I had a telephone call this morning from my son. He wanted me to know that he had got back to the UK following his lecture tour in the Australian universities. He is one of our leading romano–british historians. It reminded me of a conversation we had when he was fourteen. He said that I was unlike other fathers. He claimed that most fathers answered their children’s questions whereas I simply asked him questions back. I like to think, though I cannot confirm, that this triggered him into investigating the truth rather than looking for someone else’s answer.
This wasn’t original to me. I was fortunate to have had a Jesuit education. There I learnt that I couldn’t make statements of significance unless I was prepared to support them with logic and evidence. Nor, as far as I was concerned, could my son.
I have little knowledge of the status of regular contributors to this blog. The odd hint gives me clues of course. But I have the impression that many are highly educated, sometimes clerical, and, most often, with views worth reading and thinking about.
So today I am asking whether any of you recall a remark, or an idea, from a parent, or a teacher, or a friend which you took on board and which has continued to influence you since then.
In my case, it was many years back. I was in a high- level business meeting where we were looking at how we could improve the business organisation. We went through a lengthy discussion reviewing all the different aspects, and potential improvements. When we finished, our chief actuary asked: “But, in the end, what are the things which really matter?” In five minutes, we knew the answer.
So, since then, whether it’s family, or business, or my health, or investments, or my plan for the day, I start with the question “What are the things which really matter?” It has been invaluable.
So I ask you to think through your own mind and memory and see if you can remember the principle, or principles you have picked up over the years and are still benefitting in your life.
Good to hear you son got home safe. The borders are shut now, as I think they are in other places, so his timing was fortunate, and a relief for you.
Westminster Abbey Institute was also fortunate to lure Professor Jurgen Moltmann over to England to speak as part of its spring programme, before any travel restrictions took effect there.
Two of his reflections, as recorded in the recent Tablet, are the most prominent in my mind when I do a quick scan of my learning experiences, in this case, from the recent past.
I thought, in light of our current pandemic, his comment on hope was very instructive and one I am keen to adopt.
Thinking of the earth, as a living organism and seeing the current crisis as a cleansing process whereby the earth seeks to rid itself of humanity, which is the greatest threat to its health and even survival, I, not Moltmann, reach an honest and very grim conclusion.
Moltmann remarks, “If we know that we will not survive, we will do nothing. If we know we will, we won’t do anything either. Only if the future is open to both possibilities, we can do what is necessary.”
I see this, axiom, as a real basis for hope. For humanity, it is business as usual, negotiating a possibility between doom and survival.
Given that climate change has not gone away, nor any of the risks to our planet’s
survival with rates of pollution, extinction, and environmental degradation at an all time high, I need a bit of hope. And this glimmer of possibility does just that.
Also, by holding his menu up against his face, like someone with very poor sight, he sought to demonstrate how close God is to us, even closer than we are to ourselves.
Such a gesture by Moltmann, no easy theologian to read, is a very simple and clever way of imaging an aspect of our relationship to God, as a blinding reality with many levels of meaning, and many possible applications to our faith.
Yes, definitely, two principles, one to do with finding a glimmer of hope when there is none and the other about searching for God when there doesn’t seem to be one, that I learnt a few days ago.
So far this 93 year old’s impact on me this week, has remained. And with my memory, that’s saying something.
I’m not sure if the following are quite the sorts of thing you had in mind, Quentin, but here they are anyway:
When my eldest (now in his 40s) was a 5-year old in school, his teacher said of him: “He’s not interested in ‘right answers'”. What she meant was that he was not interested in giving an answer that would please the teacher and keep her happy; he actually wanted to know/understand things.
The other was an example set by someone else. In the course of a meeting about a “problem child” in school and what should be done about him, the educational psychologist asked a question. It was met evasively. He asked it again. And again. And again. He showed no sign of impatience or annoyance, he just persisted; and eventually it was answered.
I have no received words of wisdom worth mentioning. What words there were have been absorbed, integrated, and mostly forgotten. My understanding of the Jesuitical approach to reality is that it relies heavily on words and logic. That, I think, is easily overdone. Language seems to be necessary to human functioning, but humans do not – they cannot – live on words alone. Some try to, but in the end, all words are submerged in a much deeper ocean of meaning.
David, But do you not find that word at least offer up signs or labels which indicate at least the direction of travel those deeper tidal waters??
// David, But do you not find that word at least offer up signs or labels which indicate at least the direction of travel those deeper tidal waters?? //
Words are useful, maybe necessary tools for building chained thoughts, and we need to do that to survive, but chained thinking (If I keep my head under water for more than X seconds, I’ll drown.) is best when working with the measurable world, practical stuff. When it’s applied to non-measurable things (Is abortion immoral?) it’s likely to lead us where we want to go rather than where we ought to go. I grant you that since we have an innate talent for using logic it’s only natural that we’ll use it for trying to solve abstract puzzles, but I think it’s wise to be aware of and beware of its limitations.
