The Age of Credulity

     From The Most of Malcolm Muggeridge, a collection of essays printed in paperback in 1969, before the author's conversion to Christianity, comes this superb analysis of mass man's proneness to accepting anything, no matter how absurd.  I shouldn't accuse mass man so harshly without first noting that he is usually preceded in parade by the self-styled intellectuals.  Muggeridge is concluding an article on the hyping of Air Force pilot Claude Eatherly into a pacifist saint.  The story that the purveyors of mendacity, that is, newspapers, radio, television, and the silver screen, wanted to believe and wanted everybody else to believe was that Mr. Eatherly was a distinguished soldier so sickened by his part in the bombing of Hiroshima that he turned to a life of crime, in the fashion of a modern martyr, to cause people to notice and listen.  The truth turned out to be a good deal more edifying, if you really want to learn about the tangles of that jungle called the human heart.  Eatherly was annoyed at not having played a bigger part in Hiroshima, or not being recognized for his role.  He then tried his hardest to be assigned to the experimental bombing at Bikini.  He cheated on the exam, and was tossed out of the service with an honorable discharge.  Then he went home to his wife, and got involved in some kind of criminal plot to bomb Havana.  He drank a lot, drifted into crime, and was basically a worthless lout, in and out of the VA mental wards and prison, when he was visited by a newspaper reporter, who stretched his story a wee bit, and then someone else came along and stretched it some more, and the rest, alas, is what we call history.  Anyway, here is Muggeridge's conclusion:

     "It has long been my opinion that the most appropriate name for the times in which we live would be the Age of Credulity. . . . Science (the very word has undergone a singular distortion; meaning originally a condition of knowing, it has come to signify particular branches of knowledge), which purports to inculcate skepticism, has surrendered the human mind to a degree of absurdity which would have astounded a medieval scholar and made an African witch doctor green with envy.
     "In the now little read short stories of O. Henry there are two con men -- Jeff Peters and Andy Tucker -- who regard it as unethical to sell gold bricks to farmers because it is too easy.  Had these two worthies had the advantage and pleasure of reading Mr. Huie's The Hiroshima Pilot, [a book exposing the nonsense], they would have realized that, compared with the fine flower of our Western intelligentsia, farmers are a hard sell. . . ."

     I'll sign on to that.  Let's see, now:

     I was a boy once, and have watched children playing, all my life long.  I was taught that boys and girls are different, in ways that I'd come to find sometimes frustrating but usually delightful, and that bit of folksy wisdom jived with what I saw of them.  But now I am supposed to believe that in every culture known to man, at every stage of technological development, and often quite independent of one another, boys invent rough games, organize themselves into teams or gangs, and worship heroes, and that this is all a matter of cultural conditioning and could be completely otherwise; but when some grown man wants to dress up as a bride and saunter down the aisle with another grown man, and sow seed where seed don't go, now that is natural, nay, absolutely determined by the jeans, I mean genes.  I can't believe that.

     When I was a kid, people used to call it a "tragedy" if a child lost his mother or father, by death or divorce.  That seemed about right to me; I knew a couple of those kids.  But now one of my colleagues, a nominal Catholic, unmarried, has adopted a healthy little boy to raise as her own, without a father.  I am supposed to believe that this is a wonderful thing, and throw a party.  I can't believe it, as I cannot believe that our children of divorce and of shacking up are just fine, not hurt by it, no, not a bit.  It would take a long and tedious post for me to recount what divorce and shacking up has done to just the families of our five or six closest friends in Canada; but I am supposed to ignore all of that, and believe, with a toss of the head, that marriage would have been worse.  I have seen, closely, marriages that were terrible; and I have seen rotten husbands and wives grow even worse because of the possibility of divorce.  I have seen them go on and make other people's lives miserable, like free radicals ranging through the system.  I am supposed to ignore it, and believe, just believe.

     It's a lovely day out there, and I am going to spend some of it picking blueberries.  I could go on and on, listing the absurdities I can't bring myself to believe: that the purpose of our schools is to educate; that Catholics generally wish there would be more young priests; that Hillary Clinton loves her country; that soccer is a greater game than football; that Europe is not dying; that it is a wonderful thing to know that a movie like The Sound of Music (recently requested by my 14-year-old son) not only would not be made now, but could not be made; that people who believed in chastity in my parents' generation are just like the Taliban; that marriages of nitpicking duty-sharing are superior to marriages of complementary gifts and gratitude; that kindergarteners ought to know about sodomy; that a 120-pound girl lifeguard could save me if I were sinking; that men who stay at home to take care of their children will be fulfilled in their manhood and will be well-treated by their wives, who will work to earn money so that their husbands can have all the good things they would like for themselves and the family; that higher education is not a bloodsucking cheat; that a city without children is a great place to live; that anybody who drives a car with an automatic transmission, uses a clothes dryer or an air conditioner, lives more than a few miles from work, or owns a house of more than 500 square feet per occupant may be an "environmentalist" qualified to tell everybody else what to do about global warming; and so on.  Perhaps you all can add a few items of your own.

Comments

[Bill R]

Hmmm....as to our modern day secular faith, Professor, you're a bit of a recusant, aren't you?

[Bill R]

Hmmm....as to our modern day secular faith, Professor, you're a bit of a recusant, aren't you?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I'm in near-complete agreement with Prof. Esolen. A few niggling points:

1) Not having attended an RC parish in the last couple of decades I'm a bit shocked at the idea that these folks *don't* want young priests. Are you sure about that? I suppose with the dearth of large families, you might only have one male heir to carry on the family name--I suppose that might be an inhibiting factor in the enthusiasm of some people--but this is a total guess on my part.

2) You'd think reality would make folks in lifeguard training around more often. Maybe it does but they just don't want to make a big fuss over it and not enough people are in danger of drowning nowadays (unless they're kids and really small). When I was going through the certification process 22 years ago the men always got assigned to "rescue" the men and the women, the women. In what was then called the certification for "water-safety instructor", I got assigned to try to "drown" my rescuer. He happened to be a sophomore defensive lineman for the University of South Carolina and was fully 6'7" in height and 290 lbs in weight. I was 180 lbs and tried every trick I had to take him under the (12' deep) water with me. None of them worked--he pinned me like I was a doll and bundled me off to the side of the pool. Nobody tell me that size and strength don't matter. A 120 lb girl is going to have a hard time saving 210 pound me if I'm unconscious.

3) Ten years ago, I would have been completely with you on the game of soccer vs football. In the intervening times, four of my five oldest boys have taken up and shown some degree of excellence at the sport. To my surprise, I now really enjoy watching (and occasionally trying to play) soccer. And since I've never had a TV in my adult life, I don't really pine for football that much. (Who can really play football anyway, nowadays?)

[Stuart Koehl]

I'm split on the subject of young priests. On the one hand, I don't think some fair-haired boy wet behind the ears, fresh out of seminary, whose experience of the world is almost exclusively theoretical, has the necessary background or maturity to be father to a congregation in the midst of a complex and challenging world. The Fathers must have agreed, since most of the early canons require a man to be at least thirty to enter the presbyterate (all the while admitting numerous exceptions to the rule).

On the other hand, most of the older priests I've met came of age in the late sixties or early seventies. Enough said.

