A nearer Christmas. More (all the rest of what I’ll share) from this year’s reading of Auden’s For the Time Being.
THE THREE WISE MEN:
The weather has been awful,
The countryside is dreary,
Marsh, jungle, rock; and echoes mock,
Calling our hope unlawful;
But a silly song can help along
Yours ever and sincerely:
At least we know for certain that we are three old sinners,
That this journey is much too long, that we want our dinners,
And miss our wives, our books, our dogs,
But have only the vaguest idea why we are what we are.
To discover how to be human now
Is the reason we follow this star.
* * * * *
Instead of building temples, we build laboratories;
Instead of offering sacrifices, we perform experiments;
Instead of reciting prayers, we note pointer-readings;
Our lives are no longer erratic but efficient.
Great is Caesar: God must be with Him.…
Great is Caesar: He has conquered Seven Kingdoms.
The Fourth was the Kingdom of Credit Exchange:
Last night it was Tit-for-Tat, tonight it is C.O.D.;
When we have a surplus, we need not meet someone with a deficit;
When we have a deficit, we need not meet someone with a surplus;
Instead of heavy treasures, there are paper symbols of value;
Instead of Pay at Once, there is Pay when you can;
Instead of My Neighbour, there is Our Customers;
Instead of Country Fair, there is World Market
Great is Caesar: God must be with Him.
* * * * *
THE MEDITATION OF SIMEON
…
SIMEON: As long as there were any roads to amnesia and anaesthesia still to be explored, any rare wine or curiosity of cuisine as yet untested, any erotic variation as yet unimagined or unrealised, any method of torture as yet undevised, any style of conspicuous waste as yet unindulged, any eccentricity of mania or disease as yet unrepresented, there was still a hope that man had not been poisoned but transformed, that Paradise was not an eternal state from which he had been forever expelled, but a childish state which he had permanently outgrown, that the Fall had occurred by necessity.
…
SIMEON: By the event of this birth the true significance of all other events is defined, for of every other occasion it can be said that it could have been different, but of this birth it is the case that it could in no way be other than it is. And by the existence of this Child, the proper value of all other existences is given, for of every other creature it can be said that it has extrinsic importance but of this Child it is the case that He is in no sense a symbol.
* * * * *
Herod
…
Legislation is helpless against the wild prayer of longing that rises, day in, day out, from all these households under my protection: “O God, put away justice and truth for we cannot understand them and do not want them. Eternity would bore us dreadfully. Leave Thy heavens and come down to our earth of waterclocks and hedges. Become our uncle. Look after Baby, amuse Grandfather, escort Madam to the Opera, help Willy with his home-work, introduce Muriel to a handsome naval officer. Be interesting and weak like us, and we will love you as we love ourselves.”
…
Naturally this cannot be allowed to happen. Civilisation must be saved even if this means sending for the military, as I suppose it does. How dreary. Why is it that in the end civilisation always has to call in these professional tidiers to whom it is all one whether it be Pythagoras or a homicidal lunatic that they are instructed to exterminate. O dear. Why couldn’t this wretched infant be born somewhere else? Why can’t people be sensible? I don’t want to be horrid. Why can’t they see that the notion of a finite God is absurd? Because it is, And suppose, just for the sake of argument, that it isn’t, that this story is true, that this child is in some inexplicable manner both God and Man, that he grows up, lives, and dies, without committing a single sin? Would that make life any better? On the contrary it would make it far, far worse. For it could only mean this; that once having shown them how, God would expect every man, whatever his fortune, to lead a sinless life in the flesh and on earth. Then indeed would the human race be plunged into madness and despair. And for me personally at this moment it would mean that God had given me the power to destroy Himself. I refuse to be taken in. He could not play such a horrible practical joke. Why should He dislike me so? I’ve worked like a slave. Ask anyone you like. I read all official dispatches without skipping. I’ve taken elocution lessons. I’ve hardly ever taken bribes. How dare He allow me to decide? I’ve tried to be good. I brush my teeth every night. I haven’t had sex for a month. I object. I’m a liberal. I want everyone to be happy. I wish I had never been born.
