Fr Longenecker makes an interesting distinction between being good and doing good:
…these well-meaning Catholics (and of course this applies to a multitude of well-meaning Protestant Christians as well) who think they can “be good without going to church” are really in the same position as the polite atheists who also say they can “be good without God.”
By this, they mean they can start a charity, raise money for helpless people, run a soup kitchen and special Olympics, campaign for poor workers and ecological causes without starting their meetings with a prayer. True enough. All those things are possible.
They may go further in their definition of what it means to be good and suggest that this also means “reaching one’s full human potential” or “being self actualized” or “being fully mature and caring and loving.” This too is possible with a certain amount of determination, hard work, good manners, working out at the gym and reading the right self-help books.
Fr Longenecker says, though, that this is about doing good, not about being good.
Catholicism is about a supernatural transaction between an individual and God. God’s power, which we call “grace,” works on the person’s whole being to effect a transformation from the inside out. We call this “divinization.” The ancient church of the East calls it “theosis.” This transformation allows a human being to live in a new dimension of power and glory unimagined by most of us. The second century theologian Saint Irenaeus wrote, “The glory of God is man fully alive” or as Jesus Christ himself said, “I have come to give you life—life more abundant!”
This “abundant life” means something greater than just doing good. It means being good. It means every cell and muscle, every sinew and particle of soul, every part of us being transformed with the radiant power and glory of God. It means the individual lives in a new, more dynamic dimension of reality. He or she begins to display even in this life a “god-like” quality.
You can read for yourself his answer to the inevitable comments about those whose Church attendance doesn’t have this effect – the hypocrites, the judgemental bullies, the predators who hide behind their church position in order to continue to do evil.
In this post, I’d rather focus on what he says about those who are transformed.
…in the saints we do not find what we expected to find.
We thought the saint’s story would be one of exclusive piety, sweet suffering and a sort of rose-scented limp through life. Instead, we find what the church calls “heroic sanctity”—amazing stories of ordinary individuals who achieve extraordinary things because they have become extraordinary people.
The life of the Polish priest Maximillian Kolbe is just one example: a physically sickly man living on one lung because of tuberculosis, in the 1930s he led thousands of young Polish men in a renewed Franciscan order. He started a printing press, a national newspaper with circulation in the millions, and pioneered radio broadcasting to spread the faith. Then he went to Japan as a missionary, learned the language and lived in extreme poverty, enduring persecution and misunderstanding. He built a monastery and started a seminary, wrote and printed a Japanese language paper, established a printing operation and radio station, before being summoned back to his country because of the outbreak of war.
Because of his passive resistance to the Nazi regime, he ended up in Auschwitz where, witnesses say, his wasted body was physically radiant with light. Giving up his own meager rations, he finally also gave up his life—stepping up to take the place of a man with a wife and children who had been sentenced to death. Even in the death cell he radiated a love and goodness beyond imagining—lasting far longer in his slow starvation than anyone thought possible until he was finally dispatched with a lethal injection.
Maximillian Kolbe is just one. Should anyone doubt that this power has been released into the lives of ordinary people, let him read the real stories of more saints, for each one (in a vast variety of people around the world and down through the ages) exhibits this same unimaginable heroism—this same supernatural transformation.
.
“Catholicism is about a supernatural transaction between an individual and God.” declares “Dwight.”
So, no matter what the Gandhi – types of this world do – they can never be really, truly, seriously “good.”
And, as for Toad – forget it!
Sorry Toad, but I can’t see how your 2nd sentence conclusion could possibly follow from your 1st sentence premise ?
Gandhi stayed Hindu because he sadly found that Christians weren’t all that “good”. Pope Paul VI made some very favorable comments on Gandi’s goodness..
St James wrote that a faith without works is a dead faith,and that someone could even show his faith by his works.
The difficultly most of us have with the “let’s all be holy saints like God” theology is that most of us know we are not actually all that holy and are not that much like God. A more practical approach is to see a saint as someone who gets up again after every “fall” and doesn’t give up trying.
I think most of us are capable of heroic virtue given the right circumstances.
God Bless
.