[Stuart Koehl]

Tony,

Perhaps you left out some key elements of information when you related the story of the single woman who adopted a child. Why would this NOT be cause for rejoicing? Here is a child who will be brought into a loving home, certainly a better fate than round after round of foster care. Single men and woman adopting children has been pretty common throughout history, and while admitting it would be better for the child to be taken into a home with both a mother and father, let's not make perfect the enemy of the good. Should we cluck disapprovingly when Silas Marner decides to take in disgustingly cute little Eppie (though I would have left her down de toal hole, if I had been Silas)? I just don't get it. What is it about the woman or her situation that makes her adoption a bad thing?

[Kamilla]

Absurdities I can't bring myself to believe:

That Eckhard Tolle, Depak Chopra and Rhonda Byrne have discovered something new that Norman Vincent Peale and a gross of other hucksters down through the ages haven't tried to sell the gullible.

That seminaries where inclusive language and Egalitarianism are embraced are *not* on a slippery slope that will lead to something the professors would never consider when they signed onto the project.

The UFO contact and alien abductions are anything other than demonic manifestations. Or, as one rapper recently put it, "I don't think they like black people. UFOs never come to East LA".

That children are a drain on the environment rather than the blessing of a good God.

That healthcare is ever *free* and won't be rationed by other means when the "government" pays for it.

That Barack Obama (who never meant an abortion he didn't support) gives a flying fig about the "least of these" and that Dick Cheney (who, in one recent tax year gave 70% of his income to charity) does not.

don't get me started . . .

Kamilla

[DGP]

>>Not having attended an RC parish in the last couple of decades I'm a bit shocked at the idea that these folks *don't* want young priests. Are you sure about that? I suppose with the dearth of large families, you might only have one male heir to carry on the family name--I suppose that might be an inhibiting factor in the enthusiasm of some people--but this is a total guess on my part.

Prof. Esolen is right: The people don't want priests. They don't want their own sons to become priests. They don't want any young men they really care about to become priests. They don't even want other young men to become priests, because the prospect usually threatens cherished ambitions for the church or for themselves. (Behind the usual fuss about how the Holy Spirit is using the priest shortage to lead us to, say, women's ordination, lies the deeply disturbing grace of divine election -- intolerable to egalitarians of all stripes, and not merely the women's ordination crowd.)

It has a lot to do with the faith. People don't really want men to become priests in part because they don't value what priests do. They may *say* they value the preaching of the Gospel for its own sake, or the administration of the sacraments, but in fact what they want is something much different. That "something" may not be bad (e.g., Mr. Koehl above, who professes to want someone help him with a complex and challenging world) but it may also be quite destructive (e.g., those who simply want to be confirmed in their own self-righteousness, which is how a lot of the priests Mr. Koehl denounces became what they are today).

The whole phenomenon parallels that of masculinity: People say they want boys to become men, but they find a thousand subtle ways to discourage them. The same goes for priests. Remember, it was not just a few priests who "came of age" in the 60s and 70s. It was an entire generation.

[Stuart Koehl]

Please do remember that I belong to a Church whose priests are not just metaphorical fathers.

[Steve K.]

Right on DGP. Before departing for the Gregorian Rite FSSP parish I now attend, my old parish faced (faces) an acute priest shortage, as does most of the diocese. It didn't seem to trouble too many there, though, at least of those active in things like the parish council. As far as they were concerned, it was the laity's parish anyway, and they could run it better than any old priest (particularly the frumpy ex-nun parish administrator). Many more priests could well mean that they don't run the show the way they want. I think a lot of Catholics in America are comfortable with the priest shortage, and I think a lot of Catholics in America today are in fact Protestants.

I have seen many fine young priests though thanks to the FSSP (and by young, I mean relatively - most over 30), and definitely prefer a holy young priest to the old timers with their burlap vestments, felt banners and macrame church décor.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Remember, it was not just a few priests who "came of age" in the 60s and 70s. It was an entire generation.<<<

That is true, but most of them turned out all right, mainly because life has a way of forcing people to confront reality--provided they are not shunted away into a sheltered, hot-house environment, whether that be Academe or the rectory. I very much favor the idea of sacerdotal ministry as the "second vocation", to be entered into only after a man has led a full life in the world, held a real job, rubbed shoulders with real people, and learned to understand them by being one of them.

Of course, a man can also confront the world by withdrawing from it, which is why there is the monastic vocation. But most monks were not priests, and only a few actually went down that road, and only after a long and hard life in the monastery confronting all sorts of spiritual challenges.

I also think one must consider that the Fathers did want mature men in the priesthood. Consider how compressed life was back in the patristic era: adulthood began at fifteen, life expectancy was somewhere in the mid fifties. To insist that a man be at least thirty before being ordained to the presbyterate is akin to insisting a man be in his mid forties today. Consider how much of life those men had already seen by the time they received cheirotoneia. Consider how little a 25 year old seminarian has seen of life when he is ordained today.

[James Kabala]

On the other hand, truth (or at least indifference) seems to have won out in the end, since Eatherly is forgotten today. Maybe I should say almost forgotten - he has a Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Eatherly), and here is a relatively recent article that largely backs up Huie's account - http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/eatherly.html

Stuart is right that one parent is better than none, but chances are this is being portrayed by the woman involved and her supporters as an ideal situation. (Further details are probably better not discussed in a public forum, however.)

[Joe Long]

*In the mystical power of a vote - ANY vote, no matter how ill-informed or maliciously cast. We are supposed to believe "voter turnout" is a wonderful thing no matter what, and that the votes of people too flat-out stupid to figure out a simple paper ballot, are especially critical votes.

*In the badness of force, no matter how righteous the cause, and in the ultimate triumph of condescending "diplomacy" no matter how unscrupulous the opposing force - if only "peace" is given "a chance".

*In the inherent illegitimacy of any enterprise at all, which does not involve members of several races and at least three "genders".

*In current "art", and in the intellectual superiority of people who have NEVER said "...but a three-year-old could have done that".

* In the political nonpartisanship of journalists.

* In inherited guilt for racial crimes.

* That people who share skin color, but no genetic history, with perpetrators and victims of racial crimes of past centuries, STILL inherit either guilt, or a right to recompense.

*In the moral equivalency of Auschwitz and poultry farming.

[Joe Long]

*In the mystical power of a vote - ANY vote, no matter how ill-informed or maliciously cast. We are supposed to believe "voter turnout" is a wonderful thing no matter what, and that the votes of people too flat-out stupid to figure out a simple paper ballot, are especially critical votes.

*In the badness of force, no matter how righteous the cause, and in the ultimate triumph of condescending "diplomacy" no matter how unscrupulous the opposing force - if only "peace" is given "a chance".

*In the inherent illegitimacy of any enterprise at all, which does not involve members of several races and at least three "genders".

*In current "art", and in the intellectual superiority of people who have NEVER said "...but a three-year-old could have done that".

* In the political nonpartisanship of journalists.

* In inherited guilt for racial crimes.

* That people who share skin color, but no genetic history, with perpetrators and victims of racial crimes of past centuries, STILL inherit either guilt, or a right to recompense.

*In the moral equivalency of Auschwitz and poultry farming.

[Stuart Koehl]

I for one knew all about Claude Eatherly, but I have to admit that, other than as an historical curiosity I never gave him much thought. His is the sad story of a marginal person pushed into a spotlight and trying to claim a fame and significance he did not deserve.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>*In the moral equivalency of Auschwitz and poultry farming.<<<

Or in statements like "I call on both Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint".

[Clifford Simon]

Things I Can't Believe:

That an iPod, for what it does, is actually worth its retail price.

That an economy where the holiday shopping season is vital, is a good and harmless thing.

That for every one of us, there are sane choices besides starting a family or lifelong celibacy.

That a median age of 37 is just what a wealthy industrial nation ought to have.

