Down yonder, a reader writes:
I asked it once and no one responded, so I will ask again, would you give Christ a copy of Lovecraft’s books if He were standing next to you, and would you tell Him what you have told each other about these books in here? When you stand before Him on judgment day and He asks you why you read books that glorified murder and mayhem, what will you say to Him?
Let’s take this a piece at a time:
would you give Christ a copy of Lovecraft’s books if He were standing next to you
No, because I’d have much more pressing issues to deal with, like falling on my face and worshipping him and begging his forgiveness for everything I have ever done wrong and imploring his assistance for all my future and asking him certain critical pastoral and theological questions that I need the answers to–not to mention asking him what he wants me to do with my very limited time with him, if I’m not imposing on him too much with my worshipping and begging and imploring and asking. I mean, I know that he sometimes went off on his own to pray and so maybe what he really wants from me at the moment is to leave him alone so he can go do that without me being a distraction and I really don’t want to impose on him and so if he wants me to leave him alone all he has to do is say the word and I will be more than happy to do so and I hope he’s not mad at me for rambling on like this in the first place and actually my adrenalin level and heart rate and blood pressure would probably go down if he did just want to go off and pray and I didn’t have to deal with the anxiety of a sudden encounter with God Incarnate and man, oh, man I hope I’m not blowing it already and if I am then I really, really hope he’ll forgive me, because I want to do the right thing and I just haven’t ever had to cope with a situation like this before, but– HAVE MERCY ON ME, O LORD!
This is the natural human reaction to have. In fact, we see people having it even with angels in Scripture (as well as the Risen Christ in Revelation), which is why one of the first things that the visitor has to do when he shows up is to tell the person he’s appearing to to stand up and calm down ("Be not afraid") so he can deliver his message.
This illustration also shows the problem with the test that the reader is proposing.
Essentially, the test is WWYDIJP or "What Would You Do In Jesus’ Presence?"
I don’t think much of this test, or its counterpart WWJD. Neither one of them is a very useful guide for figuring out what one should do.
The problem with WWJD is twofold:
1) What was appropriate for Christ to do and what is appropriate for me to do are not always the same thing. As Lord of the Temple, for example, it may have been okay for him to whip sinners out of it, but that doesn’t mean it would be okay for me to do that.
2) More fundamentally, the test relies on our speculative imagination regarding what Jesus was like and whe he would do, and our imaginations are spectacularly bad in this area. The Gospels just don’t contain enough data for us to picture him fully. Unlike the apostles, we don’t have the benefit of having lived with him for three years and seen how he reacted to countless different situations, including ordinary ones.
We have to rely on our imagination of what Jesus was like, and these invariably lead us astray, either by viewing Jesus as a kind of etherial 2-dimensional icon that isn’t a full 3-dimensional man or–if we do imagine him as a 3-D man, we fill in that third dimension with bits of our own personality and those of our parents and such.
Both of these result in a falsification of who Jesus is.
It is better, when we don’t know what Jesus would do (which is the great majority of the time) to just say, "I don’t know what he would do" than to try to imagine and thus make up what he would do.
The real question that we should be focused on is not what Jesus would do but what he would have us do, and often that means not over-thinking the answer to a question and just going with your instincts.
In fact, "Go with your instincts unless reason tells you otherwise" is the basic paradigm that God built into human nature to guide our actions. He gave us instincts to motivate us to do things, and he gave us reason (including our conscience and the teaching of the Church) as a check on our instincts.
Trying to imagine what Jesus would do is a tool of very limited value (I’m not saying no value) that will lead us in the direction of scrupulosity and over-analysis if we try to employ it on a frequent basis.
The same is true of WWYDIJP.
Our real reactions to what we would do if suddenly confronted with Jesus in physical form are nothing like a reliable guide to what we should do when he is not present in physical form.
The closest guide we have to what that is like is being in Church, where he is present in the sacrament, and there is a certain decorum that is to be maintained in Church–a decorum that would be put on steroids if Jesus stepped out of the sacrament and stood before us in physical form.
There are whole classes of behavior that inappropriate in Church but which are necessary to human life (eating, sleeping, bathing, reproducing, doing your day job, etc., etc., etc.), making it clear that the "What Would You Do In Jesus’ Presence?" (in the Eucharist or in physical form) is just not a good test for whether something is okay for us to do.
In fact, the WWYDIJP test seems to me to be positively pernicious in a way that WWJD may not be, because if we try to use it as a test for what is okay then one of two things will happen: Either (1) we will refuse to do all kinds of things that are okay but inconsistent with the proper reaction to a Theophany or (2) we will degrade our view of what the proper response to a Theophany is by intruding all kinds of things from ordinary life into Theophany-acceptable behavior that really don’t belong in that category.
So as with WWJD, WWYDIJP is usually the WRONG QUESTION to ask.
A much better question is "What would Jesus have me do?" and the answer to that question is always "Go with your instincts unless reason tells you otherwise."
If someone has an instinct that leads them to enjoy suspenseful fiction when the read fiction then this is legitimate unless there is a specific reason why they shouldn’t.
Sometimes there will be a reason not to read a particular kind of ficiton. If it tempts you to sin then you shouldn’t read it. But if it doesn’t tempt you to sin (directly or indirectly by degrading your ethical sensibilities) then I have a hard time imagining another reason it should be avoided in principle (as opposed to being avoided right now because I don’t have the time to devote to it, for example).
Elsewhere in the combox, the same reader argued that Lovecraft’s story Dagon romanticizes suicide and this makes it an occasion of sin. It would be for a person who is already suicidal, but for a person who is not suicidal, Dagon ain’t gonna get ’em into that state.
In fact, as was pointed out by another astute reader in the combox, Dagon does not romanticize suicide–it uses the character’s suicide to underscore how horrible the thing he encountered was–but Romeo & Juliet does romanticize suicide. The suicides of the two main characters in that are depicted as expressions of their love for each other and their unwillingness to live without each other because of how strong their romantic feelings are for each other, and if that ain’t romanticizing suicide then I don’t know what is.
Yet if you aren’t suicidally romantic at the moment or likely to become so then watching Romeo & Juliet does not constitute an occasion of sin for you and there’s no reason not to go to the Shakespeare festival the night that it’s playing.
would you tell Him what you have told each other about these books in here?
I can only speak for myself here, but yes. I weigh what I say on the blog very carefully, because I know that I am responsible to him for what I write–particularly when analyzing moral and pastoral problems for others–and I think very carefully about these.
Of course, I’m fallible, and I’m quite sure that if I went through the archives I’d find things that I would want to change–and I’m sure that Judgment Day will bring more of these to light–but I try (in my imperfect, fallen way) to live and write with integrity so that I have no reason to be ashamed before Jesus of what I have said.
When you stand before Him on judgment day and He asks you why you read books that glorified murder and mayhem, what will you say to Him?
I’m sorry, but I don’t think I’ve done this–certainly not to a significant degree. Lovecraft’s books do not glorify murder and mayhem; certainly not in a general way (though if I did a thorough review I might conclude that in individual passages he crossed the line).
