 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 01:36 am |
|
This recent essay hit me like a ton of bricks. It is precisely what I have believed for the past 50 years about how our society has gravitated progressively toward the consequences of the fall of Adam. To actually see it in print, however, comes as a shock, because until now, it seems, no one has dared to speak of the “mockery of being” that we have adopted, not only in the essay’s purported topic, but in the philosophy behind it — and more deeply still, in the spiritual principles that have brought it about. I had always thought of it as a general theory of “societal relativity,” the political triumph of mass subjectivity. What is your view? Is the author right or wrong, and why?
David
|
|
|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 161 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 02:16 am |
|
Oh my, it hit me the same way. Over the past month or so I've become painfully aware of how the contraceptive pill opened pandora's box in our culture. Once you could have sex without having to worry about having children (and using such a "civilized" method too!) there was no longer any reason to worry about the implications of your actions. Everything since then has built on the change in world view made possible by the pill. It's not only disheartening, but getting scarier by the day. I'm of the opinion that, at least in this country, we're not far from having the opportunity to be witnesses to the truth via martyrdom (joining the millions of murdered babies who have gone before us).
Marcee
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and trust shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:05 am |
|
Over the past month or so I've become painfully aware of how the contraceptive pill opened pandora's box in our culture.
This was predicted by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. But I think the author of the essay is right in seeing the preamble of this crisis as forming over the past several centuries. He goes as far back as the 18th century and the industrial revolution. As you can see by my comments above, I follow the trail back a bit farther, to the Garden of Eden.
I'm of the opinion that, at least in this country, we're not far from having the opportunity to be witnesses to the truth via martyrdom (joining the millions of murdered babies who have gone before us).
There are other parts of the world that are closer to this. But I agree with you, it’s getting scary.
My relatives in Oregon wonder why I refuse to return there after an absence of 34 years. One big reason is the state law allowing “assisted suicide.” Similar laws in Holland and Belgium have led to euthanasia becoming almost mandatory for anyone who is “in the way,” because the legal presumption is that the person “would have wanted it.”
Meanwhile, the basic idea of treating objects like persons and persons like objects is behind the whole “sexual revolution” ideology. I was there in the sixties; I saw it happen. It reminded me of Jesus’ description of the end of the world in Matthew 24:36–39. What, then, of the real end of the world?
David
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1321 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:36 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
This recent essay hit me like a ton of bricks. It is precisely what I have believed for the past 50 years about how our society has gravitated progressively toward the consequences of the fall of Adam. To actually see it in print, however, comes as a shock, because until now, it seems, no one has dared to speak of the “mockery of being” that we have adopted, not only in the essay’s purported topic, but in the philosophy behind it — and more deeply still, in the spiritual principles that have brought it about. I had always thought of it as a general theory of “societal relativity,” the political triumph of mass subjectivity. What is your view? Is the author right or wrong, and why?
David
What I see is what has been there since the fall. Man is selfish. He seeks his own will and his own pleasure, and he will coerce or abuse others and manipulate his environment to win his will and his pleasure. Advances in machinery, transportation, communication, medical procedures, drugs, media saturation, public indoctrination, and cloning simply carry further and further the possible calamities resulting from his determination to have his own will and his own pleasure.
The remedy: a good dose of Carmelite spirituality ----Total conformity to the will of God and a growth in charity which causes one to seek, sacrificially, the good of others.
I hear too much fear, from Catholics in my area, about the end of the world, the coming martyrdom. While I agree there are plenty of alarms for discerning observers, it is important to remain calm and focused and cheerful. Children and young persons deserve a steady, optimistic environment; weaker adults need examples of faithful perseverance in difficult circumstances. We need to rejoice in God's blessings and do our utmost to accomplish God's purposes for our lives right up to the minute we are arrested.
It is possible to have humor, to be steadfast and productive, to calm and encourage those who are frightened or weak even as we prepare ourselves for possible imprisonment.
