One Year Ago
Thank you John Paul II for showing me how a man can live, the meaning of suffering, and reminding me that in Christ Jesus we are not defeated.
posted by edP | 8:11 PM
About Me
- Name: edP
- Location: U.S. Outlying Islands
Uncommon thoughts. Unsolicited, unsubstantiated, and unedited.
- 2006 Baseball Predictions
- Very Important, Relative to Me
- The State Was Bad
- Hated It
- Don't Forget to Get Some PDawg
- Public Diplomacy
- The Mystery of the Tri-Lingual Squirrel
- Gonna Tell On You Reviews
- More from Last NIght?
- Oh Goodness Gracious
23 Comments:
I ask this in all seriousness: what is your take on the meaning of suffering?
I learn more about this everyday...but the starting point of my church (and the final example of John Paul II) helps me begin to understand suffering in the proper context. Many people argue that the RC chruch's decidedly non-modern (not a word) position is dreamy or utopian...
My "take" on the meaning of suffering is also decidedly non-modern. My church teaches that pain and suffering (for the body at least) are necessary and real parts of human life. Pleasure and joy are understood (not in the absence of pain) but in the context of pain. Freedom and slavery are also (for me) understood in the same way.
The modern (beginning with the Fracis Bacons of the world) position is that human k. ought to be dedicated to overcoming pain, suffering, decay of the body - all the things that "defeat" man (so say the modern phils). Modern phil of science is dedicated to the conquest of nature - nature is hostile to man and brings us all our ills. For the modern phils, our problems physical and political can be overcome if we just understand and define the components correctly. Our bodies and our cities are like pocketwatches. Let's take 'em apart, see how they work and once we understand them properly we can make them run forever.
Classical phil and Catholic teaching understand nature as (in the case of Aristotle) our home, or (in the case of RC teaching) "good" - not something to be conquered.
To those who might be inclined to argue: 'ed is a dreamer thinking Greek phil, the Roman Catholic church, and his pitiful little faith will help him overcome pain and suffering'...I say:
My church offers (for me) a more realistic view of pain and suffering as a part of all of our lives as opposed to modern philosophy. Read Bacon, Hobbes, Locke etc (all the proponents of what will become the modern view of the supremacy of the scientific method to all over explanations of the natural universe and what it means to know) while you read Frankenstein and you'll understand what I'm saying. This activity will not make anyone Catholic or turn to the classical Greek phils...but it is possible that one will consider the moderns (and later, the positivists BELIEF in the modern scientific method as the panacea for all of our miseries) in the light of its own limitations.
I'm glad you asked your question, and I don't ever think you would mock me or my faith. This may be a sign that I am not such a good Catholic, but this blog is not in the business of evangalizing (mostly because I can't spell the damned word!!!). I know the limits of my position: I can't defend the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood in a rational discussion with my friends who may think such stuff are barbaric and mumbo jumbo bullshit. All I can do is offer my limited questions to the underpinnings of the default position of our times (at least to any who claim that we can know anything that can be called knowable). Enough - back to grading papers for me...........
Word.
As a Catholic, i wonder if it's possible for a Catholic person to live a long, happy, prosperous life without "too much" suffering and still be consiered a "good Catholic." A lot of the "old schoolers" would have you believe that is impossible. No lie, when my kid says or does something saintly, it sometimes scares the crap out of me. c.m.
CM - I think one can have a great deal of success in this world and still be a good Catholic, I wasn't necessarily speaking of daily suffering but more the reality of suffering as a part of the end of life (although it can be a part of life), that's why I used the example of Pope John Paul II. He wielded princely power over the church and millions around the world. He was called a hero (rightly or wrongly) as someone who fought Nazis and the Communists. He survived being shot, forgave his assassin and was raised up in a very this-worldly sense because of it. Even a man as famous and as powerful as that with all that he accomplished felt his mission was incomplete at the end, his body broken and gave up the ghost --- all the while showing us that grace is possible even in suffering.
There is nothing in that story that says we should go out and seek suffering - that's nuts and anybody that tells you the Catholic should seek out pain and suffering in this life - send 'em to me - one long-ass conversation with me about these things will show them new meanings of pain and suffering.
