|
|
May 25, 2005The Mystery of SufferingThe post below has inspired a pretty interesting discussion among a few readers, and since frequently good comments are lost as blogs move on, I thought I would take a moment to bring up a few points made by Joe and Victor and invite other readers to throw out their opinions. Suffering, and the mystery of suffering, is a universal mystery. Since everyone suffers, everyone has their own take on it. As reader Robert says: Life is hard. Life is also good, but first it is hard. As the dialogue in the comments thread naturally evolved, I am picking things up by excerpting portions of the last two posts. If you feel you’re not up to speed, you can go read what came before, but I’m not sure it’s necessary. Much of it was throat-clearing and clarification. These two excerpts, I think, are the meat and potatoes: Reader Victor Eremita wrote: …The point is not that there is no suffering in our age, but that because we prefer to escape suffering at all costs if we can, suffering has become unfree and thus meaningless to those who do suffer. …I think it’s fair to say of Kierkegaard that as a man of privileged upbringing, racked though he may have been by private suicidal depression, he was also perhaps insufficiently moved by or familiar with the actual, physical suffering which other less fortunate people than himself endured–he would, I suspect, have said that the suffering of any person as compared with the suffering of another person differs only in ‘quantity not quality’ and is thus essentially no different, religiously considered. Either may become a path to God, but both individuals, should they choose these different paths, reach the same God in the end. The difference, I suppose, is that suffering is the task for both religions, but while one has a goal in mind in this world–the eradication of suffering–the other regards the goal of suffering as the infinite next world; suffering is not itself considered a problem to be wiped out. The one stands opposed to suffering, the other submits to it as a just punishment. Joseph Marshall wrote: “From what little I know of Buddhism, I understand that it is very centered on the good works by which one alleviates the physical sufferings of others in this world.” More precisely, it seeks to eradicate the primary causes of suffering for each individual. The Dharma states that the root cause of any suffering has to do with our misperception of the world as something solid, permanent, and ultimately real, which is opposed to a “self” which is also definite, permanent, and ultimately real. The actual dynamics of our immediate suffering are far more complex than this primary root cause. They are like a tangled granny knot in a string. But the specific practices of Buddhism are designed to unravel that knot loop by loop in order to finally percieve the world properly and cease to suffer. Cultivating generosity (”good works”) is part of this series of practices and it functions not only to relieve the immediate suffering of others, but also to erode the illusion that the world is something real and independent from who we “really are”. There are many other practices which exist as well, with equally precise functions from the vantage point of the Buddhist goal. I like that description, Joe, because it is, in some ways, not so very far apart from what some contemplatives - most notably the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing have taught - that some (or much) suffering is derived from our own inability (or unwillingness) to simply “allow” the world (or, the Holy Spirit in her manifest workings) to unfold around us without reacting, too quickly, too harshly, and TOO FEARFULLY. It is REACTING, rather than RESPONDING . The fear, of course, feeds the reacting, causing us to make further and further missteps, each one of which takes us farther and farther away from our Creator, our Source, and the One who came to draw us near, to bring us closer, once again. The One who said, “Be not afraid. I go before you,” whom we call “The Savior.” This is, actually, the common truth that I find between Buddhism and contemplative Christianity (Contemplation is an element of Christianity too little explored, I think, in the main) that in both cases, the Christian and the Buddhist are trying to move beyond simple, often destructive REACTION into a more accepting, constructive, “move with the flow” RESPONSE…until they grow to the point where even RESPONSE is trained down, less caught up in wondering, and more at home in wonder. I think that is, on a very basic level, on track, Joe, but I’ll wait for your correction! I think Victor’s remarks are also very interesting, but I take exception to his last line (although I am willing to entertain the notion that the line is an incomplete thought and a hastily thrown together endline). Christianity does NOT look at suffering as “punishment to be endured.” God is just, but Christ made clear to us that suffering is not meted out as “just punishment” when he told the apostles that the blind man’s blindness was NOT due to “his sin or his parents,” but rather, that God’s Glory might be made evident in him. Then he used mud and spittle to cure the blindness, but the healing is incidental. I think it was one part, “sigh, these people need more tangible proof to understand,” and part, “this poor fellow’s been dragged over to me like an exploitable piece of meat, being used to make a theological point; the least I can do is heal him!” What was not incidental was the message: “This is so that God’s glory may be known.” And that is a key to the whole Christian concept of suffering. That God’s glory may be known. Perhaps not to “the whole world,” but to each of us, within ourselves. In acknowledging that suffering is part of the brokenness of the world, and that we all - everyone one of us - suffer (and sometimes the suffering is very great) we understand that, as St. Peter wrote, our sufferings will never be more than we can bear. This is a clue and also a cue. It is a heads up from St. Peter to not be too overwhelmed to look around in our suffering, with expectation. Because if the suffering cannot be more than we can bear, then both corporeal and spiritual help is on the way, if we are willing to seek and recognise it. Some of that recognition will be of a deeper and less tangible, ultimately deeply personal and internalized sort. But before anything else happens, we need to raise our heads and look around. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. (Psalm 110:7) And this is the whole mystery of the passion and death of Christ, and why Catholics (to the frustration of some Protestants) keep the Crucifix before their eyes, rather than the abandoned cross. To be sure, we value both, but during his Passion - from Gethsemane, on, Christ knew suffering, and it was a holistic suffering of the body, mind and the spirit (as is most suffering). “Father, let this cup pass…” “My God, why have you forsaken me…” And yet his suffering and death were the necessary means to an end without them, there would be no resurrection…moreover there would be no constant and concrete example to the world -and to each and every individual in it - that he knew and shared in the human experience of suffering, having willfully entered into it, with his eyes wide open. Having done so, he shows us that suffering has meaning and transcendent value, and he invites us to nail our sufferings up there with his, so that all of it may become the transcendent means to something finer, and greater and more glorious than we can conjure in our feeble imaginings. His suffering, like ours was met with some small corporeal relief. Veronica wiping his face (not scriptural, but traditional), Simon helping him carry the cross, the meager offer of moisture for his lips. Very small relief; within the context of his huge suffering, these acts seem all but meaningless…but I think we are given those examples in scripture to remind us to look around, that yes, when we are suffering, others are offering help, small kindnesses, prayers, and so we are never alone. We are helped on the way, as Christ was helped, but ultimately, our crosses are ours to embrace, not for punishment. But, perhaps, for wisdom, and for stengthening and, for the sustaining humility our suffering brings, the humility to understand that we cannot make it alone and must cry out, “Abba, Father.” St. Theresa of Avila said, “If in all things thou seeketh Jesus, doubtless you will find him.” St. James said, “draw near to God and he will draw near to thee.” In our suffering this is a drawing near and a gathering of wild - almost primitive - intimacy. And none of it is meaningless, partly because nothing in the sphere of human experience (sex, success, failure, love, hate, death) CAN be meaningless, unless humanity itself decrees it so, and partly because this mystery is wrapped up in St. Paul’s teaching: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church. Should suffering be alleviated when it can be, particularly if there is no ethical or moral impediment, if there is no risk that another human being’s humanity will be infringed upon? Yes, of course. But sometimes, as John Paul II showed us, suffering is simply all about playing the hand you are dealt. Suffering is a mystery, and it is an intimate one, bound up in all of your love, all of your fear, all of your hate, all of your failings and joys. It is literally for the Christian, where the rubber meets the road. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/05/25/the-mystery-of-suffering/trackback/ 48 Responses to “The Mystery of Suffering” |
Site SyndicationAdvertise on this blog   
      
 BlogrollMeta Data
|
May 25th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Fascinating…
…conversation going on over at The Anchoress’ following her posts here and here on what is ultimately the mystery of suffering. I haven’t been blogging long, but there are few bloggers whose pain I’ve felt as keenly as the dear
May 25th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
:The last essay in ‘Either/Or’ is entitled ‘The edifying in the thought that against God we are always in the wrong’. The pseudonymous author begins by a comparison to human relationships–if another person whom you do not love has wronged you, then you may feel a certain vindication and pleasure in being in the right. But if you love the other person–and so stand in an eternal relation to that person, the last thing you want is to be in the right against them–your love will not suffer itself to be disturbed by mere human ethics or mere human reason. This can only be more true in a relationship with God, which is the archetype and absolute of loving relationships. So while by human standards a person who has chosen to be religious may not have committed any crime which has deserved suffering, still he accepts suffering as one who is guilty before God. Because he believes he is or may be guilty, he suffers not merely physically or in actuality but spiritually: this is necessary because otherwise suffering becomes merely something imposed from without and not a freely chosen part of the inner, spiritual life. This at least is my understanding of the idea–though as so often happens in discussions of the problem of pain, it sounds unspeakably callous. But it should be borne in mind that the loving relationship with God is one into which each person must choose to enter (not, of course, that God’s own love for that person depends on that choice) and that as you say no one person is by accident of birth, by fate, chance, or any other quality of actuality, any guiltier than another–since the religious stands higher than reality in the inner realm of the spirit and of possibility.