* * * * *
Chorus
He is the Way.
Follow Him through the Land of Unlikeness;
You will see rare beasts, and have unique adventures.He is the Truth.
Seek Him in the Kingdom of Anxiety;
You will come to a great city that has expected your return for years.He is the Life.
Love Him in the World of the Flesh;
And at your marriage all its occasions shall dance for joy.
* * * * *
It’s nearly Christmas. Time to break out Auden’s For the Time Being.
This I believe:
The priest must support the struggling penitent in their desire to grow in all purity and chastity, and help them to know that their struggle will eventually lead them to the state where they can freely, and with joy, embrace the holiness that is their inheritance. If the priest ministers from his heart, and is grounded in the love of Christ, he will be able to give hope to the person who struggles with habitual sin, or relapses into sin already confessed.
When priests center the ministry of healing in compassion rather than passion, they are able to help the person who is struggling with same sex attraction embrace chastity as a gift, and not a terrible burden that forever dooms them to a life of loneliness and exclusion from the Mysteries of the Church. If priests do not marginalize the persons who are struggling with their homosexuality, but make a place for them within the life of the Church, they will give them the opportunity to grow in holiness and truth, just like all of us who have turned to the Church for healing.
Pushing aside those who have such a great cross to bear, or barring them from the life of the Church while accommodating those who relapse into sins such as masturbation, pornography, or gossiping, sends the wrong message to the lesbian or gay man who is struggling to maintain their Orthodox faith. They need love and support to live a life of chastity and holiness, and the priest must lead the parish community to be their welcoming family. The Church needs to lovingly say to the persons who struggle with same-sex inclinations that “we love you, and we are going to be patient with you. If you fall a thousand times, we will still be there for you”.
When we demonize those with same sex attraction, we do a disservice to everyone who is struggling with sin, for if that person’s sin is viewed as far more serious than ours, we are inadvertently distracted from our own road to repentance. If we would rather drive out the homosexual from our midst than create an atmosphere of hope and healing within the community of faith, we condemn ourselves, and our sin is compounded by our having judged another more harshly.
Thank you for saying it so well, Abbott Tryphon.
Let me break it down a bit:
May God have mercy on us as we struggle to be a welcoming family without being “inclusive” in the relativistic term-of-art sense that I think it has taken on:
At the same time, we priests must not, in our desire to embrace them with our love and acceptance, fail to call them to repentance. Regardless of what psychologists are saying, or what the courts are declaring, or pop artists and sports heroes are proclaiming about themselves, the priest must not fail in his duty to proclaim the unchanging message of the scriptures regarding biblical morality. Priests must resist moral relativism, while remaining true messengers of Christ’s mercy.
* * * * *
The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research, but they are much, much less off-the-cuff than some of the stuff I routinely dish up.
I don’t know whether it’s just me, or if some of my usual sources really have gone a little flat recently. I won’t call out anyone in particular.
But the hiatus in links gives me a chance to turn to something that’s been bugging me for a while: the confusion over “consent” to sexual relations. Not just when it’s present or absent, but why it has supplanted other considerations and how stupidly the legal system can apply the requirement, who consents implicitly and, well, I think I’ve gone far enough impersonating a journalist without a “what” question.
Why should consent as the standard for sexual behaviour succeed in minimizing harm when so many other standards, far more clear, have often failed?
Put differently, why are conservative sexual mores held in such disdain? In some places, CBC headquarters among them, the only thing less popular than non-consensual sex is the idea that sexual activity be reserved for marriage.
Pre-sexual revolution, consent came when you were prepared to commit for the long term, for life …
Post-sexual revolution, consent is far easier to get. Yet today, arguably, we have more people hurting than ever before.
This is in part because consent is not enough to prevent pain …
One of the most harmful things about 21st century sexual morality is that it refuses to condemn anything that is not outright criminal, even though tremendous suffering is caused by immature, unkind and possibly immoral, but legal, behaviour.
… [T]here is something wrong with a culture that allows for such confusion over something so intimate, so often. Consent will fail where commitment to the whole person is absent.
