J. Melonowska
After Part 1's exposition, I now turn to the connection between the central myth of Europe, namely the Christian myth, and the situation of our societies, specifically the demographic collapse (childlessness, by which I mean the declining birth rate). I will link the myth, the liturgy, and the demographical issue.
Our question now is: what can be gleaned from the great “monuments of tradition,” namely 1. in liturgy, 2. among the Fathers, and 3. in spontaneous expressions of Christianity? The answers – I’ll reveal them here – are 1. family, and 2. ancestors. Here’s how it happens.
1. Liturgy: How does the liturgical act – with the Mass as its highest point – narrate the Family? The simplest way to illustrate this is through the figure that is usually the heart of the home, namely the mother. Yves Congar said: “Among the saints, liturgy particularly honors the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, who is connected with the mystery of Christ by bonds not only strict but absolutely unique. The way in which the (Catholic) liturgy of the East and the liturgy of the West relate to the Mother of God (…) constitutes the most important element of the Marian tradition.” Only Marian? Mary as the mother of Jesus is at the center of God’s plan and – which is especially significant for us – of the image. Moreover, as Congar notes, “the liturgy embodies the atmosphere of a normal family.” Liturgy is a place of Christian formation: from birth to death. It is about family, home, education and manners because it is the mere succession of immortal bonds. And the image of Mother and Son is not only central, but essential.
2. Fathers: As we know, the Church stands on the arms of the Fathers, its tradition is “patristic.” (It is assumed that it ends with Boethius and Isidore, although it is not about this or that figure, but about their “sum”: fathers, not a father). In the East, this adherence to the “fathers” is even more pronounced than in the West. (In 1960, Georges Florovsky protested against the idea of the Orthodox Church being conceived as the “Church of the Fathers,” the “Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils” in such a way that from the death of John Damascene in 749 or from the seventh council in 787 the Church was no longer visited by the Spirit). It is said of the Fathers that they “gave birth to the Church.” Again, we see that the Christian Myth and its ecclesial form lead to the central position of the parental figure.
However, my argument can be challenged by citing orthodox communities that do not emphasize the figure of the Mother and do not have a liturgical expression of family, yet often have numerous and well-raised offspring. An example would be Orthodox Jews. But among the Jews, the figure of the father is emphasized: Abraham was primarily the father figure, and Yahweh was invoked as the “God of our fathers.” Jews had a very strong concept of the father as the one from whom one originates and on whom one relies. The words of God: “I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore” (Genesis 22:16-17) can be understood almost sensually: the stars in the sky are like the seed of Abraham. Similarly, as in Christianity, the idea of the son and the idea of sacrifice in the context of the father’s love for the son are emphasized here.
In the spirit of the Critical Philosophy of History (and common sense), let us emphasize that the tradition of the “fathers” does not need to be idealized. However, it is sufficient to acknowledge it as a historical fact. It is also worth noting that under the title of “father” also lie mothers who concealed their sex (rather than seeking to change it) in a world dominated by fathers, such as the fathers of the desert. So patristic tradition is also “matristic” (matriarchal) tradition.
3. Spontaneous expressions: gestures and customs that constitute the ordinary thread of human life, such as birth and death, childhood and old age, love and the family hearth, illness and caring for the poor, holidays, work, and its fruits. Spontaneous expressions of life are expressions of family life: both in family life and in monastic life. Childless individuals are important supplements to civilization, but not its center. Their contribution to the continuity of civilization, moreover, relied on participation and support, rather than alienation. Childless women often were involved in caring for children, childless men (in Poland) paid special taxes. Great creators usually had families, and even if they did not, they contributed to the tradition through their art, thus becoming ancestors.
Let us notice once again that all “monuments of tradition” – liturgy, fathers, and spontaneous expressions – are oriented towards the family, the parental figure, and the experience of home. Therefore, if there has been a breakdown in the liturgical reenactment, in which the voice of the Holy Family was heard, we may inquire about the state of the family “after the liturgical tradition,” that is, “after the liturgical rupture.”