Chris, I took “Dwight” to be asserting that, while non-Catholics, Hindus, everyone else, even Atheists – may DO good, without the supernatural ingredient (Catholicism) they can’t BE good.
He makes the distinction, I believe.
Not really good, that is. Because, without Jesus, we don’t have “abundant life,” whatever that is.
But then if we haven’t got it, and don’t know we haven’t got it, we can’t really miss it, can we?
It says here.
I didn’t take him to be asserting that. I took him to be asserting that doing good is not the same as being good – which it isn’t. I took him to be asserting that – when people say they don’t need to go to church to be good they really mean they don’t need to go to church to do good.
He then talked about the role of God’s grace in transforming us – and yes, he talked about that in the context of the Church.
But he didn’t at all talk about holy men and women of other faiths – either to confirm or deny. I don’t see how he could deny: that God doesn’t check the Church’s list of teachings before He grants His grace to those who seek truth is, in itself, a Catholic teaching.
Gandhi? I’ve no idea whether he was good or not; he certainly did a lot of good.
Catechism 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”
Longenecker’s point is that we can’t be good without God. We need God’s grace to be transformed into the people we are meant to be. The sacraments – offered by the Church – are a channel for that grace.
.
While cleaning out the fridge today (funny smell) Toad had a minor epiphany:
If we are made in the image and likeness of God, why are we all so bleeding ugly and, far more importantly, stupid?
Why would God bother to create a planetful (even a small one) crammed with half-witted rabble?
“If we are made in the image and likeness of God, why are we all so bleeding ugly and, far more importantly, stupid?”
What kind of a being could ask a question like that except one with both a spiritual soul and a fallen nature? How are you able to think of human beings as ugly or stupid? Where does your notion of beauty and intelligence come from, and why should you find anything lacking in what you have evolved alongside of and always known?
.
I called him a Gandhi-type, anticipating JP’s comment. I meant the possibly countless thousands of non-Christian (inc Atheists etc) who, no matter how “good” their lives have been, have somehow failed to be “good.” because as you point out:
“Longenecker’s point is that we can’t be good without God. ”
With which I disagree. Natch.
Toad, you are assuming that God’s grace is available only through His Church. This is not what the Church teaches, and certainly not what Jesus taught.
The sacraments are the certain route, for sure – for those who get out of the way and let God change them. But we can’t limit God’s grace.
I don’t see, to be honest, how that grace operates in the life of someone who doesn’t accept the existence of the divine – but that could just be my limitation, and I don’t insist on it. But I am confident that God sheds and has shed His grace on many holy men and women who – through no fault of their own – know Him by other another name or other names.
I think people can have Jesus in their lives without necessarily knowing that. For example, Rahner’s concept of the anonymous Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian
The 2nd Vatican council taught that such persons do receive God’s grace:
Vatican II taught that such good people do have the Holy Spirit.
God Bless
I don’t see, to be honest, how that grace operates in the life of someone who doesn’t accept the existence of the divine
Well, JP, I think that God is a whole lot bigger than that.
A whole lot bigger.
God Bless
Yes, I acknowledged as much in the rest of the sentence, which you chose not to quote.
The message between the lines here (although it’s easy to read it), is that one cannot be good without god (in whatever way you want to define ‘good’). This is simply nonsense.
KA
Can you prove it’s nonsense ?
How do you know for sure that God isn’t in there behind every act of good in the world ?
God Bless
Chris, The answer, of course, is that I cannot disprove your hypothesis, but the burden of proof is on you dear boy, and I’m sorry, but you haven’t demonstrated that your hypothesis is true
KA
With all due respect, it is nonsense to say that I have to prove the existence of God.
If I was demanding that you believe, then, perhaps, the burden of proof would be on me.
But I’m not. I’m leaving what you believe up to you. I have made a choice between propositions, based on my experience, my feelings, the information I’ve gleaned, and my ruminations on that information. You make your choices as you will.
It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the person demanding evidence.
KA,
One might ponder where goodness, in the sense of human beings choosing to do good, comes from.
The Theist answer is that goodness comes from God, who is perfectly good.
