Essay 1.
The hierarchical model of asceticism was primarily based in the Greek philosophical school, in which the whole of the cosmos fit into a structured order of higher and lower. The spiritual realities, pneuma, were ranked higher then those things bound to the physical, material worlds, bound in the hyle. Thus, when those of a Greek background began taking up the new religion of Christianity for their own, they continued to hold onto their hierarchical understanding of the world, transferring this philosophy into a new theological context. This model tends to see the body and the physical in contradiction, constant opposition or obstacle to the spiritual plane that one should aspire to, in their understanding.
I primarily see this as a weakness in ones taking up of a mode of asceticism. Coming from a background of theological study which was ingrained not only in an understanding of this hierarchy, but which took this philosophical hierarchy ex cathedra, so to speak, I have seen its many detrimental effects. One tends to see the world as a “prison or cage” as this hierarchy begins to steep every aspect of ones life and thought. Ones “spiritual life” can easily become something in a sense detached from ones work, interaction and whole life. This philosophy taken over to theological contexts, in my experience, transferred an entire student body’s understanding of gender, filtered individual personalities into “a role,” and emphasized reason as higher then emotion. I find these issues to contend and we should gravely question whether or not the cosmos should be so strictly categorized, or in a theological context, whether Christ desires this compartmentalization of our entire being, for separation and disunity are always the result of the fall. Moreover, this hierarchy seems to be in contradiction to the message of Christ who says: “My yoke is easy and my burden light.” In this Christ commands us to take up his yoke, that yoke he carries being a very physical cross, one which we must embrace in heart, mind, strength and soul: in every aspect of our being. This hierarchy even seems to contrast with Saint Paul in his words to the Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free person, woman nor man (imagine the cultural shock of a Greek audience),” Lastly I see it in contrast to the “baptismal equality” of John Paul II.
The incarnational model of asceticism can be seen demonstrated in the thought and lives of two thirteenths century men, Francis and Bonaventure. “The world itself was for Francis that form in which God may be known, loved and served. The sensible world, far from distracting a person fro the greater reality of abstractions, was the arena in which the activity of God could be discerned. Francis’ goal was not to free himself from the sensible world, but to practice holiness in participation with it (Miles, 115).” Perhaps a good illustration or expression of the incarnational model of asceticism is the [Benedictine] motto “Ora et labora,” which it seems links the call to pray unceasingly and yet to be living in equilibrium between body and soul, balanced, and as far as is possible, restoring the state of “Integritas.”
According to Miles’ understanding, the existential intentionality of all of humanity partakes in a particular energy, what she defines as a “desperate and unconscious demand: “the flesh” (Miles, 22).” I believe that in this century there is (perhaps a greater need then in past eras for a) new and positive asceticism, one which recognizes and properly channels the power and beauty of what “the flesh” speaks, both to and of our identity. I believe that this mysterious, magnetic force which Miles describes in the traditional semantics of Saint Paul (who introduced this terminology) is possibly a type of divine imprint, or map, ingrained in our being, in order to direct us towards the completion of our being, a concept not limited to the intellectual, dogmatic formulations of the Christian tradition, but rooted in every culture; in every heart.
The reason I suggest that a new asceticism is greatly needed in our time, is that the “desperate and unconscious demand” we observe in ourselves and humanity seems to have been heightened. We stand in the bleak ruins of the emotional and spiritual disasters of communism, ideologies spreading the love and honor death, world wars, and atomic bombs. The state of dehydration of the spirit within us, the lack of the nourishment one finds in meditation, silence, and inner quiet, creates a man more desperate and spirit-starved then in any known culture. The lacking of connection to “the source” is greater, ergo the desperation and demand is greater. The relentless demands of the flesh can only be satisfied by one-ness with the Life-source. Miles posits that the effect of the flesh’s desire being directed towards (and taking control of) the body, and the natural desires of the body, leads to an “agenda of sex, power and possession (Miles, 23).” There is evidence in observance of history and society that the flesh has generally taken control of the body in modern American culture, for these three goals are at the fiber of the media, trade and virtually every aspect of life in America today.