The Liturgical Symbolic Tradition and the Queston of the Child
I can only say yes, my child.I’ll be broken and torn for you.What a grief it is to me now,your first cradle, this womb!When, my child, will you come?(Pause.)When it smells of jasmine, your flesh…Let branches stir in the lightand fountains leap in the air!(F. G. Lorca, Yerma)
I want to present to you now the foundation, principle, and purpose of all tradition – the heir, or… the child. I will seek – in Myth and its symbols – answers to the question of why children are being born less and less, and why the West (not solely) is sinking into a slow, tedious agony. I will thus connect the issue of childlessness, the hermeneutics of myth and re-enactment. I know only one thinker who sees this thread as being as thin as a spider’s web. This is what (little known, I believe) Russian thinker Sergiusz Awerincew wrote in the middle of the 20th century: “Even the most ‘domestic,’ ‘family,’ the most – if one can say so – ‘bourgeois’ lessons of daily courtesy are conducted at the same level as the high visions of the order of the world.” So imagine – on one hand, we have the family gathered around the table, sharing a meal, bound by the ties of delicacy, and good manners that form the basis of familial and societal law. On the other hand, we have “high visions of the order of the world,” and, moreover, the order of the world itself. The thin thread I speak of connects one with the other: the order of the universe with the family table in Budapest.
I argue, therefore, that there exists a close relationship between the order of the world (Logos) and everyday etiquette and all logoi in everyday life, especially within the “home,” "family,” and the relationships associated with them. Here is the thesis, thin as a spider’s web: the widespread decline of the sense of procreation in the West – the West’s sterile sexual self-absorption – is related to the attitude towards the Logos. This concerns the rupture of the ability to perceive the relationship between the “small “l” logos of one’s body (the purposefulness of the reproductive system) and the big “L” – Logos. In short: we do not see anymore the relation between pro-creatio and Creatio. And the opposite: the Creatio is no longer an appeal to pro-create.
This ability did not extinguish in people by itself, the way human senses grow weaker in old age. Instead, it was extinguished due to the complete collapse of the symbolic sphere in the West. The reservoir of these symbolic resources is religious Myth and the associated ritual. If ritual, then liturgy, because “The liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows” (Sacrosanctum concilium, 10). Earlier, I claimed that tradition is given to every participant of a given civilizational circle, as long as they come to know it through friendship (with the historical Other). I am removing, therefore, the confessional condition from the above statement of Sacrosantum Concilium (“Church”). The sentence now reads: “The Latin [Roman] liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Westerners is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all their power flows.”
Let us now look at this peculiar family of Christianity: [God] Father, [Human] Mother, [God, Human] Son. Here is the penetration of the divine and human principle: Logos and logoi. Here is the fundamental myth of the West (and the Christian East). In the Mass liturgy – especially in the exemplary Roman rite – there was a distinct and complete invocation-worship of the Son and Mother directed towards the Father – God leaning over the human domain. The theocentric liturgy is thus father-centric. Conversely, it is mother-centric and, likewise, child-centric. Human pro-creatio somehow reproduced and manifested, as much as it was in its nature, Creatio in the “game of images” with divine pro-creatio. What I mean here is, briefly, that our civilization (as probably every civilization) has its main Myth, main mythical image and main symbols. In the Western, Christian civilization these were: the Myth of a Son (and his Mother), the image of Mother and Child, the symbols of sacrifice as “all love is sacrificial love” (M. Scheler) – the Cross, the piety.
Earlier, I mentioned that man is homo temporalis and at the same time homo historicus. He is also homo religiosus, and furthermore homo liturgicus. “Liturg, liturgist” – that is, praising, glorifying, and worshiping in public and private cult. In all times and religions, therefore, man turns to God or gods in an act of praise. Even in his entire life, he seeks to give it a glorious character (“to please the gods,” “to delight them,” “to reconcile with them”). And indeed, he gives his cultic actions a public character: sacra publica. This is precisely what leitourgia is and who leitourgos is. These are not “Catholic statements”, they are “Religious studies” and “Philosophy of religion” statements. Today, the fundamental (or at least non-trivial) significance lies in the collapse of the symbolism of the Christian Myth given through the Catholic Mass. To this day, the ancient liturgy is largely lost, replaced by a celestial chaos in the realm of signs as well as in the doctrinal realm. I will not describe the transformations of the symbolic field in the old and new rite, as the literature on this subject is immense. Allow me only to note that traditional families united around the Tridentine Masses – that means the unreformed old rite – are usually very procreative.
Certainly, one can write about simple and certain things, namely, that a significantly influencing factor on birth-rate is literacy, more precisely: female literacy: the more women are educated, the fewer children are born. However, my goal is to demonstrate the religious and symbolic foundations of the birth-rate crisis.
