Monday, May 12, 2014

No Spooky; No Religion

Today someone who works for a Catholic apologetics website posted a thing saying the "Black Mass" planned by some foolish secularists at Harvard University is just a lot of showy nonsense.

But you see, this is exactly what the secularists believe. The point, they say, is to show that religion is just a load of bosh because, look! you can directly tempt God with his holiest things and, Bazinga! No lightning strikes.

So, my question is not why do the dumb secularists at Harvard think this, but why a man who claims to be a follower of Christ is promoting their agenda.

He writes:
I've been told I have leaden instincts and maybe this is just another example thereof, but I can't get too worked up over the Black Mass (presuming that that there won't be Eucharistic desecration at it) at Harvard. Seems to me that higher academia has for a long time featured plenty of anti-Catholic goings-on, many more grave than this silly pageant they're planning tonight.

Or to put it another way, if a bunch of Ivy-Tower secularists who don't believe in Satan recreate a Satanic rite to get attention, how much attention should we give it?

I suppose he's trying to help people not freak out. Because in our times in the Church, getting worked up about religious stuff is bad form. We're supposed to be as cool as the other guys.

Well, I can't help but remember that Christ wasn't really all that "cool" about the influence of the demon.

I respond by re-posting an old thing on the difficulty modern Catholics, however sincere, have with the crazy, scary, crawling-backwards-up-walls, demons, angels and mystical part of the Faith. They're good with the rules, and can expound (ad nauseam) on the meaning of the latest encyclicals.

But have they fallen into the world's trap? Have they got the details but failed to get the point?

I have often thought that there seems, at least in the way most people practice the faith, two kinds of Catholicism. What I have arbitrarily designated "The Rules" and "Spooky Catholicism".

Of course, a balanced Catholic lives his life according to The Rules because he knows that Spooky Catholicism is real. This is the correct way of looking at it. The supernatural really actually exists in the really real world and therefore things like the difference between good and evil is not merely the subject of dry academic debate but an urgent and immediate reality to be contended with daily.

The reality of the supernatural is something that seems quite difficult for modern people to understand. And this despite the vast and growing proliferation of the occult in popular culture, which seems odd.

As you know, I have just finished reading a series of very dumb teenager vampire romance novels. (Yes, I enjoyed them ... sort a weird way.) One of the things that made them dumb was the fact that the authoress, Stephanie Meyer, did not seem to understand the difference between the natural and the supernatural. She regularly referred to her vampire and werewolf characters as being part of the supernatural world, but then said that tests had revealed that they had a different number of chromosomes in their cells from humans.

She indicated that the change from being a natural human to a supernatural vampire was merely a physiological change, the vampire "venom" (good grief!) would work its way though the body via the bloodstream re-writing the person's DNA to give them super-powers. (No, it really wasn't very well thought out, but that's not why all the teenyboppers are reading it.) And that was it, really, no more to it than that.

I suspect the banality, the flat-universe quality, of her books is a result of Stephanie Meyer's Mormonism, which does not even try to address the issue of "where does the universe come from". Mormonism also doesn't understand or acknowledge the difference between the supernatural world and the natural world. In Mormonism, the gods are more or less just humans with superpowers, and no one ever notices that the question "Who or what is the Prime Mover" is never asked.

At least with Buffy's vampires, there was a supernatural exchange of "souls" and the vampired person would become, essentially, possessed by an incorporeal demonic creature. (This system often broke down in Buffy, but that was the idea). In the Buffyverse, there are any number of "demons", "gods", "oracles" and assorted representatives of classical, pre-Christian and extra-Christian entities of varying degrees of supernaturalness (though perhaps significantly, never any angels. In all of Buffy, I think God only got a mention once or twice). And as the series progressed the rules about them seemed to shift according to the needs of the plot.

I note, however, that in Buffy, and even more later in Angel, the "demons" were again just a different kind of natural being. In Angel, there were actually different "species" of demons who were just modified humans and the damage they could do was not moral damage to a person's soul, but physical damage according to the potency of their super-powers. Plus, you could kill them with a gun or a sword. So ... you know.

It all gets a little fuzzy, really. It's not like I was really looking for theological consistency in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I believe that Harry Potter has solved the literary problem of the supernatural by more or less proposing that the wizards are a different species from the regular humans. A species that can naturally manipulate natural "forces" and that magic is essentially just another physical force like electricity. Again, this kind of breaks down in practice during the course of the books (which I haven't read), but that seems about the gist again. Once again, the modern occult writer does not seem to know what the supernatural really is.

