Who made Piers Morgan the Zeitgeist Torquemada?

I admit, I don’t watch much television or follow celeb-gossip things, so it’s quite possible that I am very ill-informed and Piers Morgan is a major intellectual powerhouse who has slipped by my radar because, well, I don’t know who the major intellectual powerhouses are; they never seem to be the ones winning the prizes anymore.

I see by this Wikipedia entry that in the UK Morgan, among other things, wrote, edited, judged talent contests and is currently the editorial director of a children’s newspaper.

None of which tells me who died and named Morgan the Zeitgeist Torquemada, the “Lord Inquisitor” assigned the task of catechizing correct thinking in the United States, in matters touching both constitution and morality, or sneering, shouting, berating and belittling when his subject of interrogation refuses to conform — refuses to acquiesce and give the proper, required answer, with appropriate expressions of penitent humility for ever thinking incorrectly.

Riding a Zeitgeist takes no courage at all; you just “evolve” to the correct position and hang on, until you are delivered to the promised land, which changes to suit times and trends. Even a dead thing can be attached to it, and brought along. As Chesterton said, “A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”

Once upon the zeitgeist was “Bush is an evil war criminal who we hate,” and all the people who uttered the words were counted as “bravely speaking truth to power.” And then his successor came in, held on to most of Bush’s foreign policies, and expanded some notions of executive power, but — since his successor was the zeitgeist they were riding — there was nothing to object to, because the zeitgeist is always right.

Then gun control became the zeitgeist and people who owned guns for their own protection, or employed armed body guards, decided that guns should only be in the hands of the correct sorts of people — and of course, criminals, who don’t give a damn about the law — and they sputtered about automatic weaponry and more than hinted that their moderate ideas of control held promise for future, power-tantalizing constitutional tweeks.

Even as that zeitgeist is still struggling to reach its destiny, another — more potent because its thrust is partially pelvic — is speedily passing it by, and oh, the brave, brave people who are suddenly grabbing on to its tail in order to make sure they’re part of it. The bravest of them all, of course, is Hillary Clinton, the former Senator and Secretary of State who first testified before Congress on a grave matter, and managed to do what weak women do when they want to change the subject: she cried and yelled until testicles duly retracted and that was a stunning victory for her. Directly after that, she — the woman who, while in the Senate, took umbrage and offense at the idea that she would support same sex marriage — courageously sent her husband out with a trial balloon to make sure it was safe, and then grabbed on to the zeitgeist with both hands, causing many to say, “wasn’t she always for gay marriage? Right? I’m confused.”

Sometimes people do not ride a zeitgeist, because they really are brave; they walk their own way, because their conscience leads them. Others simply dwell in utter, disconnected apathy. Both may believe that most zeitgeists are products of master illusionists bent on distraction and misdirection, and they tend to sidestep them, for it.

“Zeitgeist Torquemada”, by the way, is one of those dream jobs, because as long as you’re within the zeitgeist, you can never be wrong; fear of inquisition bestows a measure of power on one, for a while, which is also nice.

Over at Get Religion, Mollie Hemingway, is fascinated as she watches the ZT work, this time by keeping the stinking, incorrectly-thinking bigot far away from his own pure robes, and seated where there is a potential for confrontation:

“. . .In the words of David S. Crawford, the tolerance that will be given to those who aren’t on board with changing the basis of marriage from sexual complementarity to sexual orientation will be:

‘…provisional and contingent, tailored to accommodate what is conceived as a significant but shrinking segment of society that holds a publically unacceptable private bigotry. Where over time it emerges that this bigotry has not in fact disappeared, more aggressive measures will be needed, which will include more explicit legal and educational components, as well as simple ostracism…”

It’s a difficult piece to excerpt so go read the whole thing.

I wrote the other day about not throwing people away, and I am trying really hard to keep this from becoming about the man, Morgan (who is, in fact, less shouty and condescending to his guest than his partner, Suze Orman) instead of the role he has voluntarily taken on. As I concluded in that piece, it’s a difficult line to walk with balance: how does one criticize or analyze what is happening all around, without turning it into a diatribe against the human beings involved, and subsequently dismissing their humanity for the sake of a laugh. So, I’ll refrain from using a line I liked, ask for mercy for wanting to use it so badly, and pray instead for the the people who are actively fomenting hatred and misunderstanding among people while suggesting that, by framing an issues along false lines that will ultimately lead to more (but “deserved”) bullying, more (but “deserved” ostracizing) — all of the things we know are already destroying lives — they are only doing the noble thing.