Theology and philosophy – of which I know nothing – probably rely a lot on logic. I wonder whether this isn’t often a lot like counting the capacity of a pin head for holding X number of angels.
But I confess that one reason why I seem to hold loquacity and logic in rather low esteem is probably that I’m not very good at either of them :o)
I had a rather cynical (in the sense of “distrustful of human sincerity”) Xavarian brother as head-teacher. I remember two of his phrases “Man creates God in his own image” and “the self-made man is very proud of his maker”, They help me to keep a check on myself lest I become either of those creatures.
When I was training as an osteopath we had a dour old principal of the college-himself famous after a 60 year career. One day during one of his mind bogglingly difficult lectures the old man stopped his flow and then with a fierce glare declaimed in a loud voice:
“You have to make it your own!!!”
Thirty years on those words stay with me as I struggle still with the complexities of the human frame and person in order to help with the healing process.
However the meaning of those words seems to amplify into spiritual guidance as I walk, as do we all, in the calling of our lives. I have to make my faith ‘my own’ through acceptance , trust, and courage. Those few words have become a motto for me as I have to make my best intentions my own, by dint sometimes of fierce struggle with negative habits and laziness, I have to make my understanding ‘my own’ by rejecting all my lazy thoughts and scrutinising my beliefs for their hidden prejudices.
Trusting that God has indeed made His home in me and given me his word as a lamp to my feet, I must strive to make all things my “own” knowing that, in doing so, I walk a pleasing way.
I can’t remember any particular words of wisdom, from my school days, that stand out. One or two come to mind when I am thinking in a certain direction but I have no permanent pearls to fall back on.
The only piece of advice I can remember was from a lay teacher, who told us on the last day at an all boys grammar school. He said, “Remember! A man chases a woman until she catches him.” I don’t think he would get away with that nowadays.
David Smith writes:
“But I confess that one reason why I seem to hold loquacity and logic in rather low esteem is probably that I’m not very good at either of them :o)”
Actually that was quite loquacious !!
If I may pursue the subject a little with you on account of it being a fascinating one and close to my heart! For the past thirty years I have been asking people questions relate to their health and well being. I am an Osteopath, I am ordained, I preach and teach. In my capacity as a prison chaplain with inmates I spend hours teasing out complex issues of spirituality intertwined as it is with criminality. I spent several years working on the “Samaritans ” help line for those who deemed themselves suicidal. So I have what might be called ‘skin in the game’!
I have come to the place where in most conversations I almost automatically try to sift words from their deeper meaning. I have come to the conclusion that, just as the paragraph (and not the word) is the smallest unit of meaning in almost any writing, so the smallest unit of meaning in any conversation comes out in context of a few minutes rather than second. The strange thing is that we manage to communicate AT ALL!! But somehow we do. Somehow we appear to have the capacity to seperate words from meaning and yet still intuit a ‘meaning’ which is basically more of an echo than anything else; the striking of a shared chord perhaps. My wife, and one or two others who know me well reckon I am a “high functioning something or another” by which they mean that I need plenty of context before I grasp the basics. I often wonder if they are correct.or is it just “them”!!
Sounds a bit like me. I need to get an intuitive feeling about something I’m trying to learn before the learning experience becomes effective. That makes me a slower learner than, I think, most people in whatever group of learners I’m in are likely to be. When I’m trying to learn something alone, outside a formally set up group of learners, I fumble around, trying to acquire that intuitive feeling for the subject before I can settle down to the task. Often – too often – I never settle in, and I settle for partial learning. Impatience. ADHD, I suppose, or something related to it. It’s a cross :o)
My wife and I started reading to each other yesterday. I chose “The Warden”, the first volume in Trollope’s Barsetshire novels. I ordered a paper copy, but as it hasn’t arrived yet, we started reading on our electronic devices, she on her iPhone and I on my iPad. As I read, I took time to highlight and annotate various elements in the text – unfamiliar words, locations, dates, names of characters and places, and so forth. To do this, I had to stop our reading from time to time. This drove my wife up a small wall. She’s a retired academic, someone I think of as a normal and normally efficient learner. What I need, she doesn’t. In that way, we’re a mixed marriage :o)
The worst thing that ever happened to me at school (educationally – abuse is a different subject) was at age 10. I loved maths and had a brother a year older than me; reading his maths texts I came across that wonderful number pi. The head-teacher at the primary school used to take the top form for maths once a month and was doing circles and trying to measure the circumference. He said it was impossible; I stuck my hand up and mentioned pi – he denied it’s existence in front of the whole class. I went home and checked. Later in life I realise pi was a surd and that, strictly speaking, pi can never be represented as a number. However, the sad lesson I learned as a child was that adults lie and even head-teachers lie. Within a year I had also discovered that priests lie. I’m 68 and the scars have never fully healed (as a deacon, I discovered Bishop’s lie … this human fallenness can be terrifying).