Becky
Last edited on Sat Jul 19th, 2008 04:46 am by Intercessor
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 12:12 pm |
|
Intercessor wrote:Man is selfish. He seeks his own will and his own pleasure, and he will coerce or abuse others and manipulate his environment to win his will and his pleasure.
Yes. What we know through spiritual theology as “self will.”
Back in the fifties the watchword was “depersonalization.” Loss of personhood, or the inability to find and activate it, was represented in literature and popular media largely by a non-prescriptive wringing of hands such as we see in the angst of James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause.” Science fiction, for instance, was about unknown “forces” at work, whether within (“Forbidden Planet”) or without (“The Thing”). “Mankind” was saved in the vanquishing of monsters, but not the personhood that make man real. The stage was set, and the plot simply moved forward.
Self will is a reactionary assertion of personhood, a folding in on the subjectivity of the mind. This isolation is fed by consumerism. And in the sixties we saw the consumerization of gender and sex, of justice and right — and of God.
The remedy: a good dose of Carmelite spirituality ----Total conformity to the will of God and a growth in charity which causes one to seek, sacrificially, the good of others.
It’s not so simple as that. Growth in charity presumes a return to acceptance of personhood; but people have forgotten how to love because they do not perceive the person in the other. Even the will of God is depersonalized to a nebulous “force,” a “karma,” as the hippies called it in their day — or “action and reaction,” as it was spoken of a generation or so earlier. So we first need to bring back the notion of personhood and establish the dignity of each human being. Only at that point can we begin to apply the remedies of charity and obedience. Our beloved John Paul II, of happy memory, spoke much of these fundamentals. I think, therefore, that our starting point needs to be with him.
It is possible to have humor, to be steadfast and productive, to calm and encourage those who are frightened or weak even as we prepare ourselves for possible imprisonment.
Without faith it will not happen. And faith requires a prior acceptance of personhood; impersonal “causes” are ultimately selfish, which is where we began. So we are back knocking at the same door, aren’t we.
David
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1321 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 05:38 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
Intercessor wrote:
The remedy: a good dose of Carmelite spirituality ----Total conformity to the will of God and a growth in charity which causes one to seek, sacrificially, the good of others.
It’s not so simple as that. Growth in charity presumes a return to acceptance of personhood; but people have forgotten how to love because they do not perceive the person in the other. Even the will of God is depersonalized to a nebulous “force,” a “karma,” as the hippies called it in their day — or “action and reaction,” as it was spoken of a generation or so earlier.
So we first need to bring back the notion of personhood and establish the dignity of each human being. Only at that point can we begin to apply the remedies of charity and obedience. Our beloved John Paul II, of happy memory, spoke much of these fundamentals. I think, therefore, that our starting point needs to be with him.
Click here for Catholic Culture article.
"Same-Sex Marriage and the Mockery of Being" by Dr. Jeff Mirus, July 18, 2008
The failure to recognize and act on the true worth of the other. . . . the gift of being, . . .its disclosure of interior mystery, and . . .that radical self-giving and receptivity which is love itself. . . . there are many who, through openness to being and to God Himself, strive . . . to live in reverence for what we have been given. Nonetheless, all of us have been influenced by the pervasive mockery of being that characterizes our culture. . . to ignore all meaning beyond our own desires. . . This is a reform that must begin in our own hearts. . . our own openness to that which is given.
David, we seem to agree the eventual remedies are obedience and charity. I understand you to be saying that first we should examine what John Paul II presented as an impediment to charity (and to faith, as you mentioned). That impediment is that we have forgotten how to love because we are failing to recognize, reverence, and respond to the mysterious, wondrous separateness, otherness, worth of another person (beginning with God Himself).
Even for persons and relationships already governed by appropriate spiritual principles, there is much food for thought here and opportunity for growth. I remember the subtle but significant shift I made when I stopped trying to change my husband and moved, instead, toward accepting him as he was, with a hope that I could encourage and support him in changes he decided to make himself.