People need to get their heads around the fact that same sex marriage is going to happen and it’s not going to “destroy the family” any more than it’s already been destroyed by heterosexuals who, post sexual-revolution, post-Church, have given short shrift to the institution itself and (where it applies, to the Office and sacrament), or ignored it altogether. What will be the immediate fallout, aside from redefinition? Via Media identifies where and how the Zeitgeist Torquemadas (by then there will be more of them, and they’ll be more official) will work:

Some gay rights advocates will believe that society needs to punish and repress these beliefs. Just as we don’t let segregated schools enjoy tax benefits and deny racists the “right” to discriminate in hiring and promoting, shouldn’t we hand out the same treatment to those backward bigots who refuse to move with the times?

At Via Meadia, we think that’s wrong. The distinction we would draw is between those who promote violence and bullying, and those who dissent from the new laws on moral grounds.

They make a great analogy to divorce and the churches, (so go read it) but few will listen to common sense, or bother with fine distinctions, when they’re sparking on the cheap fuel of emotionalism. The same government that tried to dictate to the churches whom they must call “minister”, the same government that is trying to define for people the limits of their own religious consciences and their free exercise of religion, will — particularly through the courts, as time goes by and current seats are vacated — find in favor of plaintiff couples arguing that they have a “right” to a sacrament or that their marriages aren’t working because they have been denied blessings and counselings available to other couples. Or there will be another argument, but the attempts to intrude on the churches will be made, and past cases suggest that when they are made, sexual orientation and license trumps religious freedom:

* A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor’s defense during oral arguments last month (2008).

* Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient. [...]

In each of these cases, and other similar ones, the government has acted in some way to forbid gays and lesbians from being demeaned. But allowing same-sex couples to force religious individuals or organizations to act out of accord with their faith is not cost-free either. Their dignity is no less affected. Unless claims rooted in equal protection under the law are to sweep away claims rooted in freedom of religion, a more sensitive balancing approach is essential.

Yeah, good luck with that, too. One of the most dishonest (and stunningly passive-aggressive) things anyone ever said to me came up during the Great Chick-fil-A-Think-Correctly-or-Be-Destroyed Debacle of 2012, when a married lesbian, unimpressed to hear that I could support civil unions but had to draw a line at “marriage” out of concern for the churches and religious freedom, informed me that a) civil unions weren’t enough; marriage had to happen and b) my concerns were silly!: (paraphrased) “of course, this won’t affect the churches; if a church wants to be bigoted, I support their freedom to be hateful bigots…”

Yeahhhh…I’m sure you will.

Don’t fret about all this, though; don’t carry on about “the end of America” because that’s already pretty old, and you know, nations all tumble, eventually — we see it in history and we see it today. It seems to me conservatives and Republicans are touting a new “national/political savior” every week, but we’re pretty well past that. I honestly don’t even want to write about politics anymore, because it all seems like Distraction Theater to me; the real battle is going on in a different realm.

Don’t be afraid. Just be ready to deal with the onslaught of Zeitgeist Torquemadas about to advance and question whether you are a “good” person or a “bad” one, based entirely on how you think about this one issue. Be ready, too, to hear that, regardless as to whether you have grounded those thoughts upon natural law or scripture, your “real” motivation is simple bigotry:

If one retains the view that marriage is the institution that governs sexual complementarity and requires male and female then civil rights is the wrong framework and cries of bigotry are uninformed and scurrilous at best.

But they’re the cries people are most afraid of. “Bigot”, however incorrectly uttered, is the new card that will be played and overplayed. Don’t accept it; keep correcting the equation from “To Disagree” = “To Hate” into “To Disagree” = “Disagreement.”

It won’t work, but you know. You have to keep repeating it, for the sake of an even more basic freedom than religious conscience — one that will be threatened down the road: the freedom to be allowed your own thoughts and words, and to recognize things for the realities they are.

That freedom has always been loathsome to the enforcers of political correctness, in every age.

Same Sex Attraction and Faith
The Church challenges all its members, differently; just like life
“It’s still a very difficult position to be in”.
Polygamy, Incest, nah, um, yeah, um. No…

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Bill M.