:But in so far as ‘punishment’ suggests earthly justice or culpability and something imposed from without regardless of individual choice, I agree that it is not the right word.
May 25th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Taking the kids to choir practice tonight, think I’ll print it out and take it with me to the church.
BTW, I borrowed ‘House of Brede’ from the local library on your recommendation. Will report as I progress.
May 25th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Anchoress: You are a splendid writer. Thank you for this post . . .
May 25th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
On Suffering
Much to think about after reading this post”> at the “Anchoress”. Suffering is a mystery, and it is an intimate…
May 25th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
I think it’s St. Paul who says that thing about not having burdens greater than we can bear. At least, the verse I found was 1Cor.10:13 “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man, but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” I have to say, I absolutely HATE it when people say to me “God never gives you more than you can bear” when they hear that I have 3 autistic kids. It just sounds so glib coming from people who don’t have the problem. And I suspect that at some level it’s a way of washing their hands of me: “Well, if you’ve got the problem, then you’re de facto strong enough to handle it, so there’s nothing that I have to do.” And if I fail, then I guess that’s my fault, too. I must have just been too lazy or didn’t try hard enough, because if God’s arranged things like this, then obviously I *could* have made a success out of all this if I’d wanted to. It just really bugs me. I don’t know if that’s really what St. Paul is talking about, anyway. Is he talking about “suffering” in general, or is it more specifically spiritual trials - loss of faith, doubt in the goodness or even the existence of God? There’s more than enough of that kind of burden to bear, and perhaps he meant that the path to God is never closed off, no matter how desperate things look. I don’t know if you can extend that to mean that a woman with kids setting fires, breaking glass jars and crapping all over the house will never have a nervous breakdown if she just has the right attitude. That’s not the way it works with me.
May 25th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Wanda, I’m sorry to hear that you are having such a hard time. Doesn’t your husband help you? Do you have relatives who can help you too?
May 25th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
The nuns in school use to say “Offer it up” whenever we had a pain or complaint. Never being able to connect this to a God is love teaching, I left the church. I came back 30 years later and found Father Jim Willig who taught me about the love of Christ in a very profound way. Soon, Father Jim was diagnosed with cancer and for two years went through intense suffering. He wrote a book called “Lessons from the School of Suffering.” When he died, thousands showed up at his funeral at the Cathedral here in Cincinnati. In watching JPII go through his walk with Christ up Calvary, I was often reminded of my good friend Father Jim. In them, love and suffering were connected in a very real way. Since that time, I have been able to see this connection in many places, especially that of mothers who give everything of themselves out of love for their family. The more they give and love, the greater seems to be the transformation of those around them. Suffering without love is useless. True love without suffering seems to be empty love. Human love is so limited. But if we surrender heart, soul, and mind to Christ, which insures suffering, we will be filled with Divine love and become a well of this love to others. Suffering and love, offer it up.
May 25th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Yes, of course my husband helps - we wouldn’t be able to survive without both of us. Lots of marriages break down under such pressure, but I think ours has held up because we both realize that our kids would be doomed if either of us threw in the towel. But for family, there’s none. Almost everyone is dead, and the ones who are left are elderly and wouldn’t help anyway. But at least we have schools they can go to, and some teachers who help for a few hours on the weekends. I wasn’t writing to complain - lots of autistic kids have more severe problems than mine. I was just venting a bit, because I often feel that I’m a “problem person” that people would just prefer would go away. I guess that’s not unusual - how often do people find themselves isolated once they’re bereaved, because other people just don’t “feel comfortable” dealing with them? It’s surely not accidental that in our age, “feeling comfortable” seems to have become the sine qua non of any course of action.