Such peace, acceptance, and deepening love came with that subtle shift, just recognizing that he was separate, other, wondrous, mysterious, his own being, that which had been given. He, of course, made a similar shift in his dealings with me. Those shifts, together with the "radical self-giving and receptivity" mentioned by Dr. Mirus are indeed love itself.
Parents have such a temptation to regard a child as an extension of themselves. These principles are very helpful in teaching a parent how to love a child.
Within the Body of Christ, would you agree that the quoted material from the article presents the flip side of Ephesians 4? It seems one can head into serious trouble in two ways: by failing to honor the separateness and otherness of another believer and by failing to see that both the other believer and he are each members of the same Body.
Becky
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 06:28 pm |
|
Intercessor wrote:Within the Body of Christ, would you agree that the quoted material from the article presents the flip side of Ephesians 4?
Yes, I see these points as complementary, positive and negative statements of the same principle.
What is at stake here is personhood. God is not just “a person,” but a trinity of Persons. Conversely, our concupiscence-driven lack of personal relationships with others negates our own personhood, leaving us less than human. How, in such a circumstance, can anyone be saved? We might as well all be gorillas.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 04:31 am |
|
I found this a good read and very inspiring. Possibly a bit convicting as well. I suppose the difficulty I have is knowing how to look at things in my own life objectively. Are there areas that I am 'mocking' that are simply at this point second hand nature? I mean, perhaps the problem with the lie is that it is so close to the truth. God did make the world and the things in the world for us to subdue and to use to our pleasure and in thanksgiving. An act of worship and offering back to God. This is what I believe the mass/liturgy does. It is the cosmic offering and reciprocal love between God and the Church.
So, when do we cease living with reverence for things and start 'using' them. It seems hard to draw the line because I like the conveniences of modernity and the access and speed with which I can live. Yet sometimes I think that we are more stressed out than we realize because of them. When am I actually enjoying something sacramentally and when am I abusing it for my own ends?
Perhaps it is when I rob it of its intended purpose or am not seeking to ofer it back to anyone else that I am guilty of this mocking? When people or things become a source for me to 'get what I want.' Living at this time it is dificult to not be able to obtain whatever we think we should have whenever we think we should have it for whatever purpose we think we should want it. How do we renounce this while still accepting the gifts that come from God and enjoy them with full thanksgiving and offer them as a way that will inspire orhers to behold the beauty of the created order?
David, I often hear of your denunciation of the 60's and things you have lived through. I'm not inclined to disagree, yet historically they are often depicted somewhat heroically or at least with some romanticization. They give me the feeling that this is what I would have pefferred as a young radical thinknig music loving type. I would like to think that some of them were simply lost people with good intentions who were seeking. I like to think that it was not all about depravity, but had some good things to search for. That perhaps the society they disliked was guilty of some things as well. That they wanted to find something. There is something of what I know of the spirit of the 60's that I like and think is missing today. A certain desire to transcend. I believe the problem comes in when people do not realize that God is that end, that transcendence that they seek. That this is when the world tricks them to seeking it in places that will render them ineffective. But I think and hope that some of them probably eventually found in Jesus what it was that they were looking for.
When I think of those times I like to not be naive and overlook just how decadent and liberal that those times were and how chaotic society is still now becoming because of their bad influence especially in academia. How they ruined certain classical values and sent society toward certain collapses. I try not to make them heroes. But I do value their desire for peace, love of the earth, a desire for something different than cold capitalism and greed.
I still like to draw from some of them and what I think may have been good intentions.