These I can only grasp by tracing the mythical and symbolic tradition and its 21st-century mutations. In the light of the hermeneutic of symbol, philosophy of myth and ritual or even history of tradition we have the right to deem it almost derogatory when such an extraordinary issue as non-birth is reduced to social policy, demography, sociology. It’s not about a “demographic crisis,” but precisely about childlessness. About the refusal to procreate and bear children – which is self-destruction for any being, and therefore contrary to its nature. Non-birth is a rupture with the natural purpose of one’s own body and the body of the closest woman or man. (Not long ago we would have said: wife or husband). This unnaturalness remains in a deep, though indirect, connection with the collapse of the symbolizing structures in the most essential form given in the “source and font” of religious life in the West, that is, in the Catholic Mass of the old rite. The old rite and its emphasis on the “female and male,” “paternal and maternal,” “divine and human,” as well as on dependence, order, hierarchy, and telos. Also, on a community directed towards one direction – ad Orientem – like a family with one purpose. I won't even mention the emphasis on liturgical “manners,” although, as we repeat with Awerincew, “even the most ‘domestic,’ ‘family,’ the most ‘bourgeois’ lessons of liturgical courtesy were conducted on the same level as the high visions of the order of the world...”
Again: is it “a Catholic” matter only? No. The symbol operates beyond affiliation. It “spills over” onto believers and non-believers, confessors and non-confessors alike. As Paul Ricoeur pointed out, although one does not have to see a call in the symbol, one must see a confession in it. And it is precisely this confession that is like an appeal addressed to everyone who remains within the sphere of influence of a given symbol. At the same time, it seems to penetrate deeply into individuals and affirms a content with certainty at the level of the entire culture.
Therefore, it must be understood that children are not being born because we live in a state of anxiety. I'm not so much referring to a psychological experience here as I am to a state of being “blocked” in communication with Logos. The Logos cannot smoothly communicate through Myth and symbol in the “family” and in the traditional liturgy dating back to the 4th century.
And suddenly, the cry of Rachel carried to us through the ages falls silent: “Give me children, or I’ll die!” (Genesis 30:1). And we don’t hear the agonizing wail of childless Yerma, the protagonist of F. G. Lorca’s drama:
Yerma: (Dreamily)Ay, what a field of stones!Ay, what a door closed to beauty,to ask for a son, to suffer, while the breezeoffers flowers of the slumbering moon!These two springs of warm milkI have, in the courts of my fleshare twin beats of a horse’s hooves,to shake the branch of my anguish.Ay, blind breasts under my dress!Ay, doves without sight or whiteness!Ay, what grief of the captive bloodgoes nailing wasp-stings into my neck!But you must come, my love, my child,because water gives salt, and earth fruit,and our wombs hold tender childrenas the clouds are filled with sweet rain.***Yerma: (raising - [about her empty hands])Because I’m tired: tired of them: of not being able to use them for something of my own. Because I’m hurt, hurt and humiliated beyond endurance, seeing the crops ripen, the fountains give water endlessly, the ewes bear scores of lambs, and the bitches pups, till the whole countryside seems to rise up to show me its tender sleeping young, while I feel only two hammer-blows here, instead of a child’s mouth.
Yerma says: “Women, when they have children, don’t think of those who don’t. (…) as those who swim in fresh water have no idea of thirst.” Meanwhile... no. The West not only isn’t swimming in fresh water anymore, but it has also lost the idea of desiring a child. But we have the leading emancipatory ideologies here, don’t we? All those “good men” – emancipators, who want to make the world a better place? Well, if they want to liberate from suffering, they must be directed towards some kind of suffering. Who is the sufferer today, in the West, then? If not a Son on the Cross, if not a Mother holding His dead body, if not a Father allowing all of this, than… what is today the figure of the Sufferer?
The figure of Suffering has become the adult in search of their own identity, a search that takes place “against tradition,” “against nature” and “against the family.” Let me make it clear: I am not talking about persons somehow “named” or “represented” by a sign, a symbol, an ideology or a religion. Persons are different. And every person, each of us, leads his or her own battle within the world and against it. But there is a generalization made by ideological and political currents, or by religion, and all ideology and religion expresses itself through the language of signs and symbols. And that is my case in this expose: symbol. Not John, Paul or Magda but the signs and symbols conceived to represent Johns, Pauls and Magdas (although John can be enthusiastic about it, Paul may be skeptical, ironic or even uninterested, whilst Magda can be absolutely against and judge that the symbolic representation of her condition – as well as the social and political goals that go with it – is against her mind and will). Our question is, let us recall, who is the Sufferer in the West today? Who is there to be saved? Who is to be emancipated? Such a figure – a figure, not necessarily a person, as persons differ in their opinions and attitudes – has become the Gay person. Alongside such a person, we also find a woman suffering if she does not have access to abortion, even abortion on demand. As the emancipators call abortion “the pregnancy termination” I shall call that woman’s figure the Terminatee. The third figure of suffering is the transitioning person: neither female nor male – as if on the way between the two. Here is the trinity: Gay, Trans, and Terminatee.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
The first represents, first of all, Family. Further: love and sacrifice (the Cross of the Son, the piety of the Mother) – because, let’s say again, “all love is sacrificial love.” It represents fertility and – interestingly – chastity (Joseph does not approach Mary sexually as she was sanctified by the absolutely Other, Jesus is the Other Himself, Mary is the one who says “how shall this be, seeing I know not a man?!”). Still, the first “trinity” is about nature and fertility (the logoi of Mary’s and Joseph’s bodies are complementary and therefore potentially fertile), therefore it is about the sex difference and the “male-female” communion as a result of this difference. (It is about the communion between God and man, first of all, of course). The story of the poor social condition (poverty) and dignity which comes from moral strength and the virtues. Does the other trinity – the emancipatory one – symbolize any of that – or anything at all that would lead to a family-centered symbolism? – I leave it to your judgment. However, if the answer is “no,” than what I am saying is: without a family-centered imaginarium, the family-centered society simply is not possible.