That nobody ought to have farm or blue-collar jobs. (Hey, we got college degrees...)

[DGP]

>>That is true, but most of them turned out all right, mainly because life has a way of forcing people to confront reality--provided they are not shunted away into a sheltered, hot-house environment, whether that be Academe or the rectory.

Rectories are anything but hothouses these days. Would that they were more so! Instead, they are now too often merely the residences of single men living like any other bachelors.

>>I very much favor the idea of sacerdotal ministry as the "second vocation", to be entered into only after a man has led a full life in the world, held a real job, rubbed shoulders with real people, and learned to understand them by being one of them.

Where have you been for the last 25 years? This is now the norm among RCs.

Indeed I have far more "practical concerns" than the average man. I cook, clean, shop, launder for myself. I have a young man to help me with the landscaping, but in all fairness it's a much bigger property than most men have to worry about. I have a part-time custodian to help with the church building, but I do my share. I manage a budget that easily matches the complexity most men's households, though -- sadly! -- it's not much larger. I have daily responsibilities for the welfare of souls entrusted to me, akin to children -- responsibilities for which replacements are very hard to come by, not unlike a single father's plight.

>>I also think one must consider that the Fathers did want mature men in the priesthood.

As you well know, maturity is not just a function of age. We have trouble finding mature men in their fifties -- not because seminary is a hothouse, but because the culture does not support the maturation of men.

>>To insist that a man be at least thirty before being ordained to the presbyterate is akin to insisting a man be in his mid forties today. Consider how much of life those men had already seen by the time they received cheirotoneia. Consider how little a 25 year old seminarian has seen of life when he is ordained today.

Really, I think you're fighting yesterday's battle.

[Clifford Simon]

>>*In the inherent illegitimacy of any enterprise at all, which does not involve members of several races and at least three "genders".<<

Male, female, and clergy?

Well, that was the joke back in the good old days :)

[Stuart Koehl]

Perhaps the problem lies in my experience with the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, which is the one jurisdiction in the U.S. which refuses to make an explicit statement in support of ordaining married men, but which instead insists on trying to recruit seminarians right out of high school on a fast track to the Phelonion. Having met face-to-face with a number of the Metropolia's upcoming best and brightest, I have to say I am underwhelmed. Not only are they not intellectually top notch, but they strike me as singularly immature, callow and spiritual vapid. But then, the main thing that the Seminary seems to want in its vocational candidates is passivity and pliability--real go along/get along types. A Church reflects its leadership, and nowhere more than here.

Of course, their cluelessness knows no bounds. I remember once the ordination banquet of a close friend--someone who made a long spiritual journey into the Church and came to his calling later in life than most--when the Director of Vocations got up and told the assembled audience that the Church is seriously short of priests, and we should consider emulating my friend. Well, for my part, I had to bite my tongue to avoid laughing out loud, for the audience at the banquet--held on a weekday afternoon--consisted almost entirely of women and their husbands, none of whom the Metropolia either could or would ordain.

Meanwhile, my Church has a surfeit of deacons, precisely the kind of mature, seasoned men who should be raised to the priesthood, but who will not, simply because almost all of them are married. Most of them are far smarter than the priests they serve, have considerably more wisdom, and would make better pastors, but no, they are also more apt than most to tell His Grace the Bishop that he has a very bad idea and should reconsider. Not at all the kind of men with whom Ruthenian bishops want to spend time.

Now, one thing that really impresses me about my new Melkite friends is how different the atmosphere around their clergy is. They have no problem at all with taking men where they find them, and have more routes than one to the priesthood. They take married men and single, seem to prefer men from outside their own seminary system, and above all, are looking for men who know how to run a household, men with their own minds who will submit to legitimate authority but are not cowed by it, who, like the good fathers they are, are willing to go out on a limb for their families--both biological and spiritual.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Clifford,
He was talking about Anglicans, not RC priests. And unfortunately, he was right for all too many of them. :-(

[Clifford Simon]

Popular in my neck of the woods is the John Tesh Radio Show. John Tesh collects trivia from the sorts of magazines you see at the supermarket check-out. Of course, he can't call it "trivia" even though it is - then the radio show wouldn't be interesting. So he calls it "Intelligence For Your Life." The claim is that if you listen to the John Tesh radio show, you'll be smart, healthy, and wise.

I heard that supermarkets experience sudden mass buyings of certain fruits and vegetables, because John Tesh has said on the radio the other day that such-and-such fruit or vegetable is good for your health.

Talk about credulity...

[Kamilla]

Since today I have been reviewing an old MC discussion from last year, I'll add one more:

That anyone who has read more than one chapter of the Apostle Paul's epistles in Holy Scripture could ever be convinced that "Egalitarianism" is his original and true meaning and that the patriarchy woven through the warp and weft of Scripture is merely a concession to those evil old male-dominated cultures.

Kamilla
(who never claimed to be innocent of an inexcusible degree of credulity)

[DGP]

>>Perhaps the problem lies in my experience with the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church....

The problems you describe are not unknown among Latins. Everywhere, anywhere, so much depends upon the person of the Bishop.

[Stuart Koehl]

Better any four names picked at random from the Greek Catholic Union directory.

[Health Articles]

Popular in my neck of the woods is the John Tesh Radio Show. John Tesh collects trivia from the sorts of magazines you see at the supermarket check-out. Of course, he can't call it "trivia" even though it is - then the radio show wouldn't be interesting. So he calls it "Intelligence For Your Life." The claim is that if you listen to the John Tesh radio show, you'll be smart, healthy, and wise.

[Fr. Bill]

>> ... the Seminary seems to want in its vocational candidates is passivity and pliability--real go along/get along types.<<

Oy vey! Who'd a thunk that the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church would have this much in common with Dallas Theological Seminary?

My first solo pastorate was a rocky affair that concluded with my resignation. The congregational elders and I had reached an impasse over the discipline (or refusal to discipline) of a divorced woman who had announced a wedding date for her marriage to an old high-school sweetheart, who pastored a nearby church and whose own divorce was not yet final. This created a perfect storm as far as pastoral theology is concerned, not to mention one's understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Over the previous three years of my tenure, other divorces in the congregation -- one a year for the previous 13 years! -- continued their toxic effect, and I was driven back into the Scriptures for wisdom on how to manage this kind of pastoral tangle. It did nothing to calm the perfect storm that this reassessment of my views (essentially the Westminster standards) led to my adoption of catholic standards -- divorce is not permitted, remarriage after divorce is adultery.

So, I return to my seminary's placement department and learn, to my shock, that its director was pessimistic about my ever finding a new position via that route. One senior pastor who interviewed me put it most succinctly, after hearing what led to the conclusion of my previous pastorate: "I have learned that it's a bad thing to drive down any one-way streets."

Thirty-five years later, I am hugely grateful for that experience, so early in my vocational ministry. It tested me at a time when I was young enough to be limber enough to allow the trial to change me, even though it was (at the time) painful and dismaying.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> "I have learned that it's a bad thing to drive down any one-way streets."<<<

You can get where you want to go using only one-way streets. But you really have to avoid dead ends.

It's funny how the Holy Canons can disappear like magic when they get in a bishop's way. Here's a true story from about fifteen years ago.

The pastor at my Ruthenian parish--the previous, not the current one--was conducting an affair with a divorced woman of the parish. Apparently everybody knew about it, but since he was both a very dynamic pastor and "Father Whatawaste", everybody was content to let it slide and keep their mouths shut. Until such time as Father Whatawaste had to say "no" to someone in the parish, whereup the bishop suddenly knew all about Father's squeeze and presented him with an ultimatum--either she goes, or you go. He went.