Lovecraft’s books do refer on occasion to murder and mayhem but the are not simply glorifications of it. The reader’s facts here are simply out of order.
For all the reasons Jimmy mentions, I find that it is often much more helpful to situate moral questions in the overall context of Christ’s BODY on earth, the Church, rather than trying to imagine Jesus in a modern-day situation.
For example, would I potentially share a Lovecraft book with Pope Benedict, or with his predecessor, JP2?
Answer: In principle, yes, I would. (It would not be the first thing I would want to do if I met him, but theoretically, if we were friends for a long time, it could eventually come up.)
For all the reasons set forth here, I find that the place of horror, the grotesque and the macabre in human imagination is not one that Christian sensibility has historically found incompatible with Christian faith.
If Christian culture and imagination can find a place for gargoyles and grotesques, danses macabres, all the goblins and ghouls of European fairy tales, movies like Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (a Vatican list film), etc., I see no reason why the mere genre of a Lovecraft novel should suffice to label it offensive.
Yeah, the WWYDIJP thing is not that helpful.
I mean, there is this one, er… particular actvity that my wife and I, um… enjoy together… and I can’t imagine doing THAT in Jesus presence.
….
Karaoke! I’m talking about Karaoke!
Tim J,
Does your active participation in karoake cause others to sin? I would hope not! 🙂
(This comment should be seen as a humorous chiding and should not be construed as a comment regarding the post.)
The vast majority of folk fairy tales and ballads are horror stories — warnings not to do stupid things. Don’t walk alone with young persons of the opposite sex. Don’t get drunk and sleep in the wrong person’s bed. Don’t wander in the woods without knowing what you’re doing. Don’t kill your babies or your friends or strangers; they’ll come back and get you, or murder will out.
The Poetics, by Aristotle, advocates tragedies (stories which elicit feelings of pity, fear, and horror in the audience) as being instructive as well as cathartic. After all, they show what could happen if you make a lapse in judgement. He is insistent that the very best way to elicit said pity and horror is to show bad things happening to people who are either better than or similar to the audiencemembers. Showing bad things happening to totally bad people just doesn’t cut it. The aim is to show nice normal people screwing up bigtime.
Aristotle also advocated stories which had not happened, but which might, and which show a chain of actions and decisions leading to an unexpected outcome. Clearly, Aristotle would have been a big fan of Babylon 5. (And I really wish I’d read Aristotle’s Poetics before, because he says a lot of stuff I was saying back in English class, but in a more logical and authoritative way.)
So much for our buddy the virtuous pagan. Perhaps it would interest you to know that the famous Christian writer Dorothy L. Sayers claimed that mystery and horror stories were the most moral form of literature, and intimately intertwined. Not only did she give her heroine, mystery writer Harriet Vane, a fascination for some of the old horror masters, she also wrote a lengthy foreword to an anthology which details the history and influence of both genres up to her own day. I recommend her famous anthology of mystery and horror stories, if you can locate a copy. All the ones you can find are well-loved.
Finally, let’s look at horror elements in the Bible.
Sodom and Gomorrah is a horror story, right down to what happened to the wife and what the daughters did to try to save the human race. How horrible that a visit by angels should precipitate such events!
Christ’s Passion is a horror story, right down to the earthquakes and eclipse. What could be more horrifying than crucifying God Himself?
The Book of Revelation is in part a horror story — the slow destruction of the world, with its effect on the unfortunate folks living through it.
Clearly, the good Lord has absolutely nothing against writing and starring in horror stories. Obviously, he likes happy endings. But he also assures us that some people are going to Hell. That horror story is a warning we badly need.
I agree with the prevalent consensus: that the WWYDIJP litmus test for moral quality is of little help. However, when reading about the discussion about Romeo and Juliet, a moral theology question that I have long been chewing on came up:
I myself can read materials like Romeo and Juliet that have elements that could, to some people, be an occasion of sin. As a person of conscience, I hold myself responsible for what I read, watch, listen to etc. But what about my inductive effect on other people? For instance, suppose Romeo and Juliet is being performed locally, and I would like to take a non-Catholic friend who doesn’t have the same moral view of suicide as myself. Would this be the sin of scandal?
I ask this because it is a constant source of ifficulty for me. On this blog, there was a “TV Self-Outing” a while back, and one of the shows mentioned by a number of people was “24.” I myself watch 24. I do not deny that there are a number of thigns that are morally problematic on that program. If I speak highly of the show, then others may be inclined to watch it, and those without a Catholic conscinece may be impelled toward sin (or they may not). Similarly, if I lend them the DVD, the same effect could be produced in them being tempted to sin.
My own gut instinct tells me this might be scandal, but I must admit that I am quite scrupulous. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I admit my extreme fallibility in making moral judgements.
Jimmy, I like you. Generally you give great advice. But this post is nothing but a whole lot of words justifying what you want to do. Period.
We ARE supposed to weigh our actions as if Christ were present with us (and He really IS, even though we do not always remember it or realize it). If we did this more often, there would be a whole lot less sin in the world.
(I bet you a Texas size sweet patoot that you’ll delete this comment, too!)
Anonymous, read more carefully. Jimmy wrote: “Trying to imagine what Jesus would do is a tool of very limited value (I’m not say no value).” That’s very true, because, as Jimmy pointed out, Jesus is God, which means it may not be right for us to do what Jesus did in various situations.
Jimmy KNOWS that Jesus is always with us. (Did you really think he didn’t?).
He addressed what he would do if he were face-to-face with Jesus.
He also recommended asking ourselves the question: What would Jesus want ME to do? That sounds an awful lot like: “We ARE supposed to weigh our actions as if Christ were present with us.”
“(I’ll bet you a Texas size sweet patoot(?) that you’ll delete this comment, too!)”
Nah! It’s not a violation of DA RULZ to post something silly. (Hey, he hasn’t deleted any of my posts!)
Anon: I’ll bet you a Wisconsin-sized piece of cheese he doesn’t.
I think it boils down to this: there is a form of entertainment consumption that IS sinful. It is widely known as pornography. In watching certain forms of this, almost every man will disobey Christ’s commandment proscribing not so much as looking at a woman with lust in his heart.
Horror and even violent media and literature are not even approaching the same sort of thing. By watching or reading about violent or creepy things happening, one does not commit them as one would commit the sin of lust by simply watching or reading about lustful things. The two are not even comparable.
To compare this to something already mentioned, Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is extremely violent and, in a sense, creepy (I’m thinking of that freaky devil-child now … shudder). In it, we watch as man kills God. And while we all bear responsibility for this Death, the act of watching a depiction of it is not sinful.
This is what has always bugged me about certain European media standards as they’ve been explained to me. For example, I’ve been given to understand that, in Great Britain, a certain scene in a certain episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation–wherein a human being inhabitted by an alien parasite explodes–that this scene was not allowed to be broadcast in GB. However, looking at their media (broadcast and print) one sees numerous hyper-sexual (including nudity) scenes and ads. This is backwards. But I digress.
Mr. Akin, the more I read your stuff, the more I like it. Thanks for the education and keep up the good work.
