In recent years, I have had the good fortune to become acquainted with the writings of James Alison, whom I consider to be one of the most outstanding living theologians. I'm without the energy, at the moment, to discuss his work on 'original sin through Easter eyes' or his development of the mimetic theories of Rene Girard. Yet, in a nutshell, two ideas which James sets forth I find rather unbearably true (and this because it is difficult for us to admit that the commandments' ending with an exhortation against covetousness is a structure leading to the biggest of spiritual problems, not an afterthought after all the juicy sins were taken.) He sets forth how much of human desire (in this context, not the enjoyment of the goods of creation, but envy,frustration, and rage) is built on coveting what others have which we see as lacking in our own lives. He also presents a superb image of how Jesus eliminated the old, pagan religions, based on scapegoats and placating, by becoming a scapegoat himself.
I can see, in my own life, where much jealousy is based not on the 'whole picture' of what another seems to possess, but on the pain of seeing a lack in one's own life. Perhaps the married envy the supposed freedom of the unmarried, or the single the companionship of marriage - and this though the former cherish their spouses and the latter are glad to be without the responsibilities.
My readers know of my love for 1960s rock music, and how I sometimes find it a convenient manner in which to express emotion. (Yes, I normally preferred the opera - but there are days when the Beatles seemed to capture my own era far better.) I'm probably the last person on the planet who remembers an obscure Simon and Garfunkel song, "Richard Cory." It goes on about Richard's wealth, power, style, and so forth - and ends with the surprise that he 'put a bullet through his head.' Well, I suppose we all know, from the tabloids if nowhere else, that wealth and power are not guarantees of happiness or even sanity. Yet, when my own poverty was paining me most, I would sing out with the refrain, "I work in his factory. And I curse the life I'm living, and I curse my poverty, and I wish that I could be Richard Cory."
(Franciscans are not supposed to admit that they ever curse their poverty, but you heard it hear first.)
Oddly enough, when I did come to know some people who were relatively wealthy, there were many aspects of their lives which I did not desire in the least. As material goods go, I'm basically contented with a certain frugal comfort (who else do you know who used her small inheritance to buy a wheel of Stilton?) Nor do I have the slightest desire for the endless working hours of some wealthy people - who hardly get to enjoy what they do have. And I like 'social' contact to mean 'friends' - not obligations or networking. The envy was far more subtle. I had the good fortune to have an education, and pine for the days when I was an operatic singer, a gifted writer and researcher, one who could go on in four modern languages, etc., etc.. What made me jealous was that, coming from a working class family, I ended up forced by necessity into jobs which I not only hated but were such a strain as to harm my health. (I shall note that there undoubtedly are women out there who would envy anyone who had been a department head.) I was bitter that I did not have the freedom to pursue the areas that I loved - that being chained to that desk all those years not only kept me from using my genuine gifts but left me so emotionally spent that I was too worn out to pursue them in the evenings.
I envied the rich their choices. Yet I wonder if too many of them really have the options - or use them if they do. I was only looking to have enough to 'get by,' and to use my talents in a limited fashion, fulfilling and enriching to those I knew but no road to fame or fortune. Perhaps a wealthy woman whose gifts were for the arts and humanities might have been forced into a business career, just as I was, because it has a higher price tag. In fact, it may have been worse, because she may have felt a need to never be contented but always seek further wealth and prestige.
Please excuse me if I sound self absorbed. I'm using an example from my own life merely because it is that life which I know best. :)
Envy does poison us. We may be unaware of this, but, when jealousy has us in its grasp, we can see our interaction with others as if it were a competition. Many of these 'contests' are really stupid, as we would realise if we stopped to glance at the essence. Yet they are highly painful. When others envy anything they believe we have, they will need to find some form of attack. Our own envy leaves us blind to our own treasures.
The spiritual life is neither a matter of achievement nor a contest of any sort! Am I alone in seeing it as if it were at times? (Rhetorical question, of course. Anyone who has ever lived in a convent saw the 'contests' for who was the holiest, most abstemious, most likely to wear knickers that had big holes in them to prove the commitment to poverty, first to be up to say good morning to Jesus when others languished in bed till only an hour before dawn...)
I personally think that, where recognising a sin, honestly faced and leading to repentance, can be helpful even if we feel humiliated, the jealousy we do not see is destructive. (Before this seems self righteous, it is a problem with which I've always had to deal.) I know, in my own life, that much of the jealousy comes from my own pain and frustration. I can live with my past sins - because I am in awe of the Good Shepherd who led me from them, and drew me to repentance when I did not even see the importance of this as yet. (Come now - did you really think that those who have no major problems with chastity never had to face a need for major conversion? The sins I had to face were harder to recognise and far less fun.) What is hard for me to face, in middle age, is that I, who had promise in my young adult years, would have no hope of being remembered for anything other than being... well, she worked in an office, didn't she?
Here, we Christians are called to a Eucharistic life - a 'sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.' Envy, frustration, and the like not only cause problems with our relationships with others. They keep us from the altar of sacrifice (not, as James Alison well states, the old pagan placating and violence - but that Eucharistic emphasis I just mentioned).
Saturday, 26 May 2007
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Back in those Myers Briggs days...
Note to my readers: The link to the Myers Briggs information, which I provided in the heading, is not an endorsement. I merely added the link in case anyone was not familiar with the concept.
When I was seeking entrance to the convent, during the 1970s, and attending endless 'workshops' and the like then and during my convent time, in certain circles one would think the Myers Briggs tests provided insight of a level normally achieved only at Mount Sinai or in a confrontation with the Risen Christ. Younger readers should be aware that, though all of us were as 'relevant' as it gets in those days, it was an era which preceded the current culture of the self help aisle. Educated people (and nuns were in that category) all had some exposure to Freud and Jung (I have no fondness for psychology, but overall it is an area with which some familiarity was necessary). Though I personally think Jung was a Gnostic, the books I have from the 1950s, when priests and religious somehow thought the miserable, atheistic Freud was something of a god, make Jung's insights seem close to refreshing. At least a cross, room, or tale of martyrdom on Saint Catherine's wheel could be seen as something other than a symbol for sexual organs.
As I've said in the past, one problem today with speaking of that era is that many common ideas, to which one was exposed in talks with religious, articles in little known magazines, books written by resigned priests, and 'enlightened' presentations at gatherings where major superiors preached on the religious life as obsolete (and somehow opposed to the 'universal call to holiness,' an idea which caused controversies from the earliest Christian centuries but was widely believed to have been hatched afresh c. 1971), can only be either memories or anecdotal. The documents, such as existed, were not 'official' and are long gone. "Official documents" never treated of much of what was on people's minds. I doubt anyone would find links to such missives as were common then - they'd seem so dated as to be quaint.
One major change, not only in religious life but especially affecting those in such communicites, actually had a very positive element. I may laugh at the unwise extremes to which my generation went in being 'open,' but it was an improvement over 'polite conversation' and excessive formality such as we witnessed in childhood, where people could talk all afternoon and say nothing about themselves. Religious were taught a certain reserve, and this had a valuable element, but it could be taken to extremes. The silence, refraining from speaking of oneself even in the most 'normal' situations (for example, one could not comment on a book because it meant one had read it), 'custody of the senses' (fine in church, but outside easily confused for everything from shyness to arrogance to flirting), and the rule that one never complained (even if one's appendix burst in the classroom) even to one's Sisters, made for great artificiality. I know this was not universal, but can say that, in the community in which I lived, though were were not terribly strict about silence it meant little, because we could not say anything that had any substance or revealed anything about oneself.
All of a sudden, the trend was to share one's personal feelings, failings, unhappiness, and so forth indiscriminately, supposedly to build a bridge rather than a wall between oneself and others. Going from silence to such a stance was a problem, the more because those who previously were not to speak of themselves at all had no way to have learnt moderation and prudence. (...of course, at this age I can see that moderation and prudence are hardly surplus commodities... just login to any Internet group for examples.) As well, religious congregations tended to be focussed entirely on the needs and 'ways' of the community. Individual traits, ideas, even talents (unless the community had dire need of that last), were unimportant. In fact, it was not unusual (and certainly was true in the noviceship I witnessed) for candidates to be stripped of any sense of personal worth and self confidence. (One could not even wash lettuce leaves without being told one did it all wrong.) I saw a strong tendency to seek to reduce adult candidates to the level of small children, as if this would cause 'trust' (ahem!) and dependence and therefore foster obedience.
This long prelude leads me to the Myers Briggs trend. Such tests were common in religious communities and inter-community gatherings. I well remember one gathering I attended where everyone wore a name tag, with one's MBTI profile (mine is INFP, BTW) under one's name.
I shall admit that I found review of the profiling interesting in one sense. Though each of us is very different from one another, I had not realised that a huge percentage of people prefer ways that I find oppressive and stifling. For example, far more people are of a personality type which likes rigid, imposed structure. The 'introverts' such as myself, whose source of energy is ideas, are forever misunderstood by the 'extroverts' (source of energy in social interaction), who think we could be as wonderful as they are if we only put our minds to it.
Before proceeding, I'll add that one major problem with MBTI was that the terms used in the profiling have a totally different meaning than they do in the vernacular. Introverts are not shy - judgers are not judgemental.
It had always irritated me when I saw intelligent people convinced that they could accomplish nothing unless they had to be constantly accountable to some authority (or, more so, a group.) I saw this as either a capitalist gimmick (manufactured need to place money in the authority's pocket) or a way of controlling. When I saw how many people, especially those in fields such as education, actually needed that 'group motivation,' it at least led to some understanding.
But the 'down side' was that classifications such as this could lead to people's being 'boxed.' As well, even if INFPs are only 1% of the population, we do exist - the majority does not rule. It is not that the majority being of other classifications means we need to be fixed.
Personality testing and the like did grow much out of hand, but it is somewhat understandable. When one was taught that one's personality had to be wiped out for one to be open to Christ, it could give a weird impression that who were are as individuals is not valuable in the divine scheme.
Enough for today... but, overall and not only in relation to MBTI, I would caution others to never assume that statistics prove anything in human relations. That 85% of people thought this or that does not mean that the other 15% are less valuable or need to be changed.
When I was seeking entrance to the convent, during the 1970s, and attending endless 'workshops' and the like then and during my convent time, in certain circles one would think the Myers Briggs tests provided insight of a level normally achieved only at Mount Sinai or in a confrontation with the Risen Christ. Younger readers should be aware that, though all of us were as 'relevant' as it gets in those days, it was an era which preceded the current culture of the self help aisle. Educated people (and nuns were in that category) all had some exposure to Freud and Jung (I have no fondness for psychology, but overall it is an area with which some familiarity was necessary). Though I personally think Jung was a Gnostic, the books I have from the 1950s, when priests and religious somehow thought the miserable, atheistic Freud was something of a god, make Jung's insights seem close to refreshing. At least a cross, room, or tale of martyrdom on Saint Catherine's wheel could be seen as something other than a symbol for sexual organs.
As I've said in the past, one problem today with speaking of that era is that many common ideas, to which one was exposed in talks with religious, articles in little known magazines, books written by resigned priests, and 'enlightened' presentations at gatherings where major superiors preached on the religious life as obsolete (and somehow opposed to the 'universal call to holiness,' an idea which caused controversies from the earliest Christian centuries but was widely believed to have been hatched afresh c. 1971), can only be either memories or anecdotal. The documents, such as existed, were not 'official' and are long gone. "Official documents" never treated of much of what was on people's minds. I doubt anyone would find links to such missives as were common then - they'd seem so dated as to be quaint.
One major change, not only in religious life but especially affecting those in such communicites, actually had a very positive element. I may laugh at the unwise extremes to which my generation went in being 'open,' but it was an improvement over 'polite conversation' and excessive formality such as we witnessed in childhood, where people could talk all afternoon and say nothing about themselves. Religious were taught a certain reserve, and this had a valuable element, but it could be taken to extremes. The silence, refraining from speaking of oneself even in the most 'normal' situations (for example, one could not comment on a book because it meant one had read it), 'custody of the senses' (fine in church, but outside easily confused for everything from shyness to arrogance to flirting), and the rule that one never complained (even if one's appendix burst in the classroom) even to one's Sisters, made for great artificiality. I know this was not universal, but can say that, in the community in which I lived, though were were not terribly strict about silence it meant little, because we could not say anything that had any substance or revealed anything about oneself.
All of a sudden, the trend was to share one's personal feelings, failings, unhappiness, and so forth indiscriminately, supposedly to build a bridge rather than a wall between oneself and others. Going from silence to such a stance was a problem, the more because those who previously were not to speak of themselves at all had no way to have learnt moderation and prudence. (...of course, at this age I can see that moderation and prudence are hardly surplus commodities... just login to any Internet group for examples.) As well, religious congregations tended to be focussed entirely on the needs and 'ways' of the community. Individual traits, ideas, even talents (unless the community had dire need of that last), were unimportant. In fact, it was not unusual (and certainly was true in the noviceship I witnessed) for candidates to be stripped of any sense of personal worth and self confidence. (One could not even wash lettuce leaves without being told one did it all wrong.) I saw a strong tendency to seek to reduce adult candidates to the level of small children, as if this would cause 'trust' (ahem!) and dependence and therefore foster obedience.
This long prelude leads me to the Myers Briggs trend. Such tests were common in religious communities and inter-community gatherings. I well remember one gathering I attended where everyone wore a name tag, with one's MBTI profile (mine is INFP, BTW) under one's name.
I shall admit that I found review of the profiling interesting in one sense. Though each of us is very different from one another, I had not realised that a huge percentage of people prefer ways that I find oppressive and stifling. For example, far more people are of a personality type which likes rigid, imposed structure. The 'introverts' such as myself, whose source of energy is ideas, are forever misunderstood by the 'extroverts' (source of energy in social interaction), who think we could be as wonderful as they are if we only put our minds to it.
Before proceeding, I'll add that one major problem with MBTI was that the terms used in the profiling have a totally different meaning than they do in the vernacular. Introverts are not shy - judgers are not judgemental.
It had always irritated me when I saw intelligent people convinced that they could accomplish nothing unless they had to be constantly accountable to some authority (or, more so, a group.) I saw this as either a capitalist gimmick (manufactured need to place money in the authority's pocket) or a way of controlling. When I saw how many people, especially those in fields such as education, actually needed that 'group motivation,' it at least led to some understanding.
But the 'down side' was that classifications such as this could lead to people's being 'boxed.' As well, even if INFPs are only 1% of the population, we do exist - the majority does not rule. It is not that the majority being of other classifications means we need to be fixed.
Personality testing and the like did grow much out of hand, but it is somewhat understandable. When one was taught that one's personality had to be wiped out for one to be open to Christ, it could give a weird impression that who were are as individuals is not valuable in the divine scheme.
Enough for today... but, overall and not only in relation to MBTI, I would caution others to never assume that statistics prove anything in human relations. That 85% of people thought this or that does not mean that the other 15% are less valuable or need to be changed.
Thursday, 17 May 2007
A fantastic fool exits this world
I was just visiting a theology forum on which I participate, and a discussion was in progress about the death of Jerry Falwell. It will come as no shock to my readers that Falwell was not anyone whose career or 'doctrine' I would find enlightening, though what I have seen of his 'teachings' is a plethora of intolerance, rash judgment, superiority, and, frankly, nonsense. What I find incredible is that he apparently touched something in the hearts of others who, rather than being appalled, saw Falwell as some sort of moral leader.
Why, you may ask, would I even dignify this man with an entry on this blog? It is merely because, with his being in the news this week, I am recalling a statement he made, in late 2001, which would have filled me with ire... if it came from one with more intelligence and logic. Falwell's reasoning was, at best, on a par with Neanderthal man, or perhaps Lucy. But he suited his bizarre logic to the 'spirit of the moment,' in the wake of Osama Bin Laden's attacks on New York and Washington DC.
As a prelude, I shall mention that much of what greeted the '9-11' attacks, insofar as religious comments are concerned, was not particularly logical in the first place. I must make it clear that I am in no way minimising the horror and devastation of the attacks, nor that they were a horrible tragedy. I was in New York on 11 September 2001, and shall never forget the sight. But, in the aftermath, I recall a New York television programme which consisted of interviews with prominent, intelligent clergy and other religious figures. I was puzzled by how some of them spoke of their faith being shaken, as if they could not comprehend how God could allow this to happen.
Allow this to happen? Sadly, mankind has a distressing record for cruelty, destruction, horrid acts of war, etc., etc., since the exit from Eden. I would imagine, for example, that the clergy who were interviewed have heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to mention two examples of thousands which come to mind if one has the slightest sense of history.
It would be unjust to compare these distinguished religious figures with the likes of Jerry Falwell, but that Falwell's nonsense could have any appeal at all, to anyone, undoubtedly came from others' wondering 'how could God let this happen?' I suppose that, when devastation is at one's own doorstep, the pressing immediacy of it all makes some wonder.
It is at that point that even the vaguest sense of Falwell's argument parts company with any logic of which I am aware. His premise seemed to be (1) North America had previously had a divine 'veil of protection,' which prevented previous attacks on its soil. (To my knowledge, both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans remain intact - that these protected the continent from, for example, bombing in the previous wars is most fortunate but hardly indication of a superior society of some kind.) (2) God had lifted this 'veil of protection' because of homosexuality and abortion.
Thinking one's own land superior (in God's sight) certainly has precedent in history - but it is all the more bizarre in Falwell's case, because, pompous and smug though such an idea is in any case, in the past it had a flavour of 'church and state acting as one,' where Falwell is in a land where sectarian protestant denominations number in the thousands, yet the 'separation of church and state' seems to be regarded as a fifth gospel, and undoubtedly one superior to the other four. There is, as well, certainly a history of homosexual acts and abortion as being considered particularly heinous sins (...the atomic bomb is a far newer invention) - though even the strongest adherents of "God rewards the good and punishes the wicked" would have seen this as applying only to those who committed or were directly involved in a particular sin, not everyone who happens to hold the same passport. Even if, for the sake of argument, since Falwell clearly thought this to be the case, one thought that homosexual acts and abortion were abominations, homosexuality and abortion are as old as the human race. Granted that abortion's being legal is a recent development, I would be hard put to think of where, throughout the western world at least, it is not legal today - or, God help us, even mandatory in some cases.