He married the woman, then left the Ruthenian Catholic Church and entered the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church, where--contrary to all canons that say (a) an ordained man cannot marry; and (b) a man cannot be ordained if married to a divorced woman, they up and ordained him to the presbyterate (no intermediate steps, either!), and then assigned him to the parish a few exits down Route 66 from his old parish.

To do this, they not only had to ignore the canons of the Orthodox Church, but also the validity of the Greek Catholic sacraments of marriage and holy orders. Except, in the case of the latter, it was a very selective denial, since they apparently considered him validly ordained to the diaconate, in order to expedite his ordination to the priesthood.

He turned out to be a very successful priest in his new parish, and apparently he and his Pani are very happy together, and most of his people are willing to overlook the irregularity of his re-ordination. The winds of change were blowing, however, and the new Metropolitan of the Ruthenian Catholic Church and the Metropolitan of the Carpatho-Rusyn Church turned out to be best buds who wanted to heal the wounds between us, so the irritant of the irregular priest had to be salved (he was, after all, picking up a significant number of Ruthenians from his old parish, either on a permanent or part-time basis). So they transferred him from Manassas to the "Old Country" (Pennsylvania) where he resides to this day.

His place was taken by the father-in-law of a good friend of mine, who was born Ruthenian but wished to enter the presbyterate, so transferred to the Melkites who ordained him a deacon. After several years, and wishing to remain within the Ruthenian tradition, he left the Melkites and entered the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church, where he was ordained presbyter--and served very well indeed until his retirement a few years back (he still helps out at a couple of parishes down in Florida).

Now, of course, here was a man eminently suited for the priesthood as things turned out (the good tree bears good fruit), but he was lost to the Ruthenian Catholic Church because of the hierarchy's refusal to live in accord with their authentic Tradition. I could point to other examples, such as a deacon who was a professor at the seminary, who had been promised that he would eventually be elevated to the presbyterate. They kept him on the hook for almost a decade, at which point, deciding that "eventually" meant concurrent with the Parousia, he moved to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy of Philadelphia and was immediately elevated.

Our hierarchs can also be petty and vindictive, witness the way in which they arbitrarily dismiss priests who voice any opposition to their policies, or worse, try to point out immorality and corruption within the Metropolia (if we have a shortage, how can we be so cavalier with good priests?); arbitrarily shut down thriving parishes in order to sell off valuable real estate; threaten laymen with disciplinary action for voicing concerns about the (seriously--nay, fatally) flawed liturgical "reforms" of the Ruthenian Church, and shamelessly elevate their favorites to positions of prestige and authority for which they are manifestly unsuited.

Chrysostom wrote that he feared few bishops would be saved. It's good to know that part of the Tradition has not changed.

[Francesca]

>>I can't bring myself to believe: ... that men who stay at home to take care of their children will be fulfilled in their manhood and will be well-treated by their wives, who will work to earn money so that their husbands can have all the good things they would like for themselves and the family<<

From what I've seen, most parents: a) will do whatever it takes to provide optimally for their children; and b) are sufficiently secure in their own sexuality that they can adopt non-traditional roles without feeling threatened. Sometimes this means that dad provides the child care while mom earns the money.

A mom from our church works full-time as an accountant, while her husband stays home and handles most of the household duties, child minding, chauffeuring, etc. The wife has much higher earning potential, so this arrangement allows the couple to keep their four children in private school and to give them all sorts of extras -- music lessons, gymnastics, horse riding, holidays in the Caribbean, etc. The dad doesn't seem to be worried about his masculinity or the mom about her femininity. As far as I can tell, they're too busy taking good care of their brood to indulge any insecurities they might have.

One of my friends, an only child, is a professional ballerina. Paying for her dance training while she was growing up entailed enormous sacrifices on the part of her parents. Her mom, being a higher income earner than her dad, worked long hours to generate tuition fees, while her dad spent years driving her from group classes to private lessons to rehearsals and then waiting outside to drive her on again to the next session. Their choices were about their child, not themselves.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

A colleague of mine knew a guy from graduate school: he had married a med student at Stanford. After they both finished, he got a postdoctoral position and she did her residency. Then they both got jobs. She made a good bit more money but after a few years *really* wanted to have children and stay home with them. The guy's rejoinder was this: "I married a doctor so I could have a high standard of living. You're going to keep working."

Wonder of wonders, they're now divorced.

[Persily & Associates]

I also think one must consider that the Fathers did want mature men in the priesthood. Consider how compressed life was back in the patristic era: adulthood began at fifteen, life expectancy was somewhere in the mid fifties. To insist that a man be at least thirty before being ordained to the presbyterate is akin to insisting a man be in his mid forties today. Consider how much of life those men had already seen by the time they received cheirotoneia. Consider how little a 25 year old seminarian has seen of life when he is ordained today.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Can someone with some computer knowhow disable the website of these Persily losers in retribution for these obnoxious posts...or would that be a violation of the Golden Rule?

Do they really think this is an effective advertising strategy?

[Joe Long]

"From what I've seen, most parents: a) will do whatever it takes to provide optimally for their children;"

Including providing sex-appropriate role models, and subordinating personal ambition in order to be proper fathers and mothers?

From what I've seen, most parents (myself included) have a tendency, when the situation is a bit fuzzy, to interpret whatever they wanted to do anyway, AS "providing optimally for their children". And that's for parents who are actually trying; the illegitimacy rates argue that many parents don't.

[DGP]

>>From what I've seen, most parents (myself included) have a tendency, when the situation is a bit fuzzy, to interpret whatever they wanted to do anyway, AS "providing optimally for their children".

Bingo! It's always "for the sake of the kids" -- even when the situation really isn't fuzzy at all.

[Stuart Koehl]

So, on the "Credulity in Arts" side of the ledger, let's hear it for Loren Maazel, a man after Tony's heart:

A Conductor’s Heroic Words [Jay Nordlinger]

In an interview with the Corriere della Sera, Lorin Maazel blasted contemporary opera productions — particularly those at the Salzburg Festival. He said, among other things, “I’ve had enough — enough with weirdly provocative stagings by arrogant directors who think that innovation means boring the audience using public funds. . . . Often these directors are simply uneducated.”

My hero. On this general subject, if you’d like to see my review of Salzburg’s Don Giovanni, go here. For a review of a much better production (Otello) — go here. These reviews were published in the New York Sun.

More good news, besides the Otello? For a review of the young Polish pianist Rafal Blechacz — a phenom — go here. And some mixed news? For reviews of the Vienna Philharmonic — in a Bartók evening and a Brahms performance — go here.

I suppose the worst thing I ever saw in Salzburg (which is saying something) was a production of Der Freischütz (Weber’s opera) — perverse, anti-American, and totally destructive. Here is that review. It ended,

One of the tragedies here is that Mr. Richter [the stage director] is evidently a talented and skillful man. He has simply been engulfed by the ideology and superstition of the culture around him. He and his colleagues love to cry against America and Judeo-Christian civilization, and they do so to much applause. One can only wish them luck under Sharia.

[Francesca]

>>From what I've seen, most parents (myself included) have a tendency, when the situation is a bit fuzzy, to interpret whatever they wanted to do anyway, AS "providing optimally for their children". <<

Perhaps different parents see different situations as optimal? We all fail our children at times, mostly out of sheer exhaustion, but most parents instintively care more about their children than anything else in their lives and will make enormous sacrifices for them.

