Back on this earlier post Herb drew my attention to a piece in The Times about Tony Blair. His link didn’t work, so I went there and hunted for the piece on my own, and found two items of interest.
Well, three. The first is that I hadn’t checked in with my hero Tony in a while, and last I knew he was thinking about converting to Roman Catholicism, as I did long ago. According to both pieces in the Times, that’s a done deal now. Good. Welcome, Tony.
The other two things suggest a contradiction in thinking, which may result from bad reporting as Herb suggests, but there is the remote possibility that our Tony has been caught being inconsistent. In a piece about Iraq, he suggested that sometimes, in order to do the right thing, you have to look past the polls:
In an interview with Time magazine last year he said: “The worst thing in politics is when you’re so scared of losing support that you don’t do what you think is the right thing. What faith can do is not tell you what is right but give you the strength to do it.”
Tony’s certainly right about that, and he was always right about Iraq. I used to wish HE had been in charge of the Special Relationship, as he was actually able to explain clearly why we were there, unlike a certain chief executive I could name over on this side of the pond.
But then, in another piece — and I think this was the one to which Herb meant to refer — he suggests something very different. After telling the Pope he should “rethink” his ideas about homosexuality, he goes on:
In the interview Mr Blair spoke of a “quiet revolution in thinking” and implied that he believed the Pope to be out of step with the public.
“There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a wellattended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.
In other words, the magisterium should bow to the popular view of the moment.
Contradiction? You be the judge. If it is, it’s a natural human failing. We all tend to admire individuals standing against the herd when we agree with them, and not so much when we don’t.
Related Posts
I think I fixed Herb’s link now, and yes, that WAS the piece he had meant to link to — the one about Tony lecturing the Pontiff on homosexuality.
How is doing what you believe to be the right thing even though it goes against the popular grain laudable when it is Tony Blair but repugnant when its Mark Sanford?
Because Tony Blair wants to do GOOD stuff and Mark Sanford wants to do BAD stuff.
I don’t judge the governor’s actions based on whether they are popular or not. Sometimes they are (the stunt with the pigs); sometimes they are not (the stimulus).
Nor do I judge his actions on the basis of whether it’s Mark Sanford or not. Sometimes he wants to do good stuff (restructuring); sometimes he wants to do very BAD stuff (rejecting the stimulus).
In each case, it’s about whether what he’s doing is a good idea or not, on its actual merits.
Thing about Tony was, he was almost always right.
Sanford has a vision of the best way to spend the money, one that has some basis and for that policy disagreement to be labeled as “BAD stuff” strikes me as intolerant in the extreme. I very strongly disagree with the currant spend our way out of recession mode (particularly when it is largely made up of money that is just being printed). It well may not work and it will almost certainly wreak havoc in the form of hyperinflation and who knows what else. We are looking for short term relief with unknown long term consequences. This scares the heck out of me but, disagree with it as I will I have a hard time labeling it as “BAD stuff” as it is not immoral but based upon policy differences. I think when policy differences are thought of as “BAD stuff” and “GOOD stuff” , right or wrong in the moral sense, the possibility of compromise fades into the distance.
I have no particular bone to pick with Blair, certainly more adroit that the supposedly much smarter but politically ham handed Gordon Brown but, to my way of thinking he rather pales next to the Iron Lady as does every other PM since Churchill.
And yes, the stimulus has passed, I am aware of that. But it was passed in a form which requires a discretionary act on behalf of the Chief Executive of each state in order for their state to receive the money. Why it is structured that way I do not know, I wish someone would explain that to me. The Governor feels that debt reduction will be of the greatest long term benefit to this state and he is using the powers of the office to which he was elected to make that happen.
It’s structured that way for two reasons:
— In most states, the governor is the guy who runs the show, and lots of federal money tends to get channeled through governor’s offices. That’s what executives do — they spend money, which legislatures appropriate. So it’s natural for the Congress to think in terms of channeling the money through governors.
— In most states, governors actually care about their states, and it simply wouldn’t enter anyone’s mind that a governor would want the people of his state, who will have to PAY for the stimulus either way, NOT to get the benefit of it.
In other words, no one in Washington conceived of a governor like Sanford.
