Wales/ England: St. Winifred

This is part of the shrine of St. Winifred in Shrewsbury Abbey. Readers of the Cadfael novels will recall the story of how St. Winifred's remains were (supposedly) brought from North Wales to Shrewsbury in 1137 and became a major pilgrimage centre. A "Guild of Saint Winefride" was founded in 1487, and revived in 1987.

 The shrine was demolished when the abbey was dissolved in 1540, and this fragment was discovered in a local garden in 1933. 

   The legend of St. Winifred tells that she was the daughter of a Welsh prince, and early in her life was vowed to a life of chastity. A local prince, by name Cradoc, was so infuriated when she repulsed his advances that he struck off her head with his sword. Fortunately her uncle Saint Beuno was nearby: he promptly placed her head back on her shoulders, and she lived. A fountain of  pure water sprang up where this miracle occurred, and became the pilgrimage centre of Holywell. The wicked Prince Cradoc fell dead. Later, Winifred travelled on a pilgrimage to Rome, and became the prioress of a community of nuns at Gwytherin, where she was buried. 

  St. Winifred's bones were dispersed and mostly lost, though one of her finger-bones turned up in Rome, from where it was returned to Holywell in 1852. 

   Holywell, in north Wales, survived the Reformation, and people still come to bathe in the healing waters.

Philosophy: St Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74: canonised in1323) was the most famous of the mediaeval catholic philosophers.

He came from an Italian noble family; became a Dominican friar (against the wishes of his father); studied in Paris; taught & wrote extensively. Greatly admired Aristotle, and his grand overall scheme was to reconcile Aristotle with Christianity. His books are therefore full of quotations from the Bible and from Augustine & the other Christian Fathers, as well as from Aristotle & any of the other Greek & Roman books which had survived; all treated rather uncritically.

   Aquinas followed Aristotle in his division of types of government as monarchy/ tyranny, aristocracy/ oligarchy etc, but with important changes. Thus, he defined a monarch as a ruler who holds power legitimately and governs justly, whereas a tyrant holds power by violence and governs unjustly; hence, there can never be a bad monarch or a good tyrant. He saw monarchy as the best form of government and tyranny the worst. Because men in power were likely to quarrel, causing divided counsels, it follows that aristocracy is less good than monarchy and oligarchy less bad than tyranny.

   Using Augustine and other authorities, Aquinas attempted to set the parameters for a “just war”. It must be waged by a legitimate authority, it must be in a just cause, such as self-defence or to right an obvious wrong, and it must be conducted without unnecessary suffering, especially to non-combatants. He argued that too much violence can invalidate even a just war, and warned monarchs that military glory should not be their principal aim.

 

Aquinas’s most important contribution to political thought was the idea of Natural Law; a complex idea. He divided law into three categories: God’s law governs the world and is by definition always right: Human law; the laws which governments enact, and which may be just or unjust; and in between these in Natural Law. This is the human perception of God’s law; a universal code of right and wrong, by which human laws should be judged. But, as a consequence of the so-called "Reniassance of the 12th century, educated man like Aquinas became acquained with the world of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and also of Islamic ideas, and he was aware that these pagans had a code of right and wrong similar to ours. How could this be possible? Aquinas was driven to a radical conclusion: although only Christians can have full knowledge of God’s law, God in his mercy has enabled us to discover Natural Law reason alone.

Aquinas proceeded to postulate, under Natural Law, much of what nowadays would be covered by the concept of human rights. Thus, he would argue, it cannot possibly be in accordance with Natural Law that innocent people should be punished for crimes that they had not committed, whereas on the other hand Natural Law surely says that we should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of our labour. Under Natural Law, all things should be held in common for the benefit of all; private property, especially of land, is purely a matter of human law.  Slavery too has no foundation in Natural Law. This leads him to some interesting conclusions, especially concerning resistance to oppressive and unjust governments.

Natural Law has been debated ever since. John Locke, who in the 17^th century first postulated the concept of Human Rights, derives them from Natural Law, and the American Declaration of Independence speaks of men as being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. The most famous example of Natural Law at work in the 20^th century came in the trials of the Nazi leaders, where it was laid down that obeying the orders of the government was no defence for evil deeds. Whenever we say that a regulation is “unfair” or “unjust” we are postulating some concept of Natural Law! 

 

A debate concerning Boris Johnson

(This is an exchange conducted on Facebook between myself and a former colleague, Dr. David Gwyn)

Peter Shilston: Are not Boris Johnson's travails in 2021-22 an example, in the finest traditions of classical Greek tragedy, of hubris being inevitably followed by nemesis?

 David Gwyn: Yes they are, but he's not Agamemnon and neither is he Oedipus. He's a character from Attic comedy dragging his unfeasibly large phallus with him without being particularly funny; and so far as the tragedy goes, his hamartia is neither a flaw in an otherwise noble character nor a random error, but a course of action undertaken for the wrong reasons and with consequences disastrous for the rest of us. It's as if the city of Thebes was punished AFTER Oedipus's actions are discovered while the motherf*cker in question goes off with the lotus-eaters.