Ark of Civilization: St. Benedict and Monte Cassino
I’ve watched the battle over the government’s contraception mandate with pensive concern. And we may win this round…or not. But either way, this fight is just the latest symptom of the deep rot that is eating our culture from the inside out. And that rot shows little sign of being cured, so I expect much more of this in the years and decades to come.
So should we fight against this immoral mandate? Absolutely. And bully for our bishops and everyone both Catholic and non-Catholic who is doing so. But don’t expect to win the war, not without a miracle that reverses the decline of our culture, caused by the decline in our collective Christian faith.
I’ve been reading through the gospel of St. John, my favorite by far, and just encountered these verses:
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also (Jn 15:18-20).
We are not greater than Jesus. The world hated him. It will hate us. And we are seeing it happen now. Contraception is a no-brainer for most Americans: “everyone” uses it, they think, and they’ve never heard any argument against it. We are pariahs to them for calling it wrong.
In this respect I agree with Dr. Taylor Marshall’s post:
If you read the ancient accounts of the martyrs, these heros of the Faith never appeal to “religious freedom” so as to gain protection from the state. They supernaturally perceived the events as a war between the City of God and the City of Man. It is the battle of enmities between the Woman and the primordial Serpent. A truce was inconceivable.
When Christ commissioned the Holy Apostles, did he ask them to seek to be tolerated by the world? Should we grovel before the judges and seek a tolerated place at the table? Has that ever worked in Church history?
No, Christ came proclaiming a kingdom and the prophet Daniel foretold how the Son of Man’s Kingdom would overcome all the kingdoms of this world….I don’t want an America where Catholicism is tolerated. I want an America where natural law and natural rights are observed and the reign of Christ the King is publicly acknowledged.
Amen. I’ve been arguing, at times against my better judgment, in the combox of Rachel Held Evans blog here for the natural law. But it was misunderstood as meaning the law of the jungle or the law of the animal kingdom. People do not even know what natural law is anymore. We have come to a point in our country’s mentality where most people think that others should be compelled to pay for their contraception and abortion drugs!
This is the Long Defeat that Tolkien wrote about in The Lord of the Rings. So while I agree we should do what we can to stem the tide that is threatening to wash us out to sea–just as St. Thomas More did what was in his power to avoid execution, without renouncing his faith–we must also realize that our battle is not with earthly rulers but with principalities and powers of a different kind.
For my part, and I know not everyone can do this, I am looking to buy a little land, build a small home on it, and seek to be able to provide for much of my family’s basic needs through it. Not to check out of the world, but to be an ark of civilization that, like the monasteries were in the fifth and sixth centuries when the Roman Empire crumbled, carries the Christian culture like a seed to be planted again when the current storms are over. That may happen in my lifetime, or maybe not. I’m not a conspiracy theorist or doom-sayer. I plan to keep working as I am able in whatever capacity I can, but to be better prepared to care for my family in the coming decades.
Be not afraid! Christ said it. John Paul II echoed it. Take heart, for Jesus has overcome the world, even if we have trouble while in it.
I just discovered that abortion, contraception, and sterilization are *already* in my employer-provided health plan.
((
David, I need to look at my own and see what it covers. If it covers those (even with a co-pay required), then I am already subsidizing these practices.
I am.
I took a step back when I read Marshall’s post. He is right. I think we as Catholics are missing an opportunity here to really shine when we take the “religious freedom” route. Like he said, we don’t want to fight for the religious freedom of satanists. So there is a deeper issue at stake: Truth. We need to stand firm and declare contraception to be evil. Period. And not to just ask for freedom to practice our religion. Our religion is the true religion! It does not need permission from Obama to be practiced! If we would humbly preach that message instead of the “we want our freedom” message, we could really make a bigger impact I think.
Yes and that’s one reason why we should also use this as an opportunity to educate ourselves and other Americans on the natural law as the basis for our laws. Satanists are doing things against the natural law, so this is not carte blanche freedom of any “religion” no matter what people of that religion believe or practice.
I think the appeal to religious freedom is a valid appeal because the United States claims it is a right. It is similar to St. Justin Martyr appealing to values recognized by the Romans when he wrote his First Apology.
