I'm going to get a jump on one of my New Year's resolutions right here, right now. I'll begin by confessing that my computer is a mess. It's overflowing with unfinished and disorganized files. Jules has a fresh chance to grow in holiness every time he opens it.
Once in a while I'll think to myself, "I'm never going to finish these articles, I might as well delete them." But then I'll decide to re-read them first, and, when I do, I think, "Wait, this is worth something; this might be helpful to somebody." So I save it and forget about it again. And the mess grows apace.
So, for 2016, I resolve to work through my incomplete writing for real. At least once a week, I will either finish, delete or publish here an unfinished fragment from my desktop.
I'll begin with this item I found on a sticky note from 2011.
Being an intuitive rather than a methodical thinker, I am, I fear, prone to snap judgments. Nor is it fair to judge a book exclusively by a review. But, with those caveats in mind, let me say that this review inclines me to think I won't much care for the book. I suspect it of being marred by two bad tendencies all too often found in those who consider themselves proponents and teachers of John Paul II's thought:
1) a reactionary anti-modernism, and
2) a damaging misunderstanding of the personalist notion of autonomy.
The author of the review, Dororthea Israel Wolfson, compliments the book for its "thorough and deep" treatment of the subject, while criticizing it for being perhaps "too counter-cultural, as it were, to be effective. One wonders how much appeal these teachings can have beyond already committed Catholics." Her point strikes me as valid and not unrelated to mine. Let me try to explain.
I am entirely with Yenor in deploring a view of marriage that reduces its essence to a contract between consenting adults. I agree, too, with his contention that "modern political thought has had the effect, and in many cases the intention, of undermining the natural and conventional foundations of the family." But here is my objection: he seems to view "modern thought" too exclusively from the point of view of its defects, without due appreciation for its valid aims and real achievements. He treats modernity as if it were nothing but "a bundle of errors to be refuted" (as I remember Dr. Crosby once putting it.) Here is one example.
Yenor points out (according this review) that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill called for the equality of the sexes in marriage. Mill thought that the progress of liberty in the public sphere was impeded by "the tyranny of men over women" in the private sphere of marriage. He therefore advocated what he called "assimilative marriage" in which "husbands and wives are true friends and equals." Yenor critiques Mill for failing to take account of children:
"Mill ignores the kids in order to propound an alluring promise of spousal friendship—the idea that husbands and wives will share the same experiences and the hope that they will be soul mates."
I'm all in favor of a view of marriage that takes full account of its fundamental orientation toward children. But I am left wondering whether Yenor means to suggest that husbands and wives are not equals? Should they abandon the notion of being soulmates? Does he think Mill was wrong to oppose the tyranny of men over women in marriage? Or would he agree that there have been real gains through the modern struggle for sexual equality? If so, it doesn’t come through in this review. One gets rather the impression that he is using John Paul’s work for an un-John Paulike purpose: namely, to condemn the modern world.
Later in the review, we find that Yenor evidently treats "self-giving love" as the contrary opposite of "individual autonomy"—as if autonomy were synonmous with egotism and self-seeking. Yet, in the personalist understanding, individual autonomy has nothing to do with selfishness. On the contrary, far from being inimical to love, it is the indispensable ground of love. One cannot give what one does not have. I cannot give myself properly in love unless I realize fully my own autonomy. Without it, my self-giving is all too likely to be a dysfunctional, co-dependent self-squandering, viz. a counterfeit of love.
"[Our concept of Personalism] rejects the ethical altruism which asserts the claims of others so forcefully that any interest in our own happiness is made to appear as selfish; against this it affirms that the moral subject is also a person and thus also one who may not simply be used, or let himself be used, for the good of others."
It is not too much to say that a true appropriation of the modern notion of individual autonomy—one that interprets it in right relation to other truths, including truths like "It is not good for man to be alone" and "a person is called to give himself in love to others"—clarifies and deepens our understanding of what love is, and hence our ability to participate in it.
Let me return now to the reviewer's concern that Yenor's book may be "too counter cultural" to be effective. One of the reasons John Paul was able to be such a profoundly influential Pope and philosopher is surely his remarkable powers of sympathetic listening to the legitimate concerns and aspirations of contemporary man. Unlike so many of his would-be followers, he did not simply reject modernity and re-assert Tradition in opposition to it. Rather, he accepted modernity, entered sympathetically into its concerns and aspirations,
Reader, that's where it ends. I won't attempt to complete it. I'll just leave it where it is and offer it for what it's worth. One sticky note duly deleted. I'm on my way to electronic orderliness.