As I have already confessed to both of you, I have sinned and read a good deal ahead… all the way ahead. My comments will not really reflect this though as they are really just an expansion upon the notes I wrote in the margins. Anyway, here are my notes on Day 2.
The conversation between Benno and William is interesting. Benno, a student of learning whose only passion is knowledge, is eager to read works that are kept from him because he knows that there is much to learn from pagan sources. Not all truth is found within Christianity, it is not the exclusive source of truth- contra RCC. Jorge is very opposed to the notion that a book on laughter by Aristotle exists because the RCC accepts Aristotle as virtually canonical and laughter is of the devil- either mocking truth or trivializing evil.
The concept of hearing what you want to hear and believing what you want to believe is an interesting one. Beranger tells of a vision he had of Adelmo, there is discussion of people imagining that they did crimes they are accused of in order to end torture etc…. This is an extremely important point that cannot be overemphasized in religious discussions. Experience is very central to a many people’s religious beliefs. How can one argue against experience? Here we see uncertainty attached to experience. So do people really have these experiences or do they only see what they want to see or visions that originate in their own imaginations? Postmodernism is opposed to the idea of an individual’s experience having any sort of universal significance. Experience is important to a postmodern epistemology but it cannot inform universal/absolute truth. It can only be meaningful to the individual because it originates only within the individual. This theme is repeated throughout the book.
The homosexual tendencies of the monks are becoming more and more pronounced. Adso admits that he has had these lusts later in his life. The RCC and Protestant Christianity emphasizes sexual purity very strongly, but they are viewed as hypocrites, often justifiably. As a Protestant I am biased, but I do believe that the RCC gives us a worse rap than we deserve here. Sexual immorality occurs among our clergy but less frequently than believed.
Hell-fire preaching is also given a very hard rap. This reminded me of Dawkins’ God-delusion where he equates preaching about hell to child abuse. BW is insinuating that Adelmo’s death may be a result of this sort of preaching. The catch here, of course, is whether or not it is true. The world will always view preaching and talking about hell as an evil of our faith but if hell truly exists we ought to do all we can to help people avoid it. It is not unloving to warn others of this. The world sees this as hateful because they do not believe it. They think we are only frightening people. This is an embarrassing doctrine for me, I admit. I do not like it and I do not want to preach it. But I do think that it is compromising the gospel and accommodation to forsake it. If we believe it, we must preach it. Wisdom and gentleness are not to be forsaken either, however.
The short conversation between Salvatore and the cook brought out another interesting theme. What is true and genuine Christianity? Salvatore is giving away food to the herdsmen and is reprimanded for ‘squandering’ the abbey’s food. Salvatore appeals to Jesus’ love for the poor but he apparently (according to the cook) ‘screws whores’. Does the church care more about sexual purity than the state of the poor? Is sexual purity really that important? These are questions that people of our generation are asking. Of course we believe it is, but how important is it in comparison to other issues? Does it deserve the prominence it receives? These are more difficult questions. Another example of this inconsistency is given in the next chapter. Aymaro will not explicitly mention homosexuality because it is ‘improper’ to mention. He doesn’t really explicitly spell anything out really- he has an aversion to gossip… but of course that is exactly what he is doing. He is mentioning it and he is gossiping.
Since this is such a huge issue in the book and this post is already long I’ll discuss this more in subsequent posts, but the heresy debates are very interesting. The opposition to heresy is not about truth but about power. The heretics (see Ubertino) are the ones who are concerned with truth (they can see the difference). The church is only concerned with heresy because it threatens their power (and $). There is not really any interest in truth or goodness. Later (still in day 2- I won’t betray this) the church is blamed for heresy. Heresies are a result of the church not providing for her people. Heretics are people for whom the church is insufficient. Heresies are a proof then that orthodoxy is not really orthodoxy (right teaching). If it were, it would be sufficient for all. It is insufficient and thus forces heresies to make up for these deficiencies.
More on laughter. The reason Jorge so strongly opposes it is that he views it as encouraging doubt. There is no room for any doubt in Christianity. BW (and postmodernism) not only disagrees but almost idolizes doubt. Reason was created by God (if there is a god) and if our reason leads us to doubt then it is God’s doing ultimately. Doubt is sacred and right and essential to our existence as human beings.
1 comment:
In addition, don't trust anyone over 30 (especially if they're married) ;-)
Post a Comment