    Far more germane that the mention of his gig as editor of a children’s newspaper is the following, also from Wikipedia:

    a writer and editor for several British tabloids, including The Sun, News of the World, and Daily Mirror

    One could argue that nothing in contemporary culture more embodies the baying mob, the celebration of mediocrity, the sacrifice of eternal verities to passing trends, than a British tabloid. Caveat lector.

  • http://www.noodlingonit.com Kris, in New England

    Morgan appointed himself as the corrector of all that is wrong with America. Irony being that he’s not a citizen here and his own country doesn’t want him back. The News of the World hacking scandal, that happened under his watchful eye, forced him out of his own country and now we are stuck with him.

    He has no skin in the game he bleats on about. He needs to simply be – ignored. Except that he natters on about the latest national debate and that’s good for one thing only – ratings for his sagging show.

    A show on American TV watched by Americans. Who don’t particularly like being mocked and scolded by a Brit.

  • katearthsis

    Thank you for writing this up. I’ve been in heavy debate (if you can even call it that) with people so overtaken with emotion and passion on the issue that emotions run rampant. My stating only that a particular argument for SSM was flawed (in this case involving rights & the segregation of blacks) was met with disdain, loud assessments of my hate and how I was making everything about me. Mind you, at this time I hadn’t even given a personal opinion on the matter, but was simply addressing an argument, and previously, the lawsuits/civil outcomes of similar legislation in other countries and some states.

    I study art for a living. Art history, markets, and the making of it. Currently I come home exhausted from the commodity culture that I study in my remaining classes on Contemporary art and the deterioration of everything-from basic natural things or organism, idea, to humanity-is turned into something to be bought and sold. Something wrapped up in a world of marketing, branding, and commodification. As you can imagine, this exhausts me. Saddens me, yet I keep on, because I love these things (art, ideas, history, philosophy, and the exploration of humanity through the creative process), even if the world seems to have long ago destroyed this things for profit.

    Then I come home, and in the last two days I’ve mustered up the courage to finally point out certain flaws in argumentation from friends who post about SSM (This is a risky thing to do in my field, more than most others). The vile I got. The raw passionate illogical emotion. I never had to post my opinion, simply pointing out a logical flaw in a bad argument (while simultaneously stating that better arguments could be made) turned me into a hateful, narcissistic bigot who supported the intolerance and suppression-of-love that all SSM opposers possess.

    At these times I felt more longing than ever to go and bury myself in some book about Post-Modern Pop Art, Minimalism, or, heck, even Contemporary Feminist Artists. It takes a lot of disillusionment in the world, in people, to create that feeling in me.

    You don’t have to approve this comment but I thank you for writing this post. We all know it likely wont change anyone’s mind, that it hits upon all the necessary, logical, and in many cases, scary points and gives examples – all of which will be dismissed as anomalies. It doesn’t give hope in the present, in America, or heck, even in the future we all face. What it does do, and why I thank you, is because it reminds me I’m not alone. It reminds me of my faith, of Catholicism, of all we’ve been through before and how history often repeats itself. In all the times where humanity was deemed worthless & logic was thrown out for pure “wants” in society Catholics always had a community, and I’m finding that so important now.

  • http://iwillnothidemyfaith.blogspot.co.uk Recusant

    You are so right, Kris, you are welcome to him! In fact I was talking to someone only yesterday about how it’s a bit weird that among a certain group of C-list celebrities, one apparently isn’t really successful or famous until one is successful and famous in the USA. We couldn’t really work out why this was, but at least Piers Morgan, Simon Cowell et al. had left the country.

    Anyway, I sincerely you recommend that you ignore him, not because he’s British, but because he’s Piers Morgan.

  • Mike

    The culture is fracturing and with it civil society. Things will go under ground and be left unsaid but believe me no one will ever honestly see no basic difference between a mom and dad and 2 men because alas babies come from the former and never the latter. Nature or God or whatever you prefer has seen to it already. So things will get ugly but we have to stay true to truth itself.

  • Guest

    We need to admit that heterosexuals in accepting no-fault divorce have make a mockery of marriage – even the secular definition in place as recently as 40-50 years ago. However, we need not give in to SSM and make a further mockery of it.

    Perhaps if objections to SSM were always coupled with an admission of the failure of no-fault divorce and harm to the family and a desire not to erode this further it might present more difficulty for those making arguments in favor of SSM.