// However, the sad lesson I learned as a child was that adults lie and even head-teachers lie. Within a year I had also discovered that priests lie. I’m 68 and the scars have never fully healed (as a deacon, I discovered Bishop’s lie … this human fallenness can be terrifying). //
People’s attitudes toward lying, deliberately misleading, and dissembling is a fascinating topic. I’m rather strongly averse to those things, but I suspect a great many people are not. I don’t find that frightening, but it does bother me, unsettle me, and it probably contributes significantly to what seems to be my innate cynicism.
Speaking about lies and truth is very interesting:
“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”
jeremiah ch17 v 9
“18For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing” Roman ch 7 v18
I rarely quote the bible publicly because there is always a contradictory verse to be found somewhere. But it does seem to me there is a stark and unpalatable truth on offer here. Fundamentally human beings do not speak ‘truth’. I am pretty certain that I myself am an amateur in the business of truth. I guess I would define myself as a reformed liar trying his best (sometimes) to be truthful. This might be because ‘truthfulness’ is itself difficult to define.Our consciences are quite capable of deceiving us and we are blind to the levels of our own self interest, very often believing that our own conviction about a matter is somehow ‘better’ than the other persons.
It is, as David says a fascinating topic,particularly dissembling – which means ‘ to conceal or disguise ones true feelings or beliefs’ None of us are immune from dissembling, at least I have never met a person who seemed to me wholly transparent either to themselves or to others.
Perhaps being in a prison environment is a more formative experience than one gives credit for but I find increasingly as the years pass I become more and more aware that human beings do in fact see as through a glass darkly on account of fallenness and that it is best to proceed from the assumption that this fallenness is normative. I find also when discussing things with parishioners (not in prison) that many seem strangely naive about the human condition and thus prone to frequent disappointment and disillusionment. On the other hand, if one has a ‘healthy’ awareness of sin in all its ubiquitousness then one becomes increasingly free to act with compassion and to grow in gratitude towards a God who is merciful and long suffering.
Sorry by the way to hear MilliganP speaking,obliquely, of what sound like abusive encounters in the religious context. I can see how these must be devastating. In my prison we have rather large numbers of men who have used their status as priests, ministers, teachers, doctors etc for gratification of perverse and selfish purpose. The terrifying thing about these individuals is their manipulative plausibility; personality disorder, when closely encountered, is a terrible thing.
To finish on an upbeat note though, it is 8pm and my wife and I stepped out of our house to applaud the Health workers…we started self consciously and embarrassed but then most of the street came out to which was greatly uplifting. That we human beings are deeply flawed need not be our defining characteristic because mostly, though truth is not much in us, we long more and more for it presence – which longing forms the best of us.
// So I ask you to think through your own mind and memory and see if you can remember the principle, or principles you have picked up over the years and are still benefitting in your life. //
How about this: “Forty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.” Of course, that’s a tongue-in-cheek apothegm, the implication being that the hive mind is most certainly likely to be wrong, and that one will always do well to think for oneself.
That applies at this moment, I think. We’re being told by the politicians and their echo chamber the mass media that because there’s a new viral epidemic abroad in the land, the world is coming to an end. Nope, I disagree. Human beings have been wandering the earth in one form or another for something like a million years. Viruses and viral epidemics have been our constant companions. There is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9 New International Version (NIV), “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”) One of the things that have happened with depressing frequency under past suns is mass hysteria. Behold, here it is again.
Following up a bit on the preceding post, here is a quote from David Livingstone Smith, “Why We Lie, the Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind”:
// When we think of lying, we typically think of explicit verbal falsehoods. The philosopher Sissela Bok, who is a spokesperson for this view, defines a lie as any intentionally deceptive statement. Is this all there is to lying? Mark Twain didn’t think so, and reckoned that “by examination and mathematical computation I find that the proportion of the spoken lie to the other varieties is 1 to 22,894. Therefore the spoken lie is of no consequence, and it is not worthwhile to go around fussing about it and trying to make believe that it is an important matter.” My own sympathies lie with Twain rather than with Bok, because Twain’s perspective is both inclusive and biologically realistic. … deception is not the exclusive province of our species. Many other organisms make liberal use of deception to get their way. I therefore define lying as any form of behavior the function of which is to provide others with false information or to deprive them of true information. //
That’s an arbitrary distinction, of course, but it’s useful in the context of what’s happening now inside our little slice of human history. I’m not reading much of the copious material that the media are pouring out on “the coronavirus”, as they’re calling it, but what I have read inclines me to believe that what they’re mostly doing in the way of being deceptive falls into the category of depriving others of true information. They seem to be providing only information that will buttress their case for draconian social clamping down and refusing to provide information that would provide ammunition for arguing against it. Smith, I suppose, would suggest that for the most part the people responsible for this deception have first deceived themselves, in order that they may more effectively try to deceive the rest of us.
