In today’s posting we conclude our brief overview of the
characteristics of enthusiasm — at least, those that we selected. Not by coincidence, we also conclude that
portion of the blog series dealing with Msgr. Ronald Knox’s Enthusiasm and his take on the
development of a new concept of religion. So, today we look at 10) Antinomianism, 11)
Lust for Martyrdom, 12) Invisible Church, 13) Desire for Results, and 14)
Experimentalism (Novelty).
 |
| Msgr. Ronald Knox in 1949 |
As we noted previously, our list is probably not exhaustive,
nor is it intended to be. Understanding
these characteristics, however, is essential to understanding the overthrow of
common sense in the modern world, as well as some of the otherwise baffling
things that keep happening and recurring.
That’s why we were careful, when drafting this particular post, to lead
off with “antinomianism”:
10. Antinomianism. “Antinomianism” is basically a fancy word for
“I gotta be me and live by my own rules.”
Other words for it are “selfishness,” “greed,” “egocentricity,” and one
that has undergone a heavy whitewashing in the last several decades, especially
in enthusiastic circles, “anarchy.”
While selfishness, greed, and egocentrism are easier to understand, calling
it antinomianism or anarchy allows those who are selfish, greedy, and
egocentric for what they think are good
reasons, to accuse, judge, condemn, and carry out sentence on others who are
selfish, greedy, and egocentric for what the accusers “know” are bad reasons.
 |
| What's the difference? |
In other words (as is usually the case), antinomianism among
enthusiasts is the time-honored practice of the pot calling the kettle
black. This is usually without proof,
and almost always without any authority, i.e.,
it's what moralists call “detraction of another,” and takes the form of backbiting and
calumny.
Nor is this limited to socialists, collectivists, and
liberals going after capitalists, individualists, and conservatives. It also goes the other way.
Where, for example, the socialist enthusiast assumes that
the rich have no rights because they’re not poor, the capitalist enthusiast
assumes that the poor have no rights because they’re not rich. Collectivist and liberal, and individualist
and conservative enthusiasts simply substitute their respective terms into the
formula. The enthusiast can always turn his or her own vice into a
virtue, and another’s virtue into a vice.
The end result is to abrogate moral responsibility completely
by dehumanizing, even demonizing anyone with whom the enthusiast disagrees and who
doesn’t fit into a preconceived position.
This is similar to the enthusiastic mystic who applies a predetermined
conclusion derived from the convictions dictated by an inner light to anything
on which he or she meditates. As Knox
explained,
 |
| Sins of King Manasseh, 2 Kings 21 |
. . . “[o]n the opposite slope
lies the peril of pure antinomianism; a single false step, and your evangelical
enthusiast is over the precipice. St.
Paul, with his Omnia mihi licent; St.
Augustine, with his Ama, et fac quod vis;
Luther, with his Pecca fortiter — is
it certain that any natural law of morals is binding on a soul which has
emancipated itself from the natural, and lives now by a law of grace? Indulgence of the passions is culpable in the
unregenerate soul, helps it on its road to perdition; but the children of
predestination are emancipated from the bondage of law; not their actions, but
the merits of their Redeemer, avail to justify them. May it not be that actions which the world
counts sinful are, for them, like all their other actions, sanctified? Alternatively, may they not sin precisely in
order that ‘grace may abound’, obligingly offer to Divine grace a broader
target (if we may so put it) for redemption?
There have been enthusiasts who, on this principle, were ready to
‘outsin Manasses’.” (Knox, Enthusiasm, op. cit., 583.)
The logical conclusion, of course, is that as far as the
enthusiast is concerned, only the “godly” (meaning those with whom the
enthusiast agrees) have rights, that is, those who in legal and constitutional
terms are persons. Nor does is this
restricted to “religious” individuals and institutions, for even atheists (if
they are honest) admit they hold their position by a faith just as strong as
that of any theist. Thus, as Knox
explained (and keeping in mind the enthusiast’s equating grace and charity),
 |
| Slaves, having no rights, are not persons in law. |
“In its extreme form this
theology has political repercussions. It
justifies the doctrine of Wyclif, of Huss, of Lollardy, of Anabaptism, that
dominion is founded on grace. To be born
again makes you a new creature; the seed of grace, ransomed from a drowning
world, must not be confused with the unregenerate; they are (so to say) a
different kind of animal. They alone,
and not the ungodly, have legal rights.”
(Ibid., 584.)
11. Lust for
Martyrdom. This characteristic isn’t
too evident these days, at least in its classic form. Instead, what usually happens is that the
enthusiast takes some actions or says some words that he or she hopes will be
taken the wrong way. This allows the
enthusiast to claim victim status, thereby graphically demonstrating his or her
moral superiority to the unenlightened ones whose souls have not attained the
rarified stratum of sanctity inhabited by the enthusiast, thereby knowing what
he or she really meant.
 |
| Is a manipulated or provoked martyrdom a real martyrdom? |
More rarely, the enthusiast will court actual physical,
legal, or social harm. He or she will
undertake some deliberately provocative act or speak words calculated to goad
someone to attack or react negatively.