  • Mandy P.

    I try to give up politics for Lent every year and this year I managed it quite well. Honestly, I’m just so worn out. And, just like the same sex unions arguments, it’s all so overwrought with emotionalism that it has become impossible for me to watch, or listen to, or discuss political issues with logic and reason (which aren’t considered friendly methods of discourse anymore, apparently) without feeling like I want to scream or yank my hair out. I’ve concluded that anything of this world that makes me that miserable is just not worth my time. So I’m peripherally aware of what’s going on, but honestly I’ve kind of thrown myself into the Church instead and I’m so much happier and abundantly more internally peaceful for it.

    I would be dishonest if I did not admit that I am concerned about where all this political turmoil is going. You’re right that same sex “marriage” is coming, whether we want it or not, and I am very concerned for the Church, that we will be persecuted and suppressed. I realize that’s usually when the Church thrives the most, but having two small children makes one a little less than excited about the prospects of having to go underground. Still, I’m just doing my best to impart the faith to my kids (I home school, so I have the luxury of being able to incorporate Catholicism into just about everything) and to prepare them for life as a faithful Catholic Christian, regardless of whether or not that requires red or white martyrdom in the process.

  • vox borealis

    People need to get their heads around the fact that same sex marriage is going to happen and it’s not going to “destroy the family” any more than it’s already been destroyed by heterosexuals who, post sexual-revolution, post-Church, have given short shrift to the institution itself and (where it applies, to the Office and sacrament), or ignored it altogether.

    So if I read this correctly, you seem to think that we should not bother trying to fight against this whole gay marriage business, or for that matter against civil unions (which are marriage-in-all-but-name and a bridgehead to gay marriage). And by extension, the Church is essentially wrong to fight against gay marriage, or to make the argument that it further destroys marriage. Or that it is potentially bad for children.

    I’m more than a little curious about this.

    [Well, perhaps you should read my piece again, and also not put words in my mouth, because I have never said (or even thought) that "the church is wrong to fight against gay marriage", although I am not sure gay marriage can destroy marriage any more than we have already managed ourselves, largely because we have "liberated" ourselves from church teachings and social traditions and understandings. The best way to define marriage is to live it our properly, and since nearly 50% of all births these days are to unwed mothers, I'd say we've done a poor job modeling marriage or why it matters.

    But let me ask you something. Do you believe that in the life of faith and the grand scheme of things, God permits things to happen? If the apostles had fought themselves bloody, would it have changed what had to happen in Jerusalem, in order for the fullness of God's plan to be achieved? If they'd succeeded in wresting Jesus away from the soldiers, where would our redemption come from?

    I'm not actually arguing about gay marriage in this piece, and perhaps that's why you're misreading it; nor am I arguing about it with you. I have 8 years of archives on the subject and you're welcome to explore them; I believe marriage is naturally and scripturally ordained to be between a man and a woman, but I also expect that idea to lose in the courts, because I can see the world around me. We will lose because the trajectory is set; people have stopped thinking and are now simply emoting; emotionalism is what's brought us everything that has led up to this point, so I don't see it suddenly not being effective, particularly when the government itself is clearly willing to go against the churches rather than protect their rights. I expect us to lose, too, because Jesus told us that we were to be a sign of contradiction, and that the world would hate us for it -- and yeah, we're gonna be hated; it's part of what we sign on for, as Christians. Do you think suddenly a lightbulb is going to go off in people's heads and they're gonna say, "wait, forget all that; we were wrong; we'll stop fighting for gay marriage now" and then lift us on their shoulders and sing "boorah boorah?" God bless you, if you do, but I don't. I suspect what's before us is part of a greater design. One of the lessons of Easter is that sometimes things have to happen, so that the next thing, the better thing, the saving thing, can come of it. You of course, are free to disagree. Free will is part of this whole story.

    Civil unions, whatever else they are, are not sacramental marriages. My own suggestion, which I have made for years, is that the church get OUT of the business of legalizing marriages. Make everyone get a "civil union" and then go to church for the sacrament, if they want it. Let the state certify and the church sanctify, and keep their business apart. It immediately lessens the threat to the church, which is my concern, here. And it may have an added bonus of making people really think about why they want a sacramental marriage beyond "it will make mom happy" or "the church is pretty."

