Wrecking “The Wreck”

Finally, after months of priming the proverbial pump with a dozen or so of Hopkins’ more palatable works, I tried my vocal cords at the one his best friend Robert Bridges considered the most formidable and obscure. Being able to time it with the anniversary of the eponymous shipwreck was a bonus.

In the days of my podcast, I did record it once, and I think this YouTube playlist has come to enjoy the same dim popularity. By no means am I quitting my day job, but research, recitation, and writing on GMH, among poets one of the more challenging, has become a beloved pastime.

Better people than I have summarized “Wreck” for popular use, and I have scarcely begun to explore their efforts. The first Google result (viz., https://www.enotes.com/topics/wreck-deutschland) seems acceptable to me. Alice Jenkins wrote a great one. “Of the making of many books there is no end,” Qoheleth famously declared (Ecclesiastes 12:12); likewise of the reading.

“Wreck” was a 35-stanza ode that Hopkins’ Jesuit superior vaguely wished someone would write to commemorate the tragic dashing of a vessel off the coast of Kent. Composed not long after the event, it did not get published until 43 years later, 101 years ago. Like much of his work, it was best avoided in the minds of many, to their detriment.

Hopkins considered the starkness of his own conversion experience as a dramatic reference point for this maritime disaster. Christian theology, based on Sacred Scripture, asserts that God not only can, but does preeminently in the Paschal Mystery, bring good out of evil. Any and all suffering, joined to the supreme suffering of God Incarnate, thus enjoys unimagined capabilities.

The famed “Oxford Movement“ of Anglicans who became Catholic by the efforts of now Saint John Henry Newman was one noteworthy installment in the redemption of a religious heritage. Hopkins frames his own conversion within that larger project, and in this poem he suggests the Deutschland’s destruction can fulfill the same end.

Hopkins paints this picture in marvelous fashion, employing all his poetic prowess. It is rife with killer lines, phrases that pay. How deftly he unites the narration of his poignant experience of God, the emergence of one heroic Franciscan nun summoning the Savior during the dreadfulness, and both of these experiences to England’s return to Catholicism.

I am currently reading “Mined With a Motion” by Marylou Motto, an exposition of certain cherished poetic devices in Hopkins’ works. You won’t get a good book report out of me anymore; I can only trust that my digestion somehow improves my understanding and narration of his poetry, and otherwise enriches my life and ministry.

A Rave And A Rant

Blogger Leah Libresco writes about the excitement that numerous disparate voices share concerning Pope Francis, from Time to Vanity Fair to The Advocate. While Catholic periodicals might be expected to feature the Pope, the honorable mentions from the secular press are, well, honorable to mention (see Kathy Schiffer's cover of the covers)! Recently ABC's Good Morning America offered a fine feature of the Pontiff's encounter with two of its reporters. He's a good "bad penny," always turning up.

It's refreshing to witness such interest in times when people recognize the faces of entertainers more easily than public servants! One thing we can say about Pope Francis: He is getting the Word out.  But what word? Whose word?

Christ's, of course!

Insofar as he has taught about matters of faith and morals, his teachings are due our "religious submission of intellect and will," according to the Church's teaching on her teaching authority, the Magisterium. So far, he has issued his highest-level teachings in the form of an encyclical letter, Lumen Fidei (a "concerto for four hands," two of them Benedict's), and most recently, an apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium.

Upon reading this last paragraph, even if you are a Catholic, you may be wondering about that phrase religious submission of will and intellect. It is often presented as professional jargon (the profession in question being "theologian"), but it is not at all difficult to understand, though perchance to execute. A faithful Catholic would seek to understand and assent to papal declarations that concern Catholic teaching. Cardinal Newman assured us, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt," but it would be worthwhile to seek prompt and satisfactory resolution to any difficulties from trusted resources. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most reliable resource for our dollar.

You may have noticed that Pope Francis is fond of interviews. To date, the interview has not been a medium for the Magisterium, although Benedict and John Paul II both gave interviews that were published in book form. True to the form of our age of information, Francis already has given three in his first year upon Peter's Chair. People have complained that interviews (and these in particular) lack precision of content and delivery, but this doesn't much matter to many listeners, who find refreshing his portrayal of the Catholic Church, in word, yes, but more so in gesture.

