Saturday, April 18, 2020

Uriah Heep Is Not A Good Model

As I reflected on Dr Brand and my angry pre-Conciliarist visitors, the figure of Dickens's Uriah Heep suddenly came to mind. To recap, from Wikipedia,
Uriah Heep is a fictional character created by Charles Dickens in his novel David Copperfield. Heep is one of the main antagonists of the novel. His character is notable for his cloying humility, obsequiousness, and insincerity, making frequent references to his own "'umbleness". His name has become synonymous with sycophancy.

. . . Uriah is a law clerk working for Mr Wickfield. He realises that his widowed employer has developed a severe drinking problem, and turns it to his advantage. Uriah encourages Wickfield's drinking, tricks him into thinking he has committed financial wrongdoing while drunk, and blackmails him into making Uriah a partner in his law office. He admits to David (whom he hates) that he intends to manipulate Agnes into marrying him.

Uriah miscalculates when he hires Mr Micawber as a clerk, as he assumes that Micawber will never risk his own financial security by exposing Uriah's machinations and frauds. Yet Micawber is honest, and he, David, and Tommy Traddles confront Uriah with proof of his frauds. They only let Uriah go free after he has (reluctantly) agreed to resign his position and return the money that he has stolen.

Later in the novel, David encounters Uriah for the last time. Now in prison for bank fraud, and awaiting transportation, Uriah acts like a repentant model prisoner. However, in conversation with David he reveals himself to remain full of malice.

Unctuousness and weepy grandiosity are a hallmark of Dr Brand's style, for instance.
Anglicanorum Coetibus is an audacious venture in realized ecumenism, a daring pledge in the new evangelization, and its success will require more than a collection of liturgical texts. It will demand and hopefully call forth the right kind of catechesis and explanation; it will depend upon effective preaching, dedicated pastoral care, and a particular way of modeling parish life and the apostolate of the laity, all of which are equally valuable components of Anglican patrimony; and it will require singular confidence, charity, and courtesy in living out a special liturgical charism, bravely yet humbly, as a natural, normal way of being Catholic in these challenging times. The clergy and faithful of the Ordinariates have the special responsibility of using their formative heritage in a new key — now indeed with the power of the keys — to form others for the future, that the good seed, which having in the past fallen among the stones or in shallow soil. . . [blah blah blah] (op cit, p 164)
In the cases of Dr Brand, Mrs Gyapong, Mr Jesserer Smith, and others like my angry pre-Conciliarist visitors, the apostolate of the laity has been unimpressive. One of these latter is especially oleaginous:
Mr Bruce, I give you my solemn and heartfelt assurance that I'm not angry. I'm trying to engage you on a question of consistency, and this doesn't require a great deal of emotional labor on my part.

In line with CCC 2478, I am asking you in all charity to explain an apparent double standard in your polemics. Double standards are offenses against justice and charity, and should be taken seriously. For my own part, I would welcome any such correction, as would anyone who seeks to align himself with the truth.

. . . Thanks for mentioning me in today's entry, Mr Bruce, though I assure you I'm not angry in the least. (My wife tells me that I often come across as angry in writing because I tend to be forthright.) However, arguments stand or fall on their merits alone, rather than on the real or perceived subjective emotional states of the parties.

This fellow won't identify himself by name, though he accuses me of great sin, but his e-mail handle is "phytoplankton", which are defined as microscopic organisms that live in watery environments. Was ever such a humble man?

There's a certain underlying phoniness in all of this discourse, which in an ecclesiastical context is deeply troubling. These people seem intent on creating a holier-than-thou appearance, and indeed, the strong implication of remarks like Dr Brand's above is they're going to show the pope how it's done, since hitherto the seeds have been falling among the stones.