Unyielding

Maasai man, Kenya.

It was John Pondoro Taylor who noted that when he lived in Africa, there remained members of one of the indigenous tribes to the region, I forget which one, who would come into Nairobi and walk through, carrying spears as they always had, ignoring its existence.

It had been their land before, and they were refusing to acknowledge the change.  

Admirable?

Stubborn?

Delusional?

All three?

I note this as earlier we noted that one of our resolutions was to be Honest, and another to be Authentic.

Those can come across as unyielding.  Or stubborn.  Or wacko.

And sometimes they really are.

But sometimes they are not, and are perceived as being so.

This gets back to a topic that we discussed recently, more than once actually, in regard to Fiducia Supplicans and also in regard to our lengthy post on the unfortunate change in domestic law over time. We noted there that some Catholic spouses who have opposed divorce and annulment refuse to acknowledge them. In the latter case, those people are truly poorly received with Priests reacting in horror to that thought.

I admire them.

That's because I'm skeptical that people don't lie to obtain annulments.  All the posts you see concerning the process are adamant that this doesn't occur, and that lairs are weeded out.  My problem is that if you've done a year or more of actual litigation work, that gets pretty difficult to fully accept.

This isn't really about that, but I'd go on to note that the opposite of being honest and authentic is that by and large most Christians fully accept divorce, even though Christ did not, and most Protestant denominations don't bat an eye about remarrying people, even multiple times.  

That's dishonest, if some thought is given to it.

But then, here's the problem.  How do you come across as honest and authentic without being a weirdo or a jerk?

Well, sometimes you cannot. But a lot of it is demeanor.  

I wouldn't, for instance, suggest running up and telling somebody you know to be divorced and remarried that they're living in adultery.  Indeed, that might assume a lot.  For instance, their first marriage may truly be invalid, and in their denomination, annulment might not exist at all.  You really don't know.  

By the same token, I wouldn't run up to a divorced/annulled and remarried Catholic, or a divorced and remarried Orthodox Christian, and say "hey, you are committing a fraud".

But, if asked to go to a second marriage, or third, or sixth, I would be inclined to say, "I'm sorry, I want you happy, but I believe that you can't be married more than once and I can't testify by my appearance that I think otherwise. . . I hope you understand, and I'll pray for you both."

Most of the time, an approach like that generally works.  Most people don't take offense, for example, to the LDS barring non-Mormon's to temple weddings. They shouldn't take offense if they do.  And most people don't take offense to Jews and Muslims not eating or serving pork, or Catholics not eating meat on Lenten Fridays, and the like.  People get curious about it, and may say some things in jest, but usually they're just disarming some surprise and disease by a serious belief.

There are exceptions, of course.

Extreme examples abound.  Instances of soldiers refusing to carry out immoral orders, or things of that nature.  One German officer by the last name of Homig, for instance, told his commanding officer that he could not carry out an order to execute civilians as he was a lawyer, a Catholic, and an Army officer. He went so far as to call in his subordinates and men together to inform them of his order.

Bold.

Most of us aren't asked to do that.

But we might be asked to do uncomfortable things of a lesser nature, and some won't be well recieved.

The Obituary

Mira qué bonita era by Julio Romero de Torres, 1895.  Depiction of a wake in Spain.

I didn't have him as a teacher in high school, but I certainly knew of him.¹  Somehow or another, I also knew that a student that was in school with us, and who my cousins knew, was not only his daughter, but also one of his students.  Apparently that was awkward. 

I don't do a good job of keeping track of former teachers.  I probably couldn't tell you where a single one of them was, even the ones I really liked, let alone those I only sort of knew by association.  In his case, there was our classmate, whom I also didn't know (she was a couple of years ahead of me), but he was also known to our parents.  Without knowing for sure, in looking at it, I think that must have been because he was from a Catholic family here in town.

My classmate died the year before last.  She was 62.

I read his obituary as he was so well known locally.  And then I recalled there were bits and pieces of his story I'd picked up over the years.

His wife was also a teacher.

Sometime after I left high school, the couple apparently civilly divorced.²   He remarried, and apparently to an apparently significantly younger women whom I take was also a teacher.  According to the obit, they had a child after he retired, who would now be about 31.  He would have been about 56 when she was born.  I can dimly recall my parents and my father's siblings talking about this as well, mostly in a somewhat bemused manner, given the difficulties of raising an infant, in their view, when you are that old.

When my classmate died, her mother was mentioned in the obituary.  Indeed, her obituary characterizes both of her parents as loving, and contains praise of them.

His obituary mentioned both of his daughters by his first marriage, and then goes on about his second.  His wife, the mother of my classmate, isn't mentioned at all.  The obituary is profuse on his latter "marriage", calling that individual, named in the obituary, the "love of his life" amongst other things.

