Thursday, December 23, 2010
My Leader on Intimations Bodily Grace
Rowan Williams at his thoughtful best see: http://www.igreens.org.uk/bodys_grace.htm
Friday, August 27, 2010
Why did God create Man?
One of the old questions: why would God have created people in the first place?
There is a poem by Kerry Hardie called Sheep Fair Day prefaced by a quote from Simone Weil which was being discussed by Jessie, The Droad and Myself.
" The real aim is not to see God in all things, it is that God,
through us, should see the things that we see."
Having read a lot of Simone Weil a long time ago, I probably owe to her the idea that God created man because He thought that sentient beings should be created so that they could experience and think about His wonderful creation. He in turn would then be able to see the things that mankind sees - another take on his own creation and wonderful for sentient beings too.
Jessie makes a distinction saying that this is one of the ways in which we might try to understand why God created us.
There is a poem by Kerry Hardie called Sheep Fair Day prefaced by a quote from Simone Weil which was being discussed by Jessie, The Droad and Myself.
" The real aim is not to see God in all things, it is that God,
through us, should see the things that we see."
Having read a lot of Simone Weil a long time ago, I probably owe to her the idea that God created man because He thought that sentient beings should be created so that they could experience and think about His wonderful creation. He in turn would then be able to see the things that mankind sees - another take on his own creation and wonderful for sentient beings too.
Jessie makes a distinction saying that this is one of the ways in which we might try to understand why God created us.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Pride as a State of Being I
The Roman Catholic Church is in a fix but does not seem able to recognise its condition. Perhaps it is the difficulties of the boundary between the secular and the religious which is at the heart of the problem; secularists and the religious cannot penetrate each others' bubble of being.
So to use religious terminology, senior churchmen, the hierarchy of the Roman Church, are guilty of the sin of Pride. Pride is by tradition the greatest of all sins, manifested in its purest form by Satan who was so sure of himself that he rose against God in revolt. Pride is a state of being that acknowledges no criticism and holds critics in contempt. Pride is a double edged accusation as it is frequently used by the Church against those who robustly criticise it as well as by critics of an overweening and unquestioning authority. Furthermore are not those who make an accusation of spiritual pride always liable to the accusation that they are guilty of it themselves? Let us leave that questions aside for later.
The Church shows its pride when it denies its failure to manage the *concupiscence of its priests and denies the legitimacy of those who claim to have been damaged by the consequences of that concupiscence (e.g. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals called such claims "petty gossip" on Easter Day 2010). The hierarchy fails to acknowledge the consequences of the concupiscence of particular priests, and where it is not in question, it has failed to manage the guilty so that the damaging acts caused by their concupiscence continues to recur. This is a serious matter for the church because it assumes moral authority over its flock through the priestly hierarchy. If concupiscence is manifest in that hierarchy then the moral authority of the chruch is undermined. These horrid facts seem to elude the hierarchy.
The prohibition on marriage in the priesthood denies the sexual desire of priests its natural outlet and so energises concupiscence. Twenty years ago our French neighbour said of a local priest "the Church should allow its priests to marry then they would keep their hands of other peoples wives" and in these days she might have added "and children". Remember Paul's saying "it is better to marry than to burn"? If the church allowed marriage it would solve a number of problems:
- it would reduce a priest's impetus to concupiscence;
- it would give every priest an effective policewoman called a "wife". As we know "hell has no fury like a women scorned" so we would not even have to pray for supernatural help for wives to carry out their guardian duties (perhaps there would at a later date be policemen too, but we get ahead of ourselves...):
- it would help recruit priests to the Church. In France, as in many other countries, many parishes are without priests and centenarians are called upon to carry our marriages and funerals because of this lack. Meanwhile the Lutherans in the west of France, who encourage priests to be married, have an excess of applications for the priesthood. Nowadays idealistic young men know that the energy of dedicating their life to God in the Roman church may in reality be substantially devoted to warding of concupiscence. Those who wish to maintain celibacy still have the lively alternative of the monastery where their concupiscence would be subject to the particular discipline of their chosen order.
- it would improve the quality of recruits to the priesthood by increasing the pool of applicants thereby further helping to avoid scandal;
- the experience of marriage would increase a priest's understanding of his flock and the day to day problems of the laity to whom they minister.