Ideally, of course, this is done in such a way that only the
presumed aggressor’s actions are evident to witnesses. This achieves the double goal of suffering a
contrived martyrdom and nullifying an opponent.
As Hitchcock notes, in this way the enthusiast attains “a seal of his
chosenness. He also regards it as
natural and appropriate that he should suffer at the hands of the ungodly who
surround him.” (Hitchcock, The New
Enthusiasts, op. cit., 22.)
12. Invisible Church. For the purposes of our discussion, “Church”
should be understood as existing institutions or social structures, not
(necessarily) as a religious body — that is, the common good. To the non-enthusiast (especially within the
framework of the Just Third Way), the common good is the institutional
environment within which human beings carry out the business of living, i.e., acquiring and developing virtue. In “Catholic thought” as it pertains to
religious society, this is “the visible Church,” but we can apply the same
concept to “the visible financial structure,” “the visible government,” and so
on, of civil society.
 |
| The common good is the environment within which virtue is acquired, not the virtue itself. |
To the enthusiast, the common good gets in the way of
attaining spiritual enlightenment or political or economic utopia. All the laws and other institutions of the
common good are not there to assist him or her in developing more fully as a
human being, but to erect barriers (usually as the result of a conspiracy) that
inhibit or prevent his or her attaining true enlightenment or a perfect, godly
(or godless for the atheist) society.
Lacking the act of social justice, social justice being the
particular virtue directed to the reform of the institutions of the common good
to enable people within them to meet their own needs (including acquiring and
developing virtue) through their own efforts instead of having results imposed, the enthusiast believes that the chosen ones are helpless
against the ungodly. That is, helpless
unless they create an élite hidden
community of saints, sages, mystics, or whatever, that recognizes that the
common good “becomes at best unnecessary, and often is treated as a hindrance
and an obstacle.” (Ibid., 22.)
 |
| William Miller (1782-1849) |
13. Desire for
Results. In Hitchcock’s opinion,
enthusiasts tend to become easily disillusioned due to the failure to achieve
instant results, whether that be personal sanctity, attainment of the next
level of consciousness, high wages and full employment, world peace, an end to
hunger and poverty, or anything else. We
disagree. Some few individuals may be
easily discouraged, but (other) enthusiasts chalk that up to an individual
failure of faith, hope, or charity. In most cases, such as in William Miller's "Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844", some lost faith, but the others just rescheduled.
In our experience, due to the enthusiastic tendency to blame
everything on others as a result of not having the act of social justice,
whether it be a hidden conspiracy of traditionalists or modernists in religion,
or the rich, the corporations, or government in civil society, there is always a reason why the desired goal is
not attained. This is logical within the
enthusiastic framework. After all, if
the enthusiasts recognize their own hidden élite
working to bring about the kingdom of God (or who or whatever), it makes sense
that others are going by “secret paths” to prevent the coming of the kingdom.
 |
| Dr. Samuel Alexander |
14. Novelty (Experimentalism). Novelty (which Hitchcock termed
“Experimentalism”) is not quite the
same thing of which C.S. Lewis wrote in The
Screwtape Letters or that Fulton Sheen came across in his “debate” with Dr.
Samuel Alexander (1859-1938), the Australian-born British philosopher, although
it is closely related. In the former,
novelty refers to countering what Lewis called “the horror of the Same Old Thing”
(Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, op. cit.,
115-119). In the latter (as we shall
see), Dr. Alexander used novelty to advance his reputation in Academia with his
theory that God evolves (Fulton J. Sheen, Treasure
in Clay: The Autobiography of Fulton J. Sheen. New York, Doubleday, 1979, 25-26).
No, enthusiastic novelty is a manifestation of the
ever-present need for the enthusiast to demonstrate a higher degree of spiritual
perfection than anyone else, even his or her own comrades. If A experiences three enlightenments a
week, then B has to have one a day, whereupon C has one in the morning,
one at noon, and one at night before going to bed.
 |
| Mystical Experiences for Dummies? |
A then either increases the number of enlightenments beyond
that attained by C, or discovers a different gift, such as ecstasies, trances,
higher levels of consciousness, or anything that brings something “new and
fresh” to the table. As Hitchcock
commented, “A piety which does not issue in continually new and fresh
experiences is deemed deficient, and experiences are taken as the essential
test of a piety’s authenticity.” (Hitchcock, The New Enthusiasts, op. cit., 23.)
Obviously, many of these characteristics of enthusiasm do
not in and of themselves necessarily
result in the invention of the new religion of which Chesterton, Knox, and
Sheen wrote. Individually, they may be
harmful, but probably in general dangerous only to the practitioner. Taken as a whole, however, there can be no
reasonable cause for assuming that the rejection of the intellect and common
sense as the fundamental moral, social, and religious principles of human life
does not merely create a new religion, but an entirely new idea of religion.