May 25th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
We don’t like to see, I believe, another person in a situation which we ourselves might be unable to bear, were our situations reversed. It’s disturbing to think how much of our own conceptions of ourselves as decent and virtuous people result from the pure accident that actuality hasn’t happened to test us in that way, yet. For instance, the story of a gambler who has managed to kick the habit and become rehabilitated, and has after a while become settled into a respectable new life. Then, one day, he sees the body of an old friend–a basically good man who also was a gambler and had also genuinely wanted to quit–being drawn up out of the Seine. It was only chance, fate, that had separated them–certainly not something that the first man could claim in his own right to have done better than his friend who had died.
May 25th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Wanda, you say you could have made a “success” out of all of this… but it’s not about success.
Mother Teresa said that the Lord doesn’t expect us to be successful, He just wants us to be faithful.
God bless and I’ll keep you in my prayers.
May 25th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
“the Christian and the Buddhist are trying to move beyond simple, often destructive REACTION into a more accepting, constructive, “move with the flow” RESPONSE…until they grow to the point where even RESPONSE is trained down, less caught up in wondering, and more at home in wonder.”
-What my teachers would say, I think, is that first the mind has to be tamed by being calmed down, then trained to concentrate and to slowly alter its basic attitude toward everything that comes our way.
-They tell me that the way things really are, and have always been, is empty, luminous, and unobstructed. Empty in that no particular conception or mental idea can actually describe the nature of the world, Luminous in that appearances still manifest despite the fact that they are empty. Unobstructed in that no appearance gets in the way of anything else.
-We don’t see the world that way because we are confused about it, and because we habitually act in ways that make our confusion worse. It is as if we keep throwing stones in the water to make our own reflection rise to the surface. The shorthand term for this process is karma.
-The first step is to stop throwing stones.
-What Buddhism might have to say to, you, Wanda is that the ripples in your pond are just as bad as you think, you are being quite realistic about them, and that realism is a first step to the conclusion of suffering. But we all have to wait for the water to settle, however long it takes.
-The most important thing to hold onto about the extreme difficulties of your life is that none of them are eternal, and when they are over, they are completely over, and will not return.
-The religious practice (any religious practice) that you do now will benefit you in the future, and, if you do it with the attitude that you want to share than benefit with everyone else, the ultimate benefits for you multiply immesurably.
-So manage the present as best you can, don’t be too hard on yourself for not managing it perfectly, and rest assured that even if you can only consciously practice your faith in the stray ten minutes when things are not in a complete uproar, even that ten minutes has the potential for infinite benefit to your future. I say this to you from the bottom of my heart.
May 25th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Did you think blocking my ip was going to stop me from posting?
If you did, you truly are a dumb, inbred douche, like most of the rest of the Christian Right.
As far as the The Mystery of Suffering goes, isn’t that a book your husband/brother wrote when he realized you were the only chick he could bang.
May 25th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
4th reich brings up another excellent point–by example, at least.
Indeed, it is one about which Kierkegaard was also deeply concerned: he himself reached God by an intellectual process which told him, at last ‘worship here and you worship God’. But is this the only way to God? What about the severely mentally impaired?
May 25th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Please stop making yourselves look silly. You are following a religion that is only a couple thousand years old. The planet Earth has been here for billions of years.
By your way of thinking, we have just recently found the right pathway to God in the last few thousand (or so) years, and the other humans who were hear for millions of years before us were all wrong.
I makes no sense. Drop the fairy tales, and learn how to deal with life without leaning on your cults.
May 25th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Other humans who were “hear” for millions of years before us???
What planet is this person from?
May 25th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
And by your way of thinking, we have just recently discovered the one true scientific path to the nature of the universe (including its age) in the last few hundred (or so) years, and the other humans who were ‘hear’ (sic) for millions of years before us, who believed that the earth was flat, carried on the back of an immense turtle, or supported by the roots of Yggdrasil, were all wrong. Same argument, no? Read Hume, my friend–he’s an atheist with a brain!
That said–if you were Hume, or his equal, I’d be happy to take some time to discuss our respective faiths. We might both learn something. But I’m in no particular mood to argue with a rude little twerp too stupid to be an atheist, who’s apparently so anxious and insecure in his own disbeliefs that he spends all his spare time trolling internet sites desperate to convert (by shouted insults and dubious arguments) every other person on earth who just might disagree with his ontological view of the world.
My apologies for feeding the trolls–I will say no more.
May 25th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
LOL! Nicely done, Victor!
May 25th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Thank You, Victor. You made my point for me.