God Bless
But that’s the theist’s answer Chris, it’s not a scientific or rational answer. I would argue that I’m as good as most, but possibly worse than some and I don’t have a god bone in my body. In order to prove your hypothesis you have to prove the existence of your (or any other) god. Thus far you (the theists on here) have been unable to do so
KA
KA,
Down the ages, many mystics have experienced the presence of God in people in a variety of ways. It’s not an uncommon experience.
For example, the halo tradition in Christianity, and in Buddhism, is just one manifestation of that.
Catholics believe in the presence of God in their spouses (the sacrament of marriage), in the priest, in the congregation, and in every human person. And also in animals and in creation.
To those who have seen the presence of God in people for themselves, that’s proof. On the other hand, just because some skeptic thinks he hasn’t seen it, doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist.
God Bless
But Chris, where’s your PROOF? Feelings are NOT proof! Sometimes I FEEL as though I could jump tall buildings, but I KNOW that I can’t.
KA
The problem here is that you take the concept of ‘burden of proof’ from philosophy and law, remove it from the context of a debate where the rules regarding proof have been agreed by the debators, or of a law case where the rules regarding proof have been set in legislation, and speak about it as if the ‘proof’ involved was the same thing as ‘proof’ in scientific experiments.
Even in philosophy, the idea that the burden of proof lies on the asserter is not universally accepted. In fact, in public discourse, the burden of proof can lie equally on both parties.
Otherwise, some of the general debating rules that appear relevant here are:
the side that initiates the debate bears the burden of proof – and stating an opinion on my own site does not constitute initiating a debate (disagreeing with that opinion does, of course).
the current system does not carry the burden of proof
It’s probably important to distinguish between emotional feelings and spiritual or physic feelings. The former is an internal phenomena, the later an experience of an external phenomena. Some people have spiritual intuitions or premonitions which seem to be experiences of external phenomena.
You know it’s not just a feeling when you actually see the presence of God in others with your eyes. Or smell it. Or touch it. Plenty of us have.
God Bless
You mean that we see God in person by seeing their fervour and their activity for God …or what do you mean?
shalom
That is certainly what I mean, Mrs Mac, when I talk about the evidence of the saints. ‘They will know we are Christians by our love.’
Joyfulpapist, that quote has nothing to do with proving whether God exists, only with recognizing Christians.
As I know from my own journey to faith, Elisabeth, recognising Christians may be the first step to at least questionning whether they’re right.
I agree that the joy, goodness, and wholehearted love of the saints not ‘proof’ in the absolute sense. But it is evidence in the broader rhetorical sense – that is, information that requires an explanation.
Well I’ve certainly seen that in you, Mrs Mac, and even more, love.
But there are lots and lots of other ways people see/touch/smell the presence of God.
I know parishioners who have been touched by a priest during the sacrament of anointing and have been healed.
I know parishioners who have seen God himself in the consecrated host.
I know parishioners who have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit when touched by a priest at confirmation.
(And from these one can infer his presence in the priest (or at least through) who anointed or consecrated or confirmed).
A brief perusal of, say, some of the lives of the saints will no doubt uncover plenty more cases.
The ancients Jews believed that God was present in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah
Scripture, and I think the Talmud, records experiences where people had actually seen the Shekhinah. At Pentacost the early Christians did too. One might say these are just literary illusions. Except so many of us have actually seen a luminous presence in the congregation gathered or in other people.
God Bless
Kiwiatheist,
I’m confused. This article presumes faith; it is directed towards those who are already believers. If one believes what Catholics believe about God, the article makes sense. If you want to understand it, you have to approach it from that point of view. Otherwise you are speaking a totally different language and of course it will seem like nonsense. Why would you approach an article like this from an atheistic point of view?
As far as the existence of God, there have been many ‘proofs’ throughout the ages but to even talk about it you would have to establish what you would consider ‘proof’, and even whether you believe in truth or not (some people don’t) and what you mean by God (or as you put it, god).
But belief in God is just the barest beginning of religion. Imagine if, upon meeting or hearing about me, you refused to discuss or acknowledge me in any way until it was adequately proven that I actually exist. For everyone else, who already knows that, it would seem a very tiresome exercise. We already know God exists….because while you can’t experience something that doesn’t exist, you can experience something (or Someone) that does.
