Providence

by Daniel Quinn

  So one day I walked into Dr. Zirpoli’s office and said, “Well, I’m going to get married!”

  He was completely flabbergasted. He said, “I thought we agreed at the outset that you wouldn’t make any major life decisions without reviewing them here.”

  It was my turn to be flabbergasted. It hadn’t occurred to me that this was any of his concern. He suddenly ceased to be nondirective and told me in no uncertain terms that any marriage I entered into at this point would end in disaster. He couldn’t have been more right, but I certainly didn’t see any grounds for this dire prediction. In fact, I suspected him of simply wanting to keep me as a patient, which meant keeping me as my father’s little boy.

  However, since I’d created what he considered to be a state of emergency, I agreed to start coming twice a week instead of once. I frankly don’t remember what that accomplished, if anything. You can’t make a crash course out of psychoanalysis. I’m sure he did his best and that he was moved by a genuine concern for me, but I was beyond help at that point. Not beyond it: simply not yet ready to receive it.

  Someone whose self-esteem depends on being perfect is incapable of maintaining a relation of intimacy with anyone for very long. This is because, no matter how hard you try, you’re going to slip up occasionally. In the beginning, before you’ve made any mistakes, you say to yourself, “Wow, Katherine thinks I’m wonderful, perfect, so naturally she loves me. That’s why anybody loves anybody, because they think they’re perfect.” Then one time you slip up and you say to yourself, “Well, there goes a little bit of the gloss. Katherine now knows I’m only ninety-nine percent perfect; obviously her love has to be somewhat diminished, but I’ll make it up to her by being twice as perfect, and she’ll soon forget this small lapse.” But this is just not a policy that’s going to work for years and years. The gloss inevitably wears completely off of anybody, and this is disastrous for someone whose self-worth is bound up with being perfect.

  Someone whose self-esteem depends on being perfect is incapable of maintaining a relation of intimacy with anyone for very long.

  After four years the matter was no longer in doubt: Katherine knew I wasn’t perfect. This wasn’t important to her, mind you, this was important to me. My never-abundant self-confidence was completely gone, and everything else went with it. From the outset I’d been anything but a sexual athlete. I was still terrified of sex, still afraid to give myself over to sexual feelings, still worried that God must surely turn up his nose at such sweaty goings-on. Now, feeling completely worthless, far from being an athlete, I was a pathetic cripple, and this didn’t work at all well for Katherine, who considered herself to be in the Olympic class. Somehow we struggled on, year after year, I vowing to improve, to become bigger and stronger, and instead growing weaker every day.

  A battered wife will invest all her feelings of self-worth in her battering husband. She has totally accepted her husband’s valuation of her, and this is why she stays: She hopes to redeem herself in her husband’s eyes—and therefore in her own. I thought I loved Katherine desperately, but in fact my desperation was only to redeem myself in her eyes—and of course the more desperate I felt, the more pathetic I became.

  When the youngest of our four children was well into toddlerhood, Katherine began to roam. She made no secret of this. She spent long evenings out “driving” and “thinking,” and I absolutely believed that this was what she was doing, because I couldn’t afford to believe anything else. One night I came home from a business trip, and she told me she wanted a divorce. I still didn’t get it, and she finally had to draw me a picture. She didn’t just want to get rid of me, she’d found herself another man—a real man—and they were going to get married as soon as she got her divorce and he got his. She had it all worked out. I could move into another bedroom until it was over or until the house was sold, whichever came first, then—

  Fortunately, I found a sliver of a backbone in my body and said no thanks to that. My bag was there, all packed, so I just went and said good-bye to the kids and walked out.

  Well, this was truly the end of the world for me, and for the first time in my life I didn’t know where to turn. The universe was empty, the future as bleak as a prison sentence. I thought about suicide, and if I hadn’t still believed in heaven and hell (and it’s hell for suicides, of course), I might have done more than think about it.

  I thought I loved Katherine desperately, but in fact my desperation was only to redeem myself in her eyes—and of course the more desperate I felt, the more pathetic I became.

  I don’t think there’s any loneliness greater than the loneliness to be found in a bad marriage. In solitary confinement, everyone knows you’re lonely and feels sorry for you. In a bad marriage loneliness is your darkest secret, one you dare not even share with your spouse. But now the secret was out. Everyone knew—and suddenly I had people to talk to for the first time in many years.

  A young coworker by the name of Michael Carden listened to my tale of woe … and chuckled. A bachelor and something of a lady-killer, this was someone whose experience and carnal wisdom were decades beyond my own. He assured me that it was not the end of the world for me, that in two months or six months I would feel nothing but relief to be out from under the burden of this terrible marriage, and he was quite right.

  Again (and as always) you have to understand that I’m giving you the understanding of these events that I have now. My understanding of them at the time was quite different. What I’d told Michael Carden was that the failure of the marriage was due entirely to my sexual inadequacies, and this is what had made him chuckle. Katherine’s expectations, Michael explained, were romantic nonsense, were the expectations of someone who hadn’t been around much in the world as it is. Wild, passionate lovemaking among the long-married is a fantasy only Hollywood screenwriters believe in. She’d find this out after being married to her “real man” for a couple of years. In other words, according to Michael, Katherine’s unrelenting assault on my feelings of self-worth was much more to blame for the failure of our marriage than my own shortcomings. Naturally I was delighted to adopt this interpretation of the affair.