Nice job in pointing out my spelling mistake, as well. You have accomplished absolutely nothing in doing so, other than becoming a message board cliché.
Oh yeah, just out of curiosity, what makes you think I’m an atheist?
May 25th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
It’s not just a spelling mistake you’ve made. You claim humans have been “hear” for MILLIONS of years?
Oooops, feeding the trolls again! Sorry!
May 25th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
They have been here for millions of years. If you believe otherwise, you either lack intelligence, or are brainwashed by your cult.
May 25th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
They have been here for millions of years. If you believe otherwise, you either lack intelligence, or are brainwashed by your cult.
Or you’re actually evil aliens who are propagating misinformation in an effort to brainwash, or you’re all participating in an in-joke to which I’m not privy and it’s making me feel left out and jealous, or, or, or… some other of 100,000 other reasons I’ll think up in a minute.
blah, blah, blah
May 25th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
http://sdnhm.org/fieldguide/fossils/timeline.html
:Presumably the San Diego Natural History Museum is also part of the ‘cult’, trying to brainwash us into believing that while the first hominid appeared 1.8 million years ago, the era of actual human (meaning Homo sapiens) civilisation is confined to the last 10,000 years. If, that is, you believe in evolution.
:On the other hand, you did imply that you weren’t really an atheist–and invited me to guess your religion.
Well, I’ll admit to a weakness for guessing games. I briefly played around with the idea of you as a Jedi, but then for some reason, something about you (a certain ‘je ne sais quoi’; I can’t decide whether it’s the dense insensibility to reason or the utter inability to dialogue productively with people of other faiths) just screamed ‘Scientologist’!
:So I suppose that if you do subscribe to the L. Ron Hubbard timeline by which human life on Earth as we now know it started 75 million years ago when the galactic overlord Xenu was imprisoned in a volcano (or some such) then you made no mistake.
:On the other hand, you could just be a complete idiot–and I think, on reflection, that I’ll go with that. Occam’s Razor, you know: always go with the simplest explanation.
May 25th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
ROFL!!! The alien thing did cross my mind!
May 25th, 2005 at 11:33 pm
Upon reflection, it seems to me that 4th Reich keeps coming here because he/she finds something she/he needs here.
And in that case, I am not going to ban him/her, or delete posts - unless the language coarsens (as has happened a few times) and offends me, in which case the comment will be deleted.
That said, I will not respond to provocation, and I hope the rest will not, either. This was a discussion about a serious topic, and it was too interesting to see it fly off track and descend into silliness.
May 25th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Anchoress,
Did you read #13? If that isn’t “coarse” then what is?
Anyway, there is an interesting program on EWTN with Fr. Spitzer on The Meaning of Suffering. Has anyone watched it?
May 25th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
All that matters to me is that I have witnessed with my own eyes the power of the Holy Spirit in suffering and in joy. I have also seen the strength of character that comes from profound and sincere faith and trust in the Lord.
From that I deduced that there was at least one path to happiness in this world. That is the one that I am following with my imperfection as best I can.
My theology does not permit my exclusion of others’ approaches to peace, joy and meaning in life. I only know what has worked for me for all but 5 of my 65 years.
The original post and many of the comments on this thread were about as good expressions of what I, too believe.
Trolls, however vociferous, cannot shake beliefs so deeply ingrained. I wonder why they bother.
May 26th, 2005 at 12:28 am
Victor, I’m an agnostic.
Also, lets not argue semantics. Hominid is close enough, and is what I meant.
It’s interesting you brought up the Jedi, because they are also fictional characters, much like a lot of those in the Bible.
vnjagvet, I have witnessed with my own eyes the power of Santa Claus in suffering and in joy. It still doesn’t change the fact he is not real.
May 26th, 2005 at 1:36 am
I apologize for a last off-topic post. But I must ask a question about which I’m curious–I will refrain from any more insults.