[DGP]

Our local production of *Der fliegende Hollaender* was "staged" so that at the end, Erik shoots Senta in a fit of jealous rage. Never mind that it makes a mash of Erik's passion, Senta's sacrifice, and the Dutchman's hope of salvation through loving sacrifice. The ending left me shocked -- not with the beauty of the production, but with the mindboggling stupidity of the artistic direction.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Francesa,
I think you're projecting. It's good that *you* feel that way about your children. But the way I see most of the kids around my neighborhood raised (too much TV and usually only one birth parent present) this isn't common.

Of course, I'm generalizing from what I see of my area of rural central Virginia. An anecdote does not an argument make.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of course, I'm generalizing from what I see of my area of rural central Virginia. An anecdote does not an argument make.<<<

You need three anecdotes to make a trend line.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

The Age of Incredulity: 48 second Youtube video/advertisement of an emergent pastor, a priestess, and a Catholic theologian all endorse Barack Obama's loving support of

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

The 48 second video is here.

[Joe Long]

"We all fail our children at times, mostly out of sheer exhaustion, but most parents instintively care more about their children than anything else in their lives and will make enormous sacrifices for them."

We all "want the best" for our children...and we all want good health, too. Yet judging on our day-to-day decisions, we don't REALLY want good health all that much...my survival instinct, faced with immediate danger, might allow me to do some amazing things, but it didn't interfere with my last trip to the snack vending machine, to make bad financial and nutritional decisions simultaneously. You can only trust instinct so far - and you can trust savvy modernists, from the cola advertisers to the Womens' Studies professors, to use your very instincts to subvert you the way an angler uses a largemouth bass' instincts to land him in the boat.

Parents who might well jump in front of a bullet for their children at need, still diligently string together sub-optimal minor decisions which eventually amount to a major tragedy - they wreck what they "care about most in the world" quite thoroughly. "Non-traditional roles" especially facilitate that.

[Beth in TN]

Our little foray into juvenile court this morning (it was only a traffic violation on our son's part, with no drugs or alcohol or whatever involved, I swear!) was certainly enough to make Mr. Long's point.

[Judy K. Warner]

>>>From what I've seen, most parents: a) will do whatever it takes to provide optimally for their children; and b) are sufficiently secure in their own sexuality that they can adopt non-traditional roles without feeling threatened. Sometimes this means that dad provides the child care while mom earns the money.<<<

Francesca, you often argue in a way that impugns the motives or mental health of those who disagree with you. "Threatened" is a favorite word of the left when they can't come up with a rational argument. Are you saying that those men who think they should support their family are insecure in their sexuality? What about the guy Gene mentioned, who wanted his wife to keep working so he could have a high standard of living? He must have been super-extra secure in *his* sexuality. Sometimes you are just a walking cliche.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"Threatened" is a favorite word of the left when they can't come up with a rational argument. <<<

What I have discovered about the Left is it's always about sex--and in particular, the sexual proclivities and inadequacies of those who disagree with them. My most recent experience came after I wrote a series of articles on the Sov--I mean, the RUSSIAN invasion of Georgia. Of the hundreds of comments on the article I found in a bunch of liberal blogs, only a handful actually dealt with substantive issues. The rest accused me of having a small penis, of being incapable of getting a woman, of having autoerotic experiences while contemplating the deaths of Russian soldiers, and things more foul still. It's a very interesting way of arguing, one I seldom see even the most neanderthal of conservatives employ. I think liberals just might be projecting a little.

[Francesca]

>>Francesca, you often argue in a way that impugns the motives or mental health of those who disagree with you. "Threatened" is a favorite word of the left when they can't come up with a rational argument. <<

Judy, bear in mind that my comments were made in response to this statement: "I can't bring myself to believe: ... that men who stay at home to take care of their children will be fulfilled in their manhood and will be well-treated by their wives, who will work to earn money so that their husbands can have all the good things they would like for themselves and the family," which hardly seems charitable to either men or women. Doesn't this statement "impugn the motives" of working women, who might very well be selflessly busting their butts to do their best for their husbands and children? Or stay-at-home dads who, believe it or not, might actually find fulfillment in being with their children all day? Why would these women not treat their husbands well or not want "all the good things" for the family? Why would these dads be obsessing over their manhood? (When would they find the time!?) How hypocritical to object to my objection in this case, and then, on top of that, to claim that what *you* have just done is typically leftist behavior!

You don't have to agree, but I truly believe men and women secure in their sexuality can handle a variety of roles with integrity and love for their families. People who are other-oriented and who don't self-obsess just aren't likely to worry about being "fulfilled in their manhood" (or womanhood). If you think I'm saying "that those men who think they should support their family are insecure in their sexuality," then I simply despair for your analytical skills.

[Francesca]

>> The rest accused me of having a small penis, of being incapable of getting a woman, of having autoerotic experiences while contemplating the deaths of Russian soldiers, and things more foul still. It's a very interesting way of arguing, one I seldom see even the most neanderthal of conservatives employ. <

Try Ann Coulter. Men who disagree with her are apparently likely to be "girly men." She's not coy in her speculations, which I decline to repeat, about the autoerotic experiences of certain politicians with whom she disagrees. You can find plenty of vile comments on right wing sites (try freerepublic or littlegreenfootballs if you're slumming).

[Francesca]

>>Parents who might well jump in front of a bullet for their children at need, still diligently string together sub-optimal minor decisions which eventually amount to a major tragedy - they wreck what they "care about most in the world" quite thoroughly. "Non-traditional roles" especially facilitate that.<<

I disagree. Children today are, on balance, probably better off than children from any previous era. They have more opportunities and better protections. I also think today's first-world parents are, on average, more responsible and more conscientious about parenting and child-rearing than parents from any other time. I think this is why children today tend to be so capbable, mature, and responsible. These advances are being made in a world in which options for mothers and fathers are becoming more flexible.

[Kamilla]

Better protections from what, pray tell?!?!?? From eating a bit of dirt? From scraping their knees? Heck, some kids don't even seem to know how to play outside at all, let alone amuse themselves on a rainy afternoon without a Wii, Game boy or some other electronic form of anesthesia.

Oh yes, we're so well-protected these days that when my co-worker's grandson took a header over the handle bar of his bike, the ambulance service called the cops who demanded to see his helmet before they filed their report. If the boy's mother couldn't prove he had been wearing it, they were going to cite her.

Yes, we're well-protected alright.

Kamilla

[David Gray]

>I also think today's first-world parents are, on average, more responsible and more conscientious about parenting and child-rearing than parents from any other time.

Given the tendency to neglect raising them in the admonition of the Lord I would tend to differ...

[Judy K. Warner]

Francesca,

A man can be unfulfilled in his manhood without ever once thinking about it, much less "obsessing." These children who are "better off than children from any previous era" may have a lower mortality rate, be vaccinated against most illnesses, and be padded and helmeted against injury, but they include many boys who are dysfunctional because of the denial of their male nature. Why is it that the number of boys going to and completing college has been dropping for years? Never mind, I know you'll say it's because they're threatened by so many women going to college.

When boyish and manly pursuits and preferences are denigrated throughout our society including the classroom, it's no surprise that some boys grow up confused, and men can fail to be unfulfilled as men without knowing there is a manly role in which to be fulfilled. Ditto women, as we see by the willingness of so many to give their children over to day care. But women have more of a connection to their nature, partly because they bear children, so women have been less affected by this mass denial than have men.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

Here is what one of the greatest and most modest minds of our time has to say about it.