Falwell's thinking he'd named the worst of sins did not seem aimed at reaching out to others in Christian love, or of concern for their repentance. (Note that I am still 'ravelling the thread' of his thinking this was the most critical matter, and the sins such as to cry out to heaven for vengeance, so much so that God would see to it that Osama whacked two major US cities to punish those who 'allow' what has been part of humanity's practise since Paradise.) It was a calling to those who equally find themselves to be superior, to crush and hate those who do not share his 'morality.'
I do not believe in abortion, but Falwell's noble nation, where health care costs, a lack of benefits for those who are not wealthy, and so forth could indeed drive women to have abortions who would not do so were they less than desperate. I can understand, since genuine research into human sexuality is extremely recent, that, in times when it was believed that everyone was 'straight,' and that homosexual activity was an aberration forced on the young by devious elders, it could be seen as heinous. Today, when it is understood that homosexual orientation (a concept which is only a century old - and a situation thought to indicate mental illness until only 40 years ago) is a part of someone's psycho-sexual development, why would someone's seeking love and integration in such circumstances be considered wicked?
More and more, I can see where Francis of Assisi had the right idea. Even if one does see sinfulness (though Francis was far more concerned with his own weakness than that of others - would the day come that this were common!), one does better to preach the contrary virtue than to condemn those whom one finds to be lacking in the same. To begin such a war as Falwell would (...don't get me started on the war begun by his friend Dubya) is a ticket to superiority, pride, and hatred, where one can be blinded to one's own sins because at least they aren't those sins.
But the Falwell argument did not leave me aching to hear only Christian preaching... I also was wondering, in the face of such 'logic,' "Plato and Aristotle, where are you?"
Why, you may ask, would I even dignify this man with an entry on this blog? It is merely because, with his being in the news this week, I am recalling a statement he made, in late 2001, which would have filled me with ire... if it came from one with more intelligence and logic. Falwell's reasoning was, at best, on a par with Neanderthal man, or perhaps Lucy. But he suited his bizarre logic to the 'spirit of the moment,' in the wake of Osama Bin Laden's attacks on New York and Washington DC.
As a prelude, I shall mention that much of what greeted the '9-11' attacks, insofar as religious comments are concerned, was not particularly logical in the first place. I must make it clear that I am in no way minimising the horror and devastation of the attacks, nor that they were a horrible tragedy. I was in New York on 11 September 2001, and shall never forget the sight. But, in the aftermath, I recall a New York television programme which consisted of interviews with prominent, intelligent clergy and other religious figures. I was puzzled by how some of them spoke of their faith being shaken, as if they could not comprehend how God could allow this to happen.
Allow this to happen? Sadly, mankind has a distressing record for cruelty, destruction, horrid acts of war, etc., etc., since the exit from Eden. I would imagine, for example, that the clergy who were interviewed have heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to mention two examples of thousands which come to mind if one has the slightest sense of history.
It would be unjust to compare these distinguished religious figures with the likes of Jerry Falwell, but that Falwell's nonsense could have any appeal at all, to anyone, undoubtedly came from others' wondering 'how could God let this happen?' I suppose that, when devastation is at one's own doorstep, the pressing immediacy of it all makes some wonder.
It is at that point that even the vaguest sense of Falwell's argument parts company with any logic of which I am aware. His premise seemed to be (1) North America had previously had a divine 'veil of protection,' which prevented previous attacks on its soil. (To my knowledge, both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans remain intact - that these protected the continent from, for example, bombing in the previous wars is most fortunate but hardly indication of a superior society of some kind.) (2) God had lifted this 'veil of protection' because of homosexuality and abortion.
Thinking one's own land superior (in God's sight) certainly has precedent in history - but it is all the more bizarre in Falwell's case, because, pompous and smug though such an idea is in any case, in the past it had a flavour of 'church and state acting as one,' where Falwell is in a land where sectarian protestant denominations number in the thousands, yet the 'separation of church and state' seems to be regarded as a fifth gospel, and undoubtedly one superior to the other four. There is, as well, certainly a history of homosexual acts and abortion as being considered particularly heinous sins (...the atomic bomb is a far newer invention) - though even the strongest adherents of "God rewards the good and punishes the wicked" would have seen this as applying only to those who committed or were directly involved in a particular sin, not everyone who happens to hold the same passport. Even if, for the sake of argument, since Falwell clearly thought this to be the case, one thought that homosexual acts and abortion were abominations, homosexuality and abortion are as old as the human race. Granted that abortion's being legal is a recent development, I would be hard put to think of where, throughout the western world at least, it is not legal today - or, God help us, even mandatory in some cases.
Falwell's thinking he'd named the worst of sins did not seem aimed at reaching out to others in Christian love, or of concern for their repentance. (Note that I am still 'ravelling the thread' of his thinking this was the most critical matter, and the sins such as to cry out to heaven for vengeance, so much so that God would see to it that Osama whacked two major US cities to punish those who 'allow' what has been part of humanity's practise since Paradise.) It was a calling to those who equally find themselves to be superior, to crush and hate those who do not share his 'morality.'
I do not believe in abortion, but Falwell's noble nation, where health care costs, a lack of benefits for those who are not wealthy, and so forth could indeed drive women to have abortions who would not do so were they less than desperate. I can understand, since genuine research into human sexuality is extremely recent, that, in times when it was believed that everyone was 'straight,' and that homosexual activity was an aberration forced on the young by devious elders, it could be seen as heinous. Today, when it is understood that homosexual orientation (a concept which is only a century old - and a situation thought to indicate mental illness until only 40 years ago) is a part of someone's psycho-sexual development, why would someone's seeking love and integration in such circumstances be considered wicked?
More and more, I can see where Francis of Assisi had the right idea. Even if one does see sinfulness (though Francis was far more concerned with his own weakness than that of others - would the day come that this were common!), one does better to preach the contrary virtue than to condemn those whom one finds to be lacking in the same. To begin such a war as Falwell would (...don't get me started on the war begun by his friend Dubya) is a ticket to superiority, pride, and hatred, where one can be blinded to one's own sins because at least they aren't those sins.
But the Falwell argument did not leave me aching to hear only Christian preaching... I also was wondering, in the face of such 'logic,' "Plato and Aristotle, where are you?"
Monday, 14 May 2007
Very quick note to my readers
Our team member Father Gregory's blog, though it always is interesting, is a rare treat at the moment. Those of you who love the planets, as I do, will undoubtedly be fascinated by the last few entries. The Humpty Dumpty article is brilliant as well. You may click the link in this entry title, or access Fr Gregory's profile from the side panel as usual.
Dilemmas for eternity
The jokes about how the scholastic theologians debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin would seem to me to be quite dated (... about seven centuries dated), but indeed they do endure. Actually, I have yet to find that exact debate, though there were many debates about angels, including speculation about whether they defecate (needless to say, I am not interested in the conclusion, and cannot recall the consensus.) It's usually Thomas Aquinas who is cited, but the rare Franciscan who embraced scholasticism tended to be worse yet - John Duns Scotus could leave one reading the same passage twenty times and wondering where to find the point. One cannot list on exam papers, of course, that those such as Thomas and Duns Scotus (or such neo-Thomists as Karl Rahner, who was brilliant and totally confusing in his language as well) were so deeply 'into' prayer (therefore aware that it was all straw in the end) that they were contented with God's being essentially unknowable. I believe that those who have caught one of the deeper glimpses of divine glory would recognise the limitations of our vision and expression.
I've been studying Philosophy of Religion in depth. I believe that embarking on these fascinating and stormy seas (...longing for sight of a man who walked on water) is what reduced me to such confusion that I actually had my cat write the last blog entry. Very recently, I have been pursuing the chapter about Eternal Life. So far, I have three conclusions. (1) Scientific advances, and the natural outgrowth of having to refer to physics, relativity, atoms and the like tend to make the old questions about angels and whether mice sacramentally communicated if they nibbled at the Eucharist seem tame. (2) Nothing brings forth the ego (I just might mean that in the vernacular sense, but don't tell on me) more than debates about whether my identity could survive, whether I would be 'me' whilst disembodied, whether I am greedy if I want more than to live in only the divine memory, or whether one should care about surviving personally. (3) I'm beginning to think it would be more restful, and perhaps more coherent, to be a Buddhist (or a Hindu at least.)
Unlike the other members of my blog, both of whom are gifted in matters scientific, I have no talent for the least understanding in such areas. I have read the works of great scholars (theist, atheist, revisionist, Thomist, whatever) on the topic of eternal life these past weeks, and indeed am enjoying the arguments, the more when they refute one another. (Dare I admit that a rogue such as Bertrand Russell shares my occasional cynicism about humanity? Or that it never before occurred to me that Thomistic views of the afterlife do not include a concept of society, where one meets old friends and possibly is shocked at the sight of old enemies, because, being the man of prayer, Thomas would not have stopped to pout at any idea that the company of God would be insufficient?) I have pondered everything from whether the resurrection makes sense, whether it alone makes sense, whether it is absurd, or whether the Platonic vision (I don't recall Plato's believing in a Creator, or thinking the material world was all that wonderful...) refutes the Christian and Jewish emphasis on the material. I'm so unlikely to ponder the scientific that I nearly laughed at one argument which not only hinged on how identity is physical and must have atoms interacting with other atoms but, funnier to me, proposed the resurrection as absurd because where would we all fit?
I recognise, of course, that in laughing at such things, without being able to construct an argument or refutation of same here, I am revealing myself as a standard, dumb Franciscan. However, as usual when my intellectual side comes to the fore (actually, it always does), and I become a 'dualist' (in the sense only of sounding like a Franciscan perpeptually arguing with a Dominican), I am on verge of conceding that, as far as the philosophical arguments go, I still think Thomas' is the one that makes the most sense.
Now, I must find arguments which can back up my own view, which is more along the lines of the Cappadocians. I see eternity (however we exist, whatever spiritual bodies we have, whether we are disembodied in some dream world or tripping over one another at the general judgment) as meaning constant growth and awareness. I do not see it as static - but as white hot love that cannot be quenched. I see it (well, of course) as constantly increasing, intense knowledge of the divine, which will only lead us to realise, again and again, that the more we come to know, the more we realise we know nothing. (Of course, I also believe that, when the very much alive Jesus of Nazareth said, 'the kingdom is here,' he did not mean one must be dead to enter eternity... somehow or another, it already is here.)
There's no sarcasm in 'somehow or another.' I believe in the Incarnation, resurrection, ascension, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. I haven't the slightest notion of what any of it means. I'm about to outline an argument, for my eventual exam (at the university, not the general judgement), about our continued, personal existence - and I am hard put to even define what 'life' or 'soul' or 'God is. I find myself sympathising with 'revisionist' philosophers (theists, not Bertrand Russell), because, though they put it in a more subtle fashion, they don't see what is so wonderful about this earth and all of us that they assume it reflects a hankering for the divine - but, at least, they agree with me that an afterlife of reward or punishment is rather dismal.
Eureka! Deep down, the Christian (and other theist) philosophers know that nothing, about eternal life or any element of 'proofs' for God's existence, is possible, beyond conceding that a concept is philosophically coherent and feasible. The Fathers of the Eastern Church would wonder what the commotion was about in the first place, and just recommend the Jesus Prayer. The Buddhists would wonder, first, why we are asking such questions, and, second, why we are so concerned with maintaining our personal identity... I can deal with just about anything except Immanuel Kant and morality proving God's existence, or any theory which says that hankering for eternity means that we must have it round the corner.
Anyone interested in a paradox for the day on the grass roots level? I don't think 'experience' proves anything... yet my entire life centres on worship, and that in a tradition of such experiences as burning bushes and witness to a crucified man who rose from the dead. :)
I've been studying Philosophy of Religion in depth. I believe that embarking on these fascinating and stormy seas (...longing for sight of a man who walked on water) is what reduced me to such confusion that I actually had my cat write the last blog entry. Very recently, I have been pursuing the chapter about Eternal Life. So far, I have three conclusions. (1) Scientific advances, and the natural outgrowth of having to refer to physics, relativity, atoms and the like tend to make the old questions about angels and whether mice sacramentally communicated if they nibbled at the Eucharist seem tame. (2) Nothing brings forth the ego (I just might mean that in the vernacular sense, but don't tell on me) more than debates about whether my identity could survive, whether I would be 'me' whilst disembodied, whether I am greedy if I want more than to live in only the divine memory, or whether one should care about surviving personally. (3) I'm beginning to think it would be more restful, and perhaps more coherent, to be a Buddhist (or a Hindu at least.)
Unlike the other members of my blog, both of whom are gifted in matters scientific, I have no talent for the least understanding in such areas. I have read the works of great scholars (theist, atheist, revisionist, Thomist, whatever) on the topic of eternal life these past weeks, and indeed am enjoying the arguments, the more when they refute one another. (Dare I admit that a rogue such as Bertrand Russell shares my occasional cynicism about humanity? Or that it never before occurred to me that Thomistic views of the afterlife do not include a concept of society, where one meets old friends and possibly is shocked at the sight of old enemies, because, being the man of prayer, Thomas would not have stopped to pout at any idea that the company of God would be insufficient?) I have pondered everything from whether the resurrection makes sense, whether it alone makes sense, whether it is absurd, or whether the Platonic vision (I don't recall Plato's believing in a Creator, or thinking the material world was all that wonderful...) refutes the Christian and Jewish emphasis on the material. I'm so unlikely to ponder the scientific that I nearly laughed at one argument which not only hinged on how identity is physical and must have atoms interacting with other atoms but, funnier to me, proposed the resurrection as absurd because where would we all fit?
I recognise, of course, that in laughing at such things, without being able to construct an argument or refutation of same here, I am revealing myself as a standard, dumb Franciscan. However, as usual when my intellectual side comes to the fore (actually, it always does), and I become a 'dualist' (in the sense only of sounding like a Franciscan perpeptually arguing with a Dominican), I am on verge of conceding that, as far as the philosophical arguments go, I still think Thomas' is the one that makes the most sense.
Now, I must find arguments which can back up my own view, which is more along the lines of the Cappadocians. I see eternity (however we exist, whatever spiritual bodies we have, whether we are disembodied in some dream world or tripping over one another at the general judgment) as meaning constant growth and awareness. I do not see it as static - but as white hot love that cannot be quenched. I see it (well, of course) as constantly increasing, intense knowledge of the divine, which will only lead us to realise, again and again, that the more we come to know, the more we realise we know nothing. (Of course, I also believe that, when the very much alive Jesus of Nazareth said, 'the kingdom is here,' he did not mean one must be dead to enter eternity... somehow or another, it already is here.)
There's no sarcasm in 'somehow or another.' I believe in the Incarnation, resurrection, ascension, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. I haven't the slightest notion of what any of it means. I'm about to outline an argument, for my eventual exam (at the university, not the general judgement), about our continued, personal existence - and I am hard put to even define what 'life' or 'soul' or 'God is. I find myself sympathising with 'revisionist' philosophers (theists, not Bertrand Russell), because, though they put it in a more subtle fashion, they don't see what is so wonderful about this earth and all of us that they assume it reflects a hankering for the divine - but, at least, they agree with me that an afterlife of reward or punishment is rather dismal.
Eureka! Deep down, the Christian (and other theist) philosophers know that nothing, about eternal life or any element of 'proofs' for God's existence, is possible, beyond conceding that a concept is philosophically coherent and feasible. The Fathers of the Eastern Church would wonder what the commotion was about in the first place, and just recommend the Jesus Prayer. The Buddhists would wonder, first, why we are asking such questions, and, second, why we are so concerned with maintaining our personal identity... I can deal with just about anything except Immanuel Kant and morality proving God's existence, or any theory which says that hankering for eternity means that we must have it round the corner.
Anyone interested in a paradox for the day on the grass roots level? I don't think 'experience' proves anything... yet my entire life centres on worship, and that in a tradition of such experiences as burning bushes and witness to a crucified man who rose from the dead. :)
Saturday, 5 May 2007
Creativity reigns - Essay in memory of Leonora
My cat, Leonora, and her cyberspouse, Lemieux, both have gone to the Rainbow Bridge during the past few years. In her memory, and, it is hoped, for the delight of other cat lovers, I should like to reproduce an essay which Leonora composed when she was a regular contributor to the (now sadly defunct) CLAW: For Cats Who Reign site. So, here is Leonora's "Creativity Reigns."It is common knowledge amongst us kitties that we are so incredibly adorable that the world is our oyster. What may not be generally known is that we literary types constantly spin tails (excuse me, tales) in our imaginative minds, and that this can lead to some odd situations. I shall relate a few from my own experience.
In adventure mode, I was climbing to the top of Mount Everest. Slowly I moved upward, the massive peak becoming ever more perilous to scale ... the many obstacles cleared with my avid paw... Upward, upward ... eager to plant the CLAW flag at the summit...Just then, the Christmas tree toppled to the ground, and I was fortunate to get away with only a few minor scrapes and a bad case of jitters.
When the fantasy plot beckoned, I became Morgan le Fey, lost in fairy enchantment. Yes, I must lead Arthur to the Grail! Ah, let me summon the Sight - I must look for direction in the lake ... so I peered into its swirling depths .
Had anyone flushed, I would have found myself exploring the topography of the sewer.
Another time, I was a fearless explorer, who a time machine had transported to the age of the dinosaurs. I entered a darkened cave (knocking over the set of Shakespeare which I wouldn't notice because Shakespeare was not to see the light of day for many millions of years after my journey.) I peered into the abundant foliage outside the cage, caught the reflection of the light on the ponds (which had something much like my treats on its surface), nobly looked upon the landscape for the first sight of apatosaurus and triceratops (I mix periods without qualm). Suddenly, I heard the thundering steps of the T-rex - and my ample body became as a streak of light flashing through the sky!
It was only my bratty "cousin", Mums's four-year-old niece, showing off her new Barbie shoes, but the general effect, on a slightly neurotic kitty, was devastating.
Creativity reigns - but no one remembers to tell that it gets one in much trouble now and then!
Leonora also composed this poem, written from the point of view of a d*g:
Jabbering, drooling, and snapping at naught,
Longing for approval when I do what I ought,
Inwardly, I indulge a secret wish ...
Though I slobber, and pant, and beg at my dish.
I long to be elegant, long for thoughts sublime,
Wish independence of thought could be mine.
I submit to the humans, indeed, I shall beg,
Indiscriminate in taste, I snuggle every leg.
Yet for all of ugly behaviour, at that,
Deep within my heart of hearts,
...I long to be a cat.
I think Francis of Assisi would have permitted one to imagine that one meets one's pets in the afterlife - so, RIP, my elegant feline couple, till we meet again at the Rainbow Bridge. I'd like to think that Leonora and Lemieux are pulling the goddess Freya's chariot right now.
Saturday, 28 April 2007
Oh, don't join the choir!
Please be forewarned that this shall be my most irritable post in the history of blog-dom. But I'm at that time of life when one weeps for the potential one once had - and also at an age where I no longer hide being opinionated.
There are notable exceptions (for example, I doubt the music of any church on earth could top that of Westminster Cathedral), but, as a general rule, churches which are either Roman Catholic, advertise 'family services,' or are looking to be a spot where everyone can 'relate' have music that is utter crap. Just focussing on the RC Church, where I served for years, with memories of the 1970s and hopes that we'd have top quality music to rival even the Anglicans, the music tends to be pathetic. It shall continue to be pathetic until serious musicians are employed. (Yes, I said employed, and I said serious musicians. I am aware that the Church would prefer that everyone be an angel, therefore with no need for food, clothing, shelter and therefore a means of sustenance. I am equally aware that people whose skills in music are laughable can become the darlings of congregations, and can come to think of themselves as if they were Renata Tebaldi... though I doubt they know who Tebaldi was.) The unwritten rule that 'everyone must sing everything,' that facilitating this means including nothing beyond the range of someone who'd have trouble singing London Bridge is Falling Down, and that choirs, soloists, and instrumentalists exist only to provide support for congregational singing must be abolished.
Serious singers indeed will be encouraged to join the choir - though not to really sing once they get there. There are exceptions, of course - a first rate professional choir, or training in a choir school, can be beneficial. But I am speaking of the average church choir (and many choirs not associated with churches), where operatic singers can be reduced to crooning because the director wants the sound of 'one voice.' (From a distance, that's the effect anyway, but it's not worth mentioning this.)
Though I have not seen this often, it is so dangerous to one's voice that it is worthy of note. Here and there, I have met choir directors who have a particular 'choral sound' they want, and who encourage a technique which would totally ruin the voices of those who adapted this. I well remember one fool who wanted (as he said) a "heavy, covered sound." He told people to "hold their mouths rigid," to adapt bizarre pronunciations, and other instructions it would pain me to even remember. His choir sounded like an old, somewhat damaged record playing on a slow turntable.
I am a spinto / dramatic soprano, the sort who plays Leonora in La Forza del Destino or the title role in Aida. My timbre is dark, but my range sits high. I was doomed, as far as choirs are concerned, the day that Sister Liberanos, who placed people in choral sections based on their saying "Hello," thought I was an alto. Were that the end of it, it might not have been so bad - but church and school choirs, and even the choir of the university where I earned my degree in music, want "strong altos." (Useless to say I'm not an alto - and there was no understanding of how I had to practise doubly for the rest of the week following a rehearsal, to get my voice out of the cellar. I sounded as if I had two voices.) Of course, in choirs such as I have mentioned, most people in the alto section are not true contraltos - they are those with a limited range. A spinto will be stuck in that section... with damaging effects.
Useless to offer to vocalise! The director, having determined the supposed 'contralto quality,' will hit a middle C, ask one to vocalise an octave up, and allow one to go no further, writing down that this is the top of one's range. Never mind that I had a range of over three octaves and could sustain notes above a high C.
It works both ways, of course. A true mezzo-soprano may find herself the lead soprano, because the people in that section are not much good, either, and she's the only one who can hit a G.
I've known some fine musicians who nonetheless knew nothing of vocal technique. One, with whom I worked for some years, was an excellent conductor and organist, but it took me years of study to 'unlearn' the nonsense he taught me. How well I remember not only being stuck in an alto section but being instructed, "Put it in your chest!" When my voice finally started to have proper bel canto technique, he complained to others that I was losing those 'chest tones,' not even knowing that is a major fault in a voice.
Any reader who is a serious singer has this advice from me. Keep up your lessons and practise religiously - but try to do only solo or serious ensemble work. I'm sad, to this day, that the crooning I learnt in church choirs, and which was made all the worse because, in my convent of only 17 Sisters, I had to whisper not to be accused of 'singularisation,' ruined my voice. Not that I cannot still sing - the ghost of the opera singer self still is there. But my voice was severely damaged, and all the while I was hoping I was using the gift for the good of the Church.
There are notable exceptions (for example, I doubt the music of any church on earth could top that of Westminster Cathedral), but, as a general rule, churches which are either Roman Catholic, advertise 'family services,' or are looking to be a spot where everyone can 'relate' have music that is utter crap. Just focussing on the RC Church, where I served for years, with memories of the 1970s and hopes that we'd have top quality music to rival even the Anglicans, the music tends to be pathetic. It shall continue to be pathetic until serious musicians are employed. (Yes, I said employed, and I said serious musicians. I am aware that the Church would prefer that everyone be an angel, therefore with no need for food, clothing, shelter and therefore a means of sustenance. I am equally aware that people whose skills in music are laughable can become the darlings of congregations, and can come to think of themselves as if they were Renata Tebaldi... though I doubt they know who Tebaldi was.) The unwritten rule that 'everyone must sing everything,' that facilitating this means including nothing beyond the range of someone who'd have trouble singing London Bridge is Falling Down, and that choirs, soloists, and instrumentalists exist only to provide support for congregational singing must be abolished.
Serious singers indeed will be encouraged to join the choir - though not to really sing once they get there. There are exceptions, of course - a first rate professional choir, or training in a choir school, can be beneficial. But I am speaking of the average church choir (and many choirs not associated with churches), where operatic singers can be reduced to crooning because the director wants the sound of 'one voice.' (From a distance, that's the effect anyway, but it's not worth mentioning this.)
Though I have not seen this often, it is so dangerous to one's voice that it is worthy of note. Here and there, I have met choir directors who have a particular 'choral sound' they want, and who encourage a technique which would totally ruin the voices of those who adapted this. I well remember one fool who wanted (as he said) a "heavy, covered sound." He told people to "hold their mouths rigid," to adapt bizarre pronunciations, and other instructions it would pain me to even remember. His choir sounded like an old, somewhat damaged record playing on a slow turntable.
I am a spinto / dramatic soprano, the sort who plays Leonora in La Forza del Destino or the title role in Aida. My timbre is dark, but my range sits high. I was doomed, as far as choirs are concerned, the day that Sister Liberanos, who placed people in choral sections based on their saying "Hello," thought I was an alto. Were that the end of it, it might not have been so bad - but church and school choirs, and even the choir of the university where I earned my degree in music, want "strong altos." (Useless to say I'm not an alto - and there was no understanding of how I had to practise doubly for the rest of the week following a rehearsal, to get my voice out of the cellar. I sounded as if I had two voices.) Of course, in choirs such as I have mentioned, most people in the alto section are not true contraltos - they are those with a limited range. A spinto will be stuck in that section... with damaging effects.
Useless to offer to vocalise! The director, having determined the supposed 'contralto quality,' will hit a middle C, ask one to vocalise an octave up, and allow one to go no further, writing down that this is the top of one's range. Never mind that I had a range of over three octaves and could sustain notes above a high C.
It works both ways, of course. A true mezzo-soprano may find herself the lead soprano, because the people in that section are not much good, either, and she's the only one who can hit a G.
I've known some fine musicians who nonetheless knew nothing of vocal technique. One, with whom I worked for some years, was an excellent conductor and organist, but it took me years of study to 'unlearn' the nonsense he taught me. How well I remember not only being stuck in an alto section but being instructed, "Put it in your chest!" When my voice finally started to have proper bel canto technique, he complained to others that I was losing those 'chest tones,' not even knowing that is a major fault in a voice.
Any reader who is a serious singer has this advice from me. Keep up your lessons and practise religiously - but try to do only solo or serious ensemble work. I'm sad, to this day, that the crooning I learnt in church choirs, and which was made all the worse because, in my convent of only 17 Sisters, I had to whisper not to be accused of 'singularisation,' ruined my voice. Not that I cannot still sing - the ghost of the opera singer self still is there. But my voice was severely damaged, and all the while I was hoping I was using the gift for the good of the Church.
Sunday, 15 April 2007
Divine mercy?
It continually amazes me that many of the devout make quite a fuss over Lent, yet (unless they are greatly concerned with matters liturgical, as I am) tend to forget that the Easter season has only just begun. I would be the last to criticise Lenten devotion, and indeed believe it is very valuable. Still, the preoccupation with 'giving things up' and so forth smacks of Calivinism - we are depraved, anything that appeals to us (even if not remotely sinful) just has to be problematic, and we'd best not forget that Christ died for us by dwelling on His resurrection and our deification.
As my regular readers will know, I believe that 'folk religion' and devotions are valuable as well. There is much in our sensual nature which needs to be satisfied - and sprinkling holy water in a room can be just as much an act of faith, and an expression of a desire for divine blessings, as anything else in our formal prayer. I know this will not endear me to some, but I must say that I am not exactly mad about the sites which promote this, the Second Sunday of Easter, as "Divine Mercy Sunday." (It's based on a private revelation - in this case, I'll leave you to Google.) Somehow, having a mini feast, based on a vision, dedicated to Divine Mercy, the week after the Triduum, seems on a par with taking a glorious gold processional cross and gilding it with the sort of paint kids used to use on their ballet shoes for recitals.
Those who originally proposed 'atonement theology,' as is not unusual for those seeking to articulate the inexplicable, could not have foreseen that it would leave a permanent 'scar' on Christianity, wherein God the Father can seem to have been guilty of the ultimate child abuse. He can be seen as having been possessed of boundless insult and anger, so much so that He had to see to it that His son had a horrid death in order that He himself could be appeased. There is no explanation for evil, as all the great philosophers (who wrote reams on the topic) would ultimately concede. Jesus indeed took on our sins - in becoming fully human, and remaining faithful to His prophetic, human vocation to proclaim the kingdom, he would be a victim of much of what is the worst in human nature.
Meditations on the Passion can be very enriching, but this did get out of hand (partly through the excessive emphasis my own Franciscan order used in preaching) once the resurrection became an afterthought. Too much thinking was centred solely on forgiveness. Devotional books, many used in preparation for the Eucharist or communion, often focussed entirely on Jesus' suffering and our need for forgiveness.
Anyone who is a devout Christian would know, all too well, that metanoia, which frequently involves repentance or at least a painful look at one's weakness, is a constant part of our lives. (In fact, the more devout we become, the more we can tend to think of our weaknesses as virtues.) Divine grace indeed transforms us. My objection is to an approach where we are either seen as essentially wicked or equate forgiveness (which I see as a restoration of or increase in our intimacy with the divine) with placating a punishing task master.
The uncertainty of this life, and the pain, suffering, or wickedness that always could be round the corner, is frightening. (Raymond Brown, in his works about Jesus' Passion, makes a superb point - Gethesemane was a scandal to the Greek Christians at first, because Jesus' agony is so in contrast with the stoic acceptance of death demonstrated by Socrates.) We never will understand why a God who is omnipotent and perfectly loving seems deaf when we are in pain. It is best we reconcile ourselves to that this cannot be understood than to seek explanations - or we can fall into either seeing everything as a punishment or, as I've treated before, fearing that being one of God's friends is even more perilous (at least on earth...) than being a distinguished sinner.
Many great theologians and authors of classic on the spiritual life presented ideas which either can be mistaken for 'punishment theology' or which awkwardly sought to express some vague idea that God's will is in all and even dropping a pencil was part of the divine plan. (With Archbishop Runcie, I'm agnostic about Auschwitz... but I'm warming up to an explanation of misunderstanding.)
I think it is important to remember that great theologians often were seeking to refute dangerous or heretical ideas prevalent in their time. For example, Augustine was refuting dualism (a concept of a second god who created evil, and of creation as wicked - which the Incarnation certainly would disprove!), which, in his Manichean days, he had come to see as a denial of divine omnipotence. To use a line about "there is no evil - it is the absence of good" would be small comfort in pastoral situations. (In fact, those who use it in such settings should be penanced to read Augustine's works in their entirety before being allowed out.)
Philosophy regarding the problem of evil does not, and never sought to, explain all the difficulties we have in this life. It was intended, sometimes brilliantly, to illustrate that the concept of God is not at odds with the wickedness and pain of this world.
As for some of the authors of works on the spiritual life, we need to recall that much of their work was intended as direction (and indeed may have been compiled from letters to people they were guiding, or based on experience of that sort.) These can be the most dismal of all. The only hope one should have is to see God in heaven. Sainthood comes from suffering. The first step in meditation is to picture one's dead body.... I'm going to stop there. It is miserable for those who are suffering to be shrugged off with "God's will" or an idea that one should only hope for happiness in eternity (and misery here, to ensure we have a chance of getting to heaven.) There is no space here for me to chronicle the history of 'vicarious suffering' and the like, but I think, on a very basic level, we need to remember that those whom these authors directed well may have been preoccupied with fears of damnation. Progress in the spiritual life means letting go of notions of God because we see their limitations - and it can be frightening, even giving us a sense of severe doubt. No one can be certain of salvation, eternal life, and the like - not because these do not exist, but because they are beyond us. No one can say, with certainty, even that there is a God.
All of us, in one way or another, have dealt with formidable authority figures. The image of a stern, even cruel God who wants placating and blind obedience is miserable, but can be comfortable in a way because of its familiarity. Resurrection, ascension, the eternal presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, our own deification - these bring us into the realm of wonder, which can make us uncomfortable because we cannot relate this to our own experience.
As my regular readers will know, I believe that 'folk religion' and devotions are valuable as well. There is much in our sensual nature which needs to be satisfied - and sprinkling holy water in a room can be just as much an act of faith, and an expression of a desire for divine blessings, as anything else in our formal prayer. I know this will not endear me to some, but I must say that I am not exactly mad about the sites which promote this, the Second Sunday of Easter, as "Divine Mercy Sunday." (It's based on a private revelation - in this case, I'll leave you to Google.) Somehow, having a mini feast, based on a vision, dedicated to Divine Mercy, the week after the Triduum, seems on a par with taking a glorious gold processional cross and gilding it with the sort of paint kids used to use on their ballet shoes for recitals.
Those who originally proposed 'atonement theology,' as is not unusual for those seeking to articulate the inexplicable, could not have foreseen that it would leave a permanent 'scar' on Christianity, wherein God the Father can seem to have been guilty of the ultimate child abuse. He can be seen as having been possessed of boundless insult and anger, so much so that He had to see to it that His son had a horrid death in order that He himself could be appeased. There is no explanation for evil, as all the great philosophers (who wrote reams on the topic) would ultimately concede. Jesus indeed took on our sins - in becoming fully human, and remaining faithful to His prophetic, human vocation to proclaim the kingdom, he would be a victim of much of what is the worst in human nature.
Meditations on the Passion can be very enriching, but this did get out of hand (partly through the excessive emphasis my own Franciscan order used in preaching) once the resurrection became an afterthought. Too much thinking was centred solely on forgiveness. Devotional books, many used in preparation for the Eucharist or communion, often focussed entirely on Jesus' suffering and our need for forgiveness.
Anyone who is a devout Christian would know, all too well, that metanoia, which frequently involves repentance or at least a painful look at one's weakness, is a constant part of our lives. (In fact, the more devout we become, the more we can tend to think of our weaknesses as virtues.) Divine grace indeed transforms us. My objection is to an approach where we are either seen as essentially wicked or equate forgiveness (which I see as a restoration of or increase in our intimacy with the divine) with placating a punishing task master.
The uncertainty of this life, and the pain, suffering, or wickedness that always could be round the corner, is frightening. (Raymond Brown, in his works about Jesus' Passion, makes a superb point - Gethesemane was a scandal to the Greek Christians at first, because Jesus' agony is so in contrast with the stoic acceptance of death demonstrated by Socrates.) We never will understand why a God who is omnipotent and perfectly loving seems deaf when we are in pain. It is best we reconcile ourselves to that this cannot be understood than to seek explanations - or we can fall into either seeing everything as a punishment or, as I've treated before, fearing that being one of God's friends is even more perilous (at least on earth...) than being a distinguished sinner.
Many great theologians and authors of classic on the spiritual life presented ideas which either can be mistaken for 'punishment theology' or which awkwardly sought to express some vague idea that God's will is in all and even dropping a pencil was part of the divine plan. (With Archbishop Runcie, I'm agnostic about Auschwitz... but I'm warming up to an explanation of misunderstanding.)
I think it is important to remember that great theologians often were seeking to refute dangerous or heretical ideas prevalent in their time. For example, Augustine was refuting dualism (a concept of a second god who created evil, and of creation as wicked - which the Incarnation certainly would disprove!), which, in his Manichean days, he had come to see as a denial of divine omnipotence. To use a line about "there is no evil - it is the absence of good" would be small comfort in pastoral situations. (In fact, those who use it in such settings should be penanced to read Augustine's works in their entirety before being allowed out.)
Philosophy regarding the problem of evil does not, and never sought to, explain all the difficulties we have in this life. It was intended, sometimes brilliantly, to illustrate that the concept of God is not at odds with the wickedness and pain of this world.
As for some of the authors of works on the spiritual life, we need to recall that much of their work was intended as direction (and indeed may have been compiled from letters to people they were guiding, or based on experience of that sort.) These can be the most dismal of all. The only hope one should have is to see God in heaven. Sainthood comes from suffering. The first step in meditation is to picture one's dead body.... I'm going to stop there. It is miserable for those who are suffering to be shrugged off with "God's will" or an idea that one should only hope for happiness in eternity (and misery here, to ensure we have a chance of getting to heaven.) There is no space here for me to chronicle the history of 'vicarious suffering' and the like, but I think, on a very basic level, we need to remember that those whom these authors directed well may have been preoccupied with fears of damnation. Progress in the spiritual life means letting go of notions of God because we see their limitations - and it can be frightening, even giving us a sense of severe doubt. No one can be certain of salvation, eternal life, and the like - not because these do not exist, but because they are beyond us. No one can say, with certainty, even that there is a God.
All of us, in one way or another, have dealt with formidable authority figures. The image of a stern, even cruel God who wants placating and blind obedience is miserable, but can be comfortable in a way because of its familiarity. Resurrection, ascension, the eternal presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church, our own deification - these bring us into the realm of wonder, which can make us uncomfortable because we cannot relate this to our own experience.
Thursday, 5 April 2007
Do this in memory of me
Christianity is very simple. All it requires is a memory and a vision; and, if you can get them, some bread, and wine, and water. - Kenneth Leech
Simplicity is hardly my strong point - yet my honest nature prompts me to further comment that the bread, wine, water, vision, and memory are perhaps the only universal factors which have united the Christian Church since its earliest days. (Well, all right ... I can develop an idea of the Church's going back to Adam... but let us save that for another day.) Looking back to a 'golden age' is a favourite pastime of everyone in every era, yet such have never existed.
I spent quite a bit of time in church on Wednesday. First, at midday, I attended a lovely Eucharist, with a magnificent mediaeval setting. Unexpectedly, that afternoon, when I stopped in at a Franciscan church, they had a scheduled Eucharist, so I attended yet again. Then, in the evening, I went to a service of Tenebrae (admittedly, with disappointment - the weather had turned, and I was chilled, so, rather than attending the church where the music would be splendid, I was in a local, small church where there was no music at all.) I was left with the feeling which always haunts me during the evening before the Triduum - how very alone Jesus would be, in Gethesemane, then throughout his Passion. I shall not compare any of us to Jesus, of course, but it is a sad fact, to this day, that, within the Church, once anyone falls out of favour one is abandoned. In fact, I think it is unique to the Church that those who are tossed aside are supposed to be rejoicing in God's will, and "happy" about their successor.
But, now, on to Maundy Thursday, before I start telling tales... which I should not care to do, even anonymously.
I am not likely to call the Last Supper an actual celebration of the Eucharist - there can be no anamnesis of what has not yet happened. :) Yet Maundy Thursday is one of those days when something approaching Ignatian meditation is exceedingly tempting. In fact, I'm even going to toss aside my better scriptural commentaries and not question whether it actually was Passover, etc., etc..
One wonders what the apostles were like. (I am also a peasant, yet the intellectual snob in me turns up her nose at the thought of their not being able to grasp the simplest parables and that most of them smelled of fish...) When I was reading Luke yesterday, and this soon before I became immersed in the haunting magic of Tenebrae, I had to smile, seeing how, right to the end, the apostles were tossing about the idea of who would have the highest place in the kingdom. Ah, yes, arguments about authority...
It is all too easy, particularly if one not only watches the scriptural epics and reads the 'Lives of Christ' of another time, and has been exposed to the 'see how these Christians love one another' myth, to picture twelve intense young men, in great awe at having been first to see the ritual which would sustain the Church until the parousia. Actually, what was present at the Last Supper was a prototype of another sort. :) I am sure that at least one traditionalist was frowning that Jesus had changed the form for the Pesach meal with all this "cup of my blood" business. Those who were either simple or highly observant would question why the Passover was anticipated a day early. (Well, at least, in that day, they were spared the irate vegetarian's protests about the lamb, and no one offered the cup would have irately commented, "But wine is a drug!") Judas was on verge of betraying the Master. I would imagine that Matthew was still sensitive about why Judas held the purse, considering all of his own experience as a tax collector. The disciples were conflicted about who would be the kingpins (I suppose when the Messiah toppled Roman rule.) "The Rock," who had learnt insufficient humility from that sad incident of attempting to walk on water, was making bold promises he'd soon find were beyond him. The lot of them would scatter in fear before the night was out.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Church.
Still, whenever I heard the words of consecration at the Eucharist, it moves me to think that the perpetual memorial has endured for two millenia. For all the conflict, persecution, quarrels, heresy, whatever, which the early Church faced, that bread, wine, and water was the catholic element - and these rituals of common worship kept the Church from crumbling when many a reform movement of the time would die out quickly enough. Jerusalem would fall - the Word would spread to Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Gaul, etc., with Christians being the odd ones who conformed neither to Jewish nor pagan society.
All that was common, then or now, was worship - praise and thanksgiving - water, bread, and wine - the memory and vision, and the scriptures. We shall never accept that, of course. :) Till the end, I'm sure that those of us who are avid believers will think that some ideal of unity and love will prevail. Yes, at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow... but not everyone will be happy and grateful at that gesture. :)
Lord, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness, comes from you, through your Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age, you gather a people to yourself, so that from East to West a perfect offering may be made...
Simplicity is hardly my strong point - yet my honest nature prompts me to further comment that the bread, wine, water, vision, and memory are perhaps the only universal factors which have united the Christian Church since its earliest days. (Well, all right ... I can develop an idea of the Church's going back to Adam... but let us save that for another day.) Looking back to a 'golden age' is a favourite pastime of everyone in every era, yet such have never existed.
I spent quite a bit of time in church on Wednesday. First, at midday, I attended a lovely Eucharist, with a magnificent mediaeval setting. Unexpectedly, that afternoon, when I stopped in at a Franciscan church, they had a scheduled Eucharist, so I attended yet again. Then, in the evening, I went to a service of Tenebrae (admittedly, with disappointment - the weather had turned, and I was chilled, so, rather than attending the church where the music would be splendid, I was in a local, small church where there was no music at all.) I was left with the feeling which always haunts me during the evening before the Triduum - how very alone Jesus would be, in Gethesemane, then throughout his Passion. I shall not compare any of us to Jesus, of course, but it is a sad fact, to this day, that, within the Church, once anyone falls out of favour one is abandoned. In fact, I think it is unique to the Church that those who are tossed aside are supposed to be rejoicing in God's will, and "happy" about their successor.
But, now, on to Maundy Thursday, before I start telling tales... which I should not care to do, even anonymously.
I am not likely to call the Last Supper an actual celebration of the Eucharist - there can be no anamnesis of what has not yet happened. :) Yet Maundy Thursday is one of those days when something approaching Ignatian meditation is exceedingly tempting. In fact, I'm even going to toss aside my better scriptural commentaries and not question whether it actually was Passover, etc., etc..
One wonders what the apostles were like. (I am also a peasant, yet the intellectual snob in me turns up her nose at the thought of their not being able to grasp the simplest parables and that most of them smelled of fish...) When I was reading Luke yesterday, and this soon before I became immersed in the haunting magic of Tenebrae, I had to smile, seeing how, right to the end, the apostles were tossing about the idea of who would have the highest place in the kingdom. Ah, yes, arguments about authority...
It is all too easy, particularly if one not only watches the scriptural epics and reads the 'Lives of Christ' of another time, and has been exposed to the 'see how these Christians love one another' myth, to picture twelve intense young men, in great awe at having been first to see the ritual which would sustain the Church until the parousia. Actually, what was present at the Last Supper was a prototype of another sort. :) I am sure that at least one traditionalist was frowning that Jesus had changed the form for the Pesach meal with all this "cup of my blood" business. Those who were either simple or highly observant would question why the Passover was anticipated a day early. (Well, at least, in that day, they were spared the irate vegetarian's protests about the lamb, and no one offered the cup would have irately commented, "But wine is a drug!") Judas was on verge of betraying the Master. I would imagine that Matthew was still sensitive about why Judas held the purse, considering all of his own experience as a tax collector. The disciples were conflicted about who would be the kingpins (I suppose when the Messiah toppled Roman rule.) "The Rock," who had learnt insufficient humility from that sad incident of attempting to walk on water, was making bold promises he'd soon find were beyond him. The lot of them would scatter in fear before the night was out.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Church.
Still, whenever I heard the words of consecration at the Eucharist, it moves me to think that the perpetual memorial has endured for two millenia. For all the conflict, persecution, quarrels, heresy, whatever, which the early Church faced, that bread, wine, and water was the catholic element - and these rituals of common worship kept the Church from crumbling when many a reform movement of the time would die out quickly enough. Jerusalem would fall - the Word would spread to Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Gaul, etc., with Christians being the odd ones who conformed neither to Jewish nor pagan society.
All that was common, then or now, was worship - praise and thanksgiving - water, bread, and wine - the memory and vision, and the scriptures. We shall never accept that, of course. :) Till the end, I'm sure that those of us who are avid believers will think that some ideal of unity and love will prevail. Yes, at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow... but not everyone will be happy and grateful at that gesture. :)
Lord, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness, comes from you, through your Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age, you gather a people to yourself, so that from East to West a perfect offering may be made...
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Wanting to stir up the magic
No, my friends, the vision of me at a cauldron is highly inaccurate! :) Yet, romantic that I am, and now fired with enthusiasm about Holy Week and Easter, I'm longing to have powerful emotions, perhaps be swept away with an intensity such as Teresa of Avila would have placed at the seventh mansion. I must comfort myself remembering that Teresa, whose life was filled with 'consolations' where mine is pure orthopraxy, actually thought the special experiences were a bother. Not to mention that, given my temperament, were I to be swept away I'd probably end up on Alpha Centauri and unable to return.
I just checked my inbox - as always for one who has her own domain, it's cluttered with junk that gets past the spam filters. It seems that many 'singles in my area want to meet me' (why? for an exhortation to repentance?). As for the notices that I've won lotteries and the like, were they all true I'd be able to buy Harrod's and establish branches in ten major cities, where the most extravagant purchase I ever made in Harrod's was to go to the loo. (Quite an elegant one, I must mention, though it is less expensive to visit the one of even finer design that is in the Knights Templar pub.)
I'm restless this evening, hoping the Hosannas ahead tomorrow get me out of my rut. Right now, Tudor music is playing, my best incense burning, and I am savouring a glass of red wine. I still feel banal... (I doubt that one can 'feel' banal, but I can manage it if anyone can.)
Now and then, I receive e-mail from sincere but confused souls who, having seen my site, are surprised that mysticism can be Christian. (Get me another gin... but I've seen the works of Julian of Norwich classed as "New Age" on a book site, so I should not be surprised.) Many of them are looking for magic in other ways. Yet the 'real magic' is not power, or secret knowledge, or (yes, even I shall admit this...) falling in love with God (or whatever one considers his equivalent, and it is hoped that is not oneself.)
Magic is transformation - through worship, self knowledge and concurrent self forgetfulness, love of God and neighbour. It is not obtaining power, but seeing both the powerlessness of a crucified man and how limited we are in our perception, how incapable of grasping the divine image. This is quite wonderful, though it frightens us. Once we see that the divine is beyond any image we can grasp, we can further see a 'journey' (bear with me - religious of my generation were always on journeys, which is why, after three decades, they still cannot find themselves) that is love, burning white hot, but always just a glimmer. In this life and the next, there will always be growth, never reaching the total knowledge of God. It's a quest to match anything the Holy Grail crowd can imagine.
No - it is not the wine! :) I'm just reminding myself that romantic feelings, minor ecstasies (which, taken any further, would leave me acting like a half wit), and all that for which the romantics such as myself pine are not the 'truth' at all.
I just checked my inbox - as always for one who has her own domain, it's cluttered with junk that gets past the spam filters. It seems that many 'singles in my area want to meet me' (why? for an exhortation to repentance?). As for the notices that I've won lotteries and the like, were they all true I'd be able to buy Harrod's and establish branches in ten major cities, where the most extravagant purchase I ever made in Harrod's was to go to the loo. (Quite an elegant one, I must mention, though it is less expensive to visit the one of even finer design that is in the Knights Templar pub.)
I'm restless this evening, hoping the Hosannas ahead tomorrow get me out of my rut. Right now, Tudor music is playing, my best incense burning, and I am savouring a glass of red wine. I still feel banal... (I doubt that one can 'feel' banal, but I can manage it if anyone can.)
Now and then, I receive e-mail from sincere but confused souls who, having seen my site, are surprised that mysticism can be Christian. (Get me another gin... but I've seen the works of Julian of Norwich classed as "New Age" on a book site, so I should not be surprised.) Many of them are looking for magic in other ways. Yet the 'real magic' is not power, or secret knowledge, or (yes, even I shall admit this...) falling in love with God (or whatever one considers his equivalent, and it is hoped that is not oneself.)
Magic is transformation - through worship, self knowledge and concurrent self forgetfulness, love of God and neighbour. It is not obtaining power, but seeing both the powerlessness of a crucified man and how limited we are in our perception, how incapable of grasping the divine image. This is quite wonderful, though it frightens us. Once we see that the divine is beyond any image we can grasp, we can further see a 'journey' (bear with me - religious of my generation were always on journeys, which is why, after three decades, they still cannot find themselves) that is love, burning white hot, but always just a glimmer. In this life and the next, there will always be growth, never reaching the total knowledge of God. It's a quest to match anything the Holy Grail crowd can imagine.
No - it is not the wine! :) I'm just reminding myself that romantic feelings, minor ecstasies (which, taken any further, would leave me acting like a half wit), and all that for which the romantics such as myself pine are not the 'truth' at all.
Friday, 30 March 2007
Lentils again
Somehow, one of the most appealing ideas (of the pragmatic rather than ethereal variety) which comes to mind as Lent draws to a close is that I shall not have to think of more ways to make lentils appealing for another year. I'm a master of Lenten menus, of course. (Though the Orthodox are on their own, since I am nothing approaching vegan.) I long ago learnt that just about any vegetable I love can be made into a gourmet treat with a little olive oil, garlic, and a good dash of goat cheese. (This goes for eggs as well.) Tonight's lentil dish was mixed with curry spices and indeed quite palatable.
My second thought today (with my mind not in gear lately, a second is a bonus) was that 'blogging' has a lot in common with preparing Lenten dishes. I was looking through my previous posts, and noticed that many of the ideas which come regularly to mind already have been treated. I'd love to be original - but, after only two years, any passage I begin to outline sounds as if I'm quoting myself.
So here is a small diversion. I shall confess that one of my guilty pleasures (and this on a par with my love for Cronin novels and theories about the Ripper) is 'sword and sandal' epics, especially near Holy Week. I know full well that many of them have literary and historical deficiencies at which one with a background in literature should shrug. The theological defects are worse yet. As one glaring example, the 1960s version of "King of Kings" makes it appear that Jesus had at best a vague notion of what he was up to, but his mother was far more penetrating. (Witness the prophetic, "The chair will never be mended!") Jesus seems disassociated from the miracles, rather like a spectre who passes in the night leaving puzzled blind men with sight. The Sermon on the Mount, amazing for an era before sound systems, seems attended by not only all of Palestine but a reunited diaspora. Still, to this day I get a shiver when Lucius, disgustedly setting Barabbas free, scoffs, "Go! Look upon Him who is dying for you!"
Yes, I own all of the videos - King of Kings, Barabbas, Ben-Hur, Quo Vadis. My very favourite is Franco Zeffirelli's brilliant, and superbly acted, "Jesus of Nazareth." My reasons are many, but one major reason I favour this portrayal is that Jesus and his entire flock are real. Volatile Peter, confused Judas, the Thomas who must see, even the comic relief in the 'bad thief' who insists (with pardonably poor grammar...) "It was him who did the murder, not me!" - they are believable and natural, not characters who, lest irreverence be suspected, have the appearance of illustrations on a 19th century Sunday school calendar.
Palm Sunday brings its challenges. I must remember to keep the palm far from the grasp of my cat, because Mirielle, whose tendency to chew things (newspaper, magazines, the covers of paperback books, plastic) is amazing, has a particular love for teething on palm. And I must be careful to be so wrapped in the glory of the liturgy that I dwell on neither that those who shouted "Hosanna!" probably were the same "go with the crowd" types who shouted "Crucify him!" later in the week, nor that most of my family members whom I would have visited on Palm Sunday (it's a huge feast for Italians) are dead.
The more I become immersed in my studies of the Hebrew scriptures (by which I mean not only Torah, but all of the prophetic and Wisdom books), the more I realise that there was no concept of a Messiah who would be crucified, nor, as far as I can see, one who would be divine. There is no atonement theology, nor any concept of the fall as Christians know this. Until after the resurrection, though indeed there were those privileged to see that Jesus was a great prophet and one possessed of much holiness, his unique identity could not be grasped even by his closest associates.
I'm sure that, on that first Palm Sunday, the apostles were more than happy to be seen as the closest friends of the Son of David. Four days later, Peter was denying he even knew Jesus, and the others had fled. (Understandably! I would be terrified under such circumstances, and, had Peter not been an impulsive sort, I doubt he'd have been hanging out in the court of the High Priest in the first place.) So, disjointed as my mind is at the moment, I shall leave my readers with this little thought. We never know when divine power is at work, or what is in store.
My second thought today (with my mind not in gear lately, a second is a bonus) was that 'blogging' has a lot in common with preparing Lenten dishes. I was looking through my previous posts, and noticed that many of the ideas which come regularly to mind already have been treated. I'd love to be original - but, after only two years, any passage I begin to outline sounds as if I'm quoting myself.
So here is a small diversion. I shall confess that one of my guilty pleasures (and this on a par with my love for Cronin novels and theories about the Ripper) is 'sword and sandal' epics, especially near Holy Week. I know full well that many of them have literary and historical deficiencies at which one with a background in literature should shrug. The theological defects are worse yet. As one glaring example, the 1960s version of "King of Kings" makes it appear that Jesus had at best a vague notion of what he was up to, but his mother was far more penetrating. (Witness the prophetic, "The chair will never be mended!") Jesus seems disassociated from the miracles, rather like a spectre who passes in the night leaving puzzled blind men with sight. The Sermon on the Mount, amazing for an era before sound systems, seems attended by not only all of Palestine but a reunited diaspora. Still, to this day I get a shiver when Lucius, disgustedly setting Barabbas free, scoffs, "Go! Look upon Him who is dying for you!"
Yes, I own all of the videos - King of Kings, Barabbas, Ben-Hur, Quo Vadis. My very favourite is Franco Zeffirelli's brilliant, and superbly acted, "Jesus of Nazareth." My reasons are many, but one major reason I favour this portrayal is that Jesus and his entire flock are real. Volatile Peter, confused Judas, the Thomas who must see, even the comic relief in the 'bad thief' who insists (with pardonably poor grammar...) "It was him who did the murder, not me!" - they are believable and natural, not characters who, lest irreverence be suspected, have the appearance of illustrations on a 19th century Sunday school calendar.
Palm Sunday brings its challenges. I must remember to keep the palm far from the grasp of my cat, because Mirielle, whose tendency to chew things (newspaper, magazines, the covers of paperback books, plastic) is amazing, has a particular love for teething on palm. And I must be careful to be so wrapped in the glory of the liturgy that I dwell on neither that those who shouted "Hosanna!" probably were the same "go with the crowd" types who shouted "Crucify him!" later in the week, nor that most of my family members whom I would have visited on Palm Sunday (it's a huge feast for Italians) are dead.
The more I become immersed in my studies of the Hebrew scriptures (by which I mean not only Torah, but all of the prophetic and Wisdom books), the more I realise that there was no concept of a Messiah who would be crucified, nor, as far as I can see, one who would be divine. There is no atonement theology, nor any concept of the fall as Christians know this. Until after the resurrection, though indeed there were those privileged to see that Jesus was a great prophet and one possessed of much holiness, his unique identity could not be grasped even by his closest associates.
I'm sure that, on that first Palm Sunday, the apostles were more than happy to be seen as the closest friends of the Son of David. Four days later, Peter was denying he even knew Jesus, and the others had fled. (Understandably! I would be terrified under such circumstances, and, had Peter not been an impulsive sort, I doubt he'd have been hanging out in the court of the High Priest in the first place.) So, disjointed as my mind is at the moment, I shall leave my readers with this little thought. We never know when divine power is at work, or what is in store.
Saturday, 24 March 2007
Amazing growth of the early Church
Recently, I read a post on a theology forum where someone was puzzled that, when Peter gave the Pentecost sermon described in Acts, there were only a few hundred people present. He (the contributor, presumably not Peter) questioned, on this basis, why the growth of the infant church was 'so slow.'
I'll admit that, engrossed though I have become in scripture studies, there are times when it's slightly disappointing to realise that some of the New Testament includes insights from Christian prophets and from the awareness of the early Church herself. It would be stunning to think that Peter (whose behaviour on the night of his ordination was not precisely exemplary... and, yes, I know the Last Supper was neither the Eucharist nor an ordination, but allow me some nostalgia), just fifty days after the crucifixion, with Caiaphas still high priest and Pontius Pilate still governing, would have been so filled with the Holy Spirit that he gave a sermon for all times. Romantic though I am, nonetheless, I know it is very likely that Acts is capturing what would take place in the very early church - this is not necessarily a literal account of a sermon.
Still, the post I mentioned in the first paragraph was rather puzzling to me. I am amazed at how quickly the early Church grew. It is astonishing that, by the time Paul wrote his epistles, just a few decades after Jesus' resurrection, there were Christian communities in Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and so forth. No glory had come to Christian believers - there had been no toppling of Roman rule - hardships were no less (and, for many, had increased as a result of their Christian commitment.) Even today, it is easy to wonder if the world is any better than it ever was - and Christians await the parousia yet know they have no more idea of what it entails than... well, first century Palestinian Jews would have expected a Messiah who was cursed by hanging on the tree.
Indulge me once again, because, though this may seem silly, it is a thought that always strikes me when I hear the gospels about Jesus' temptations - which mostly are to power. Jesus' being the divine Person did not mean that he did not accept full humanity, with all the limitations that entails. I can picture Satan, in saying he'd give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if he'd fall down and worship him. "Who do you expect to embrace that Trinitarian theology - certainly not the Greeks?! Look on the glories of Egypt - you certainly cannot imagine your message will get a foothold in northern Africa. Above all, it would be total folly to think your message would ever have any effect in Rome."
I know my history - know my theology - have had the privilege of reading the works of the greatest theologians of the patristic era and of studying the New Testament in depth. I shall never write this on an exam paper, of course, but only divine power, only the Holy Spirit within the Church, could explain why the message of an itinerant preacher - a prophet, like many others, in life - a man who worked wonders, but who was not alone in doing so - could have a massive effect on most of the civilised world within a few centuries.
Recently, in my Old Testament studies, I've gone into great depth about Deutero-Isaiah, as I mentioned in a previous post. There is no consensus on who is "The Suffering Servant," and indeed it appears that there is more than one 'servant' in the passages. Christianity can claim Christ for the servant with a strong basis - he was the representative of Israel, the fulfilment of promise, a great prophet. (The passages in Isaiah do not refer to an Incarnate Logos, which was not a concept at that time, nor to a Messiah who was divine.)
Why am I rambling so? Well, I was partly teasing before, when I said it was hard to read, for example, Peter's Pentecost sermon and allow for that it might not be literally true, for all the truth it embodies. What is in the scriptures is truth - but not history as we would call that today in many cases. This is no threat at all. Jesus hardly appeared on the day of the resurrection and said, "Happy Easter - I am the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity," then devoted the next fifty days to giving the fishermen et al a crash course in systematic and sacramental theology. Divine revelation allows for our human capacity. Christ speaks through His Church, and, if for example the Trinity was not formally defined for several centuries, that does not mean it was untrue.
We (the Church) grasp many truths at prayer before definition is possible. The awareness of Jesus' divinity, of the Trinity, and other points of doctrine which would have been unthinkable during Jesus' lifetime (grasped by others only in light of the resurrection), was beginning in worship long before it was discussed at an oecumenical council.
Deutero-Isaiah, and the Hebrew scriptures which were revised substantially following the same Babylonian captivity in which Isaiah found himself, hardly contained any smugness or certainty. Yahweh was the only God to be worshipped - but it still was unclear that the Hebrews thought there were no other gods. In fact, many of them feared offending Marduk in Isaiah's time! Isaiah's faith was one of awareness of divine glory and power. All of the Old Testament, for all of its confusion, shows that human beings could not know God fully (whether he walked in a garden with Abraham or appeared in a burning bush), but that our calling was to be icons of the transcendent God. We were to worship, and to act, in a way to make this reflection of his glory present.
Deutero-Isaiah (as elsewhere, but here particularly emphatically) stresses Israel as the servant, the nation bound by sacred covenant, the messianic agent - what I term the Icon. Jerusalem was to be the light to all of the world. This may have no connection, but since the blog, unlike my essays, is just a recording of reflections, I see an interesting paradox. Jerusalem has at no time been an empire or major world power, on a par with Persia, Alexandria, Greece, Babylon, or Rome. Lord knows that the history of the Jews was (and still is) a tragic but inspiring tale of fidelity despite constant trouble and oppression. Yet the three great monotheistic faiths all see Jerusalem as the holy city.
Jesus, though himself divine, had this "icon" calling in his Incarnation (naturally to a degree that we cannot match.) Perfect creative power submitted to being powerless amidst human misunderstanding and intrigue. Perfect love saw betrayal, violence, scapegoating, mockery, abandonment by those whom one loved best. The King of Kings was mocked in a crown of thorns - the Second Person of the Trinity condemned for blasphemy.
I have no 'answer' here - but, for those looking for a Passiontide meditation, it might be interesting to ponder what Jesus taught us not only of our own calling but of the nature of God.
I'll admit that, engrossed though I have become in scripture studies, there are times when it's slightly disappointing to realise that some of the New Testament includes insights from Christian prophets and from the awareness of the early Church herself. It would be stunning to think that Peter (whose behaviour on the night of his ordination was not precisely exemplary... and, yes, I know the Last Supper was neither the Eucharist nor an ordination, but allow me some nostalgia), just fifty days after the crucifixion, with Caiaphas still high priest and Pontius Pilate still governing, would have been so filled with the Holy Spirit that he gave a sermon for all times. Romantic though I am, nonetheless, I know it is very likely that Acts is capturing what would take place in the very early church - this is not necessarily a literal account of a sermon.
Still, the post I mentioned in the first paragraph was rather puzzling to me. I am amazed at how quickly the early Church grew. It is astonishing that, by the time Paul wrote his epistles, just a few decades after Jesus' resurrection, there were Christian communities in Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and so forth. No glory had come to Christian believers - there had been no toppling of Roman rule - hardships were no less (and, for many, had increased as a result of their Christian commitment.) Even today, it is easy to wonder if the world is any better than it ever was - and Christians await the parousia yet know they have no more idea of what it entails than... well, first century Palestinian Jews would have expected a Messiah who was cursed by hanging on the tree.
Indulge me once again, because, though this may seem silly, it is a thought that always strikes me when I hear the gospels about Jesus' temptations - which mostly are to power. Jesus' being the divine Person did not mean that he did not accept full humanity, with all the limitations that entails. I can picture Satan, in saying he'd give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if he'd fall down and worship him. "Who do you expect to embrace that Trinitarian theology - certainly not the Greeks?! Look on the glories of Egypt - you certainly cannot imagine your message will get a foothold in northern Africa. Above all, it would be total folly to think your message would ever have any effect in Rome."
I know my history - know my theology - have had the privilege of reading the works of the greatest theologians of the patristic era and of studying the New Testament in depth. I shall never write this on an exam paper, of course, but only divine power, only the Holy Spirit within the Church, could explain why the message of an itinerant preacher - a prophet, like many others, in life - a man who worked wonders, but who was not alone in doing so - could have a massive effect on most of the civilised world within a few centuries.
Recently, in my Old Testament studies, I've gone into great depth about Deutero-Isaiah, as I mentioned in a previous post. There is no consensus on who is "The Suffering Servant," and indeed it appears that there is more than one 'servant' in the passages. Christianity can claim Christ for the servant with a strong basis - he was the representative of Israel, the fulfilment of promise, a great prophet. (The passages in Isaiah do not refer to an Incarnate Logos, which was not a concept at that time, nor to a Messiah who was divine.)
Why am I rambling so? Well, I was partly teasing before, when I said it was hard to read, for example, Peter's Pentecost sermon and allow for that it might not be literally true, for all the truth it embodies. What is in the scriptures is truth - but not history as we would call that today in many cases. This is no threat at all. Jesus hardly appeared on the day of the resurrection and said, "Happy Easter - I am the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity," then devoted the next fifty days to giving the fishermen et al a crash course in systematic and sacramental theology. Divine revelation allows for our human capacity. Christ speaks through His Church, and, if for example the Trinity was not formally defined for several centuries, that does not mean it was untrue.
We (the Church) grasp many truths at prayer before definition is possible. The awareness of Jesus' divinity, of the Trinity, and other points of doctrine which would have been unthinkable during Jesus' lifetime (grasped by others only in light of the resurrection), was beginning in worship long before it was discussed at an oecumenical council.
Deutero-Isaiah, and the Hebrew scriptures which were revised substantially following the same Babylonian captivity in which Isaiah found himself, hardly contained any smugness or certainty. Yahweh was the only God to be worshipped - but it still was unclear that the Hebrews thought there were no other gods. In fact, many of them feared offending Marduk in Isaiah's time! Isaiah's faith was one of awareness of divine glory and power. All of the Old Testament, for all of its confusion, shows that human beings could not know God fully (whether he walked in a garden with Abraham or appeared in a burning bush), but that our calling was to be icons of the transcendent God. We were to worship, and to act, in a way to make this reflection of his glory present.
Deutero-Isaiah (as elsewhere, but here particularly emphatically) stresses Israel as the servant, the nation bound by sacred covenant, the messianic agent - what I term the Icon. Jerusalem was to be the light to all of the world. This may have no connection, but since the blog, unlike my essays, is just a recording of reflections, I see an interesting paradox. Jerusalem has at no time been an empire or major world power, on a par with Persia, Alexandria, Greece, Babylon, or Rome. Lord knows that the history of the Jews was (and still is) a tragic but inspiring tale of fidelity despite constant trouble and oppression. Yet the three great monotheistic faiths all see Jerusalem as the holy city.
Jesus, though himself divine, had this "icon" calling in his Incarnation (naturally to a degree that we cannot match.) Perfect creative power submitted to being powerless amidst human misunderstanding and intrigue. Perfect love saw betrayal, violence, scapegoating, mockery, abandonment by those whom one loved best. The King of Kings was mocked in a crown of thorns - the Second Person of the Trinity condemned for blasphemy.
I have no 'answer' here - but, for those looking for a Passiontide meditation, it might be interesting to ponder what Jesus taught us not only of our own calling but of the nature of God.
Friday, 23 March 2007
Mind, heart, and soul, anyone?
Here I have not had so much as a cold since New Year's Eve 1997, and I have had two sinus infections since December. I'm not suggesting, of course, that this is of general interest, but, with its being unexpectedly debilitating, I'm not quite up to the Passiontide posts I'd love to be creating. (Let alone the essays I'm planning for my Internet site.)
So - this is a mere 'rant' - flavoured with puzzlement. I enjoy good company, and love very few things more than a decent conversation. I'm not the sort for clubs, and I'm weary of such things as volunteer service, of which I've already done enough for five lifetimes. I gave myself permission to have some fun, finally, a few years back, and am sorry that it's very difficult to find anyone with which to share this. My generation have become frumps, and, worse yet, totally health obsessed. People have feared death since the expulsion from Eden, but, until recently, I believe they were resigned enough to its inevitability not to constantly be dwelling on sickness and death unless these were a present, personal reality. Those of my age group, who have reached the age that would have been considered 'old' a century ago, cannot admit to a fear of decline and death, but rather seem to think that the right 'fitness programme' will mean being still in middle age at 90 and never dying at all.
A few years ago, I saw an Internet site which was about meeting new friends. (It was not a romantic site.) My interests are many and varied, and I had hoped that I could find a few new companions with which to talk, hear a concert, share a gin, watch an art exhibit, and so forth. I posted a summary of my interests at the site... and the few responses I received made me resigned to being a hermit.
Recall, now, that they came to me! Responses were along the lines of "had I changed my entire lifestyle" since I posted. (Note that my description did not describe a degenerate - merely one who has the sort of interests listed in my profile here.) Others wrote "I am concerned that you did not mention a health and fitness programme." (John Cassian's version is good enough for me. Not to mention that, if I take after my dad's family, at age 80-93 my heart will stop, and that, if I take after my mother's, I'll eventually be 104 wishing it would stop.) A few "helpful" souls thought that, for example, my mentioning an interest in the arts was a plea for someone to get me to abandon such pursuits to spend more time out running.
Of course, judging from the few Yahoo groups of which I've been unfortunate enough to be a temporary member, lots of Internet junkies are in "self help" mode. They seem to thrive on being self absorbed, having all sorts of meddling to justify as "concern," and to enjoy playing at being mentally ill. In case this was not obvious, the groups on to which I would sign were on topics of interest to me, but the nut cases always find their way.
I'm not disparaging people's having an interest in sport, fitness and the like. One of my blog members is a marathon runner. What I'm criticising is two-fold: first, an obsession with "fitness" which blots out all other interests and, second, a degree of self absorption which makes one assume the new, improved 'you' is so wonderful that everyone on the planet is looking for your advice. (With this infection, I just don't have the strength to write a scorching denunciation of capitalist gimmicks - false needs which are presented to turn some vendor into a guru on which one's life depends - but I'll get to this at another time.)
Earlier in this post, I mentioned John Cassian, a great master of ascetic theology. His wise emphasis was on disciplining thoughts, to remove distractions to intimacy with God and love of neighbour. It is quite difficult, but a great gift, to embrace the asceticism of this type, because it means letting go of the false self. Yes, this is a process for a lifetime, and I'm not suggesting I'm far along. But love is ultimately about self forgetfulness, not self absorption.
So - this is a mere 'rant' - flavoured with puzzlement. I enjoy good company, and love very few things more than a decent conversation. I'm not the sort for clubs, and I'm weary of such things as volunteer service, of which I've already done enough for five lifetimes. I gave myself permission to have some fun, finally, a few years back, and am sorry that it's very difficult to find anyone with which to share this. My generation have become frumps, and, worse yet, totally health obsessed. People have feared death since the expulsion from Eden, but, until recently, I believe they were resigned enough to its inevitability not to constantly be dwelling on sickness and death unless these were a present, personal reality. Those of my age group, who have reached the age that would have been considered 'old' a century ago, cannot admit to a fear of decline and death, but rather seem to think that the right 'fitness programme' will mean being still in middle age at 90 and never dying at all.
A few years ago, I saw an Internet site which was about meeting new friends. (It was not a romantic site.) My interests are many and varied, and I had hoped that I could find a few new companions with which to talk, hear a concert, share a gin, watch an art exhibit, and so forth. I posted a summary of my interests at the site... and the few responses I received made me resigned to being a hermit.
Recall, now, that they came to me! Responses were along the lines of "had I changed my entire lifestyle" since I posted. (Note that my description did not describe a degenerate - merely one who has the sort of interests listed in my profile here.) Others wrote "I am concerned that you did not mention a health and fitness programme." (John Cassian's version is good enough for me. Not to mention that, if I take after my dad's family, at age 80-93 my heart will stop, and that, if I take after my mother's, I'll eventually be 104 wishing it would stop.) A few "helpful" souls thought that, for example, my mentioning an interest in the arts was a plea for someone to get me to abandon such pursuits to spend more time out running.
Of course, judging from the few Yahoo groups of which I've been unfortunate enough to be a temporary member, lots of Internet junkies are in "self help" mode. They seem to thrive on being self absorbed, having all sorts of meddling to justify as "concern," and to enjoy playing at being mentally ill. In case this was not obvious, the groups on to which I would sign were on topics of interest to me, but the nut cases always find their way.
I'm not disparaging people's having an interest in sport, fitness and the like. One of my blog members is a marathon runner. What I'm criticising is two-fold: first, an obsession with "fitness" which blots out all other interests and, second, a degree of self absorption which makes one assume the new, improved 'you' is so wonderful that everyone on the planet is looking for your advice. (With this infection, I just don't have the strength to write a scorching denunciation of capitalist gimmicks - false needs which are presented to turn some vendor into a guru on which one's life depends - but I'll get to this at another time.)
Earlier in this post, I mentioned John Cassian, a great master of ascetic theology. His wise emphasis was on disciplining thoughts, to remove distractions to intimacy with God and love of neighbour. It is quite difficult, but a great gift, to embrace the asceticism of this type, because it means letting go of the false self. Yes, this is a process for a lifetime, and I'm not suggesting I'm far along. But love is ultimately about self forgetfulness, not self absorption.
Monday, 19 March 2007
Brief reflection for the feast of Saint Joseph
He is Holy Joseph,
because no other saint but he
lived in such and so long
intimacy and familiarity
with the source of all holiness,
Jesus, God incarnate, and Mary,
the holiest of creatures.
- John Henry Cardinal Newman
I'm a bit unwell today - unable to write the meditation I'd love to present. In Italy, of course, this is a great feast day, marked by celebration. After all, how many fathers had to put up with the likes of what Joseph faced? I remember well how distressed my mother used to be at the incident of the 'finding in the temple,' where the child was so busy confounding the scholars of the temple that he was oblivious to his parents' great worry.
So - for the moment - I'm leaving you this tiny reflection from Cardinal Newman. Blessings to all for this great feast.
because no other saint but he
lived in such and so long
intimacy and familiarity
with the source of all holiness,
Jesus, God incarnate, and Mary,
the holiest of creatures.
- John Henry Cardinal Newman
I'm a bit unwell today - unable to write the meditation I'd love to present. In Italy, of course, this is a great feast day, marked by celebration. After all, how many fathers had to put up with the likes of what Joseph faced? I remember well how distressed my mother used to be at the incident of the 'finding in the temple,' where the child was so busy confounding the scholars of the temple that he was oblivious to his parents' great worry.
So - for the moment - I'm leaving you this tiny reflection from Cardinal Newman. Blessings to all for this great feast.
Monday, 12 March 2007
Pain that cannot be shared
Be forewarned that this is not likely to be a witty, or perhaps even insightful, post. Yet I am sharing this for two reasons. First, it might lead some one of my readers to not be ready with 'all the answers,' and to realise that smug (if well intentioned) responses do not facilitate communication - they only chop it off. As well, the particular example that I am going to cite is one poorly understood, and perhaps this post can cause someone to think twice.
It is 26 years this week since I was forced out of convent life, against my will. I shall never forget receiving that horrible letter: "Easter is coming. New dawn, new resurrection. You will be going home, and can rejoice in knowing God's will for you." Charming, is it not? It was several years before I could meditate on the resurrection (previously, and later, a favourite topic) without chills and tears. Granted, there is no kind way to tell someone "we don't want you," but to imply that one expects the other to be 'rejoicing' in such knowledge is about as crass as it gets.
I am a very private person, and am not about to share all of the heartbreak which followed. Yet it was an especially intense, dreadful pain because it could not be shared with others. Friends and family were delighted that I was 'out,' and thought I had come to my senses. (One Roman priest, who saw me shortly afterward at a funeral for a mutual friend, had the gall to say to me, "Oh, you left - oh, good! Keep the veil off, honey, you'll have a lot more fun." I shall reserve comment on what that might indicate about his attitude towards his own vocation.) I had hoped that religious Sisters would be compassionate (one or two were), but the usual attitude from that camp was either that I should be relieved that God had not willed my religious life, or that 'all these new lay ministries' (of which I knew plenty - I'd filled many of them) were replacing religious life, or that some 'new theology of marriage' meant that celibacy was passé and that "God might want you to be a married woman."
By far the most painful, and common, response was along the lines of "with how they need people today, what did you do that they would dismiss you?" (My own father insisted "there must be something you're not telling us.") I suppose I was lucky - today, those dismissed from religious life are probably assumed to be criminals. Yet I have known many in the situation who are of impeccable moral character, devotion and so forth. People can be dismissed from religious life for any reason and no reason. It is based on a superior's (not God's!) assessment of whether one 'fits in' to the life, agenda, whatever.
Why do people love to hear details of others' pain? Here, I am not referring to compassionate listening, but to a love for 'the dirt.' Ask anyone who has been a victim of a crime, or suffered through a painful divorce, or who was sacked from a job. Those who hear of a death want to know all the details (they'll ask the widow at the funeral), and half of them also will decide what the deceased did 'wrong' to be such a failure, as if death could be avoided. On the other hand, the fools who want to have all the answers (either shrugging it off with 'everyone has problems,' or 'God's will,' or 'you're just feeling sorry for yourself - or the mega-fools who think everything can be cured by therapy, doctors, nutritionists, self help groups, or exercise) just make one want to hide, rather like a hedgehog.
It is a denial of another person's pain! Smug, silly ego games - because we fear having situations we cannot handle, and it helps to think this cannot happen because we know what everyone else should be doing. The uncertainty of life is frightening to everyone. All of us know that any misfortune can be round the corner. In our fear of this, we want to believe that we have all the answers. Anyone who had misfortunes did something 'wrong' - and we would know better, or would never let it happen to ourselves.
The rarest of gifts, I believe, is to truly listen and to have compassion. God grant us this.
It is 26 years this week since I was forced out of convent life, against my will. I shall never forget receiving that horrible letter: "Easter is coming. New dawn, new resurrection. You will be going home, and can rejoice in knowing God's will for you." Charming, is it not? It was several years before I could meditate on the resurrection (previously, and later, a favourite topic) without chills and tears. Granted, there is no kind way to tell someone "we don't want you," but to imply that one expects the other to be 'rejoicing' in such knowledge is about as crass as it gets.
I am a very private person, and am not about to share all of the heartbreak which followed. Yet it was an especially intense, dreadful pain because it could not be shared with others. Friends and family were delighted that I was 'out,' and thought I had come to my senses. (One Roman priest, who saw me shortly afterward at a funeral for a mutual friend, had the gall to say to me, "Oh, you left - oh, good! Keep the veil off, honey, you'll have a lot more fun." I shall reserve comment on what that might indicate about his attitude towards his own vocation.) I had hoped that religious Sisters would be compassionate (one or two were), but the usual attitude from that camp was either that I should be relieved that God had not willed my religious life, or that 'all these new lay ministries' (of which I knew plenty - I'd filled many of them) were replacing religious life, or that some 'new theology of marriage' meant that celibacy was passé and that "God might want you to be a married woman."
By far the most painful, and common, response was along the lines of "with how they need people today, what did you do that they would dismiss you?" (My own father insisted "there must be something you're not telling us.") I suppose I was lucky - today, those dismissed from religious life are probably assumed to be criminals. Yet I have known many in the situation who are of impeccable moral character, devotion and so forth. People can be dismissed from religious life for any reason and no reason. It is based on a superior's (not God's!) assessment of whether one 'fits in' to the life, agenda, whatever.
Why do people love to hear details of others' pain? Here, I am not referring to compassionate listening, but to a love for 'the dirt.' Ask anyone who has been a victim of a crime, or suffered through a painful divorce, or who was sacked from a job. Those who hear of a death want to know all the details (they'll ask the widow at the funeral), and half of them also will decide what the deceased did 'wrong' to be such a failure, as if death could be avoided. On the other hand, the fools who want to have all the answers (either shrugging it off with 'everyone has problems,' or 'God's will,' or 'you're just feeling sorry for yourself - or the mega-fools who think everything can be cured by therapy, doctors, nutritionists, self help groups, or exercise) just make one want to hide, rather like a hedgehog.
It is a denial of another person's pain! Smug, silly ego games - because we fear having situations we cannot handle, and it helps to think this cannot happen because we know what everyone else should be doing. The uncertainty of life is frightening to everyone. All of us know that any misfortune can be round the corner. In our fear of this, we want to believe that we have all the answers. Anyone who had misfortunes did something 'wrong' - and we would know better, or would never let it happen to ourselves.
The rarest of gifts, I believe, is to truly listen and to have compassion. God grant us this.
Saturday, 10 March 2007
Brief thoughts about Rafaellina and Padre Pio
It is astonishing how popular devotion to Padre Pio has become, considering that he died less than 40 years ago. Unfortunately, much of what is written of him centres on the weird - inevitable, I suppose, for those who have stigmata and were alleged to bilocate. In all fairness to Pio, I have no idea if he actually made the 'predictions' which his devotees quoted during his lifetime (and which were about as accurate as those on a psychic hotline). The other side of Pio should be better known - the mystic, the pastoral father, the earthy Capuchin who wrote candidly of normal spiritual struggles, not only diabolical appearances and bearing the wounds of Christ in his hands.
Now and then, I will receive a gift of a well-worn devotional book, and I happened to come into a copy of letters between Pio and Rafaellina, the latter a lady for whom he was spiritual director. His letters to her are lengthy, insightful, loving, and wise. Since I'd always heard that Padre Pio was (if you'll forgive the terminology) a holy terror as a confessor, I'd expected his letters to be strong, and was surprised that quite the contrary was true. (I'm wondering if his reputation for roughness stemmed from that many people visited him as if he were an attraction - rather like the Roman house where lots of visitors from Purgatory left hand marks in the walls - and were not truly 'confessing' but wanting to say they once made confession to Pio.) My surprise doubled when I read Rafaellina's missives. She was unquestionably devout, probably contemplative, and possibly saintly, but she wrote a 'wicked letter.' The correspondence contained many an example of what might be termed 'correction' - but it always was directed to Fra Pio.
Rafaellina, dramatic as is usual amonst those who have southern Italian blood coursing through their veins (myself included), did attempt to write humbly; but, with the possible exception of Francesco, the naturally humble Mediterranean is as likely to be encountered as a pterodactyl on one's front porch. Our friend would, in one paragraph, bewail her wrethedness: "Ah, Fra Pio, I ask your counsel, though a worm like myself realy does not deserve this..." In the next, one may read, "Now, Father, I really don't think you are answering my questions, and I have already asked you twice, to I would appreciate a response at this time. Your last letter was much too short..."
All of us who sincerely desire spiritual guidance can be disappointed when that which we receive does not seem 'special' or original enough. Fra Pio, who assuredly had a double dose of the proverbial patience of a saint, once wrote a beautiful letter (six pages, typeset) in which he spoke of divine love, detachment, and resignation to the divine will. (The letters date from the early decades of the 20th century - when Pio was often barred from public exercise of his apostolate.) Rafaellina responded to the effect that he was not answering her questions.
Sad but true: even if we taught 60 first communion classes that the way to holiness was prayer, common worship, fasting, almsgiving, and the like, we personally would prefer a more novel approach. Whether we receive direction from a living confessor or a canonised author, we refuse to accept that the way to intimacy with God, constant for centuries, must be the same for us as for countless other 'saints.'
Rafaellina, probably irritated that Padre Pio's long and eloquent letters of direction contained concepts that are as old as the Church, must have thought he was throwing her a bone. I wonder if the stigmata was the most painful and inconvenient cross our Servant of God had to bear. (Of course, there is one bright spot. At least Rafaellina did not add the tired line that Fra Pio was talking down to her because she was a woman.) Though the relation between the two topics is strained, I'm recalling how the only confessor who Margery Kempe found acceptable was a man who spoke only German... and heard her daily, general confessions (naturally, in English.)
I think my own director, a man of few words but insightful ones, will not mind my quoting a line which, in full, was a response to one of my own flights into Rafaellinadom. "Try to repose in God's care and shut up your internal monologue so He can participate in the dialogue which is the point of your vocation anyhow."
Now and then, I will receive a gift of a well-worn devotional book, and I happened to come into a copy of letters between Pio and Rafaellina, the latter a lady for whom he was spiritual director. His letters to her are lengthy, insightful, loving, and wise. Since I'd always heard that Padre Pio was (if you'll forgive the terminology) a holy terror as a confessor, I'd expected his letters to be strong, and was surprised that quite the contrary was true. (I'm wondering if his reputation for roughness stemmed from that many people visited him as if he were an attraction - rather like the Roman house where lots of visitors from Purgatory left hand marks in the walls - and were not truly 'confessing' but wanting to say they once made confession to Pio.) My surprise doubled when I read Rafaellina's missives. She was unquestionably devout, probably contemplative, and possibly saintly, but she wrote a 'wicked letter.' The correspondence contained many an example of what might be termed 'correction' - but it always was directed to Fra Pio.
Rafaellina, dramatic as is usual amonst those who have southern Italian blood coursing through their veins (myself included), did attempt to write humbly; but, with the possible exception of Francesco, the naturally humble Mediterranean is as likely to be encountered as a pterodactyl on one's front porch. Our friend would, in one paragraph, bewail her wrethedness: "Ah, Fra Pio, I ask your counsel, though a worm like myself realy does not deserve this..." In the next, one may read, "Now, Father, I really don't think you are answering my questions, and I have already asked you twice, to I would appreciate a response at this time. Your last letter was much too short..."
All of us who sincerely desire spiritual guidance can be disappointed when that which we receive does not seem 'special' or original enough. Fra Pio, who assuredly had a double dose of the proverbial patience of a saint, once wrote a beautiful letter (six pages, typeset) in which he spoke of divine love, detachment, and resignation to the divine will. (The letters date from the early decades of the 20th century - when Pio was often barred from public exercise of his apostolate.) Rafaellina responded to the effect that he was not answering her questions.
Sad but true: even if we taught 60 first communion classes that the way to holiness was prayer, common worship, fasting, almsgiving, and the like, we personally would prefer a more novel approach. Whether we receive direction from a living confessor or a canonised author, we refuse to accept that the way to intimacy with God, constant for centuries, must be the same for us as for countless other 'saints.'
Rafaellina, probably irritated that Padre Pio's long and eloquent letters of direction contained concepts that are as old as the Church, must have thought he was throwing her a bone. I wonder if the stigmata was the most painful and inconvenient cross our Servant of God had to bear. (Of course, there is one bright spot. At least Rafaellina did not add the tired line that Fra Pio was talking down to her because she was a woman.) Though the relation between the two topics is strained, I'm recalling how the only confessor who Margery Kempe found acceptable was a man who spoke only German... and heard her daily, general confessions (naturally, in English.)
I think my own director, a man of few words but insightful ones, will not mind my quoting a line which, in full, was a response to one of my own flights into Rafaellinadom. "Try to repose in God's care and shut up your internal monologue so He can participate in the dialogue which is the point of your vocation anyhow."
Friday, 9 March 2007
Some sins we all find quite capital
(The link in this title refers to a previous blog entry about how pride takes weird forms.)
It must be the winter blahs - I'm wondering seriously if it may be Eastertide before my brain thaws out and I can get back to this blog. Just yesterday, when I was engrossed in a study of Deutero-Isaiah, I had all sorts of marvellous ideas about divine transcendence and immanence, and of our being his icons, if you will. One of the most challenging parts of studying the Hebrew Scriptures is detaching oneself from the Christian interpretations... but entering into a spirit of exegesis in the spirit of the time is difficult, considering that the Old Testament is just so ancient and edited. So, my treatise on the Suffering Servant (who could be Israel, an ideal Israel, God Himself, the prophet... fortunately, in my programme of studies we are allowed no shortcuts, and must consult all the scholars), shall have to wait for a time.
To divert myself, and to remind my readers (are there any left?) that I am still among the living, I'm lapsing into one of my sillier modes. I read recently of a distinguished church which was presenting a series of talks on the seven capital sins (I'm a medievalist, so it sparked ideas of journeys through purgatory and the like... I'd hate to end up in what Dante pictured as the location of the lustful). This brought back a memory of when I was a financial manager for a major archdiocese. When a priest who was on the archbishop's staff (a delightful man, but sometimes a jokester) phoned me to ask if any one of my own staff were free to serve as chauffeur during a visit from Cardinal Sin, I commented that I'd see if Lust or Avarice were free, but doubted that (two elderly couriers) Anger and Pride were available.
Naturally, had the reference been to the 4th, 14th, or even 19th centuries, I might have had a clue that Cardinal Sin was primate of the Philippines. But I'm useless in the 20th and 21st centuries. Current events stymie me - because I think we need perspective, hindsight of a century at the least, to see anything clearly.
Well, enough of that diversion. I shall begin my series on the 'principle defects' with a sin which most of us find to be quite capital: pride. I received a noble inspiration, from a most unlikely source, which prompted this reflection. In view of my own great humility, writing on this topic is not easy, but I shall make my best effort.
The source of the inspiration was a dinner at a fine restaurant, to which a friend was kind enough to treat me. Friend, who had been unable to finish the ample and expensive main course she had ordered, took the course of action I would take were I ever to find myself in that situation (which is unlikely, since those who live on scrambled eggs and minute steaks with the consistency of shoe leather never leave a restaurant plate full), by asking that it be wrapped for her to take home. However, to my great annoyance, the request was ended with the despicable phrase "...for my dog."
Naturally, my irritation was piqued not only by the thought of what it would be like to have a dog who enjoyed Shrimp Creole (imagine walking it!), nor by the action of lying. It was an illustration of the vice of pride, albeit a minor one: one like said friend can order a gourmet dish in a restaurant, yet feel compelled to insure that the waiter believes that one finds it fit only for an animal once it makes its initial appearance at table. (Where I come from, one can recycle the rare joint of good beef for a week.) You can imagine what I think of the odious characters who really do give fine food to a dog, but that is a topic for another lecture.)
While those who live holy poverty (...best to call it something other than raw poverty) do not have problems related to prawns, and assuredly never give fancy food to four legged friends, even Religious have been known to have problems with pride. If you doubt it, watch the weak ones around you now and then. Herewith I present some of the major varieties of this malady:
(1) "I am not canonised only because I am still breathing" Syndrome: Seen in those who, after reading of the seventh mansion of Saint Teresa or gulping "Spiritual Canticle" on a day or recollection, comment that they remember when they went through "that," years before. (Those making this statement, incidentally, are often 19 at most.)
(2) "Worm and No Man" Syndrome: This form of internal pride makes one's faults attractive because one feels one is practising heroic humility in admitting them. (Even to God, who would not know about them unless we told Him.) Major symptons include the tendency to silently begin one's confession with "Bless me, Father, for I am a saint with a delicate conscience...," the desire to publicly accuse oneself of minor 'failings' (such as not reading the seven penitential psalms last night, not that anyone ever really had to be penitent) whilst acting as if one fears eternal condemnation for this omission; the sense that making one's confession is evangelisation rather than accusation, since one's confessor must be edified greatly to encounter anyone with such enormous humility and zeal.