Um, that probably wasn't a very charitable thing for me to say...but as I said above - I'm not always such a good Catholic.
Amen!
to your blog post, not to your above thought.
There is no "wrongly" in construing John Paul II as a hero: he is as worthy of that name as anyone I can think of, and you make a good case.
Maybe not seeking out misery and woe as much as accepting one's fate. If a person is sad, poor, sickly, etc. and they just accept those things rather than try to overcome them, they have a better chance at getting into Heaven. Many Catholics I've encountered say daily suffering isn't something to be fought but is actually a blessing. To which I say - no way! If a person doesn't like their circumstances and they have the power or ability to change them, don't give up, try to change them. Does that put me in the Modern camp? Am I a heretic or what? c.m.
No, that is not my point about the moderns. The main point of comparrison between the moderns and RC theory is on this business of realism. The thought of the moderns that their science and philosophy will cure all of man's ills is utopian (in my opinion).
I am not talking about accepting one's fate either...although there may be something more noble (in my opinion) about a man's ability to be poor and happy than a man who is so driven by success he becomes a leaky jar..never filled no matter how much he has.
Suffering, unlike success offers us a unique opportunity to see God's grace in dark times. Again, I am talking less about suffering in terms of material goods than real pain, disease, death flood or famine beyond our control. To see the hand of God in that sort of shit and place your trust there is what I find beautiful in suffering (and all of this is very easy for me to say since I have never faced real suffering)...EXCEPT GIVING UP SMOKING - MY GOD MY GOD - CAN I PLEASE HAVE A CIG???
uh, sorry you are asking good questions CM. I'm not claiming to answer them. I think the position put forth about changing one's circumstances put forth above is also noble. But I still think there are more important things to overcome in this life than a shitty economic or social state. If one thinks that economics or social circumstances are all that matters, that is a decidedly modern and materialist position...
...and again, perfectly fine to see overcoming these problems as noble and even inspirational...but to me not as inspirational as Christ's broken body on the Cross or the mother-character in the song G.P. did: "The Angels Rejoiced Last Night."
Maybe I am in the dreamy, anti-materialist category by not seeing the struggle over/for material goods as decisive or even a fundamentally important component of human life. Finally, I don't see these things as a problem, just a minor distraction.
i get it i think. JP II and JC led great lives and in the end - by accepting death, they conquered death. On the other hand (just as an example) a person can overcome cancer to win a bike race and still be a piece of human turd. c.m.
I'm an ex-Catholic, current atheist, but I invariably find out that a disproportionate amount of people I like are Catholic or Ex-Catholic. Why is that?
Regarding the New Organon vs. the old one... I couldn't be more with you. And it was great to read this here, re: materialism, historic, philosophical, or otherwise.
Awright - trendite dropping the bacon knowledge on us...
Mmmmmmm bacon
CM:
Re: "On the other hand (just as an example) a person can overcome cancer to win a bike race and still be a piece of human turd."
Exactly.
And if it ever comes out that the blood doping cured him of cancer, boy will he eat a lot of crow.
Oh Mr. Trendite, I forgot to answer your serious question - about people you like being Catholic, or ex-Catholic...
uh, misery loves company?
See, I've just undermined the position I put forth in who knows how many comments.
I'm an idiot.
I'll give you an easier one, edP: why are so many Catholics and ex-Catholics Dylan fans?
And a final question: Do people know that the band name Century of Progress actually refers to the 4th century BCE?
Sorry, I didn't mean to claim Bobby for Catholics, but your post also reminded me of that Tom Paine speech, at least the there is nor right and left anymore, just up and down, and down is very close to the ground and I want to go up part.
Hmm. Perhaps I should get back to work.
...and the Chicago World's Fair likem 1933. There's a lot of those damned Centuries.
I still think the true century of progress was the recording session for Styx's Kilroy Was Here
uh, yeah.
The following is all off-the-cuff observation. I'm just seeing where it leads, not claiming it as My Permanent Personal Philosophy.
I agree that pain & suffering (not only for the body) are necessary and real parts of human life. But I don't think there is any need to ascribe "meaning" to it. It's just there, as the wind is there.