[Beth in TN]

"children today tend to be so capbable, mature, and responsible"

Where, oh where, are all these capable, mature, and responsible children at the college age? Oh, sure, there are those of my students who are all of these things. There always have been. But there are far, far more -- far more than when I was a college student back in the dark ages -- who are not these things, not even close.

Mostly my students whine about requirements, can't make it to class awake and with their work done because they've been up most of the night playing video games or text-messaging or "connecting" via MySpace and Facebook, believe that leaving their homework in their room constitutes an excuse to turn it in late, lie about being sick or having emergencies in order to gain more time to complete assignments or to try to circumvent the attendance policy, are appalled at having to write a half-page simple response to a reading each day ("Dr. x makes us do SO MUCH work!!!"), and think that everything should be up for negotiation (as long as the negotiation ends up in their favor). And their parents often support them, to the point of threatening to send their children to another college if they are required to take hard tests or if they, God forbid, receive less than a B+ (or, in some cases, a straight A) in any class or on any assignment.

Having never had to face adversity on their own, they can't handle real life. In fact, the ones who are actually mature and capable are usually the ones who have faced real tragedy in their lives (such as the early death of a parent), or extremely difficult situations (such as a sibling who is severely disabled), or whose parents have simply been tough and demanding and refused to ease their paths when they made mistakes -- loving them, but making them take responsiblity. *Those* students are a joy. But our cultural impetus today does not create such young people across the board; ask any teacher.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Men who disagree with her are apparently likely to be "girly men."<<<

They usually are. But since I have to assume that you never actually read Coulter, once you should know that this is her conclusion, usually reached through systematic demolition of their policies and pretenses. In other words, she dismisses them as the wimps they are only after having proven through rigorous argument (consisting in large part of simply repeating their statements verbatim) that they are indeed girly men.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I disagree. Children today are, on balance, probably better off than children from any previous era. <<<

But then, Francesca never was a student of history.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think this is why children today tend to be so capbable, mature, and responsible.<<<

Quod erat demonstrandum.

In the Roman era, and right up through the end of the 18th century, adulthood began at age fifteen (when the Roman boy would take off his bulla and doff his toga praetesta for the plain white toga virilis. He was at that point expected to begin to make his way in the world, learn a trade of of the lower classes, begin going to the law courts if of equestrian or senatorial family, and could begin to serve in the legions--in other words, in every way he was considered a full citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto.

In the middle ages, there was no childhood per se. Children under the age of ten stayed with their mothers, but thereafter began to take on adult responsibilities. They would be apprenticed to a tradesman, or begin working in the fields, or would be sent out as a page in a noble household. They would learn the duties, obligations and responsibilities of their position in life. By age fifteen, again, boys were considered fully adult, women were considered of marriageable age. A teenage wife was responsible for her household, and if she was of gentle rank, that could mean managing a large estate business while her equally teenage husband was away at court or the wars. Teenagers ran kingdoms, for crying out loud, and many did it exceptionally well (like Edward III or Edward IV). Life was hard, it was short, and there was no time for extended adolescence (the term originally meant the period between a man achieving legal adulthood at fifteen and the time he married and established his own household; it had no connotations of emotional immaturity).

Today, of course, we hear pish-posh about adolescence as a state of "pre-adulthood" in which people lack the emotional maturity to strike out on their own--and we are told that this phase of life could extend well into the twenties. We are told that are children are such fragile, hot-house flowers that they have to be sequestered in Nerf World, enshrouded with padding, supervised closely in all activities, prevented from doing anything that might be dangerous, shielded from words that may offend them or hurt their feelings, and above all, prevented from engaging in the kind of fisticuffs necessary to learn to stand up for one's rights. Instead, everything is to be "mediated" by adults, and the moral equivalence of the bully and his victims is enshrined into the culture (which we can see in Obamanian bromides about "both Russia and Georgia" needing to exercise restraint).

Yeah, Francesca, today's kids are far more capable than their predecessors--but capable of what, one must ask.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Beth,
I taught one year (2000-2001) in Biological Sciences at the University of Huntsville in AL. There were clear divisions in student abilities with perhaps the lowest 20-33% actually incapable of doing college-level work. (The best 10% probably could have gone anywhere and done anything they wanted.) In general, the students in the *middle* were as you described in your post. I did have a few heroes, though, like the girl who tried to struggle through an acute attack of sickle-cell anemia to take a genetics exam.

The next year I had another sabbatical replacement gig at the College of William & Mary. I had three world-class students (whose burgeoning intellects and work-ethics *I* was in awe of) and the majority were like the best I had at UAH. The lowest 10% were not stupid--they just didn't want to be there and they didn't come to class. I didn't have many whiners there, but I had an impressive number of over-achievers who when you told them to jump asked "How high?".

I guess my point is that the place you're teaching can make a difference.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Incidentally, I'm a recovering grade-grubbing, whining, effete, know-it-all who got slapped around satisfactorily enough by some teachers I respected to desire to change. In as much as I'm different now, I thank the Holy Spirit and my wife.
:-)

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I know notice that I have priviledged the name of the town over the state in the University at which I formerly taught. It should be the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

[Francesca]

I've got to fly (literally -- flight lesson in a Cessna:-):-)) so I'll respond more later, but I don't know at what point in history children were better off than they are today. At least in the first world, they're not being used as chimney sweeps, hanged for stealing food, abandoned in workhouses, left to die by a Spartan parent if found physically defective, fed to lions, or sold into slavery. What is considered child abuse or neglect today was considered unimportant or "good for the little brutes" even a generation or two back. The many world records being broken at the Beijing Olympics stem, in part, from the fact that many of these athletes grew up under highly favorable conditions, both physically and psycholgically. Child mortality is, on the whole, down. Living standards are, on the whole, up. All this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about a lost Golden Age that never existed in the first place is just misplaced energy. Look at the kind of lives we can give our children today! And the quality of children we're producing! I'm constantly amazed by what my daughter knows and can do and by how compassionate, insightful, and perceptive she is and I don't think she's all that unusual (or that I'm all that biased:-).)

[Joe Long]

Francesca makes some excellent points. (Yes, indeed, I just typed that, and I mean it.) The material well-being of children in the West today is at a high point in history, and their subversion into misery through modern "values" is largely optional. This isn't the worst of all possible worlds for parenting; far from it. With deliberate effort to fill the role, this is a great time to be a parent.

On the other hand, way too many parents make the worst of all possible use of the advantages available; that is the default setting, I think. Francesca leaves out that there is much taken for granted NOW which would, a hundred years ago, be considered child abuse or neglect, from abortion through ritalin misprescription, and beyond. The old Greek standard of a sound mind in a sound body, drew intellectuals to the reborn Olympics in the early twentieth century, products of stern coaching and unyielding self-discipline - let's remind ourselves that what's good for the corpus can be good for the mensa. Olympic athletes must be hard-nosed or submit to hard-nosed coaching; within their realm of achievement, at least, they can give no scope to folly. "Everyone's a conservative about what he knows best!"