Having so recently admitted Anglican married clergy to the Roman church to allow them to escape the "horrors" of women priests, it is only a short step to allowing all their priests to marry. On the other hand, looking at their past record there must be doubt that the hierarchy can set aside their pride and admit 871 years of celibacy was a mistake. (Assuming that the Second Lateran Council of 1139 is the key date, rather than the final prohibition of marriage in the 1917 Code of Canon Law). But then perhaps they only have to admit it a mistake at the start of the 21st century.
So will a proud Roman Church collapse like the Soviet Union? Or perhaps the Anglican Church might execute a speedy and relatively bloodless coup d'etat? Or perhaps the Roman Catholic Church, stripped naked of its moral authority, may take a long time dieing and gradually be replaced, or perhaps one should say, overwhelmed, by its more outward looking and energetic reformed brothers and sisters? Such could be the price of Pride...
Peace upon you reader..
References:
*Concupiscence: Best known from Augustine of Hippo who spent much of his life coming to terms with his desires, but beautifully set out by Paul in Romans in the broader sense. Later incorporated into the Catechism of the Catholic Church - for both see below.
From the Letters of Paul: Romans 7:
4We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing
The Bible, New International Version.
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
So to use religious terminology, senior churchmen, the hierarchy of the Roman Church, are guilty of the sin of Pride. Pride is by tradition the greatest of all sins, manifested in its purest form by Satan who was so sure of himself that he rose against God in revolt. Pride is a state of being that acknowledges no criticism and holds critics in contempt. Pride is a double edged accusation as it is frequently used by the Church against those who robustly criticise it as well as by critics of an overweening and unquestioning authority. Furthermore are not those who make an accusation of spiritual pride always liable to the accusation that they are guilty of it themselves? Let us leave that questions aside for later.
The Church shows its pride when it denies its failure to manage the *concupiscence of its priests and denies the legitimacy of those who claim to have been damaged by the consequences of that concupiscence (e.g. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals called such claims "petty gossip" on Easter Day 2010). The hierarchy fails to acknowledge the consequences of the concupiscence of particular priests, and where it is not in question, it has failed to manage the guilty so that the damaging acts caused by their concupiscence continues to recur. This is a serious matter for the church because it assumes moral authority over its flock through the priestly hierarchy. If concupiscence is manifest in that hierarchy then the moral authority of the chruch is undermined. These horrid facts seem to elude the hierarchy.
The prohibition on marriage in the priesthood denies the sexual desire of priests its natural outlet and so energises concupiscence. Twenty years ago our French neighbour said of a local priest "the Church should allow its priests to marry then they would keep their hands of other peoples wives" and in these days she might have added "and children". Remember Paul's saying "it is better to marry than to burn"? If the church allowed marriage it would solve a number of problems:
- it would reduce a priest's impetus to concupiscence;
- it would give every priest an effective policewoman called a "wife". As we know "hell has no fury like a women scorned" so we would not even have to pray for supernatural help for wives to carry out their guardian duties (perhaps there would at a later date be policemen too, but we get ahead of ourselves...):
- it would help recruit priests to the Church. In France, as in many other countries, many parishes are without priests and centenarians are called upon to carry our marriages and funerals because of this lack. Meanwhile the Lutherans in the west of France, who encourage priests to be married, have an excess of applications for the priesthood. Nowadays idealistic young men know that the energy of dedicating their life to God in the Roman church may in reality be substantially devoted to warding of concupiscence. Those who wish to maintain celibacy still have the lively alternative of the monastery where their concupiscence would be subject to the particular discipline of their chosen order.
- it would improve the quality of recruits to the priesthood by increasing the pool of applicants thereby further helping to avoid scandal;
- the experience of marriage would increase a priest's understanding of his flock and the day to day problems of the laity to whom they minister.
Having so recently admitted Anglican married clergy to the Roman church to allow them to escape the "horrors" of women priests, it is only a short step to allowing all their priests to marry. On the other hand, looking at their past record there must be doubt that the hierarchy can set aside their pride and admit 871 years of celibacy was a mistake. (Assuming that the Second Lateran Council of 1139 is the key date, rather than the final prohibition of marriage in the 1917 Code of Canon Law). But then perhaps they only have to admit it a mistake at the start of the 21st century.
