Sunday, July 02, 2006

Time and Discernment

"From the diversity in this conflict there arises a delay...which is so beneficial to us that when...we cannot immediately pursue to the end what we have wickedly conceived, we are sometimes changed for the better because of the subsequent remorse or the reconsideration that usually follows upon postponing a work and thinking about it in the interval."
--attributed to Abba Daniel by St. John Cassian

Herein lies much of the danger of the internet, cellphones, remote controls on televisions and the like. Not long ago, if we wanted to indulge even in somewhat innocuous activities like reading news magazines, we had to go out and buy them. If we only had one to read, then we stuck with it because there was nothing else to do. Now, as one priest put it to me, on the net we are a click or two away from an occasion of mortal sin at all times. Clicking or zapping doesn't take much effort nor time.

Again, I would contrast monastic life to this. Many of the customs and rules are in place precisely to prevent monks from following impulses, even good ones. As I was looking up the quote from St. Cassian in my journal,** I came across this similar sentiment from Adrienne von Speyr:

"And in everything that happens, one constantly finds Samuel holding some decided viewpoint, not wrong in itself, yet having, in each case, to obey and change. God does not accept the things that Samuel does right but, rather, integrates them into something still better, allows the natural to be overcome by the supernatural, reason by faith, insight by obedience."

In other words, time, delay and frustration of our impulses gives us the opportunity to listen more closely for God's instruction, which is life. Time is really a great gift to us. The angels, who do not experience time, do not enjoy this gift. Time allows growth, gives room for repentance, trains us in perseverance and humility. Yet many of our modern tools, while billed as 'time-saving' devices, in fact rob us of the true fruits of a time-bound existence because they keep us from experiencing time at all. Tolkien observed somewhere that machines narrow the gap between idea and execution. This wouldn't be such a bad thing if all of our ideas were golden and pure.

**Out of respect for what I understood was the Church's ambivalence regarding the sainthood of John Cassian (he has been considered by some to be a semi-Pelagian), I used to refrain from giving him the title 'saint' even though he is so regarded in the Benedictine world. However, I recently discovered to my delight that he is twice referred to in the Catechism as St. John Cassian. So my reticence is not needed. Three cheers for St. John Cassian, our great monastic father!

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re: we are sometimes changed for the better because of the subsequent remorse or the reconsideration that usually follows upon postponing a work and thinking about it in the interval.

This seems on the surface to be a tolerance for relative repentance. How does this philosophy square with Jesus' understanding in the gospel referring to sins of lust, when he says that if we even "think" about it, we have already sinned...? Is the delay just another way of allowing us to postpone our sin for another day? If so, the delay seems to be Satanic in origin, rather than a chance for acting in a godly manner.

Prior Peter, OSB said...

Cassian explains this phenomenon better than I did perhaps (this is Conference 4), but I think what he had in mind is quite sensible. If a person is impelled by desire or even addiction to surf the net looking for forbidden images, and then his internet connection goes out, his inability to surf gives him an opportunity to think about what he is doing, realize it is wrong, and take measures not to fall into the same mistake.

Or imagine a diabetic with a sweet tooth at a dinner party. The hosts come around with a piece of cake. He knows he should not eat it, but vanity and his desire to eat the cake overrule the prudence he ought to practice. But then the guest next to him spills coffee on his cake. There are no pieces left. He now has been spared committing a sin of negligence and is given the chance to analyze where he went wrong and avoid this sin in the future.

Someone who fully intends to go back and commit the sin he was unable to commit because of a delay is hardened in sin. Cassian is not writing for someone like that, but for those who are striving for godly lives but finding the pull of the flesh difficult to overcome.

Anonymous said...

I understand the point being made, however, Cassian's response does not answer the question of where responsibility begins or how an individual is able (or even allowed) to discern culpability.

Prior Peter, OSB said...

Perhaps we need to back up and look at Cassian's theology of discernment: he assumes that we enter our life of asceticism as sinners prone to demonic suggestion. We are indeed culpable for listening to suggestions to do evil. It takes time, effort and experience to learn how to say no to temptation. We always need the help of grace, and sometimes this comes in the form of an obstacle to carrying out a sinful action, and in this interval we have the opportunity to recognize the wrongness of the proposed action and repent.

Also helpful to bear in mind is that Cassian's teacher, Evagrius, considered some demons to be 'almost quicker than thought': those demons being fornication and blasphemy. In other words, our own minds aren't keen enough when we begin to cut these thoughts off before we assent in some way. I think that this is empirically true: even very experienced Desert Abbas admitted that they were unable to have only pure thoughts about attractive virgins, for example.