Anyway, I only mention that because you mentioned something about it, and because while we need to strongly warn the world of the dangers of these things, I feel slightly torn in that a lot of real 'liberal' people I know are good and generous who believe that they are doing good and seeking what is right. That is why it is hard to fight. I believe a lof who lobby for gay mariage do so out of what they think to be a certain morally crrect and loving mindset. And I can not help but respect why they feel that way, but feel terrible about how far astray that this will take us. And I feel terible when I hear homophobic coments still uttered and for and sin Christians have committed against gays. I want our witness to be both bold in it's zeal and authenticity, while our loving actions shine like a light on the hill. I believe that the church can and must do both and is probably doing so better than any other organization. To hate abortion but help the unwed mother. To oppose gay marriage but love and never insult the homosexual or his rights to his opinions.
Basically the whole mater is extremely frustrating and difficult, and I hope that through prayer and boldness we may win some people back from this futile and destructive way of thinknig and living.
Sorry if my post was a bit disorganized or on the wrong track, but I am simply thinking things through here. Not as good at the philosphy thing.
Brian
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 1321 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 04:51 am |
|
Dear Brian,
The only problem with your posts is that they arrive too infrequently 
Becky
____________________
"He who will persevere unto the end is not he who will never fall, but he who after every fall will humble himself and rise again, relying on the infinite strength of God." Divine Intimacy, p. 885 Father Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 05:18 am |
|
Why thank you very much. Sorry I do not post as often as there are too many other things in life to do at times, and many qualified and charitable responders such as yourself. And selfishly, I have had a lot of my more serious curiosites dealt with, and am perhaps guilty of "using" those on the forum and their charitable disposition to help us newcomers to the faith. I will try to remember to make my presence known once in a while at least. I still glance through though.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 07:50 pm |
|
brian wrote:Perhaps the problem with the lie is that it is so close to the truth. God did make the world and the things in the world for us to subdue and to use to our pleasure and in thanksgiving. An act of worship and offering back to God.
Yes, this is the way God set it up. But then what happened? Man, after the fall, no longer remembers God; he is, to all intents and purposes, his own god. Not only that, but as I said above, he treats objects as persons and persons as objects, making through his appetite idols of what he consumes and then demeaning the persons around him by ignoring their personhood. This is the mockery.
So, when do we cease living with reverence for things and start 'using' them? It seems hard to draw the line because I like the conveniences of modernity and the access and speed with which I can live.
It is persons that we must reverence, Brian, not things. When we reverence things, they become idols. And when we worship idols, the true God — a trinity of Persons in unity of nature — is demeaned. If we reverence persons as becomes their dignity, we will not ignore God, either. But as you have seen, attachments to material goods get in the way. This is where we must start if we would travel the road to recovery: with attachments — removing them from our life and making room for God, our fellow man, and genuine love.
David, I often hear of your denunciation of the 60's and things you have lived through. I'm not inclined to disagree, yet historically they are often depicted somewhat heroically or at least with some romanticization.
At the time, I was told repeatedly by those I knew who had become hippies, those who had forsaken Christ and “found themselves” in Hinduism, Buddhism and New Age (or in many cases, it was drugs, sex and rock ’n roll), that this was all a “good thing.”
But Jesus, wiser than they, said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” What is the legacy of those idyllic years? Minds, morality and civilizations destroyed by drugs. Families ripped apart by selfishness, abuse and divorce. Fifty million babies aborted and killed in this country alone. A twentyfold increase in general crime. A similar increase in breast cancer due to the action of contraceptive drugs. The contraceptive implosion of population, with its consequent demographic and economic problems. The rise of militant homosexuality. The near dissolution of a number of major Protestant denominations by the clash of what remains of their Christianity with the zeitgeist of the present world. What’s next?
There is something of what I know of the spirit of the 60's that I like and think is missing today. A certain desire to transcend. I believe the problem comes in when people do not realize that God is that end, that transcendence that they seek.
We had the “missing piece” all the time in the Christian religion. The hippies sought for God in all the wrong places because they were blinded by their self-centeredness and concupiscence. They were really seeking themselves, not God. We know that now, but it has still not dawned on us that what we needed was right under our noses, and we threw it away.