So will a proud Roman Church collapse like the Soviet Union? Or perhaps the Anglican Church might execute a speedy and relatively bloodless coup d'etat? Or perhaps the Roman Catholic Church, stripped naked of its moral authority, may take a long time dieing and gradually be replaced, or perhaps one should say, overwhelmed, by its more outward looking and energetic reformed brothers and sisters? Such could be the price of Pride...
Peace upon you reader..
References:
*Concupiscence: Best known from Augustine of Hippo who spent much of his life coming to terms with his desires, but beautifully set out by Paul in Romans in the broader sense. Later incorporated into the Catechism of the Catholic Church - for both see below.
From the Letters of Paul: Romans 7:
4We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing
The Bible, New International Version.
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418
Friday, June 15, 2007
Blog Objective
The objective of this blog is to set out thoughts on the nature of being including intimation of God's being.
Below are the original notes about being which it is hoped to expand upon over the coming months:
God, as our cousins might say is "into being".
Meaning he creates being, he is attentive to being in all its possibilities. If he is pre-disposed by his nature to do this would it affect his free will and his omnipotence? ie he could not but create being and beings.
His first revelation to Moses is about being "I AN THAT I AM" and this too is his name. The Hebrews seem to have realised the importance of this pronouncement from the outset but were anxious about saying it out loud, but it was permissible to write it down.
We too have being but it is creaturely being so we can say "i am that i am" or perhaps "i am that i am" like poo bear, to ourselves in a very small voice! but it is a creaturely "i am".
How would such a God reach out to his creaturely beings? It must be through common aspects of being: could we sympathise with Being that was foreign to us? Tonight I saw two branches of a grapevine which had fallen from the trellis but they had re-established contact each with its fellow by winding a tendril around a tendril from the other's branch, like to like. At twilight when I looked up I saw a hundred tendrils reaching out against the blue of the evening sky. Could we learn new aspects of being? Could we have new aspects of being conferred on us? eg: Grace in the Christian tradition is the obvious one. Its a bit like having your programming re-configured through a download... "download complete - select the installation button and in no time you will be able to draw closer to God" - is this a limitation? Well its consistent with an omnipotent God of the Abrahamic tradition who may just decide your time is up for an upgrade. The traditional answer is to have faith and put up with the downgrades along with the upgrades.
If being is a major activity for God, or a major part of the Being of God, then we can get closer to God by being aware of being in all its forms, at least to the extent that we are capable. Would this only apply to good forms of being, how about evil forms?
On the other hand the greatest way to move away from God is to be full of envy which is a resentment of the being of others. Envy denies us awareness of being in others and so drives us from God who is interested in the being of these others. The old virtue of being able to celebrate the good fortune of others would be a key to this end. This is also present in its negative form in the Mosaic commandments "Thou shalt not covet...."
Love of others is attention to their being, the quality of that love being equal to the extent that we are able to discern the reality of their being. Perhaps we love our children best because we have seen them grow into being. Perhaps the quality of love is limited by our self love being projected, reflected from the object of our love, but an attempt at loving others is still worth while in itself and perhaps we will become able in the art with practice.
Does being have to be reflexive or reflective? If a creature is not aware of its actions and state can it be said to have being? Perhaps just being aware of something else is the start of being. A planarian aware of light though its little pigment spots perhaps? Or does the planarian have to think "I am aware of the light through my pigmented spots" or perhaps just "I am aware of light" before it can be said to have being?
God would create as many types of being as possible. This is a universe of possibility for us but we would not be able to perceive many or even most of the possible states of being that God creates because of our limitations of being and perception.
Are there some beings or conditions of being that God would not create? Perhaps very evil beings? Or would he still create them but limit their scope for evil action? But the ultimately evil being would be one that wished to destroy being, God might avoid creating such a being, at least in powerful form (remembering that we are capable of envy so he has already created some capacity for evil).
Why would God allow death if he is so keen on being? Perhaps because he is timelessly eternal. If He is timelessly eternal we are always present to him. We may not always be present to ourselves but we are always in the mind of God. Why do people worry about dieing yet never worry about the time before their birth when they were not...? Why do people worry about persistence in time yet, as far as I know, have no desire to be everywhere at once?
