1. Custody of the Eyes (and Imagination and Memory). This method is not simply about chastity but about self-control. The eyes may wander not only out of lustful intentions but harmful curiosity. Custody of the eyes is an exercise, small but continuous and sometimes arduous, in self-control.
We know from neuroscience now that pornography deteriorates the mind in a way similar to cocaine. Custody of the eyes takes on a real importance because the object of delight remains out of sight and helps provide opportunities for the brain to work in different ways.
Two particular helps for maintaining custody of the eyes: 1) prayer, focusing our attention and awareness on God; and 2) awareness of intention and attention, in which we maintain a recollected state of self-awareness of what we are doing and why. In any situation we enter, we enter with this recollection and mindfulness.
Cf. http://ancientchristianwisdom.com/2014/07/10/ye-have-heard-that-it-was-said-by-them-of-old-time-thou-shalt-not-commit-adultery-but-i-say-unto-you-that-whosoever-looketh-on-a-woman-to-lust-after-her-hath-committed-adultery-with-her-already-in/
2. "As If" Technique. Visualize and live "as if" you have already achieved the goal. See all the concrete differences such living would require and simply go about as if these were well established facets of your daily living. This was the recommendation of Aristotle for building all virtue. It is a self-reinforcing process.
We can also apply this visualization to when we're tempted back into old patterns of behavior. For some behaviors, it may be good to imagine, "If I did such and such, here's what I would experience. Would it therefore be worth it?" This practice might be difficult for those suffering from addictive behavior.
Cf. http://ancientchristianwisdom.com/2012/09/16/employing-the-as-if-technique-in-behavioral-modification/
3. Recollected Mindfulness. Maintaining self-awareness is important to avoid impulsive behavior and being swept away by stimuli. Recollection on God helps maintain this calm. When we have failed, simply turn back to God in contrition. This watchfulness also pays attention to the signs and beginnings of what tends to lead towards certain behaviors; this watchfulness will depend on remembering past experience and making records of how patterns begin and progress for us and in what circumstances. These should be all listed and learned for each person.
Mindfulness itself is developed first in little behaviors, such as in breathing, dressing, morning routines, walking, sitting, noticing ambient noises, etc.. Regular prayers before, during, and after activities that tend to distract us should be introduced.
Cf. http://ancientchristianwisdom.com/2012/07/20/being-impulsive-a-problem-for-moderns-and-ancients/
http://ancientchristianwisdom.com/2013/08/07/taking-captivity-captive-the-role-of-mindfulness-in-overcoming-mindless-compulsions/
4. Honestly Naming the Thought or Sin. Speaking aloud to another or to God an evil thought or sin that we are tempted to helps to neutralize its power. Herein lies some of the power of regular examination and confession. When we face the possibility and reality of admitting shameful behaviors to a person we respect, such as a priest, or a person we wouldn't want to see us in a bad light, such as a coworker or mentor, then we are much less likely to act out on a temptation. Where our fear of God is lacking, our fear of others may supply. This practice also keeps us humble and honest with ourselves and others: "This is who I am. I admit it. I'm working on it, but this is what I've done, thought, what I struggle with, etc."
Cf. http://ancientchristianwisdom.com/2012/07/17/exposing-bad-thoughts-and-spiritual-healing/
5. Emotional Self-Understanding. Every temptation is preceded by emotional triggers that are deeply rooted in ourselves. We can come to recognize these feelings, their triggers, to see how they have been "solved" up until now by certain sinful behaviors. We can then admit these emotions honestly and openly. We can feel sorrow for the ways in which we have hurt ourselves and been fooled by the lies of the world around us into accepting harmful, self-destructive behaviors to run from our emotions and pain. We can connect our pain to past experiences and then see how they draw great power from childhood experiences or unresolved conflicts in ourselves or with others. Then we can bring all this to prayer, speaking our pain to God, asking Him to heal us, to help us, to comfort us.
Cf. http://www.chastitysf.com/q_masturbation.htm
Cf. http://www.chastitysf.com/4humility.htm
Cf. http://www.chastitysf.com/healing.htm
6. Practice Satiety Prevention. Seek to reduce the immediate gratification of desire—in eating, listening to music/radio, watching TV/movies, reading, texting, chatting, playing games, etc. Exercise self-control, fast, and learn to find comfort and fulfillment in God through prayer.