I believe a lot of those who lobby for gay marriage do so out of what they think to be a certain morally correct and loving mindset.
Mother Angelica used to call this “misguided compassion.” She didn’t try to explain it. The article I reference does a pretty good job of explaining it; that is its purpose. And as our Church guides us, we have to ask, “How are these people morally correct? How are they loving?” They do not believe in personhood; how can they love? It is mere appetite which drives them. They do not believe in morality, much less in the basis of morality, which is religion; how can they be morally correct and good? This is a carnival of contradictions.
I feel terrible when I hear homophobic coments still uttered and [see the sins] Christians have committed against gays. I want our witness to be bold in both its zeal and authenticity, while our loving actions shine like a light on the hill.
In physics, there is a law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This, in a way, is what we see here. Those Christians who put down other people are committing the same crime as those they criticize. They are pots calling the kettle black, hypocrites pointing out the speck in their brother’s eye when all the time they themselves are blinded by the timber in their own eye. See also Romans 2:17–24, substituting “Christian” for “Jew.”
If we would be true to God, we must stray neither to the one side nor to the other, but walk the narrow path up the mountain to his dwelling place. Yes, our zeal and authenticity can shine forth if we allow God to work in us, for his grace is truly transforming. We begin with prayer and obedience.
Basically the whole matter is extremely frustrating and difficult, and I hope that through prayer and boldness we may win some people back from this futile and destructive way of thinking and living.
Become the shining light as God bids you. The rest is his work. I have seen so many people drawn to the light through proper Christian example that it is impossible to deny its fruit.
Sorry if my post was a bit disorganized or on the wrong track, but I am simply thinking things through here. Not as good at the philosphy thing.
Don’t underestimate yourself. I think you did quite well. I’m just agreeing with you most of the way.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:28 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote It is persons that we must reverence, Brian, not things. When we reverence things, they become idols. And when we worship idols, the true God — a trinity of Persons in unity of nature — is demeaned. If we reverence persons as becomes their dignity, we will not ignore God, either. But as you have seen, attachments to material goods get in the way. This is where we must start if we would travel the road to recovery: with attachments — removing them from our life and making room for God, our fellow man, and genuine love.
I have some confusion with this statement unless you clarify what you mean by reverence. Because my understanding of life and the created world is that we are in some way to reverence things. Or rather that God is present in them in some way. Not pantheism, but the idea that God is present everywhere. His energies are in contact with us. That all is sacrament. Matter matters. When we enjoy any good and pleasing gift, it is in some sense a participation in the creative energy of God. We certainly reverence icons and statues and religious objects. Sure these are intended for spiritual things and blessed items, yet if this is possible it seems to contradict what you say here as I understand or misunderstand it.
At the Byzantine liturgy I attend we reverence the Holy Gospel book, and there is a procession of the soon to be consecrated gifts from the Holy of Holies through the congregation back to the altar. We reverence it in some way even before it is changed as we see it ias somehow already special or set apart or representing something sacred.
Also, we are not to worsip people or things, so when you say that we reverence people and not things I am also confused because since reverence in this instance must not mean worship than I do not see how it excludes things from being reverenced as holy in some way. I believe at Jesus' baptism in a unique way he redeemed all of creation and is reversing the curse and redeeming the physical world as well. So He is making creation Holy. Therefore we can see and experience and taste of the beauty and creative power of God. How can we kiss an icon see a sunset, tree or constellation and not find such to be an experience of grace or in God's energies.
I suppose I should ask what reverence means in this sene you mentioned and how it is unique to people (though I acknowledge we as people are also icons and the most sacred of creation).