St. Justin pointed out that if they want to be thought just, the Imperial government would have to treat Christians justly. Likewise, the bishops today are pointing out that if Americans want to be thought of as possessing religious freedom, they will have to grant it.
Of course there are many other lines of arguments which can be used, and we should use them.
Arnobius, I agree. We can and should make use of all legitimate arguments and appeals, because we have a great country and if we can preserve the good things about it, we must endeavor to.
I agree with Arnobius,
St Paul had no problems with repeatedly appealing to his Roman citizenship to save him from an early martyrdom at the hands of the Jews.
St Thomas More used the protections of the law as well to avoid a martyrdom, so long as he did not betray his faith. (As a side note, in “A man for all seasons”, St Thomas More gives a “law and the devil” speech indicating that he *would* give Satanists the benefit of law).
Laws are good when they do not defy God and are for our benefit too.
But I agree that we should not limit ourselves to the law. As the old saying goes, if all you’re doing is playing defense, eventually you’ll slip up and lose.
We do need to stand firm and declare contraception to be evil, but understand that the culture is so far gone that even most pro-life citizens does not understand why abortion is wrong in *all* cases including rape and incest and disabilities. Judges are already throwing cases out the door where mothers kill their newborns. We are slowly moving towards accepting infanticide and possibly euthanasia. If you declare that contraception is wrong to this culture, you sound an awful lot like an extreme vegan who won’t even eat vegetables that might cause insects to be killed during harvesting. We have a lot of work to do in this culture, but to do that work, we need to survive another day.
Anil, yes I also agree. I think we must fight with all we’ve got exhausting every legitimate means available. But I’m also saying that we should be prepared to lose as well, if we fail to turn the tide in our country.
Tolkien Said:
“Actually, I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ – though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
Let’s revel in the victories while being realistic about the defeat. Catholics are bound to be Amillenialists after all, not Postmilenialists.
People do not even know what natural law is anymore.
Which is why JPII’s embrace of phenomenology in his Theology of the Body is so important and revolutionary. In particular, the Theology of the Body approaches and proclaims the truths of Humanae Vitae (and Castii Connubii) in a new way that our experiential culture can understand.
That’s a good point and a great example of how the unchanging truths of the Catholic Faith can be made accessible to the current way people think about things.
I give this post a standing ovation (a frightened, oh-my-gosh-we’re-on-the-cusp-of-martyrdom-aren’t-we ovation, but an ovation nonetheless).
Your quote from John is spot on and a good reminder in times like this.
I have to admit – I honestly never really understood how hated Catholicism was until this mandate business started. Now it’s like folks are pouring out of the woodwork just to tell us how we should round ourselves up and hop off a cliff with our “outdated,” “patriarchal,” “women-hating,” “outlandish” ideas.
Bah.
Anyway – kudos and thank you. Very timely and as always, spot-on.
I try to keep my cool and not give in to panic about the imminent collapse of our country, persecution, etc. But it’s also good to understand how these things have played out many times throughout history and realize we are not immune to them happening again. Thanks!
Apropos that you chose Monte Cassino for your post image. I have been thinking a lot about the novel “A Canticle for Liebowitz,” written by Walter M. Miller (He was in the US Army during WW II and watched in horror the obliteration of Monte Cassino by Allied Bombers. This experience inspired him to write the apocalyptic novel).
If you haven’t read it, I recommend it. I don’t think it is too far off, unfortunatley.
Also very apropos to reference St. Augustine’s City of God. Another good book for the times we are in.
Well played, Mr. Rose
Thanks PMG. I was fascinated by A Canticle for Liebowitz and still am.
You are right, Devin. This country will eventually pass away, and this world will, as well.
But, as St. Paul says, “If it is for this life only that we hope, we are the most to be pitied.”
Such a man I married! This is very well said, darling, and I am proud to stand beside you in the arena, singing Tantum Ergo as the lions approach. People say, “Not in our time. We are too civilized to kill Christians.” Hmm. That’s just what the French said, before the terrors of the Jacobites. And, the Germans before the horrors of the Third Reich began.