    All that said, even if the immediate threat to the churches are lessened, eventually the loss of tax-exempt status, the lawsuits claiming "discrimination" and the empty pews that result from people being afraid of being called "bigots" or (even of losing their livelihoods if they are seen at the "wrong" sort of church) will take their tolls on the churches. But all of that will strengthen us; eventually, we'll win! :-) -admin]

  • Pingback: Who made Piers Morgan the Zeitgeist Torquemada? - CATHOLIC FEAST - Sync your Soul()

  • Chris

    The sad reality is that legalized gay marriage is the unstoppable and vigorous punishment we deserve as a society. And before we go around announcing ourselves as martyrs for the faith, let’s remember that we, as the Church, are reaping the whirlwind by the loss of our public credibility, in light of our cowering silence with regard to sexual morality and the horrific sins of some of our shepherds, which need not be named here. Read Hosea for a deeper understanding of why we need to recognize that Christ is justifiably chastising our own Church. We have to repent as a Church and go forward boldly, in the model of Francis. Which is to say — faith, hope, and love. Can anything withstand a bride that practices those theological virtues? The only victory that matters, is ours.

  • Peggy m

    Katearthis and Mandy P.— you both seem to be where I am. It’s a relief to read your remarks. We are not alone! It is with blogs and comments like these that I see that the Internet has some good uses.

  • vox borealis

    Anchoress, I believe that God let’s things happen, but I adamantly do not believe everything is part of some grand design that is God’s master plan (i.e.m that this or that outcome is what He prefers). I agree with you that the sane position will lose in the courts. I simply objected to what I perceived as an acquiescent atitude, especially because I believe strongly that acquiescence is largely why gay marriage has “won” in most of teh places it has—we’ve been bullied into submission. If I misread you, I apologize.

    I disagree that churches should get out of the civil marriage business. I would rather see the state get out of marriages/civil unions altogether. I disagree that allowing civil unions will protect the Church in any way. All it will do is force more and more Catholic services out of business when they refuse to recognize such legal relations, or refuse to place children in the homes of…what will we call them?…unified couples, or refuse to rent out the parish hall for celebrations of unionhood, or for preaching that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and homosexual sex is a sin, and so forth. Moreover, civil unions will force me to subsidize gay uniticity through my tax dollars.

    So, for a variety of reasons I hope the Church and all Christians also fight civil unions tooth and nail, even though ultimately the fight is doomed to fail.

    Frankly, we’re heading for the catacombs again. But I plan to go down swinging.

    [I'll be there early, to prepare the spots! :-) admin]

  • vox borealis

    I should add, the current situation is why I am trending more and “libertarian” in recent years. even though I know that libertarianism strictly speaking does not jibe with Catholic social thought. But I think we have reached an interesting point in history where the power of the state is stronger than ever before (in its ability to project its power, to intrude into private lives, to compile information on individuals, etc.) AND at the same time it is increasingly antithetical to Christian morals. In recent generations, the Church has sought to achieve justice through the state, and to be suspicious of individual rights outside of protections for conscience and religious belief (hence the US bishops’ quick support for gun control, and their longtime support for comprehensive state-provided healthcare). I believe firmly that the Church needs to adopt a radically different approach, and it needs to do so as quickly as possible. Catholic social justice doctrine, which was developed within the context States that more or less shared a Christian outlook on many issues, needs to be developed (as all doctrine develops) in light of a very different relationship between church and state. It is in the Church’s interest for States to be weakened, I firmly believe.

  • Cathy R.

    “Fallacies do not cease to be fallicies because they become fashions” G.K. Chesterton

  • Adam

    I could almost accept the opening of civil unions or gay marriage if I didn’t know that it’s going to lead to worse. It’s been continually said that the “slippery slope” is a stupid argument, and Justice Scalia is always made fun of for bringing it up, but incest and polygamy are next. They’re still relatively closeted right now, but I’ve seen people express joking sympathy with “Sister Wives” and the like. On incest, I doubt we’ll see full on parent-child relationships accepted immediately (some professor in New York recently got in trouble for that!), but it’s likely that society will be gradually introduced to “sympathetic” cases. As an example, siblings or half-siblings who have no idea they’re related, meet, fall in love, marry, have kids, and then discover their genetic ancestry. (It really happens.) Why break that up? The same emotionalism will permeate it.

    Pay attention to how the media portrays things: they always pick the best face to make their case. The ugly side of things never gets shown until it’s too late.