Any ascetic practice requires the body’s continual state of “nourishment and patterns of habit” to be reset, in order to reset the state of the soul, as they are intrinsically connected. At Miles’ suggestion, I believe it would be helpful to periodically “alter our eating patterns (which) . . . then loosens that detachment,” along with media fasts. I believe an effective way of implementing this in mainstream society is to bring to mind the very central focus of health already present and demonstrate as far as possible that spiritual health and physical health are intrinsically connected. Statistics and medical sciences (credible sources of knowledge to our society) reflect that, for example, multiple, random sexual partners is simply unhealthy and percentage wise, points to early death or illness. This could be seen as pointing to the soul-body link. Modern Americans already understand thoroughly that eating well is a good to be sought which makes one feel better, perform better, etc. We can very easily raise this already present understanding to the next level and incorporate the spiritual.
Essay 2.
In Paulsell’s writing, one considers the image of families eating together around a table. This image is highly symbolic in the Christian tradition (i.e., icons of the Trinity at a table). The meal symbolizes and brings about communion. It is reflective of the liturgical banquet, the sharing of persons, or inter-personal relation: another Trinitarian image found within the familial gathering.
The center of the whole of our Catholic faith is transubstantiated bread and wine. In this we can come to recognize our constant need and recognize our vulnerability within our need. We come to know in a very imminent way our own fragility and dependence in the experience of hunger. This physical state of need is also a state of soul. Our spiritual nourishment comes in the material form of actual physical nourishment, again, since the state of the body and soul is interconnected.
America’s eating habits seem to point to a general trend of a “starved” soul. The bulimic and the over-eater can’t fill themselves with enough food, as they have transferred that unrelenting, intangible hunger upon a finite, tangible thing.
The desert fathers and mothers had to maintain a state of constant dependence on God, similar to the Israelites, who relied upon the daily manna. One nun of Jerusalem, told of in the book Harlots of the Desert, “filled [a] basket with loaves and [a] jar with water and prayed . . . asking God that he would bless these loaves and this water so that they would last [her] until the end of my life. (Ward, 30).” From this perspective, one meets God in the desert, not always literally, but that state of complete dependence, of every aspect of oneself: and trust in Him to fulfill every form of hunger, both tangible and intangible.
Essay 3.
Both Augustine and John Paul go back to the beginning (genesis) of man to attempt and understand the state of man today, for one knows oneself better by knowing where one is coming from. Both are personalists, looking inside themselves and their own experience of life, sin and grace in grasping for an understanding of man before the fall. Augustine posited that “in the original human person, the will was intact and the motivation of the person was a delight I the intrinsically value object of human life (Miles, 65).” In this Augustine believed that originally man’s love were both properly ordered and freely given.
John Paul develops this idea when he discussed the “freedom of the gift.” This is that state in which man formerly dwelled, in which the body-soul flourished in the state of “integrity.” In this state, the body reveals the heart nakedly, honestly. Communication barriers disintegrate as a result of this honesty; one’s self-gift is self-less, of love.
Certain problems I see in John Paul’s “Original Unity” are 1) its esoteric, dense language, 2) its repititiousness 3) its sometimes vague and wordy deifinitions. His message is I believe life-changing and very crucial to the way we live our bodies and our faith, but as such, I believe it could have been more prudent to bring this “theology of the body” to the church in a more down-to-earth manner.
On the other hand, I also see its vague definition as a benefit, for if John Paul were to define “freedom of the gift” more solidly it possibly would not allow for a broad range of individual readings and life application. Every vocation or calling requires this gift, but each in different ways. So, I believe that if John Paul had focused on a specific, down-to-earth way of practicing this theology and self-gift, it would immediately be limited to those people living a state or calling which allows that particular manner of self-gift. For example, the nurse and the lawyer both give of themselves, but on different levels. He does not limit “freedom of the gift” to one particular calling. However, I do think John Paul ideally should have defined the differing levels of self-gift, for one sees obviously the self-gift of the celibate to be quite different from the married persons or the single person.