I don’t think anyone is telling us that the world is coming to an end. We are being told that if we do nothing some 250,000-500,000 people will die, most of them in extreme discomfort for the want of adequate medical facilities. The actions being taken are to slow down the spread so that the health service is not overwhelmed (at which point all the things that cam be fatal without medical intervention also add to the tally). It is also to save the lives of some of the doctors and nurses who will become infected in treating the rest of the population.
One might have expected some people to believe that the world was coming to an end. I’m just not seeing or hearing any of that at the moment however.
I’m also not seeing much panic either.
So far systems are operating as smoothly as one would dare to hope. Fully self-isolating medically vulnerable and elderly are receiving their groceries and pharmacy requirements via locally organised voluntary networks.
Churches are live-streaming worship and operating their different groups using various computer based options.
A group of my colleagues with little prior experience are obtaining materials and a 3-D printer to begin manufacturing NHS spec face visors using the design that’s widely available on the internet. Several secondary schools and colleges are doing likewise.
Undoubtedly there is much to worry about and there are daily tragedies and heartbreak. But there is also much reason for optimism, and most people seem to be behaving accordingly.
” One of the things that have happened with depressing frequency under past suns is mass hysteria. Behold, here it is again”
The strange thing about the current panic is that most people I meet see fairly clearly that this situation will pass and the end of the world has not come. Most also see the irrationality of their behaviour. Most however also have a few extra loo rolls in the cupboard just in case and a couple of extra loaves of bread in the freezer- I include myself among their number by the way.
It seems to me that, in England at least, our strange behaviour reflects our national character, almost as if fear itself mutates and takes specific forms in specific cultures,which of course it must.
When we look at the action of our current Government we can see an element of panic in the
decision making process but that panic is quite reasonable and natural given the circumstances.
We all happily concur, though terms of the dismal logic of economics it probably would make more sense just to lock up the vulnerable and keep the economy going, yet that would be an almost inhuman decision to take-allowing the dead to heap up while we all conduct business as usual simply isn’t an option takeable for us. So the country gets a kind of lockdown which is ‘the best of a bad job’ but the only course that can be taken given the tightrope that is strung between cold logic and visceral panic. In all of this we must not lose sight our own frailty seeing that frailty, as much as is possible, through the eyes of him upon the cross.
// When we look at the action of our current Government we can see an element of panic in the
decision making process but that panic is quite reasonable and natural given the circumstances. //
We disagree. Vide supra :o)
Yes, I disagree too..I was dissembling 🙂 The remorseless process afoot does have a somewhat sinister logic to it. But the case for keeping thing open was put then overturned by ‘science’ threatening up to 500,000 deaths if the hammer was not brought down:
View at Medium.com
(you may have to cut and paste this) or go to facebook.
My own sympathies lie with Twain rather than with Bok, because Twain’s perspective is both inclusive and biologically realistic. … deception is not the exclusive province of our species. Many other organisms make liberal use of deception to get their way.”
I like this sentence of yours (vide supra! )
It does seem to me that the tendency to deception is hard wired ( the fall again-of all creation that is) I guess deception is part of our nature it needs frequent muzzling in us all.
My old history master at school (JCT Golding, elder brother of the novelist William Golding) maintained that there was no such thing as altruism. He cited two men with the same surname – Titus Oates of ‘popish plot’ fame who acted solely out of self-interest, and Captain LEG Oates who sacrificed himself to save his comrades on Scott’s ill-fated expedition in 1912. The latter, he maintained, also acted out of self-interest since he could not have lived with himself had he done otherwise.
John, I think we all act out of self interest in one way or another, only some ways are better than others.
If the motive for the action of L. E. G. Oates was as you say, that reason is better one in my opinion. God told us to love our neighbour as ourselves. We must love ourselves too.
Deception – of which lying straight out is just one manifestation – is a necessary component of all life. Realizing that is realizing that we’re all sinners, that we’re all descendants of Adam and Eve. As such, we’re programmed to be unable to stay out of sin. That’s both a puzzling thought and a humbling one, and it’s a reminder that when we pray for Mary to pray for us sinners, we’re not just saying we’ve done egregiously bad things like lie, steal, and kill but simply that we are human, fallen, in desperate need of divine mercy. That realization is, I think, a necessary part of maturity. The best we can do – and perhaps we should always try for that – is to be aware of how we’re deceiving and to try to reject the temptation to deceive when it’s likely to harm others.