Cf. http://www.chastitysf.com/q_masturbation.htm
7. Develop a Sense of Gratitude. A mystical sense of gratitude by which we recognize everything around us is a gift from God helps foster a certain detachment by preventing us from becoming inordinately fixated on the objects of our awareness. Through gratitude, we recognize each thing reflects in some way God's beauty. Such gratitude helps foster recollection and mindfulness.
Cf. http://www.chastitysf.com/gratitude.htm
Showing posts with label chastity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chastity. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Modest Dress and "Evil" Beauty
Some liberally minded people object to modest dress because they say modest dress enforces a notion that women's bodies are evil, that the beauty of a woman cannot be anything but temptation, and therefore modesty is degrading to the dignity of women.
And it may be admitted that modest dress may enforce such a notion among some people. But is this possibility a sufficient reason to reject modest dress? No, because the connection is not a necessary one. There is no logical connection between modest dress and the idea that women's bodies are evil. In fact, quite the contrary.
As semiotic beings, we organize and interpret sensation into coherent experience through signs and sign processes proper to our biology. Due to this primacy of sign usage, every subjectivity with which we come into contact is experienced as an object. An object is already an interpretation of a subject. As semiotic beings, we may then differentiate the objective and subjective dimensions of any being presented in experience, understanding that what I experience has its own subjective constitution. In this case, a woman with her dignity.
But a man, as with any animal, experiences the woman firstly as an object to be sorted into three possible categories of fundamental interpretation: 1) an object to be desired; 2) to be avoided; or 3) ignored. Such a categorization isn't evil; this is fundamental to animal experience. To reduce the totality of a woman's subjectivity to my preliminary, animal objectification of her would be evil, but the act by which we categorize any object of experience into 1, 2, or 3 is natural and necessary.
Men who struggle with lust obviously categorize women into the first: an object to be desired. Why? They interpret this object of their experience as possessing desirable features and characteristics, and the object then presents itself with future possibilities of fulfillment in multiple ways: animal, physical, emotional, familial, spiritual, etc. But desirable objects must possess positive goods that are recognized as such in order to be categorized as desirable. Hence, a man who struggles with lust is precisely someone who is stuck on one feature of a woman's positive goodness in relation to himself, namely, his own pleasure-seeking. As we noted above, the reduction of a woman's subjectivity to this simple objectification is precisely the objection to modest dress, but notice that our analysis up until now has had nothing to do with modest dress. The objectification occurs all within a man's psyche.
Where does modest dress enter in? It enters precisely in two ways: 1) women seek to help men overcome this objectification; 2) men seek to admit their weakness.
1) modest dress ought to be a means by which a woman says, "I recognize that you have trouble controlling your desires, that you struggle with objectification. I want to help in the way that I can." We are not responsible for each other's actions; hence a woman cannot be required to help a man work through his own psychological mechanisms. But she can help remotely by not encouraging the man's habits by presenting herself in an overtly sexual manner. In so doing, modest dress represents that a woman recognizes the power of her physical beauty to attract the gaze and attention of another, and, wishing to help the other remain both attracted but not enslaved to solely that dimension of her subjectivity, she wears modest dress as a reminder that she is more than her physical beauty. Her mystique is more than the physical although the physical is certainly part of it.
2) men must be willing to admit their weakness. There is a trend in our culture to object to modest dress on the basis that men should be able to control themselves, and having women wear modest dress implies that men can't control themselves. And yes, that is precisely the problem. Women are not responsible for men's lack of self-control; that is not what is claimed by proposing modest dress as a help. We must stop fooling ourselves into believing that we have self-control; look around and be honest. Most do not exercise self-control. This is a problem, and it leads to problems. But modest dress may help take first steps by not encouraging the man to be stuck at the physical level from the very first moment. If a man doesn't notice and become fixated on the physical beauty of a woman from the first instant, an environment is encouraged in which the man may expand his conception of women beyond the pleasure he derives from physicality.
Modest dress ultimately is objected to because it hampers pure individuality, which is the core of the indifference we exhibit towards each other in the spheres of our lives. Because of this indifference, cooperation is characterized cynically as mutually accepted manipulation. Real cooperation, however, means that we cannot exist as self-sufficient beings, but we must exist always in relation to each other, helping and complementing each other, seeking support from each other. We can do this without having to be responsible for the personal choices we each make as individuals; on the other hand, we don't have to go to the other extreme and leave each other alone in our struggles to achieve moral freedom.