.
Elizabeth is right. The article presumes faith and then goes on to extrapolate other “conclusions” from that.
As a result, I think there’s not a whole lot of point in making any comments other than, say, “So, if God does X, then Y.” If you see what I mean.
Matter of opinion, though.
I have no objection to you commenting on posts that hold a different worldview to yours, Toad. I reserve my right to still post them, though. As I’ve said recently to KA, I’m not setting out to convince any of you. I’m setting out to talk about the things that interest me.
That said, I value what you, KA, and others offer. You never let me away with sloppy thinking (and you keep digging when I’m not explaining myself clearly). I appreciate it.
It depends on your values and goals. If someone is trying to understand what another person is saying, it is usually important to try to see it through their eyes; otherwise you are not even taking them seriously. Having done so, I think it is possible to discuss or comment, to question, learn, and even correct. In fact, I strongly believe it is not only possible, but necessary if we are to live together in this complex world.
More than that, I believe that those who seek the truth together, regardless of what direction they initially come from, can eventually find it together, since ‘everything that rises must converge’…
Thank you JP for having set up this site and for managing it so well.
For what it is worth I would like to express my thanks to KA, Toad, Chris and all … when I find myself in disagreement with a comment it makes me formulate my reasons for so doing and thus strengthen my ideas or beliefs…. not that often to comment but in my own mind , so thanks and God Bless again.
Shalom
Thanks, Mrs Mac. I have the same experience. Thank you, all who comment.
.
‘everything that rises must converge’…
Must it? I’d never heard the expression before, so looked it up, It seems to derive from Teilhard de Chardin via Flannery O’Connor.
But what does it mean?
And is it true?
Someone tried to explain it on Google by saying that railway lines, for example, appear to converge.
But, in reality of course, they don’t – so that’s not much use.
The fuller quote, by de Chardin:
‘Remain true to yourself, but move ever upward toward greater consciousness and greater love! At the summit you will find yourselves united with all those who, from every direction, have made the same ascent. For everything that rises must converge.’
What does it mean? I know that neither de Chardin nor Flannery O’Conner meant ‘everything’ to refer to physical laws, as in railway lines. It was the spiritual realities that they were applying it to. It is the ‘everything’ of truth, beauty, and being. That at their highest point, every true thing becomes one truth, every beautiful thing is true, and beauty is one beauty, and everything, beautiful and true, is real. And that those persons who seek and strive to rise towards those transcendent values will come closer together as they move higher.
Do you think it is true? I do.
Nice quote, but doesn’t need to be predicated on a belief in the supernatural for it to be true.
KA
Kiwiatheist, who are you arguing with, and what are you arguing? I didn’t predicate it on a belief in the supernatural. Your statement doesn’t make sense.
K A,
If I were to become totally blind and could no longer see the sunshine ,would that mean that the sun ceased to exist? Of course not.. I could still feel its warmth ( though maybe not on a cold winter day ) I could feel the effects of the sun even if I could not see it with my eyes so I would know that it still existed…. for me it is the same with God…I can not see Him with my eyes either but I can know that He is there by the things that happen in my daily life..
But Mrs Mac, I can get the same feeling without any god
KA
KA,
How can you be sure that what you feel is the same thing that Mrs Mac feels ?
Your reply reminds me of the Gospel according to St John, in which Jesus speaks of spiritual things but his unspiritual audience often reduced his spiritual meaning to a mere physical meaning because they focus on the physical and ignore the spiritual.
Mrs Mac has such a close relationship with God that I’m quite convinced she does know that God is there by the things that happen in her daily life.
God Bless
Or, (and no offence meant here Mrs Mac), she’s so delusional that she hears voices in her head and believes that a higher power is guiding her every move. Only one step away from a suicide bomber, for sake of argument.
KA, why spend your time on an argument about it? What if you proved that Mrs. Mac and every other believer in the history of the world were delusional? Even if you did that, you could not disprove God. The very nature of ‘God’ is to completely transcend human experience, and our Catholic beliefs firmly declare that human beings are basically sinful and unreliable. You can’t discredit Christianity by discrediting Christians, certainly not by that alone.