No, my love, you are absolutely right. The enemy, who is our already vanquished foe but who still has power on this earth, hates us and has done a masterful job of fomenting that hatred within our society. We see it everywhere, through the message of the media, in the public school system, in the fashion industry, in political society, in the judicial system, in the medical fields, as well as other sciences. Their is no longer a place for reason in public discourse, whether natural law or phenomenology, and where there is no mutual respect for the reasonable-ness of my fellow citizen, there is no respect for his humanity and right to live.
As “My Broken Fiat” said, this hatred is pouring out, this rage at us who are the “King’s good servants but God’s first” (Thomas More). Just last month, my sister was at Theology on Tap in Denver, where Bishop Conley was the guest speaker; he was publicly heckled by bar patrons, with shouts and expletives, and the bar staff threatened to strike if Theology on Tap was held there again. So, they were barred from returning. The Bishop was not speaking about anything controversial, simply about Christian friendship, but the very sight of his clerical collar provoked an unreasonable rage.
If not in our lifetime, then mayhap in the lives of our children, I suspect that we will be offered the crown of martyrdom, the grace of witnessing with beautiful smiling eyes as we offer their lives in reparation for the atrocities committed by our society. Surely, there is reparation to be made for the innumerable outrages against God and Life. And, just as in the days of ancient Rome, through the very laying down of our lives, many who see us shining as we kneel before the firing squad will be converted, and our blood will again become the seed of the Church and a newly evangelized society.
God spare us from this suffering, if it be possible, but, if not, please give us the grace to be brave and simple and very holy.
Amen – specifically to your statement
“If not in our lifetime, then mayhap in the lives of our children, I suspect that we will be offered the crown of martyrdom, the grace of witnessing with beautiful smiling eyes as we offer their lives in reparation for the atrocities committed by our society.”
I’ve wondered often about those women who were forced to watch their children martyred before them. I image Our Lady as she offered her own Beloved Son. May God grant us the strength to do that which is in accordance to His Will.
Your story of Bishop Conley is heartbreaking on so many levels. May God forgive us our blindness.
However, all that said, I find it adorable how you speak to your husband. Both of you witness true Christian love. May Our Lady ever shine her smile upon you.
Devin, thank-you. I think that what you say is quite true and important.
There is a fundamental language barrier between Catholics and the secular world which has rendered much of Catholic activism in this country nearly impotent. When Catholics uses words/phrases such as “rights”, “freedom”, “equality”, “religious freedom” etc. they mean something essentially different than their secular counterparts. When Catholics use the word “freedom” they must mean the ability to do what is right. When the secular world uses the same term they mean the ability to make choices. Our vocabulary is informed by our belief in (a.) an underlying reality that (b.) has a moral topography… in other words, our ability to accept any of these terms presupposes a foundation of natural law.
It is therefore of no surprise that when you used the term “natural law” in a secular forum you immediately ran into a language barrier: the word “nature” for the Catholic means the noble and ordered creation of God, which is itself and image of the Divine (and would thus inform us of His will) and which poses no dichotomy with civilization. When a secular uses the same term they mean the jungle, that area that belongs to the beast, of which order and civilization finds it antithesis. For a secular person “natural law” is a contradiction.
The simple and frightening truth (and here I fear I will be controversial) is that the language that we use belongs to the secular world and we are guests within it. The secular political world, for instance, is largely founded upon the ideas of Locke and Rousseau who absolutely assume what I have been characterizing here as a secular attitude.
For instance, Locke’s “state of nature” and by extension his “state of society” is one of social contract and not in any way based upon truth. It is for this reason that Locke does not believe a healthy, tolerant society can function if it includes any Catholics. Catholics have a prior loyalty to the Pope (and as Catholics, we would argue, to reality). In this regard, of course, Locke is quite right.
Much of Locke’s work is thus designed to undermine what is in fact, from the Catholic and Classical perspective, the true microcosm of the state of nature/state of society, which reflects the order and nobility of nature: the family. Locke founds his state of nature/state of society on the atomistic individual.
Locke is certainly one of the primary influences of the Founding Fathers.
The danger then for Catholics, as philosophical guests in this nation, in conversing in mainstream political parlance is that (a.) we can only ever address symptoms of a deeper fundamental cause (b.) that even in this region of addressing symptom we are ineffective and (c.) even in our successes we effectively endorse something that is on a deeper level problematic.