And it may be admitted that modest dress may enforce such a notion among some people. But is this possibility a sufficient reason to reject modest dress? No, because the connection is not a necessary one. There is no logical connection between modest dress and the idea that women's bodies are evil. In fact, quite the contrary.
As semiotic beings, we organize and interpret sensation into coherent experience through signs and sign processes proper to our biology. Due to this primacy of sign usage, every subjectivity with which we come into contact is experienced as an object. An object is already an interpretation of a subject. As semiotic beings, we may then differentiate the objective and subjective dimensions of any being presented in experience, understanding that what I experience has its own subjective constitution. In this case, a woman with her dignity.
But a man, as with any animal, experiences the woman firstly as an object to be sorted into three possible categories of fundamental interpretation: 1) an object to be desired; 2) to be avoided; or 3) ignored. Such a categorization isn't evil; this is fundamental to animal experience. To reduce the totality of a woman's subjectivity to my preliminary, animal objectification of her would be evil, but the act by which we categorize any object of experience into 1, 2, or 3 is natural and necessary.
Men who struggle with lust obviously categorize women into the first: an object to be desired. Why? They interpret this object of their experience as possessing desirable features and characteristics, and the object then presents itself with future possibilities of fulfillment in multiple ways: animal, physical, emotional, familial, spiritual, etc. But desirable objects must possess positive goods that are recognized as such in order to be categorized as desirable. Hence, a man who struggles with lust is precisely someone who is stuck on one feature of a woman's positive goodness in relation to himself, namely, his own pleasure-seeking. As we noted above, the reduction of a woman's subjectivity to this simple objectification is precisely the objection to modest dress, but notice that our analysis up until now has had nothing to do with modest dress. The objectification occurs all within a man's psyche.
Where does modest dress enter in? It enters precisely in two ways: 1) women seek to help men overcome this objectification; 2) men seek to admit their weakness.
1) modest dress ought to be a means by which a woman says, "I recognize that you have trouble controlling your desires, that you struggle with objectification. I want to help in the way that I can." We are not responsible for each other's actions; hence a woman cannot be required to help a man work through his own psychological mechanisms. But she can help remotely by not encouraging the man's habits by presenting herself in an overtly sexual manner. In so doing, modest dress represents that a woman recognizes the power of her physical beauty to attract the gaze and attention of another, and, wishing to help the other remain both attracted but not enslaved to solely that dimension of her subjectivity, she wears modest dress as a reminder that she is more than her physical beauty. Her mystique is more than the physical although the physical is certainly part of it.
2) men must be willing to admit their weakness. There is a trend in our culture to object to modest dress on the basis that men should be able to control themselves, and having women wear modest dress implies that men can't control themselves. And yes, that is precisely the problem. Women are not responsible for men's lack of self-control; that is not what is claimed by proposing modest dress as a help. We must stop fooling ourselves into believing that we have self-control; look around and be honest. Most do not exercise self-control. This is a problem, and it leads to problems. But modest dress may help take first steps by not encouraging the man to be stuck at the physical level from the very first moment. If a man doesn't notice and become fixated on the physical beauty of a woman from the first instant, an environment is encouraged in which the man may expand his conception of women beyond the pleasure he derives from physicality.
Modest dress ultimately is objected to because it hampers pure individuality, which is the core of the indifference we exhibit towards each other in the spheres of our lives. Because of this indifference, cooperation is characterized cynically as mutually accepted manipulation. Real cooperation, however, means that we cannot exist as self-sufficient beings, but we must exist always in relation to each other, helping and complementing each other, seeking support from each other. We can do this without having to be responsible for the personal choices we each make as individuals; on the other hand, we don't have to go to the other extreme and leave each other alone in our struggles to achieve moral freedom.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
St. Thomas Aquinas on Rationalizing Sexual Hedonsim
For know you this and understand: that no fornicator or unclean or covetous person, which is a serving of idols, hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of despair. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. (Eph. 5:5–7)The Apostle above forbade carnal sins (5:3); here he threatens them with the penalty of damnation that is inflicted on sinners. [...]
