|
|
Post by snacky on May 31, 2014 2:02:54 GMT
Annie and I have been discussing Julia's religious beliefs - particularly whether she has any genuine religious beliefs, though she almost certainly professes Protestantism in polite society. (She would have to be Sally Pendrick to go full avant-garde atheist.) Occasionally Julia has spoken with outright disdain about religion, though she does not seem to scorn William for his Catholic practices (hopefully she finds his nightly prayers as cute as I do!). She has stated that humans are animals, making her a staunch Darwinist. Since her field is medicine, she's probably drenched in a lot of German science and philosophy, which tended at the time to regard religion and science as separate realms of non-interference.
I had a big topic on secularization that I was going to launch into here, but I used it up on another thread in regard to changing attitudes toward disasters of massive proportions. In my god-like hubris, I'll just quote myself below:
I was reading a book today about the increasing "massiveness" of disasters and how juxtaposed with encroaching secularization. For instance, instead of nature being made as the unfolding providence of God for humankind, nature ("red in tooth and claw") ran according to laws completely indifferent to humankind (Evolution, natural selection, materialism). The economy and the world of business also seemed increasingly indifferent and "machine-like" (Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", the Population Checks of Malthus).
In the Middle Ages, if a big disaster happened, it was an Act of God. If a war was won or lost, it was the Will of God (and the casualties were mainly an elite warrior class and mercenaries, not the peasants and civilians). When there was a big train wreck in William's day (which I referenced somewhere above), it was Human Error. When we developed weapons of mass destruction and involved civilians in war, it was a man-made disaster. There was no greater Purpose: we were responsible for problems of enormous scope that we could not solve. Stock market crash? How do we solve that? Dust bowl? What do we do?
This was one of the most important revolutions in consciousness in world history. Some of it can be attributed to the rise of modern science. Another part of it can be attributed it to subjecting the Bible to historical criticism, which, for many, reduced the Bible to "mere doctrine" presented in a document riddled with inconsistencies and disprovable assertions rather than THE REVEALED TRUTH. More importantly, it reduced human beings to just another animal.
This is the context for any struggles William, Julia, or any other character may have with religion. And I hope it gets played to the hilt if there is any Big Disaster episode.
The book I'm reading, which I recommend highly for anyone who wants to truly understand this era is "The Secularization of the European Mind in the 19th Century" by Owen Chadwick. I plan to read it forward, backward, and upside down until it totally sinks in.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on May 31, 2014 4:31:20 GMT
Just for a quick clarification, are you referring to the "massiveness of disasters" in terms of actual physical impact of natural disasters of their perceived impact?
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on May 31, 2014 5:20:44 GMT
Oops I answered this on the wrong thread. I think disasters that would seem small today, would be massive back them. They were just coming to grips with what "industrial size" meant.
Also, from another thread, but pertinent to this one: what if marrying Julia, or Julia's activities, or even William's activities-of-personal-integrity led to excommunication?
If Julia felt guilty, she would imagine William blaming her before he even thought it himself and might act on those feelings. Instant crisis! D:
Even if Julia had nothing to do with it, she would have to support him through some Heavy Shnizzle.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on May 31, 2014 6:14:51 GMT
As far the disaster thing, I think the perception of disasters has been altered drastically due to our ever-expanding means of communication. Prior to fast acting communication, like the telegraph, it could take weeks or months for news of a disaster to travel outside of the immediate area, causing the illusion of there being fewer or less destructive "disaster" events. And as you pointed out, snacky, what we would consider a small event, was magnified simply due to the smaller population of the past.
I think the phenomenon of "human errors" follows the same trend...the last few centuries have seen a tremendous increase in human-made creations, meaning the more that they fail the more it seems like "our fault," whereas in the past, there wasn't much to be done about wind, fires, floods, etc.
