Some time in the last month, The Amish Catholic received its 80,000th view. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to look at what I produce here.
I must thank Fr. Maximilian Mary Dean for republishing two of my pieces over at Absolute Primacy of Christ: my introduction to the life and thought of Fr. Faber as well as my survey of art depicting the Subtle Doctor. It is a great honor to have been thought worthy of republication on a site I so greatly esteem. I have learned a lot from Fr. Maximilian’s blog and hope I might continue to do so! Go check it out.
I’m astounded at how big this venture has gotten, and it’s all thanks to you, my wonderful readers and referrers. I appreciate your consideration. May God bless you all this Ascensiontide.
Thank you to all all the many thousands who have, collectively, given me about 61,000 views over the course of my blog’s existence. I always enjoy receiving your feedback, and I appreciate the time and consideration you give my work. A big thank you to those who not only read my work, but share and recommend it. May you all have a very blessed Holy Week.
It has now been officially one year of The Amish Catholic. What a ride. I’ve had 50,874 views, and a total of 31,385 visitors from every continent except Antarctica. I’ve had 2 views in the Holy See. I am particularly proud of those 2 readers in Uzbekistan. I have been cited in The Catholic Herald and Liturgical Arts Journal, not to mention several other blogs I admire and respect. Everything has taken off rather more quickly than I thought.
Thank you to everyone who has made the last year such a rewarding experiment. An especially great thank you to those kind enough to share, comment upon, react to, or otherwise mention my blog. I know you’re all busy, and I appreciate whatever time you can spare to read my ramblings. A big thanks in particular to those few – you know who you are – who have recommended my blog on their own sites or through their own platforms. You have been more than generous.
I hope to continue The Amish Catholic in a spirit of fellowship, inquiry, and freedom. When I started, I had no idea where it would lead me. But I’ve had fun and made the acquaintance of some wonderful people along the way. I feel almost as if I’ve carried on a year-long conversation with you, my readers. Sometimes we talk about The Young Pope; sometimes we talk about Mormon artists. Sometimes we laugh at church politics, and sometimes we peruse the odd birds of Catholic history. Sometimes we pray together, and sometimes we weep together. Let’s have another year of it!
Thank you for your support and your continuing encouragement. May God bless you all with good friends, good graces, good laughs, good art, and good wine.
Here are the Top 10 most viewed posts in 2017.
I hope next year will be full of even more writing!
If you are a reader of mine on Facebook, then please head on over and like my new Facebook page for the blog. In the future, I will be publishing everything there. Onward and upward! May St. Stephen the Protomartyr, whose feast we celebrate today, bless this new undertaking.
Today, I have just crossed the 40,000 view mark, with some 25,310 individual visitors from every continent but Antarctica. Thank you to everyone who has read, shared, or commented upon my work. I appreciate your consideration, and I hope I may continue to produce content worthy of your attention. May God bless you all.
Readers of this blog will not be surprised that I am recommending something on Vultus Christi. I have done so before, and will no doubt do so again. Today, I’d like to direct your attention to Dom Mark’s excellent letter to his oblates on the use and abuse of the Internet. Even though certain principles may not apply to those who are not under the Benedictine rule (what, meaningfully, does “enclosure” mean for a graduate student?), on the whole, it is a sound and salutary document. It is also deeply convicting. I hope it is read by the entire Catholic blogosphere. I also hope I can live by its spirit. A few perçantes passages:
No longer is it necessary to embark on a journey outside the monastery to see or hear things giving rise to manifold evils. Even blogs and discussion groups that label themselves “Catholic” or “Traditional” can become the occasion of sins against charity, truth, and justice.
Or this recommendation:
What sort of things drive a person to undiscipled or excessive use of the internet? One person may be driven to the computer by loneliness, another by boredom, and still others by a kind of low–grade depression. One must be uncompromisingly honest in identifying the things that drive one to an inordinate use of the internet. I recommend, then, that oblates regulate their use of the internet by adopting a discipline analogous to the Great Night Silence of the Holy Rule.
Or this commonplace but nevertheless true observation:
Anyone who has participated in online exchanges, discussions, and debates knows that “therefrom may arise the most grievous occasion of scandals”. Saint Benedict uses the word “scandals” here in its biblical sense: a scandal is something that causes another to stumble or even to fall. The so–called “comment boxes” on blogs are often rife with murmuring, criticisms, rumours, and pernicious intimations. The internet and social media can become a deadly weapon at the fingertips of people in the grip of unforgiveness, bitterness, old hurts, and hatred. Computers allow people to strike their brethren, not with the clenched fist, but with fingers flying over the keyboard. Even comments written innocently can be misconstrued, fomenting enmity and division.