However: can this be “any” family? After all, we can call anything “family” or “marriage”, can’t we? Well, if the symbol is the representation of the Myth and Myth is representation of transcendence (the Logos), therefore the family must be holy (or perceived as holy, sanctified).
If – I am just thinking here – the “emancipatory trinity” cannot be linked to sanctity and cannot produce the image of any holy family, then the traditional trinity (Holy Family) is a great threat to the emancipatory social order (or dis-order) and ideology. That means that the emancipatory ideologies and ideologues will have to be very offensive to traditional sensibilities in the symbolic realm. That means two actions: imposing their own signs (I would not say symbols) on all social domains (wherever possible) and… destroying the traditional symbol or the power of the symbol. The first – destroying the Christian symbol – can be done through blasphemy and profanation, the other – destroying the traditional symbol or the power of the symbol – through secularization (of society and therefore the symbolic system). There are also some “techniques” like taking a symbol over and modifying it (for example taking over and modifying the sign of a rainbow, which comes from the Old Testament).
Indeed, the traditional trinity of Father, Mother and Child is becoming increasingly unprotected in the symbolic realm while the LGBT symbolism is without limit. Central to the West, the Christian myth and its symbols can’t effectively be defended through legal means. With Myth and the (Holy) Family, you can essentially do anything in the public or private sphere today. They are, after all, highly competitive trinities: the traditional one and the emancipatory one. They cannot co-exist, as they represent deeply antagonistic human orders. As emancipatory ideologies and “good people” (I mean emancipators) are now taking the West over they need to impose their own system of signs and destroy or marginalize the old one. The trinity of the Holy Family has been left without any defense: from blasphemous “arts” to attacking the Catholic liturgy and even what Catholics and Orthodox believe is the most sacred, holy communion – all is possible and even all is permitted. As we said after MacIntyre: the barbarians are already here and they govern the societies. What we did not say (neither us here, nor MacIntyre) is that barbarians are great warriors and that they are sometimes right. For example they are right when they recognize the power of symbols and rituals. The power of the symbol of Family was clearly given and felt in the old Mass, as this liturgy did not negotiate with the world. Its symbolic resources were clear and present in liturgical re-enactment. But today there is almost no liturgical re-enactment. And Francis, the “Woke Pope,” is doing whatever he can to destroy and to forbid the old liturgical rite.
Whilst coming to the end of my expose we need to ask where, in fact, does such persuasive power of symbols (and even signs) come from? The answer is given by Plotinus and other Platonists with their attitude toward the sense of sight. Plotinus was convinced that a person becomes what she gazes upon. The more exposed a certain sign or symbol is, the more it influences. However “influences” does not mean “persuades.” It’s easy to confuse the two. It is easy to get the impression that we have been “persuaded” and “convinced,” whilst in fact we were influenced and “mesmerized.” Our reason, will, mind and character was not present in the process. You may call it the seductive power of symbols and signs. Seduction, however, does not have to be an act of love. To sum up: the symbol does not persuade. But it can awaken symbolic awareness in a person, upon which understanding can then progress.
In an atmosphere of breaking off friendship with the historical Other (not even considering communion with the Other!), there is a breakdown of the symbolic order centered on the family in the West. This can be expressed by my phrase: “under the rule of Gay.” Furthermore, both the Mother, Father, and Son (the trinity of Myth) and the mother, father, and child (the citizens) are “under the rule of Gay.” In society, there is a disorganization of families and their slow demise (childlessness).
