Consumed by the Temporal or in Love With the God Revealed as Emmanuel?

Sister, do you understand the following passage? Could you please explain it? [[To be consumed with the temporal world--even the temporal world of humankind's temporalization of the Church by the human-created laws which involve yet more temporalization of one's existence in what is a temporalized church--then God's Law of Love is lost to those temporal humans. This includes the path of life upon which God sets each of us, in whatever format that may be expressed in words. Those who are so temporal as to not be able to envision a life lived in the Love of the Holy Trinity are not of those of temporal nor spiritual association.]]

From this excerpt and my own reading of other passages and blog posts, I believe I understand where this writer is coming from yes, and I personally disagree with both her premises and her conclusions. I believe that theologically she has moved away from authentic Christianity while claiming to be a Catholic Christian, and so I am critical of what she writes. In any case, what she seems to be saying is that living life in space and time (i.e., life in the spatiotemporal realm) and being concerned with things of space and time (like canon laws that help mediate God's will) obviates one's ability to be ultimately concerned with God's law of love. It's an exaggerated version of, "If you concern yourself with the things of this world, you can't attend to God's Law of Love or even envision a life lived in God's love," and thus, has both theological and spiritual implications.

Much of what this writer opines seems clearly based on an exaggerated division between the temporal and the eternal (or even the spiritual). From my own perspective, she seems unaware of God's determination to be Emmanuel right here in space and time or God's realization of that determination in the Incarnation. In this way (that is, in Jesus' incarnation of the Word throughout his life and into death itself) the eternal breaks into the temporal and is at work divinizing it. This results in a kind of paradox of which your writer seems unaware, namely, while not forgetting contemplative prayer and mystical experiences of God, it is in truly attending to the everyday "ordinary" reality in which we live, that we meet God and God's mercy and love all the time!!! God is eternal, yes, AND God has chosen to become Emmanuel right here and right now. We do not despise the spatiotemporal; we recognize that our world is now a sacramental reality with the capacity to reveal God in life's every moment and mood.   

I am not sure what your writer means by the temporalization of the Church. The Church is temporal by its very nature, just as all Sacraments are temporal even as they mediate the eternal. It is not plopped down full-blown from heaven but Divinely called and breathed into being from earthly roots. At the same time, the Church mediates the power and presence of God just as all sacraments do. The Church, however, is not the Kingdom of God though she prepares the way for God's Reign. While she serves the eternal in this sense and has a definite mystical dimension, she is not eternal; she remains a temporal reality meant to sanctify the realm of space and time by assisting in its divinization. In Christ, chronos becomes kairos --- time shot full of futurity. One of the ways the Church assists this to happen is with canon laws like C 603 which allow for and govern Divine vocations in the very midst of space and time. 

There seems to be a degree of unwarranted judgment in this writer's approach to canon law --- especially with canon 603 and those like myself who concern ourselves with exploring it and the life it describes and prescribes. Because someone like myself lives and explores the terms of the canon by allowing them to serve as doorways into the depths of Mystery or the Transcendent, this does not mean one is incapable of concern with God's law of love. Just the opposite. Neither does one's exploration of this canon and work on applying it creatively for solitary eremitical vocations mean one is somehow cut off from the Holy Spirit. Absolutely just the opposite!! It is one small way some of us living life under this canon serve others and the Church itself. We do that precisely because the Love of God moves us to do so; God works in and through Canon 603 for those called to live and/or explore this life. Unfortunately, the tendency to judgmentalism seems to prevent your writer from reading what I actually write about the canon and what it makes possible in terms of the power and presence of God. I am sorry that is the case.

Please note: I chose the pictures I did for this piece because each one is concerned in its own way with God's Love/Presence breaking into and transfiguring the ordinary realm of space and time. The first and third pictures remind me of what we miss when we denigrate the world around us or forget where God is truly found --- namely, in the unexpected and unacceptable place. The third also reminds me of what it means to see as a child sees and love as a child loves when everything (even a painted "plaster" figure) is allowed to mediate the love of God.

My sincere apologies, if the writer mentioned above, heard me saying she is not a Catholic Christian.  (Cf. On Sinful Judging Take Two)  I believe it is clear for most folks that, in fact, it is because she is a Catholic and a non-canonical hermit and blogger who often writes antagonistically about c 603 and those so professed, that I am concerned with her writing about canonical (consecrated) eremitical life. I think it is very likely the reason folks comment on or ask me about what they read on her blog(s).

Hermits, Contemplatives and Mystics?