Maybe we are agreeing here thoguh, as when I kiss an icon I am not reverencing the wood itself but the person it depicts or God. Perhaps what I am arguing for is reverencing God and prticipating in His love and grace through our enjoyment of created things and this is similar to what you are arguing. Not to reverence the object, but to reverence God through the object or as we seek to redeem it as we do all things. Still, I then wonder in what sense are we to reverence people if you maintain that they are able to be reverenced?
We had the “missing piece” all the time in the Christian religion. The hippies sought for God in all the wrong places because they were blinded by their self-centeredness and concupiscence. They were really seeking themselves, not God. We know that now, but it has still not dawned on us that what we needed was right under our noses, and we threw it away.
I can accept this as a general statement yet I think it can not be seen as a true condemnation of the entire movement. I would like to think that a great many people were truly searching for truth. In fact in the 60's there was a large number of conversion and what was called 'the Jesus movement.' So perhaps for many the hippie concepts were something that was legitimate seeking and was manifested in later conversion.
Let's imagine a young boy or woman who grows up in a household where Christianity is the norm, but it is not lived authentically. Parents simply tell him what to think and why. But it turns out that they are racist. They are not kind to their neighbor. They will not listen to any objection about the Vietnam war. Then this young boy or girl encounters other young people who are crusading for the rights of others. Looking for a different way to live that shares more or is more communistic. That preaches love and honors creation. How is this self centerdness of not seeking for God?
It is not for me to judge how sincere any individual or group of peoples search for truth is, but I like to think that a lot of what the 60's couter culture sought was in some way legitimate or based on searching for something more. They may have settled for disatrous answers and been deceived by some important points and that did lead to much destruction of society, but I still respect some of the searching and desire or can try to understand why it came about. After all any generation that can pen a song called "All you need is love" can not be that far off the path.
I do lament though that they reject the gospel and the idea of self denial and admit that a lot of what I perceive in is self-centerdness and simly wanting to have a good time. But the parts about protesting for civil rights, love for the arts and nature, these are some of the core hippie values that I like to defend and see as true Catholic causes as well.
Mother Angelica used to call this “misguided compassion.” She didn’t try to explain it. The article I reference does a pretty good job of explaining it; that is its purpose. And as our Church guides us, we have to ask, “How are these people morally correct? How are they loving?” They do not believe in personhood; how can they love? It is mere appetite which drives them. They do not believe in morality, much less in the basis of morality, which is religion; how can they be morally correct and good? This is a carnival of contradictions.
I still think from my experience that those who are misguided often do beleve they are the truly compassionate. The problem is that they are letting their feelings interfere with an unswerving pursuit of truth or truths that are uncomfortable. But I believe that we can not say what they are capable of understanding or if they truly have rejected the gospel. If one grows up in a liberal household and only sees hypocritical religious people throughout life, I can not blame that person for looking for an alternative worldview or wanting to side with homosexual friends because he knows them personally and sees their difficulties they may have. I do not think I can say they are truly rejecting morality or do not believe in it. I can only hope that the seed of compassion sown in their heart by the Holy Spirit will be recognized for what it is and that complete conversion will take place and their sense of morality will flourish and bear fruit for good instead of evil.
Anyway, I am merely throwing these thoughts out there as they are ideas that I consider struggling with, as I have many liberal minded friends that I still think rather highly of as idividuals. Some may have started out more conservative or Christian but found something missing in their experience. I can not say exactly where they were led astray in weakness and where they intentionally allowed themselves to be deceived or through a lack of discipline or commitment. I simply try not to determine this as it would be more than I can say. I like to give some of them the benefit of the doubt as I pray for them.
I may be way off track, but I think that some of what I am saying is what is meant or backed up by Catholic ideas of invincible ignorance and those who through no fault of their own do not know about Jesus and His church. I may be on the wrong track and hope I lead no one else astray with my thoughts and do seek the conversion of all people and an end to valued that are contrary to the Divine revealed truths we know.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 09:28 pm |
|
brian wrote:My understanding of life and the created world is that we are in some way to reverence things. Or rather that God is present in them in some way. Not pantheism, but the idea that God is present everywhere. His energies are in contact with us. That all is sacrament. Matter matters. When we enjoy any good and pleasing gift, it is in some sense a participation in the creative energy of God. We certainly reverence icons and statues and religious objects. Sure these are intended for spiritual things and blessed items, yet if this is possible it seems to contradict what you say here as I understand or misunderstand it.
