Suffering
I've been thinking about suffering lately.
A few days ago, on another blog, someone quoted Cesare Pavese in a comment on suffering ...
To choose a hardship for ourselves is our only defense against that hardship. This is what is meant by accepting suffering. Those who, by their very nature, can suffer completely, utterly, have an advantage. That is how we can disarm the power of suffering, make it our own creation, our own choice; submit to it.
And someone else commented here about Opus Dei and their practice of mortification ... self-inflicted suffering. An article in the Tablet on Opus Dei had this to say, in part ...
... there is a tradition of physical "mortification", and the founder of Opus Dei, the Blessed Josemaría Escrivá, was famous for beating himself until the walls of his bathroom were spattered with blood. But, these days, members have to ask permission before they can beat themselves or wear the cilice – a scratchy band worn around the thigh ...
And I happened to read this quote of the Pope's recently ...
When we know that the way of love — this exodus, this going out of oneself — is the true way by which man becomes human, then we also understand that suffering is the process through which we mature. Anyone who has inwardly accepted suffering becomes more mature and more understanding of others, becomes more human. Anyone who has consistently avoided suffering does not understand other people; he becomes hard and selfish. Love itself is a passion, something we endure. In love I experience first a happiness, a general feeling of happiness. Yet, on the other hand, I am taken out of my comfortable tranquility and have to let myself be reshaped. If we say that suffering is the inner side of love, we then also understand by it is so important to learn how to suffer — and why, conversely, the avoidance of suffering renders someone unfit to cope with life.
Well, I have to say that my initial reaction to the idea of embracing suffering, and making it one's own to disarm it, strikes me as a denial of the badness of what's causing the suffering. And the idea of a person practicing mortification of the flesh for spiritual advancement brings to my mind a person tinged with self-loathing. But I must admit, what the Pope said gave me pause, because I've spent my life trying to avoid suffering and the truth is, I'm not fit to cope.
When is suffering something to be avoided and denounced as wrong and when is it to be accepted, even embraced? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing the discernment of spirits would help one decide. Boston College's page, Do You Speak Ignatian?, describes discernment this way ...
Discernment (also "Discernment of spirits")--A process for making choices, in a context of (Christian) faith, when the option is not between good and evil, but between several possible courses of action all of which are potentially good. For Ignatius* the process involves prayer, reflection, and consultation with others-all with honest attention not only to the rational (reasons pro and con) but also to the realm of one's feelings, emotions, and desires (what Ignatius called "movements" of soul). A fundamental question in discernment becomes "Where is this impulse from-the good spirit [of God] or the evil spirit [leading one away from God] ?" A key to answering this question, says Ignatius in his Spiritual Exercises* is that, in the case of a person leading a basically good life, the good spirit gives "consolation"--acts quietly, gently, and leads one to peace, joy, and deeds of loving service--while the bad spirit brings "desolation"--agitates, disturbs the peace, and injects fears and discouragement to keep one from doing good.
Now, if I was only any good at discerning ...
A few days ago, on another blog, someone quoted Cesare Pavese in a comment on suffering ...
To choose a hardship for ourselves is our only defense against that hardship. This is what is meant by accepting suffering. Those who, by their very nature, can suffer completely, utterly, have an advantage. That is how we can disarm the power of suffering, make it our own creation, our own choice; submit to it.
And someone else commented here about Opus Dei and their practice of mortification ... self-inflicted suffering. An article in the Tablet on Opus Dei had this to say, in part ...
... there is a tradition of physical "mortification", and the founder of Opus Dei, the Blessed Josemaría Escrivá, was famous for beating himself until the walls of his bathroom were spattered with blood. But, these days, members have to ask permission before they can beat themselves or wear the cilice – a scratchy band worn around the thigh ...
And I happened to read this quote of the Pope's recently ...
When we know that the way of love — this exodus, this going out of oneself — is the true way by which man becomes human, then we also understand that suffering is the process through which we mature. Anyone who has inwardly accepted suffering becomes more mature and more understanding of others, becomes more human. Anyone who has consistently avoided suffering does not understand other people; he becomes hard and selfish. Love itself is a passion, something we endure. In love I experience first a happiness, a general feeling of happiness. Yet, on the other hand, I am taken out of my comfortable tranquility and have to let myself be reshaped. If we say that suffering is the inner side of love, we then also understand by it is so important to learn how to suffer — and why, conversely, the avoidance of suffering renders someone unfit to cope with life.