Like Ms. Libresco, however, I am not thrilled to the point of effusive joy. He has said nothing new, although he has restated orthodox utterances in different ways. In terms of charitable outreach, he has done nothing new. (Somewhere there is a "meme" of photos of Francis doing certain beautiful things, alongside his predecessors doing the same things, e.g., embracing disfigured persons).

Excuse me: with regard to the pontifical lifestyle, he has done new things. He has abandoned most papal peculiarities, no longer emblazoning his coat of arms on his fascia (sash, or as one of our seminary deans called it, "belly band"), living in the traditional Vatican apartment suite, or wearing red Gucci slippers. He drives his own car, etc. If a successor ever wished to reintroduce anything of what Francis set aside, or in any way look or sound like himself rather than Francis, he might have a hard time. That's the "cult of personality," which very much characterizes this age, probably as much as any other ("I belong to Apollos!").

As one who tends to fancy the theoretical over the practical (yet seeks balance here, as elsewhere), I respect, admire, and weakly imitate the Pope's outreach. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he presented a remarkable portrait of the Church as a whole, and, perhaps unwittingly, of his pontificate : "The Church is called to come out of herself and to go to the peripheries, not only geographically, but also the existential peripheries: the mystery of sin, of pain, of injustice, of ignorance and indifference to religion, of intellectual currents, and of all misery." This smacks of mission, a constitutive element of the Church and her children, regardless of what form of the Mass or style of vestments or (insert your favorite variable here) you prefer.

This is a Jesuit talking here. I don't mean that (anymore) as a jibe. The Society is the Church's peripheral nervous system; and what fully operative Body lacks one? But you don't have to be a Jesuit to be a Creatively Faithful Contrarian (a CFC, but the good kind that improves the environment). CFCs have a way of challenging everyone, and that can be somewhat disconcerting. Ask Jesus.

I have withstood enjoyed the company of such people over the years. They may not have been faithful to the Church as such, but they were faithful to me, even if I sometimes felt like clay being molded (not in a romantic way, à la Ghost, but in a heartless way, à la Jeremiah 18). These friends have brought me to the present moment, oftentimes staying awake as late as now, helping to clarify and purify my faith.

It's getting late, and I want to finish the thought.

I can't control my own life, so sure as shittake mushrooms I can't control yours; but would people please just stop framing Pope Emeritus Benedict, and even Pope Soon-Saint John Paul II, as antitheses of Pope Francis? Would you respect B16 and JP2 for their acceptance of the "trappings" (we know not in what spirit) as much as you respect Francis for his rejection of them? Would you stop contrasting B16 and JP2's styles of interaction and preaching to Francis'? Would you consider each man's content alongside his delivery, allowing some of the dust to settle around Francis' latest utterance and photos before reluctantly, or gleefully, waving goodbye to the Church's future, or to her past?

Insofar as these men hesitatingly yet confidently accepted the call to the papacy as they had accepted priesthood, they are Peter, part of a Tradition that can both embrace and eschew trappings, speak gently and stridently, affirm the Church's teachings while loving God's confused and contrary children, among whom they must include themselves. All three would concur: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and I am not."

Convincing Love

Pardon the span since my last post. I was gainfully occupied with treasured friends and my Father's world.

Mount Shasta (CA). Trust me when I say: This is not a postcard.

+ + + + +

In the daily Prayer of the Faithful book that our parish uses, I found this petition on Friday:

For those who have trouble comprehending the teachings of the Church, that they are surrounded by the love of believers and influenced by God's grace, let us pray.

That's not one for the folks at Unvirtuous Abbey, but I could rephrase it according to the UA standard:

For those who, when it comes to Church teaching, don't get it or won't get it, let us pray.

Our PoF book was kind enough to suggest a good intention to adopt, namely that people receive who and what they need to grow in faith. The desire for a positive outcome is the mark of a good petition!

We speak of "faith" in terms of content (what adherents believe) and relationship (the adherent's lived experience as a believer--among believers and non-believers, viewing earthly realities, pleasant and unpleasant, in light of the Reality known as God). These dual aspects illuminate each other; together they illuminate the adherent along life's journey.

