by Thomas Howard (see post below for explanation)
No doubt the best-known remark ever made about Truth is Pontius Pilate’s laconic “What is truth?” It’s hard to know how he meant it. Was he being cavalier? Cynical? What? Or was there some rag of earnestness lurking there? Had he begun to realize that the man he was speaking with was not one to be trifled with? We can’t know.
But what is Truth? (We might as well capitalize the word.) A man says he was at the picnic and we know he wasn’t. So: no truth there. Or again, a political party makes promises: perhaps there is no bald lie here: but none of us would suppose that we are being hailed by Truth. Or yet again, a global movement (the “sexual revolution”) sweeps all before it in the l960’s: in this case, the question of Truth touches, not so much upon the veracity of statements or promises as upon the nature of Reality (the moral order, that is). Actually one element was true: it was a revolution. But the picture of freedom, fulfillment, and bliss for all was fraudulent. Under the radiant scrutiny of Truth, we would find that any such “freedom” leads to a sacrilege, “fulfillment” to disenchantment, and “bliss” to sorrow. In this case then, we would have the Truth that belongs to Reality itself being destroyed.
We are obliged, then, to acknowledge the truth about Truth. Yes, it can be a property of statements, in so far as they correspond to the external situation (the man wasn’t at the picnic), or of expectations (politics ordinarily sidesteps the brute Truth), or of the Nature of Things (sex that does not acknowledge the joyous and solemn order that presides over the whole Creation leads to squalor and tragedy).
The sexual realm is a domain in which we see how the Nature of Things can be violated. For example, the act of fornication would be false since it does not correspond to the Truth of things. The physical union of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony is a case in point, under the species of our human flesh, of a Truth that streams ultimately from the fruitful and blissful mutual self-donation whose fountainhead is the Most Holy Trinity. Self-donation asks the gift of one’s entire being; and ultimately it entails bliss. The Father’s love “begets” the Son; the Son eternally offers Himself to the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the [means? seal? agent?-- words fail us in those precincts] of that Trinitarian self-giving. In the physical Creation, the mystery of that fruitful unity is enacted under two genders which each bear the stamp of the Maker under these two noble modes: hence the Jewish and Christian understanding of fornication, adultery, sodomy, and any other variation on the theme, as a confusion: the act itself, on that accounting, would violate the Truth of the matter. In each case the nuptial prerequisite is missing—the nuptial bond which alone hallows this Sacrament which, like all Sacraments, bespeaks Truth.
This understanding of what is True is now under assault. We hear news of Christian ministers in various countries having been imprisoned for teaching their congregations, inside their churches, about these sacred mysteries. More than fifty years ago, Flannery O’Connor remarked that the inevitable end of Liberalism is the guillotine. . . .
No doubt the best-known remark ever made about Truth is Pontius Pilate’s laconic “What is truth?” It’s hard to know how he meant it. Was he being cavalier? Cynical? What? Or was there some rag of earnestness lurking there? Had he begun to realize that the man he was speaking with was not one to be trifled with? We can’t know.
But what is Truth? (We might as well capitalize the word.) A man says he was at the picnic and we know he wasn’t. So: no truth there. Or again, a political party makes promises: perhaps there is no bald lie here: but none of us would suppose that we are being hailed by Truth. Or yet again, a global movement (the “sexual revolution”) sweeps all before it in the l960’s: in this case, the question of Truth touches, not so much upon the veracity of statements or promises as upon the nature of Reality (the moral order, that is). Actually one element was true: it was a revolution. But the picture of freedom, fulfillment, and bliss for all was fraudulent. Under the radiant scrutiny of Truth, we would find that any such “freedom” leads to a sacrilege, “fulfillment” to disenchantment, and “bliss” to sorrow. In this case then, we would have the Truth that belongs to Reality itself being destroyed.
We are obliged, then, to acknowledge the truth about Truth. Yes, it can be a property of statements, in so far as they correspond to the external situation (the man wasn’t at the picnic), or of expectations (politics ordinarily sidesteps the brute Truth), or of the Nature of Things (sex that does not acknowledge the joyous and solemn order that presides over the whole Creation leads to squalor and tragedy).
The sexual realm is a domain in which we see how the Nature of Things can be violated. For example, the act of fornication would be false since it does not correspond to the Truth of things. The physical union of a man and a woman in Holy Matrimony is a case in point, under the species of our human flesh, of a Truth that streams ultimately from the fruitful and blissful mutual self-donation whose fountainhead is the Most Holy Trinity. Self-donation asks the gift of one’s entire being; and ultimately it entails bliss. The Father’s love “begets” the Son; the Son eternally offers Himself to the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the [means? seal? agent?-- words fail us in those precincts] of that Trinitarian self-giving. In the physical Creation, the mystery of that fruitful unity is enacted under two genders which each bear the stamp of the Maker under these two noble modes: hence the Jewish and Christian understanding of fornication, adultery, sodomy, and any other variation on the theme, as a confusion: the act itself, on that accounting, would violate the Truth of the matter. In each case the nuptial prerequisite is missing—the nuptial bond which alone hallows this Sacrament which, like all Sacraments, bespeaks Truth.
This understanding of what is True is now under assault. We hear news of Christian ministers in various countries having been imprisoned for teaching their congregations, inside their churches, about these sacred mysteries. More than fifty years ago, Flannery O’Connor remarked that the inevitable end of Liberalism is the guillotine. . . .
RSS Feed