Well, I have to say that my initial reaction to the idea of embracing suffering, and making it one's own to disarm it, strikes me as a denial of the badness of what's causing the suffering. And the idea of a person practicing mortification of the flesh for spiritual advancement brings to my mind a person tinged with self-loathing. But I must admit, what the Pope said gave me pause, because I've spent my life trying to avoid suffering and the truth is, I'm not fit to cope.
When is suffering something to be avoided and denounced as wrong and when is it to be accepted, even embraced? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing the discernment of spirits would help one decide. Boston College's page, Do You Speak Ignatian?, describes discernment this way ...
Discernment (also "Discernment of spirits")--A process for making choices, in a context of (Christian) faith, when the option is not between good and evil, but between several possible courses of action all of which are potentially good. For Ignatius* the process involves prayer, reflection, and consultation with others-all with honest attention not only to the rational (reasons pro and con) but also to the realm of one's feelings, emotions, and desires (what Ignatius called "movements" of soul). A fundamental question in discernment becomes "Where is this impulse from-the good spirit [of God] or the evil spirit [leading one away from God] ?" A key to answering this question, says Ignatius in his Spiritual Exercises* is that, in the case of a person leading a basically good life, the good spirit gives "consolation"--acts quietly, gently, and leads one to peace, joy, and deeds of loving service--while the bad spirit brings "desolation"--agitates, disturbs the peace, and injects fears and discouragement to keep one from doing good.
Now, if I was only any good at discerning ...
posted by crystal | 1:47 AM
26 Comments:
Suffering is un-avoidable in life. Gradually we learn to accept what is called our lot, our cross: bad things that we cannot avoid and control. We can accept the suffering that we cannot avoid as a mean to shape our character and grow spiritualy and learn how to love others.
I read a great book on how to learn to cope with suffering by Polly-Young Eisendrath: "The Resilient Spirit".
When we learn to accept it as a natural part of life and as a mean to grow, we can bear the suffering much easier...Of course that one cannot learn this at once but gradually.
I remember the serenity of the people from my grandparents generation in front of suffering. They always took the life as it was presenting itself, without complains ...They had a kind of simplicity of heart that we have lost and that i would like to re-gain.
Now about mortfication: brrrr...the scene that you described with blood on the walls is creepy...i do not want to comment any farther than saying that i do not associate this kind of mortification with healthy spirituality...Father Murray Bodo OFM, has another view on mortification: learning to live simpler, healthier, focusing on needs and giving up wants but without punishing oneself...ascesis can be serene also...and loving for oneself.
This is a long comment Crystal, sorry.I have no time to correct my spelling now.:-).
Father Murray Bodo OFM wrote the book "The way of saint Francis"...there i read on mortification.
I think there is more than one way to accept suffering. One is just the acknowledgement of one's own suffering in a imperfect world, which means resisting denial and is psychologically healthy as long as it does not become too morbid. Another is seeing and feeling the suffering of others, which is compassion (the word means "suffering with"). Both of these kinds of accepting suffering can be difficult, and either may not represent the easiest way to get through life, though they may be both rewarding and redeeming. Seeking suffering for its own sake may be different.
As far as extreme self-mortification goes, that's a bit harder for me to deal with. One on hand, some saints I have great respect for (St Teresa, St Francis) practiced it. On the other hand, the stories of Escriva's self-flagellation strike me as nothing less than sick. There is much to say about disciplining one's body so as not to be a slave of physical desires, but it's not a path I feel overly interested in pursuing in an extreme fashion.
Crystal and everyone, I thought the May 9 post of "Luminous Emptiness," http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/, was really quite good regarding suffering...
Paula - thanks for the book recomendation. I'm not sure I buy the idea that if you can't avoid something, it's best to accept it. That may make it easier to go on, but it feels wrong to me somehow.
Liam - I keep wanting to say that suffering is always wrong. That a nietzcheian God who uses suffering to build character in his creatures (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger) is not worth knowing. And especially, that to accept the suffering of others as a part of life is abhorant. The evocation of compassion is the only redeeming thing about suffering, I think.
