth of vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life” on “a lack of contagious apostolic fervour in communities which results in a cooling of enthusiasm and attractiveness.” []

Apparently for the pope, “vocations” are limited to the number of people in Roman Catholic seminaries or novitiate programs. He seems unaware that if he were to look into divinity schools and graduate programs in theology and ministerial formation, he would find no lack of Catholic young adults with a fervent desire to devote themselves fully to serving the church. [They can’t do so as priests.  Too bad, Jamie.]

[…]

Read the rest there, if you can stand it.  You’ll find a lot of whining about unfairness and an exaltation of lesbianism.

Watch for her points that “real” men don’t join seminaries as long as “real women” aren’t allowed in priesthood.  No, really.

I’ll leave you with this:

IF… IF Jamie were right about His Holiness’ blindness concerning women, then it must also be that he can’t be trusted when it comes to any other aspects of “justice”.

Therefore, how can NSR agree with Miss Manson?

But will our Jamie succeed in convincing others that she’s right?

Posted in Just Too Cool, Liberals, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , , ,
18 Comments

St. Ambrose read without moving his lips!

St. Ambrose of Milan

Sometimes when I am given a book of a certain length to read I’ll quip, “That ought to keep my lips moving for a while!”

Today’s first entry in the Martyrologium Romanum says:

1. Memoria sancti Ambrosii, episcopi Mediolanensis et Ecclesiae doctoris, qui pridie Nonas aprilis in Domino obdormivit, sed hac die potissimum colitur, qua celebrem sedem adhuc catechumenus gubernandam suscepit, cum civitatis praefecturae officio fungebatur. Verus pastor et doctor fidelium, maxime in omnes caritatem exercuit, libertatem Ecclesiae ac rectae fidei doctrinam adversus arianos strenue defendit et commentariis hymnisque concinendis populum pie catechizavit.

St. Ambrose of Milan (+4 April 397), a titanic figure of the late 4th century who changed the shape of Church and State relations for a thousand years, who brought much of the wisdom of Greek writings to the West, and who helped to bring St. Augustine of Hippo into the fold.

Would that we might see his like again in the great capitals of the world.

There are too many interesting things about Ambrose for them all to be shared here, but we have space for a couple.

There is a famous moment recounted by St. Augustine in his Confessions (Bk VI) about visiting St. Ambrose.

Augustine walked into the room where Ambrose was sitting and saw him staring at a book! Ambrose was reading and not even moving his lips!

Augustine was so impressed by this that slipped silently out of the room without saying anything to Ambrose, lest he disturb him.

Augustine was very impressed by Ambrose and had wanted to talk to him about various problems and doubts. Because of all the people pressing around Ambrose, who was tremendously important and sought after, Augustine was never able to get near him in public.

Let’s read the text and hear about it from Augustine himself!

Remember, at this point Augustine is a hot property in Milan and not yet Christian, though interiorly twisting on the spikes of difficult doubts and problems.

Augustine wasn’t really praying yet and he he still was considering things in very worldly terms.

6,3. Nor had I come yet to groan in my prayers that thou wouldst help me. My mind was wholly intent on knowledge and eager for disputation. Ambrose himself I esteemed a happy man, as the world counted happiness, because great personages held him in honor. Only his celibacy appeared to me a painful burden. [Augustine was not chaste at the time and he was angling for a politically favorable marriage.] But what hope he cherished, what struggles he had against the temptations that beset his high station, what solace in adversity, and what savory joys thy bread possessed for the hidden mouth of his heart when feeding on it, I could neither conjecture nor experience.

Nor did [Ambrose] know my own frustrations, nor the pit of my danger. For I could not request of him what I wanted as I wanted it, because I was debarred from hearing and speaking to him by crowds of busy people to whose infirmities he devoted himself. And when he was not engaged with them—which was never for long at a time—he was either refreshing his body with necessary food or his mind with reading.

Now, as he read, his eyes glanced over the pages and his heart searched out the sense, but his voice and tongue were silent. Often when we came to his room—for no one was forbidden to enter, nor was it his custom that the arrival of visitors should be announced to him—we would see him thus reading to himself. After we had sat for a long time in silence—for who would dare interrupt one so intent?—we would then depart, realizing that he was unwilling to be distracted in the little time he could gain for the recruiting of his mind, free from the clamor of other men’s business. Perhaps he was fearful lest, if the author he was studying should express himself vaguely, some doubtful and attentive hearer would ask him to expound it or discuss some of the more abstruse questions, so that he could not get over as much material as he wished, if his time was occupied with others. And even a truer reason for his reading to himself might have been the care for preserving his voice, which was very easily weakened. Whatever his motive was in so doing, it was doubtless, in such a man, a good one.

Amazing stuff there.

Keep in mind that, in the ancient world, books were rare. If you had a book, you were probably wealthy. If you got your hands on a book, you had to remember what you read because you might not ever see that particular book again. There would be public readings of books so that more people could hear them. People had to read aloud, actually, to help their memory. The more senses you could involve, the easier it was to remember the material. This holds true today! But, in the ancient world, people who read, generally read aloud.

Notice that Augustine, writing many years after the scene he recounts, and now a bishops himself, understands what it is to be entirely lacking in free time. He wonders if Ambrose read quietly so that the intellectually hungry people around him wouldn’t ask him to explain what he was reading, thus cutting short his own time for study. Also, Augustine himself later in life suffered from having a very weakened voice. In his sermons we actually hear him saying once in a while to the crowd that they had to stop making so much noise in their reactions to him, because his voice to too weak to shout over them! At any rate, Augustine puts a positive spin on what Ambrose did.

Busy tired clergymen understand each other.

Posted in Patristiblogging, Saints: Stories & Symbols | Tagged , , , ,
9 Comments