:4threich, all joking aside (if a polite conversation between us is still possible–I’m willing to try) I’m honestly interested to know–Why do you consider yourself an agnostic and not an atheist? I can’t help but find it strange that a self-professed agnostic–one who doubts everything–should be so enthusiastic about prosyletizing for his faith; this assumes that there is some specific thing (science, the scientific method, presumably) which you do not doubt. Indeed, I also find it very strange that a self-professed agnostic–a skeptic–should be so cavalier with the use of the words ‘fact’ and ‘real’. Presumably you believe that it is not justified to believe anything which has not been proven by the scientific method–but what other than the authority of other people and of past history justifies your faith in the scientific method? To be honest, I think you use the word ‘agnostic’ rather than ‘atheist’ to remove any suspicion of religion from your own beliefs, to give your own faith an air of infallibility and being based in the solid rock of ‘fact’–and yet I think that the word does not mean what you think it means. I may be wrong.
:I actually am in earnest about reading Hume–Hume was also a skeptic, but his skepticism extended even to the ability of science to describe our world. I especially suggest you read Hume on the problem of induction. (And please, don’t worry that I’m recommending that you read some ‘religious nut’ or trying to convert you–Hume was an intelligent man but absolutely anything but religious. And at any rate, I don’t believe it is possible for one person to really ‘convert’ another by argument–this would require people to have genuinely logical reasons for everything they believe–and so I myself wouldn’t try.)
:At any rate–how about a little civility from our enlightened and broad-minded agnostic? (Maybe laying off the personal insults a little? If you honestly intend to persuade, it doesn’t help your case to open by calling your audience a crowd of unredeemable rightwing rubes.)
May 26th, 2005 at 4:57 am
Anchoress
Your writing is really inspired. This post was magnificent. Congratulations!
May 26th, 2005 at 6:27 am
When I encounter agnostics who rely totally on scientific fact to understand the world, I remember G.K. Chesterton’s joke that “science” is a Latin word for knowledge, while “agnostic” is a Greek word for ignorance. It’s funny to find the two so resolutely marching together in one person!
May 26th, 2005 at 9:05 am
My comment is a bit late, but I’d like to address Wanda. It’s very obvious that you’re NOT writing to complain, but chronicling just how hard your life is might be very important work. Keep talking about your life. Suffering should not be invisible. Those of us (well, me, at least — I can’t speak for anyone else here) who go out of our way to avoid having to think about it, need to be confronted with it. We can’t talk about the meaning of suffering just in the abstract — we need to learn from those who do it every day.
May 26th, 2005 at 9:32 am
LOL Wanda! I love your statement about life not giving you more than you can bear. Should we then feel sorry for those who live easier lives? As Joe pointed out, many of the people (in general, not speaking of anyone here) who believe suffering is good have not known the level of suffering that others are faced with. I myself have been blessed with a relatively peaceful life- not without suffering, but far easier than some people I know and have known. While that makes it very comfortable to buy the “suffering is inevitable, just deal” it offers very little practical asisstance to those who are struggling. A little help along the way to alleviate suffering does not remove it- it just helps make the cross a little easier to bear. As in Anchoress’ example in a later post about the teenage couple with a small child who are working hard and doing well as a team. They still suffer, but it’s helped a little by family support. My mother’s suffering about losing her husband last month is not erased by my trying to make things easier- but maybe it makes the darkest hours a little more bearable. I hope so, at least. There are many, many ways to wipe Christ’s brow on the Cross.
It seems to me that’s the lesson to be learned- trying to make suffering a little easier does not take it away, just makes it a little easier to bear.
May 26th, 2005 at 9:52 am
And, by offering opportunities for us to show God’s love as it works within us.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:35 am
To Joseph Marshall, #12:
I was surprised that no one responded to your very beautiful message (maybe because the troll was muddying the waters). Just wanted to say how much I appreciated it. My wife has had fibromyalgia for several years & recently has taken up the practice of vipassanana. She’s becoming noticeably more peaceful, and she often speaks in terms similar to yours — though my ignorance of Buddhism makes much of it go over my head. Words like yours make me want to find out more.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Oops, make that “vipassana”
May 26th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
In addition to all you have said, it has been my own experience that suffering increases 100 fold my daily reliance on God, thereby coming closer to Him. I have also had the privilege of being the helper and giver of kindness to a sufferer and so I know that is no small thing for the giver. On faith and personal experience, I have come to believe that the personal ills in the world in some part are redeemed by each individual drawing closer to God.
