I have been lately reading Awakening by Anthony de Mello. I am constantly impressed by his seemingly honest thoughts about life and what it is to really live, awake. This book seems to be a healthy kick on my arse to really look at myself and my fears honestly and to start living in harmony with myself. The concrete effect it has had on my life, making me more courageous, is, well, quite wonderful.

But then, I am also aware of the fact that this fellow is in some senses quite distant from what Christianity means to me, and apparently also to the Pope in this respect: Notification concerning the writings of Father Anthony de Mello, SJ (though I do not really understand anything about denominations myself).

Perhaps the most concrete controversy is here: According to Ratzinger, Mello thinks that

With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.

(Ratzinger may be wrong, but having read Awakening, this statement does seem compatible.)

And it troubles me. Although Jesus frees us from having to submit under any moral ruleset (law) blindly, the idea is still to admit that the law, in itself, is good. But this seems a rather theoretical notion: although law may be absolute in itself, as a fallible human being, I really do not understand the law very well, and as my understanding of law is only relatively correct, what difference does it make in practice, in my reality if I believe the law itself is relative?

But it does seem to compromise the notion that God is right, that is, in His opinions: if the law is relative, and in fact, if truth is relative, how can God be invariable?

So, it seems that, in a sense like Kierkegaard (who has intrigued me for years), also de Mello is more interested in the subjective than supposedly objective dogma.

Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.

With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.

But then, this reasoning seems irrational. There is no defence, no notion of what is so good about the Catholic faith, and in what sense is it not then making scripture an idol? Just a seemingly arrogant verification that de Mello's writings are incompatible with Catholic faith - a pretty way of saying they are just wrong.

Vantaan Lauri: Hengellisten harjoitusten lähteillä

August 24, 2008 15:04 in diary

Comments

pilpi (pilpi.net author) wrote on August 25, 2008 at 00:39:

I have heard teaching some years ago that the law has three purposes: a) To show us our true nature (as humans unable to reach any high standards very well) b) to provide some kind of a guideline against which one can see if one is going in the right direction and c) ... hm, I have forgotten this one.

Anyway, b) seems to me like the answer I had forgotten at this point. If law is relative, it loses any relevance to me, since it can be changed and it does not function as basis for anything. So even though I can not observe it objectively, I can, to some degree, relate to it from my own subjective experience, and perhaps see that I am either growing, or that I am not.

Add comments

(Comments to entries older than 3 days are moderated. They will appear on this page once I approve their publishing. Sorry for the inconvenience.)

What is this?

A Christian student writing about life, faith, software etc. both in English and in Finnish. Some photos and poetry, too. Not thinking much about whether I'm being interesting or not. See also my work blog: Moodle Quiz UI

Please comment. Anything :).

Helsinki time, GMT+2.