If we’re a used car salesman, say, it’s probably reasonable and, on balance, responsible for us to point out the best points of the car we’re trying to sell and skip over the flaws, so long as they don’t include things like bad brakes. But what about the small tear in the upholstery? It’s obvious, if you look at it, but it’s small, and easily overlooked. Like this salesman’s dilemma, many if not all decisions are likely to entail some element of deception. How we deal with that is a measure of our self-awareness and our ability and willingness to conform to the model in our mind of the person we want to and, hopefully, ought to be.
David Smith writes:
” such, we’re programmed to be unable to stay out of sin. That’s both a puzzling thought and a humbling one, and it’s a reminder that when we pray for Mary to pray for us sinners, we’re not just saying we’ve done egregiously bad things like lie, steal, and kill but simply that we are human, fallen, in desperate need of divine mercy. .”
I’ve been running a rosary group weekly in the prison for around 3-4 years no. I have found that saying it (rosary) has quite a profound effect in terms of individuals making the sort of transition described here above. There are a couple of extra steps in the process of development that I have noticed.
First we discover our personal contrition about particular acts. Second we come to mourn our general condition as sinners. Thirdly we begin to grow in a sense that in some unfathomable manner God really does look upon us with mercy and does somehow convey that mercy into our being so that, somehow, we occasionally sense the comfort and encouragement of that compassion. The next thing is that we begin to realise our acceptance of a shared sinfulness draws us somehow deeper into the mystery of the
passion, the resurrection and redemption, this means our rosary begins to reach out wider than ourselves and helping us move outwards, from personal shame into humility and prayer for others. Of course, all the above by no means a linear progression and we go around and around the beads..but the rosary really is a huge grace!
” How we deal with that is a measure of our self-awareness and our ability and willingness to conform to the model in our mind of the person we want to and, hopefully, ought to be.
No I don’t think its preachy at all. I really enjoy and derive great benefit from the works of Balthasar and Rahner as they try and work out these mysterious things in a language which is cogent not just in sacred language so to help us glimpse the mysterious with greater clarity, albeit that clarity might be fleeting. The more we do of this kind of labour the better because such ruminating of the things of God helps with our self awareness and, I believe, leads us into Gods good company.
Well done, John and Martha,for moving the topic on a bit!!
I guess there are a couple of ways of looking at this.If we take a secular viewpoint then we have to consider human beings as self oriented. This means that we do whatever we do to please ourselves but this ‘self pleasing’ may be altruistic in nature and may indeed be kind, sacrificial even. To be self focussed does not mean to be a misanthrope and the desire to protect others is a strong one.
If we come from a truly religious standpoint then things are different. By this I mean that human beings are created in the image of God and as such display something of the mysterious nature of God, part of which mystery is to reach out into the void of sinful nature in order to ‘bring it back’.So there is within each of us something of the divine, which is not self centred because it is Trinitarian in form; in other words God is ‘other centred’ and so that possibility exists in humanity to some degree.Which means,finally, that to move in love towards others is genuine even though it may seem self centred to others and even to the operant self…
Ignatius says “in desperate need of divine mercy. .”
We can sometimes forget or fail to emphasise that God loves us, even as fallen creatures. We now have a Sunday dedicated to Divine Mercy but not one dedicated to Divine Love (though that would obviously be true of Easter Sunday or the feast of the Annunciation). It is important that we constantly remember that we are sinners but we need to give equal emphasis to the fact that Christ sacrifice was sufficient for all sin.
As a child I had sinfulness beaten into me (rather than out of me) by well meaning priests and nuns. I can still remember a retreat at 13 years of age when I FIRST heard a priest say that God loves us unconditionally.
We’ve had a year of mercy, why not a year of love when the only thing we’re allowed to talk about is God’s love.
// We’ve had a year of mercy, why not a year of love when the only thing we’re allowed to talk about is God’s love. //
Allowed to talk? Good heavens, is the Church now telling us what we must and may not speak about?
Sorry. Sort of :o) I’ve gotten very touchy lately about authority figures telling me exactly how I must live my life and exactly what I must think.
Aren’t love and mercy pretty much the same thing? Well, no, they’re both just words, and people can, of course, use words any way they like. I’d have thought, though, that mercy implies love and that love without mercy is a strange sort of love.
