Franciscan at Home

The first time I read Josef Pieper’s book Leisure: The Basis of Culture, I felt I had finally encountered the philosophical and theological categories to explain the discomfort I felt in a culture obsessed with nonstop activity, imagery, and noise. Perhaps also being a first-generation American, with a Middle Eastern sensibility of leisure, I felt especially out of place.

Unfortunately, it seems modern Christians have long abandoned the primacy of leisure, its foundation in the life of prayer and holiness, and, which Josef Pieper so brilliantly explains, its necessity in the restoration of a desirable culture.

The Meaning of Leisure

Leisure is not a thing to be done, it is a way to be. It is, for that reason, somewhat difficult to define. Pieper describes it as a “mental and spiritual attitude, a condition of the soul, an inward calm, of silence, of not being ‘busy’ and letting things happen.”[2]

Therefore, the definition of leisure is much richer than merely being on vacation, having fun, entertaining oneself or doing “leisurely” activities. These things are often done for the sake of the rest needed to return to work. Leisure is not for the sake of work, it’s not for the sake of anything!

The loss of leisure, both personally and culturally, is not only the loss of the dignity and value of the person but also of the human personality.

The Meaning of Christianity

The Christian faith is precisely that—faith. It is the recognition of a presence, a loving presence, in one’s life. It is a recognition of a spiritual reality beyond the practical reality of the world of work. It is an entrance into a loving relationship with the Presence, who has revealed himself to man in the Person of the God-man Jesus Christ. For the person who has truly encountered him, denying this relationship would be unreasonable. Like all personal relationships, it takes work, but not the sort of work the world values. It takes another kind of work.

Two Conceptions of Work

The work it takes to know God, in other words, to be in a relationship with him, is quite different than the work the world values. The sort of work the world values is the kind that is difficult and effortful. This understanding of work originates, according to Pieper, with a “father” of modern philosophy, Immanuel Kant.

For Kant, even intellectual work has to be exclusively discursive. It consists essentially in the act of “comparing, examining, relating, distinguishing, abstracting, deducing, demonstrating—all of which are forms of active intellectual effort."[3] Therefore, the work of knowing is activity, and it is this characteristic of activity that justifies intellectual work and makes it credible.

However, this interpretation of the act of knowing, of intellectual work, is not the only one. The ancient Greek and Medieval philosophers believed that the discursive use of the intellect (ratio/reason) is only one way of knowing. The other way of knowing is through the intuition (simplex intuitus/simply looking). Pieper explains the distinction by using the example of knowing a rose. A rose can be known discursively by taking it apart, observing it, studying it, and, therefore in a sense, "possessing" it.[4] Or it can be known by simply gazing upon and absorbing its beauty. The defining characteristic of the intuition is receptivity, rather than activity.

For the ancients and later the Christians, the work of knowing involves both the activity of reason and the receptivity of intuition.

Prayer is the Work of the Christian

An elevated knowledge of God comes through the receptivity of intuition rather than through discursive reasoning. Pieper writes, “the highest form of knowledge comes to man like a gift—the sudden illumination, a stroke of genius, true contemplation; it comes effortlessly and without trouble.”[5]

Lydia, a girl in my youth group, once told me: “I’m really looking forward to it.” When I asked her what she’s looking forward to, she replied, “I don’t know exactly but it’s exciting!” The awareness Lydia had of her desire for the infinite, her poverty of spirit, is what leisure cultivates in the human person. It has been said that true prayer is simply waiting for God to come when and how he wants. However, it is not a passive waiting, but a receptive one.

Yet, without the silence, space, and time for the cultivation of leisure, I cannot pray well. I cannot wait well. And then I may not be in a prime position to recognize “when and how” he arrives. If life is too busy (especially dangerous if it is busy with “pious” and “churchy” activities), then even time set aside for prayer becomes burdensome and moralistic. If I am uncomfortable with silence (both interior and exterior), then I am neither comfortable with myself nor God and others. When this discomfort becomes habitual, it is the vice of sloth.