I think there is great nobility in striving to overcome (or at least alter or otherwise deal with) one's pain and suffering, but that doesn't mean anyone will ever be through with it. We overcome Obstacle A only to turn the corner and find Obstacle B. That's just how it goes.
So why bother trying to overcome Obstacle A? To give us something to do, to make us stronger and maybe better able to meet the challenge of Obstacle B, to give us something to talk about at the family reunion.... Which reminds me, I think it's important that you mentioned having never really suffered anything as intense as famine. Seems to me that any talk of philosophy at all is pure luxury. Joe Hunger can't afford to ask what it means to be hungry; he's too busy trying to find a fistful of edible weeds. Only after Joe Hunger stumbles upon a 50# bag of rice (thus overcoming Obstacle A) can he question what all that mess was all about - and maybe try to prepare for whatever Obstacle B might be.
I have no problem with science, and in fact I think science has the potential to explain the world (what many people try to pin on God), as long as we don't blow up the place first. But I don't see any reason to aim for immortality through science. At the moment, I have no problem with death - which is not to say that I'm looking forward to it, just that it's going to happen eventually and it probably won't be pretty but I'd rather have it happen in, say, my 70s than in my 90s. I definitely don't want to be 92 years old with no family left and out there on Pulaski "running" for a bus. I also don't want to croak tomorrow.
To me, this is what science has brought us: we don't get flattened by runaway trains anymore, and that frees us up to die of cancer and heart disease. When science cures cancer and heart disease, we'll suffocate in our hovercraft or something. Again, it's just trading in Obstacle A for Obstacle B.
Did I actually say anything? I'm not sure. Sure took up a lot of space, though.
rabbi...you rock.
trendite, I think the answer to your question is just a matter of the brains mechanisms continuing along the same paths. Catholics simply "think" alike, and part of the charm of it is this anti-materialism and distrust of modernity. There's an interesting tension between the Catholic character and the American character, so rooted in Protestantism. Shit, I'll just go blog about it myself.
Have to say did not expect to participate in such a deep discussion but, oh well.
Do we really have to compartmentalize the RC and Moderns? Can’t they both hold context in the evolution conscious thought? Could they not both be a part of God’s plan to bring us along from a mental and spiritual state. I find the amazing thing about the Gospels is that if you approach them as a lesson and not fact. They can still be relevant today as they were thousands of years ago. The problem we have is our greatest sin. Pride. We are so terrified by our own mortality and have this overpowering need to define things. So we define God as being like us. Even though we will state he is Omni everything and beginning and end, yada yada yada. I even do it when I say “he”.
I just think that nothing needs to be discarded as wrong and right. There might be small nuggets of wisdom in strange places. I find most of philosophy pretty interesting but would not follow anyone to the letter. Marx, Nietzsche, and even Machiavelli to a lesser extent. Have interesting points about human behavior and society in general. Should we discard all of there thinking because it was distorted by the period of time they lived?
On a different note. If more RC’s were as introspective and thoughtful. Might not have some of the critisim. Most I know think they are better than most because they give up meat on Fridays during lent. Can’t quite put my finger on why some people can be so proud they punch a clock on Sunday and what that does for you spirt but, eh. You can’t be an ass six and half days and expect that will make up for it. Or maybe you can, don’t know.
Oh and might be a Protestant heathen but the Pope was a great man. I say “The Pope” Pope John Paul II is really the only Pope I picture when I think “The Pope”.
Very nice site!
make with affiliate program air purifier can you take zyrtec alone with flexiril 2003 mazda protege 5 review cambridge minor hockey didrex cod buying vicodin what is tramadol interior decorating2f design schools toronto home security supplies suzuki intruder jpg attorney brooklyn malpractice surgical receive faxes
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.
» »
Enjoyed a lot! Camping in southern indiana Benefit c vitamin Farmer insurance dallas 20 assurance insurance life life life quote term acne product 49 ford low rider reviews detectors radar Canadian health pharmacy pharmacy plan aquamarine jewelry sets zoloft buy online Bulk email organisations philantropic Lehigh acres cataract laser surgery Internet currency trading system
Post a Comment
<< Home