DUNN LORING, VA — When I was a much younger man, I almost worshipped
Shakespeare. He seemed to me almost literally “inspired,” the
most eloquent man who ever lived. And he nearly filled the place in
my life that Catholicism had briefly occupied after my teenage conversion.
When I returned to the Catholic Church in my early thirties, I began
to see him differently. As a professional writer myself, I still admired
him immensely, realizing how impossible it was that I should ever emulate
him. But I no longer regarded him as a god. I had another god — namely,
God.
I began to marvel at the words that were truly the most inspired ever
uttered: those of Christ. As a writer I felt honored when anyone quoted
me or remembered anything I’d written. But Christ is still quoted
after 2,000 years. An obscure man, he wrote nothing; we have only a
few of the many words he spoke during his life, not in the Hebrew or
Aramaic he spoke them in, but translated into Greek and thence into
English.
His words have a unique power that sets them off from all merely human
words. Even two removes from their original language, they still penetrate
us and rule our consciences. They have changed the world profoundly.
He didn’t just perform miracles; he spoke miracles. The words
we read from his mouth are miracles. They have a supernatural effect
on anyone who is receptive to them.
One proof of their power is that we also resist them. Sometimes they
are unbearable. Like some of the early disciples who fell away, we
are tempted to say: “This is hard stuff. Who can accept it?” It’s
the natural reaction of the natural man, fallen man.
Great as Shakespeare is, I never lose sleep over anything he said.
He leaves my conscience alone. He is a tremendous virtuoso of language,
but much of his beauty is bound to be lost in translation. (I apologize
if this offends our German readers; Germans believe that Shakespeare
in English was really just raw material for Schiller’s great
translations.)
By the same token, nobody ever feels guilty about anything Plato or
Aristotle said. They spoke important and lasting truths often enough,
but never anything that disturbs us inwardly. We are never afraid to
read them. We aren’t tempted to resist them as we are tempted
to resist Christ. The sayings of Confucius and Mohammed haven’t
carried over into alien cultures with anything like the force of Christ’s
words. They may be very wise at times, or they wouldn’t have
endured for many centuries; but still, they are only human.
But all this raises a question (and here I apologize for offending
our Protestant readers). If the Bible is to be our sole guide, why
didn’t Christ himself write it? Why didn’t he even expressly
tell the Apostles to write it, as far as we know? Why did he leave
so much to chance? Yet he said: “Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall not pass away.” And so far this certainly
appears true, though we know of no measures on his part to see to it
that his words would be preserved. He seems to have trusted that they
would somehow have their effect by their sheer intrinsic power, just
as he trusted that his enduring the humiliation, agony, and death of
a common criminal would confound every human expectation and fulfill
his tremendous mission.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the Redemption was an even greater miracle
than the Creation. I’ve often wondered just what he meant by
that, and I think I’m starting to see. The human imagination
can readily conceive of God creating the world. The human race has
many creation stories and myths; every culture seems to have its own.
But nobody imagined, no human being could ever imagine, God becoming
a human being and redeeming the human race by submitting to utter disgrace,
unspeakable physical pain, and death, ending his life in what appeared
even to his disciples to be total futility.
How Christ's words differ from Shakespeare's
The greatest genius who ever lived could never have foreseen or supposed
such a story. It was absolutely contrary to human common sense. It
came as a total shock even to the devout and learned Jews who were
intimate with the Scriptures and prayed for the coming of the Messiah.
The Apostles who had repeatedly heard Christ himself predict his Passion,
his destiny on the Cross, failed to comprehend it when it actually
came to pass. When his words were fulfilled to the letter, instead
of recognizing what seems to us so obvious, they fled in terror. (As
we would done have in their place.)
The New Testament Epistles were written by men who had seen Christ
after the Resurrection. A skeptic might dismiss St. Paul’s vision
as a hallucination, but Peter, John, and James had seen Christ’s
Passion and afterward met him, conversed with him, dined with him,
touched him. They didn’t deny their own desertion and loss of
faith at the time of his death, just as the ancient Israelites didn’t
play down, in their own scriptures, their many defections from the
true God; it was an essential part of the story.
Nor did the authors of the Epistles keep reiterating that the Resurrection
was a fact, as if it were in doubt. They simply treated it as something
too well known to their hearers to need further proof. They were prepared
to die as martyrs in imitation of Christ; Christian suffering, not
writing, was to be the chief medium of the Good News for the rest of
the world.
Christ’s words, in their minds, were inseparable from his deeds.