Anonymous-
Jimmy does not delete posts of people who disagree with him (unless the break “Da Rulz”), even if they state broad conclusions (“…this post is nothing but a whole lot of words justifying what you want to do. Period.”) without presenting any evidence or argument.
You, and earlier posters on this topic seem to have only one thing to say; that is, “If you disagree with me you are blinded by sin!”.
At least respond to some of Jimmy’s points, if you don’t have any of your own to make.
Jimmy and others have given reasonable arguments and presented evidence in favor of their positions. The only response from the opposition seems to be “Can’t you see this is EEEE-vil?”.
Why is it evil to read, or tell, a scary story? Convince me.
As my old junior high math teacher, Mr. Arashiro, used to say, “Show your work”.
I’m not quite sure if Anon knows the meaning of “patoot.”
Speaking of which, I need to get off my big patoot and go for a walk.
It’s a beautiful day, here.
I would make it a rule ALWAYS to delete a post that dares one to delete a post.
I agree with the anonymous patootlady. People do lots of idiotic things that they shouldn’t do — either because the things are immoral or because they are wastes of precious time that ought to be used for the pursuit of our universal vocation (holiness) — and then they dream up all kinds of fancy language to rationalize these stupid behaviors. I’d say that Mr. Akin is one of the best rationalizers I’ve ever seen. Just as bad as his finding bogus excuses for himself, however, is the fact that he is teaching his disciples here to imitate him.
The WWYDUP and WWJD tests are among the most important and valuable that we have as human beings. We (and I include myself especially) should be constantly taking those tests, at least subconsciously.
#1 problem with the idea of the “WWJD?” “test” as an important and reliable tool of discernment:
The attitude of the people who say so.
Anyone can read this blog and see who is being more CHRIST-LIKE… Jimmy or his “WWJD?” critics.
P.S. I agree with Ed. “I bet you’ll delete this” should be grounds for a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“I’d say that Mr. Akin is one of the best rationalizers I’ve ever seen. Just as bad as his finding bogus excuses for himself, however, is the fact that he is teaching his disciples here to imitate him.”
2nd Anon-
Again (he says wearily), show your work.
Why bogus? Analyze these bogus excuses and show their weaknesses.
Convince me. I’m all ears.
And, Jimmy, I’m disapponinted you didn’t tell me about your Disciples Club. What are the dues? Do we get to wear cowboy hats? I’d like to make it to the next meeting so I can read everyone this great scary story I wrote.
Why is it that those who are trying to say that Jimmy is only rationalizing don’t have the courage of their convictions to sign their names (or at least a recognizable handle) to their posts?
Tim J: What, you didn’t get that last message on your secret decoder ring?
…
Oh, that’s right. That whole karaoke thing kinda disqualifies you.
Sorry to rub it in your face, man.
2nd Anon: See my above post regarding what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote; according to you, Aquinas must also be “one of the greatest rationalizers (you’ve) ever seen.”
Let’s see, do I want to agree with a great saint and Doctor of the Church or 2nd Anon?
Whoops! My bad. Posted it on another thread, and it doesn’t really apply here. Brain cramp.
Gee, I wonder who is doing more to make folks actually reach towards the Holy…. the folks that accuse everyone who they disagree with of being worse sinners than they are, or the folks who lay out explinations, reasons, refer back to Church documents, show a familiarity with the topic….
I have such a feeling of deja vu over this post. I’ve never been fond of Lovecraft, most of his work being about horrible creatures and such. But I’ve always like Poe, Dickens, and most of Stephen King. Many of my high school friends who were Christians felt that reading King or Poe was sinful, whereas I thought of them as morality tales. (Especially “Salem’s Lot” and its commentary on belief.)
.
Of course, I gave good reasons for wanting to read Poe or King (or Dickens’ few ghostly tales). But that’s the funny thing about reasons: One person’s reason is another person excuse.
.
In a similar fashion, several of my high school friends stopped hanging out with me when I started wearing mascara and going to school dances (both being occasions of temptation to them). “What would Jesus do?” wouldn’t have helped us at all because the answer depends on the person’s view of Jesus. I personally figured that if Jesus made more wine for those partiers at Canaa, He would have encouraged dancing at parties and dressing up.
Oh, that’s right. That whole karaoke thing kinda disqualifies you.
Sorry to rub it in your face, man.
I’m sure we can arrange a dispensation for karaoke singers.
I think the question of why it isn’t wrong is really the wrong question. It’s an important question for sure, but a better question, one more in line with loving God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds, would be, “why is it right?”
Don’t misread me. I have no firm conviction on the matter, but this thread has made me think, and this is the question I keep coming back to. We aren’t supposed to be living our lives trying to see what is ok, or even, to phrase it in a more negative way, what we can get away with. We are called to live our lives so as that we glorify God in everything we do.
So the question is, in what way does reading this author, watching 24, or any of the other things mentioned, glorify God? I don’t for a moment contend that it doesn’t, but I am thinking about it in any case. Since we aren’t called to go through our lives asking, “what is not offensive to God,” but rather, “what is pleasing to God,” why is this right?
Shane, on why watching 24, etc. can be glorifying to God, you may find this piece helpful.
On the value of horror specifically, see this piece as well as Jimmy’s earlier post.
MissJean–
Well put.
Would the man who got his point across most often by telling stories– some of them rich in slap-stick style humor (A friggin’ log in your eye. Picture it. Come on, that’s right out of WB!)– is going to have trouble with a story, even if it has a negative ending? (Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a happy Poe story ending. Nor an anti-moral one.) Seeing evil and *knowing* it for evil are important. (Not to be confused with seeing sin to know that sin exists.)
Shane–
To what extent do you mean “pleasing”?
A conversation with a friend can lead to that moment where things just *click*– where you *know* this person, and the feeling of love just sweeps you away. Usually, with laughter. That is pleasing to God, I believe, but very few folks would say it’s only right to talk to their friends because it might make God happy.
To the best of my knowledge, there is not Great Vatican List of Things That Are OK, But Not That Great— to live morally, to try to get folks to do so, to live in love of life and God, with full appreciation of all that entails…that is good.
Perhaps the question is not valid? Perhaps that which does not offend God is, to a varrying degree, pleasing to him? (Kind of like temperature– there’s absolute zero, then there is everything else.)
Shane, good question. I’m going to take a crack at it, since I’ve been defending my reading habit for decades now. For me, at least, the horror genre in general have been reinforcements of moral decision-making. Mostly I read cautionary tales and moral tales. The moral center is what separates “good horror” from “bad horror” (like morality separates Jane Eyre from pulp romance novels). For example, Poe’s “The Pit and the Pendulum” is really horrific – it has a prisoner being tortured with psychological horror as much as physical torture. Yet it transcends being just a horror story because the protagonist refuses to give up and escapes again and again, only to be caught up in yet another trap until Providence intervenes. (Recently I read that it’ an allegory about a soul unable to save itself but ultimately being saved by God.)