With absolute reverence to our bishops, as long as we proceed in the manner that we are accustomed, we can only ever hope to act as a speed bump to problems that are necessitated by prior philosophical foundations. I suggest that we should rather appeal to Reality, and to the family. I do not know that this will do any practical good, but I would rather stand by the standard of truth and face the battle than bargain with the enemy in hopes of surviving until dawn.
Peter, love this. I totally agree. My wife Katie has studied more on the political side that you mentioned, but she has said the same sort of stuff to me. Thanks for chiming in!
Dear Peter,
What a great comment. You aren’t by chance a teacher at a Great Books academy, are you?
While I agree with your assertion that Locke et al and their faulty understanding of the common good are at the root of this current crisis, one might say that Locke’s ideas sound wonderfully benign at this time in our history. At least he allowed for a Creator whose imprint was on each person and argued for limited federal power. Goodness, if only our federal government would follow the minimum program outlined in the Constitution and other founding documents, we would be able to breathe again.
The person who seems to me especially to have a hand in laying the foundation for this crisis in our Republic is John Dewey, the encyclopaedist, whose vision of a public education system in which students are educated, not to the truth nor to good clear thinking skills but to the values of the democracy, has done so much to shape our national school system. Much like the schools designed by the Prussians to churn out good citizens, our schools have formed nearly every American in the “new-speak” and “double-speak” of our day; in addition, those schools have inculcated in nearly every American a hostility toward those who do not cooperate, toward those who are different and whose different values threaten the democracy (which is really becoming a neo-Socialist nation). Americans are supposed to conform, we are taught, in order to participate in the good life of diversity and relativism, and if one does not tow that line, they are to be fired or fined or black-balled or silenced.
With all this said, know that I am not really disagreeing with you, simply relishing the opportunity to talk about political philosophy. My, how refreshing it is! Thanks for sharing your very erudite thoughts.
One more thought, namely, I totally agree with you, Peter, in suggesting that rather than arguing for freedom of religion, we turn our efforts toward evangelization. Based upon my experience as a pro-life lobbyist, I have very little confidence in the workings of government, as well as in the reasonableness of most elected officials. Rather, I have seen much more national change come about through grass-roots apostolates like Forty Days for Life and Lila Rose’s Live Action Films.
In the same way, it seems to me that Catholics are handed an incredible teaching moment now, in which, rather than arguing for natural law, we instead talk about how contraception and abortion hurt women and marriage, how women and men deserve good medicine, and so forth. Let’s evangelize, person to person and will smiles on our faces!
Excellent point. I argued for a half an hour yesterday with a co-worker about the sodomite “marriage” controversy here in MN in terms of the common good of marriage. I even brought out a quote from Bertrand Russell to impress him. Things went nowhere.
But when I started talking about the natural law within his own heart, and the fact that he himself knows what is right and wrong (and I gave examples), he became pensive and quiet. I could tell he had been touched by my words. At that point I slipped in the fact that Jesus is the answer to that knowledge of sin in our hearts. It was the perfect opportunity.
But before, when our conversation was at the less fundamental level of “freedom” and “rights” and who defines them, there was just no traction with him.
We must bring these cultural arguments down to the basics. The closer to the gospel our interactions with our culture are, the more success we will have.
my heart is so broken.
i dont know how one can prevent burn out from all this?
i know anything is possible w the Lord
but the way our country is going feels totally hopeless.
you can do all the talking and persuading but most lead no where
{hug} I feel you, dear.
Thank-you both Katie and Devin for your responses to my rather long comment. I fear you may regret encouraging me!
Katie, I think you are quite right. Dewey would be a great example of a thinker directly responsible for forming the contemporary attitude. To my mind, Dewey represents an interesting chapter in the overall problem: on the one hand, he conflates democracy and human morality as being of one identity but then, on the other hand, effectively crystallizes public opinion in a way which disallows for genuine thought. How can this be understood as anything but the creation of a totalitarian regime?
I agree that this does reek of a sort of Neo-socialism. On the other hand, as long as are discussing contraception, we should consider the shared capitalist heritage as personified in the thought of the Classical Economists of the 19th Century: Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. Malthus and Ricardo are truly the fathers of population control on the altar of economics (which directly led to the rise of socialism in the 19th Century). Once again, this smacks of a distinctly totalitarian attitude.