He had founded an organization, which we call the Church, and he had
told and shown the Apostles how to go about their mission when he was
no longer visibly present. It seems to me fatally anachronistic to
suppose that distributing literature, in the form of what we now call
the Bible, was to be a prominent part of this mission; that was impossible
before the printing press, surely a great technological advance but
one that had no role in the life of the Church before the fifteenth
century. The Apostles had — and could have — no conception
of books as we know them, easily mass-produced and cheaply purchased.
Before Gutenberg, every book had to be copied by hand, carefully preserved,
awkwardly used. Reading itself was a special skill.
The life of the Church, as prescribed by Christ, was sacramental.
He never told the Apostles to write books; he told them to baptize,
to preach the Gospel, to forgive sins, and to commemorate the climactic
moment of his ministry before the Passion, the Last Supper. He delegated
his own authority to them and left much to their discretion, under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is why Catholics give so much
weight to tradition; we aren’t privy to all his instructions
to the Apostles, but we trust that they knew what they were doing when
they formed the Church in her infancy.
In one respect Catholics are more fundamentalist than the fundamentalists.
We take the words “This is my body” and “This is
my blood” very literally. So did the first hearers who rejected
the “hard saying” that eating his flesh and drinking his
blood was necessary to salvation; he didn’t correct the impression
that he meant exactly what he seemed to be saying. Even a current writer,
the professedly Catholic Garry Wills, rejects the traditional Catholic
doctrine that the priest who consecrates bread and wine converts them
into the very body and blood of Christ. Christ’s words, as I
say, still provoke resistance. And this is why I believe them.
What greater proof of his divinity could there be than the fact that
he is still resisted, even hated, after 2,000 years? Nobody hates Julius
Caesar anymore; it’s pretty hard even to hate Attila the Hun,
who left a lot of hard feelings in his day. But the world still hates
Christ and his Church.
Exactly as he predicted
The usual form of this hatred is interesting in itself. For every
outright persecutor, there are countless people who pretend not to
hate Christ, but subtly demote him to the rank of a “great moral
teacher,” or say they have nothing against Christianity as long
as the “separation of church and state” is observed, or,
under the guise of scholarship, affect to winnow out his “authentic” utterances
from those falsely ascribed to him — as if the Apostles would
have dared to put words in his mouth! And as if such fabricated words
would have proved as durable as “authentic” ones! (Try
writing a single sentence that anyone could mistake for a saying of
Christ for even a century.)
Most secular-minded people would find it distasteful to nail a Christian
to a cross, though there have been exceptions. They prefer to create
a certain distance between themselves (or “society”) and
Christ, to insulate worldly life from the unbearable Good News, so
that they feel no obligation to respond to God’s self-revelation.
An especially horrifying concrete application of this insulation of
society from Christianity is the reduction of the act of killing unborn
children to an abstract political “issue,” a matter about
which we can civilly “disagree.”
Pretending to leave the ultimate questions moot, they actually live
in denial of and opposition to the truth we have been given at so much
cost. What was formerly Christendom — a civilization built around
that central revelation of God to man — has now fallen into a
condition of amnesia and indifference.
Even much of the visible Catholic Church itself has defected from
its duty of evangelizing, which begins with transmitting Catholic teaching
to children. Ignorance of Catholic doctrine in the “American
Church” is now both a scandal and a terrible tragedy.
The Vatican recently offended its Protestant and Jewish partners in
ecumenical “dialogue” by reiterating the most basic claim
of the Catholic Church: that it’s the One True Church, the only
sure way to salvation. Apparently the tacit precondition of “dialogue” was
that the Church stand prepared to renounce her identity. And we can
well understand why some people might get the mistaken impression,
even from certain papal statements and gestures, that this was a live
possibility. But it was a misunderstanding that had to be unequivocally
cleared up before any honest conversation could occur.
Christ always has been, still is, and always will be too much for
the human race at large to accept or assimilate. Exactly as he said
he would be. The world keeps proving the truth of his words.
The Reactionary
Utopian archives
Copyright © 2010 by Joe Sobran and the
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved. This column originally
appeared in the November 2000 edition of Sobran's: The Real News of the
Month.
and may be republished if this copyright information is also printed.
Joe Sobran is an author and a syndicated columnist. See complete bio
and latest writings.
Watch Sobran on YouTube.
To subscribe, renew, or support further columns by Joe Sobran, please send
a tax-deductible donation to the:
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
344 Maple Avenue West, #281
Vienna, VA 22180
or sponsor online.