Of course, there are bad ones. I read one of John Saul’s books in high school and wouldn’t touch one of his books again; his characters never seem to learn from their mistakes and justice isn’t dealt out. Conversely, Stephen King’s books often deal with belief and sin. Probably the best example of this is “The Stand”. It’s about a literal fight between good and evil. King carefully illustrates how and why the characters choose which side they’re on, including a haunting character who, even though he recognizes the anti-Christ, won’t switch sides because he considers loyalty the greatest virtue.
I read quite a lot of other genres, too, but I see a lot more to ponder in King than I do in many “realistic” novels. A recent favourite is the Russell Kirk ghost story anthology “Ancestral Shadows”. Although the genre is different, Kirk’s use of supernatural stories to illustrate Catholic morality is similar to Chesterton’s use of the mystery genre. (And speaking of mystery, are there any Ellis Peters fans out there?)
Sailorette, Poe’s “The Pit and the Pendulum” has a happy ending. In fact, it’s an example of a great horror story. In it, the protagonist faces physical and psychological torture. Time and again, he uses his reason to escape from impending death, only to be put in a worse situation. At the end, he’s saved by Providence. I recently read that this story is an allegory of a soul, unable to save itself, being saved from Hell.
Shane, I thought yours was a good question. I’ll take a crack at answering it since I’ve been defending my reading for decades. 🙂 A good horror story – or mystery or romance – always has a moral center. Even in “The Cask of Amontillado”, in which the narrator gets revenge against his enemy, is moral because Poe forces the reader to switch sides and identify with the man being buried alive instead of the narrator. That is why Stephen King is a writer of good horror, and John Saul is not. In fact, King’s “The Stand” is an overtly moral story because it deals with the literal fight between good and evil. He carefully illustrates how and why the characters chose sides. The most haunting character is a man who, although he recognizes the anti-Christ, refuses to switch sides because he sees loyalty as the ultimate virtue. It’s haunting because I’ve seen that sort of “good person” in real life.
The most overtly theological horror writing in recent times has probably been by Russell Kirk. I read his anthology “Ancestral Shadows” and thought that he works in the horror genre the way Chesterton does in mysteries.* Kirk wrote a little defense of his fiction writing, saying, “The tale of the preternatural — as written by George MacDonald, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and other masters — can be an instrument for the recovery of moral order.”
*Speaking of mysteries, are there any Ellis Peters fans around here?
Sorry for the double posting. I thought the first one disappeared… what a HORROR….
A common theme in the posts of those who disagree with Jimmy’s post is what Shane articulates above (& I do not mean to toss Shane in with the nay-sayers).
My question to them would be this: What should we read? How do we know for sure what we should & should not read? Some (like me) see in Tolkien’s LOTR a faith-edifying tale of good v. evil. Some see only magic & depictions of nasty evil & dismiss it out of hand. (One of my brothers felt this way about LOTR until he actually read it.) What are some of their favorite books? Do they only read faith-affirming fiction wherein the heroes never waiver in their convictions & are always perfect examples of what Christians should be? What sort of film, TV, music, art, etc do those who disagree with Jimmy enjoy?
Shane, for me personally, the answer to your post is that humans have always told stories. Even the earliest humans who came back from the hunt & told the tale of how they brought down this week’s dinner eventually realized that an exciting story is better than a routine one & started to embellish the truth for dramatic effect. Why? Because, as Tolkien stated, we’re subcreators. It’s part of what it means to be human that we tell stories about ourselves & our experiences that can help others learn & grow. (Isn’t that what the Bible is? Except the Bible is a true story, or true myth, as Tolkien described it to Lewis.) We create in the likeness of He Who created us &, in doing so, we can glorify Him. And humans, being social folk, enjoy a shared experience, being part of something bigger that we can all relate to. We like to see stories about people at odds with their world & how they react to that. When viewed in light of Christian truth, a Christian worldview, they can take on a deeper meaning, a greater resonance. Works by Flannery O’Conner or Graham Greene may be bleak to some but to a Christian, they can be very beneficial to us in our faith walk.
I’m liking 24 this season, too. While I totally disagree with some of Jack Bauer’s methods, I have to remind myself that I’m not in his position. But he has traits that can be beneficial for a Christian to emulate: perseverence, loyalty, dedication, a belief in justice. This is what I take away from each episode. Some might be tempted to emulate the less moral aspects the characters might display, in which case they should avoid the show. Sometimes I’ve watched CSI & I find the methods they use to solve the crimes fascinating. But frequently they focus on the seedier elements of things (it just creeps me out) & I can’t justify watching that particular episode, so I don’t. Some would find these seedier aspects near occasions for sin. I don’t, I just don’t like watching them.
Does your active participation in karoake cause others to sin? I would hope not! 🙂
I don’t know about Tim’s… but my karoake singing tempts others to make themselves deaf. Bodily mutilation is a sin, right?
I have only skimmed through much of the combox (don’t have a ton of time right now) so I hope this will make sense and not be too repetative in light of whatever others have said.
I agree totally that WWJD is bunk. What Jesus did or what you think he would do has nothing to do with what YOU should do.
WWYDIJP is actually better I think, since you are always in Jesus’ presence. You don’t have to always behave as you would in Jesus’ corporal presence, but you should always keep in mind God’s (whatever person you like to focus on or God generally) presence next to you and around you and in you. Of course if you are initially hesitant to do something with God “watching” [insert karaoke joke here] that may not mean the action is wrong but that your attitude to the act or to God is off.
I’ll also repeat what I said on the “The Mound…Visited!” about how there is a difference between elements of “horror” within a story, like in the Bible (the Passion for instance) or Tolkien or Lewis, and horror fiction (my competency is more in films) that seem generally to be watched just for some kind of masochistic thrill. Those who watch or read such stuff for other reasons, this does not apply to you and you can read the extensive discussion on this in the aformentioned post.
I’m not convinced though that saying “its just fun so therefore it’s ok” or “my instincts tell me its ok” covers it. Saying “instincts” instead of “conscience” suggests to me that Jimmy has not looked at this in a really serious spiritual way but rather is trying to justify something he likes and doesn’t have a good reason why. This may not be the case, he may just not have written everything on the subject he could have or something, but that is how it strikes me after reading it just once.
Miss Jean –
Yes! I love Ellis Peters… the Cadfael mysteries are on my list of attractions that God used to bring me into full communion with Rome in 2004.
JR-
In the words of St. Augustine (my patron), “Love God, and do as you please.”.
It really could not be put more simply than that.
Our instincts should be brought to heel and put at the service of a well formed conscience. For a Christian, this process should be taking place every day.
If our instincts are sanctified, they can be relied on when we don’t have time to reason things out. If we stopped to mentally analyze every action, we could never accomplish anything.
Tim J.
I agree, though whether or not you decide to take in horror fiction and defend it on your blog seems to me a matter for considerable discernment.
Naturally “Love God, and do as you please” needs to be interpreted in light of Christ’s “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” You know that of course but that’s for anyone else who might be scandalized. And don’t forget that something being morally ok does not mean that it is the best thing to do.
You may be right on all this and I may be wrong, which is why I am trying not to be forceful, but I need to work on instincts/conscience too sometimes.
Tim J.
Actually, it could be put more simply than this.
