Posted on 07/03/2014 2:00:26 AM PDT by markomalley
Msgr Pope ping
Good article.
This is one of the best Christian/religion/philosophy posts I’ve seen posted here -> merely because of the very subject matter itself, but then the treatment is correct.
A few hundred years before Christ arrived (and, implicitly, and actually, since the dawn of the first amoeba, the ground was being prepared.) That is, there was religious thought developing which, had it not developed, Christ would have appeared to living beings as ‘just another living being who was born and died’ ... if even that.
St. Augustine was not just a monk with a few profound insights that are nice to remember. “Whatever is exposed to the light, itself becomes the light.”
The question, then, is, what exactly is this light, what is its nature. As a ‘word’ or ‘symbol’, to what does it point, whence arises it.
This light is ‘awareness in the moment.’ Another way to characterize it might be ‘a non-grasping (non-attached) effortless concentration in the moment, and only in the moment. (Another way to characterize ‘only in the moment’ is ‘having no time’ and therefore ‘eternal.’ ... because eternal doesn’t mean ‘infinity time’ ... it means ‘unbounded by time’ - or ‘no presence of time’ - better still - ‘there is no such thing as time - short or long.’
This goes to the core mistake (sin using the meaning “to miss the mark” - as opposed to the moral/ethical treatment of sin) of attachment.
In short, attachment, or the time bound (non-eternal) desire for a thought object, is, itself, suffering. It is not good or bad, strictly speaking. It is, itself, suffering. Attachment doesn’t cause suffering. It is itself suffering.
Therefore, there is no reason to feel guilty for being attached, nor to feel good for non-attachment. Attachment is already its own punishment (so don’t punish yourself twice - you are already suffering.)
Attachment, time-bound desire, clinging, attraction as lust, aversion as fear: nothing to feel guilty for. because ‘already suffering.’
The experience, itself, of attachment is already suffering.
This is why a joyous experience, if it is sought, is in itself suffering. However, the experience itself is devoid of suffering. (This is why all sin is forgiven ... except, of course, if one is attached via attraction or aversion to the memory of the sin.)
Attachment IS, ITSELF, a final gate to Heaven. Paradoxically, as are most of the gates, attachment is, itself, illusion. It is not that it isn’t real. It is. But its essence, its eternal nature, is not suffering. Paradoxically, its essence is light. Just, as it turns out, is everything else.
So it is very important to distinguish between experience and attachment. Anything longed for will lead to suffering. Anything avoided will lead to suffering. Longing and Avoidance are time-bound constructs. Anything with time-bound nature will lead to suffering - whether perceived as good (lust) or bad (fear.)
So what the heck, then, are you supposed to do? You can not long, nor can you avoid?
This is turning everything, “every thing” over to God, including space, time, and every thing that occurs bounded in space and time, and this is why no man can save himself. Attachment, even to salvation, is an uncrossable barrier to salvation.
In the meantime, if mind is any help at all in seeking God, mind should be put to the task of unravelling illusion. All desire and all fear is attachment.
(That is why the ‘apple’ was the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, or the attachment to good and evil. Desire for ‘good’ will lead to suffering. Desire for ‘bad’ will lead to suffering.)
The lily neither spins nor toils. (no attachment to good, no attachment to bad.) In this state, it manifests beauty, or light. Possessing no grasped nature, it is only what it is. Desire the lily, and you will suffer.
It is one of the most delicate paradoxes.
How can one experience God, but not desire God, cling to God, be attached to God? Any of these three will lead to suffering, is suffering, just as certainly as fear, avoidance, disgust with Satan, will cause suffering, is suffering.
What can you do? Anything you ‘do’ is suffering. Spinning is suffering. Toiling is suffering. This is ‘The World’ as Jesus called it, into which we are born, each moment. ‘The World’ is, itself, suffering. But the rejection of this ‘The World” is, itself, suffering.
What can you do?
Another good Msgr Pope column. And on a topic you’ve often addressed: This is not our world, what keeps souls attached to it and “where our treasure lies.”
That’s a very interesting post, it may be interesting to read more elaboration (as I may be missing something) but I must take issue with the following:
“(That is why the ‘apple’ was the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, or the attachment to good and evil. Desire for ‘good’ will lead to suffering. Desire for ‘bad’ will lead to suffering.)
The lily neither spins nor toils. (no attachment to good, no attachment to bad.) In this state, it manifests beauty, or light. Possessing no grasped nature, it is only what it is. Desire the lily, and you will suffer.”
Two things: I think we can all agree that suffering is bad.
Assuming that is an agreeable axiom, then I object to the following assertion:
Desire for good will lead to suffering. Desire for bad will lead to suffering.
What these two statements clearly force, is that therefore all desire is bad. (Again, assuming we can and do agree suffering is bad)
But this notion (that all desire is bad) is precisely not Father’s point/claim above. Indeed if I may expound briefly, all desire is a desire for Christ. Even disordered desires. This is because our desires are never fully satisfied, and thus, in an objective way, point to (indeed require) Christ as their fulfillment.
So in this way, desire itself isn’t “bad”. No matter what desire you’re talking about. It only becomes bad when (as you correctly say) we “sin” (or miss the mark) with them. And what is the mark?
Again, their only solution: Jesus Christ.
What you have described in your post does not seem like Christianity (at least not Catholic Christianity), it seems like Buddhism. Buddhists also claim all desire is bad. Especially a desire for beautiful things like the example you used with the lily.