I have noted several times that the universe accepted by the sci-fi writers is dualistic, that there is a distinct split between the physical and the incorporeal, the old mind-body split, but still no actual supernatural. Despite all the story lines of people exchanging bodies with each other and "ascending to a higher plane of existence" and whatnot, all of this is still strictly within the realm of the natural, the physical, the scientifically recordable. It's really just Cartesianism with special effects.

Nothing in, for example, Star Gate SG1's ideas about "ascended Ancients" was remotely supernatural. You just spent a few decades meditating and, pow! you got a pretty, glowy, kind of ghostly-looking body that could fly and control weather or whatever and live in some other "higher plane" that was, essentially, just another "dimension". This seemed to be as close as the sci-fi world could get to the idea of something "outside nature".

Whether we like it of not, we live in a culture that has, for 400 years or more, been rejecting the existence of the supernatural. And now that we're looking for it again, we don't know it when we see it and think we see it when we really don't.

I think that our modern obsession with the occult is not in fact a result of an innate human fascination with the supernatural. Or perhaps the purveyors of the occult pop-culture are so unimaginative that what they are peddling is merely naturalism dressed up in sparkly CGI costumes.

As a result, we Catholics seem to have a hard time understanding what the actual supernatural is. We have popular Catholic literature that talks about things like birth, and sunsets and butterflies as "miraculous". Well, it might be a poetic way of speaking about how great nature is, but it is misleading too. Natural things are not, by definition, miraculous. The supernatural is not just the natural with super-powers.

We really have a hard time with the idea of something that is real, has a will and an intellect and the ability to do things in the natural world, but no body at all. A spirit, in the strictest sense.

We have a heck of a time understanding the thing about God being outside, above and preceding time and space.

Now that the Church has more or less given up talking about the supernatural and continues to justify its existence based on its record of social work projects in the third world, we Catholics have fallen into the habit of thinking naturalistically. So much so, I think, that things like the "Catholic charismatic movement" have sprung up in reaction.

People who are interested in religion are really interested in the Spooky parts. They want to know about the grand movements of Heaven and Hell, of angels and demons and the Great War between them. They want to know that their own moral struggles are about something greater, taller and more grand than global warming or the dangers of smoking. Something better, that is, than what the secular world offers.

It's the real reason movies and books like the Da Vinci Code are so wildly popular. Why Hollywood always dresses its pretend nuns to look more like real nuns than the real nuns have looked in 40 years. And why the Godfather movies all have depictions of the brocade and velvet, pointed arches, gold-curliqued and marble-columned Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II era. No one who is looking for the real, Spooky, Supernatural version of religion wants a priest to dress in a polyester poncho and sing folk songs.

There's The Rules, yes, and we give intellectual assent to the doctrines of the Faith, (which is what "The Rules" is shorthand for.) But what are The Rules guiding if not the supernatural life of the soul?

What is it all for if there's no Spooky?



Seraphic said...

I wonder if the owner of "Hong Kong" in Harvard Square will sue or stay quiet in the hopes everyone forgets, and if he will ask anyone to spiritually sterilize his restaurant. Not only are American Christians not too keen to hang out where Satan has been summoned, but the Chinese are no so keen on bad luck, demons, unlucky numbers, etc.

I wonder if it occurred to the atheist Stanists (and what more could Stan ask for -- people who worship him without even believing in him, what a trip! what a reversal!) that they might be doing very real HARM. Were their egos so huge that it never occurred to them that whichever owner of whichever premise they fooled about in would object to their behaviour for his own spiritual reasons? Or even for business reasons? They or the Harvard Crimson have brought his establishment into disrepute.


Ingemar said...

This post reminds me very much of another Trad female Catholic. See

Unknown said...

A timely reminder of the reality beyond the material world. In our day religion is taken as seriously as Dungeons & Dragons (hopefully, with better costumes). We can't even count on our churchmen to open people's eyes to theses realities because they regard any sincere belief in the supernatural as an embarrassment and would rather be doing real work like washing the feet of transgendered voodoist illegal immigrants on TV.

Yes, that nasty Ockham has a lot to answer for.

John said...

Does anybody else find it fascinating that the president of Harvard's name is . . . Faust?

Since she's a woman, I was sort of hoping for a first name of Gretchen, or at least Marguerite. That conflates a couple of characters and is, perhaps, over-doing it, which I have been known to do. But in any event, it turns out she's just a "Drew".

Still, Faust is a pretty interesting name to pop up in a story like this anyway.