Sloth is the Enemy of Leisure

Sloth (or acedĭa) is contrary to leisure; because, while leisure is an openness to reality, sloth is a habitual sorrow in front of reality and specifically spiritual reality. This sadness is so oppressive that the person who suffers from sloth “wants to do nothing” and experiences a “sluggishness of the mind.”[6] Slothful people are idle, restless, agitated, and often workaholics. They are spiritually lazy and easily bored. The worst form of sloth is despair, which is ultimately “a refusal to be oneself.”[7]

Even a superficial reflection of the current cultural crises makes evident enough that this “refusal to be oneself” characterizes the present moment. Consider the staggering opioid crisis and sky-rocketing rates of youth suicide as two examples among the many.

Introducción
Cuando le comenté a mi esposa que estaba escribiendo un ensayo acerca del descanso, se suscitó el siguiente diálogo:

Esposa -No lo puedes hacer.-

Yo -¿Por qué no?-

Esposa -No sabes nada acerca de eso. Estás siempre trabajando en algo.-

Yo -Hay algo de cierto en lo que dices, pero el descanso no trata precisamente de lo que se hace cuando uno no está trabajando. Básicamente, es una actitud hacia la vida.-

Este es el punto principal: el descanso, correctamente comprendido, es una perspectiva que tenemos en cuanto al sentido de la vida y el vivirla de forma consecuente. Tal perspectiva, o espíritu, debería de fundamentar y unificar toda nuestra manera de ser. Para el cristiano, el verdadero Espíritu de la vida es Cristo. Cuando nuestro día consiste en el buen trabajo, bien ordenado e imbuido por Él, la vida debe y puede convertirse en una peregrinación personal que fluye de forma personal desde Él y vuelve hacia Él

El tema de la naturaleza y el papel del descanso es, por lo consiguiente, tema importante. De hecho, le ha intrigado y, a veces, consumido al hombre a lo largo de la historia, y con buena razón. Porque todos compartimos la necesidad de contestar a la pregunta eterna, “¿Qué debemos de hacer para obtener la felicidad?” La respuesta se relaciona de manera directa con la necesidad innata que tiene el ser humano de comprender la relación correcta entre lo espiritual y lo material; la obligación humana de discernir la naturaleza de la felicidad y los medios apropiados que debemos de buscar para asegurarla. La resolución propuesta, y el papel que tiene el descanso, varía mucho, como lo atestiguan las religiones del mundo, los grandes pensadores y las culturas que los acompañan.

Para el cristiano, la felicidad se encuentra en La Encarnación. Dios se hizo hombre para que el hombre pudiera regresar a Dios. Pero, ¿cómo le hacemos para aceptar la promesa y la invitación que nos da Dios para liberarnos de modo que podamos regresar a Él? Debemos de servirle santa y rectamente: santamente en el sentido de que debemos amar a Dios y valorar los dones espirituales de la fe y de la razón, y rectamente en el sentido de que debemos ordenar nuestro día con un esfuerzo honrado por vivir una vida buena y honrosa. Porque tenemos que recordar que, sin Dios, en vano trabajamos, sin importar cuán sagaces y diligentes hemos sido al desempeñar nuestras labores cotidianas. Dicho sencillamente, el descanso no es el tiempo que disfrutamos tras terminar nuestro deber de ganarnos la vida. En lugar de eso, el descanso en verdad debería de ser ese tiempo especial que tomamos para discernir y reflexionar sobre el qué y el porqué de lo que deberíamos de estar haciendo en todos los aspectos de nuestra vida. Al permitirle a Dios que se encarne en toda nuestra forma de ser, podemos vivir una vida católica de descanso porque Él “guiará nuestros pasos por el camino de la paz”.

Sí, ciertamente es una enorme tarea, ya que el espíritu del catolicismo de descanso involucra a la totalidad de la vocación cristiana. Pero, lo único que queremos hacer aquí es volver a considerar nuevamente algunos de los aspectos fundamentales y prácticos del estilo de vida del cristiano, y hacerlo a pesar de las exigencias de nuestra sociedad moderna. Abordemos este proyecto como obra en tres partes. Primero, ratifica para ti mismo lo que constituye el espíritu cristiano de la vida, y el papel del descanso y del trabajo implícitos en ello. En segundo lugar, vuelve a considerar e implementar algunas destrezas diarias que ayudarán a incorporar y ordenar tu vida y tu trabajo. En tercer lugar, dale mayor vigor al sentido cristiano de la vida, viéndola como una peregrinación personal hacia Dios. Esta perspectiva y enfoque integral enriquecerá tu propia felicidad, y, a su vez, avivará tu llamado de amar y de guiar aquellas personas que están bajo tu cuidado.