All of these thinkers are obviously dangerous. Perhaps, however, the reason why we should consider Locke extremely carefully is because he seems so benign. I believe he appears this way to us for two reasons:
Firstly, Locke had a great sense of politique. His writing is very palatable. However, I believe that Locke’s greatest influence was Hobbes (a much less palatable writer) and I would even go so far as to argue that Locke is a Hobbesian (I actually have a theory that Locke was deeply indebted to Machiavelli), with the primary difference that Locke knew how to appeal to a broad audience. Hobbes has always been a bit of a confusing thinker for people: on the one hand he is a primary founder of liberal ideas (social contract theory) and on the other hand an advocate of absolutism. Perhaps, in fact, these two things belong together. Locke seems more attractive because the absolutist component appears to be dismissed from his thought. However, below the surface, I believe Locke is also an absolutist. This is because:
(a.) Theoretically: Social contract theory eventually presupposes an absolutist stance of “might makes right,” precisely because nothing is grounded on reality/natural law – hence abortion is in fact consistent within the sphere of liberal rights language.
(b.) Practically: Locke’s development of the state of society, founded on his account of the state of nature, is clearly based on a falsehood that ultimately constitutes the entire horizon of a new political order. In short, Locke justifies his account of the state of nature (which in turn absolutely informs his account of politics) in his “Second Treatise” with the proof that “if we may not suppose men ever to have been in a state of nature because we hear not much of them in such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser or Xerxes were never children because we hear little of them till they were men, and embodied in armies.” This “proof” (in fact nothing more than a claim that his depiction is self-evident) for Locke’s state of nature is the myth upon which his entire edifice rests. [It is interesting that, to Rousseau’s credit, he admits that his state of nature likely has no historical basis]. This shrug towards all historical evidence (all of which points to a development of politics based off of the family) is indicative of the formation of a totalitarian regime. As Monsignor Luigi Giussani wrote, in “…a regime, in the negative sense of the word, a power that wants to dominate a people, must first of all sever the people’s relationship with the past, because a people that is not severed from the past, whose memory is not taken away, has the potential to judge and therefore to criticize and therefore a great potential for rebellion.”
Secondly, I think we have already accepted the paradigm he has erected. I think it is quite possible that it is within the rules of that paradigm that we find ourselves embattled with folks like Dewey, Malthus, Ricardo, Obama etc. It may seem to many that thinking back to Locke is to fall outside the context of even more serious contemporary issues, but I wonder if Locke is not in fact the frame of that context. We have been brought up in a society for which the political/economic spectrum (from Communism to Democracy, from Socialism to Capitalism) seems quite vast and yet is in fact immensely cramped and specialized upon a rather singular liberal perspective.
Finally, I agree with you. It is to the heart that we must appeal. In a way our task, as complex as it may seem and as much danger as we appear to be in, is quite simple, hopeful and comforting: the heart and Reality are all around us, however deeply masked. For this reason, I found the above references to phenomenology interesting (depending on what folks mean by the word since it is a bit of an umbrella term).
Dear Peter,
Well said, indeed. I read your thoughts carefully and am moved by your assertion that Dewey, Malthus, and companions are all thinkers within the confines of Locke’s false paradigm of “social contract.” Clearly, you have studied these thinkers more than I. I am particularly interested in your intuition that Locke is essentially a Hobbesian because, as you point out, he certainly writes in a manner more appealing and reasonable. I rather detest Hobbes, so, if what you say is true, that greatly increases my dislike and suspicion of Locke.
So, if I understand you correctly, it sounds like what you are saying is that our political experiment of a Republic is fundamentally flawed, due to its grounding in Locke’s thought, whose appeal to a subjective “state of nature”, rather than the truth of history, classical political philosophy, and metaphysics (the classical natural law sort), is at the very root of absolutism. Is that what you mean? And, if so, would you please answer two follow-up questions?
First, if the philosophy paradigm upon which our nation is founded is inherently and dangerously flawed, what would you propose we do about that? Is a program of educating to the Truth the best course of action, or rather would you suggest that we work to build political structures at the lowest level which protect the true good of persons (distributism, etc)?