He states For know you this and understand, that is, be actually certain of it and not just habitually. “These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life; you who believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 Jn. 5:13). And what does he write? That no fornicator or unclean or covetous person, which is a serving of idols, hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Notice that he calls covetousness idolatry, for idolatry happens when the honor due God alone is given to creatures. Now there is a twofold honor due God; we must establish him as the goal of our life and we must put our trust of reaching the goal in him. Hence, whoever places these ‘in creatures is guilty of idolatry. A covetous person commits this when he fixes his end in a created reality as well as putting all his trust in it. “Of their silver and their gold they have made idols to themselves, that they might perish” (Os. 8:4). This happens since, as Proverbs 11 (28) affirms: “He that trusteth in his riches shall fall.” [...]
Notice that only in reference to carnal vices does he teach them to avoid being deceived. For from the beginning men have rationalized to find reasons why fornication and other venereal sins were not really sins so that they might indulge their cupidity without restraint. Hence he states vain words since words that claim these are not sins and do not exclude one from the kingdom of God and of Christ are irrational. “Beware lest any man cheat you by prophecy and vain deceit” (Col. 2:8).”
He demonstrates that such men are deceivers and their words fallacious since, if carnal sins were not sins, they would not be punished by God; God is just and does not impose a penalty where there is no offense. But such acts are punished by God and therefore are sins. He proves the minor when he says For because of these things comes the anger of God, namely, on account of carnal sins, upon the children of despair. This is evident in the flood (Gen. 7), in what happened to the Sodomites (Gen. 19); and again, almost the whole tribe of Benjamin was destroyed on account of this (Jg. 19 & 20).
He says the children of despair because those who sin in this way despair of eternal life. If they acted this way and still hoped for eternal life, it would rather be presumption than hope, which is the certain expectation of obtaining future beatitude meritoriously.
---
Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, trans. by Matthew L. Lamb (Albany, NY: Magis Books, 1966), Dominican House of Studies website, accessed Sept. 23, 2014, http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Eph5.htm#3, 5.3.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Conceived in Lust
Consider that Mary and our Lord were conceived in the greatest purity. These were mystical moments that transcend our understanding. The effect of such purity was the Blessed Mother and the Lord.
In contrast, a child conceived in lust becomes immediately vulnerable to demonic influence. Why is this so? It has to do with the difference between suffering the guilt of an action and suffering its consequences. Even in the physical realm, a mother who smokes or does drugs or eats unhealthfully while pregnant endangers her child's development. Is it so surprising then that in the spiritual realm, a mother who engages in sinful behavior spiritually endangers her child? But this picture is a bit incomplete, for where there is a child, there is a man. Man and woman together beget a child, and therefore the child is influenced by the spiritual being of the father as much as by the mother. If the father is absent in some way, that certainly has an effect on the child's growth. If the father fosters an abusive or irresponsible atmosphere, that has an effect on the child. The responsibility for the physical and spiritual health of the child falls on both the father and mother equally.
But the consequence of a child suffering from the irresponsibilities of his parents does not mean that the child is guilty of his parents' sins. The child suffers merely from the consequences of those sins. And when a child is conceived in lust, the child is placed almost immediately into the hands of demons because nothing so quickly attracts demons as lust. Just as the Blessed Mother and our Lord were surrounded by holy love and angels in their conceptions, so too is a poor child conceived in lust surrounded by demons. And the fault lies with the parents alone. Nevertheless, the child will grow up having eventually to deal with the consequences of this situation.
And what is the proof? Well, just look around you. See for yourself the children, now growing up, who act as their parents do, blinded by all the same societal evils. Some act even worse. See the unhappiness, the staggering increase in mental disorder, in anxiety, in boredom. I see it every day at work, person after person, and you can even see it in the empty expressions and eyes of certain people who are so spiritually depraved.
In contrast, a child conceived in lust becomes immediately vulnerable to demonic influence. Why is this so? It has to do with the difference between suffering the guilt of an action and suffering its consequences. Even in the physical realm, a mother who smokes or does drugs or eats unhealthfully while pregnant endangers her child's development. Is it so surprising then that in the spiritual realm, a mother who engages in sinful behavior spiritually endangers her child? But this picture is a bit incomplete, for where there is a child, there is a man. Man and woman together beget a child, and therefore the child is influenced by the spiritual being of the father as much as by the mother. If the father is absent in some way, that certainly has an effect on the child's growth. If the father fosters an abusive or irresponsible atmosphere, that has an effect on the child. The responsibility for the physical and spiritual health of the child falls on both the father and mother equally.