[smh]

I wish to remark here that I see no disagreement in my "Note on Homosexuality" above with what Dr. Esolen is saying here, nor was it written in response to his "Age of Credulity" posting. I didn't see it until after my own was published. Tony would appear skeptical, as I am, on the existence of the "crass homosexual gene," but I don't read him as denying weighted tendencies to sin whose expression may be encouraged by environmental factors, not least those that involve other evils. We both believe homosexuality is a choice; what I wrote about was the nature of not only this choice, but of all choices between good and evil in our present state. All of us are both ourselves, and our parents' children; it is thus also with regard to our sins.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The next year I had another sabbatical replacement gig at the College of William & Mary. I had three world-class students (whose burgeoning intellects and work-ethics *I* was in awe of) and the majority were like the best I had at UAH. The lowest 10% were not stupid--they just didn't want to be there and they didn't come to class. I didn't have many whiners there, but I had an impressive number of over-achievers who when you told them to jump asked "How high?".<<<

Though W&M is a state college, it is what might be called a "State Ivy" (together with University of Virginia and Virginia Tech). An impressive number of graduates from Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology choose to go to one of these three schools rather than to one of the many "name" schools to which they are accepted. Out of a graduating class of about 450, I would estimate that close to 150 go to one of those three schools, so in any given year, there are close to 600 TJ alumni on campus (so many, in fact, that UVA is known as "TJ South"). Most, after the four pressure-cooker years of TJ, find college to be rather relaxing.

My daughter, for what it is worth, deliberately chose not to go to either W&M or UVA. The former (to which she did not apply) did not have a real Russian or Slavic languages program, the latter (to which she was accepted) has a decent Russian program (though not the best) but she said she did not want to attend "13th Grade" with the same kids she had been seeing for the last four years.

As Bobby knows, most state universities have "Honors Colleges" embedded in them. I forget the name of the one at UVA, but it basically allows students to opt out of the 101 classes and also to do much more independent research. At University of Indiana (which was my daughter's Number 2 choice because of the strength of its Slavic Language Department), they have the Hutton Honors Program into which they shunt the best and the brightest to do accelerated and advanced studies. Thus, even in a very large state university like Indiana, there are real centers of excellence and students interested in a lot more than hoops, beer and parties.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I've got to fly (literally -- flight lesson in a Cessna:-<<<

Good luck! It's been about thirty years since I got my VFR ticket in a Cessna 152, and I still cage rides from friends when I can. It's a sweet little bird and easy to fly, and there is nothing in the world like the feeling you get at the controls of your own aircraft and the freedom to fly wherever you want (unless it is the same sense of freedom combined with the exhilaration of a high-performance military jet, on which I won't bother you at the moment).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What is considered child abuse or neglect today was considered unimportant or "good for the little brutes" even a generation or two back.<<<

A lot of what is considered child abuse or neglect today IS unimportant or "good for the little brutes". We breeding such a sense of entitlement into them, no wonder they whine.

[Steve K.]

Virginia has excellent public universities, certainly among the best in the country.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Francesca makes some excellent points. (Yes, indeed, I just typed that, and I mean it.)

Fair enough. But IMHO, Judy Warner and Stuart Koehl also make excellent points with their observations:

Judy: "Threatened" is a favorite word of the left when they can't come up with a rational argument."

Stuart: "What I have discovered about the Left is it's always about sex--and in particular, the sexual proclivities and inadequacies of those who disagree with them. ... [Eg.] The rest accused me of having a small penis, of being incapable of getting a woman, of having autoerotic experiences while contemplating the deaths of Russian soldiers, and things more foul still. It's a very interesting way of arguing, one I seldom see even the most neanderthal of conservatives employ. I think liberals just might be projecting a little."

Folks might find the following interesting: How to argue like a liberal

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Virginia has excellent public universities, certainly among the best in the country.<<<

UVA, Virginia Tech and William & Mary are certainly top-notch, fully equal to most of the Ivies. James Madison and George Mason are coming on strong, and are now among the best values in higher education. Virginia Commonwealth has made great strides in the last decade, and if not on the same level as the other schools, is poised to become a serious contender.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I've heard Christopher Newport is a decent little school. (I applied for a job there once.) When I was a postdoc at UVA, I had a really bright and motivated undergrad for three years. He went on to grad school at UC-Berkeley. I must have been holding him back 'cause he's crushing stuff there in the crystallography lab he settled in--publishing papers in really good journals (far, far better than I ever published in).

That said, there seemed to be a lot of drunken snots at UVA as well. But I didn't teach groups of them so my exposure was very limited.

[Bobby Winters]

>>As Bobby knows, most state universities have "Honors Colleges" embedded in them. I forget the name of the one at UVA, but it basically allows students to opt out of the 101 classes and also to do much more independent research. At University of Indiana (which was my daughter's Number 2 choice because of the strength of its Slavic Language Department), they have the Hutton Honors Program into which they shunt the best and the brightest to do accelerated and advanced studies. Thus, even in a very large state university like Indiana, there are real centers of excellence and students interested in a lot more than hoops, beer and parties.<<

Indeed I do. I wish we could afford to admit more to it.

[Sandra Miesel]

Sorry, Stuart, but NW Europeans didn't generally marry in the teens in medieval and early modern times. (Medieval English commoners married in their early 20s, Early Modern French ones in their late 20s-early 30s.) Below the high nobility, men had to have property or a trade before they could marry, which was the usual requirement for full adulthood. There were wild apprentices and journeymen in medieval London and "abbeys of youth" (gangs) in French cities. Please see the works of historian Barbara Hanawalt, with whom I studied at Indiana University--not the "University of Indiana."

[Clifford Simon]

More on credulity: nytimes.com had this headline today,

"Measles Cases Grow in Number, and Officials Blame Parents’ Fear of Autism
By GARDINER HARRIS

Many parents say they believe vaccines cause autism, even though multiple studies have found no reputable evidence to support such a claim."

Folks in my grandparents' generation believe that power lines near your home are bad for your health.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Please see the works of historian Barbara Hanawalt, with whom I studied at Indiana University--not the "University of Indiana."<<<

You are, of course, correct on that.

On the age of marriage, it would seem that second wives were often considerably younger than first wives, perhaps because by the time he needed a second wife, the man was already established in his trade. See Aries and Duby, eds., "A History of Private Life, Vol. II: Revelations of the Medieval World"

In your discussion of rambunctious youth, you left out all the town-and-gown riots between university students and the local burghers. Some things never change.

[Stuart Koehl]

I'm reviewing the "History of Private Life" I mentioned above, and found this on p. 290, which refers mostly to Italy, which shows that it is difficult to speak of the Middle Ages as a monolithic culture:

"In 1370, the average age at marriage was sixteen in Prato (Tuscany). In 1427, again in Prato and in Florence, the average age was seventeen and a half. Around 1530 in Siena, parents began planning a daughter's marriage as early as age twelve. A hundred years later, they delayed a little longer, until age fourteen, and girls were actually wed at sixteen or eighteen. There was a further evolution after this date. In 1470, in Prato, Florence and the surrounding countryside, most brides were twenty or twenty-one. The long delay may account for the new exuberance of romantic scenes such as those just described, which rarely led to marriage".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Folks in my grandparents' generation believe that power lines near your home are bad for your health.<<<

Once it was the John Birch Society that believed flouride in the water was a plot to poison us all; now its the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth. Stupidity knows no ideology.

[Sandra Miesel]

Stuart, that's why I specified NW Europe, England and France. Italy was indeed different. Rich Florentine merchants' sons were married in their mid-30s to brides 15 and 20 years younger.

I've noticed only one item in everyday life in the Middle Ages that is consistent in appearance across all of Western Europe--towels.

In any event, I highly recommend Hanawalt's TIES THAT BOUND and GROWING UP IN MEDIEVAL LONDON.

[Stuart Koehl]

Two books that always fascinated me were Kendall's "The Yorkist Age", and "The Paston Letters", of which I think a new critical edition is out.