It’s not contradicting at all, Brian, because we reverence these things precisely in the process of reverencing the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. This is, for instance, why we reverence the Book of Gospels in the liturgy. (By the way, your example is paralleled in the Latin Rite. So it is not just an Eastern thing.)
I can accept this as a general statement yet I think it can not be seen as a true condemnation of the entire movement. I would like to think that a great many people were truly searching for truth.
There were indeed many who thought they were searching for truth. Unfortunately, they were blinded by their own faults, which is why I say, for example, that “they were really seeking themselves.” They did not realize what they were doing, only what they thought they were doing.
Let's imagine a young boy or woman who grows up in a household where Christianity is the norm, but it is not lived authentically. Parents simply tell him what to think and why. But it turns out that they are racist. They are not kind to their neighbor. They will not listen to any objection about the Vietnam war. Then this young boy or girl encounters other young people who are crusading for the rights of others. Looking for a different way to live that shares more or is more communistic. That preaches love and honors creation. How is this self centerdness of not seeking for God?
This assumes a perfect scenario. I was there, I interacted with these young people as they were in the act of seeking. I know that very few actual situations were not that clean cut.
Many of these youngsters were making vacuous assumptions based on propaganda, without even bothering to investigate the other side. Many of them were addicted to drugs before they knew drugs were addictive, and they did things because of the urges of drug use rather than out of conviction. And many of them were incredibly naive about the requirements of life on the human level and ended up as animals — often caged animals, because their appetites led to crime.
The whole hippie scene was one of teenage rebellion, not true and mature decision making. What is wrong with the idea of “all you need is love” is the twisted teenage idea of love as the satisfaction of all their desires. That is not love; it is satiation. And satiation, as you well know, is very, very far off the path of truth.
I do lament though that they reject the gospel and the idea of self denial and admit that a lot of what I perceive in it is self-centeredness and simply wanting to have a good time.
Exactly.
But the parts about protesting for civil rights, love for the arts and nature, these are some of the core hippie values that I like to defend and see as true Catholic causes as well.
But these causes were seen incompletely and through hippie lenses; they were not real life. And this is what I decried above: that they distorted what truth there was in what they lauded.
I still think from my experience that those who are misguided often do believe they are the truly compassionate.
They certainly do. And it is precisely because their compassion is misguided that they fail to advance in the truth. Your contention that they have not thereby repudiated the gospel is false because this repudiation was their starting point, not their goal. On the other hand, I can accept your compassion for their error. Like you, I believe that most erred through ignorance. But this ignorance was aided by concupiscence and the easy downhill slide from morality to compulsive adherence to vice.
I may be way off track, but I think that some of what I am saying is what is meant or backed up by Catholic ideas of invincible ignorance and those who through no fault of their own do not know about Jesus and His church.
I will also grant you this. However, the objective sin remains, as do its consequences. Fifty years later, we are still living those consequences and smarting from them.
In the end, I do not see your ideas as all that different from mine, Brian. You are not arguing against what I said so much as attempting to view the same facts from a different vantage point. Unfortunately, you were born a few years too late to have seen what I saw, especially what went before, and I think this is why you have such a romanticized notion of the hippies.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
It is persons that we must reverence, Brian, not things. When we reverence things, they become idols. And when we worship idols, the true God — a trinity of Persons in unity of nature — is demeaned. If we reverence persons as becomes their dignity, we will not ignore God, either. But as you have seen, attachments to material goods get in the way. This is where we must start if we would travel the road to recovery: with attachments — removing them from our life and making room for God, our fellow man, and genuine love.