I'm really hoping that William will either be able to cling to his faith throughout his relationship with Julia, or at least meaningfully convert to a form of Protestantism.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on May 31, 2014 6:35:46 GMT
As far the disaster thing, I think the perception of disasters has been altered drastically due to our ever-expanding means of communication. Prior to fast acting communication, like the telegraph, it could take weeks or months for news of a disaster to travel outside of the immediate area, causing the illusion of there being fewer or less destructive "disaster" events. And as you pointed out, snacky, what we would consider a small event, was magnified simply due to the smaller population of the past. I think the phenomenon of "human errors" follows the same trend...the last few centuries have seen a tremendous increase in human-made creations, meaning the more that they fail the more it seems like "our fault," whereas in the past, there wasn't much to be done about wind, fires, floods, etc. I'm really hoping that William will either be able to cling to his faith throughout his relationship with Julia, or at least meaningfully convert to a form of Protestantism. William and Julia were also there for the birth of Yellow Journalism and the sensationalism promoted by Randolph Hearst (he went as far as trying to use his media muscle to start wars). The transantlantic telegraph cable made International news a matter of hours. One of Thomas Edison's early money-making ideas was to telegraph headlines down rail lines so people would be waiting to buy the paper when the train stopped. So this era was the birth of Sensationalistic Disasters, all building up to The Titanic. I think William will always cling to his faith, though things might cause him to question or rethink it. However, I'd lay money on him getting excommunicated before the series is over. |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 1, 2014 2:27:44 GMT
Aw, that would be so sad if he got excommunicated, since his faith has been the only constant of his life. Although maybe he can find comfort in a community of Protestant believers, which may be the best, since they may be more open to embracing the interconnected-ness of science and faith than the stoic Catholic church.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 1, 2014 7:57:43 GMT
Aw, that would be so sad if he got excommunicated, since his faith has been the only constant of his life. Although maybe he can find comfort in a community of Protestant believers, which may be the best, since they may be more open to embracing the interconnected-ness of science and faith than the stoic Catholic church. Can you get re-communicated after being excommunicated? Don't think of it as sad - think of it as excellent drama!  |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 1, 2014 19:40:07 GMT
Haha, despite the excellent drama, I think I would still find it sad. I get too emotionally involved with the characters, feel for them, against them, with them. I just want poor William to find some happiness and satisfaction somewhere in his life. According to this, you can be absolved of excommunication. However, absolution would only be granted under sincere penance; William would have to show that he was sorry for what he had done, and if he was committed to marrying Julia, even under the threat of excommunication, I don't think he'd be likely to repent any time soon. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jun 1, 2014 20:25:37 GMT
I've been doing some research and thinking about what Julia's religious beliefs might be. I re-watched "The Death of Dr.Ogden" to see if any religious remarks popped up through her memories of her family of origin. There weren't any per se but I found her statement "I learned to think dispassionately from you Father" to be very revealing about how Julia perceives her own thought processes and how that might impact her views on religion. In those days the vast majority of society participated in (or appeared to)some form of organized religion. We know she's not Catholic so she's Protestant by default. I agree with snacky that as a scientist she was more Darwinian in her beliefs but that does not preclude her having some faith God.
Another aspect to consider is the role of religion in the power structure of Toronto. I found out that according to the 1901 census the religious makeup of Canada was 42% Catholic and 56% Protestant. Half of the Catholic population lived in French speaking communities, mostly Quebec and New Brunswick. You also have to keep in mind that the Protestants carried a huge prejudice towards the Catholics, hence Chief Inspector Stockton's blocking William's advancement and references to Catholics as "Papists" by a few others. Being a Protestant carried some power and I believe Julia was smart enough to use whatever advantages she could. If she were an atheist she would actively scorn William's beliefs and practices. Instead, what we have seen is her occasional frustration with some of the fundamentalist aspects of his belief systems, not outright challenge of them.
Two scenes on this subject stand out to me. First, in "Shades of Gray", Julia knew William would have a very difficult time with the subject of her abortion and she didn't expect or require him to "make an exception" for her in either a legal or moral sense. Second, when William refuses to compromise her by living together, Julia says that she "loves him all the more" for it. (Forgot which episode, but S6). Ultimately Julia seems to be a non-practicing Protestant of some denomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 1, 2014 20:53:00 GMT
Haha, despite the excellent drama, I think I would still find it sad. I get too emotionally involved with the characters, feel for them, against them, with them. I just want poor William to find some happiness and satisfaction somewhere in his life. According to this, you can be absolved of excommunication. However, absolution would only be granted under sincere penance; William would have to show that he was sorry for what he had done, and if he was committed to marrying Julia, even under the threat of excommunication, I don't think he'd be likely to repent any time soon. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htmYeah I don't think he'd repent on marrying Julia. But I don't think he'd be excommunicated for that either. He might get excommunicated indirectly for something she'd done or something she had a hand in. But I think it would be more dramatically satisfying if he were excommunicated for taking his own moral stand on something and Julia was there to support him. With regard to "repenting", he would have to find a way to do it without compromising his moral stand. Unlike Galileo, he would not stipulate to the sun not moving and save the truth for under his breath. Oh man, wouldn't be awesome if it were a scientific or medical truth that got him excommunicated? Did you know Papal Infallibility only became a matter of dogma during the First Vatican Council of 1869-70? That as fairly recent for William, and I wonder if Catholics had concerns about that. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jun 1, 2014 21:14:03 GMT