The hierarchical model of asceticism was primarily based in the Greek philosophical school, in which the whole of the cosmos fit into a structured order of higher and lower. The spiritual realities, pneuma, were ranked higher then those things bound to the physical, material worlds, bound in the hyle. Thus, when those of a Greek background began taking up the new religion of Christianity for their own, they continued to hold onto their hierarchical understanding of the world, transferring this philosophy into a new theological context. This model tends to see the body and the physical in contradiction, constant opposition or obstacle to the spiritual plane that one should aspire to, in their understanding.
I primarily see this as a weakness in ones taking up of a mode of asceticism. Coming from a background of theological study which was ingrained not only in an understanding of this hierarchy, but which took this philosophical hierarchy ex cathedra, so to speak, I have seen its many detrimental effects. One tends to see the world as a “prison or cage” as this hierarchy begins to steep every aspect of ones life and thought. Ones “spiritual life” can easily become something in a sense detached from ones work, interaction and whole life. This philosophy taken over to theological contexts, in my experience, transferred an entire student body’s understanding of gender, filtered individual personalities into “a role,” and emphasized reason as higher then emotion. I find these issues to contend and we should gravely question whether or not the cosmos should be so strictly categorized, or in a theological context, whether Christ desires this compartmentalization of our entire being, for separation and disunity are always the result of the fall. Moreover, this hierarchy seems to be in contradiction to the message of Christ who says: “My yoke is easy and my burden light.” In this Christ commands us to take up his yoke, that yoke he carries being a very physical cross, one which we must embrace in heart, mind, strength and soul: in every aspect of our being. This hierarchy even seems to contrast with Saint Paul in his words to the Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free person, woman nor man (imagine the cultural shock of a Greek audience),” Lastly I see it in contrast to the “baptismal equality” of John Paul II.
The incarnational model of asceticism can be seen demonstrated in the thought and lives of two thirteenths century men, Francis and Bonaventure. “The world itself was for Francis that form in which God may be known, loved and served. The sensible world, far from distracting a person fro the greater reality of abstractions, was the arena in which the activity of God could be discerned. Francis’ goal was not to free himself from the sensible world, but to practice holiness in participation with it (Miles, 115).” Perhaps a good illustration or expression of the incarnational model of asceticism is the [Benedictine] motto “Ora et labora,” which it seems links the call to pray unceasingly and yet to be living in equilibrium between body and soul, balanced, and as far as is possible, restoring the state of “Integritas.”
According to Miles’ understanding, the existential intentionality of all of humanity partakes in a particular energy, what she defines as a “desperate and unconscious demand: “the flesh” (Miles, 22).” I believe that in this century there is (perhaps a greater need then in past eras for a) new and positive asceticism, one which recognizes and properly channels the power and beauty of what “the flesh” speaks, both to and of our identity. I believe that this mysterious, magnetic force which Miles describes in the traditional semantics of Saint Paul (who introduced this terminology) is possibly a type of divine imprint, or map, ingrained in our being, in order to direct us towards the completion of our being, a concept not limited to the intellectual, dogmatic formulations of the Christian tradition, but rooted in every culture; in every heart.
The reason I suggest that a new asceticism is greatly needed in our time, is that the “desperate and unconscious demand” we observe in ourselves and humanity seems to have been heightened. We stand in the bleak ruins of the emotional and spiritual disasters of communism, ideologies spreading the love and honor death, world wars, and atomic bombs. The state of dehydration of the spirit within us, the lack of the nourishment one finds in meditation, silence, and inner quiet, creates a man more desperate and spirit-starved then in any known culture. The lacking of connection to “the source” is greater, ergo the desperation and demand is greater. The relentless demands of the flesh can only be satisfied by one-ness with the Life-source. Miles posits that the effect of the flesh’s desire being directed towards (and taking control of) the body, and the natural desires of the body, leads to an “agenda of sex, power and possession (Miles, 23).” There is evidence in observance of history and society that the flesh has generally taken control of the body in modern American culture, for these three goals are at the fiber of the media, trade and virtually every aspect of life in America today.
