Enough with wanting strokes of the cane

I had several conversations recently, not on related topics at face value, which, in total, left me both laughing and frowning at the product. I therefore ask my readers to bear with me as I ravel this thread.

Remember the kids who, in school days, always seemed to be in trouble? (Or dreaming up devilish ideas, then getting others to carry them out?) Looking back, they fell into two categories. A few, sad to say, were genuinely malicious - and that tended to be obvious even when they were very young. Thinking back on a few I knew as a child, I was sorry, but not surprised, to learn that they ended up involved with crime, in a few cases killed (by their associates) or imprisoned as a consequence. Yet a larger number of the 'folk heroes,' who weren't malicious but had a combination of mischief, bad temper, and a desire to be the centre of attention, coupled with a love to do lots of things to see if they could get away with them (someone else's being blamed when he was innocent would not have troubled them), grew up to be those whom one would learn, years later, were police officers. (If they were born before 1940, a significant percentage were priests. The Anglicans are married and hen-pecked, and the Roman Catholics had plenty of tough nuns to see that they had their share of hen pecking along the way. Since the quantity of nuns sharply decreased by the time the products of the war or baby boom came to maturity, thus the quantity of RC priests who'd been tough guys declined. Why young tough guys grow up to be accountable either to military authorities, police procedures, or domineering women is beyond me, but it was epidemic.)

I'm thinking of one impossible kid whom I knew (though not as a child - he was older than I - born pre-1940, and inevitably a priest and coincidentally a friar.) When he told me of the trouble he caused as a child, I was appalled. One of his favourite ways to exercise mischief was in waiting to see which neighbourhood mother hung her wash on the line (recall that this was in the days when that meant hours over the wash-tub or, at best, placing clothing through wringers, not that I'd approve even in the automatic washer/dryer era), then cut the line with a hedge clipper. Knowing he had quite a temper, I asked if this was intended as revenge - but actually he didn't target anyone in particular. He explained his motive as 'impressing the other kids.' Whether less ambitious mischief makers stopped short of clipping clotheslines lest they be punished, or others thought what he did was dreadful, he could be certain that everyone he knew would be talking about what he did that day! (That he'd later feel the sting of his mother's cane or dad's belt did not deter him.)

The (short of malicious) folk heroes often had a quality I found puzzling but amusing (other than that the RC ones made sure they wore the scapular to make sure they were saved from eternal fire in case they suddenly dropped dead. They still do. We'd all heard stories in catechism class about those who were hit by motor cars right after stealing a chocolate, and later re-appeared to friends to speak of suffering in hell. Older kids in these stories who had sex not only were killed on the spot but in some way that illustrated their fiery destiny, such as a train going up in blazes.) If they were caught, they had this need to 'take their punishment.' (A few of them even needed to tell on themselves.) Taking their punishment in no way affected future behaviour - they were cooking up further trouble within the hour. Still, most of them, in later years, would insist that being punished kept them from further trouble later. (I've no idea whether that is true or not. I suppose that, with really young children, about all that deters them from misbehaving is a fear of being punished, but older kids weren't deterred at the time. And, just for the record, I know absolutely nothing of criminal justice, so I'm not referring to that area in what follows.)

In recent weeks, I asked two questions to which no one I knew had an answer. What happened, many centuries ago but with effects that would extend well into the modern era, that took Christian focus away from Jesus' glory and our deification, and made ascetic practises of any kind (which I'd see as intended to remove distractions and foster intimacy with the Beloved) ways to 'atone for sin'? Effectively, it became a punishment. (Also a marvellous Lenten guilt trip - the poor box was never fuller than when kids were convinced that spending a penny on a treat might keep some poor soul in purgatory or cause someone in China to drop dead. Those who put in the most were the same who might have 'hooked' a chocolate at any other time of the year - see the preceding paragraph. Among adults, the biggest party animals became a great penance to others during Lent, since they refrained from foods they enjoyed, their beer and their pipes. Their friends had reasons to rejoice on Easter that had nothing to do with Christ being risen.)

My other question was sillier - but no one knows that answer, either. Referring here not to the fast or any other ancient custom - I've never been able to discover where the practise, which I believe is mainly Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, since I never heard of it in Italy at all, of 'giving things up for Lent' originated.

Well, be forewarned, my friends: I've been studying worship (surprise!) yet again, and reviewing the works of Hebrew and Christian scholars, and I'm well steeped in Franciscan concepts of penance (not Francis's own excesses, to which he freely admitted at the end of his short life), which are based on getting one's life in line with the gospels. I'll say, in brief (since I've said more than enough today), that atonement has wonderful meanings that have nothing to do with taking punishment.

As for the idea that God always wants what is most painful and difficult, and that anything we want (even if it is not remotely sinful, or is wonderful) is opposed to "God's will," or that we are so wicked by reason of the fall that we can't want anything without its being somehow bad (or, at least, 'less perfect' - weird influences from varied periods can lead to a revolting pot-pourri where one is always expected to do what is most perfect though one is capable of no good)... well, scrap the lot of them. It's not humility or charity - it is a childish desire to be punished because one has no concept of virtue - or Pelagian (think of it - we're in control when we are appeasing) - or we want to be thought superior for hating ourselves.

I'll just leave you with one thought, from scholar Klaus Koch - and this in relation to Servant of Yahweh liturgies in Isaiah. Atonement means liberation from spheres of misdeeds and consequent disaster - it is not appeasement. The attack on idols was a precedent. It is not only a concept of God as transcendent - his grace is manifested in the world. What is rejected is a God at the disposal of humans - artefacts being dependent on their maker.