According to the period in history, personal temperament, etc., people seem to gravitate toward one aspect or the other--the content of faith or the relationship of faith. The exclusion of either causes conflict and not clarity.  I'm no Church historian, but for sake of example we might wonder whether the years around councils are more concerned with content than relationship. Insofar as the Second Vatican Council is termed a "Pastoral Council," one might conclude that it concerned relationship (the Church's with modernity) more than content. But we don't ever really have one without the other, as the wealth of conciliar documents attests.

Regarding faith troubles, we can derive much consolation from this dictum of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt" (here is the context). We're not "in trouble" with God simply because we're having a hard time with a particular article of faith, with a paradox of faith, or (most often) with the mystery ("problem") of evil. God punishes no one for being a thinker; we tend to do a bang-up job of it ourselves!

For those who are disposed to it, God's grace assists the assent of the intellect and the consent of the will. Faith takes work; it truly does not "come naturally." Therefore nothing can substitute for divine intervention, the second component of the above petition. Without grace, the believer's adventure would be impossible, and indeed unnecessary.

Yet we cannot ignore the first supportive element: "the love of believers." Consider the famous dictum from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians: "So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (13:13). Love (caritas, agape) will be the last theological virtue standing at the end, but not a moment before. Until then, believers can offer hope to their fellow strugglers precisely by the steadfast witness of their love.

(I say, "fellow strugglers," for who among us has coasted through this life's journey without finding or making reasons to question the reality and/or relevance of God?)

Let's not make it any harder for people to believe by our uncharity! Instead, let our love be as "surround sound" that dispels the noise of world, flesh, and devil.

+ + + + +

I should add that the petitions in this Prayer of the Faithful service often relate to the day's Scripture readings. What for this case?  Exodus 11:10--12:14 has enough material for one post.

To put it mildly, Pharaoh's obduracy was uncharitable. It was one of myriad difficulties behind alien Israel's doubt of YHWH's wisdom, power, and love. Did Pharaoh "cause" that doubt? Did Israel's lack of food, water, security, or anything else, cause it? Even if Israel's difficulties added up to 10,001, they did not cause her to doubt.  The People of God failed to acknowledge God's consistent actions on their behalf, no matter how often and how marvelously He acted.

The biggest factor behind Israel's unbelief was their worship of comfort. Not "interest in," not "preference for," but worship of. Yes, Israel had a great deal of hardship; perhaps their entire inspired corpus is, in a word, a history of hardships--some dealt from within, some from without. Believing, struggling readers will recognize their own story in its pages. But they will also recognize the invitation to love-infused faith, which alone helps people to make sense of suffering.

Not to disparage the narrative integrity of the First Covenant, we who have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16) will supply Something missing from its sacred pages. This declaration from the Catechism will help:

If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil. (CCC 309, bold emphases mine).

Note well: Though Christ's entire mystery constitutes "the answer," it doesn't provide automatic, comprehensive conviction. His grace, my consent, your witness remain: these three!

The LORD was asking Israel to do a strange thing: discharge a detailed preparation of a lamb as if any minute now they had to get moving! At the outset, the prospect of leaving Egypt had some promise, but it wasn't very long before the mobile misfits longed for their fleshpots and melted their gold into a calf. The whole affair was a crisis of faith.

Judging by Moses' reactions, he often became as flustered as his fellow wayfarers. "Moses' wrath flared up, so that he threw the tablets down and broke them on the base of the mountain" (Ex 32:19). "Listen to me, you rebels!" (Num 20:10) And my favorite: "If this is the way you will deal with me, then please do me the favor of killing me at once, so that I need no longer face this distress" (Num 11:15).

During the second rant, Moses struck the rock twice when God's only directive was to "order the rock to yield its waters" (Num 20:8; 11). That act of disobedience constituted a lack of faith in the Lord's mercy. God would have sent the stream at Moses' mere word, which would have astounded Israel more readily than smacking the rock (which is how I imagine the two pulses--delivered with no ceremony whatever!).

Moses On Strike

Moses' doubt didn't help the Israelites along their wilderness wandering. Likewise the rants of Christ's priests have no salutary effect "for our good, and the good of all His holy Church." (Not that their ineffectiveness has ever stopped me...)

But God knows whom He chooses, and may He be praised for His forbearance with us! Help us, Lord,  to surround the doubtful with convincing love.