I think that what Mr. Blair is trying to point out is that there is ever increasing evidence that homosexuality is no more a ‘choice’ than is eye color. Even the Holy Roman Church eventually accepts scientific findings (admittedly, they are as of yet, fairly sketchy in this area). However, if it turns out to be true that homosexuality is mainly genetic, or inborn trait, then it is hardly fair to condemn people to a choice of total celibacy or “sin” for what they cannot help.
There has to be another reason as the remainder of the stimulus money is not structured that way nor is the billions of dollars of Federal money that is distributed to the states every year. Just because his views of what is best for the State do not run lockstep with yours does not mean that he does not care for his state and he most certainly not in Warren Bolton’s over the top charge “hate South Carolina.” I think that the claim that he is doing this for national media attention is off base as the support that this type of stand is likely to garner will certainly be insufficient to secure the nomination of one of the two “big tent parties.”
Again< i wonder why the money did not directly to programs or departments as it does in most, if not all other instances. This is the only example I am aware of where there has to be a request.
Sorry the links didn’t work, Brad. It did for me when I tested it last night with Firefox. Not sure what the problem was.
I guess what Brad is hinting at is that there is a truth issue. OK, obviously not everyone is on the same wavelength here, but if Tony Blair is going to join the Catholic church, well he should have settled that question beforehand. The Church is not a democratic institution; he can’t join and then complain about the rules. And my point was really that surely a religion editor would know that, or at least I would expect them to, and at the very minimum bring in some “heavy-weight” input on why church doctrine isn’t decided by popular opinion. The same with Sarah Palin and prayer: a religion editor should know that prayer in groups or praying with a prayer partner is a common form in many denominations. Ignorance of that is inexcusable.
You know, everyone says that Europe is the “secular” continent, but I have the increasing sense that North America is just as ignorant of religion, or perhaps even more so, than continental Europe. At least they teach religion in the schools on the Continent. Most contestants on Jeopardy know less about religion than almost any other topic.
Now I see Martin Luther as a positive example of “standing against the herd,” but that’s because I don’t accept Roman Catholic premises for authority, but rather Luther’s sola scriptura. Obviously there is some overlap between Catholics and Protestants (otherwise the Catholic church wouldn’t use the term “separated brethren” (since Vatican II). But Protestants reject Roman Catholic tradition as of equal authority with Scripture, and affirm the priesthood of all believers to interpret Scripture.
So the issue comes down to not just to personal preferences, but really is more foundational than that—which or what authority is informing us about reality. In other words, we’re all fundamentalists, of one shape or another.
I posted before seeing Karen’s contribution. Karen, I know we’ve been around this before, but I have some inclinations that are probably genetic in origin as well, one of them being a temper that easily loses control. Does that mean I have to live out my inclinations? Just a question. But I guess I wonder if this thing about genetics is being way overdone.
It the Democrats had not passed these huge deficit spending bills of pent-up pork, the state of South Carolina would be doing just fine. The legislature would be spending more money than they did the year before, just like they always do.
And they would be whining about “budget cuts”, just like they always do when they don’t have a surplus of revenue to waste.
All these personal attacks on Governor Sanford, and ridiculous charges that he doesn’t care about the state, or is pandering to the national base, are just intellectual laziness of partisans like Brad Warthen, Joe Neal, Cindi Scoppe, Leatherman, Clyburn, etc.
If they thought they could justify blowing more money than their entire tax revenue for the year, they would try to do so. They know how ridiculous it would sound.
Herb, there’s a difference between a ‘tendency’ and “no choice.’ If heterosexuallity was the ‘condemned’ orientation, would you be able to switch? Would you be willing to be celibate all your life? And if you would, would you expect it of others. Nowhere in the Bible do I see Jesus condemning homosexuality; I do see where he says that divorce is wrong (if not impossible). Shall we therefore demand that all divorcees live apart from the community or hide their situation? I see that both the Old Testament and St Paul consider women to be of much lower status than men (unlike Jesus, who spoke even to a Samaritan woman, and allowed her to be the vehicle through which others came to have faith in him–hey, she was also either divorced or an adulteress or both). The leter to Timothy (probably not truly Pauline) suggests that while women’s salvation is in doubt “she shall be saved through childbearing.” We recognize these statements to be cultural in nature, rather than the unchanging Word of God (or it leaves most nuns without possiblity of salvation). And where would our African American brothers and sisters be if their ancestors had taken Paul’s words about slavery to be an absolute? And, just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that all those Catholic laity out there who simply ignore the Roman Church’s teaching on birth control , should quit that Church instead? I remind you of these things only to suggest that our understanding of the Bible changes, as we learn more about ourselves from science, and more about how their culture was different from ours.