  • Victor

    My wife and “I” just got back from seeing the movie “HOST” and long story short, we GOD’s Children are all under His Protection and like Jesus said in so many words, His Kingdom is not of this world.

    Anchoress for many reasons, “I’M” thinking that most people could probably write a book about this post of yours defending on what is Right and Left but what good will “IT” do so I’ll just say, self defence to the end with all the Christians love we can must UP NOW!

    I will try to close by telling your readers about a miracle that happened while “ONE” of my brother was under the influence of a Devil follower. Long story short, he gave me a shot where the sun didn’t shine and believe “IT” or not “I” grabed him by the scruff of his collar and literally threw him out of my home. The only reason that he didn’t rupture me is that my test he call, I mean my testical were hiding in my pel vic. True story NOW! A minute later, he knocked on my door and asked if I was OK to which “I” replied while giving my brother a hand shake telling him to never come around again while he was drinking. God Bless his soul. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/04/02/wont-you-help-to-sing-easter-is-an-uprising/

    I hear some of YA saying, You must be a Saint!

    Honesty must say that I’ve been accused of that by a good protestant once and my reply was, Maybe so, but tomorrow, “I” must start all over at Square “ONE” again and again if YA get my drift NOW?

    Good Luck to all our American brothers and sisters in Christ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-o8Iv-Y0kk cause we’re going to need “IT” but never forget that “Jesus” said in so many Words that some things can only be cured by prayers so for what “IT” is worth, please keep praying for “ME”, “ME” and “ME” this Canadian sinner also.

    God Bless,

    Peace be with all of GOD’s Children.

  • Strife

    Would it be unreasonable to conclude that allowing civil unions in order to protect the sacrament of marriage would essentially have the same morally erosive effect that no-fault divorce had on annulments to begin with? Wouldn’t this in effect, be an extension of the same secular reasoning that ceded the moral high-ground from the sacrament in the first place?

    Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems as though retreating from the “inevitability” of the trend is in effect spiritual surrender, and as such, spiritual surrender should only be applied to the objective truth, and not to the subjective zeitgeist. “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” – G.K.Chesterton

    Are we not called to martyrdom? If so, how does one become martyred whilst hiding in the catacombs? “You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.” – Matthew 5:14

  • Manny

    “People need to get their heads around the fact that same sex marriage is going to happen and it’s not going to “destroy the family” any more than it’s already been destroyed by heterosexuals”

    Maybe you’re right about the first part (though I don’t quit fighting), but you’re definitely wrong about “not going to destroy the family” further. I couldn’t disagree with you more there. It will obliterate the definition of family. If you think it’s going to stop at gay marriage, you’re naive. Once you have opened the definition of what constitutes a family unit, then there will be no family unit.

    By the way, Piers Morgan is the perfect reason for stricter immigration laws. ;)

  • Pingback: The #1 Reason the Catholic Church Won’t Support Same-Sex Marriage…()

  • vox borealis

    @ Strife, I do not believed we are called to martyrdom, though we are called not to deny Christ and to accept martyrdom in the absence of acceptable alternatives. Some of the early church guys like Clement and Athanasius of Alexandria wrote about this very subject, on how Christians should not abet their persecutors by seeking martyrdom, but neither should they avoid death at all costs. Hiding was ok, too. In general, a balanced approach to dealing with persecution was emphasized. Heck, Athanasius wrote a work titled Apology for His Flight.

  • vox borealis

    Also, Matthew 10:23: “But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next.”

  • Strife

    Those are fair points Vox. You may be right. It’s good to know that there is no shame in spiritual preservation through retreat.

    I do wonder though, if by the very nature of this age, martyrdom or at least omnipresent persecution is not unavoidable. It seems as though “fleeing” has been the very thing that has allowed all of this evil to fester in the first place during those lazy decades of beige Catholicism.

    I do believe the Good Lord allows the right people to arise in the right age. All of us are born into the age we are needed most. And it seems as though this is the time and the place of the defiant Christian. Maybe I’m reading this all wrong. But somehow surrendering, fleeing, and hiding from these threats seems inherently wrong and out of place in this current age of The New Evangelization.

    I do appreciate all the insights on this thread and this site as a whole. Even with the differing points of view there seems to be a defining spirit of good that is slowly inching us in the right direction of discernment. Thank you one and all.