Uday, Uday, Uday Gonna Pray For?
The Bell Curve may be the normal distribution, but isn't it surprising that Tom's blog could draw, simultaneously, two outlyers so far from the mass of consensus? I'm speaking of his commenters, which include (arguably, ha) the most polite and least polite persons in St. Blogdom. Interestingly, the presence of the former seemed to impact the style of the latter.
The thread in question draws much from the seemingly mundane question of whether to pray for Saddam's sons.
Mr D'Hippolto writes persuasively: The implication in your questions is "there but for the grace of God go I." That not only smacks of fatalism but of a kind of false humility that Catholicism has promoted to keep the faithful pliant and quiet through unnecessary guilt....Consider this as you pray your rosary, and don't criticize yourself for "not doing enough". That kind of self-doubt is the work of Satan, who wants that self-doubt to overwhelm your prayers.
St. Philip Neri's prayer was "Jesus, watch over me always, especially today, or I shall betray you like Judas."
Really St. Philip? Are saints guilty of pious exaggeration when they proclaim their unworthiness, or do they actually see themselves more accurately than we do ourselves?
It seems to me the trick is to incarnate the truth that without God I can do nothing without letting that devolve into my doing nothing except pray, i.e. letting God do the heavy lifting. On the other hand, too much confidence in self can lead to disunity and a lack of obedience. Americans, inculcated by democratic values and used to getting their own way, are expert at this.
The stark differences of the thread writers remind me of what Tom wrote about during the lead up to the Iraq war. To paraphrase, he suggested that perhaps in making up the Body of Christ it is necessary to have both pacifists and JWT's, and for the individual to attempt to become both is not what God desires.
But isn't it necessary that we strive towards the opposite pole? If St. Augustine was accused of being too hard on the sin of lust, was this not in part a reaction against his own battles? Is the Golden Mean to be achieved by individuals or by the Body of Christ composite? Or is that "nuny'all" - none of my business, but God's?
Keepers
KTC writes,
Since when does "prayer" consist of setting aside a block of time to sit down with a list of names, then composing words to say on their behalf?
That's not the ONLY way to pray, O esteemed Dominican! John of the Cross says that a simple thought (not necessarily even a clarified one) to heaven about someone is a form of prayer. John goes on to say, the Holy Spirit does not lie. If you've got a special love, intensity, or "burden" on your heart for something or someone, it's put there by the Lord.
On the other hand, if someone makes a request of you to pray and you are indifferent, just offer up a brief prayer on the spot and be done with it. You need feel no condemnation for not praying every day for that need.
The Lord, in short, puts each of us into a different sphere of influence.
*
It just seems odd that our knowledge of the past proscribes God's ability to have acted in the past based on our prayers in the present. And how dare we presume to watch television when there are unprayed-for souls who died in the Tartar invasions? To me, it simply sounds like a soft-hearted theory unsupported by historical Catholic witness.
The question of whether a notoriously evil non-Christian halfway around the world needs my prayers even more than my wife does is kind of interesting. Granting his objective need is greater, that he requires "more" grace to be saved, does it follow in justice that I must pray for him more than, or before, I pray for my wife? I don't think so, for much the same reason that I don't think I have to make sure no one in the world is starving before I feed my wife.-Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment