Saturday, March 13, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
All I will note upfront about this imperfection is that it is doubtful that there are many people who do not run aground spiritually due to the imperfection of luxury or the sensual element obscuring or hindering in some manner or another their spiritual advancement.
CHAPTER IV
Of other imperfections which these beginners are apt to have with respect to the third sin, which is luxury.
MANY of these beginners have many other imperfections than those which I am describing with respect to each of the deadly sins, but these I set aside, in order to avoid prolixity, touching upon a few of the most important, which are, as it were, the origin and cause of the rest. And thus, with respect to this sin of luxury (leaving apart the falling of spiritual persons into this sin, since my intent is to treat of the imperfections which have to be purged by the dark night), they have many imperfections which might be described as spiritual luxury, not because they are so, but because the imperfections proceed from spiritual things.
For it often comes to pass that, in their very spiritual exercises, when they are powerless to prevent it, there arise and assert themselves in the sensual part of the soul impure acts and motions, and sometimes this happens even when the spirit is deep in prayer, or engaged in the Sacrament of Penance or in the Eucharist. These things are not, as I say, in their power; they proceed from one of three causes.
The first cause from which they often proceed is the pleasure which human nature takes in spiritual things. For when the spirit and the sense are pleased, every part of a man is moved by that pleasure to delight according to its proportion and nature. For then the spirit, which is the higher part, is moved to pleasure and delight in God; and the sensual nature, which is the lower part, is moved to pleasure and delight of the senses, because it cannot possess and lay hold upon aught else, and it therefore lays hold upon that which comes nearest to itself, which is the impure and sensual.
Thus it comes to pass that the soul is in deep prayer with God according to the spirit, and, on the other hand, according to sense it is passively conscious, not without great displeasure, of rebellions and motions and acts of the senses, which often happens in Communion, for when the soul receives joy and comfort in this act of love, because this Lord bestows it (since it is to that end that He gives Himself), the sensual nature takes that which is its own likewise, as we have said, after its manner.
Now as, after all, these two parts are combined in one individual, they ordinarily both participate in that which one of them receives, each after its manner; for, as the philosopher says, everything that is received is in the recipient after the manner of the same recipient. And thus, in these beginnings, and even when the soul has made some progress, its sensual part, being imperfect, oftentimes receives the Spirit of God with the same imperfection.
Now when this sensual part is renewed by the purgation of the dark night which we shall describe, it no longer has these weaknesses; for it is no longer this part that receives aught, but rather it is itself received into the Spirit. And thus it then has everything after the manner of the Spirit.
The second cause whence these rebellions sometimes proceed is the devil, who, in order to disquiet and disturb the soul, at times when it is at prayer or is striving to pray, contrives to stir up these motions of impurity in its nature; and if the soul gives heed to any of these, they cause it great harm.
For through fear of these not only do persons become lax in prayer--which is the aim of the devil when he begins to strive with them--but some give up prayer altogether, because they think that these things attack them more during that exercise than apart from it, which is true, since the devil attacks them then more than at other times, so that they may give up spiritual exercises.
And not only so, but he succeeds in portraying to them very vividly things that are most foul and impure, and at times are very closely related to certain spiritual things and persons that are of profit to their souls, in order to terrify them and make them fearful; so that those who are affected by this dare not even look at anything or meditate upon anything, because they immediately encounter this temptation.
And upon those who are inclined to melancholy this acts with such effect that they become greatly to be pitied since they are suffering so sadly; for this trial reaches such a point in certain persons, when they have this evil humour, that they believe it to be clear that the devil is ever present with them and that they have no power to prevent this, although some of these persons can prevent his attack by dint of great effort and labour.
When these impurities attack such souls through the medium of melancholy, they are not as a rule freed from them until they have been cured of that kind of humour, unless the dark night has entered the soul, and rids them of all impurities, one after another.
The third source whence these impure motions are apt to proceed in order to make war upon the soul is often the fear which such persons have conceived for these impure representations and motions. Something that they see or say or think brings them to their mind, and this makes them afraid, so that they suffer from them through no fault of their own.
There are also certain souls of so tender and frail a nature that, when there comes to them some spiritual consolation or some grace in prayer, the spirit of luxury is with them immediately, inebriating and delighting their sensual nature in such manner that it is as if they were plunged into the enjoyment and pleasure of this sin; and the enjoyment remains, together with the consolation, passively, and sometimes they are able to see that certain impure and unruly acts have taken place.
The reason for this is that, since these natures are, as I say, frail and tender, their humours are stirred up and their blood is excited at the least disturbance. And hence come these motions; and the same thing happens to such souls when they are enkindled with anger or suffer any disturbance or grief.[1]
Sometimes, again, there arises within these spiritual persons, whether they be speaking or performing spiritual actions, a certain vigour and bravado, through their having regard to persons who are present, and before these persons they display a certain kind of vain gratification. This also arises from luxury of spirit, after the manner wherein we here understand it, which is accompanied as a rule by complacency in the will.
Some of these persons make friendships of a spiritual kind with others, which oftentimes arise from luxury and not from spirituality; this may be known to be the case when the remembrance of that friendship causes not the remembrance and love of God to grow, but occasions remorse of conscience.
For, when the friendship is purely spiritual, the love of God grows with it; and the more the soul remembers it, the more it remembers the love of God, and the greater the desire it has for God; so that, as the one grows, the other grows also.
For the spirit of God has this property, that it increases good by adding to it more good, inasmuch as there is likeness and conformity between them. But, when this love arises from the vice of sensuality aforementioned, it produces the contrary effects; for the more the one grows, the more the other decreases, and the remembrance of it likewise.
If that sensual love grows, it will at once be observed that the soul's love of God is becoming colder, and that it is forgetting Him as it remembers that love; there comes to it, too, a certain remorse of conscience.
And, on the other hand, if the love of God grows in the soul, that other love becomes cold and is forgotten; for, as the two are contrary to one another, not only does the one not aid the other, but the one which predominates quenches and confounds the other, and becomes strengthened in itself, as the philosophers say.
Wherefore Our Saviour said in the Gospel: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'[38] That is to say, the love which is born of sensuality ends in sensuality, and that which is of the spirit ends in the spirit of God and causes it to grow. This is the difference that exists between these two kinds of love, whereby we may know them.
When the soul enters the dark night, it brings these kinds of love under control. It strengthens and purifies the one, namely that which is according to God; and the other it removes and brings to an end; and in the beginning it causes both to be lost sight of, as we shall say hereafter.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] All writers who comment upon this delicate matter go into lengthy and learned explanations of it, though in reality there is little that needs to be added to the Saint's clear and apt exposition.
It will be remembered that St. Teresa once wrote to her brother Lorenzo, who suffered in this way: 'As to those stirrings of sense. . . . I am quite clear they are of no account, so the best thing is to make no account of them' (LL. 168). The most effective means of calming souls tormented by these favours is to commend them to a discreet and wise director whose counsel they may safely follow. The Illuminists committed the grossest errors in dealing with this matter.
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
All I will note upfront about this imperfection is that it is doubtful that there are many people who do not run aground spiritually due to the imperfection of luxury or the sensual element obscuring or hindering in some manner or another their spiritual advancement.
CHAPTER IV
Of other imperfections which these beginners are apt to have with respect to the third sin, which is luxury.
MANY of these beginners have many other imperfections than those which I am describing with respect to each of the deadly sins, but these I set aside, in order to avoid prolixity, touching upon a few of the most important, which are, as it were, the origin and cause of the rest. And thus, with respect to this sin of luxury (leaving apart the falling of spiritual persons into this sin, since my intent is to treat of the imperfections which have to be purged by the dark night), they have many imperfections which might be described as spiritual luxury, not because they are so, but because the imperfections proceed from spiritual things.
For it often comes to pass that, in their very spiritual exercises, when they are powerless to prevent it, there arise and assert themselves in the sensual part of the soul impure acts and motions, and sometimes this happens even when the spirit is deep in prayer, or engaged in the Sacrament of Penance or in the Eucharist. These things are not, as I say, in their power; they proceed from one of three causes.
The first cause from which they often proceed is the pleasure which human nature takes in spiritual things. For when the spirit and the sense are pleased, every part of a man is moved by that pleasure to delight according to its proportion and nature. For then the spirit, which is the higher part, is moved to pleasure and delight in God; and the sensual nature, which is the lower part, is moved to pleasure and delight of the senses, because it cannot possess and lay hold upon aught else, and it therefore lays hold upon that which comes nearest to itself, which is the impure and sensual.
Thus it comes to pass that the soul is in deep prayer with God according to the spirit, and, on the other hand, according to sense it is passively conscious, not without great displeasure, of rebellions and motions and acts of the senses, which often happens in Communion, for when the soul receives joy and comfort in this act of love, because this Lord bestows it (since it is to that end that He gives Himself), the sensual nature takes that which is its own likewise, as we have said, after its manner.
Now as, after all, these two parts are combined in one individual, they ordinarily both participate in that which one of them receives, each after its manner; for, as the philosopher says, everything that is received is in the recipient after the manner of the same recipient. And thus, in these beginnings, and even when the soul has made some progress, its sensual part, being imperfect, oftentimes receives the Spirit of God with the same imperfection.
Now when this sensual part is renewed by the purgation of the dark night which we shall describe, it no longer has these weaknesses; for it is no longer this part that receives aught, but rather it is itself received into the Spirit. And thus it then has everything after the manner of the Spirit.
The second cause whence these rebellions sometimes proceed is the devil, who, in order to disquiet and disturb the soul, at times when it is at prayer or is striving to pray, contrives to stir up these motions of impurity in its nature; and if the soul gives heed to any of these, they cause it great harm.
For through fear of these not only do persons become lax in prayer--which is the aim of the devil when he begins to strive with them--but some give up prayer altogether, because they think that these things attack them more during that exercise than apart from it, which is true, since the devil attacks them then more than at other times, so that they may give up spiritual exercises.
And not only so, but he succeeds in portraying to them very vividly things that are most foul and impure, and at times are very closely related to certain spiritual things and persons that are of profit to their souls, in order to terrify them and make them fearful; so that those who are affected by this dare not even look at anything or meditate upon anything, because they immediately encounter this temptation.
And upon those who are inclined to melancholy this acts with such effect that they become greatly to be pitied since they are suffering so sadly; for this trial reaches such a point in certain persons, when they have this evil humour, that they believe it to be clear that the devil is ever present with them and that they have no power to prevent this, although some of these persons can prevent his attack by dint of great effort and labour.
When these impurities attack such souls through the medium of melancholy, they are not as a rule freed from them until they have been cured of that kind of humour, unless the dark night has entered the soul, and rids them of all impurities, one after another.
The third source whence these impure motions are apt to proceed in order to make war upon the soul is often the fear which such persons have conceived for these impure representations and motions. Something that they see or say or think brings them to their mind, and this makes them afraid, so that they suffer from them through no fault of their own.
There are also certain souls of so tender and frail a nature that, when there comes to them some spiritual consolation or some grace in prayer, the spirit of luxury is with them immediately, inebriating and delighting their sensual nature in such manner that it is as if they were plunged into the enjoyment and pleasure of this sin; and the enjoyment remains, together with the consolation, passively, and sometimes they are able to see that certain impure and unruly acts have taken place.
The reason for this is that, since these natures are, as I say, frail and tender, their humours are stirred up and their blood is excited at the least disturbance. And hence come these motions; and the same thing happens to such souls when they are enkindled with anger or suffer any disturbance or grief.[1]
Sometimes, again, there arises within these spiritual persons, whether they be speaking or performing spiritual actions, a certain vigour and bravado, through their having regard to persons who are present, and before these persons they display a certain kind of vain gratification. This also arises from luxury of spirit, after the manner wherein we here understand it, which is accompanied as a rule by complacency in the will.
Some of these persons make friendships of a spiritual kind with others, which oftentimes arise from luxury and not from spirituality; this may be known to be the case when the remembrance of that friendship causes not the remembrance and love of God to grow, but occasions remorse of conscience.
For, when the friendship is purely spiritual, the love of God grows with it; and the more the soul remembers it, the more it remembers the love of God, and the greater the desire it has for God; so that, as the one grows, the other grows also.
For the spirit of God has this property, that it increases good by adding to it more good, inasmuch as there is likeness and conformity between them. But, when this love arises from the vice of sensuality aforementioned, it produces the contrary effects; for the more the one grows, the more the other decreases, and the remembrance of it likewise.
If that sensual love grows, it will at once be observed that the soul's love of God is becoming colder, and that it is forgetting Him as it remembers that love; there comes to it, too, a certain remorse of conscience.
And, on the other hand, if the love of God grows in the soul, that other love becomes cold and is forgotten; for, as the two are contrary to one another, not only does the one not aid the other, but the one which predominates quenches and confounds the other, and becomes strengthened in itself, as the philosophers say.
Wherefore Our Saviour said in the Gospel: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'[38] That is to say, the love which is born of sensuality ends in sensuality, and that which is of the spirit ends in the spirit of God and causes it to grow. This is the difference that exists between these two kinds of love, whereby we may know them.
When the soul enters the dark night, it brings these kinds of love under control. It strengthens and purifies the one, namely that which is according to God; and the other it removes and brings to an end; and in the beginning it causes both to be lost sight of, as we shall say hereafter.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] All writers who comment upon this delicate matter go into lengthy and learned explanations of it, though in reality there is little that needs to be added to the Saint's clear and apt exposition.
It will be remembered that St. Teresa once wrote to her brother Lorenzo, who suffered in this way: 'As to those stirrings of sense. . . . I am quite clear they are of no account, so the best thing is to make no account of them' (LL. 168). The most effective means of calming souls tormented by these favours is to commend them to a discreet and wise director whose counsel they may safely follow. The Illuminists committed the grossest errors in dealing with this matter.
Friday, March 12, 2004
John F-word Kerry's Voting Record Revisited:
Having decided earlier in the week to eventually slog through the various points of Senator Kerry's voting record, the results are posted here for your perusal. Though this is based mostly on the bullet-point summations, I did check the context closer on the ambiguous statements of which there were some. Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it:
---On the Abortion subject, Kerry is 0-5
---On the Budget and Economy subjects, Kerry is 1-6 at best.{1}
---On the Civil Rights subject, Kerry is 1-13.{2}
---On the Corporations subject, Kerry is 0-3.
---On the Crime subject, Kerry is 5-11.{3}
---On the Drugs subject, Kerry is 1-3.{4}
---On the Education subject, Kerry is 1-14.{5}
---On the Energy and Oil subjects, Kerry is 0-18.{6}
---On the Environment subject, Kerry is at best 1-10.{7}
---On the Families and Children subjects, Kerry is 2-3.{8}
---On the Foreign Policy subject, Kerry is 0-12.{9}
---On the Free Trade subject, Kerry is 0-14.{10}
---On the Government Reform subject, Kerry is 1-10.{11}
---On the Gun Control subject, Kerry is 0-7.
---On the Health Care subject, Kerry is 1-14.{12}
---On the Homeland Security subject, Kerry is at best 3-18.{13}
---On the Immigration subject, Kerry is at best 1-5.{14}
---On the Infrastructure subject, Kerry is 5-5.{15}
---On the Jobs subject, Kerry is at best 2-8.{16}
---On the Principles and Values subjects, Kerry is at best 2-17.{17}
---On the Social Security subject, Kerry is 0-8.{18}
---On the Tax Reform subject, Kerry is 0-16.{19}
---On the War and Peace subjects, Kerry is 0-24.{20}
---On the Welfare and Poverty subjects, Kerry is 7-7.{21}
There are 251 points in this examination. As a rule, Senator Kerry did very poorly in every category though there were of course some stellar exceptions. (Welfare/Poverty and Infrastructure where he had a perfect score in each.) However, in registering 34 out of a possible 251, that equates to a 13.54% rating.
President Bush would be far from perfect himself. Nonetheless, he would do significantly better on the whole than Kerry has. And we have not even considered the subject of same-sex so-called "marriages" - an area where I have noted already was the most significant issue facing us today bar none.
His 13.54% rating notwithstanding, Senator John F-word Kerry fails and fails huge on the defining issue of our age. So between that and his miserable voting record on other issues, We at Rerum Novarum will be biting our tongues and voting for Bush. Kerry's lousy voting record -which has been examined here- is simply more nails in his coffin as far as this writer is concerned.
Notes:
{1} If given the benefit of the doubt on the first bullet-point in that category. (In reality he is about half-right on it.)
{2} In this category, I concur with him on opposing the constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning only.
{3} In the crime category, I concur with him on the moratorium on federal executions -though I would except more than terrorism from it, the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, on restricting class action lawsuits -if they cannot be eliminated altogether that is, on repealing federal speed limits (already happened), and on DNA testing for all federal executions.
{4} I frankly could care less whether or not he has smoked marijuana.
{5} He is correct on supporting charter school proposal only.
{6} There is no way I could support any of his alternative ideas on energy if they include continuing the charade of not drilling for oil on US soil. For not opening up more drilling -or more oil to be pumped from existing oil supplies- is to allow our oil prices to be affected by OPEC.
{7} When I read about a vote against a candidate for Secretary of the Interior who is "conservative to libertarian" on environmental issues, I am not sure I would necessarily disagree with this vote. See this link for an idea of my environmental outlook.
{8} His idea of more funding for programs like Head Start is problematical. I see little else in this subject to take issue with him on -but then there were three points only.
{9} Even his Africa proposal is tainted by the fact that he would seek to implement the same kind of population control methods which are killing first world nations economically.
{10} This is an unfortunate canard of the so-called "neo-conservatives" but even people generally liberal such as Kerry support it. In the case of the liberals, it it is likely because they like the idea of international organizations outside of US sovereignty telling us whom we can trade with and why. The so-called "neo-conservatives" fall for this kind of "voodoo economics" but cannot point to one single example in history where a nation became strong and prosperous due to so-called "free trade" without any recourse to protecting their borders.
The latter constituted the foundation of a challenge I made to some of my business instructors in college who were pro free trade. And despite not being able to answer the challenge, they still uncritically mimicked the "free trade" mantra. My exposing of this canard before the classes I was in -and invariably making my instructors look very bad in the process- probably prevented me from getting the grades I should have gotten in those classes.
{11} He voted correctly on the presidential line item veto.
{12} He voted correctly on medical savings accounts. For those who think his tobacco vote was correct, kindly read a past weblog musing I did on teen smoking/teen sex double standard to understand the principles behind this common liberal double think.
{13} He views the subjects of military pay raises and benefits to veterans correctly. (About the only area where I feel that the federal government "owes benefits" to anyone -except the handicapped who cannot help themselves- is the veterans who have through their service kept this country free.) And I suppose his view on chemical weapons is okay -though I am not sure I concur with it. His other positions are predictable and IMO detrimental to national security.
{14} He may have voted correctly to oppose visas for skilled workers. To determine this would require a bit more study but we should not be giving anyone visas who is in this country illegally. Nor should we be giving citizenship to illegals no matter how long they are here.
{15} Yes, you read that right.
{16} The idea for ergonomic rules for repetitive stress is a good one and one area that businesses should have much greater concern about than many of them do. The "energy independence" claim is shallow since Kerry would not be willing to allow for more drilling on US soil; ergo his position on "energy independence" is a sham since he would outlaw the one approach that would guarantee energy independence for this nation.
As far as "trade grows jobs" yes it can -depending of course on how this is approached. But there is too much vagueness on Kerry's part here to give him props for this position -particularly since he is on the record as a deluded proponent of so-called "free trade."
{17} A campaign built around "a call to service" is of course good -provided that it is genuine. (It is hard to take someone like Kerry seriously considering how often he tries to have it both ways on issues.) The rest is of course a bunch of pseudo-pious fluff but of course Kerry has the right to his favourite song even if he and I do not agree.
{18} And no, his "Retirement Savings Accounts" idea is not a good one if you read the fine print.
{19} You read that right.
{20} See footnote nineteen. Even the good sounding quips in that section if you check the context are not what they appear at first glance.
{21} Gotta givethe devil Kerry his due on this one.
Having decided earlier in the week to eventually slog through the various points of Senator Kerry's voting record, the results are posted here for your perusal. Though this is based mostly on the bullet-point summations, I did check the context closer on the ambiguous statements of which there were some. Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it:
---On the Abortion subject, Kerry is 0-5
---On the Budget and Economy subjects, Kerry is 1-6 at best.{1}
---On the Civil Rights subject, Kerry is 1-13.{2}
---On the Corporations subject, Kerry is 0-3.
---On the Crime subject, Kerry is 5-11.{3}
---On the Drugs subject, Kerry is 1-3.{4}
---On the Education subject, Kerry is 1-14.{5}
---On the Energy and Oil subjects, Kerry is 0-18.{6}
---On the Environment subject, Kerry is at best 1-10.{7}
---On the Families and Children subjects, Kerry is 2-3.{8}
---On the Foreign Policy subject, Kerry is 0-12.{9}
---On the Free Trade subject, Kerry is 0-14.{10}
---On the Government Reform subject, Kerry is 1-10.{11}
---On the Gun Control subject, Kerry is 0-7.
---On the Health Care subject, Kerry is 1-14.{12}
---On the Homeland Security subject, Kerry is at best 3-18.{13}
---On the Immigration subject, Kerry is at best 1-5.{14}
---On the Infrastructure subject, Kerry is 5-5.{15}
---On the Jobs subject, Kerry is at best 2-8.{16}
---On the Principles and Values subjects, Kerry is at best 2-17.{17}
---On the Social Security subject, Kerry is 0-8.{18}
---On the Tax Reform subject, Kerry is 0-16.{19}
---On the War and Peace subjects, Kerry is 0-24.{20}
---On the Welfare and Poverty subjects, Kerry is 7-7.{21}
There are 251 points in this examination. As a rule, Senator Kerry did very poorly in every category though there were of course some stellar exceptions. (Welfare/Poverty and Infrastructure where he had a perfect score in each.) However, in registering 34 out of a possible 251, that equates to a 13.54% rating.
President Bush would be far from perfect himself. Nonetheless, he would do significantly better on the whole than Kerry has. And we have not even considered the subject of same-sex so-called "marriages" - an area where I have noted already was the most significant issue facing us today bar none.
His 13.54% rating notwithstanding, Senator John F
Notes:
{1} If given the benefit of the doubt on the first bullet-point in that category. (In reality he is about half-right on it.)
{2} In this category, I concur with him on opposing the constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning only.
{3} In the crime category, I concur with him on the moratorium on federal executions -though I would except more than terrorism from it, the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, on restricting class action lawsuits -if they cannot be eliminated altogether that is, on repealing federal speed limits (already happened), and on DNA testing for all federal executions.
{4} I frankly could care less whether or not he has smoked marijuana.
{5} He is correct on supporting charter school proposal only.
{6} There is no way I could support any of his alternative ideas on energy if they include continuing the charade of not drilling for oil on US soil. For not opening up more drilling -or more oil to be pumped from existing oil supplies- is to allow our oil prices to be affected by OPEC.
{7} When I read about a vote against a candidate for Secretary of the Interior who is "conservative to libertarian" on environmental issues, I am not sure I would necessarily disagree with this vote. See this link for an idea of my environmental outlook.
{8} His idea of more funding for programs like Head Start is problematical. I see little else in this subject to take issue with him on -but then there were three points only.
{9} Even his Africa proposal is tainted by the fact that he would seek to implement the same kind of population control methods which are killing first world nations economically.
{10} This is an unfortunate canard of the so-called "neo-conservatives" but even people generally liberal such as Kerry support it. In the case of the liberals, it it is likely because they like the idea of international organizations outside of US sovereignty telling us whom we can trade with and why. The so-called "neo-conservatives" fall for this kind of "voodoo economics" but cannot point to one single example in history where a nation became strong and prosperous due to so-called "free trade" without any recourse to protecting their borders.
The latter constituted the foundation of a challenge I made to some of my business instructors in college who were pro free trade. And despite not being able to answer the challenge, they still uncritically mimicked the "free trade" mantra. My exposing of this canard before the classes I was in -and invariably making my instructors look very bad in the process- probably prevented me from getting the grades I should have gotten in those classes.
{11} He voted correctly on the presidential line item veto.
{12} He voted correctly on medical savings accounts. For those who think his tobacco vote was correct, kindly read a past weblog musing I did on teen smoking/teen sex double standard to understand the principles behind this common liberal double think.
{13} He views the subjects of military pay raises and benefits to veterans correctly. (About the only area where I feel that the federal government "owes benefits" to anyone -except the handicapped who cannot help themselves- is the veterans who have through their service kept this country free.) And I suppose his view on chemical weapons is okay -though I am not sure I concur with it. His other positions are predictable and IMO detrimental to national security.
{14} He may have voted correctly to oppose visas for skilled workers. To determine this would require a bit more study but we should not be giving anyone visas who is in this country illegally. Nor should we be giving citizenship to illegals no matter how long they are here.
{15} Yes, you read that right.
{16} The idea for ergonomic rules for repetitive stress is a good one and one area that businesses should have much greater concern about than many of them do. The "energy independence" claim is shallow since Kerry would not be willing to allow for more drilling on US soil; ergo his position on "energy independence" is a sham since he would outlaw the one approach that would guarantee energy independence for this nation.
As far as "trade grows jobs" yes it can -depending of course on how this is approached. But there is too much vagueness on Kerry's part here to give him props for this position -particularly since he is on the record as a deluded proponent of so-called "free trade."
{17} A campaign built around "a call to service" is of course good -provided that it is genuine. (It is hard to take someone like Kerry seriously considering how often he tries to have it both ways on issues.) The rest is of course a bunch of pseudo-pious fluff but of course Kerry has the right to his favourite song even if he and I do not agree.
{18} And no, his "Retirement Savings Accounts" idea is not a good one if you read the fine print.
{19} You read that right.
{20} See footnote nineteen. Even the good sounding quips in that section if you check the context are not what they appear at first glance.
{21} Gotta give
On the Death Penalty with Sam and Dave:
(Plus some musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This exchange started with this writer posting the following comments to SAM's weblog with regards to his comments on the death penalty and Justice Antonin Scalia:
Other than the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur with your assessment. As far as the application on the DP goes, it is true that we must look towards bloodless means whenever this suffices to achieve the end of the fifth commandment whic[h] -as Jeff noted and as I have noted on previous discussions is the preservation of life. The death penalty when properly utilized is a *means* towards this end. And if other means suffice to meet the same end, then the death penalty would not be appropriate to use.
The question though as I see it is what those limitations ought to be. See these threads for some examples I note which would seem to be congruent with the teaching of the Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae:
On the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
The Death Penalty Redux (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
SAM noted in response to these comments the following:
"the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur . . ."
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements. As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
HI DAVE!!!
Prior to SAM's comments, a certain "Dave" weighed in{1} noting the following:
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Taking these in order of sequence, We at Rerum Novarum respond as follows. First to SAM, then to Dave.
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements.
Ok.
As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Correct.
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
When you are right you are seldom wrong SAM.
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Justice Scalia is no heretic. However, on the subject of the death penalty, he is expressing a schismatic mentality and quite clearly does not know his Catholic Tradition very well. Remember the teaching of Pope Benedict XV to the self-styled "integralist Catholics" of his time -forerunners of the so-called "traditionalist Catholics" of today:
[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi (c. 1914)]
In short, Justice Scalia's public display is outside the bounds of what is acceptable and he should confine his difficulties to private correspondence with others (such as Cardinal Dulles who could straighten him out) or simply keep his trap shut.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
There is room for divergences of opinion on the manner whereby the teaching is applied. The principle of bloodless restitution being utilized whenever it can safely meet the end whereby the death penalty is a means of achieving remains intact. We must adhere to it with a religious submission of mind and will (at the very least in the external forum) or else we are being schismatic. However, we are well within our bounds to ask questions about the extent to which this can be achieved. And in doing the latter, there is no disobedience.
For how are we to determine if we can meet the end of the Commandment (preservation of life) viz. certain individuals if we do not inquire into the matter???
For example, if you have a serial murderer, is such an individual ever capable of being reformed??? Obviously not. Would the death penalty be necessary for such an individual in a society where there was a solid justice system and this man's likelihood of being released was non-existent??? The answer to that question is obviously "no."
But what of a society like America where we sentence kids with marijuana possession to longer sentences than murderers -the latter of whom have been known to be paroled??? Obviously that fact changes the equation significantly.
In such instances, recourse to the death penalty would be licit even according to the prescriptions of EV. See the links further up in this post which go over a few other examples -some of which may surprise you. They are in harmony with protecting and safeguarding life which is the purpose or "end" of the fifth commandment as JP II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catechism all teach.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Understood.
I am still mystified at why SAM is the only conservative Catholic blogger I know to have gone after Scalia in this manner.
To briefly comment on this point, if you are using the term "conservative" in the manner whereby it is utilized today that this writer is no "conservative." See these links for details on this subject:
The Definition of a Conservative
Some Brief Comments on Ressourcement Methodology
Hopefully they will serve to clarify the stance of this writer on the proper understanding of terms such as "conservative", "conservatism", "traditionalist", "progressivist", and "ressourcement."
Why didn't Mr. McElhinney or Kevin Miller, or any other of the bloggers who disagreed with Scalia use these terms in their discussion of him?
Because Professor Miller and this writer are not attorneys perhaps??? ;-)
The only thing I can think of is that SAM tightly associates disagreement with papal teaching/dissent/schismatic views/and heretical views. I think there's a looser connection here.
Certainly there is a looser connection as you note. However, We at Rerum Novarum understand SAM's annoyance at the degree of disobedience that is passed off as acceptable today. It is particularly annoying when done by those who claim to be "traditionalists" and "more Catholic than thou."
That is not to say that it is less problematical when so-called "progressivists" who are "more Enlightened than thou" do it.{1} But when those who are aghast at such things as committed by the so-called "progressivists" turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves, well they are ripe for rebuking for their attempts to have it both ways.
With regards to the latter, Greg Mockeridge outlined well the distinctions that accompany this problem from Justice Scalia's perspective in this Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial.
As far as SAM goes, this writer concurs with the substance of what he has said. If he wants to use the "schismatic" expression, that is his judgment call to make. It is certainly not in light of Church teaching and the Great Tradition an erroneous application of the expression even if it is (perhaps) pastorally ill-advised.
There's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals.
Encyclicals are a mixed bag Dave. Not everything in them constitutes teaching, there are also directives of a juridical nature, historical statements which are not covered under the mantle of teaching, and also prudential opinions pertaining to the application of teachings which are just that: personal opinions which are not binding.{3} This is why the assertion that "[t]here's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals is not problematical. Most of the time the points taken issue with are not matters of binding teaching.
Most of them disagreed with teachings that weren't being taught infallibly.
This begs the question Dave. Most Catholics have no idea what is and is not "infallible." Most theologians do not even get this element right. But of course they do not have to except as speculative theological exercises. For obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon whether it is or is not "infallible" in the subjective opinion of the individual. Rather, obedience is contingent upon the manifested mind, will, and intention, of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Not realizing this is unfortunately a common mistake made by most people -even many who are of good will.
I'd not always agreed with their criticism, but I never thought that such criticism itself placed them in the schismatical or heretical camp.
It depends on the subject and how it is approached.
George Weigel's criticisms of some of JPII's social encyclicals comes to mind.
Very few people approach this area with the care that someone such as George Weigel generally does. It would be advisable to read if you have not the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. From what can be discerned, George Weigel virtually never runs afoul of that instruction. This present writer is continually vigilant about avoiding anything incongruent with that instruction in his own writings. (SAM for his part is cautious too.) However, Justice Scalia in his public ruminations on Evangelium Vitae clearly has not been of this same mould.
But now I get the impression that SAM and perhaps you, Shawn, take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical's teaching (even the non-infallible parts) is incompatible with religious submission of mind. Is that your view?
Why are you so hung up on "infallible"/"non-infallible" Dave??? The idea that obedience to a teaching is contingent up on its preceived "infallibility" or its preceived lack thereof is a serious error. Having reiterated that point, it is time to close this post with an answer to your question.
We at Rerum Novarum do not take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical or other magisterial document is incompatible with religious submission of mind and will.{4} However, there is adherence to the belief -borne out in experience- that most public criticism is incompatible because it originates not from the position of seeking to conform oneself to the teaching of the magisterium on difficult matters of conscience. Instead, it originates from the position of striving to find ways of conforming the magisterium's teaching to the individual's view.
Any criticism from the standpoint of the former is acceptable since it has the desire of obedience at its core. By contrast, criticisms from the standpoint of the latter are not acceptable since the desire is not obedience but instead refashioning the difficult teachings or directives to accommodate to the personal whims of the individual. One approach involves carrying a cross and the other involves finding ways to set that cross down -if it is even taken up at all.
In summary, not all disagreements in the public arena are of the same weight. Nor do all disagreements proceed from the same premises. The aforementioned Instruction outlines a lot of these principles in detail. If reading the entire text exceeds the time you have for such endeavours, then please in particular focus on sections 21-37.
Notes:
{1} Not Dave Armstrong.
{2} For to some extent it is expected from them as they are by nature it seems inclined towards striving to be "as gods" ala the temptation of the serpent in Genesis. (Not that humans in general are lacking in this orientation but the so-called "progressivists" tend to shed the usual moorings that keep faithful Catholics within the boundaries of orthodoxy.)
{3} To name a few examples of the various gradations of elements that go into the gumbo of an encyclical letter.
{4} As the trackrecord of this writer's weblogs -as well as the contents of his public essays either on the web or in print periodicals- bears witness to.
(Plus some musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This exchange started with this writer posting the following comments to SAM's weblog with regards to his comments on the death penalty and Justice Antonin Scalia:
Other than the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur with your assessment. As far as the application on the DP goes, it is true that we must look towards bloodless means whenever this suffices to achieve the end of the fifth commandment whic[h] -as Jeff noted and as I have noted on previous discussions is the preservation of life. The death penalty when properly utilized is a *means* towards this end. And if other means suffice to meet the same end, then the death penalty would not be appropriate to use.
The question though as I see it is what those limitations ought to be. See these threads for some examples I note which would seem to be congruent with the teaching of the Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae:
On the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
The Death Penalty Redux (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
SAM noted in response to these comments the following:
"the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur . . ."
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements. As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
HI DAVE!!!
Prior to SAM's comments, a certain "Dave" weighed in{1} noting the following:
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Taking these in order of sequence, We at Rerum Novarum respond as follows. First to SAM, then to Dave.
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements.
Ok.
As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Correct.
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
When you are right you are seldom wrong SAM.
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Justice Scalia is no heretic. However, on the subject of the death penalty, he is expressing a schismatic mentality and quite clearly does not know his Catholic Tradition very well. Remember the teaching of Pope Benedict XV to the self-styled "integralist Catholics" of his time -forerunners of the so-called "traditionalist Catholics" of today:
[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi (c. 1914)]
In short, Justice Scalia's public display is outside the bounds of what is acceptable and he should confine his difficulties to private correspondence with others (such as Cardinal Dulles who could straighten him out) or simply keep his trap shut.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
There is room for divergences of opinion on the manner whereby the teaching is applied. The principle of bloodless restitution being utilized whenever it can safely meet the end whereby the death penalty is a means of achieving remains intact. We must adhere to it with a religious submission of mind and will (at the very least in the external forum) or else we are being schismatic. However, we are well within our bounds to ask questions about the extent to which this can be achieved. And in doing the latter, there is no disobedience.
For how are we to determine if we can meet the end of the Commandment (preservation of life) viz. certain individuals if we do not inquire into the matter???
For example, if you have a serial murderer, is such an individual ever capable of being reformed??? Obviously not. Would the death penalty be necessary for such an individual in a society where there was a solid justice system and this man's likelihood of being released was non-existent??? The answer to that question is obviously "no."
But what of a society like America where we sentence kids with marijuana possession to longer sentences than murderers -the latter of whom have been known to be paroled??? Obviously that fact changes the equation significantly.
In such instances, recourse to the death penalty would be licit even according to the prescriptions of EV. See the links further up in this post which go over a few other examples -some of which may surprise you. They are in harmony with protecting and safeguarding life which is the purpose or "end" of the fifth commandment as JP II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catechism all teach.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Understood.
I am still mystified at why SAM is the only conservative Catholic blogger I know to have gone after Scalia in this manner.
To briefly comment on this point, if you are using the term "conservative" in the manner whereby it is utilized today that this writer is no "conservative." See these links for details on this subject:
The Definition of a Conservative
Some Brief Comments on Ressourcement Methodology
Hopefully they will serve to clarify the stance of this writer on the proper understanding of terms such as "conservative", "conservatism", "traditionalist", "progressivist", and "ressourcement."
Why didn't Mr. McElhinney or Kevin Miller, or any other of the bloggers who disagreed with Scalia use these terms in their discussion of him?
Because Professor Miller and this writer are not attorneys perhaps??? ;-)
The only thing I can think of is that SAM tightly associates disagreement with papal teaching/dissent/schismatic views/and heretical views. I think there's a looser connection here.
Certainly there is a looser connection as you note. However, We at Rerum Novarum understand SAM's annoyance at the degree of disobedience that is passed off as acceptable today. It is particularly annoying when done by those who claim to be "traditionalists" and "more Catholic than thou."
That is not to say that it is less problematical when so-called "progressivists" who are "more Enlightened than thou" do it.{1} But when those who are aghast at such things as committed by the so-called "progressivists" turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves, well they are ripe for rebuking for their attempts to have it both ways.
With regards to the latter, Greg Mockeridge outlined well the distinctions that accompany this problem from Justice Scalia's perspective in this Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial.
As far as SAM goes, this writer concurs with the substance of what he has said. If he wants to use the "schismatic" expression, that is his judgment call to make. It is certainly not in light of Church teaching and the Great Tradition an erroneous application of the expression even if it is (perhaps) pastorally ill-advised.
There's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals.
Encyclicals are a mixed bag Dave. Not everything in them constitutes teaching, there are also directives of a juridical nature, historical statements which are not covered under the mantle of teaching, and also prudential opinions pertaining to the application of teachings which are just that: personal opinions which are not binding.{3} This is why the assertion that "[t]here's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals is not problematical. Most of the time the points taken issue with are not matters of binding teaching.
Most of them disagreed with teachings that weren't being taught infallibly.