Just for clarification...William could have been excommunicated for marrying Julia if she was a divorcee. He is free to marry a widow, but marrying outside the faith has consequences i.e. it would not be sanctioned by the Church. Now the question is would Julia convert to Catholicism or William convert some form of Protestantism. That is a big enough question to work through several episodes. I don't want to see Wm excommunicated. His faith is such a big part of who he is. Remember how bad it was when Julia left for Buffalo. He would go into a huge depression over giving up his faith. But then Julia would a) feel really guily and b) have to treat him.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 1, 2014 21:40:57 GMT
as a scientist she was more Darwinian in her beliefs but that does not preclude her having some faith God. Being a Protestant carried some power and I believe Julia was smart enough to use whatever advantages she could. If she were an atheist she would actively scorn William's beliefs and practices. Instead, what we have seen is her occasional frustration with some of the fundamentalist aspects of his belief systems, not outright challenge of them. First, in "Shades of Gray", Julia knew William would have a very difficult time with the subject of her abortion and she didn't expect or require him to "make an exception" for her in either a legal or moral sense. Second, when William refuses to compromise her by living together, Julia says that she "loves him all the more" for it. The book about Secularism I'm reading actually tries to weigh how religious the "scientific/business/industrial"-minded classes of various countries really were. Surprisingly, the British scientific middle classes maintained their faith more than other Protestant countries, and I suppose this flowed over to Canada and the U.S. In other words, a Victorian/Edwardian scientist could be a genuine person of faith as well. Julia doesn't seem like a regular Church-goer to me, but I'm not sure she's utterly non-practicing or "going just for show" either. She was probably raised in the Church. Those beliefs are entrenched. She probably goes to church occasionally (definitely at Easter and Christmas). She may go often enough to "make an appearance" and even participate in some Ladies Club associated with the Church for Society purposes. It could help her raise funds for her clinic or spread word about it. I really liked how Julia refused to "be made an exception for" in Shades of Grey. That's the sort of thing I would think about. She knew sooner or later the principle would prevail against her or William would suffer some sort of moral collapse. He clearly believed very strongly in upholding the laws against contraception/abortion and spreading any information thereof. Though I find this hard to reconcile with the "let's get it on in the park, and I didn't know we needed prophylactics" persona that came out in the Green Muse. But I agree Julia loves William for his integrity. The episode you're referring to is Murdoch in Ladies Wear (source of Annie's avatar), where Julia gets so frustrated with trying to get Darcy to cooperate with a divorce that she suggests that she and William just "live in sin". XD |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 1, 2014 21:46:06 GMT
Just for clarification...William could have been excommunicated for marrying Julia if she was a divorcee. He is free to marry a widow, but marrying outside the faith has consequences i.e. it would not be sanctioned by the Church. Now the question is would Julia convert to Catholicism or William convert some form of Protestantism. That is a big enough question to work through several episodes. I don't want to see Wm excommunicated. His faith is such a big part of who he is. Remember how bad it was when Julia left for Buffalo. He would go into a huge depression over giving up his faith. But then Julia would a) feel really guily and b) have to treat him. I wish William had been direct about the excommunication possibility in Winston's Lost Night. I don't think Julia realized how serious the matter really was. William acted like God was just a stern father who might spank him or something if he married a Divorcee. I don't think either of them will convert, and that web site on historic Canadian weddings showed that the marriage could go on without them, and the Bishop could turn a "blind eye" (but no "dispensation", so no Cathedral wedding either). If an excommunication occurs, I don't think it will be over the wedding, but I do hope MM goes into this territory some day. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jun 1, 2014 22:02:47 GMT
Just for clarification...William could have been excommunicated for marrying Julia if she was a divorcee. He is free to marry a widow, but marrying outside the faith has consequences i.e. it would not be sanctioned by the Church. Now the question is would Julia convert to Catholicism or William convert some form of Protestantism. That is a big enough question to work through several episodes. I don't want to see Wm excommunicated. His faith is such a big part of who he is. Remember how bad it was when Julia left for Buffalo. He would go into a huge depression over giving up his faith. But then Julia would a) feel really guily and b) have to treat him. I wish William had been direct about the excommunication possibility in Winston's Lost Night. I don't think Julia realized how serious the matter really was. William acted like God was just a stern father who might spank him or something if he married a Divorcee. I don't think either of them will convert, and that web site on historic Canadian weddings showed that the marriage could go on without them, and the Bishop could turn a "blind eye" (but no "dispensation", so no Cathedral wedding either). If an excommunication occurs, I don't think it will be over the wedding, but I do hope MM goes into this territory some day. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jun 1, 2014 22:13:51 GMT
Still figuring out the quote button :b.
The seriousness of her suggestion in religious terms was probably too big a can of worms to open. It falls under the "thou shalt not covet another man's wife" commandment. Julia is just modern enough to not care so much. I've been reading about Rome's position on divorce at that time. The Church was really against divorce in general. An article from the "Catholic Northwest Progress" in Seattle,WA dated Sept. 19/1902 refers to Pope Leo XVIII's Apostolic Constitution of 1880, quoted "divorce is a profanation of the sanctity of Christian marriage and the ruin of the very foundation of domestic society; that through it there exists only adulterous unions and never lawful marriages." It goes on to say some pretty nasty things about divorced people and concludes that "non-Catholic divorced persons are allowed to profit from their own excesses.
|
|