A quick trawl through some literature tells me that Love is the soul of mercy..which is quite
a nicely poetic way of putting it. Mercy is classed as a virtue influencing the will towards compassion. Mercy can be understood as a spontaneous product of love. I agree that it is almost impossible to imagine mercy without love. If person A was persuaded by bribery not to punish person B who lay in their power, would person A be showing mercy?
PS: “Allowed to talk? Good heavens, is the Church now telling us what we must and may not speak about?”
I suspect Milligan P had preaching in mind and not general conversation over breakfast!!! Of course I could be very wrong.. 🙂
Are Catholic clergy told what they must and must not say in their sermons? That must make for very dull preaching. One reason less for people to want to attend mass.
Was Newman obliged to give up writing his sermons when he entered the Church of Rome? No wonder priests sometimes start their own weblogs.
Sorry if I got a bit carried away in my last sentence. Over the last few days I’ve received news of various actions by the Pope, our own Cardinal and my Archbishop. They all talk about God’s mercy in this difficult time as if we were telling something exceptional to our current situation.
There is a different danger in creating a God who is so loving that nothing we do really makes a difference but, nevertheless, all the official speaking seems to emphasise mercy rather than love. I would rather console someone by saying that God loves them despite any failings they may have rather than to tell them that God will be merciful.
In the former form of words I tell them that they were created out of love in the image of God. In the latter I emphasise the fallen ‘made in the image of Adam’.
Finally I agree that mercy without love is incongruous as is love without mercy.
Words change meaning in new minds, mouths, and ears. It would be interesting to see a study of how the word “love” has evolved in meaning over the centuries. At the present moment in time, it’s become, I think, practically meaningless. I love chocolate ice cream. I love your new hair style. Don’t you just love the way politicians lie with a straight face? If it were my burden and privilege to teach the gospel, I think I might look for ways to avoid using “love” altogether. “Mercy”, though, has been so little used lately that it still packs quite a punch. I’d definitely keep it in the toolkit.
Deception is probably hard-wired into us as a result of evolution. Stone age man could not trap a woolly mammoth without using his superior brain to deceive his prey.
Can one imagine a civilized society where everyone always told the truth? It’s not just a question of dissembling when asked ‘Does my bum look big in this?’ Civilization would collapse within a fortnight. Friendships and relationships would crash and burn. World war would probably be inevitable.
An elaborate and ingenious deception plan was vital to the success of the D-Day landings.
Thats a good point, John. Could we say that guile is part of the human condition which can be used for good or for ill?
John Nolan writes:
// Can one imagine a civilized society where everyone always told the truth? //
That depends on how one defines “the truth”. The world of words is a Procrustean Bed.
Jordan Peterson quotes an interesting phenomena in the behaviour of rats when playing. If one rat is sufficiently big / strong to always win a play fight it will deliberately choose to loose sufficiently often to ensure the smaller / weaker rat does not loose interest.
This seems to indicate a precursor of what we might call altruism / compassion.
Another example of animal behaviour was displayed in a recent documentary on a community of chimpanzees. The alpha male, who was getting old / weak was challenged by a younger member of the tribe and lost. The old male then stared grooming several other males who, in return, sided with him in reasserting his leadership of the tribe.
What this all opens up, in my mind, is that there are certain human behaviours which it is hard to label as sinful as they are integral to the human condition.
Obviously Quentin has covered, in his discussions on natural law, that there are many human characteristics which are natural but capable of misuse -thus hunger is normal but gluttony is not. However the lines of sin are hard to draw – is it sinful to be attached to fine wines or gourmet foods?
When we discuss animal behaviour, we must remember that animals don’t have free will; we do. This is what marks us out from other animals. We may have the same or similar instincts as other animals but we can choose to follow them or reject them.
In the days when Confession was a regularly used sacrament, priests were taught to question the penitent, in matters of serious sin, to determine the culpability of the sinner. An alcoholic can struggle, with free will, to choose whether or not to have the first drink but, once the will fails, subsequent drunkenness is almost inevitable. However, someone without the addiction has a different level of responsibility since they can freely choose to continue drinking.
” is it sinful to be attached to fine wines or gourmet foods?”
The answer, of course, lies in the meaning of the word ‘attached’
As David Smith writes (2.4, 10.50 pm) words can and do vary in meaning according to their context. This is not a problem really since we do not communicate with words but we communicate through words. This means that words need to be as pliable as they are in are in order that we might construct meanings. For the linear type (me being one) this is a bit of a problem particularly if the ability to simply assume a shared meaning is absent. In any painting or poetry, it is the underlying impression and intention that matters, along with the skill of the artist; for some the skill comes quickly, others struggle.