May 26th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
On Suffering, Meaning and GodBlogging
The Anchoress tipped me off to this very long, but amazing philosophical/spiritual thought piece she posted yesterday on suffering and its relation to God’s purpose… I haven’t been able to do much blog-reading recently, so Anchoress’ tip is itself…
May 26th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Re. Wanda’s comment (#4), it’s worth noting this from David O. Dykes’s book “Handling Life’s Disappointments” (unfortunately out of print):
“Don’t confuse the promise in I Corinthians 10:13 with the reality of trials and tribulations which Christians face. There is always a measure of temptation attached to every trial, but the trial itself is not temptation. Our adversary [i.e., Satan] uses trials to make us bitter and grumble. God uses trials to make us better and grow. We can face difficulties and disappointments without resorting to unbelief and sin.”
May 26th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
I can only imagine how bad it is for Wanda and her husband. I have one child, who is autistic, whose history of medical problems over her ten years of life goes on for pages. My marriage has broken up over on -going nightmare, in part. One child so afflicted is hard enough; the mind reels at the thought of having to work with three. In my case, I feel as though I have been buried alive these last ten years,or sentenced to prison for life.
How anyone could sustain any kind of belief in the goodness of God, rather than an active, bitter, raging hatred against Him is a miracle of itself. And then of course there is that well - worn question of what kind of God would inflict or permit such things. And He yet wants to be trusted? Who would want to know such a God, much less offer trust to Him. There is no limit to the mischief He can cause or permit. And with autism, just like life itself, once you think you have seen how bad it can be . . . .
May 26th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Anchoress, I apologize for the rude comments I directed towards you. I was being a jerk. Plain and simple. The fact you retracted the ban gives me a new found respect for you, regardless of what are beliefs are.
Victor, I was raised Catholic here in Massachusetts, and was quickly put off by the church’s ideals by the time I was 10. The fact they were so strict (mean and brutal in some cases) in imposing their beliefs on me, I started to think for myself, and left the church.
I now do not consider myself part of any religion. I just refer to myself as agnostic, because I question everything when it comes to organized religion.
I do think there is some sort of God, though, because I don’t see how all that is around us was created by chance. The thing is I don’t know for sure, and I’m waiting for proof.
Anyway, I looked into Hume, and he seems like he was a very interesting person. I may end up reading some of his books.
As far a politics go, I don’t subscribe to either party. I just vote for whoever I think is best in any given election. Even if that means writing in a candidate.
May 26th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
I am glad I backtracked to this thread and caught 4th’s last post.
It really shows with great power why imposing beliefs on anyone is futile.
As is pretty well known, CS Lewis, an Oxford Don, and apparently a fellow with a sky high IQ labored under the yoke of atheism for much of his life and then became one of the most intellectually articulate spokesmen for “Mere Christianity” in his later years.
But he tells of no one “imposing” anything on him.
A’s example of compassion and tolerance to 4th shows us how a true Christian can start wearing away defenses to the message of God’s love.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
4th Reich’s last comment made me smile. Human kindness wins again!! (No, I’m not being sarcastic. Really.)
Thanks, 4th! You made my day!
May 26th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Salvifici Dolores by JPII pretty much sums it all up….it’s one of his best and unfortunately overshadowed encyclicals.
May 26th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
#41 Reich, that was a very big and admirable apology, and I accept and appreciate it.
All forgotten.
May 27th, 2005 at 9:37 am
“…our sufferings will never be more than we can bear…”
Sorry to join in so late. The above quote is a rank, stinking, steaming pile of [expletive deleted]. I’m sure it’s sincere, but it’s still stinking.
What I have found is that when someone attempts to “encourage” another who is suffering, they are more often than not using that other person to shore up their own faith. They are more than willing to offer such useless and meaningless bromides like “God is with you.” (so what? so is dandruff and it’s every bit as meaningful), or outright, damnable lies like “God never gives you more than you can handle,” so they can walk away without actually having to deal with someone else’s suffering.
You want to help someone who is suffering? Try having faith on their behalf, and praying (for whatever good that might do) for them. Sometimes all their faith is used up simply by continuing to breathe. They really shouldn’t have to bear the burden of supporting your faith as well.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:10 am
Catholic Carnival XXXII: Tables of Plenty
Glad to be hosting the Catholic Carnival at Deo Omnis Gloria again! This Carnival is the biggest this site has hosted yet and it is full in every respect of the word. So sit, immerse yourself, and push away from…
July 8th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
[…] en and scattered and meant for something beyond my imagining. This, I suppose, is another mystery of suffering. When I was a child I once heard a woman talk about her […]