You seem to be advocating a detachment from all things created which is again not Father’s point above. Indeed all things are good (in the Christian religion) precisely because they were created by God. Thus as Father says, it’s not “bad” to have an attachment to things, only a disordered attachment is destructive.
Thanks to you and to Msgr. Pope. This line alone was worth the price of admission:
“... an important thing to seek from God is not that we merely give up things with a sour face and bad attitude, but that we actually start to prefer good things in moderation over distracting things in excess.”
FRegards, and GOD’s blessings on you, in JESUS’ name
Correction: I should have said: “It’s not bad to have a desire for things. Only a disordered desire for things is bad.”
I detect a whiff of Buddhism in your brief treatise.
Ping!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Advocating a detachment from everything (even FR) —
AND an attachment to ONLY God. Isn’t this what he is talking about?
We are going to suffer in this world, regardless.
If you mean that's what tinyowl was saying, yes quite possibly. I don't know for certain.
We are going to suffer in this world, regardless.
That is true absolutely. The question I was raising was "why" do we suffer: I maintain it is not because of our desires rather because our desires (which are infinite)'remain unfulfilled here on earth. No matter what we do we can never have "enough". In this way, our desires are a tool that point to Christ because only he can truly satisfy them. Thus, in this way it can be said all desire is a desire for Christ. Recognizing this objective fact of our collective human nature goes a long way in helping every man realize his destiny which is in Christ. If one is not honest with oneself, this fact will never become evident.
This is also how it can be said quite accurately that the Church offers freedom: freedom not only from sin but also freedom to be truly what God created us to be. Which is freedom to be our true self, not some fake person suppressing his desire for the sake of society, or moralism, or for any other sake or reason outside. But a real person who knows who he is, what he is, and what he is meant to be, which is in Christ, loving Christ, this is our destiny. This is precisely freedom when we embrace our destiny freely.
God created us with infinite desire precisely to help us realize Christ is our destiny and thus, who we should strive for. Who we should be only attached to. Thus desire isn't bad, only when they are disordered and we allow this disorder to rule us, define us, are they bad.
Msgr. Pope supports his bishop, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who insists on committing the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians, and punishes priests who refuse to commit this same mortal sin.
What do you mean by he “supports” Cardinal Wurl? Is obedience to one’s bishop support of said bishop’s sin? Has Msgr Pope personally given Holy Communion to openly pro-abort politicians?
Thanks for the ping. This is very good, indeed.
He has, in writing, supported Wuerl’s “pastoral approach” to the issue—i.e, giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
He has called pointing out that Wuerl’s policy is gravely sinful “causing scandal.”
No priest is required by his promise of obedience to commit sin. There is absolutely nothing admirable about a priest’s joining his bishop in sin. A bishop who commands priests to commit sin, and punishes any who disobey, is abusing his office—in a gravely sinful manner.
I have no idea whether Msgr. Pope has ever given Communion to a pro-abort. I know he has never refused Communion to a pro-abort politician, because:
If he had ever REFUSED Communion to a pro-abort, Wuerl would have suspended him, as he suspended Fr. Guarnizo for refusing to give Communion to a public lesbian.
Hi -
The attachment to good or bad being the same thing.
The desire for good and bad being the same thing.
It’s not that ‘bad’ isn’t ‘bad’. It’s that attachment to “not bad” gives rise to suffering.
It’s the ‘desire’ and the ‘attachment’ that cause suffering. Bad in itself may cause the experience of pain. Good in itself may cause the experience of joy.
Attachment to either. Desire for either. This is the realm of The World, not Heaven. In Heaven, there is no good or bad, no either. The key words, then, are ‘desire’ and ‘attachment’. Normally we think the key words are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ... or ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
It sounds like semantic tricks, and it sounds a little like Buddhism, but Buddhism is totally misinterpreted anyway.
But it’s not. The trap that keeps us in The World is locating our souls within a time bound, space bound architecture.
I promise I’m not playing semantic tricks - I’m very sincere.
What all this points to - and it can only point - is beyond concepts, words anyway. I believe that’s why (I think) even Judeo-Christian traditions at times have held that to even speak His name is in itself to miss the mark.
Suffering is itself not bad. The experience of it is unpleasant, and we may not want it. But in itself it is not bad. It says “Wake Up! You are going in the wrong direction.” Without it, the starving person would not eat, the spiritually corrupt person would not change, even the good man would not know that The World is not where peace is to be found.
This whole conversation takes a life time. I take no issue with your last paragraphs ... I agree with them in fact in the context you’re using the words.
This spiritual stuff ... very difficult to use words ... because from above, my property is ‘down’ ... it is also ‘down’ from a man in China. But China is down from me, and I am ‘down’ from China.
So all those sentences are true, all the words are true, yet they are totally contradictory. Words are in the realm of The World, ultimately can never be trusted because they change based on where one is standing. So yeah ...
“Again, their is only solution: Jesus Christ.”
Yes, but not ultimately those words, rather, what those words point to, which is nameless.
I’m going to shut up now. I don’t disagree with a single word in the Bible (I disagree with many interpretations of the Bible), but I know I’m skating on thin ice to discuss it these ways. Just food for thought - for chewing or spitting out if it tastes bad. And not a word of it is to veer from traditional teaching. I’m no Saint, but I care about these things deeply.
I disagree with with your statement that Msgr Pope supports Cardinal Wuerl.
Upon ordination, Msgr made a promise of obedience to his Bishop, Cardinal Wuerl.
Obedience does not equate to support as you cannot know what Msgr Pope has said in disagreement or protest when one-on-one with the Cardinal.
Obedience does not equal support.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.