Hi Darius - I'll take a look at that post, thanks.
Crystal, to accept it does not mean to be happy about it. Or to not feel pain. Just that things are easier when you do not revolt against what you cannot change. This does not mean to not try to change what you can change...you know that AA prayer: God help me to accept what i cannot change.:-).
Paula, yes, I know what you mean, and that's probably a healthy attitude ... but I've always been revolting :-) rage, rage against the dying of the light is my motto.
I'm not sure that God is using suffering to build character -- I think suffering is part of the human condition, much of it the result of human imperfection. What God does is give us that ability to use that suffering to grow.
I know you don't like Augustine (I have my problems with him as well) but he does create an interesting argument in City of God in which he explains that death can be in itself a bad thing that is used by God for good purposes.
I know I haven't suffered as much as most people in this unjust world, but I have suffered -- and I think I have, with the help of God, learned from it.
Liam, good point on God giving us the ability to grow.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” – C. S. Lewis
I’ve nothing profound to add on my own, but here is a good column by Fr. Ron Rolheiser, and Peter Kreeft tackles the problem in this essay and this audio lecture.
Crystal,
I see that you are interested in Ignatian spirituality and that you mentioned the Discernment of Spirits. One of the finest priests I’ve ever known is Fr. Timothy Gallagher, who’s the former North American Provincial of the Oblates of the Virgin Mary. He has a holiness, a calmness, a self-assurance, and an ability to listen that I find enviable. The charism and training of the Oblates is Ignatian, and Timothy is steadily building up a reputation on being an expert on the Spiritual Exercises. He has even been asked by several Jesuit houses to direct their Ignatian retreats. Here is a book he wrote called the Discenment of Spirits, and he’s written another one on the Examen Prayer.
I actually haven’t read them myself, because:
- I’ve never done a retreat on the Spiritual Exercises, so I don’t feel ready to do so
- All the talk about the “enemy” puts me off a little.
- But mostly because feel like I know him too well! Do you know what I mean?
C.S. Lewis wrote a book called "The Problem of Pain". I remember my Catholic friend Chad sneering: "The PROBLEM with pain?" The implication being that severe pain and suffering is somewhat more than, you know, a problem. Lewis's friend Charles Williams, referring to that book, said later (and I'm paraphrasing): "I don't want anyone telling me there a GOOD in pain." Tolkien in his old age referred to Charles Williams as "that...witchdoctor!" You won't be surprised to know that I'm a fan of Charles Williams,
Jeff,
thanks for the book recommendation. You know, there's an online Ignatian style retreat given for free by Creighton University here. I've taken it and I think it's great for teaching the basics of Ignatian spirituality.
Many people are creeped out by the way Ignatius speaks of the bad spirit, the adversary, the enemy ... modern views of evil don't usually embody and personify it. I think even many Jesuits see that language as metaphorical. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.
Del - I agree with Charles Williams. I should look him up - I've always wanted to know a witchdoctor :-)
Hi crystal. I used to have one of Charles Williams novels with an introduction by T.S. Elliot. Elliot was of course a Catholic convert, and Williams was an Anglican with a background in ritual magick! Elliot and Williams worked for a while at the same publishing company, and that's how they met. In his intro for the Williams novel I mentioned Elliot said (and I'm paraphrasing a bit): "Williams believed in the supernatural and was unafraid. He was the only man I've met who, meeting Satan, could stare him down."
My wife pointed out recently that in men, flagellation inevitably results in an erection. She asked me if I thought that was the point.
Sorry. Just thought I might try bringing the conversation way down to my level so that I could have something worthwhile to add.
Hi Doug. And here I was about to shout:
"Is there a doctor in the house?" :-)
Deloney and Douglas! Now I'm going to be excommunicated for sure :-)
The "enemy" does exist and Evil is not metaphorical, in my opinion. St Ignatius knows what he talks about.
I have not suffered a great deal in my life, but I came indirectly in contact with people and events that were evil.
I cannot find other explanation for their existence other than the work of evil forces.
Who was saying that the greatest trick of the Devil is to convince us that he does not exist?
Crystal do not worry about ex-communication.:-).I am a better candidate than you if I ever join.