When I happened to mention to my wife that I was writing an essay about leisure, the following dialogue took place: Wife: “You can’t do that.” Me: “Why not?” Wife: “You don’t know anything about it. You’re working at something all the time.” Me: “That is somewhat true, but leisure isn’t really about what one does when one is not working. It’s fundamentally an attitude toward life.” That is the main point: leisure, properly understood, is a perspective one holds regarding both the meaning of life and the ensuing way of living it. Such a perspective, or spirit, should inform and unify one’s entire way of being. For the Christian, the true Spirit of life is Christ. When our day consists in good ordered work imbued by him, life should and can become a personal pilgrimage that flows peacefully from and back to him.

The subject of the nature and role of leisure in life is therefore an important one. In fact, it has intrigued and at times consumed man throughout history, and this for good reason. For we all share the need to answer the following timeless question: “What must one do in order to gain happiness?” The answer is directly associated with man’s inherent need to understand the proper relationship between the spiritual and the material; the human obligation to discern the nature of happiness and the appropriate means we should seek to secure it. The proposed resolution, and the role of leisure in it, varies greatly, as the world’s religions, great thinkers and attendant cultures bear witness.

For the Christian, happiness is found in The Incarnation. God became man so that man might return to God. But how do we accept God’s promise and invitation to be set free by him so that we can return to him? We must serve him in a holy and righteous manner: holy in the sense that we must love God and value the spiritual gifts of faith and reason, and righteous in the sense that we order our day in an honest effort to live a good and honorable life. For we must remember that without God, we labor in vain, no matter how astute and assiduous our daily endeavors. Simply stated, leisure is not the time we enjoy after our duty of making a living is done. Rather, leisure really should be that special time we take to discern and reflect upon why and what we should be doing in all aspects of our life. As we allow God to incarnate our entire way of being, we can live a leisurely Catholic life because he “will guide our feet into the way of peace.”

Yes, this is a tall order, for the spirit of leisurely Catholicism entails the totality of the Christian vocation. But all we want to do here is to reconsider afresh some of the fundamental and practical aspects of the Christian way of life, and do so despite the demands of our modern society. Let’s approach this venture as a three-part endeavor. First, reaffirm for yourself what constitutes the Christian spirit of life, and the role of leisure and work implicitly entailed within it. Second, reconsider and implement some practical daily skills that will help embody and order your life and work. Third, invigorate the Christian meaning of life by seeing it as a personal pilgrimage to God. This overall perspective and approach will enrich your own true happiness and, in turn, enliven your calling to love and to guide those within your care.

“Life is what happens when you are making other plans.” How often people have said this with a wry smile as they cope with an untimely interruption to their well-ordered (or not-so-ordered), scheduled events.

En el número anterior de The Catechetical Review,[1] miramos la luz que da la Sagrada Escritura sobre el movimiento transgénero moderno, en particular los relatos de la Creación y de la Ley de Moisés. Ahora queremos ver específicamente algunos textos relevantes de los Evangelios y del Nuevo Testamento en general.

Las enseñanzas más claras de Jesús en cuanto a los asuntos sexuales se dan cuando los fariseos lo presionan sobre el divorcio en Mateo 19,3-6:

Y los fariseos lo pusieron a prueba,

“¿Es lícito al hombre divorciarse de su mujer por cualquier motivo? El respondió: ¿No han leído ustedes que el Creador, desde el principio, los hizo varón y mujer; y que dijo: ‘Por eso, el hombre dejará a su padre y a su madre para unirse a su mujer, y los dos no serán sino una sola carne’? De manera que ya no son dos, sino una sola carne. Que el hombre no separe lo que Dios ha unido.”