Read the whole thing. It’s not too long, and may open up new ideas on how better to guard your soul online.
In my review of Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option, I wrote the following:
I’m not suggesting that Dreher is necessarily wrong in his various judgments. He may well be correct in accusing the nominalists of a kind of cultural deicide (although it overlooks the Christian nominalist tendency, closely tied to empiricism, that numbers Berkeley, Burke, Hamann, Newman, and Chesterton among its ranks).
I subsequently received some pushback for making such a claim. After all, eminent philosophers and theologians had long made nominalism the villain of their narratives about the rise of an anti-Christian modernity. Others questioned my assertion about Newman in particular.
At that time, I defended myself by suggesting that, while I may be off in ascribing a specifically nominalist tendency to these thinkers, that nevertheless, they all do share, inter alia, a suspicion of universalizing abstraction, a respect for concrete particularity in its various forms, and a trust in prudence gained from experience. I interpreted this tendency as akin to the nominalist rejection of substantively existent universals. I also thought that one of the reasons this way of thinking might matter is in our dialogue with postmodernity, which is itself so suspicious of universals and grand narratives.
Nevertheless, I erred. I was mistaken to use that label of nominalism. I must thank my critics for pointing this out. In the many months since then, I have learned what would be the proper term to tie together these particular thinkers – not to mention Gerard Manley Hopkins and J.R.R. Tolkien.
The “nominalist tendency” is really a Scotist tendency. (The fact that I could make such an ironic error is, perhaps, a sign of my own ignorance. I own that. Scholasticism isn’t really my thing.) Chastened by my previous mistake, I hesitate to delve too deeply into the technical depths of Scotist philosophy. I will state briefly that a belief in the idea of haecceity as the unique thisness of each particular sums up the tendency’s core point. If I had time, I’d like to investigate if any firmer affinities could be found.
However, I believe I am now on much sounder territory. The Franciscan Daniel Horan’s work has focused on a postmodern engagement with Scotus, and the Scotism of Newman and Hopkins have been well-attested in the literature. Tolkien took up the theological note behind Hopkins’s ideas of inscape and instress, themselves poetic derivations of Scotist haecceity. More work still needs to be done in English on Hamann, but the image that is emerging is of a figure passionately devoted to the disruptive nature of ordinary, particular experience. His willingness to contest the established narratives of the Aufklärung predates postmodernism by a century and a half. Chesterton is cut from the same cloth. Bishop Berkeley, though perhaps not quite so colorful as either of these two, stakes his empiricism on the particularity of the thing perceived (ultimately, by God). And Burke transposes the idea into the realm of politics, tempered by a healthy respect for natural law.
Two observations come to mind. The first is that nearly all of these thinkers are English or Anglophone. An enquiry into the reasons behind English Scotism would be useful. In its absence, I will merely note that Scotus, that medieval Oxford theologian, seems to have been directly reintroduced into the life of modern English spirituality by another Oxford theologian, John Henry Newman. It was Newman’s influence that defined intellectual Catholicism in England until the conclusion of Vatican II.
The second is that several of these thinkers are literary figures in their own right. Hopkins is principally remembered as a poet, Chesterton as a journalist, novelist, and poet, and Tolkien as a novelist. Newman was a prolific writer across genres. He exerted a personal influence over Hopkins, Matthew Arnold, and Oscar Wilde. And Hamann’s own deeply bizarre output constantly blurs the rigid lines of 18th century drama (yet another way he foreshadows our own postmodern era).
I must wonder if Scotist thought is particularly apt for the production of theology in a poetic mode, as the Catholic Sophiologists of our own day are seeking to do. I certainly have friends who think so. At the very least, Scotus’s high Mariology accords well with the extremely high Mariology of some Sophiologists.
If I had more time, I should like to dive more deeply into these questions. For now, I seek only to explain myself a bit, and apologize for what was clearly a serious error.
ADDENDUM: I also meant to say that Delleuze’s appropriation of haecceity as a fundamental concept lends support to my own impulse of putting these thinkers in conversation with postmodernism.