St. Paul wrote “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” – Philippians 4.8
Tims,
I am about to run out the door but
1. Tim M.’s comment seems more to argue against horror fiction then for it. I think this may be his intention but I can’t look for his previous comments right now.
2. Tim J, to elaborate on what I wrote, it would be a temptation to lukewarmness if we decided we would just follow our own wills and desires as long as we thought we loved God and avoided actual sin as much as we could. St. Augustine’s quote is safe, but perhaps not the ideal philosophy of life.
Tim J.
St. Paul also wrote that “we realize that ‘all of us have knowledge’; knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him…Make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak…Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died.”
– 1 Corinthians 8.1-3, 9, 11
Something may be fine for one to do (as they please) but it may not be the most edifying for them and / or else it may cause others to stumble.
I’m still not clear on how reading horror (not pornographic or overly-gorey horror, but horror along the lines of that which has been discussed) can cause anyone to stumble.
Not trying to be confrontational here. I honestly don’t understand the particulars of the objections or the particular objectionable aspects of said horror.
Can someone explain this to me?
jared
I am glad you made the distinction. I am aware that most horror these days is definitely in the gore camp. This is what I was thinking of.
No matter how much freedom I have in jesus and how much I love him… doing what I please, I can’t imagine asking Pope Benedict XVI (or any or you here) to watch “Saw II” or “Hostel” and then go spend an hour of Eucharistic Adoration.
what do light and darkness have in common?
I forgot to bring in Chesterton! And I even read this very essay for my podcast!
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/aldsc10.txt
Alarms and Discursions by G.K. Chesterton
The third essay in this book is “The Nightmare”.
“For there is nothing so delightful as a nightmare–when you know it is a nightmare.
“That is the essential. That is the stern condition laid upon all artists touching this luxury of fear. The terror must be fundamentally frivolous. Sanity may play with insanity; but insanity must not be allowed to play with sanity. Let such poets as the one I was reading in the garden, by all means, be free to imagine what outrageous deities and violent landscapes they like… But these huge gods, these high cities, are toys; they must never for an instant be allowed to be anything else. Man, a gigantic child, must play with Babylon and Nineveh, with Isis and with Ashtaroth… But the old gods must be his dolls, not his idols. His central sanctities, his true possessions, should be Christian and simple…
“In one of Stevenson’s letters there is a characteristically humorous remark about the appalling impression produced on him in childhood by the
beasts with many eyes in the Book of Revelations: “If that was heaven, what in the name of Davy Jones was hell like?” …I like those monsters beneath the throne very much. But I like them beneath the throne. It is when one of them goes wandering in deserts and finds a throne for himself that evil faiths begin, and there is (literally) the devil to pay — to pay in dancing girls or human sacrifice. As long as those misshapen
elemental powers are around the throne, remember that the thing that they worship is the likeness of the appearance of a man.
“That is, I fancy, the true doctrine on the subject of Tales of Terror and such things, which unless a man of letters do well and truly believe, without doubt he will end by blowing his brains out or by writing badly. Man, the central pillar of the world must be upright and straight; around him all the trees and beasts and elements and devils may crook and curl like smoke if they choose. All really imaginative literature is only the contrast between the weird curves of Nature and the straightness of the soul. Man may behold what ugliness he likes if he is sure that he will not worship it; but there are some so weak that they will worship a thing only because it is ugly. These must be chained to the beautiful. It is not always wrong even to go, like Dante, to the brink of the lowest promontory and look down at hell. It is when you look up at hell that a serious miscalculation has probably been made.
“Therefore I see no wrong in riding with the Nightmare to-night; she whinnies to me from the rocking tree-tops and the roaring wind; I will catch her and ride her through the awful air. Woods and weeds are alike tugging at the roots in the rising tempest, as if all wished to fly with us over the moon, like that wild amorous cow whose child was the Moon-Calf. We will rise to that mad infinite where there is neither up nor down, the high topsy-turveydom of the heavens. I will answer the call of chaos and old night. I will ride on the Nightmare; but she shall not ride on me.”
Tim M.-
Paul also wrote;
“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”.
So, yes, we are to make allowances for those with a weak conscience, but this cuts both ways. Neither are we to judge our brothers in disputable matters. We should ASSUME that they act with a clean conscience.
Indisputable matters are a different question, of course.
There is simply NO Catholic tradition of a blanket condemnation of tales that deal with horror, the grotesque, or the macabre. It is a disputable matter (UNLIKE pornography).
I certainly agree that we don’t want to scandalize people unecessarily, but I would be REALLY surprised to find anyone seriously scandalized by my watching “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” or reading a Stephen King novel on the train.
Oh, great bit of Chesterton there, Maureen.
This is clearly a litmus test for whether one is a Catholic or an evangelical Protestant because evangelical Protestants like myself love the slogan What Would Jesus Do? So yeah, this will help with your apologetics mission.
“This is clearly a litmus test for whether one is a Catholic or an evangelical Protestant”
Not really, Protestant. Loads of Catholics love the WWJD slogan, wore the bracelet and bought the t-shirt.
I like it, as long as it is not taken too literally, or to extremes.
The truth is, as Jimmy pointed out, it would be presumptuous to think that we really could know what Jesus would do in every circumstance.
The question is, what does Jesus want ME to do?
This is clearly a litmus test for whether one is a Catholic or an evangelical Protestant because evangelical Protestants like myself love the slogan What Would Jesus Do?
Not all Evangelicals do.
I didn’t when I was an Evangelical.
So yeah, this will help with your apologetics mission.
I calls ’em like I sees ’em.
Though if it facilitates your own journey to the Church, you’ll be happy to know that (as Tim J said) lots of Catholics use WWJD. This is a matter of personal opinion, not Church teaching.
I also know Protestants who don’t like WWJD for the same reasons; we often can’t say we can know what Jesus would do or not and/or what Jesus would do in a given situation may be inappropriate for you.
So this is not a Catholic-Protestant issue by any means.
From my own personal experience, some of the arguments against Jimmy’s position seem to be some of the first steps down the slippery slope of scrupulosity, and that’s not a good place to go, either. We must avoid the occasions of sin, but if we start seeing occasions of sin everywhere we’ll end up paralyzed. Take it from someone who has been diagnosed with OCD manifested as scrupulosity – for example, I avoided reading the newspaper because I might accidentally see a horoscope. You don’t want to go there – it took counseling, therapy, and medication (all part of God’s Providence) to get me out of the worst of it, and some of the posts here sure sound like steps down that dark road.
St. Dymphna, pray for me!
I think the question of why it isn’t wrong is really the wrong question. It’s an important question for sure, but a better question, one more in line with loving God with all our hearts, all our souls, and all our minds, would be, “why is it right?”
Don’t misread me. I have no firm conviction on the matter, but this thread has made me think, and this is the question I keep coming back to. We aren’t supposed to be living our lives trying to see what is ok, or even, to phrase it in a more negative way, what we can get away with. We are called to live our lives so as that we glorify God in everything we do.