Let’s be clear: consensual adultery, promiscuity and BDSM are not illegal, nor should they be. But in the race to replace higher sexual standards with consensual hedonism, we have lost sight of the guidelines that define not what makes a criminal, but what makes a decent person.
Marriage as the sole appropriate context for sex is a high standard, and an imperfect one. Yet in theory, it demands commitment, not for a single encounter, but for a lifetime. It encourages respect and care not only for your partner’s body, but also for their heart, mind and soul.
Andrea Mrozek and Rebecca Walberg, Why not hold sexual relations to a higher standard? I almost could stop there, but I won’t.
“An Iowa legislator who allegedly had sex with his mentally incapacitated late wife has been charged with sexual abuse. Henry Rayhons, 78, a Republican state representative from Iowa House District 8, was told by medical staff on May 15 that his wife, 78-year-old Donna Rayhons, no longer had the mental ability to consent to sexual activity, according to a criminal complaint obtained by WHO-TV. Donna Rayhons, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, had been living in Concord Care Center in Garner, Iowa, since March, according to the Des Moines Register….
In an interview with law enforcement in June,Rayhons allegedly confessed to ‘having sexual contact’ with his wife, according to KCCI. He also allegedly admitted that he had a copy of the document that stated his wife did not have the cognitive ability to give consent. Rayhons was charged with third-degree sexual abuse on Friday.
Elizabeth Barnhill, executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, told the Des Moines Register that even though spousal rape has been illegal in Iowa for about 25 years, arrests for the crime are rare and ‘convictions are even rarer.’ Barnhill also noted that sexual assault between spouses is not considered a ‘forcible felony’ in Iowa.”
Elder Law Prof Blog, State Legislator Charged with “Sexual Assault” of Wife In Complicated Nursing Home Case
The more one reads about the Iowa case, the sadder it seems. Even though at first it seemed the husband, a state legislator, might be expected to have sophisticated legal knowledge of the implications of what it might mean for his wife to be diagnosed with dementia, it became pretty clear — at least to me, reading from afar — that the husband is a fairly simple guy: A farmer, high school education, part-time legislator who liked pig roasts and parades, and someone who cared deeply for his second wife, trying as hard as possible to see her as “just a little” impaired.
I suspect that for many of us who have experiences with a loved one with dementia, there is a phase of denial, not just about the fact of dementia, but about the level of dementia. I remember one instance where a client always had her husband sign their joint tax returns, because even with Alzheimer’s, he was “able” to sign his name clearly.
Reading the statute used to charge the Iowa husband also gave me pause. Iowa Code Section 709 was the basis of the sexual abuse charges. Sexual abuse in the third degree under Section 709.4 could be charged where a sex act “is done by force or against the will of the other person.” That provision did not seem to apply. Charges could also be brought where the act is between persons who are not cohabiting as husband and wife, “if any of the following” is true: “The other person is suffering from a mental defect or incapacity which precludes giving consent.”
Elder Law Prof Blog, When Does Dementia Mean You No Longer Have the Right to Say Yes to Sexual Activity?
<HumbleBrag>I confess to having lost the ability to think like a law professor</HumbleBrag>, but this Iowa case really roils me. In fairness to law professors, it troubles Eugene Volokh, too, who links to maybe the longest popular news treatment of the story.
I now enter very dangerous territory, where some dishonest people will accuse me of believing that a husband is entitled to rape his wife, but here goes: Shouldn’t we presume that spouses consent to sexual relations unless they affirmatively refuse?
Meanwhile, some of the numbers for campus rape rates are being exposed as bogus by the Justice Department this very week. One coed in five? Nowhere close. Who made up those numbers: Andrea Dworkin?
I find myself turned off by the blatant exaggerations to the point where I must take myself by the scruff of the neck to remind myself that rape actually does happen, including on campus. That’s how exaggeration – from Andrea Dworkin to Rolling Stone to exaggerated “statistics” to dubious spousal rape charges – can poison the well.
And despite the claim that men are raped sometimes (By women? Really?), women will be the losers of any new indifference to rape occasioned by exaggerations and hysteria.
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 