  Katherine and her new husband moved to St. Louis, taking the children, of course. Within a couple of years she was beginning to manifest some of the less attractive attributes of he-manhood, and she was speaking wistfully of her former husband’s “thoughtfulness” and “sensitivity.” The marriage struggled on for a few years, then ended in a noisy, rancorous divorce.

  ———

  Thanks largely to sympathetic advisors like Michael, I began to come back to life. This was not an unmixed blessing, however, because the better I felt, the more painful my situation became. You see, according to the Church and my own belief, I was married to Katherine till death did us part, civil divorce notwithstanding. I was therefore condemned to a lifetime of chastity, and what was the good of having a new life if I could never share it with anyone in a relationship of real intimacy? Being a deadly serious Catholic, this was a deadly serious problem for me. Not a problem, really, because problems are things that have solutions, and this did not. I was just completely stuck.

  Luckily, I talked about it to a coworker who was a Catholic, not looking for advice or ideas—I knew there weren’t any—but simply bemoaning my fate. She suggested I talk to her brother, who was a priest. I couldn’t imagine what good that would do, but I was desperate enough to try anything.

  I believe he was a diocesan priest or a member of some order on loan to the diocese. I have a terrible memory for details like this. All I know is that he wasn’t just an ordinary parish priest; for one thing, he’d had essays published in Commonweal, probably the country’s leading journal of Roman Catholic thought. He was unusual in person as well; he lacked the patronizing attitude that laymen learn to expect from members of the clergy—he didn’t try to pretend that there was no question on earth too tough for him to answer. We talked for awhile, and he listened to me explain the hopelessne
ss of my situation. I think my plight made him uneasy—or rather, his reaction to my plight made him uneasy. He knew that if he told me what he truly thought, I’d be scandalized. (There’s a word you don’t hear much anymore.) Finally he spoke a few simple words that were to change the direction of my life once again. He said, “I find that the longer I live, the more I worry about people and the less I worry about rules.”

  I doubt if you can imagine the impact these words had on me. This was practically a sacrilege, and of course doubly astounding coming from a priest. Not worry about rules? My God, if you don’t worry about rules what do you worry about—if you’re a Roman Catholic? The conversation was at an end. Nothing needed to be added to this bombshell. I staggered out of there in a state of shock.

  The Church is a magnificent edifice, a structure composed of flawless, crystalline logic. It’s like an enormous, perfect argument, unshakable and unassailable, and indeed inescapable—provided that you accept its premises. But its very perfection constitutes a weakness. You see, in a perfect argument there is no redundancy; every brick in the structure is necessary to the stability of the whole. This means that, if you pull a single brick out of that perfect structure, the whole thing collapses. This is why the Church has been so apparently stupid about refusing to moderate its stand on birth control. To someone on the inside, it’s not at all stupid. The Church will only stand so long as every brick remains in place, and it’s madness to think the pope himself is going to start pulling out bricks in order to placate the laity. The Church can go on perfectly well without the laity but will cease to exist if it compromises its own dogma. As far as the hierarchy is concerned, rewriting dogma to win popularity is cutting off your head to get rid of a headache: The ailment is temporary and endurable but the cure is permanent and lethal.…

  No, that isn’t quite what I mean. It isn’t just that the Church “stands for something.” It’s more than that.

  This is worth spending a little time on. In Ishmael I articulated a living mythology that is so integral to our culture that it’s never examined or even noticed by anyone. It’s like the sound of blood rushing through your veins—you hear it so constantly that you don’t hear it at all. A similarly unarticulated mythology has driven the Church from the beginning. The Church’s mythological vision of itself and of its function in the world was so well-known and so unquestionably accepted (through the first fifteen hundred years of its existence) that it didn’t need to be articulated—didn’t need to be explained or pointed out to anyone.

  Finally he spoke a few simple words that were once again to change the direction of my life. He said, “I find that the longer I live, the more I worry about people and the less I worry about rules.”

  Here is how it came to be understood: God has made two covenants with man during man’s lifetime. The first he made with the Jews, and the results were decidedly unsatisfactory. As a Chosen People, the Jews were a washout. They flouted the laws he gave them, they much preferred to worship their neighbors’ gods, they scorned the prophets he sent them, and generally ignored the whole thing. Nevertheless, though they didn’t keep up their end of the bargain, God kept up his: He sent them the messiah he’d promised, and the only thing they could think to do with him was to have him put to death. (Once again, you understand that I’m not expressing my own views here but rather the Church’s.)