If such a God does exist, how would or could you come to believe that? What ‘proof’ would be sufficient for you? Would you want God to do some parlor tricks for you, or would you like someone to ‘show’ him to you so that you can see with your eyes or feel with your hands? But if you could see with your eyes and feel with your hands, you would not be seeing and feeling God, since by definition God is without any limit; how could you, who are not without limit, ever see everything? And if you could not see everything, how could you convince yourself that what you see is really God?
So what is it, exactly, that you want others to prove? None of us know anything except what we have learned through the testimony of others or through experience.
K A ,
This old girl gets the feeling that you are not altogether convinced that there isn’t a God … the God that we all believe in and love.. If you really want to stay the atheist you say you are then you had better be careful( don’t know how to do a smiley face on this site) Mrs Mac prays that one day God will help you despite youself..( she also prays for that special grandchild of yours too!)
Shalom
@bamacnz:
Smilies are easy:
1. colon
then
2. Right-hand rounded bracket
I do not claim to hear voices in my head dear K A God lets me go through some situations that I would rather not have had to go through but He helps me through other people , through something that I might read or hear … you would call it coincidence I guess but i gave up believing in coincidsnces some time ago.
Re the suicide bomber… I hope that said bomber makes a good job of me and I go quickly … that is my cowardly stripe talking for the how, when and where of my death is up to God and not me.
shalom
“…these well-meaning Catholics (and of course this applies to a multitude of well-meaning Protestant Christians as well) who think they can “be good without going to church” are really in the same position as the polite atheists who also say they can “be good without God.””
## Father L. is calling the Faithful to institution-worship. The Church bafdly needs to get over itself, and to stop adoring its over-inflated ego. It is not God. What it is very often, is a source of misery for a lot of people.
It’s incapable of realising just how unimportant it really is. No wonder the Vatican is blind to its narcissism.
“You can read for yourself his answer to the inevitable comments about those whose Church attendance doesn’t have this effect – the hypocrites, the judgemental bullies, the predators who hide behind their church position in order to continue to do evil.”
In this post, I’d rather focus on what he says about those who are transformed.
## But what is the use for most of us of something that “takes” only in a favoured minority ? What is the point of being teased & tantalised by lovely illusions about what one *might* be, *if* one were a different person ? Who cares about the Saints, when most of us are never going to be anything like them ? If Christianity works only in a favoured few – what is the point of slogging away if one is not among them ?
“They may go further in their definition of what it means to be good and suggest that this also means “reaching one’s full human potential” or “being self actualized” or “being fully mature and caring and loving.” This too is possible with a certain amount of determination, hard work, good manners, working out at the gym and reading the right self-help books.”
## This is partisan rubbish – because he knows about the need for God’s grace; or if he doesn’t, he should. But to admit that God’s grace can operate outside the Church, & even despite it, would wreck his argument.
There are no favoured minorities. There are people who let God change them, and there are people who resist. We are all called to be saints.
That is not a judgemental statement, or a defeatist one. I fully recognise that I’m a resister; thank God for purgatory, where the issues will be clear and I’ll have a chance to get out of my own way.
Thank you kerberos 🙂
For some unknown reason the colon wont print any darker it is hardly visable to these old eyes of mine.
Am sorry that you feel the way you say you feel about the Church in the other comment…
My smilie : )
.
“This old girl gets the feeling that you are not altogether convinced that there isn’t a God …” Mrs. M tells KA.
Nor should he be. However: “This old* Toad also gets the feeling that he is not altogether convinced that there is a God …” The “he” in this case being both KA and Toad. Open minds. That’s what we need.
(*Toad is older than the rocks amongst which he sits, and has died many more times than the vampire.)
Chris has heard it said that agnostics have more faith than convinced believers because they do not know with certainty. Now, that’s not the Church’s definition of faith, but I think there is some truth to it.