So if we use the word ‘attachment’ in its ignatian/aquinas sense we have to decide whether the particular attachment is disordered or not. For example I enjoy chocolates and coffee. If I see a cappuchino and a caramel shortbread slice as a sunday treat then its probably an ok pleasure. If however all my waking thoughts are directed to said treat which then becomes a twice daily
urgent need..then we see a disordered attachment in the making; if we continue then we blossom into deliberate sin.
So, with the word ‘love’ we have our several distinctions…agape, filial,erotic, etc etc. If that’s too complicated then we have 1 corinthians ch 13 as a pretty sound basis for the word used in its fullest sense. If a person says to me “I love chocolate” I do not think that they are treating the chocolate with kindness and consideration, always putting the needs of the chocolate before their own desires; its just a way of saying the person fancies a bit of chocolate when they can get their hands on it.
The word ‘love’ is indeed problematic. Regarding 1 Cor.13 the traditional rendering as ‘charity’ would seem to be better were it not for the fact that nowadays it can have a pejorative meaning as in the simile ‘as cold as charity’.
The Collect for Advent 4 in the Novus Ordo is familiar in another context: ‘Pour forth, we beseech thee O Lord, thy grace into our hearts …’. ICEL 1973 rendered it as ‘Lord, fill our hearts with your love …’ which conformed to their practice of never translating ‘gratia’ as ‘grace’, but which glossed over the concept of divine grace by substituting a generic term that covers a multitude of sins as well as virtues.
//The word ‘love’ is indeed problematic. Regarding 1 Cor.13 the traditional rendering as ‘charity’ would seem to be better were it not for the fact that nowadays it can have a pejorative meaning as in the simile ‘as cold as charity’.//
Yes, couldn’t agree more, that’s why I don’t use the word charity unless speaking of a charitable concern and I try only to use the word ‘love’ in an obvious context. I’m not much keen on preaching when it doesn’t make clear what is mean’t by the words.
The old Latin Hymn ‘Ubi Caritas et Amor’, I translate as “where there is love and loving care” – a genuine care and concern for the other. The fact that love is misrepresented and devalued doesn’t change the nature of genuine love.
Speaking of problematic words, I suggest considering “sacrifice”. We have been hearing that word used a lot lately in connection with the work many people are being obliged to do now as part of the jobs that pay them a living wage, that provide for them them the currency with which they are enabled to procure the necessary stuff of their survival. We are told to be grateful to policemen, firemen, physicians, nurses, grocery clerks, garbage collectors, line repairmen, waterworks and power station minders, and gasoline station attendants for the sacrifices they’re making to keep the machinery of civilization running while the rest of us hide in our houses until a time when the authorities tell us that we should emerge, presumably because it will then be sufficiently safe, because we will likely infect statistically fewer people than we would were we to move freely about now.
My first and for the moment only question concerning the word “sacrifice” is, can there truly be a sacrifice if what we’re doing is compelled, and not freely chosen?
David I would like to include transport workers like one of our sons, a bus driver in Central London, who are at considerable risk, and I trend to think that it is still sacrifice despite necessity or near necessity.
David, my wife works as a funeral arranger. Several of her colleagues have chosen to use the excuse of social distancing to stop working (the company feels it inappropriate to compel). As such she is now handling the work of 3 offices and is working 11-12 hour days. She has to meet with next of kin – telephone calls are inappropriate to her role. Several of the funerals she is dealing with are c-19 deaths. It’s both tiring and emotionally draining – she will have to work at least one day over the weekend. When she gets in on Tuesday, there will probably be another 5-8 funerals waiting to be handled. What she does definitely counts as sacrifice; by continuing to work and meet with the next of kin, she increases her personal risk of getting the c-19 virus.
As to bus drivers, 5 have died of C-19 so far, so again they are a higher risk. It’s not the same as being an ARP warden in the Blitz but it is ‘above and beyond’ the average person.
// By that definition almost all death in war doesn’t count; we should reclaim all the valour medals. //
No, that won’t do. That would require Homo sapiens to face himself in the mirror. He cannot do that – he’d go mad. Rationalization, self-deception make it unnecessary. We lie to ourselves continually, to stay balanced, to stay sane.
But we are capable of realizing this in the abstract, indirectly, at one remove, and of trying to deal with it honestly. I think that’s what religious thought and conscience are, at their best.
Here’s a quote from Gandhi:
“The mice which helplessly find themselves between the cat’s teeth acquire no merit from their enforced sacrifice.”
In other words, generally speaking, sacrifice cannot be compelled. For sacrifice to have merit it must be voluntarily given. Sacrificial giving of the self is a voluntary act performed for the good of others. Sacrifice may be given in the work place by going ‘ above and beyond’ the line of duty. For example a coupe of weeks ago a mechanic did me a great favour by offering to stay late into the evening to repair the clutch on my car. I was very grateful for what I took to be a sacrifice of goodwill made towards me. Of course other benefits will accrue to the mechanic -such as my recommending him to others but, nonetheless, there was sacrifice because he was not compelled.