Any ascetic practice requires the body’s continual state of “nourishment and patterns of habit” to be reset, in order to reset the state of the soul, as they are intrinsically connected. At Miles’ suggestion, I believe it would be helpful to periodically “alter our eating patterns (which) . . . then loosens that detachment,” along with media fasts. I believe an effective way of implementing this in mainstream society is to bring to mind the very central focus of health already present and demonstrate as far as possible that spiritual health and physical health are intrinsically connected. Statistics and medical sciences (credible sources of knowledge to our society) reflect that, for example, multiple, random sexual partners is simply unhealthy and percentage wise, points to early death or illness. This could be seen as pointing to the soul-body link. Modern Americans already understand thoroughly that eating well is a good to be sought which makes one feel better, perform better, etc. We can very easily raise this already present understanding to the next level and incorporate the spiritual.
Essay 2.
In Paulsell’s writing, one considers the image of families eating together around a table. This image is highly symbolic in the Christian tradition (i.e., icons of the Trinity at a table). The meal symbolizes and brings about communion. It is reflective of the liturgical banquet, the sharing of persons, or inter-personal relation: another Trinitarian image found within the familial gathering.
The center of the whole of our Catholic faith is transubstantiated bread and wine. In this we can come to recognize our constant need and recognize our vulnerability within our need. We come to know in a very imminent way our own fragility and dependence in the experience of hunger. This physical state of need is also a state of soul. Our spiritual nourishment comes in the material form of actual physical nourishment, again, since the state of the body and soul is interconnected.
America’s eating habits seem to point to a general trend of a “starved” soul. The bulimic and the over-eater can’t fill themselves with enough food, as they have transferred that unrelenting, intangible hunger upon a finite, tangible thing.
The desert fathers and mothers had to maintain a state of constant dependence on God, similar to the Israelites, who relied upon the daily manna. One nun of Jerusalem, told of in the book Harlots of the Desert, “filled [a] basket with loaves and [a] jar with water and prayed . . . asking God that he would bless these loaves and this water so that they would last [her] until the end of my life. (Ward, 30).” From this perspective, one meets God in the desert, not always literally, but that state of complete dependence, of every aspect of oneself: and trust in Him to fulfill every form of hunger, both tangible and intangible.
Essay 3.
Both Augustine and John Paul go back to the beginning (genesis) of man to attempt and understand the state of man today, for one knows oneself better by knowing where one is coming from. Both are personalists, looking inside themselves and their own experience of life, sin and grace in grasping for an understanding of man before the fall. Augustine posited that “in the original human person, the will was intact and the motivation of the person was a delight I the intrinsically value object of human life (Miles, 65).” In this Augustine believed that originally man’s love were both properly ordered and freely given.
John Paul develops this idea when he discussed the “freedom of the gift.” This is that state in which man formerly dwelled, in which the body-soul flourished in the state of “integrity.” In this state, the body reveals the heart nakedly, honestly. Communication barriers disintegrate as a result of this honesty; one’s self-gift is self-less, of love.
Certain problems I see in John Paul’s “Original Unity” are 1) its esoteric, dense language, 2) its repititiousness 3) its sometimes vague and wordy deifinitions. His message is I believe life-changing and very crucial to the way we live our bodies and our faith, but as such, I believe it could have been more prudent to bring this “theology of the body” to the church in a more down-to-earth manner.
On the other hand, I also see its vague definition as a benefit, for if John Paul were to define “freedom of the gift” more solidly it possibly would not allow for a broad range of individual readings and life application. Every vocation or calling requires this gift, but each in different ways. So, I believe that if John Paul had focused on a specific, down-to-earth way of practicing this theology and self-gift, it would immediately be limited to those people living a state or calling which allows that particular manner of self-gift. For example, the nurse and the lawyer both give of themselves, but on different levels. He does not limit “freedom of the gift” to one particular calling. However, I do think John Paul ideally should have defined the differing levels of self-gift, for one sees obviously the self-gift of the celibate to be quite different from the married persons or the single person.
posted by Velvet @ 5:55 AM
6 comments