This begs the question Dave. Most Catholics have no idea what is and is not "infallible." Most theologians do not even get this element right. But of course they do not have to except as speculative theological exercises. For obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon whether it is or is not "infallible" in the subjective opinion of the individual. Rather, obedience is contingent upon the manifested mind, will, and intention, of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Not realizing this is unfortunately a common mistake made by most people -even many who are of good will.
I'd not always agreed with their criticism, but I never thought that such criticism itself placed them in the schismatical or heretical camp.
It depends on the subject and how it is approached.
George Weigel's criticisms of some of JPII's social encyclicals comes to mind.
Very few people approach this area with the care that someone such as George Weigel generally does. It would be advisable to read if you have not the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. From what can be discerned, George Weigel virtually never runs afoul of that instruction. This present writer is continually vigilant about avoiding anything incongruent with that instruction in his own writings. (SAM for his part is cautious too.) However, Justice Scalia in his public ruminations on Evangelium Vitae clearly has not been of this same mould.
But now I get the impression that SAM and perhaps you, Shawn, take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical's teaching (even the non-infallible parts) is incompatible with religious submission of mind. Is that your view?
Why are you so hung up on "infallible"/"non-infallible" Dave??? The idea that obedience to a teaching is contingent up on its preceived "infallibility" or its preceived lack thereof is a serious error. Having reiterated that point, it is time to close this post with an answer to your question.
We at Rerum Novarum do not take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical or other magisterial document is incompatible with religious submission of mind and will.{4} However, there is adherence to the belief -borne out in experience- that most public criticism is incompatible because it originates not from the position of seeking to conform oneself to the teaching of the magisterium on difficult matters of conscience. Instead, it originates from the position of striving to find ways of conforming the magisterium's teaching to the individual's view.
Any criticism from the standpoint of the former is acceptable since it has the desire of obedience at its core. By contrast, criticisms from the standpoint of the latter are not acceptable since the desire is not obedience but instead refashioning the difficult teachings or directives to accommodate to the personal whims of the individual. One approach involves carrying a cross and the other involves finding ways to set that cross down -if it is even taken up at all.
In summary, not all disagreements in the public arena are of the same weight. Nor do all disagreements proceed from the same premises. The aforementioned Instruction outlines a lot of these principles in detail. If reading the entire text exceeds the time you have for such endeavours, then please in particular focus on sections 21-37.
Notes:
{1} Not Dave Armstrong.
{2} For to some extent it is expected from them as they are by nature it seems inclined towards striving to be "as gods" ala the temptation of the serpent in Genesis. (Not that humans in general are lacking in this orientation but the so-called "progressivists" tend to shed the usual moorings that keep faithful Catholics within the boundaries of orthodoxy.)
{3} To name a few examples of the various gradations of elements that go into the gumbo of an encyclical letter.
{4} As the trackrecord of this writer's weblogs -as well as the contents of his public essays either on the web or in print periodicals- bears witness to.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Apparently Rachelle Linner of Commonweal wrote a short article on St. Blog's titled ST. BLOG’S CHURCH: America’s most vibrant parish? It is certainly worth a read.
However, your humble servant would be remiss in not noting that Responsums to that article have already been penned by The Curt One, Gen X Revert, and Christopher Blosser of The Ratzinger Fanclub: three weblogs mentioned by name in the article.
However, your humble servant would be remiss in not noting that Responsums to that article have already been penned by The Curt One, Gen X Revert, and Christopher Blosser of The Ratzinger Fanclub: three weblogs mentioned by name in the article.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
Before posting this section, I would like to extend apologies to those who are following this series who did not see Tuesday's installment run yesterday. It has been rather hectic and these sections take about ten to fifteen minutes or so to properly format, link, etc: a luxury I did not have yesterday. -ISM
CHAPTER III
Of some imperfections which some of these souls are apt to have, with respect to the second capital sin, which is avarice, in the spiritual sense.
MANY of these beginners have also at times great spiritual avarice. They will be found to be discontented with the spirituality which God gives them; and they are very disconsolate and querulous because they find not in spiritual things the consolation that they would desire. Many can never have enough of listening to counsels and learning spiritual precepts, and of possessing and reading many books which treat of this matter, and they spend their time on all these things rather than on works of mortification and the perfecting of the inward poverty of spirit which should be theirs.
Furthermore, they burden themselves with images and rosaries which are very curious; now they put down one, now take up another; now they change about, now change back again; now they want this kind of thing, now that, preferring one kind of cross to another, because it is more curious. And others you will see adorned with agnus deis[1] and relics and tokens,[2] like children with trinkets. Here I condemn the attachment of the heart, and the affection which they have for the nature, multitude and curiosity of these things, inasmuch as it is quite contrary to poverty of spirit which considers only the substance of devotion, makes use only of what suffices for that end and grows weary of this other kind of multiplicity and curiosity.
For true devotion must issue from the heart, and consist in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.
I knew a person who for more than ten years made use of a cross roughly formed from a branch[3] that had been blessed, fastened with a pin twisted round it; he had never ceased using it, and he always carried it about with him until I took it from him; and this was a person of no small sense and understanding. And I saw another who said his prayers using beads that were made of bones from the spine of a fish; his devotion was certainly no less precious on that account in the sight of God, for it is clear that these things carried no devotion in their workmanship or value.
[Pay careful attention to the next words as they highlight the folly of those who have too much of an attachment to exteriors in worship and devotion. -ISM]
Those, then, who start from these beginnings and make good progress attach themselves to no visible instruments, nor do they burden themselves with such, nor desire to know more than is necessary in order that they may act well; for they set their eyes only on being right with God and on pleasing Him, and therein consists their covetousness.
And thus with great generosity they give away all that they have, and delight to know that they have it not, for God's sake and for charity to their neighbour, no matter whether these be spiritual things or temporal. For, as I say, they set their eyes only upon the reality of interior perfection, which is to give pleasure to God and in naught to give pleasure to themselves.
But neither from these imperfections nor from those others can the soul be perfectly purified until God brings it into the passive purgation of that dark night whereof we shall speak presently. It befits the soul, however, to contrive to labour, in so far as it can, on its own account, to the end that it may purge and perfect itself, and thus may merit being taken by God into that Divine care wherein it becomes healed of all things that it was unable of itself to cure.
Because, however greatly the soul itself labours, it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not in that dark fire, in the way and manner that we have to describe.
To be Continued...
Notes:
[1] The agnusdei was a wax medal with a representation of the lamb stamped upon it, often blessed by the Pope; at the time of the Saint such medals were greatly sought after, as we know from various references in St. Teresa's letters.