But the consequence of a child suffering from the irresponsibilities of his parents does not mean that the child is guilty of his parents' sins. The child suffers merely from the consequences of those sins. And when a child is conceived in lust, the child is placed almost immediately into the hands of demons because nothing so quickly attracts demons as lust. Just as the Blessed Mother and our Lord were surrounded by holy love and angels in their conceptions, so too is a poor child conceived in lust surrounded by demons. And the fault lies with the parents alone. Nevertheless, the child will grow up having eventually to deal with the consequences of this situation.
And what is the proof? Well, just look around you. See for yourself the children, now growing up, who act as their parents do, blinded by all the same societal evils. Some act even worse. See the unhappiness, the staggering increase in mental disorder, in anxiety, in boredom. I see it every day at work, person after person, and you can even see it in the empty expressions and eyes of certain people who are so spiritually depraved.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Truth and Sin in the Heart
Psalm 4:
St. John Chrysostom, commenting on Matthew 5:28, says:
These passages should lead us to reflect on how easy it is for us to corrupt our hearts, to harden them with sin. We should be inspired to a greater sensitivity of our inner motions. The mouth speaks what is first in the heart. We don't even need to outwardly speak evil things to our neighbors. Letting our heart speak these evils is enough to sin and corrupt ourselves and defile love. Therefore, the Holy Ghost tells us to regret the evil that we speak in our hearts. Those shall dwell with the Lord who speak truth in the heart and, with their hearts full of truth, proceed to speak the truth outwardly to their neighbors by not deceiving them.
Moral evil originates from the heart. The responsibility falls on us. The devil may suggest evil or fan it into flame as St. Jerome tells us, but we decide what goes into our hearts and what comes out of them.
What you say in your hearts, regret upon your beds...Psalm 14:
O Lord, who shall dwell in Your tent? Or who shall rest upon Your holy mountain?Psalm 15:
He who walks without blemish, and does what is right;
Who speaks the truth in his heart, and deceives not with his tongue...
I will bless the Lord who has given me understanding; even in the night my heart exhorts me...Matthew 5:28:
But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.Matthew 15:18-19:
But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies.---
St. John Chrysostom, commenting on Matthew 5:28, says:
If you permit yourself to gaze often on fair countenances you will assuredly be taken, even though you may be able to command your mind twice or thrice. For you are not exalted above nature and the strength of humanity. She too who dresses and adorns herself for the purpose of attracting men's eyes to her, though her endeavor should fail, yet shall she be punished hereafter; seeing she mixed the poison and offered the cup, though none was found who would drink thereof. For what the Lord seems to speak only to the man, is of equal application to the woman; inasmuch as when He speaks to the head, the warning is meant for the whole body.St. Jerome, commenting on Matthew 15:18, writes:
[...] by this passage we may refute [p. 560] those who think that evil thoughts are suggestions of the Devil, and do not spring from our proper will. The Devil may encourage and abet evil thoughts, but not originate them. And if he be able, being always on the watch, to blow into flame any small spark of thought in us, we should not thence conclude that he searches the hidden places of the heart, but that from our manner and motions he judges of what is passing within us. For instance, if he see us direct frequent looks towards a fair woman, he understands that our heart is wounded through the eye.---
These passages should lead us to reflect on how easy it is for us to corrupt our hearts, to harden them with sin. We should be inspired to a greater sensitivity of our inner motions. The mouth speaks what is first in the heart. We don't even need to outwardly speak evil things to our neighbors. Letting our heart speak these evils is enough to sin and corrupt ourselves and defile love. Therefore, the Holy Ghost tells us to regret the evil that we speak in our hearts. Those shall dwell with the Lord who speak truth in the heart and, with their hearts full of truth, proceed to speak the truth outwardly to their neighbors by not deceiving them.
Moral evil originates from the heart. The responsibility falls on us. The devil may suggest evil or fan it into flame as St. Jerome tells us, but we decide what goes into our hearts and what comes out of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)