So the question is, in what way does reading this author, watching 24, or any of the other things mentioned, glorify God? I don’t for a moment contend that it doesn’t, but I am thinking about it in any case. Since we aren’t called to go through our lives asking, “what is not offensive to God,” but rather, “what is pleasing to God,” why is this right?
Those ten commandments look pretty negative, don’t they? There’s a reason why. There’s more that is permissable than that which is forbidden. If we were told all that we can do rather than what we can’t, the list would go on for ages. Imagine having to be told that it is okay to eat museli bars in moderation, or that it is equally permissable to choose to play either soccer or football, or that it’s okay to play a musical instrument from 6 to 7 pm as long as it doesn’t annoy the neighbours. It would make the length of the Bible or Catechism look like short pamphlets in comparison. And that’s a recipe for scrupulosity.
That’s why we have our consciences to rely on. INFORMED consciences that is, by the Bible, Tradition, and the teachings of the Church.
Being a HUGE fan of H.P. Lovecraft, I can’t help but notice a certain irony in this discussion.
One of the greatest themes that is almost everpresent in much of Lovecraft’s writings is that some things are better left untouched. In fact, I could go as far as to say that that was the central theme of his writings. Those who are criticizing his work on the grounds that it’s horrible and evil are actually attacking one of their greatest modern literary allies. How often in his stories were people driven mad from exposure to dark knowledge, often that they’d themselves embraced, or moved towards amorally without regard for consequences.
The mistake is confusing Lovecraft’s writings with the “blasphemous tomes”, such as the infamous Necronomicon, that are found so often in his works. Yes, there is very real evil out there, and there are things that can imperil the soul and unravel the mind; that’s why Lovecraft’s works make for wonderful cautionary tales, exactly in the manner described as regards other writers such as Poe.
Beware of what lies beyond the mountains of madness!
Peace and God bless!
I hate to say this to someone inclined to scrupulosity, but the attitude that “if it does not break a commandment it is ok” is not I good one I think. Maybe it may become necessary to deal with scrupulosity, but it is not called for to see scrupulocity in a desire to glorify God in all aspects of one’s life. I agree entirely with what Rhys quoted and tried to argue against.
As I have said many times, it is lukewarmness to only try to avoid sin but not them follow your own will in licit things. If you love God, why do you not want every aspect of your life, every action, every time of rest, EVERYTHING! How this general principle applies in a practical way (including what kinds of literature are worth reading) will vary from person to person depending on situation, vocation, psychology, etc. but I think the principle always applies. Dedicating your life totally to God and leaving behind all that does not draw you closer to him is not just for priests and religious.
Hi. The infamous ‘first anon’ here. I got very busy and then completely forgot I posted here. So sorry.
I was wondering how the 2nd Anon knew I was a “she”?
I should mention that yes, I do know what a patoot is. And what a sweet patoot is. I figured a Texas sized one would be quite a wager.
Also, I have posted a similar comment on a similar topic not very long ago and our dear Jimmy did in fact delete me. That is why I made my final ‘bet’ comment. No offense was intended by it.
In answer to the many people here coming to Jimmy’s defense, I do not have anything against science fiction/fantasy and horror per se. I have never read Lovecraft that I ever recall. And I have certainly enjoyed my share of action films and books.
My point is that this post uses a whole lot of words justifying, not necessarily reading those types of fiction, but justifying why one should NOT follow WWYDIJP, which is something very useful to the holy life.
Many of the Saints have taught this, although not using these exact words. There have even been a few of them who spoke of living in a continuous mystical Divine Presence which kept them from sinning, ever. They recommend that even though we are not so gifted, we should try to be mindful at all times of the Divine Presence. If we did so, we would sin a whole lot less.
Given the number of people who claim to be Christian, I know that if they all practiced this WWYDIJP, the world would be a transformed place. Certainly, garbage like the Da Vinci Code would never make it to the NY Times Best Seller List for as long as it did. If Christians lived WWYDIJP, it would never have even gotten past the publisher’s editor’s desk.
Anon, it seems to me that a correct understanding of Christ would also be necessary for WWYDIJP to be effective. Many who identify themselves as Christian seem to lack that.
Anon-
Jimmy may have deleted your comments because you broke one of his blog rules (see “Da Rulz” at left).
For instance, he may have given counsel and advice in response to a reader’s question about a personal situation. If you contradicted his advice (violating Rule 20), this could have been very confusing for the person who asked for it in the first place.
J.R.
What you have written here resonates with my spirit. For much of my Christian experience I loved and served God. At the same time, I wanted to know where the line was… how close could I get to sinning without crossing that line. This was my idea of my freedom in Christ.
I pray for the courage so that I can see how close I can get to God without being consumed by His holiness. Yes, this is not just for priests or religious. I want to please God in all things, including what I read.
Yes, each of us will determine what is right and good for ourselves. May God form our consciences to help us.
Thank you for the reminder that lukewarmness is a subtle enemy of our soul.
As B-16 has mentioned, when you take freedom in Christ and remove truth then you are left with
license.
So this gets us back to Jimmy’s original thought: “What would Jesus have ‘me’ to do?”
t.i.m.
I have to put my oar in again concerning this idea that anyone here is trying to see how much they can “get away with” or how close they can get to the line of “immoral behavior” without crossing it.
Frankly, this is bunk.
If I watch a monster movie, or read a murder mystery, I am not trying to “get away” with anything, as I don’t think there is anything to get away WITH. I do not need or desire any sort of illicit thrill in order to enjoy myself.
This isn’t a question of ignoring the problem with Lovecraft… it is my belief that there IS no problem with Lovecraft.
Let me illustrate. One of my favorite pieces of music is Holst’s “The Planets”. Gustav Holst was a Spiritist (basically a New Ager, or, if you like, a pagan). I enjoyed listening to “The Planets” long before I learned that he wrote it to express what he believed were the astrological characteristics of the bodies of the Solar System.
It is still a great work, not because of Holst’s philosophy, but because Holst’s music was BETTER than his philosophy. His gifts, whether he knew it or not, came from God. To dismiss everything true and beautiful in his music simply because he was not a Christian would, to me, reveal a somewhat cramped and astringent spirituality.
We need not (and I would say we SHOULD NOT) limit our reading, listening and watching to only explicitly Christian works. We should develop the capacity to honestly acknowledge truth, beauty and excellence wherever we find it (so long as it is not actually immoral or a near occasion of sin for us).
A failure to do so will see us dismissing what may be truly edifying in non-Christian works of great genius, while defending or ignoring sloppy and sub-standard craftsmanship in Christian works.
When I stand in front of a great painting, I don’t ask to see the artist’s curriculum vitae. I look, often for a long time. I observe (sometimes so closely that I have made museum staff nervous) and I learn.
Maybe someone brought this up but, this debate reminds me a lot of the kind of Reformation-type of thinking that cast the “shame-shame finger” at Catholics reading anything but the Bible. Augustine loved Plato’s work and Aquinas loved Aristotle’s stuff and the Church was too wrapped up in classical philosophy to be any good.
Please understand: I’m NOT saying that those who are arguing against Mr. Akin’s views on the matter are doing this. BUT, some of the arguments remind me of this and, taken to an extreme, I believe that that is what this line of argumentation leads to.