Second, which political system do you consider best? I agree that our system of liberal capitalism is a near relation to communism and socialism; both stem from a false understanding of the person and appeal to what is most base in human nature–avarice and lust for power. Do you agree with Aquinas that monarchy is best or would you argue for an oligarchy or polity? And, what would it look like?
I ask because this is something I think about often. The political systems that have arisen in the West in the last two hundred years have almost universally failed, and it appears that we are off to no better start in this new century. Europe seems headed again for totalitarianism of some sort, at least an economically-motivated one, and our own nation seems to be falling into the tyranny of subjectivism that deToqueville saw was a danger, through judicial legislation and the dominance of relativistic philosophies. I dream of a stable, simple, and family-centered political society, where subsidiarity thrives and where the Church has the freedom to fulfill Her proper ends. Basically, I dream of Christendom in the 12th and 13th centuries, of guilds and limited governments and a king who happens to bear the name Aragorn.
Thank you for considering my questions, Peter, and know that I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Dear Katie Rose,
I would say that our political experiment of a republic clearly has a lot of influences primarily consisting of the Bible, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Locke’s collected works and a variety of Classical authors and there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were for the most part well read. I do believe, however, that the two primary influences are Locke and Blackstone. I would say that both of these thinkers are guilty of what we have been describing. As such, I do believe our founding is fundamentally flawed.
In response to your first question, I would say that what Catholics need to do is to turn to Reality. Without a doubt, there is an authentically legitimate political (not in the modern sense) body which is simultaneously an icon of the Godhead. This body is also the location of the true “state of nature” if you will. This body is the family. The first step we must take is to turn to the family, our families, our vocations. There cannot be a legitimate society that is not founded upon this basis. I think we need to reflect deeply upon the mysterious nature of the family, consider a theology/philosophy/archeology of the family. This is rather the ambitious goal of the Forgotten Altars project. Education is clearly important, but I suspect it is impotent if it is not grounded upon a familial culture. The first and primordial location of education takes place across the topography of the home.
Perhaps these families might begin to constitute larger political structures (I believe this is what has in fact naturally occurred in the vast majority of human history).
In response to your second question, at a basic level I believe that all Catholics are monarchists. This is quite simply because Christ is revealed as King. On an analogous level, I believe that all families bear the imprint of this structure as well. So then what about, between the supernatural order and the most basic human natural order, the formal political system? Perhaps I am simplistic, but it strikes me that a teaching of Participation and Analogy of Being suggest that the humanity is meant to be in a kingdom. Perhaps the word “monarchist” is less than ideal because that term can include so many possible corrupt variants, as were present repeatedly in the modern era.
I believe a good kingdom would be a small one, structured very much on a familial basis. It would be largely agrarian. It would not be overly centralized. Families themselves would be less atomistic than they are now: they would be large and include many generations working together, living in the same place. Perhaps at root, I believe that this portrayal is a good and true one for the same reason that Sebastian from “Brideshead Revisited” believes in the truth of Christmas: because it is lovely.
We cannot ever be “Utopian”; the attitude that our task on earth is to generate a perfect society is precisely what has generated modern politics. We must recognize that any government structure will be imperfect and prone to the presence of sin in a fallen world. (So are all familial structures but it would be crazy to abolish the family for fear of bad fathers and mothers.) It does not follow from this lack of potential perfection that 1.) in the spirit of Montesquieu, this renders all political structures objectively arbitrary 2.) We should not strive for what is good and natural.
The retort against what I have said above is likely to be one of practicality: how could such a vision “work” or come into being in the modern world? This rather fatalistic response is powerful. I believe that, on the one hand, what I have described above is most in conformity with reality. On the other hand it certainly seems at odds with the “reality” we know. I suspect that is because we live in a structure of evil. How could we ever reach this place I have described without making fundamental changes? We cannot. Fundamental changes are necessary. Our present responsibility is to work with what we are given: in most cases, our families. I also do not think we should feel desperate to protect something that is in danger. Reality will not be shifted. In the meantime, perhaps we will have to have the same attitude as Puddleglum in C.S. Lewis’ “The Silver Chair”: although everything around us may suggest that we are fools, we should live, eat, walk, talk in light of the Reality in which we place our absolute faith.