Karen, you bring up a number of issues and presuppositions with which I strongly disagree, and there is little scope on a blog such as this to really get into them (and little time as well), but let me just let you know where I am coming from:
You use the word “condemned,” which is a loaded word. I purposely do not use it. Your use of it, I think, it is to purposely marginalize my viewpoint.
It is true that, from a biblical point of view, there is simply no justification for homosexual acts (as opposed to orientation, which, as I tried to point out, is a very different thing). Your argument from silence with regard to Jesus simply will not wash. The fact is that he accepted the OT Scriptures, the Bible as it was in his day, as the Word of God, and said that no part of it would be abrograted or put aside (it would be fulfilled in his person, but that is an entirely different thing. No Jew in Jesus’ time would or could justify homosexual practice; the OT is clear about it. So Jesus did not need to address the subject. (In that sense, the argument from silence works the opposite way than what you want it to work.) What He did teach was to go back to Creation as establish marriage on the basis of 1 man and 1 woman. OF course the context was the divorce question, but the answer he gave has obvious application to all other forms of “marriage.” They are opposed to the natural order of Creation.
Now I am not saying that we should apply church doctrine to the general populace. But there are real questions that still remain. You seem to speak of some kind of “constitutional” right for gays, but surely that is the question that is being debated, and you bring the answer before the question is even being asked. I think there are legitimate concerns here. Once we establish that marriage can have different forms, what is to prevent polygyny, civil unions of people with animals, or evolvling into some other bizarre forms. Is this really good for our country? Are there legitimate sociological concerns here, once the nuclear family is dismantled and other forms substituted? Glib answers such as “children can still experience love” will not do, since “love” is not defined, it is a very soupy idea at best, especially in today’s context. We really have to think about the results for the family and society a generation down the line. I think we are treading a path that has not really been trodden in the history of mankind, at least not to this extent, and I fear the result. Notice that I am trying to avoid a “knee-jerk” reaction. This is not about condemnation; it is about the health of our society.
As to your understanding of Paul and the biblical texts, I would have to say that there are some real problems here, and quite honestly, you seem to be repeating half-baked ideas that are popular, but have no basis in the biblical texts. Your comparison of Paul’s teaching of how women should behave in a particular 1st century worship service with Jesus speaking with a Samaritan woman is comparing apples with oranges. Actually, St. Paul was extraordinarily open to women in the situations of his day–and if you are going to make comparisons here, you need to make them from Acts (Paul’s actions) rather than from specific problem texts about specific issues (e.g., how women in the Ephesus congregation) should be treated. Paul had women on his team at times (he did avoid situations that could be compromising in appearance), and he even names a woman apostle in Romans 16. Your understanding of the 1 Tim 2 text is also incorrect. The preposition “saved through childbearing” has long been recognized by Greek scholars as not being modal (“by means of”), but oppositional in nature: “in spite of the danger of childbearing”. Paul is referring back to creation, and the disadvantage that has come upon the woman through the Fall. It is still there–men don’t have babies, and never is a woman’s life more in danger, especially in the majority world today, than in childbirth. [There is also recognition in some churches of a possible spiritual, or Satanic, if you will, attack upon women at this time of physical weakness. In the Bavarian Lutheran church, in which I was privileged to serve for awhile, there is an additional ceremony to give thanks for God’s protection during a childbirth.] There is a lot more that could be said about the Timothy passage, but I think in general it refers to uninstructed women (few women in the 1st century were literate, let alone educated), and not to women in general. I will freely admit that evangelicals in many quarters have misinterpreted this text to muzzle women in our churches, and it is a tragedy. But there are worse things in our churches.
You make a good point about birth control and the Catholic church, but then I am not a Catholic. Out of conviction. I believe that the R.C. church superimposes its own tradition over Scripture, and to that extent is in error. But I don’t spend much time on those problems, because I have my own inconsistencies and sins to deal with (I just don’t happen to want to add to the difficulties by adopting Catholic doctrine!). So I don’t know what Catholic laity should do. I would suggest they become Protestants (Brad will love that statement!), but much more, I would urge them to faith in Christ, and to join the church that encourages them in that faith. And I have good Catholic friends who remain there out of conviction. Now that Catholics are allowed to read the Bible for themselves, that is less of a problem, I’ll admit.
As you can obviously tell, I adhere to the unity of the Bible, because ultimately it comes from one Lord who sanctioned it–who put His stamp of approval on the OT (but not necessarily on the Pharisaical interpretation of it), whose teachings are recorded in the Gospels, and who promised the Spirit for the Apostles to come, and who personally commissioned Paul of Tarsus. Scripture is a very precious gift to us today. I was reminded of the same as I was just listening to a sermon by Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, on the subject of Rev. 21–the Pessimism and Optimism of Christianity. I highly recommend his messages, by the way.
I have gone on at length, but just to urge anyone who might be willing to read what I wrote, to go beyond the cliches and study the facts. There are many helpful authors today that deal with some of the sensitive issues and help us understand what Scripture means to us, on the basis of culturally sensitive application. N. T. Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham, comes to mind. So does John Stott, whose volume on The Cross of Christ is superb. On the Catholic side, I am very impressed with Henri Nouwen, though I have read far too little of him so far. I just hope that many of us will spend as much effort on spiritual issues, which have profound implications for our lives, as we do on everything else. If I have offended you by any statement here, please forgive, for that was not my intention. I respect your contributions greatly. I changed my vote in the last election at the last minute, partly because of your reasoned contributions, and Randy E., and my own son’s, who urged me not to be a “one-policy” voter (abortion). So I think that I do listen to others.
P.S. Henri Nouwen’s struggle with his own gay orientation is of particular interest.
Herb,
I read all of your posts with great interest and find them to be enlightening. I have read almost all of the Bible with the exception of a few of the minor prophets. I too accept the Bible as a unity and find no meaningful deviations within the Scripture.
It is also very obvious you are a deeply religious person and I find that attribute a rarity today given the current trend to interpret the Bible in a fashion that suits a personal agenda by those who are bothered by the areas of human behavior considered to be sinful.
It is an obvious truth that some people are prone to follow the homosexual lifestyle from an early age on. Each of us have choices to make and for some, I am sure the urge to be attracted to a same sex partner seems natural and may interpret it as a natural part of the human genome.
It is not my place to condemn anyone who practices homosexuality and I do not but I do have the right to disagree with it and not be branded or labeled as a homophobe. My view is very simple and for me, there is no issue of clarity. I have no desire to deprive any citizen of this country of their constitutional rights. Once we step on that slipperly slope of denial, we expose ourselves to the potential of receiving the same treatment.
If in the course of a relationship between two men or two women, if one man can impregnate another man or a woman another woman without benefit of surgical procedure or any other outside interference, influence, or insemination I will then accept homosexuality as being a natural act and supported by God or nature if you prefer. Until then, homosexuality is a choice even though it may be influenced by some physical or gene imbalance or some other reason outside of my understanding.
I take the time to read all entries and try to give each one due consideration and not respond as quickly as I once was prone to do. I appreciate your deliberation and reasoning and changing your vote during the last election. I surmise you ended up voting for Obama for many reasons and leaving abortion out of the equation.
There are many institutional sins built into our culture when compared to the Word of God and His direction for our lives. I try to remember that He gave us freedom of choice and adherence to His word is voluntary, not forced. With that in mind, I cannot in good conscience ever consider supporting any political party who has as a central theme any policy that supports the taking of an innocent human life at any stage during pregnancy under the guise of a woman’s right to privacy. Then to consider the fact that this party, Democrat, can and does support partial birth abortion, I equate the practice of abortion and especially partial birth abortion to the horrors of the Nazi death camps where in the name of Arian superiority, they supported the mass murder of millions of Jews, dwarfs, mentally retarded, Gypsies, and any other undesirable this inhuman gathering of misfits saw fit to annihilate from the face of the earth. It only takes one reading of how the procedure is done to realize the brutality and inhuman act against the most innocent of all. On that point alone, I cannot ever in good conscience cast a vote for anyone or a political party who advocates for abortion.