[Clifford Simon]

Thinking about this today, I wondered if credulity is an American trait. It would explain some facts of history - it takes a certain degree of credulity to set aside what it takes to set aside, before you can engage in mass social experiments like Prohibition, like Margaret Sanger, like Utopia. And what could be more credulous than Spiritualism?

We got no culture? Tony, perhaps you have missed our flourishing, burgeoning culture of credulity!

[Clifford Simon]

Oh, I forgot to mention Gold Rushes...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thinking about this today, I wondered if credulity is an American trait. <<<

Of course it is. Would anybody in his right mind leave comfortable Olde Englande to come to a howling wilderness where the mortality rate was close to 50%, there was nothing to eat, and Indians waiting around every bush to scalp you?

Or why would people leave the familiar confines of Germany, Poland, Italy, Russia, China or Japan to come to a place where the streets were NOT actually paved with gold.

Credulity is a defining American characteristic. Indefatigable optimism is another. Belief that you can always start over is a third, though this may be related to one and two above. Anyway, it contributes to the American exceptionalism that makes us better than those grubby Old World types.

[Stuart Koehl]

For the great American credulity story, see C.M. Kornbluth's marvelous "The Marching Morons".

"Would you buy it for a quarter?"

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>>Credulity is a defining American characteristic. Indefatigable optimism is another. Belief that you can always start over is a third, though this may be related to one and two above. Anyway, it contributes to the American exceptionalism that makes us better than those grubby Old World types.<<<

What do you think of the book "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kegan?

[Stuart Koehl]

I think you mean Kagan. I haven't read it yet.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

Kagan. That's the one.

[Tony Esolen]

On children:

If parents consistently did what was best for their children, there would be no abortions; divorce would at best be rare and scandalous; no adultery; children conceived out of wedlock would be born in wedlock, or would be put up for adoption; day care centers would go out of business; there would be 15 million homeschoolers in the US instead of 1.5; no bedroom would have a television in it; grocery stores would not be full of porn; children would have a childhood rather than a series of scheduled stops in storage spaces; schools would not be introducing children to moral squalor; parents would not deliberately cease having children after the first one (or two!) ... need I go on?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If parents consistently did what was best for their children, there would be no abortions; divorce would at best be rare and scandalous; no adultery; children conceived out of wedlock would be born in wedlock, or would be put up for adoption<<<

Of course, there never was such a time, was there, Tony?

>>> children would have a childhood rather than a series of scheduled stops in storage spaces<<<

And wasn't childhood more or less invented by the Victorians? Prior to that, there was a necessary and short period of dependency until kids could be put to work, no?

>>> schools would not be introducing children to moral squalor<<<

I believe parents were making that complaint back in the time of Socrates.

>>> parents would not deliberately cease having children after the first one (or two!)<<<

Gaius Julius Octavianus Caesar Augustus could not have said it better--but he did say it.

All of which proves that the world today is just as big a sinkhole as it always has been. That is why, as I keep reminding people, it is the WOELD.

[Stuart Koehl]

Or perhaps, the "WORLD". I may not speak with a Brooklyn accent, but sometimes I seem to spell with one.

[Rob G]

"All of which proves that the world today is just as big a sinkhole as it always has been."

Bigger, because it's smaller.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Kagan. That's the one.<<<

John Keagan is a British military historian--a very good one, at that. I'm sure he and Bob Kagan are always getting confused.

[Bobby Neal Winters]

My book group is reading and enjoying it in spite of the fact the author is supposed to be a neo-con; we are academics, after all. Kagan is a good writer.

[Stuart Koehl]

Kagan is a great writer and an excellent historian/analyst. If you like this book, then try fred kagan's "Finding the Target", a study of military transformation; and Donald Kagan"s 3-volume study of "The Pelopennesian War". Apparently, it's one of those over-achieving families.

[Judy K. Warner]

There is also a Kimberly Kagan who is married to one of the above. I saw her on C-SPAN once and it was kind of funny seeing this cute young woman who teaches at West Point discoursing on weapons and strategy. To borrow from the Yeah, Person thread, I guess I would call her a military expertess, but nobody respectable would do that.

[Stuart Koehl]

Kimberly publishes an outstanding newsletter on Iraq, which is picked up regularly in the Weekly Standard online edition.

[Clifford Simon]

My parting shot before this thread is done...

One More Thing I Can't Believe...

I can't believe that "Exhaustive research with thousands of couples found that there are 29 Key Dimensions of Compatibility necessary for success in a long term relationship." Thanks, eHarmony.com.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I can't believe that "Exhaustive research with thousands of couples found that there are 29 Key Dimensions of Compatibility necessary for success in a long term relationship." Thanks, eHarmony.com.<<<

There is a way to test this. Find a statistically significant number of people who have been married for more than 25 years and have them take the stupid personality test, then run the algorithms through the black box, and see who ends up with whom.

[DGP]

>>There is a way to test this. Find a statistically significant number of people who have been married for more than 25 years and have them take the stupid personality test, then run the algorithms through the black box, and see who ends up with whom.

Suppose the couples are reconstituted. Might not being married for 25 years be a significant cause of compatibility? Suppose they are not. Might not 25 years of marriage cause incompatibility?

[Kamilla]

Clifford -

Oh you DIDN'T go and mention them, did you?!?!?!?!!

I tried once, to shut my friends up. More than half of the first batch of matches they sent me said "DaVinci Code" was the last important book they had read. When eHooey couldn't tell me what in blazes I had told them to make them think a guy who reads dreck like that was a good match for me, I closed my account.

Kamilla

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I read somewhere that there was a little quiz that couples could take that could predict (with something like an 85% success rate) if they were NOT compatible and *shouldn't* get married.

[Judy K. Warner]

Kamilla,

What were the others like, the ones who didn't mention the DaVince Code?

[Francesca]

>>Good luck! It's been about thirty years since I got my VFR ticket in a Cessna 152<<

Thanks, Stuart:-) Ultimately I'd like to get instrument rated. I've flown Boeing F-18 Hornets on a flight simulator, which is also quite an experience.

WRT maturity levels of children of yore, being given adult responsibility is not the same as being responsible. There are child soldiers and child brides today. They are abused and exploited children, most of whom are being stunted in their growth. You mentioned Edward III ... his appointment as Earl of Chester at 12 days old was a sign of gluttonous royal privilege, rather than of infant precocity (although I can imagine why you might think highly of someone who ended up starting a 100 year war.)

About Ann Coulter: You claim it's "the Left" that mentions the "sexual proclivities and inadequacies of those who disagree with them," but then defend crude attacks in this vein by Ann Coulter (e.g. alluding to John Edwards as "a faggot" -- he may be many things, but probably not that) on the grounds that she gets it right. ???. This is obviously logically inconsistent.

>>A lot of what is considered child abuse or neglect today IS unimportant or "good for the little brutes". We breeding such a sense of entitlement into them, no wonder they whine.<<

In terms of whining and carping, older adults hog a substantial market share. Children who have been treated disrespectfully and insensitively tend to become angry, insecure, dissatisfied, and sometimes abusive adults. Today's focus on self-esteem and compassion, by contrast, is producing more respectful and sensitive people. I'm constantly impressed by the thoughtfulness, courtesy, and generally high personal caliber of the little 7-year-olds I meet through my daughter. Healthier, more responsible parenting is producing physically and psychologically healthier people.

[Francesca]

Bobby, I enjoyed your article and I'm glad you enjoy teaching your current crop of students. Perhaps those students who have been protected from physical risk will blaze new trails by having the intellectual and moral courage to take other types of risk?