Finally, there is also a desert tradition, that culminates in Maximus the Confessor, in which degrees of sin are enumerated. We can entertain a thought, and as such, while we haven't necessarily consented to it, by flirting with it we have already sinned to a certain extent and ought to repent as soon as we recognize this. But again, flirting with potential thoughts of lust is a far cry in terms of seriousness from the actual commission of fornication. This is in no way saying that we can afford such flirting, only to note that most of us, when we begin the spiritual struggle, aren't strong enough and don't possess keen enough minds to recognize that this is what we are doing.

Hope that this is helping! I recommend reading the whole Conference and maybe even Evagrius' "Praktikos" for a more complete and objective presentation of this tradition.

Anonymous said...

Re: "We are indeed culpable for listening to suggestions to do evil."

Surely you can't really believe this; our culpability can only begin after an intent toward sin, now for the temptation.

Re: "We always need the help of grace, and sometimes this comes in the form of an obstacle to carrying out a sinful action"

This can not be either. If God allows an obstacle in the path of our sinful activity, then He is interfering with our freedom to choose. During our temptation we are always promised a way out, already present, already available. To introduce an obstacle denies our right (and I say it as a Christian right) to say yes or no to sin.

Prior Peter, OSB said...

Anonymous said...
Re: "We are indeed culpable for listening to suggestions to do evil."

(anon replies:) Surely you can't really believe this; our culpability can only begin after an intent toward sin, now for the temptation.

(Prior Peter:) I mean that when we listen, in the sense of 'entertain' (in contrast merely to 'hearing' and dismissing), we go further than being tempted: we give the temptation room to work on us. As I tried to explain, this does not approach the level of sin of active consent and action, but it compromises our ability to refuse the temptation.

An example: to walk down a street where there is a suggestive billboard is not in itself a sin; but if somewhere in the back of my mind I'm choosing to do this because I might see this image and enjoy it, well, I'd be better off taking another route and not giving any opportunity to the devil. We might not be aware that we are listening to a suggestion of evil in this case; indeed, it is the constant witness from Cassian to John of the Cross that a difficulty in discernment is that the devil isn't obvious at first. But this doesn't mean we aren't bound to fight against him once we have some knowledge of his tricks.

I am also accepting the fact that we are inclined to this entertainment of sin; this is what we would call Original Sin in one sense, the defect in our wills that inclines us to choose selfishly.

Re: "We always need the help of grace, and sometimes this comes in the form of an obstacle to carrying out a sinful action"

(anon. replies:) This can not be either. If God allows an obstacle in the path of our sinful activity, then He is interfering with our freedom to choose....

I will also stand by what I wrote in this case. God does not in any way comprimise our freedom by acting in our lives. The delay provides an opportunity to repent, nothing more. If we really desire to commit the sin, the delay won't affect anything.

Let's take St. Paul on the road to Damascus. Did Jesus or did He not interfere with Paul's plans to arrest the Christians? Did God thus interfere with Paul's freedom? This was a moment of grace for Paul, but he needed to accept it. He could have recovered and decided to go and arrest the Christians after all. Thank God, he repented of his plans, affirmed that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead and became the great Apostle.

I am grateful for your comments and the opportunity to clarify for you what I intend. I hope that you find this persuasive.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we should distinguish between an "interference" - Jesus interfence with Paul on the way to Damascus, and an "obstacle" - getting in a car wreck on the way to adultery. I'm sure time probably plays somewhat of a role and certainly our response to the "interference/obstacle" increases or decreases our culpability for the sin. BUT, how can we deny any responsibility for our intent (not our inclination) to commit sin, or our refusal to avoid the circumstance - especially in the fact that the gospel clearly indicates the sin of intent for even thinking about it, as Jesus discusses "lusting in one's heart".

Paul chose to deny the trip to Damascus. But since his intent was to persecute the Christian Jews, until he repented, he had to be held accountable for the sin of intent. Otherwise, there would be no need to "interfere".

Imprimatur

This blog is published with ecclesiastical approval.


If I, who seem to be your right hand and am called Presbyter and seem to
preach the Word of God, If I do something against the discipline of the Church
and the Rule of the Gospel so that I become a scandal to you, The Church, then
may the whole Church, in unanimous resolve, cut me, its right hand, off, and
throw me away.


Origen of Alexandria
Locations of visitors to this page