[[ Sister Laurel, are all hermits mystics? Are they all contemplatives? Is there room in the Catholic Church for mystics? I was reading a blog by a Catholic hermit who says anyone can be a contemplative but one is born a mystic. I just wondered about that because in some older posts you seemed to reject being a mystic and prefer the term contemplative. Do you still feel that way? I also wondered what it means to be born a mystic and if parishes would be upset by a mystic whom they thought could see into people and I think I would be turned off by that, even scared by it. One person writing about all of this suggests that the Church doesn't really have space for mystics and calls mysticism "an affliction like cerebral palsy or autism. . ." ]] (links deleted)

First, I can't conceive of a hermit who is not a contemplative and becoming more and more a contemplative every day. It is part of the very definition of the word hermit as far as I understand eremitical life. Some hermits will, therefore, also be mystics, meaning not merely that they have been immediately gifted by God with mystical prayer and therefore, will have grown in their contemplative lives to the deeper or infused forms of contemplative prayer; it also means they will have had their hearts remade entirely in terms of the virtues and God's love; a mystic is the dwelling place or tabernacle of the active and creative Mystery or depth dimension of all reality whom we call God; they live in greater or lesser degrees of union with God. Such union with absolute Mystery which only God can bring about is evident in their prayer but also in their ordinary lives, and so we call them mystics. While such persons may suffer as all human beings suffer, and sometimes quite intensely in their currently unrealizable yearning for final or ultimate union with God, I don't think any mystic would liken coming to greater degrees of union with God --- the very thing we are made for and come to joyful rest in --- to an affliction like cerebral palsy or autism.

We are all capable of becoming mystics -- even though God alone empowers the deeper expressions of contemplative prayer. It's quite a paradox!!! In fact, as just noted we are all "made for" this degree of prayer and life in union with God who is, again, absolute Mystery --- though few will experience it in their lives. In the Eastern Church the process of growth toward mystical prayer and union with God referred to here is called deification. Few "achieve" it this side of death, unfortunately, but all are made for it. To that extent I believe we can say we are all born to be mystics (those who experience union with God that is wholly God's immediate gift), but I don't think it is appropriate to say some are born mystics and others are not. Moreover, simply because one has occasional mystical experiences I believe the use of the term mystic is still to be cautiously applied. Mystics are not primarily about mystical experiences or phenomena like visions, locutions, and the like; they are first and last about union with God and that means these persons are shot through with Divine love and are transparent to it in a way which, in Christ, makes them into the very imago Dei they were made to be --- whether they are in prayer or living their ordinary lives. If one can say a person's life is defined by (i.e., conformed to and transformed by) immediate experiences of the Love which is God's very self, then I think we can say the person is a mystic, no matter the attendant and secondary phenomena.

Personally, I still prefer the term contemplative, in part because it is easier for folks to understand, but also because I am a contemplative who has occasional mystical experiences (that is, immediate experiences of the God Who is Love) as a kind of subset of this larger category of prayer; Moreover, I look towards union with God as a goal I am called to by God himself, not as a kind of achievement I want or need to point to. I don't think most parishes would have a problem with someone having occasional mystical experiences during liturgy, for instance, so long as the community understands what is happening. Ordinarily, the person praying in this way is profoundly quiet; this may even mean that one's breathing might cease or become indiscernible. Thus, unless one has explained the situation to others they might be concerned about a medical emergency, but if the situation was occasional and understood I don't see where it would be a problem. 

Other manifestations need not, but might well be or become problematical, and that would include the ability to read others' hearts. While one might have this ability, one does not need to reveal it to people, and prudence says ordinarily one should not do so apart from a strong pastoral need and authority. My sense is that God would only gift someone with such an ability in instances of exceptional need, along with the capacity for profound compassion, humility, and discretion, not to mention more than a modicum of tact. Ordinarily, this gift is associated with confessors who read into the heart or conscience and assisted the person in moving toward greater union with God. Outside of anecdotes about a number of priests I am not sure I know precisely all this gift entails, but I do know people who are profoundly perceptive about people and seem to miss nothing of what is going on with them. One of these is marked by her compassion and discretion as well and this may mean she can see into others' hearts in ways most of us cannot. When the two qualities are combined there is nothing scary about it --- though it can be unnerving initially until it is clear the person never judges others and does not otherwise misuse what they see/know. Still, perhaps this is only a weak approximation of the gift some confessors have been known to have.