Here's my take on it... suffering isn't something that God wants, but it's part of the human condition. Is suffering good, or bad? It depends (we consultants love to use that answer!).
Wish I had time to write more, but gotta get ready for the last track meet of the season...
Doug,
My wife pointed out recently that in men, flagellation inevitably results in an erection.
Hmmm.
Sounds counter-intuitive to me. This news could spell trouble for Pfizer. :-)
With all due respect to your better half, you're a man. What do you think?
It works for me, Jeff. It's amazing what you can accomplish under the threat of further punishment ;)
Yeah, yeah, I know, too much information.
Actually, I do have something somewhat intelligent to say on the subject of suffering. Read Elie Wiesel's Night trilogy -- especially the first book. No one understands suffering like Wiesel. He will permanently cure you of any illusion you have that suffering is a good, ennobling thing.
True suffering is BAD. It will destroy your humanity, and more likely than not it will destroy your faith.
Hi Steve - thanks for taking the time to drop by :-)
Doug - You said -
True suffering is BAD. It will destroy your humanity, and more likely than not it will destroy your faith. ... I agree with you. I think suffering is romanticized and rationalized to make it easier to bear.
Read Viktor Frankl: Man search for meaning.
He survived Nazi concentration camps with an un-destroyed humanity and faith.You will find no romanticism there.
In Romania i met people who endured the communist gulag: torture, beatings, long years of prison with hunger and cold, persecutions after the prison. Many had their humanity and faith intact.
Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsy.His realism is brutal.His faith and humaity intact.
P.S: Dough, true suffering is BAD.
But it does not necessary destroy humanity and faith.
The explanation of suffering and evil has always been problematic in a monotheistic system. I believe that * all * of human existence has ultimate meaning in God's plan, but nevertheless, I would never make God the author of evil. On his own terms, God can guide history and allow us free will as well. Like Augustine, I would consider evil to be the absence of good.
I'm not sure if ennobling is the exactly the word I would use for the moral quality passed upon by suffering. I do think you can decide what to do with it of your own free will when you are confronted by it. You can use it to build your character in a positive fashion, or you can allow it to brutalize you and make a stone of your heart. I certainly think that those who willingly sacrifice and take on suffering for the sake of others are noble.
Ascetical disciplines look strange to the modern mind, but it was typical in all religious systems in days gone by. I won't proof-text here, but St. Paul spoke often of our necessity of having to suffer with Christ, and of buffeting his own body in order to subdue it. Monks used ascetical practices to subdue their own passions and what they called "concupiscence". One of my favorite spiritual guides is St. John of the Cross, who in his "Via Negativa", or "Nada Doctrine", held that suffering was necessary to purify the soul in preparation for divine union with God.
If we never knew what suffering was, how could we know what true joy is? If we never knew suffering and privation, how could we ever learn empathy, and respond to the sufferings of others? If we never knew suffering, what would we need God for in our lives? We'd attribute all of our success to our own efforts and talents, and blame the suffering of others on the lack of those same virtues.
I've known some suffering in my life. It's been small potatoes compared to the suffering of most of the people in the world who live on a couple of dollars a day, or who live in a constant state of war, but my hurt was real to me nonetheless. Hopefully, I am a better person for it. Hopefully, it taught me compassion and empathy and patience for others, rather than turning me into a more bitter and selfish person. Hopefully, having had that experience, I have the courage to pick up a cross when it needs to be picked up, instead of leaving it lying there.
Like in other matters, we have a choice. We can believe that our suffering is meaningless, or we can believe that it doesn't need to be meaningless. Take the meaning of work as an example. Yves Congar wrote that there are 2 views held by Christians on creation:
One view of creation is that we are all on one shore of a great lake. We all get in the boat just to get to the other side. Everything that happened on the shore we left behind is destroyed. All that we worked for was for nothing. The meaning of human work and effort is just passing time.
The other view is that we get on the boat and we work and change and produce, and paint and dicover, etc... These things have lasting value. God takes what we have made and refashions it, but does not destroy it. They are foundations of the New Jerusalem. We make a difference in the larger picture. All things we experience have a meaning beyond getting a job done here. I think the same can be said of the sufferings we endure.
Crystal,
Thanks for the Creighton link. I fully intend to look into it an use it.
Post a Comment
<< Home