If ten people
fight against 1000 people, who would win? To answer this apparently
simple question, we have to raise several other questions: how are they
equipped or armed, what do they value in life, where are their
geographical positions relative to each other, how adequate is their
access to supplies, and what is the state of their morale, among other
considerations. Those during the European middle ages would probably
respond that the victors would be those whom God helps. This was an
answer obviously given without much thought by the people at that time and we are told that
even great things happened. A journalist for the Catholic Times explores
the issue.
In
Roman times, disputes would be settled, he says, by bringing the case to
court and judging its merits by referring to the appropriate laws.
During the middle ages, instead, the case would be settled by "ordeal."
They left it up to God to judge. God, it was believed, would help the
innocent person survive a proposed ordeal that both parties to the
dispute had to endure. Whether the ordeal selected was putting a hand
into boiling water or placing hot stones in the hand, or any other
tormenting incident, the innocence of the participants would be
determined by how long the pain could be endured, the belief being that
God would provide the innocent one with sufficient endurance to outlast
that of the guilty one. Even when the ordeal selected was dueling with
swords, it was believed that God would be on the side of the innocent
dueler, and he would survive the fight.
Humanists
of the Renaissance considered their
ancestors to have lived in the dark ages, "trial by ordeal" being one
example of this so-called darkened understanding. Is it just as easy for
us today to make that statement? the columnist wonders. Are we living
in a more humane
way than they did in the middle ages of Europe?
He goes on to ask if it is more
humane to teach our children, and ourselves, not to waste one minute or
second of the time allotted to us. Is getting good marks and entering a
first-rate school more important than having friends and more time for
family commitments? Or is it more important to win in some competitive
encounter? On TV and on the internet, we are presented with continual
sensory stimulation, seduced into believing that the victor is the one
enjoying the so-called spoils of victory, while the loser in this
competitive battle is left with nothing, or very little. Is this
"heartlessness of the victor," as he puts it, what we are to accept as
our modern understanding of what it means to be fully human?
This
modern approach he labels as either machine-like or animal-like; so
where is a person to stand? We are able to stand firm, he says, within a
faith community. Jesus said he has overcome the world, and where he
reigns there is where we are able to stand up straight. The columnist
makes clear that he doesn't want to return to the middle ages. We have
seen that both in the middle ages and in the present we have lost a
great deal of what makes us human; we have seen the problems. Our work
now is to work to rid ourselves of these problems, and become truly
human.
