Ecclesiastes and the Romance of Lost Causes

Every once in a while, I get in a blue funk for which the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is a good antidote.  This might seem strange, since it is by no means a cheerful book.  Consider, for example, Ecclesiastes 2:9-11:

So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

But the blue mood I referred to has less to do with any real suffering -- compared with a great many, probably the great majority both in history and today, I have no really valid complaints -- and more to do with the suspicion that I have stupidly lost opportunities that could have made me truly happy.  If only I had had the nerve to ask this girl out, or if my courtship of that other girl had been successful; if only I had chosen a different major in college, or had chosen a different career path after getting my degrees; if only I had taken a different job within my current career path; if only!  Then I would surely feel less vexation of spirit.  King Solomon answers me, "Don't worry about that, kid.  I had all the women, all the wealth, all the power, all the success, all the acclaim -- all the things that men strive for -- and it all turned to ashes in my mouth."  

This life is, as the Salve Regina reminds us, the Valley of Tears, neither Eden nor Heaven, and these worldly goals cannot change that.  It's not that different choices and outcomes are without consequence -- they do matter somewhat -- but they are not the One Thing Needful.

This year, it is easy to see people making the same mistake on a larger scale -- but hardly for the first time.  For ages Europeans have lamented, "If only the Roman Empire had not fallen!"  Over the years, this has been echoed in such cries as, "If only the Arabs had been crushed when they first burst out!"  "If only the Crusader states had lasted!"  "If only Constantinople had not fallen!"  As we come closer to the present age, the laments become more controversial.  "If only Europeans had not discovered the Americas!" "If only the Spanish Armada had succeeded!" "If only James II had remained in power!" "If only the French Revolution had not taken place!"  Closer to home:  "If only Stonewall Jackson had not doubled back and been shot by his own men!"  "If only Lincoln had survived to the end of his term!"  "If only America had joined the League of Nations!" And, of course, "If only Kennedy had not been assassinated, Camelot would have lasted, and JFK would have ushered America and the world into a utopia of peace and justice and love and joy and wisdom!"  Feel free to add your own; we all do.

Each of these examples were important to history.  Each of them caused at least some people to suffer.  Some of them, like the Kennedy assassination, were sudden and unforeseen, and could have been avoided by trivial circumstances; others, like the fall of Constantinople or the Crusader states, were long foreseen and could not have easily been prevented.  The point remains that whatever good may have come from changing these events would be a good subject to decay.

For example, there is a trope in science fiction about going back in time and killing Adolf Hitler before he came to power.  "If only he could have been removed from history, how much suffering could have been avoided!"  Maybe, but we will never know.  Hitler scarcely invented antisemitism, nor did he create the dissatisfaction with the end of the First World War, so the Nazi Party would still have come into existence, maybe under the leadership of Hermann Göring.  The alternative leader might have been more cautious, proceeding more slowly than Hitler did -- slowly enough, perhaps, to avoid alarming the public in the USA and UK, slowly enough to allow Germany and Italy to properly prepare for war, slowly enough for Germany to develop ballistic missiles (like the V-2 rocket) and jet fighters before the war even began, maybe even slowly enough for Germany to develop the atomic bomb.  What happened in real history was bad enough, but it could have been even worse.

Like Tantalus, we are tormented by seeming goods that we cannot actually attain.  Maybe this is part of our punishment; at any rate, it seems to be part of being human.  In the final analysis, though, all we really need to mourn are our sins, and we must remember that

all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

EDIT:  Reading this again, I see I switched back and forth between two different ideas.  The first is that worldly success is not enough to make us truly happy, even while we have it; the second is that worldly success is both incomplete and transient.  Ecclesiastes also makes the same two points, and although they are different (like the soul and the body) I think they are related (like the soul and the body).

EDIT 2:  Perhaps it really is "part of being human", since even Jesus engaged in it.  "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" -- Matthew 23:37

EDIT 3:  Don't misunderstand my previous edit.  OF COURSE Jesus understands history better than we do, and He properly values historical events.  Jerusalem allowing God to gather her children together would not have been merely worldly, and it is PRECISELY what was needed to make them truly happy.  He does perfectly what we do poorly; but regretting what might have been still seems to be part of being human.

Life Sentences

In Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis called for the abolition of life sentences, as he had earlier called for the abolition of the death penalty.

• Each appeal was made not on the basis of the fear of God, nor on Christian charity, nor was either made on the basis of the justice, but rather on the "new appreciation" for human dignity.  Take away the title of pope, and no one would give such a lame argument a second look.  Human dignity comes only and entirely from our relationship with God -- our creation in His image (meaning we are more than merely material, being moral and spiritual as well), the Incarnation of God the Son in which He became man, and His sacrifice for us poor sinners.  Absent this relationship to God, human dignity is no more outstanding than chimpanzee dignity.
• As a Church teaching, none of these suggestions are proclamations of infallible doctrines.  Their staying power, then, will depend on how well they integrate into actually indispensable and trustworthy teachings, or at least into compelling logic.  So far, this does not look good.
• The practical effect of saying that even men like Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson should have been eventually freed is that fewer people will take his stance against the death penalty seriously.  It becomes very hard to accept that the Pope actually believes that justice is a real, spiritual good towards which we should work, softening it through forgiveness rather than laxity.  It becomes hard to believe he really accepts, "But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire," when he also seems to believe, "But whosoever shall rape a boy, and murder him, and cannibalize him, shall be subject to 10 years, tops, in a prison that treats him well and respects his dignity."  Finally, it becomes clear that the safety of the law-abiding public is a very low priority for Pope Francis. 
  

It takes more than the bare minimum.

On September 19, 2020, Andrew McCarthy wrote in "Replacing Justice Ginsburg: Politics, Not Precedent" at National Review Online the following.

It is ridiculous for leading senators, administration officials, influential partisans, and pundits to enunciate the high-minded principles and precedents that supposedly control the propriety and timing of a nomination.

In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution: A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat; and that nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That’s it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.

Of course, it is true that the Constitution does not require the president, or anyone else for that matter, to be courteous.  Nor does it require him to be persuasive, or industrious, or wise, or even well-intentioned.  Then again, the Constitution does not guarantee that the president's term will be successful or good for the country, nor that Republic will endure, nor that the endurance of the Republic would be a good thing that ought to be desired.  The Founding Fathers knew that it takes more than a bare minimum to give civilization, let alone democracy, a chance of success, but they also knew it was hopeless to enumerate in detail all that is necessary:  there is too much to say, for one thing, and it is unnecessary except for fools and scoundrels, who would at any rate dismiss it -- for instance, by saying it is mere posturing.

This is not about the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg; I very much hope Judge Barrett is confirmed.  But for at least my whole life, presidents, along with "leading senators, administration officials, influential partisans, and pundits" have done their Machiavellian best to cast off all restraints to their power, ignoring law, tradition, ethics, and the Constitution when they could, and giving perverse interpretations to them when they could not completely ignore the restraints.  In the long run, the attitude expressed by Andrew McCarthy is a more serious problem than any one seat on the Supreme Court.