Evelyn Waugh's Depiction of the Recusant Spirit

"There was nothing of the old dandy about him, nothing crusted, nothing crotchety. He was not at all what is called 'a character'. He was an innocent, affable old man who had somehow preserved his good humour - much more than that, a mysterious and tranquil joy - throughout a life which to all outward observation had been overloaded with misfortune. He had like many another been born in full sunlight and lived to see night fall. England was full of such Jobs who had been disappointed in their prospects. Mr Crouchback had lost his home. Partly in his father's hands, partly in his own, without extravagance or speculation, his inheritance had melted away. He had rather early lost his beloved wife and been left to a long widowhood. He had an ancient name which was now little regarded and threatened with extinction. Only God and Guy knew the massive and singular quality of Mr Crouchback's family pride. He kept it to himself. That passion, which is often so thorny a growth, bore nothing save roses for Mr Crouchback. He was quite without class consciousness because he saw the whole intricate social structure of his country divided neatly into two unequal and unmistakable parts. On one side stood the Crouchbacks and certain inconspicuous, anciently allied families; on the other side stood the rest of mankind, Box-Bender, the butcher, the Duke of Omnium (whose onetime wealth derived from monastic spoils), Lloyd George, Neville Chamberlain - all of a piece together. Mr Crouchback acknowledged no monarch since James II. It was not an entirely san conspectus but it engendered in his gentle breast two rare qualities, tolerance and humility. For nothing much, he assumed, could reasonably be expected from the commonality; it was remarkable how well some of them did behave on occassions; while, for himself, any virtue he had come from afar without deserving, and every small fault was grossly culpable in a man of his high tradition.

He had a further natural advantage over Guy; he was fortified by a memory which kept only the good things and rejected the ill. Despite his sorrows, he had a fair share of joys, and these never mourned the loss of Brome [his ancestral home]." - Evelyn Waugh "Men At Arms", The Sword of Honour Trilogy p. 31-32

It's funny because when I read this (it's actually just one part of an even bigger and better part of the story) I immediately was shocked as this is how I viewed English History as well. Whenever the history professor would talk about the Greatness of Churchill I would always think "the greatness of a family that betrayed their King, James II, to serve a Dutch heretic (William of Orange)".

I'm sure I got this view through the osmosis of the Catholic literary revival.

A Beautiful?, Hillarious, and Sophistical Defense of the Papacy

Now I think it's pretty much an article of the Roman Church that the Papacy was instituted by Christ and always existed though it developed into the wonderful benevolent dictatorship it is today. But lots of liber- I mean historians say that the early Roman Church was actually ruled by presbyters and was all about peace, love, grooviness and women's ordination etc. This is the usual protestant and liberal Catholic story.

The other day I was reading a review of Eamon Duffy's book on the Papacy, and thought it would be orthodox as he pretty much destroyed the notion that people in England wanted Protestantism with his classic "The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England: 1400-1580". A great book I've had to read parts of for multiple courses on popular piety etc. Anyway his papacy book basically said the same Protestant thing that the Papacy/Universal Roman Bishopric was an innovation. Now as someone who has done no study of the issue beyond the basics I was a bit shaken.

But I was in Chapters (think Canadian Barnes and Noble) and picked up a book by a guy named Gary Wills called "Why I Am A Catholic" who described Newman's and his view of the Papacy (I think he attributed it to Waugh as well).

He said that the Ven. Cardinal saw Matt. 16:18 as a PROPHETIC statement about what would develop over time. So it was divinely prophesied by Christ even if it didn't really exist in the beginning.

That was the highest level of sophistry I'd ever seen haha. It's like when Presbyterians tell you "Justified by works and not by faith alone" means "justified before men". You just have to laugh as such a painful eisegesis (whatever the one is where you force your interpretation into the text).

But I thought about it for a second and laughed. Genius, really. I mean it's just the ultimate way of making whatever happens the fullfilled prophecy of Christ.

I need to study the history of the papacy some more (i'm hoping to get Steve Ray's "Upon This Rock") but in the mean time I feel strangely ok with that ultraliberal sophistical interpretation. I feel like the Emperor who said to Luther of the papacy 'divine or human in origins still it stands'. And from a post-modern legitimacy argument, you can't beat it for church organization and unity.

Welcome

I'm just getting things started here at Recusant Corner. I'm a Roman Catholic convert from Anabaptist/Evangelical Protestantism and plan on writing my thoughts here (probably mostly theology, but other stuff as well).

It's hopefully going to be a refuge from Polemics where I can try to operate on the principle 'live and let live'.

Why Call it Recusant Corner?

I'm a history major and my niche in Catholicism is a movement known as Recusancy (wikipedia it). Recusants were the Catholics who refused to submit to the Established Church of England and resisted to the point of martyrdom and persecution at first, and in later years at least were forbidden from public worship.

I find it a fascinating movement and some English Catholics even today like to style themselves Recusants. St. Thomas More, St. Edmund Campion (and all the Tyburn martyrs), John Donne (for a while), William Shakespeare (probably), were Recusants, as well as later figures like: Alexander Pope, Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Lord Acton, G.K. Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, J.R.R. Tolkien, and others.

Canada (where I live) is technically ruled by the English Monarch who is the spiritual head of the Anglican Church, so technically, and in a very vague impractical sense I am a Recusant.

Many Recusants were Jacobites, and on this blog, you'll find a strong support of the Stuart line rather than the Hanoverian usurpers of the inGlorious Revolution of 1688-9.

Some abbreviations you might want to know so they don't confuse you:

CofE : Church of England - Anglican Church - Established Church
R.C : Roman Catholic
Papist : Roman Catholic
Puritan : Reformed Protestant
Prelate : Anglican
Fr. : Father (indicating a Catholic Priest)
Bp. : Bishop
Abp. : Archbishop
Ven. : Venerable (Level in sainthood/canonization after blessed)
Bl. : Blessed (1st Level in canonization)