(3) "Hotline to Heaven": Found in all who tell others that the grass is green and believe that, in doing so, they will attain a reputation for having an unlimited measure of infused grace. Varieites include those who quote prominent theologians sans source (as if these ideas just popped into one's head); those who decry any learning or intellectual pursuit (they get their daily jolt of the Holy Spirit in the 10:00 vision); those who learn what others should do with their lives in visions; and charismatics who pray, endlessly, in every language except one known to earthlings. All should beware especially of dreamy pronouncements begun with "God is here - right in this room!" (Whether what follows is divinely inspired may be open to question - but is there any doubt that He is there? )
(4) Feast and Fast Dilemma: Found in those who do not need to eat, and make sure everyone knows their degree of self inflicted deprivation, because they are over fed by the admiration they assume others have for their starvation.
(5) Swoon School of Mysticism: Similar to disease number 2, except that it requires one to preface one's profound statements with gulps, sighs, a facial expression cum hand pressed to forehead reminiscent of an advertisement for paracetemol, and the description of what colour auras one sees at the moment.
(6) All Things to All People: A popular dance number, dependent entirely on the company of the moment - slide to the left, dip to the right, take a bow.
(7) Mount Everest: "Well (sigh)... if that's what is important to you... I've no objection.... we cannot (sigh) expect everyone to reach our level.."
(8) Self-Righteous Indignation: Self-explanatory, an example being found in nuns who pretend shock if a student uses mild profanity, or a Sister uses a handkerchief without holes in it, or any Religious laughs out loud. Characteristic is the intense feeling that anyone who watches anything on television except the news, or listens to anything on radio except a weather report, is a Communist and/or Freemason. Those who love art, as I do, will come under fire - we're supposed to pretend that anything on a wall except a poorly constructed crucifix distracts us from prayer.
(9) Regular Guy: One who thinks that, since one never acts like a Religious, everyone will envy one's relationship with Christ, which is 'beyond' that of others.
(10) Shirley Temple Revisited: This causes one to desire that one be known for extreme cheerfulness and pluck, but only if it is understood how much one suffers and always has.
(11) We Are Not Amused (apologies to Queen Victoria) : Manifested in those who lower their eyes and slightly smile when some peasant speaks; or who make comments such as "Oh, I am so horribly embarrassed! The superior just told me she has never known a nurse more dedicated than I!"
(13) Hey, Look Me Over: In the early stages, this is evidence in the pressing thought, en route to receiving Holy Communion, that everyone in the church is watching one's obvious piety. Later, it advances to one's making profound genuflections and kissing the floor, or reciting the rosary with arms extended... but only in the parish church, and only if it is full.
The treatment, I suppose, is to remember that humility is truth. But that is quite hard, because we cannot bear being that real. It's so humiliating!
It must be the winter blahs - I'm wondering seriously if it may be Eastertide before my brain thaws out and I can get back to this blog. Just yesterday, when I was engrossed in a study of Deutero-Isaiah, I had all sorts of marvellous ideas about divine transcendence and immanence, and of our being his icons, if you will. One of the most challenging parts of studying the Hebrew Scriptures is detaching oneself from the Christian interpretations... but entering into a spirit of exegesis in the spirit of the time is difficult, considering that the Old Testament is just so ancient and edited. So, my treatise on the Suffering Servant (who could be Israel, an ideal Israel, God Himself, the prophet... fortunately, in my programme of studies we are allowed no shortcuts, and must consult all the scholars), shall have to wait for a time.
To divert myself, and to remind my readers (are there any left?) that I am still among the living, I'm lapsing into one of my sillier modes. I read recently of a distinguished church which was presenting a series of talks on the seven capital sins (I'm a medievalist, so it sparked ideas of journeys through purgatory and the like... I'd hate to end up in what Dante pictured as the location of the lustful). This brought back a memory of when I was a financial manager for a major archdiocese. When a priest who was on the archbishop's staff (a delightful man, but sometimes a jokester) phoned me to ask if any one of my own staff were free to serve as chauffeur during a visit from Cardinal Sin, I commented that I'd see if Lust or Avarice were free, but doubted that (two elderly couriers) Anger and Pride were available.
Naturally, had the reference been to the 4th, 14th, or even 19th centuries, I might have had a clue that Cardinal Sin was primate of the Philippines. But I'm useless in the 20th and 21st centuries. Current events stymie me - because I think we need perspective, hindsight of a century at the least, to see anything clearly.
Well, enough of that diversion. I shall begin my series on the 'principle defects' with a sin which most of us find to be quite capital: pride. I received a noble inspiration, from a most unlikely source, which prompted this reflection. In view of my own great humility, writing on this topic is not easy, but I shall make my best effort.
The source of the inspiration was a dinner at a fine restaurant, to which a friend was kind enough to treat me. Friend, who had been unable to finish the ample and expensive main course she had ordered, took the course of action I would take were I ever to find myself in that situation (which is unlikely, since those who live on scrambled eggs and minute steaks with the consistency of shoe leather never leave a restaurant plate full), by asking that it be wrapped for her to take home. However, to my great annoyance, the request was ended with the despicable phrase "...for my dog."
Naturally, my irritation was piqued not only by the thought of what it would be like to have a dog who enjoyed Shrimp Creole (imagine walking it!), nor by the action of lying. It was an illustration of the vice of pride, albeit a minor one: one like said friend can order a gourmet dish in a restaurant, yet feel compelled to insure that the waiter believes that one finds it fit only for an animal once it makes its initial appearance at table. (Where I come from, one can recycle the rare joint of good beef for a week.) You can imagine what I think of the odious characters who really do give fine food to a dog, but that is a topic for another lecture.)
While those who live holy poverty (...best to call it something other than raw poverty) do not have problems related to prawns, and assuredly never give fancy food to four legged friends, even Religious have been known to have problems with pride. If you doubt it, watch the weak ones around you now and then. Herewith I present some of the major varieties of this malady:
(1) "I am not canonised only because I am still breathing" Syndrome: Seen in those who, after reading of the seventh mansion of Saint Teresa or gulping "Spiritual Canticle" on a day or recollection, comment that they remember when they went through "that," years before. (Those making this statement, incidentally, are often 19 at most.)
(2) "Worm and No Man" Syndrome: This form of internal pride makes one's faults attractive because one feels one is practising heroic humility in admitting them. (Even to God, who would not know about them unless we told Him.) Major symptons include the tendency to silently begin one's confession with "Bless me, Father, for I am a saint with a delicate conscience...," the desire to publicly accuse oneself of minor 'failings' (such as not reading the seven penitential psalms last night, not that anyone ever really had to be penitent) whilst acting as if one fears eternal condemnation for this omission; the sense that making one's confession is evangelisation rather than accusation, since one's confessor must be edified greatly to encounter anyone with such enormous humility and zeal.
(3) "Hotline to Heaven": Found in all who tell others that the grass is green and believe that, in doing so, they will attain a reputation for having an unlimited measure of infused grace. Varieites include those who quote prominent theologians sans source (as if these ideas just popped into one's head); those who decry any learning or intellectual pursuit (they get their daily jolt of the Holy Spirit in the 10:00 vision); those who learn what others should do with their lives in visions; and charismatics who pray, endlessly, in every language except one known to earthlings. All should beware especially of dreamy pronouncements begun with "God is here - right in this room!" (Whether what follows is divinely inspired may be open to question - but is there any doubt that He is there? )
(4) Feast and Fast Dilemma: Found in those who do not need to eat, and make sure everyone knows their degree of self inflicted deprivation, because they are over fed by the admiration they assume others have for their starvation.
(5) Swoon School of Mysticism: Similar to disease number 2, except that it requires one to preface one's profound statements with gulps, sighs, a facial expression cum hand pressed to forehead reminiscent of an advertisement for paracetemol, and the description of what colour auras one sees at the moment.
(6) All Things to All People: A popular dance number, dependent entirely on the company of the moment - slide to the left, dip to the right, take a bow.
(7) Mount Everest: "Well (sigh)... if that's what is important to you... I've no objection.... we cannot (sigh) expect everyone to reach our level.."
(8) Self-Righteous Indignation: Self-explanatory, an example being found in nuns who pretend shock if a student uses mild profanity, or a Sister uses a handkerchief without holes in it, or any Religious laughs out loud. Characteristic is the intense feeling that anyone who watches anything on television except the news, or listens to anything on radio except a weather report, is a Communist and/or Freemason. Those who love art, as I do, will come under fire - we're supposed to pretend that anything on a wall except a poorly constructed crucifix distracts us from prayer.
(9) Regular Guy: One who thinks that, since one never acts like a Religious, everyone will envy one's relationship with Christ, which is 'beyond' that of others.
(10) Shirley Temple Revisited: This causes one to desire that one be known for extreme cheerfulness and pluck, but only if it is understood how much one suffers and always has.
(11) We Are Not Amused (apologies to Queen Victoria) : Manifested in those who lower their eyes and slightly smile when some peasant speaks; or who make comments such as "Oh, I am so horribly embarrassed! The superior just told me she has never known a nurse more dedicated than I!"
(13) Hey, Look Me Over: In the early stages, this is evidence in the pressing thought, en route to receiving Holy Communion, that everyone in the church is watching one's obvious piety. Later, it advances to one's making profound genuflections and kissing the floor, or reciting the rosary with arms extended... but only in the parish church, and only if it is full.
The treatment, I suppose, is to remember that humility is truth. But that is quite hard, because we cannot bear being that real. It's so humiliating!
Friday, 9 February 2007
"Living and radiant things we can become"
Having been away from the blog for nearly two months (I'm sure to no one's distress), I was prompted to return today when I read the following brilliant quote from Evelyn Underhill's The Life of the Spirit and the Life of Today. It is in the context of a chapter entitled "Psychology and the Life of the Spirit."
The tendency of the unconscious self to realise without criticism a suggested end lays on religious teachers the obligation of forming a clear and vital conception of the spiritual ideals they wish to suggest... to be sure they are wholesome, and tend to fullness of life. It should also compel each of us to scrutinise those religious thoughts and images.. on which we allow our minds to dwell: excluding those which are merely sentimental, weak, or otherwise unworthy, and holding fast the noblest and most beautiful...For these ideas, however generalised, will set up profound changes in the mind that receives them. Thus the wrong conception of self-immolation will be faithfully worked out by the unconscious - and has been too often in the past - in terms of misery, weakness, or disease. ...(The) idea of herself as a victim of love worked physical destruction in Thérèse de l'Enfant Jésus: and we shall never perhaps know all the havoc wrought by the once fashionable doctrines of predestination and of the total depravity of human nature. All this shows how necessary it is to put hopeful, manly, constructive conceptions before those whom we try to help or instruct; constantly suggesting to them not the weak and sinful things that they are, but the living and radiant things which they can become. (Bold emphasis mine.)
I'm deeply tempted to continue with what follows, regarding what Evelyn terms "hymns of the Weary Willie type," but I'll save that for another day. However, I shall comment that, considering this book was a collection of lectures from 1921, she must have been in quite progressive circles. I was exposed to some of the ideas against which Evelyn cautions more than a generation later. (In 1921, my parents were still learning to talk.)
As my readers will recall, for all that I cherish my early education with the nuns from Cork (who indeed were excellent teachers - perfect for the budding doctor of humanities), I regret the constant emphasis on sacrifice, suffering, self-denial, and how God afflicts his friends. (To be sure, hell or at least a lengthy term in purgatory may have awaited the wicked, but, unless one was very sinful indeed - highly unlikely at the age of seven or ten - being God's friend was nearly the more frightening prospect. I still remember how I shivered, hearing of how little Jacinta at Fatima had begged Our Lady, "Must I die all alone?!") Now, certainly the history of the church in Ireland gives me an inkling of why faith was thought of as a battle, and the tragic Calvinist influence (which would turn the best vintage Catholicism into vinegar and gall) gave a picture of us as so depraved that anything we could find pleasant or appealing was the work of Satan. Yet the idea of a cruel, punishing God, who does not allow, let alone promise, any sort of happiness except in the next life has never fully left me, for all that it is a theology I despise. The penal laws were long past... and some, I believe, thought more's the pity, because at least martyrdom guaranteed admission to heaven. With the stake and block out of commission, we happily (ahem!) were taught to create our own martyrdom.
I don't know if anyone worked this out in depth (in fact, I doubt most of the Sisters who taught me at such a young age would have studied these ideas at all), but there were great elements of Gnostic dualism underlying much of what we were taught. (For all my later love of C. S. Lewis, even his works verge on the Manichean at times.) The world was a battlefield between Christ and Satan (the former presumably with a brogue, the latter with the drawl of Oxford) - and perish the thought that we 'soldiers' were not well armed and preferably wounded, because, even if we all knew Jesus would win in the end, he was going to keep Lucifer guessing until the last judgement.
My parents, southern Italian and hardly ones to dwell on guilt or a punishing God, certainly accepted the natural 'sacrifice' which is part of any decent life - in their case, largely connected with responsibility for immediate and extended family. I still shudder at much of their lives - not in relation to one another, but in endless, backbreaking labour and poverty. It would not be until perhaps five years ago that I myself had an idea that life was anything except an endurance test. (I had hopes it would be something other than that during my university years... but my convent days reinforced the idea, and the horrid jobs I had when I was forced to exit from the convent were on a par with dad's.) Certainly, they were not looking to create make-believe 'sacrifices' beyond those which already existed. But I saw much of that amongst the 'churchier' sorts.
To my knowledge, the grace of the Eucharist does not lose its potency as the day progresses, but everyone knew that attending at 11:00 was greatly inferior to doing so at dawn - it was a bigger sacrifice. If one was watching and enjoying a film, a really good soul would turn it off. People who truly have to deal with poverty have no illusions about its being glorious or a path to sainthood - but those who do not, and never have, will see to it today that nutritionists, trainers, scolding books, etc., reduce them to starvation, thereby giving them sufficient punishment for their prosperity.
In these Internet days, even if the tendency to self punishment is expressed a bit differently, I'm sorry to say I've noticed it is alive and well. On one forum on which I participate, for example, people are constantly moaning about being 'too comfortable,' and one gets the feeling that one should hate oneself (and take the blame for all affliction of the third world) because one has plumbing, electricity, Christmas presents, or clean clothing. On another (where I did not remain for long!), a young woman, who is a convert to Catholicism and afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis, wrote of how she asked God to increase her physical pain for 'the salvation of her four children' - the eldest of whom is seven. (She is a generation younger than I am, and I wonder where she heard these concepts in the first place. But the idea that we must ask for crosses to achieve 'salvation' for others was old hat in the days of the brilliant and well educated Fulton J. Sheen.) I could quote scores of other examples, all current.
Soon, indeed, the forum crowd will be looking for new ways to torture themselves for Lent. Fasting will not be seen as a means to remove distractions from prayer, but as a punishment for 'gluttony,' and a way to force one to save grocery money to give to charities. (Ah, memories! We were working class kids, and really too poor to be gluttons, but the nuns had us convinced that our souls would be destroyed if we ate a piece of chocolate rather than putting its cost in the mite box in Lent.)
I may not be able to live this very well (yet - there's still hope, I'm sure), but I know all too well that one is far better off with gratitude than with guilt. I'm not referring to the healthy, genuine guilt one may feel for sin, of course - that is a grace. But feeling guilty that I had chicken tonight rather than pease pudding when people in Biafra are starving does no good. My guilt does not feed them - it only will eat me.
We are far better off with our lives being eucharistic. If there must be 'sacrifice,' let it be of praise and thanksgiving.
The tendency of the unconscious self to realise without criticism a suggested end lays on religious teachers the obligation of forming a clear and vital conception of the spiritual ideals they wish to suggest... to be sure they are wholesome, and tend to fullness of life. It should also compel each of us to scrutinise those religious thoughts and images.. on which we allow our minds to dwell: excluding those which are merely sentimental, weak, or otherwise unworthy, and holding fast the noblest and most beautiful...For these ideas, however generalised, will set up profound changes in the mind that receives them. Thus the wrong conception of self-immolation will be faithfully worked out by the unconscious - and has been too often in the past - in terms of misery, weakness, or disease. ...(The) idea of herself as a victim of love worked physical destruction in Thérèse de l'Enfant Jésus: and we shall never perhaps know all the havoc wrought by the once fashionable doctrines of predestination and of the total depravity of human nature. All this shows how necessary it is to put hopeful, manly, constructive conceptions before those whom we try to help or instruct; constantly suggesting to them not the weak and sinful things that they are, but the living and radiant things which they can become. (Bold emphasis mine.)
I'm deeply tempted to continue with what follows, regarding what Evelyn terms "hymns of the Weary Willie type," but I'll save that for another day. However, I shall comment that, considering this book was a collection of lectures from 1921, she must have been in quite progressive circles. I was exposed to some of the ideas against which Evelyn cautions more than a generation later. (In 1921, my parents were still learning to talk.)
As my readers will recall, for all that I cherish my early education with the nuns from Cork (who indeed were excellent teachers - perfect for the budding doctor of humanities), I regret the constant emphasis on sacrifice, suffering, self-denial, and how God afflicts his friends. (To be sure, hell or at least a lengthy term in purgatory may have awaited the wicked, but, unless one was very sinful indeed - highly unlikely at the age of seven or ten - being God's friend was nearly the more frightening prospect. I still remember how I shivered, hearing of how little Jacinta at Fatima had begged Our Lady, "Must I die all alone?!") Now, certainly the history of the church in Ireland gives me an inkling of why faith was thought of as a battle, and the tragic Calvinist influence (which would turn the best vintage Catholicism into vinegar and gall) gave a picture of us as so depraved that anything we could find pleasant or appealing was the work of Satan. Yet the idea of a cruel, punishing God, who does not allow, let alone promise, any sort of happiness except in the next life has never fully left me, for all that it is a theology I despise. The penal laws were long past... and some, I believe, thought more's the pity, because at least martyrdom guaranteed admission to heaven. With the stake and block out of commission, we happily (ahem!) were taught to create our own martyrdom.