Jesús reconoce sólo dos géneros, masculino y femenino, y afirma que han sido creados por el mismo Dios. Además, Jesús afirma que la unión física / sexual entre hombre y mujer en el matrimonio es sagrada, habiendo sido establecida por Dios: “Que el hombre no separe lo que Dios ha unido”. ¿Cómo deriva esto desde Génesis 2,24, que describe a la unión de hombre y mujer utilizando la voz pasiva: “se une a su mujer… se hacen una sola carne”? Jesús interpreta esto de manera autoritativa como un pasivo divino, un recurso literario de la literatura bíblica y judía por el cual el escritor no nombra a Dios por reverencia religiosa, sino que pone en el pasivo a la acción de Dios. Por lo tanto, el significado verdadero de Génesis 2,24 es, “un hombre…es unido por Dios a su mujer… y los dos son hechos una sola carne por Dios”. En relación con la controversia moderna transgénero, por lo tanto, Jesús reconoce solamente dos géneros, e identifica a Dios – no a la sociedad, ni a una construcción social, ni a la psicología humana, etc. – como el Autor y Él que establece esos dos géneros, además de la institución del matrimonio.

La Ley judía, basada en la Ley de Moisés (Lev 18,1-23), rechazó a toda actividad sexual entre personas del mismo género, o entre personas en toda relación fuera del matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, y no existe la menor sugerencia que Jesús haya disputado esa enseñanza. Al contrario, Jesús avanza la enseñanza tradicional judía mucho más lejos, dándole una interiorización radical:

“Habéis oído que se dijo: ‘No cometerás adulterio.’ Pues yo os digo: Todo el que mira a una mujer deseándola, ya cometió adulterio con ella en su corazón. Si, pues, tu ojo derecho te es ocasión de pecado, sácatelo y arrójalo de ti; más te conviene que se pierda uno de tus miembros, que no que todo tu cuerpo sea arrojado a la gehena. Y si tu mano derecha te es ocasión de pecado, córtatela y arrójala de ti; más te conviene que se pierda uno de tus miembros, que no que todo tu cuerpo vaya a la gehena.” (Mateo 5, 27-30).

De acuerdo a la enseñanza de Jesús, entonces, las prohibiciones tradicionales de la inmoralidad sexual aplican también a actos interiores del corazón y de la imaginación. Tener fantasías acerca de actos malos ya de por sí es un acto malo, y el estándar ineludible de la santidad (“sed perfectos como es perfecto vuestro Padre celestial” Mateo 5,48) nos exige, si es necesario, tomar medidas radicales para evitar el pecado – lo cual se expresa de manera hiperbólica con “sácate el ojo” o “córtate la mano”.

Todo esto en realidad no deja espacio para que el discípulo de Cristo se imagine que él o ella tenga algún género distinto del de su sexo biológico. El sentimiento que uno sea de otro género distinto al de su sexo biológico quizás no sea algo que uno mismo elija, pero los discípulos de Cristo tienen que evaluar la verdad de sus sentimientos y sensaciones contra el estándar de la Revelación Divina y de la enseñanza de la Iglesia. La sensación de atracción erótica hacia su compañero de trabajo quizás tampoco sea elegida por uno mismo, y quizás sea “natural” en un sentido biológico. Sin embargo, no justifica que una persona casada actúe sobre esa sensación; más bien, el discipulado cristiano requiere que la persona casada reconozca ese sentido de atracción como un peligro que debe de ser rechazado y suprimido. Del mismo modo, una atracción física hacia un menor de edad quizás no sea algo que uno mismo haya elegido, y quizás sea “natural” biológicamente, sin embargo, el discipulado cristiano nos exige rechazar esos sentimientos y sensaciones, y ni sucumbir a ellos, ni actuar sobre ellos. Del mismo modo, el mero hecho de que tengamos sentimientos o sensaciones hacia el vestirnos, identificarnos o comportarnos de maneras asociados con el sexo opuesto, no justifica el consentir o actuar sobre esas sensaciones. Tenemos que actuar de acuerdo con lo que es verdad acerca de nuestros cuerpos y la verdad revelada en la Escritura.

Jesús enseñaba y llevó a cabo su ministerio entre el pueblo común de Judea a quienes les faltaba la riqueza y el tiempo libre como para consentir formas inusitadas o exóticas de comportamiento sexual. Sin embargo, San Pablo llevó el Evangelio a regiones de gran riqueza en el Imperio Romano, donde formas exóticas de actividad sexual extraconyugal eran comunes y populares. El emperador que condenó a muerte a Pedro y Pablo – Nerón – de hecho, practicaba una forma de transexualismo. Él y su amante de sexo masculino se vestían y se presentaban como jóvenes mujeres cuando mantenían relaciones sexuales juntos. Sin embargo, no era Roma, sino Corinto que tenía la mayor fama por el comportamiento sexual extravagante. El templo de Afrodita (alias Venus), la diosa del sexo, empleaba hasta mil prostitutas sagradas. No es coincidencia que las cartas de San Pablo a los corintos contengan su enseñanza más explícita sobre la sexualidad.