It’s not contradicting at all, Brian, because we reverence these things precisely in the process of reverencing the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. This is, for instance, why we reverence the Book of Gospels in the liturgy.
Still, you did originally say that reverencing things is idolatry without qualification. Now you seem to be saying that for the right reasons it is acceptable? Perhaps your original statement was more about reverence as in a love of or idolatry for things apart from God or to satisfy one's selfish desires on and of itself?
Meaning, my point is that not all material good is an attachment to be gotten rid of or unworthy of reverence. Much of material good is morally neutral or good and can be used to experience the goodness of God.
Meaning I would like to read your statements as: We must not have an improper reverence for things apart from how they were intended to be enjoyed"
"when we reverence persons and nature and created goods as to acknowledging God's goodness we treat honor God."
You seem to have been in agreement with me all along on this, but I found something unclear with the way originally stated. I am not saying that you contradicted your intended meaning, only that I wonder if you did not completely clarify the matter on your first response.
As to the hippies, I think sometimes having lived through something it can be harder to be objective because you were in one select place at the time and would judge the whole movement on what you personally experienced. It may have been different in different places. I am not saying that you are wrong. Just that living through something does not always give one accurate judgment. If I lived in Iraq right now I may have an entire different view of America. I would not be more knowledgable than future generations on the matter just because I lived through something. Though that knowledge is in some ways indispensible. Meaning, I trust what you are saying, and respect it, but not simply because you were there and I was not and I may agree with 95% of what you say, but with slight more respect and affection for persons and artists from theat time that I think hit on some meaningful points. John Paul II afteral l was comfortable being on stage with Bob Dylan and quoting him. Of course this proves nothing, and I know Benedict did not approve, but it proves that holy men can disagreeon the nature of truth and beauty amidst a controverdsial time.
As for all you need is love. It is a good song in my opinion and quite consistent with the gospel. It is not teenage love song but makes a strong statement on humility and love and how to fit in with the created order of things.
anyway, sorry for being difficult when we mostly agree, but sometimes I can want everything to be a little too perfect. My apologies. I am not trying to contradict you so much as show where I was confused or questioning. I of course respect, and want all to respect the integrity of your person and opinions and and the way said truths and viewpoints are expressed.
Brian
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 10:09 pm by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
Still, you did originally say that reverencing things is idolatry without qualification. Now you seem to be saying that for the right reasons it is acceptable?
Brian, I’m saying that the intention of reverencing things apart from their Creator is idolatry. Your argument, as I understand it, is that things not so separated can be reverenced because through that reverence the Creator is reverenced. I accept that because it is the inverse of my assertion. So we are in agreement.
I think sometimes having lived through something it can be harder to be objective because you were in one select place at the time and would judge the whole movement on what you personally experienced.
I could agree if I had been myself a hippie. But I was not. I rejected what they stood for then, just as I reject it now. And I was not a reactionary; I did not cast in my lot with the previous generation, but with Christ. Recall that I had just gone through a seven-year conversion and become a Catholic as the hippies made their debut. This was followed by several years of observing them — my classmates and friends — in college.
I had a third row seat to see Dr. Timothy Leary because my friends wanted to hear what he had to say. What did he say, then? Fifteen minutes of “Drop out, turn on, tune in” — just the words themselves — followed by half an hour of not much else. In the Q&A, one of the psychology professors, a former classmate of his, pointed out some of Leary’s fantasies and fallacies, and the audience disbanded in disgust. And how did the illustrious Dr. Leary die? By his own hand — on video. Some hero.
Anyway, sorry for being difficult when we mostly agree, but sometimes I can want everything to be a little too perfect. My apologies.
Accepted. We both know that this is your personal cross, and I am not defending my position so much as showing that you really do not disagree. No problem, right?
David
|
|
|
Current time is 07:57 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