That said, I’m the first to say that one can err in the opposite direction and be too permissive, and think that things like “The Duh Vinci Code,” “American Pie,” and “Harry Potter” are all just fine and dandy.
And I may have just opened a whole new can o’ worms, so I’ll be quiet now.
Great post, Tim J. Excellent point about Holst.
Tim J.,
I’m not sure how much your comment was directed at me, but if it was then I must not have expressed myself well. I have nothing against taking in things from unchristian sources, nor do I think anyone is trying to “get away with as much as possible without sinning.” Obviously geting past this attitude would be a first step, but what I mean is that some people may not be putting as much thought and effort into doing the RIGHT THING FOR THEM that they should. Probably none of us are actually focusing on that enough, but if anyone out there is not even trying to do the best they can (spiritually) in every aspect of their lives and to pray constantly, and argue that others should not either, they might reconsider their attitude. Certain comments seem to confirm my idea that some people are overly concerned with what we SHOULD NOT do rather than focusing on what we SHOULD do.
JR-
No, my post wasn’t aimed at you, but there seemed to be a drift in that direction occurring in some of the comments.
I’m very much in agreement with the idea that we need to consider carefully what we “take in”, especially in such a poisonous culture.
Just ask my teenage son. I NEVER let him do ANYTHING!!!
One more point.
The Church Fathers, like the Jewish culture from which they sprang, were not ashamed to use “the spoils of the Egyptians”. It was a good thing to glom onto the good bits of the secular and pagan culture and turn them to your own good use. Obviously there was some discussion about what was good and what wasn’t. Some wanted to ditch all classical learning, while others were busy rearranging lines of the Aeneid (a common literary game) to tell the Gospel story. The argument ended up coming down on the preservation and use side. And a good thing too.
Further, some of us pursue God best by cutting out all that isn’t “necessary”. But others pursue God best by learning about everything in God’s creation. This is also a way towards spiritual progress, since the more we know, the more we are able to appreciate and praise. (Which is why it’s so tragic that so many knowledgeable people shut their eyes against God.) Knowing all sorts of stories may not look quite so lofty as the pursuit of natural philosophy. But Our Lord is the Word, and He was not ashamed to speak in parables.
I love horror fiction too…Murder mysteries even more. This needs to be said, lest anyone think I am not coming clean here.
OK, here is my thing: Where do we stop? One of my aunts is a fundamentalist. (Actually, all of my aunts are fundamentalists, but only one is a pill about it). She gets bent out of shape on a fairly regular basis, because I (who have no teenagers of my own) like to take my cousins’ children–My aunt’s grandchildren to the movies….And her argument every time is ” Do you really want to be at the movies if Jesus returns when you’re there? Do you want him to find you like that?”
Thus far, I have resisted the temptation to say that (A) Jesus already knows I go to the movies, & that(B)If the worst things I ever have on my conscience would be liking scary movies & reading about fictitious murders, I would be a very, very happy (even ;-)saintly) woman….She is elderly & set in her ways, & besides, I love her.
I expect this kind of thinking from fundamentalist Baptists. It’s when I find it in the rest of Christendom, that I start to wonder what comes next? Bookburnings? A ban on movies? A raid on my wine cellar??
But, hey–That’s me….
“Fundamentalism” tends to be a distortion, and abominable caricature, of actual truths or spiritual principles. I guess this is true of every error. My point is, do not reject valid spiritual principles like glorifying God in all that you do just because some people miss the point.
I am not trying to ban anything that the Church does not, just making suggestions that I hope someone out there may find helpful.
I would also say there is an extremely common but I think unfortunate false sense of balance, in which secular pastimes are accepted for no good reason just because it seems ok. There is nothing wrong with novels or movies or wine or science. The question is why are you engaging in these things, is it exactly what God wants for you. If you claim your life is as dedicated to God as it should be that would be a first sign there is something massively wrong with your spiritual life.
Balance in the sense of not being a legalistic fundamentalist or scrupulus a licentious secular person who just doesn’t care is good. “Balance” in the sense of not always pushing for a more God-centered life (details according to your vocation), and deeper union with God, is another word for lukewarmness.
At least that’s how it seems to me.
In other words, drink your wine, if it is absolutely the holiest thing you can do at the time, the thing that, as far as you can know or guess, is God’s will for you at that moment. Watch your bloody horror movie, for the same reason, if that is the situation. Study biology (I just finished a semester of that myself) for the same reason if that is your situation.
Don’t drink wine if you think God would prefer you drink water. Go see a nicer movie or stay home and do something else if you suspect that is more in line with the will of God. Read the kind of book you think, after prayer, that God wants you to read. Strive to make every aspect of your life a prayer to God.
And go bat-guano insane because you don’t get to that goal by digesting each action and weighing it against the perfect.
I can’t find the right words to say it, but basically: if you focus on acting as holy as possible, you’re going to grind out the WANTING to be holy, the– the love that is supposed to drive you. Love isn’t totally rational. You can encourage it rationally, but you can’t force it. Be aware of the goal, and act in love with a concious formed by what we know is right.
I’m no theologist, and I’m not an especially good writer, but there’s just something that doesn’t have that ring of rightness. Can anybody translate the above into something a bit better?
Sailorette,
If I count as “anyone” I’ll try. I wondered if I should bring that up or if it went without saying. You can not analyze every single action sometimes. Often you have to go with your instincts because there is just not time for serious discernment. However, I think what you read, what movies you watch, and in many cases what foods you eat are things you can indeed spend time in prayer before deciding. Also just because we will never reach an ideal of holiness does not mean we can be complacent in our failure.
I agree entirely that love must be both the driving force and the goal. It is all about love. Always trying to live perfectly out of a philisophical belief that it is right to do so is puritanism. Christianity is not about puritanism, it is about love. “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God” “God first loved us, not we him” because God so loves us, and has offered himself in love for us, we can not but try to give our love and lives to him in the same way, because it is right and natural that we should do so and because it is the purpose for which we were made. This love needs to be fostered and strengthened by prayer and sacred reading. One’s life should be built around, as much as possible, the attempt to respond to the love that Christ has for us. I do not know how to really express love in words, so I give ideas that seem to flow necessarily from love. It is important though not to get caught up in the ideas and loose the love. That, again, would be puritanism.
But if dedicating your entire life to God with no hesitations and nothing held back (or rather trying to do this if you insist on being realistic) is insanity then it seems clear we are all called to this insanity of Christ.
“In other words, drink your wine, if it is absolutely the holiest thing you can do at the time…”
See, I don’t see that as helpful, and I don’t think it leads to “balance” in the good sense you suggested.
If an authentic walk with God means that we are required to do the “holiest thing” at every moment, I think that would tend to make us constantly paralyzed with doubt. Do I KNOW this is the holiest thing I could be doing? Is commenting on a blog EVER really preferable to prayer? Bible study? Shouldn’t I be passing out “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” booklets?