[2] The word n**mina, translated 'token,' and normally meaning list, or 'roll,' refers to a relic on which were written the names of saints. In modern Spanish it can denote a medal or amulet used superstitiously.
[3] No doubt a branch of palm, olive or rosemary, blessed in church on Palm Sunday, like the English palm crosses of to- day. 'Palm Sunday' is in Spanish Domingo de ramos: 'Branch Sunday.'
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
Before posting this section, I would like to extend apologies to those who are following this series who did not see Tuesday's installment run yesterday. It has been rather hectic and these sections take about ten to fifteen minutes or so to properly format, link, etc: a luxury I did not have yesterday. -ISM
CHAPTER III
Of some imperfections which some of these souls are apt to have, with respect to the second capital sin, which is avarice, in the spiritual sense.
MANY of these beginners have also at times great spiritual avarice. They will be found to be discontented with the spirituality which God gives them; and they are very disconsolate and querulous because they find not in spiritual things the consolation that they would desire. Many can never have enough of listening to counsels and learning spiritual precepts, and of possessing and reading many books which treat of this matter, and they spend their time on all these things rather than on works of mortification and the perfecting of the inward poverty of spirit which should be theirs.
Furthermore, they burden themselves with images and rosaries which are very curious; now they put down one, now take up another; now they change about, now change back again; now they want this kind of thing, now that, preferring one kind of cross to another, because it is more curious. And others you will see adorned with agnus deis[1] and relics and tokens,[2] like children with trinkets. Here I condemn the attachment of the heart, and the affection which they have for the nature, multitude and curiosity of these things, inasmuch as it is quite contrary to poverty of spirit which considers only the substance of devotion, makes use only of what suffices for that end and grows weary of this other kind of multiplicity and curiosity.
For true devotion must issue from the heart, and consist in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.
I knew a person who for more than ten years made use of a cross roughly formed from a branch[3] that had been blessed, fastened with a pin twisted round it; he had never ceased using it, and he always carried it about with him until I took it from him; and this was a person of no small sense and understanding. And I saw another who said his prayers using beads that were made of bones from the spine of a fish; his devotion was certainly no less precious on that account in the sight of God, for it is clear that these things carried no devotion in their workmanship or value.
[Pay careful attention to the next words as they highlight the folly of those who have too much of an attachment to exteriors in worship and devotion. -ISM]
Those, then, who start from these beginnings and make good progress attach themselves to no visible instruments, nor do they burden themselves with such, nor desire to know more than is necessary in order that they may act well; for they set their eyes only on being right with God and on pleasing Him, and therein consists their covetousness.
And thus with great generosity they give away all that they have, and delight to know that they have it not, for God's sake and for charity to their neighbour, no matter whether these be spiritual things or temporal. For, as I say, they set their eyes only upon the reality of interior perfection, which is to give pleasure to God and in naught to give pleasure to themselves.
But neither from these imperfections nor from those others can the soul be perfectly purified until God brings it into the passive purgation of that dark night whereof we shall speak presently. It befits the soul, however, to contrive to labour, in so far as it can, on its own account, to the end that it may purge and perfect itself, and thus may merit being taken by God into that Divine care wherein it becomes healed of all things that it was unable of itself to cure.
Because, however greatly the soul itself labours, it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not in that dark fire, in the way and manner that we have to describe.
To be Continued...
Notes:
[1] The agnusdei was a wax medal with a representation of the lamb stamped upon it, often blessed by the Pope; at the time of the Saint such medals were greatly sought after, as we know from various references in St. Teresa's letters.
[2] The word n**mina, translated 'token,' and normally meaning list, or 'roll,' refers to a relic on which were written the names of saints. In modern Spanish it can denote a medal or amulet used superstitiously.
[3] No doubt a branch of palm, olive or rosemary, blessed in church on Palm Sunday, like the English palm crosses of to- day. 'Palm Sunday' is in Spanish Domingo de ramos: 'Branch Sunday.'
Monday, March 08, 2004
John F-word Kerry's Voting Record:
For those who are interested in the details, Kerry's position on many issues can be found HERE. I counted approximately 300 bullets in that site on Kerry's various positions. To outline how far removed Kerry is from the correct position on those issues would take more time than I presently have. Among the only real problems I could see with the scoring is that they do so on a caricature of what is "pro business" in some categories (and what is "tough on crime" in others).
For much as I reject caricaturing of "traditionalist" and "progressivist" into falsely dichotomist camps, I likewise reject the so-called conventional wisdom that to be pro-business is to necessitate being anti-environment. Indeed I am very pro-business but not at the expense of genuine ecosystem concerns.
Likewise, there is the problematical idea that one must support capital punishment to be tough on crime. This is another false dichotomy that is unfortunately common and the aforementioned site reflects it. But other than those areas, the site seems thus far to be quite accurate on the issues. And I may well finish what I started this morning{1} in noting where Kerry should stand on the issues noted versus where he actually does. (To the extent that we can pinpoint an actual position for someone who hops around hot-potato-like on every issue.) But of course that will require perhaps doing so over lunch or before bedtime as until then such an endeavour is not feasible to do.
Note:
{1} Thus far, Kerry is right on 12.5% of the points I have examined. There will be more on this later when the final tally is completed.
For those who are interested in the details, Kerry's position on many issues can be found HERE. I counted approximately 300 bullets in that site on Kerry's various positions. To outline how far removed Kerry is from the correct position on those issues would take more time than I presently have. Among the only real problems I could see with the scoring is that they do so on a caricature of what is "pro business" in some categories (and what is "tough on crime" in others).
For much as I reject caricaturing of "traditionalist" and "progressivist" into falsely dichotomist camps, I likewise reject the so-called conventional wisdom that to be pro-business is to necessitate being anti-environment. Indeed I am very pro-business but not at the expense of genuine ecosystem concerns.
Likewise, there is the problematical idea that one must support capital punishment to be tough on crime. This is another false dichotomy that is unfortunately common and the aforementioned site reflects it. But other than those areas, the site seems thus far to be quite accurate on the issues. And I may well finish what I started this morning{1} in noting where Kerry should stand on the issues noted versus where he actually does. (To the extent that we can pinpoint an actual position for someone who hops around hot-potato-like on every issue.) But of course that will require perhaps doing so over lunch or before bedtime as until then such an endeavour is not feasible to do.
Note:
{1} Thus far, Kerry is right on 12.5% of the points I have examined. There will be more on this later when the final tally is completed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)