Talking of the timelessness of God I note that an early draft of this blog had been auto-saved in two minutes time (ie at 7:56 when it was still only 7:54) is this evidence of God's interest or the interest of another sort of timeless being he has created in this blog page or just a software error?
This is just a way of getting my thoughts out of my head on to another medium. Don't expect these notes to make much sense, I hope to be able to revise and refine them...Paul.
Below are the original notes about being which it is hoped to expand upon over the coming months:
God, as our cousins might say is "into being".
Meaning he creates being, he is attentive to being in all its possibilities. If he is pre-disposed by his nature to do this would it affect his free will and his omnipotence? ie he could not but create being and beings.
His first revelation to Moses is about being "I AN THAT I AM" and this too is his name. The Hebrews seem to have realised the importance of this pronouncement from the outset but were anxious about saying it out loud, but it was permissible to write it down.
We too have being but it is creaturely being so we can say "i am that i am" or perhaps "i am that i am" like poo bear, to ourselves in a very small voice! but it is a creaturely "i am".
How would such a God reach out to his creaturely beings? It must be through common aspects of being: could we sympathise with Being that was foreign to us? Tonight I saw two branches of a grapevine which had fallen from the trellis but they had re-established contact each with its fellow by winding a tendril around a tendril from the other's branch, like to like. At twilight when I looked up I saw a hundred tendrils reaching out against the blue of the evening sky. Could we learn new aspects of being? Could we have new aspects of being conferred on us? eg: Grace in the Christian tradition is the obvious one. Its a bit like having your programming re-configured through a download... "download complete - select the installation button and in no time you will be able to draw closer to God" - is this a limitation? Well its consistent with an omnipotent God of the Abrahamic tradition who may just decide your time is up for an upgrade. The traditional answer is to have faith and put up with the downgrades along with the upgrades.
If being is a major activity for God, or a major part of the Being of God, then we can get closer to God by being aware of being in all its forms, at least to the extent that we are capable. Would this only apply to good forms of being, how about evil forms?
On the other hand the greatest way to move away from God is to be full of envy which is a resentment of the being of others. Envy denies us awareness of being in others and so drives us from God who is interested in the being of these others. The old virtue of being able to celebrate the good fortune of others would be a key to this end. This is also present in its negative form in the Mosaic commandments "Thou shalt not covet...."
Love of others is attention to their being, the quality of that love being equal to the extent that we are able to discern the reality of their being. Perhaps we love our children best because we have seen them grow into being. Perhaps the quality of love is limited by our self love being projected, reflected from the object of our love, but an attempt at loving others is still worth while in itself and perhaps we will become able in the art with practice.
Does being have to be reflexive or reflective? If a creature is not aware of its actions and state can it be said to have being? Perhaps just being aware of something else is the start of being. A planarian aware of light though its little pigment spots perhaps? Or does the planarian have to think "I am aware of the light through my pigmented spots" or perhaps just "I am aware of light" before it can be said to have being?
God would create as many types of being as possible. This is a universe of possibility for us but we would not be able to perceive many or even most of the possible states of being that God creates because of our limitations of being and perception.
Are there some beings or conditions of being that God would not create? Perhaps very evil beings? Or would he still create them but limit their scope for evil action? But the ultimately evil being would be one that wished to destroy being, God might avoid creating such a being, at least in powerful form (remembering that we are capable of envy so he has already created some capacity for evil).
Why would God allow death if he is so keen on being? Perhaps because he is timelessly eternal. If He is timelessly eternal we are always present to him. We may not always be present to ourselves but we are always in the mind of God. Why do people worry about dieing yet never worry about the time before their birth when they were not...? Why do people worry about persistence in time yet, as far as I know, have no desire to be everywhere at once?
Talking of the timelessness of God I note that an early draft of this blog had been auto-saved in two minutes time (ie at 7:56 when it was still only 7:54) is this evidence of God's interest or the interest of another sort of timeless being he has created in this blog page or just a software error?
This is just a way of getting my thoughts out of my head on to another medium. Don't expect these notes to make much sense, I hope to be able to revise and refine them...Paul.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