We are not all called to be hermit monks, though some of us are. Some of us ought to stay clear of popular culture, and some of us are able to reach people BECAUSE of our knowledge of popular culture. Some of us just find a bit of pointless, frivolous fun to be a welcome release from the pressures of adult life.
This is why different religious orders have different Rules. Not everyone is called to be discalced. Not all are called to silence.
Sure, we should consider carefully the use of our time, but not to the point of obsession. People do all kinds of harmless, meaningless things; scratching, bending paper clips, whistling. That shouldn’t be taken to mean that their faith life is compromised.
I think God made us able to skip rocks on the water ON PURPOSE.
To pray when one should work, or to work when one should rest, or to refuse to engage the popular culture when that is God’s will for you, is not holyness. Personal silent prayer is perhaps the most important, most powerful single act you can do, but even Carthusian monks spend much of the day doing other things.
As noted above we can not always be analysing our acts carfully before we do them. That also would be against the will of God at times. We will not always do precisely the right thing because of this and because we often can only guess at what we should do. To stop even trying though is where we get into my “false balance” idea.
Skipping rocks can be a holy activity.
JR – do I really have to pray each time before I pick up a book to read? This sounds like a recipe for insanity. I pray for understanding before I read scripture, but not before I pick up a book that I read purely for entertainment. Why should I? It is not ungodly to take a few minutes of quiet time each day to read P.G. Wodehouse and escape from the daily grind. If someone prefers to escape with horror instead I don’t grudge them that.
I think your method would be spiritually unhealthy for someone who struggles with scruples, or even the type of pride that purists have which says “I NEVER read anything but the bible” ‘we ONLY eat ORGANIC food’, ‘I NEVER watch television’ etc. You know the type.
JRS: I think you’re on the right track, just carrying it to a little bit of an extreme, perhaps. When St. Teresa of Avila wrote the rule for the Discalced Carmelites, one of the things she put in was that the sisters have an hour of recreation every day. She knew the necessity of play. She herself was a guitar player, and I hope that B16 will soon name her Patron Saint of Pickers.
bill912,
You and I may not disagree at all. At least, I do not have any problems with what you described. Recreation is, for most people at least, a good and necessary part of life. Life as a whole though needs to be centered around God, with no part separated from your relationship with him.
hippo354, picking up a book to read for relaxation may well be a great thing to do. I hope you would not refuse to give that up or read a different book if you had reason to believe God wanted something different. My idea (which I’m sure is not mine but has been picked up from sscripture, the saints, etc.) basically boils down to that you should model your life around whatever fuzzy picture or guess you have of how God wants you to live. I must be expressing myself poorly, because I see no way in which this could lead to insanity, nor to pride if the focus is keeped on God and not the self, which is the whole point. Those suffering from scrupulosity may be forced into a “if it’s not a sin don’t worry about it” mode because of their condition, but that is not a great attitude for the rest of us.
I assume even they though could like the rest of us offer a “God be with me as I read this book” sort of prayer before reading something. I imagine you mentally speak to yourself frequently. How much more natural is it to speak to God?
Ya know, it’s an abiding belief that if we could only just *understand* what folks really ment, most fights would be over before they started….
Trying to bridge the mind-gap again….
Sin- doing something that hurts God. (Be it against he himself by going against his direct orders, or ‘the least of these’.)
Everything else- within God’s orders.
Classic boiling down of God’s orders: Love God, love others, love yourself.
Love- not generally considered especially holy, because those who are most assuredly not holy still have this spark within them.
“Be as holy as possible” = put acting holy before love-holy.
(Just read over and realized I’ve writen ‘orders’multiple times — forgive, the meaning best fits, though the flavor may make some flinch.)
1. Although loving sacrifice is good, it’s important to do it for the right reasons.
2. Although prayer is good, it’s important not to get weird and scrupulous about it.
3. All people have different mindsets and are created by God to do different things. So necessarily, people’s best approaches to prayer and sacrifice are different.
3. It’s awfully presumptuous to tell another person that their prayer life isn’t good enough, unless you know the person extremely well, and/or hold a teaching or spiritual direction office from the Church.
4. If you’re really worried about it, just make the Sign of the Cross. That was good enough for the early Christians as a prayer before any endeavor they wanted to bless.
5. If you are scrupulous, it’s best if you don’t worry about it.
6. If you aren’t scrupulous, you still don’t have to worry about it. The call to holiness may involve a response of praying before you read a book, but there is no particular reason it should or must. Ten to one, there are other responses God wants from you.
For example, I’m not even half a percent as worried by this prayer idea as by the possibility that I will say something nasty to someone else in this thread. That’s what God wants me to work on, so I focus on it. I also try to be nicer to the people I meet during the day at work. I’m also worried that I’m not doing enough charitable work or donating alms. Finally, I’m busy trying to learn Latin prayers by heart and say the Rosary on a regular basis. Praying before reading the Bible and doing proper lectio divina regularly would be helpful to me also. And adoration. And the Little Way. And a zillion other things I’d concentrate on first.
If I pray before I read, I’m a lot more likely to pray for the writer than myself. As a lifelong science fiction and fantasy fan, I know a lot of writers, and I know the life stories of many of the dead ones I never got a chance to meet. It is thus natural for me to pray for them, to ask for the prayers of their natural patron saint, St. Thomas More (especially that the non-Christians saw the light at the end) and others I believe to be saints (like Tolkien), and to ask for the prayers of the holy souls in return.
But if it doesn’t occur to me to pray, I don’t worry about it. I’m sure God knows which souls need my prayers. I’m not the only person praying for them; there’s a whole Church through all of time doing that, much less all of the Church Triumphant. I do what I do, and leave the rest to God.
And if you feel called to pray for guidance before you read anything, then that’s probably a good devotion for you and other folks spiritually kindred to you. But I’m not you, and you’re not me, and that’s how God wanted it.
Oh, and one more thing….
If you have a well-formed conscience, you don’t have to consider everything carefully. You know what the right decision (or range of decisions) is, because all the thinking and learning has already been done.
If you run into a new situation, or a particularly complex range of choices, then you will have to think and pray for guidance — because your conscience hasn’t run into this problem before, and needs help applying the basic principles rightly.
The rest of the time, knowing what’s right and what you’re supposed to do is second nature. That’s what a conscience is for.
The Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit also come into play. And the Eucharist. And so on.
A good thing, too, because if I couldn’t deal with most of this stuff on an instinctive conscience level, I’d never get anything done. Snap decisions are not my forte.
As to WWYDIJP: What do you do every single Mass? You are in Jesus’ Presence when he is made Present in the Holy Eucharist.
Sorry if this sounds like an overly simplistic answer, but it was truly the first thing that came to mind when I read Jimmy’s original blog on this.
Jimmy, thanks for this post and for all your efforts. I am currently converting to Catholicism, and one of the things I both didn’t expect and am so excited about is the stress on the laity using their own (God-given!) reason. Obviously I knew there were many brilliant theologians throughout history committed to using their reason along with doctrine, prayer, and tradition to wrestle with new issues or particular occasions – but just as the laity can obviously not be excised from the body of Christ, the Church, so, too, can our minds not be divorced from the totality of our persons, or our faith life.