By that definition almost all death in war doesn’t count; we should reclaim all the valour medals.
Valour, of course, is voluntary. You could go to the aid of your wounded comrade or keep your head down instead. Duty is not always sacrifice…or is it do you think? perhaps the bus driver makes a sacrifice by simply going in to work and not self isolating out of sheer fear of contagion? This is Davids point I think. We find it unpalatable that the lives of conscripted men in the forces, or in the hospital not be classed as heroically sacrificial by their death. Somehow I think this is an issue of motive.
// We find it unpalatable that the lives of conscripted men in the forces, or in the hospital not be classed as heroically sacrificial by their death. //
Yes, justifying wars – or any other horror created purely by human madness – by praising the “sacrifices” made by the victims is an old trick that seems to work well, at least for the lifetimes of many of the politicians whose decisions brought them about.
Humans are rationalizing, self-deceiving creatures par excellence.
I would support the general view that the coverage and attitudes expressed during this crisis is 99%+ hyperbole and <1% meaningful content. I'm sure the BBC will invent some award to decorate its presenters for bravely sitting 6 feet apart and interviewing politicians with microphones on the end of poles.
To save my own sanity I've introduced a rule that no BBC live program will be allowed on the TV unless the sound is turned off – they can sanctimoniously pontificate and mutually congratulate to the ether.
But in the midst of this there is a genuine crisis, large numbers of elderly are dying and relatively small, but significant numbers of younger people. For the elderly C-19 might take 6 months off their life expectancy but the doctors and nurses are genuinely incremental deaths which might have been avoided had different decisions been made earlier in the outbreak.
We live in a time where just being a decent human being may count as exceptional.
Yes, but. In fact, no lives are ever spared, by anyone, at any time. We all die. No one can save us from physical death. What’s happening is that as a result of this major social crisis, manufactured deliberately by a few panicked men, an unknowable number of theoretical people are having their lives prolonged a bit, so that they can die in some other way at some other time.
David Smith writes: “Humans are rationalizing, self-deceiving creatures par excellence.”
Milligan P writes: “We live in a time where just being a decent human being may count as
I pick out these two sentences because they obviously carry some form of conviction as to what constitutes a ‘human being’ It does seem to me that the discussion we were having on the topic of ‘sacrifice’ is only accessible if we have some shared notion of what it is to be alive.
If we say that compassion, altruism, empathy with others, generosity of heart, charity of outlook are, to a greater or lesser degree, common to the human heart then we must allow that each and every situation presents opportunity for sacrifice of self for the help of another. This would be true regardless of situation. When Maximillian Kolbe was sent to Auschwitz he was sent there to die. Even so he chose to sacrifice his life for another and the sacrifice was valid because , within the wider context, it was freely chosen.
So the soldiers decorated for valour MilliganP speaks of, despite their unchosen situation (if conscripts) were still free at some point to demonstrate a willingness to prefer the life of other over their own; to lay down their lives for the sake of others.
If,on the other hand, human life is entirely’ insect’, swarming in masses, devoid of empathy we might assume that ‘sacrifice’ of self would be an utterly foreign concept that just would not apply as a yardstick for judgement.
The answer of course lies somewhere in between. Sometimes we exhibit genuine self- sacrifice and altruism, sometimes we do not. For myself in the here and now, my main vehicle of sacrifice is money. For example, how much of my income will I give to Syria? Then there is ‘ time.’. ”How much of my life will I give to others? If I give to no person either money or time then I suspect I am living what might be called ‘insect’ life…no insult to insects of course!!
I recommend reading the letters page of the current issue of the Herald.
Here’s a link:
Curious WordPress hiccough. I sent two small posts today. Both appeared here. But, at least on the iPad I’m using now, they cannot both be available on the screen simultaneously.
If I tap on the icon under “Recent Comments” linked to one, I’m taken down screen to that post. But when I then look for the other post, it’s missing. The same thing happens with the icon linked to the other post.
The WordPress software seems persistently buggy. Ah, well.
I’m going to post this again, because under some conditions, the first one is invisible under some conditions. Hopefully, this first new paragraph will fool WordPress into believing it’s not an old post.
I recommend reading the letters page of the current issue of the Herald.
Here’s a link:
Suggestion: Have a live video camera and a live microphone in the nave of the parish church, focused on the altar, at all times, 24/7, during this time when both Church and state have forbidden parishioners to visit their church. Stream it on the Internet.
That’s all. If there’s a mass happening, don’t move the camera or the microphone around, just leave it there.