Does the Church have room for mystics? Of course! In fact, she needs them and has always done --- even when their presence has been challenging or hard to deal with. But I think she has even less tolerance for those who are not genuine mystics, meaning those who might want to be recognized for "gifts" without being deeply prayerful, profoundly loving, and practiced in the virtues. In other words, mystics have a certain degree of holiness and that can be/is inspiring to others in ways we all need. What we don't need, however, are those who drop into what is supposed to be ecstasy-on-schedule or trance-via-trigger (I am thinking self-hypnosis here), or those who pretend to have been given the gift of reading others' hearts while demonstrating not the least bit of compassion for those others or true insight into themselves. 

Once again, as I have written before, "by their fruits, you shall know them"; the primary measure of the true mystic will always be their capacity to love as Christ loves, to be virtuous as Christ is virtuous, to be imago Dei or imago Christi as every person is ultimately called to be ("I, yet not I, but Christ in me!" is one of Paul's ways of describing himself as Christian and mystic who has experienced a degree of union with God). Only secondarily is such a person's life/prayer marked by mystical phenomena and I sincerely believe it is unlikely in the ordinary course of things, that such phenomena would be known to a larger parish congregation.

Karl Rahner and Everyday Mysticism

[[Sister Laurel, your last post is reminiscent of the mysticism of Karl Rahner, true?]]

Yes, it is indeed. I am probably at least partly indebted to Rahner (and to Jesuits more generally) for my understanding of the world and spirituality --- and strongly so to Paul Tillich as well. Rahner is famous for having made the comment that unless all Christians became mystics, there would be no Christianity. However, Rahner made those comments within the context of what has been called an "everyday mysticism" --- a mysticism which recognized the mystery of God at the heart of everyday reality. What he wanted, and what he saw as imperative, was a mysticism in which Christians discovered the hidden presence of God, the deep and holy ground and depth in and of all created existence.  (Of course I must note that finding the presence of God in ordinary life is also a profoundly Benedictine trait and I am clearly Camaldolese Benedictine in this way as well.)

This form of mysticism issues in a "sober" spirituality "found in courageous perseverance in silent faith, trust, love, and unselfish service, despite life's seeming emptiness." (Egan, Karl Rahner) It also issues in experiences of joy at the presence of God in the most mundane circumstances of life as well as in the more extraordinary or "learned" mysticism of the saint. All of these are specifications of the orientation to God (the ground of being and mystery) which is partly constitutive of every human being. With and in Jesus Christ, we come to celebrate life and its inherent goodness and sanctity. More, we understand creation as sacramental and recognize the myriad ways it reveals and mediates God's presence and Word to us every day. This essential tearing or sundering of the barrier (veil) between the sacred and profane, the mystical and the temporal, this recognition and fostering of the sacramental character of all creation, even the most apparently mundane, is part of the vocation of every Christian and the core of any authentic mysticism. We come to share in this vocation by accepting our place in Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and ascension --- that is, by participating in the Christ Event in which the barrier was sundered and reconciliation achieved between God and his creation. Appreciation of all of this was the reason Rahner spoke somewhat hyperbolically of the imperative that every Christian become a mystic lest there be no Christianity.

Though Rahner affirms these as well, his theology does not completely trust versions of mysticism which stress extraordinary phenomenon, ecstasies, and the like. He does not like the idea of infused contemplation which seems interventionist and possibly elitist. Instead he prefers the idea that some persons, when the experiences are not merely auto-suggestive or psychologically aberrant, learn to allow the Holy Spirit's communications with greater intensity and ease than others do; hence the phrase above, "learned" mysticism or contemplation. But this mysticism is not different in kind from the everyday mysticism he espouses. It is merely different in intensity and clarity and remains rooted in the same ground of mystery which is at the core of all mysticism. (I should note that to the extent these are genuine, they will foster the same reverence and love for others and all of God's creation any experience of or inspiration by God empowers.)

There are several books available for those wanting to understand Rahner's everyday mysticism better. These include, Everyday Faith (Rahner), Karl Rahner, Mystic of Everyday Life by Egan, The Mystical Way in Everyday Life (Rahner). More technical articles are available in Sacramentum Mundi and Theological Investigations. A World of Grace by O'Donovan is also helpful. I suspect you have read several of these already but others may find them of assistance. I would recommend Egan's book though as a place to begin and supplement that with The Mystical Way in Everyday Life because the latter supplies prayers, etc which will illustrate what Egan writes about at greater length.

Additionally, people may be interested in Jesuit spirituality more generally, for everyday mysticism is a pillar of this spirituality and Rahner was a key proponent. James Martin's recent book, The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life, would be a great place to start!