For those who try to use the argument that support of the death penalty is somehow equivalent to or no different than abortion, remember this single, most important of all differences. When someone commits a crime that has written into law the potential of receiving the death penalty, that person made a deliberate and conscious choice to commit the crime. The fetus or child, whichever you prefer, had no choice in the matter. The decision was made by someone else, the person carrying the fetus or child. You be the arbiter and decide which is right and which is wrong – even to the point of forgetting about religious convictions.
As a social conservative, it is incumbent upon me to live my life as close as I can to my convictions. This does not preclude me from supporting many issues that may be considered as liberal by definition from Republicans, Libertarians, and some on the far right.
I try to stay away from these two subjects and after this post, I intend to continue the practice. My position has been stated and there will be no change. In the end, the one person on this earth I have to contend with always is myself.
Those who attempt to excuse various homosexual behaviors as biological impulses which cannot be controlled are making a strange defense.
There are people born predisposed to stealing, homocide, violence, torturing animals and molesting children. Medical doctors long ago assigned classifications of these psychotic behaviors, as did the legal system.
How is homosexuality now to be declared to be another such imbalance of hormones, defective brain chemistry, or recessive gene – and that be the reason to not only legalize the behavior, but to socially accept it?
The fact is that most humans have the potential to sink into depravity, and those with defects, mental or physical, have the capacity to overcome a predisposition to depravity, by exerting choice. Civilization depends upon the vast majority of people behaving with self-control. Those who cannot control their destructive impulses are a big problem for everyone else. They lie, cheat, steal, murder, and spread disease.
Alcoholics solve their problem through force of will to abstain from destructive behaviors, despite the lingering presence of their physical weakness. That is the only way anyone overcomes their dependence on narcotics, tobacco, gambling, or heterosexual abuse: total abstinence.
Bart,
Not much time, but just to write that I agree with everything you said about abortion, and as far as switching my vote is concerned, I’m still not sure I did the right thing. Abortion weighs heavy. On the other hand, apart from some obvious things like banning certain procedures, or abortions in the 3rd trimester, I’m not 100% sure what we pro-lifers want to do. I’m pretty sure we don’t want to instill Roman Catholic type laws such as exist in countries like Spain. That is the complication–how much does one legislate righteousness without making people who have no stomach for it very angry and creating a backlash?
Truth be told, my vote was more a protest (it was obvious who was going to carry SC, wasn’t it?) against the typical evangelical alliance with Republican-Libertarianism that disturbs me greatly, because it insinuates that the Gospel is Jesus + global-warming denials + right wing politics an nauseam. Being an evangelical myself, as you obviously also are, I want to have room at the Cross for Democrats as well! And Un-party members! And me. Or whoever.
Oh, and I guess the foreign policy of the last 8 years has been another big issue for me.
In the end, it’s just hard to know which scoundrel to vote for. Two things I’m sure of: 1) I would do a much worse job if I were in charge; 2) none of the aspirants to political office are going to save us from our sins!
I meant “ad nauseam” of course.
Herb, how do you feel about church pulpits being used to promote Environmentalist beliefs which are really nothing more than a pagan religion?
And with so many Democrats being not only agnostic and atheist, but openly hostile to all established religions, how could any thinking Christian find a home among them?
Herb, the reason I used the word “condemned” was because until recently it was condemned as a sin by all and sundry, and was, in fact, against the law. I can only go by what my gay acquaintances who are in committed relationships tell me about how well they could respond in a heterosexual relationship. As for marriage, I still contend that we should get the state out of the marriage business. The state should provide civil contracts, and those who desire Christian marriage should look to their church. I think, based on the preface to I Timothy found in the “New Oxford Annotated Bible” (new revised standard version) that most scholars agree that it and other pastoral letters ascribed to Paul were actually of pseudonymous authorship. I concur that your translation is one possible translation of that statement, but it is not the only one. At any rate, I have long realized that the Bible was written by people of Faith rather than People of science, and that those people were of necessity bound by the knowledge and culture of their own time. That’s not to say that God’s word cannot be found there, but that we must search for it carefully, endeavoring to filter out our prejudices and blindnesses as well as those in which the writers of the Bible were imprisoned.