  The New Covenant was designed to avoid the errors of the Old. The Old Covenant was based on the notion that God could deal with a few selected individuals who would transmit his directives to the Jews at large, and the Jews in turn would pass these directives on to their children. It made perfect sense in theory but didn’t work out well in practice. Let me give you an example. The event God wanted the Hebrews to remember most conscientiously was their liberation from Egypt, which occurred in about 1210 B.C. This event, which was to be commemorated as Passover, exemplified in a definitive way the kind of care and attention they could expect from God if they would be faithful to him. But once they were finally allowed to enter the Holy Land after forty years of wandering in the desert, the first thing they did was abandon the celebration of Passover. Not a single Passover was held under all the judges and kings of Israel until the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah, just a few years before the Babylonian exile began. During all that time—six hundred years!—the Israelites worshiped not the God who had led them from Egypt but rather the gods and goddesses of the Sidonians and the Amorites and the Moabites and the Philistines and the Babylonians. During most of this time, if you’d asked them about the God of Israel, they wouldn’t even have known what God you were talking about. This is literally true. Their gods were Baal and Ashtaroth and Dagon and Azazel and Milcom and Asima and Succoth Benoth and Anamelech and Nergal and Kemosh and Moloch. And if you’d asked them to point out a priest, it would have been one who burnt offerings to Baal or who tended one of the hill shrines.…

  Oh, yes, the temple was set up in Jerusalem. No doubt about that. And inside that temple you’d have found altars dedicated to all those gods and goddesses—except for Moloch; he was set up in the valley of the sons of Hinnom. And attached to the temple you’d have found quarters for the temple prostitutes—male prostitutes.

  The New Covenant was designed to avoid the errors of the Old, which had proved to be a flop.

  The Mosaic teachings had been abandoned from the outset—abandoned and then lost. It was Josiah who rediscovered them around 610 B.C., and Judaism as we know it began with this event—not with Abraham, not with the Exodus, not with the Israelites’ entry into the land of Canaan.

  So you can see why I say that this system had proved to be a flop. There’d been a monumental lapse in continuity, and the New Covenant would be structured so as to assure continuity. Under the New Covenant, religion would no longer be a family affair or an ethnic affair, it would be a corporate affair, an institutional affair. There was going to be something wholly new in the history of the world, something never even heard of before: a church. Jesus said to Simon, son of Jonah, “I’m going to give you a new name. I’m going to call you rock—peter—and on this rock I’m going to build a strange new thing called a church.” Then he added this: “And the power of death shall never conquer it.” This was very significant, of course. The Old Covenant had depended for its continuity on individuals, and this is how the power of death conquered it. Abraham died, Moses died, David died, Isaiah died, Jeremiah died—and God’s contact with the Jews through them was therefore ineffectual. Under the New Covenant, death would no longer have the power to interrupt the continuity of God’s contact with mankind. This thing called a church would not be built on prophets or families or peoples. It would be built on a rock, on a foundation that would hold things together. Here is how it would hold things together: To Peter Jesus next said, “I’m going to give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven itself. What you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” Obviously the keys weren’t meant to be buried with Peter when he died; there’d be no continuity in that. The keys were meant to be passed along to Peter’s successor, who would pass them along to his. Otherwise there’d be no rock, and the church would pass away after a single generation.

  This can’t be stressed too strongly: The rock on which Jesus founded his church was not a text, it was a deputy, a stand-in for Christ himself, who would speak for Christ and wield a power that had never existed on earth before. It was a whole new concept, a whole new dispensation. In the old dispensation, God would pick out someone and say, “Tell everyone that this is what is permitted and this is what is forbidden.” Never again would it be done this way. In the new dispensation, his permanently established deputy—one of us, a human living right in our midst—was going to decide what’s permitted and what’s forbidden, and we had the word of Christ that his deputy’s decisions would be ratified in heaven!

  The New Covenant put mankind and God in an entirely new relation. In the old dispensation, G
od tried to do everything himself, and his chosen people weren’t expected to participate in a very active way—and they didn’t. Under the Old Covenant, people were clearly put too much on their own, given too much leeway. The church of the new dispensation was going to change all that. This was going to be an organization. People weren’t going to be put on their own, they were going to be watched over and guarded like a flock of sheep. And they were going to be given extraordinary new means of participation in their own salvation. Entirely new institutions called sacraments opened channels to divine grace that had never been available before. The human race and God—earth and heaven—were to be joined in a new mystical intimacy: Holy Mother Church was the bride of Christ, forever yearning to be united with him.

  Under the Old Covenant, people were put too much on their own, given too much leeway. The church of the new dispensation was going to change all that.

  The Church (and now we begin again to speak of the Church with a capital C) didn’t see itself as merely the trustee and conservator of a revelation that had occurred and ended in the past. The conversation between Christ and his bride would continue to the end of time, and this is why no great emphasis was ever placed on reading the bible. Your source of revealed truth wasn’t an ancient text to which not a single word could ever be added, it was the living Church. If you wanted to know what was what, you didn’t reach for your bible, you asked your priest, and if your priest didn’t know, he’d ask the bishop, and if the bishop didn’t know, he’d ask the cardinal, and if the cardinal didn’t know, he’d ask the pope. The Vicar of Christ, speaking ex cathedra—from the chair of St. Peter—spoke with precisely the same authority as the apostle, and what he bound on earth was bound in heaven and what he loosed on earth was loosed in heaven.