In the previous issue of The Catechetical Review,[1] we took a look at the light Scripture sheds on the modern transgender movement, especially the creation narratives and law of Moses. Now we wish to look specifically at relevant texts from the Gospels and New Testament generally.

Jesus’ clearest teachings on sexual matters arise when the Pharisees press him on divorce in Matthew 19:3-6:

"And Pharisees … tested him, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So, they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Jesus only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and asserts that these have been created by God himself. Further, Jesus asserts that the physical/sexual union between man and wife in marriage is sacred, being established by God: “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” How does he derive this from Genesis 2:24, which describes the union of man and wife using the passive voice: “be united to his wife … the two shall become one flesh”? Jesus authoritatively interprets this as a divine passive, a literary device in biblical and Jewish literature in which the writer does not name God out of religious reverence, but phrases God’s action passively. Thus, the real meaning of Genesis 2:24 is, “a man … is joined by God to his wife … and the two are made one flesh by God.” In relation to modern transgender controversy, therefore, Jesus acknowledges only two sexes, and identifies God—not society, social construct, human psychology, etc.—as the author and establisher of those two sexes, as well as the institution of marriage.

Jewish law, based on the law of Moses (Lev 18:1-23), rejected sexual activity between persons of the same sex, or persons in any relationship outside of the husband-wife relationship, and there is not the slightest hint that Jesus disputed this teaching. On the contrary, Jesus pushes traditional Jewish teaching much farther, radically interiorizing it:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Mt 5:27-30)

According to Jesus’ teaching, then, the traditional prohibitions of sexual immorality apply also to interior acts of the heart and the imagination. Fantasizing about evil acts is already itself an evil act, and the inescapable standard of holiness (“You must be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect” Mt 5:48) requires us, if necessary, to take radical measures to avoid sin—hyperbolically expressed as “plucking out the eye” or “cutting of the hand.”

All of this really leaves no room for the disciple of Christ to imagine that he or she is some other gender than his or her biological sex. The feeling that one is a different gender than one’s biological sex may not be self-chosen, but disciples of Christ have to evaluate the truth of their feelings and sensations against the standard of Divine Revelation and the Church’s teaching. The sensation of erotic attraction towards one’s co-worker may not be self-chosen and may in fact be “natural” in a biological sense. Nonetheless, it does not justify a married person acting on that sensation; rather, Christian discipleship requires the married person to recognize that sense of attraction as a danger that needs to be rejected and suppressed. Likewise, physical attraction toward a legal minor may not be self-chosen and may be biologically “natural”, but Christian discipleship requires us to reject those feelings and sensations, and neither indulge them nor act on them. In the same way, the mere fact that we have feelings or sensations toward dressing, identifying, or behaving in ways associated with the opposite sex, does not justify indulging and acting on those sensations. We have to act in accord with what is true about our bodies and the truth revealed in Scripture.

Jesus taught and ministered mostly among the common people of Judea who lacked the wealth and leisure to indulge in more unusual or exotic forms of sexual behavior. However, St. Paul brought the Gospel to areas of great wealth in the Roman Empire, where exotic forms of extramarital sexual activity were common and popular. The emperor who put Peter and Paul to death—Nero—did, in fact, practice a form of transgenderism. He and his male lover dressed and presented themselves as young women when engaging in sexual activity with each other. Yet it was not Rome but the city of Corinth that was most famed for extravagant sexual behavior. Corinth’s temple of Aphrodite (aka Venus), the goddess of sex, employed as many as a thousand sacred prostitutes. It is not coincidental that Paul’s letters to the Corinthians contain his most explicit teaching on sexuality.

To find out more about the Discipleship Quads or to download your FREE Starter Kit click here

This is a paid advertisement in the October-December 2019 issue.

This is a paid advertisement in the October-December 2019 issue.