SC Native, It is clear to me from the Bible that we are meant to be the stewards of creation, and that God wants us to be faithful stewards, not wasting the weath of creation but conserving it, and using it wisely, to His greater glory. That’s what “environmentalism” is all about.
Conservation is practiced by hunters, fishermen, farmers, loggers, and those of them who, in groups such as the Izzak Walton League, NRA, Safari Club International, and Trout Unlimited, created the national parks and refuges. They operate off of deep personal knowledge of the outdoors and scientific management of it.
Environmentalism is a belief system in things which are unsubstantiated, such as “global warming”. With that discredited by record cold weather, the new scare is carbon dioxide.
This movement has always attracted uneducated Luddites, but with the economic collapse of communism, socialists have taken up phony environmentalism as a weapon to cripple free market industrial superiority.
They have also figured out how to divert billions of tax dollars into their own pockets, in the process. That is what “cap and trade” is all about, and nothing more.
Karen, I think it is the only translation that makes sense of the context, since Paul is referring back to the Fall of man story in Genesis 3. Incidentally, this interpretation as impressed upon me by Prof. Dr. Eckstein, professor of NT at Heidelberg and now Tuebingen, Germany, an evangelical who is a thorough going New Testament and Greek scholar. Paul is very rabbinic in his thinking and writing, and 1 Timothy reflects that. And yes, I know that the authorship of the Pastoral epistles is hotly contested, but some of the analysis of a few decades back was also deeply flawed (for example, coming to conclusions as to the authorship based on a computer analysis of how often certain particles are used–we know that Paul frequently used an amanuensis–rarely did he write in his own hand, so that such arguments are tenuous at best. The Pastoral epistles come out of a counselor/mentor situation; even if we settle that they are second generation Pauline (which I don’t), they are still very valuable, if interpreted correctly.
Interesting thought about the state and civil contracts. I wonder if the state doesn’t have more at stake in marriage than that, though. It’s a subject that needs a lot more thought.
SCnative, certainly there are erroneous, misguided movements on any side of every major issue; that does not lessen the need to carry out our mandate to shepherd God’s creation. I am astounded that neither side can sit down and hear out the other on the scientific analysis of the events–but as I understand that analysis, record cold weather has nothing to do with the over-all indications of global warming–they are part of that scenario. Biblically, I can make a case for global warming in some of the apocalyptic texts that use the metaphor of the “roaring of the seas,” etc. which is a figure of speech for the wars and unrest between nations. But as so often in Scripture, the phenomena in nature are intertwined with happenings in mankind. IN other words, our greed and misuse of nature is an aspect of the “wrath of God,” which lets us go away and do our thing, to our own destruction. I count unbridled consumption of energy, greed for always more and bigger everything, and disregard for the effect on the environment, all as aspects of that “wrath” that gives people over to do what they want, but to carry the consequences as well.
Anyway, we don’t always have to throw out the bathwater and the baby as well. There is usually some truth in any position. And as an evangelical, I cannot with any good conscience turn our environment over to free market industrial capitalists. That would be setting the cat to watch the pigeons, or as the Germans say, “making the goat into the gardener.” Human nature is sinful; both sides need some checks and balances.
Well, I need to stop writing epistles myself. Thanks for reading, if you happened to get this far!
I found this bit in a speech that Obama made to a Sojourners meeting in 2006, and to a great extent he is correct. except that surely there are boundaries on abortion that any reasonable people would want to set (third trimester? partial birth abortion?) where we should and must agree?
I’m also arguing that there is common ground around the nuclear family as a basis of our society.
Karen, just one last thought, in case you happen to read this. If you are the one discovering the Word of God within Scripture, based on scientific analysis of people. don’t you ever ask consider that what you are hearing as the “Word of God” may just be very compatible with what you want Him to say and how you want Him to be? Does God ever have room to go against your convictions, or to disagree with modern scientific theories? Or is He subject to what we (modern) people think? From what you say, I would deduce that ultimately, you are your own final basis of authority.
I have the feeling that modern man is extremely arrogant. We have arrived! Or we’re getting close, at least. I would suggest that we may be extremely far off course, and some of the old thinkers and, yes, medieval saints were much more in tune with reality than we are.