Of course, the dead don't write their obituaries.  If they did, who knows how they'd read?  We might all fear how they'd be penned.  I've read plenty where a "first" and "second" spouse are mentioned.  This one is profuse on his love of one woman that he had children by and which the civil law would regard as his wife, but totally silent as to his wife who was the mother of my classmate. My classmate's obituary mentions her, and kindly, using the Americanism "step" to describe her as her "stepmother", which is polite, but the second "wife" of a divorced person isn't anything, relationship wise, to a child of the "first" marriage at all.³    Children, of a later marriage of any kind are, of course, as they're related by blood, i.e., genetically. Of course, children born out of wedlock to an illicit partner, to which I am in no way comparing this situation other than to note it, are "half" siblings as well.⁴ 

It must be a later child of the second union that wrote the obituary, as it concluded with the funeral details, those being an apparently civil funeral, followed by an "Irish wake", the latter something not really understood by Americans.  A real wake comes before, not after, the ceremony, and the body of the deceased is present. Indeed, the body is key to the wake, and the dead's family and friends do not allow the body to be left alone.  Prayer for the dead is a feature of it, but there is also food and drink and even courting, which in part has to do with the fact that life goes on, but in part because in more natural societies people live much closer to death than they do in our false one.

Everywhere, real wakes have much diminished.⁵

But then, so has our understanding of, and appreciation of the metaphysical and the existential, and as most people do not dwell deeply on those topics, and the culture has drifted many of those who drift with it bear no fault for having done so.

There's no Irish wakes without prayer, the deceased, and a sense of the next world having stepped into this one.  In our age, however, we expect this world and how we define it to step into the next one.

Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine,

et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Te decet hymnus Deus in Sion,

et tibi reddetur votum in Jerusalem.

Exaudi orationem meam,

ad te omnis caro veniet.

Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine,

et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Kyrie, eleison. Christe, eleison. Kyrie, eleison.⁶

Footnotes:

1.  In no small part because he was a well put together athletic man who drew hall monitor duty, but didn't seem to care for it much.  Indeed, if you went by him in the hall, when he had it, he didn't bother to ask you where you were going.

2.  I'll admit that this entry disregards the topic of Catholic annulment. Did they obtain one?  No idea.

To add to that, do I know anything whatsoever about the circumstances of their "divorce" and what brought it about, including who brought it about.  No I don't.

3.  The etymology of the prefix "step" goes back to the 8th Century and denoted an orphan.  It was later extended in Old English to connote a remarriage of a widow.

Some "step" parents, it might be noted, particularly in the case of an early death of an actual parent, or an abandonment by one of them, really step up to the plate and become effectively de facto parents.

The Pogues song Body of an American gives a good description of Irish wakes and how they can be.  The movie Road To Perdition, however, gives a very good depiction of a traditional wake, complete with the body iced.

4.  Again, as the fraud of civil divorce is so widely recognized as real in the Western World, I am in no way comparing the children of illicit affairs to the children of later contracted civil marriages.

5.  I've been to a real wake once, for a deceased second cousin, and it was horrific.  My father, who was 1/2 Irish, and 1/2 Westphalian by descent, but whose family did not retain any Irish customs, detested them.

6.       Rest eternal grant unto them, O Lord,

and let light perpetual shine upon them.

Thou art worthy to praised, O God, in Zion,

and to thee shall prayer be offered in Jerusalem.

Hear my prayer,

for to thee shall all flesh come.

Rest eternal grant unto them, O Lord,

and let light perpetual shine upon them.

 Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Honesty and Authenticity. Resolutions.

Many years I post a resolution thread, particularly with those for other people, that being a type of frankly snarky satire.  I sometimes note some for myself as well.

This year I haven't posted anything.

The grimness of 2023 has a lot to do with that.  On a professional note, and by all externals, I had a fairly good year last year. Economically, it went well, in spite of being knocked out for surgery.   But surgery and health wise it was really tough.  So I haven't been in the mood for that.

I am one of those people who do resolutions, and looking back on them, I'm also one of those people who typically fail at them. That's not a reason to try, however.  And I've had enough in the way of shocks and major setbacks over the year not to look at life in 2023 as sort of ending me to the penalty box.  So here's at it.

Rather than set resolutions, and I know generally what mine would be anyhow, I'm instead going to note a dedication, which is a form of resolution. And that would be Honesty and Authenticity.  I'm tired of the dishonest and unauthentic.

I believe, as part of this overall, that dishonest and unauthentic behavior and actions are responsible for almost all of the problems our society faces right now, and I need to reflect that myself.  Casting a wide net, almost all of our personal problems, and our national, and international ones, are due to dishonesty and inauthenticity.

Not that the honest and authentic win any prizes of any kind with people.  People like to be told lies that they agree with to support their own dishonest beliefs, wants and behaviors. And people like fake too.

But deep down, that doesn't work.

It's not as if I've been living a dishonest and inauthentic life.  But most of us make a lot of mental compromises to get along in daily life this way.  It's really not good for anything.

Related Threads:

2023. Annus horribilis and a Gift.

Elise Stefanik. Lying bad example.

Kristen Welker:  "Do you think it was a tragic day? Do you think that the people who stormed the Capitol should be held responsible to the full extent of the law?"

Elise Stefanik: "I have concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages."

Ms. Stefanik, you are a Catholic and lying on something like this is a grave sin.

And you are a mother.  Your child is learning to be reprehensible through you.