God Bless
Yes, I agree … this old girl tries to keep an open mind and asks god to fill it and the heart that I try to keep open for Him as well .. and ask Him to fill them both with love for Him and everybody that He plans to put into my day each and every day …. I try to live this prayer out but there are times when self pity tries to get in the way ..eg–
Am feeling a bit fragile tonight as I have just come home from visiting my husband in hospital where he was rushed last night… internal bleeding for as yet some unknown reason .. he has lost weight and looks so unlike himself he has been a fit and healthy man until the last few weeks….has done well for eighty ….the empty house is a bit hard to get my silly head around….a prayer or two please ( and maybe a kind thought from you dear Toad and K A
Shalom
We will keep you both in our prayers, Mr & Mrs Mac.
God Bless
You and your loved one will be in my prayers…
.
He shall have prayers from Toad – and a candle at Mass tomorrow, Mrs. B.
Anthony Kenny, another agnostic, also prays. “It’s not irrational to call for help even if you don’t know if there is anyone to hear your cry, or not.” he sez..
Bless you Toad!
I have trouble with Fr. Longenecker’s column from a Christian perspective. He seems to agree that one can do good without being good. But in the Gospels, Jesus says, “Apart from me you can do nothing.” (Parable of the Vine, this Sunday’s Gospel) and in several other places he makes it clear that being good is the fundamental condition for doing good (“for it is out of the fullness of the heart that the mouth speaks”) and that it is only by remaining “in” God that we can be good (“Why do you call me good? Only God is good”).
Longenecker’s points about transformation seem correct to me, but in the case of nonbelievers and those who don’t practice, the situation is more complex. Each human being finds the voice of God in his conscience, and even the strictest moralist concedes that the conscience is subject to formation or lack thereof, though in practice they might be quite condemning of those whose motives and understanding they have no right or ability to judge.
Is a hypocritical ‘believer’ closer to the God of truth than an honest and sincere agnostic? The Catholic faith does not say that, regardless of what impression people may have of it. We know that “he alone reads the hearts of men” and “does not judge by appearances”.
.
He (Dwight) seems to agree that one can do good without being good. says Elizabeth.
I don’t agree with that. If one knowing does good, then one is good, If only for the brief moment it may take to do the action.
Being good is not necessarily a permanent condition.
I suppose you could do good unknowingly, without actually being good, but that would have no value or meaning.
“Each human being finds the voice of God in his conscience,”
No they don’t.
If they did, we’d all be believers. I suppose what Elizabeth means is that if there were no God, none of us would have consciences.
Matter of opinion.
I don’t agree with it either, Toad; that’s why I commented on it. I agree with what you are saying.
The other one: “I suppose what Elizabeth means is that if there were no God, none of us would have consciences.” No, that is not what I mean; you misunderstand. What I was referring to is the Catholic definition of conscience as being the sanctuary within in which one hears the voice of God. I did not mean to say that, by listening to their conscience, everybody finds God, rather, that the conscience is the place within us where God speaks.
It does sometimes happen, among believers, nonbelievers, and adherents of different faiths, that we debate or argue from misunderstanding and not only from differences of opinion.
.
…we debate or argue from misunderstanding and not only from differences of opinion. ..realises Elizabeth.
…as a result.. It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood. …says Karl Popper.
But then, The Great Humpty says, “Words mean exactly what I want them to mean – no more, no less.”
Both are statements with which Toad is utterly in sympathy. So that gets us nowhere.
That Humpty is a fool. I assume he wasn’t married, anyway.
.
Humpty is neither married nor a fool. Bit of an intelleggctual, really.
Anyway, not being married is not necessarily a guarantee of wisdom.
Though one can see how it might be regarded as such.
“The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
‘Would you tell me please,’ said Alice, ‘what that means?’
‘Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ‘I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’
‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’
‘Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
What a great quote.
If Humpty had been married, I mean to say, his philosophy on words would have worn quite thin on the days that there was confusion about things that people need to agree on such as, for instance, whose job it was to change the cat box. Not that the unmarried are exempt from such travails but their state sometimes allows more room for retreat.
I feel in my heart for poor Alice. I suspect that she was not only too puzzled to give an answer but also too polite. A few more years of familiarity with that character would have probably loosened her tongue