It is time to summarize my expose. Please, have a look at these tables:
However: can this be “any” family? After all, we can call anything “family” or “marriage”, can’t we? Well, if the symbol is the representation of the Myth and Myth is representation of transcendence (the Logos), therefore the family must be holy (or perceived as holy, sanctified).
If – I am just thinking here – the “emancipatory trinity” cannot be linked to sanctity and cannot produce the image of any holy family, then the traditional trinity (Holy Family) is a great threat to the emancipatory social order (or dis-order) and ideology. That means that the emancipatory ideologies and ideologues will have to be very offensive to traditional sensibilities in the symbolic realm. That means two actions: imposing their own signs (I would not say symbols) on all social domains (wherever possible) and… destroying the traditional symbol or the power of the symbol. The first – destroying the Christian symbol – can be done through blasphemy and profanation, the other – destroying the traditional symbol or the power of the symbol – through secularization (of society and therefore the symbolic system). There are also some “techniques” like taking a symbol over and modifying it (for example taking over and modifying the sign of a rainbow, which comes from the Old Testament).
Indeed, the traditional trinity of Father, Mother and Child is becoming increasingly unprotected in the symbolic realm while the LGBT symbolism is without limit. Central to the West, the Christian myth and its symbols can’t effectively be defended through legal means. With Myth and the (Holy) Family, you can essentially do anything in the public or private sphere today. They are, after all, highly competitive trinities: the traditional one and the emancipatory one. They cannot co-exist, as they represent deeply antagonistic human orders. As emancipatory ideologies and “good people” (I mean emancipators) are now taking the West over they need to impose their own system of signs and destroy or marginalize the old one. The trinity of the Holy Family has been left without any defense: from blasphemous “arts” to attacking the Catholic liturgy and even what Catholics and Orthodox believe is the most sacred, holy communion – all is possible and even all is permitted. As we said after MacIntyre: the barbarians are already here and they govern the societies. What we did not say (neither us here, nor MacIntyre) is that barbarians are great warriors and that they are sometimes right. For example they are right when they recognize the power of symbols and rituals. The power of the symbol of Family was clearly given and felt in the old Mass, as this liturgy did not negotiate with the world. Its symbolic resources were clear and present in liturgical re-enactment. But today there is almost no liturgical re-enactment. And Francis, the “Woke Pope,” is doing whatever he can to destroy and to forbid the old liturgical rite.
Whilst coming to the end of my expose we need to ask where, in fact, does such persuasive power of symbols (and even signs) come from? The answer is given by Plotinus and other Platonists with their attitude toward the sense of sight. Plotinus was convinced that a person becomes what she gazes upon. The more exposed a certain sign or symbol is, the more it influences. However “influences” does not mean “persuades.” It’s easy to confuse the two. It is easy to get the impression that we have been “persuaded” and “convinced,” whilst in fact we were influenced and “mesmerized.” Our reason, will, mind and character was not present in the process. You may call it the seductive power of symbols and signs. Seduction, however, does not have to be an act of love. To sum up: the symbol does not persuade. But it can awaken symbolic awareness in a person, upon which understanding can then progress.
In an atmosphere of breaking off friendship with the historical Other (not even considering communion with the Other!), there is a breakdown of the symbolic order centered on the family in the West. This can be expressed by my phrase: “under the rule of Gay.” Furthermore, both the Mother, Father, and Son (the trinity of Myth) and the mother, father, and child (the citizens) are “under the rule of Gay.” In society, there is a disorganization of families and their slow demise (childlessness).
It is time to summarize my expose. Please, have a look at these tables:
Indeed: “I have no superego” seems to be the encapsulation and goal of contemporary ideologies of emancipation.
Conclusion
Is a theological, theo-hermeneutical policy which is pro-Myth and pro-symbol possible? It seems a necessity if the West desires to have children, and therefore desires to live (and if we desire to become ancestors).
The Greek Hellenes – those hundreds of scattered polises – were united by four principles: (1) Speak of the gods, that they exist. (2) Honor the gods. (3) Honor the ancestors. (4) Honor your parents. (The fifth, more complex principle concerned the necessity of burying the dead). These are the axiologai of the West since the dawn of our civilization! Greeks, Jews and Christians would subscribe to these commandments, though modifying the issue of “god” or “gods.” These are, truly, the axiologai of every civilization (whether good or bad, in any case, remembered). Do we find any of these principles in today’s West? If the answer is “no” or “not much of them,” the solution comes from another Greek. Plotinus. As I mentioned, he was convinced that a man becomes what he gazes upon. You want children? Let him gaze upon the Family, God’s Family. This is the way that leads to pro-creation and re-enactment.