I don't know if anyone worked this out in depth (in fact, I doubt most of the Sisters who taught me at such a young age would have studied these ideas at all), but there were great elements of Gnostic dualism underlying much of what we were taught. (For all my later love of C. S. Lewis, even his works verge on the Manichean at times.) The world was a battlefield between Christ and Satan (the former presumably with a brogue, the latter with the drawl of Oxford) - and perish the thought that we 'soldiers' were not well armed and preferably wounded, because, even if we all knew Jesus would win in the end, he was going to keep Lucifer guessing until the last judgement.
My parents, southern Italian and hardly ones to dwell on guilt or a punishing God, certainly accepted the natural 'sacrifice' which is part of any decent life - in their case, largely connected with responsibility for immediate and extended family. I still shudder at much of their lives - not in relation to one another, but in endless, backbreaking labour and poverty. It would not be until perhaps five years ago that I myself had an idea that life was anything except an endurance test. (I had hopes it would be something other than that during my university years... but my convent days reinforced the idea, and the horrid jobs I had when I was forced to exit from the convent were on a par with dad's.) Certainly, they were not looking to create make-believe 'sacrifices' beyond those which already existed. But I saw much of that amongst the 'churchier' sorts.
To my knowledge, the grace of the Eucharist does not lose its potency as the day progresses, but everyone knew that attending at 11:00 was greatly inferior to doing so at dawn - it was a bigger sacrifice. If one was watching and enjoying a film, a really good soul would turn it off. People who truly have to deal with poverty have no illusions about its being glorious or a path to sainthood - but those who do not, and never have, will see to it today that nutritionists, trainers, scolding books, etc., reduce them to starvation, thereby giving them sufficient punishment for their prosperity.
In these Internet days, even if the tendency to self punishment is expressed a bit differently, I'm sorry to say I've noticed it is alive and well. On one forum on which I participate, for example, people are constantly moaning about being 'too comfortable,' and one gets the feeling that one should hate oneself (and take the blame for all affliction of the third world) because one has plumbing, electricity, Christmas presents, or clean clothing. On another (where I did not remain for long!), a young woman, who is a convert to Catholicism and afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis, wrote of how she asked God to increase her physical pain for 'the salvation of her four children' - the eldest of whom is seven. (She is a generation younger than I am, and I wonder where she heard these concepts in the first place. But the idea that we must ask for crosses to achieve 'salvation' for others was old hat in the days of the brilliant and well educated Fulton J. Sheen.) I could quote scores of other examples, all current.
Soon, indeed, the forum crowd will be looking for new ways to torture themselves for Lent. Fasting will not be seen as a means to remove distractions from prayer, but as a punishment for 'gluttony,' and a way to force one to save grocery money to give to charities. (Ah, memories! We were working class kids, and really too poor to be gluttons, but the nuns had us convinced that our souls would be destroyed if we ate a piece of chocolate rather than putting its cost in the mite box in Lent.)
I may not be able to live this very well (yet - there's still hope, I'm sure), but I know all too well that one is far better off with gratitude than with guilt. I'm not referring to the healthy, genuine guilt one may feel for sin, of course - that is a grace. But feeling guilty that I had chicken tonight rather than pease pudding when people in Biafra are starving does no good. My guilt does not feed them - it only will eat me.
We are far better off with our lives being eucharistic. If there must be 'sacrifice,' let it be of praise and thanksgiving.
Saturday, 30 December 2006
Hi-ya, Monkeydoodles!
What has happened - that I cannot write some marvellous reflection on Thomas Becket today? Well, I suppose that I occasionally must go from the sublime to, if not the ridiculous, at least the less than ethereal. Christmas is a wonderful season, but, I suppose inevitably, it can lead one who is well past the halfway mark of life to nostalgia, memories of good times that cannot be recaptured. How often I miss the 1970s - when I would have had no shortage of others with whom to share laughter, tobacco, a few drinks (well, for me - some of my companions had far more than a few), steaks and plum pudding and the like.
It is rather hard, at my age (since I am not old), to see that a number of ones friends have died, and that others have been drawn far away, not by conflict but by circumstances. This Christmas is a lonely one for me, because I am far from most of my friends (for reasons I'll not get into here.) But, on another level, the fact remains that the baby boomer generation have largely evolved into overly earnest, conservative, fearful frumps. I was trying to divert myself from being a bit down, and found a 'baby boomer' site, at which I'd hoped to see humour, memories of the Beatles and tie dye and protests... and what I found were endless posts on health and retirement savings, and, for those who got a late start at parenthood, "our children." (Apparently, 'our children' are eternal infants who need to be protected from all of the world - though I, the most innocent of creatures, was more sophisticated when I was five.)
So, if I cannot be with most of those whom I love, I can still share the memories - and this of people who were not frumps. :) I am thinking of Tom right now - a dear friend from thirty-odd years ago, and indeed a man I loved. (We had a number of good times - but he left me in the dark because of a maddening habit of inviting my younger sister along on occasions which otherwise would have been very nice 'dates.') Tom was a sentimentalist - the sort who would begin crying over Christmas songs (especially after a bit of wine.)
I'm remembering one New Year's Eve, which we celebrated in my home. It was quite lavish (though no one else besides us was there, save for my omnipresent younger sister and one of her boy friends.) Tom was from a family of six children, and the age difference between him and his youngest brother was enough for them to have been father and son. Tom thought the baby was the most wonderful, beautiful child on earth (a topic which was his constant megillah.) At midnight, Tom phoned his mother - and it happened the baby (aged perhaps six months) had awakened. I still remember Tom, weeping with sentimental fervour, speaking to the baby over the phone, beginning with, "Hi-ya, Monkeydoodles!"
In case this sounds like mockery in any sense, be assured it is nothing of the kind. I wish I had someone capable of being in a condition to say Hi-ya, Monkeydoodles, on New Year's Eve this year. (Of course, another dear male friend, whom I rarely see but whose company I enjoy immensely, does manage to weep a bit at the thought of Mary Poppins and "Feed the Birds, Tuppence a Bag." I'd love for him to drop by...)
Perhaps part of why I mention this is that my avid devotion to prayer, theology, and the like has no element of Calvinism - I believe the pleasures of the earth are gifts of God, and that our attraction for them need not be feared because of suppositions about our 'depravity.' My life indeed has its ascetic side, but this in a sense of removing distractions from love of God or neighbour, not excessive deprivation, certainly not punishment.
I wish to raise a glass to those whom I love, living and deceased, with whom I have shared good times. Any of you who might be reading this blog - know that I cherish the memories, and wish they had not faded into the past. Cheers.
It is rather hard, at my age (since I am not old), to see that a number of ones friends have died, and that others have been drawn far away, not by conflict but by circumstances. This Christmas is a lonely one for me, because I am far from most of my friends (for reasons I'll not get into here.) But, on another level, the fact remains that the baby boomer generation have largely evolved into overly earnest, conservative, fearful frumps. I was trying to divert myself from being a bit down, and found a 'baby boomer' site, at which I'd hoped to see humour, memories of the Beatles and tie dye and protests... and what I found were endless posts on health and retirement savings, and, for those who got a late start at parenthood, "our children." (Apparently, 'our children' are eternal infants who need to be protected from all of the world - though I, the most innocent of creatures, was more sophisticated when I was five.)
So, if I cannot be with most of those whom I love, I can still share the memories - and this of people who were not frumps. :) I am thinking of Tom right now - a dear friend from thirty-odd years ago, and indeed a man I loved. (We had a number of good times - but he left me in the dark because of a maddening habit of inviting my younger sister along on occasions which otherwise would have been very nice 'dates.') Tom was a sentimentalist - the sort who would begin crying over Christmas songs (especially after a bit of wine.)
I'm remembering one New Year's Eve, which we celebrated in my home. It was quite lavish (though no one else besides us was there, save for my omnipresent younger sister and one of her boy friends.) Tom was from a family of six children, and the age difference between him and his youngest brother was enough for them to have been father and son. Tom thought the baby was the most wonderful, beautiful child on earth (a topic which was his constant megillah.) At midnight, Tom phoned his mother - and it happened the baby (aged perhaps six months) had awakened. I still remember Tom, weeping with sentimental fervour, speaking to the baby over the phone, beginning with, "Hi-ya, Monkeydoodles!"
In case this sounds like mockery in any sense, be assured it is nothing of the kind. I wish I had someone capable of being in a condition to say Hi-ya, Monkeydoodles, on New Year's Eve this year. (Of course, another dear male friend, whom I rarely see but whose company I enjoy immensely, does manage to weep a bit at the thought of Mary Poppins and "Feed the Birds, Tuppence a Bag." I'd love for him to drop by...)
Perhaps part of why I mention this is that my avid devotion to prayer, theology, and the like has no element of Calvinism - I believe the pleasures of the earth are gifts of God, and that our attraction for them need not be feared because of suppositions about our 'depravity.' My life indeed has its ascetic side, but this in a sense of removing distractions from love of God or neighbour, not excessive deprivation, certainly not punishment.
I wish to raise a glass to those whom I love, living and deceased, with whom I have shared good times. Any of you who might be reading this blog - know that I cherish the memories, and wish they had not faded into the past. Cheers.
Thursday, 28 December 2006
Christmas Musing
The link in the title is to Pope Benedict's sermon from Midnight Mass this year. This being a time of year when, between reflection, prayer, sentimentality, waiting for Father Christmas, and so forth, anything, including such a delightful sermon, can led me to record vaguely related thoughts. :)
Here is an excerpt from the sermon:
"God’s sign is simplicity. God’s sign is the baby. God’s sign is that he makes himself small for us. This is how he reigns. He does not come with power and outward splendour. He comes as a baby – defenceless and in need of our help. He does not want to overwhelm us with his strength. He takes away our fear of his greatness. He asks for our love: so he makes himself a child. He wants nothing other from us than our love, through which we spontaneously learn to enter into his feelings, his thoughts and his will – we learn to live with him and to practise with him that humility of renunciation that belongs to the very essence of love. God made himself small so that we could understand him, welcome him, and love him....The Son himself is the Word, the Logos; the eternal Word became small – small enough to fit into a manger. He became a child, so that the Word could be grasped by us. In this way God teaches us to love the little ones. In this way he teaches us to love the weak....How are we to love him with all our heart and soul, when our heart can only catch a glimpse of him from afar, when there are so many contradictions in the world that would hide his face from us? This is where the two ways in which God has "abbreviated" his Word come together. He is no longer distant. He is no longer unknown. He is no longer beyond the reach of our heart. He has become a child for us, and in so doing he has dispelled all doubt. He has become our neighbour, restoring in this way the image of man, whom we often find so hard to love."
I believe that Benedict is one of the greatest theologians of the past century. He could deliver a talk on the Incarnation which could win applause from every doctor of the Church in the heavenly courts. Yet here he is writing as "Papa," and indeed, for a moment, practically sounds like a Franciscan. (For one of my favourite recollections of a friar's sermon at Christmas, see this past post. ) God's 'becoming small' and being 'no longer distant' has many implications, and I shall mention a few ideas (more feelings... at Christmas, I allow myself to display those publicly) which entered my own mind.
Francis of Assisi's devotion to the 'babe of Bethlehem,' honoured to this day in the nativity scenes in parishes and elsewhere, is well known. Some of his contemporaries note that, when he spoke of the poor child in the manger, Francis would be so moved that he would begin to dance for joy. Personally, and nearly always, I prefer the gospel of John to Luke or Matthew. I feel the tears and awe far more at the image of "In the beginning was the Word..." than at thoughts of mangers and the ox and ass (possibly because I'm a city girl who shrinks at the smell of animals and at how dreadful it would be to give birth in a stable.)
I love my Franciscan Order dearly, but my intellectual side (which predominates - I have plenty of feelings, but do not trust them) :) always did concede that, popular and widespread though Franciscan preaching was and is, it tends to reduce the Incarnation to a babe in a manger and a desolate man on a cross. The Logos can get lost somewhere. But 'the Logos' can often be too remote for us, where a helpless child, a Galilean carpenter, bread and wine which somehow is His body and blood, can speak to the heart.
My own spirituality tends towards the apophatic. It is inconvenient at times - I should like to tell Jesus of my woes and have him embrace me, but I am left with the Logos in a cloud of unknowing. I believe every word of Christology and doctrine, but don't think we can understand what it means. As I've said in the past, I have no notion of who God is, yet believe I received his body and blood this morning. It inspires awe, adoration, worship indeed, but it can be qutie lonely. In the very awareness of how beyond us is true perception of divinity, God can seem very far away.
I have no idea what the total connection is here, but I shall share an experience which is loosely connected to this general post. Yesterday, I received a wonderful birthday surprise. A dear friend sent me a collection of CDs, recorded by an order of Sisters of which I'd never heard (but whose voices were angelic), which included many a popular hymn from my youth. I'm a musicologist, trained as an operatic singer, and, were I to remain totally 'true' to this background, I'd have to say the music (though not its performance) was dreadful. (I'm not going to do so - bear with me a moment.) Most of it was a combination of poetry which could come from the hands of Father Faber or Victorian ladies with vapours, and music which all calls to mind "Come Back to Erin Mavaurneen."
Listening to this music brought me to tears (and those which spring from warmth, memories, and even that sentimentality which scholars and musicians are supposed to eschew. I'm giving myself permission to record this publicly because even Papa Benedict did not wince at "God becoming small.") It removed the remoteness of the Logos for a moment (though I cherish the Logos immensely), and brought back memories of a God who eased our pain, wished the adoration with the warmth of a little child. "Speak the word of comfort; my spirit healed shall be." "How can I love Thee as I ought? And how revere this wondrous gift, so far surpassing hope or thought?" "Of all friends, the best thou art. Make of me thy counterpart."
It just occurred to me, only in writing this, that those simple hymns captured a great deal of what 'it's all about.'
Happy and Blessed Christmas.
Here is an excerpt from the sermon:
"God’s sign is simplicity. God’s sign is the baby. God’s sign is that he makes himself small for us. This is how he reigns. He does not come with power and outward splendour. He comes as a baby – defenceless and in need of our help. He does not want to overwhelm us with his strength. He takes away our fear of his greatness. He asks for our love: so he makes himself a child. He wants nothing other from us than our love, through which we spontaneously learn to enter into his feelings, his thoughts and his will – we learn to live with him and to practise with him that humility of renunciation that belongs to the very essence of love. God made himself small so that we could understand him, welcome him, and love him....The Son himself is the Word, the Logos; the eternal Word became small – small enough to fit into a manger. He became a child, so that the Word could be grasped by us. In this way God teaches us to love the little ones. In this way he teaches us to love the weak....How are we to love him with all our heart and soul, when our heart can only catch a glimpse of him from afar, when there are so many contradictions in the world that would hide his face from us? This is where the two ways in which God has "abbreviated" his Word come together. He is no longer distant. He is no longer unknown. He is no longer beyond the reach of our heart. He has become a child for us, and in so doing he has dispelled all doubt. He has become our neighbour, restoring in this way the image of man, whom we often find so hard to love."
I believe that Benedict is one of the greatest theologians of the past century. He could deliver a talk on the Incarnation which could win applause from every doctor of the Church in the heavenly courts. Yet here he is writing as "Papa," and indeed, for a moment, practically sounds like a Franciscan. (For one of my favourite recollections of a friar's sermon at Christmas, see this past post. ) God's 'becoming small' and being 'no longer distant' has many implications, and I shall mention a few ideas (more feelings... at Christmas, I allow myself to display those publicly) which entered my own mind.
Francis of Assisi's devotion to the 'babe of Bethlehem,' honoured to this day in the nativity scenes in parishes and elsewhere, is well known. Some of his contemporaries note that, when he spoke of the poor child in the manger, Francis would be so moved that he would begin to dance for joy. Personally, and nearly always, I prefer the gospel of John to Luke or Matthew. I feel the tears and awe far more at the image of "In the beginning was the Word..." than at thoughts of mangers and the ox and ass (possibly because I'm a city girl who shrinks at the smell of animals and at how dreadful it would be to give birth in a stable.)
I love my Franciscan Order dearly, but my intellectual side (which predominates - I have plenty of feelings, but do not trust them) :) always did concede that, popular and widespread though Franciscan preaching was and is, it tends to reduce the Incarnation to a babe in a manger and a desolate man on a cross. The Logos can get lost somewhere. But 'the Logos' can often be too remote for us, where a helpless child, a Galilean carpenter, bread and wine which somehow is His body and blood, can speak to the heart.
My own spirituality tends towards the apophatic. It is inconvenient at times - I should like to tell Jesus of my woes and have him embrace me, but I am left with the Logos in a cloud of unknowing. I believe every word of Christology and doctrine, but don't think we can understand what it means. As I've said in the past, I have no notion of who God is, yet believe I received his body and blood this morning. It inspires awe, adoration, worship indeed, but it can be qutie lonely. In the very awareness of how beyond us is true perception of divinity, God can seem very far away.
I have no idea what the total connection is here, but I shall share an experience which is loosely connected to this general post. Yesterday, I received a wonderful birthday surprise. A dear friend sent me a collection of CDs, recorded by an order of Sisters of which I'd never heard (but whose voices were angelic), which included many a popular hymn from my youth. I'm a musicologist, trained as an operatic singer, and, were I to remain totally 'true' to this background, I'd have to say the music (though not its performance) was dreadful. (I'm not going to do so - bear with me a moment.) Most of it was a combination of poetry which could come from the hands of Father Faber or Victorian ladies with vapours, and music which all calls to mind "Come Back to Erin Mavaurneen."
Listening to this music brought me to tears (and those which spring from warmth, memories, and even that sentimentality which scholars and musicians are supposed to eschew. I'm giving myself permission to record this publicly because even Papa Benedict did not wince at "God becoming small.") It removed the remoteness of the Logos for a moment (though I cherish the Logos immensely), and brought back memories of a God who eased our pain, wished the adoration with the warmth of a little child. "Speak the word of comfort; my spirit healed shall be." "How can I love Thee as I ought? And how revere this wondrous gift, so far surpassing hope or thought?" "Of all friends, the best thou art. Make of me thy counterpart."
It just occurred to me, only in writing this, that those simple hymns captured a great deal of what 'it's all about.'
Happy and Blessed Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
