St. Augustine's roadblocks in his Confessions

[OneSheep]

Luke 11:13 13 If you then, though you are evil , know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Matthew 7:11 11 If you, then, though you are evil , know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

While these two verses may appear to contradict the trend of the direction of Augustine’s spiritual growth, and also contradict Genesis 1, I think it is pretty well accepted in the Catholic Church that Jesus was using the word “evil” as “evildoers”, with no negative emotional affect.

I do like however trying to work out how our feelings or impulses are expressions of our God-given nature though. As the Catechism teaches they are not in themselves evil.

Correct.

But I think your doctrine denies original sin.

Not sure what you are referring to.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Not sure what you are referring to.

1/2 Please accept my apologies. I really should emphasize how good I think your work and theory is for practical and therapeutic purposes, especially for parenting but also likely for people who are dealing with anger issues or have humbled themselves and acknowledge they may have a judgmentalism problem that is uncharitable…

I really like where you are going with this and I also like how you are developing a vocabulary that can be used even in secular literature and practical philosophy, and of course also possibly psychology (of which I have no knowledge of course). I wouldn’t be surprised if people in AA would be interested in what you are saying too.

The only thing I think might be missing from your theory is, and will probably have to be addressed in it for it to be complete or wholistic, is human experience of admitted grave evil. From my personal experience, witness and observations, grave evil gets the jump on people. It catches those who least believe they are capable of it. Everyone here on earth - short, presumably of a special grace from God - is capable of grave evil that can not only do enormous damage to themselves or others but can cause serious trauma and ruin lives very easily. In my experience/observations - and even many movies make a theme of these - it’s exactly people who were perfectly sure they were incapable of doing something that often end up doing that thing or those things they didn’t think they were capable of it. In those experiences I think people are basically forced to take one or two roads: denial of it because of its traumatic nature and its horror or the humble acceptance that we are capable of it and morally vulnerable beings. And what seems to make us especially vulnerable is exactly our certainty that we aren’t capable of certain evils: now I think we all as we grow learn we are capable of doing bad things. So people who grew up with siblings probably learn they are perfectly capable of hitting and susceptible to anger. As a consequence, they learn (often under parental assistance, insistence and supervision) to learn to deal with angry feelings or emotions. That of course is a healthy roadblock to preventing even more serious acts or aggression or violence (though unfortunately it seems people who have been abused and don’t work through the trauma and acknowledge it often end up inflicting trauma others, thought not necessarily of either the same kind of the same degree - but it can add up and create real problems of course and in total cause a good deal of hurt or harm).

 

[SeraficLeo]

2/2

I think there is a humane way to salvage the reality that, in a sense, people are evil simply because our human nature is perfectly capable of it. I think we condemn and ostracize individuals and groups partly because we don’t want to own-up to our moral weakness or the vulnerability of our human nature as it regards the capacity for doing evil, and indeed great evil. So on that basis there is a strange almost up-shot to acknowledging that people are evil - it means evil people are still people too but it would also help, in my opinion at least, for individuals and our societies to be more morally cautious and develop healthy “blockers” for dealing with root emotions or feelings, not exactly by suppressing them (as that tends to just build them up until they find an outlet) but working through them.

I am sure there are plenty of converts to Christianity and even people on CAF who can tell you that part of their conversion experience may have been exactly because they either themselves did, or experienced or saw something evil that probably scared them to their core and made them have to rethink their worldview about the reality of evil in human life and, indeed, its apparent power and superiority - how it can almost get the jump on people, so to speak and seems to have every advantage. This can cause people to much more morally cautious and realistic about themselves and, of course, make them seek spiritual help for defending morality in themselves but also, it might be hoped, protection from its power.

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you for your in-depth discussion points. I appreciate the effort. Due to a death in my immediate family yesterday, I am going to be a bit brief, and try to address a few points. For now, this is a nice distraction.

I really should emphasize how good I think your work and theory is…

Thank you, but I’m not sure what the “theory” part is. I am taking an observational standpoint, and I am happy to incorporate all observations. Could you describe my “theory”?

The only thing I think might be missing from your theory is, and will probably have to be addressed in it for it to be complete or wholistic, is human experience of admitted grave evil

Please bring it forth, an example of admitting grave evil, and we can examine how Augustine would address it. The “admitting” part is very important, and probably the most difficult.

Everyone… is capable of grave evil

Yes, I agree, every grave evil imaginable.

As a consequence, they learn (often under parental assistance, insistence and supervision) to learn to deal with angry feelings or emotions. That of course is a healthy roadblock to preventing even more serious acts or aggression or violence

But you are not using “roadblock” in the way that I did for the title of this thread, correct? The “road” I am referring to is the process of identifying and integrating our drives and capacities to do evil after one has already repressed and condemned them. What I am looking at is that people form consciences that guide behavior, and that is very good. The cost of conscience development includes formation of the “dark part” of the human shadow. Without the shadow, in my observation, the conscience simply doesn’t form. Specific human instincts, drives, and capacities are individually repressed, (and sometimes denied altogether because of the “traumatic nature”), but whether or not it is denied, the repression still serves a purpose.

So the first “road” is to form a conscience which, as a side effect, creates some internal discord. The second “road” is one toward inner harmony, which does not erase the functioning of the conscience. While the first “road” begins at birth and continues through life, the second is taken after the first is largely formed (some time in young adulthood), and I am seeing that this second road, for the most part, is something that occurs subconsciously. People become more accepting as they grow older, but may not really know why. It is a process of reconciling with one’s shadow.

 

[OneSheep]

I think there is a humane way to salvage the reality that, in a sense, people are evil simply because our human nature is perfectly capable of it.

What has been brought up in this thread is the concept of “love the sinner, hate the sin”. If the human is seen as evil, then such a “seeing” is in itself a bit of a hindrance to our ability to love, because we automatically recoil (find unconscionable) loving what is evil.

So while our natural conscience, with the functioning of the shadow attaches the value of the person (heavily influenced by negative emotional affect, gut reaction) to the sins committed by the person, the perception of the “reality” you are referring to, because heavily emotionally influenced, is going to vary a great deal among individuals. The perception is rooted in the formation of the conscience itself, in the content of the “dark part” of the shadow. Again, this is an observed phenomenon, and we can see Augustine, at least through examples, addressing this in his writings.

And when you are using the word “humane” in the same sentence as “people are evil”, does this express a view that humanity is, in “reality”, something negative?

the reality of evil in human life and, indeed, its apparent power and superiority

So, remembering that Augustine had turned away from Manichaeism, how do you think he might address what you wrote there?

 

[SeraficLeo]

Due to a death in my immediate family yesterday,

I was negligent and did not read this paragraph first. Losing a loved one is terrible. I hope you and they find peace after the grief.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, ‘a hate the sin, love the sinner’ attitude does not align itself well with our proclivity to be self-righteous, holier than thou, etc. Others must be demonized in order for us to feel divinized, while the cross teaches just the opposite in reality. IMO humankind does not easily give up its “distorted image of God” that was conceived of at the Fall as the Church teaches, and we aspire towards becoming whatever God we conceive of.

Hi fhansen,

My mom passed away a couple weeks ago, and I am trying to resurrect this thread now that the funeral is over and I am trying to get things back in order.

What this thread addresses is the “demonizing” you mentioned here. Specifically, we can see God in one another when we have the eyes of the Spirit, but when we are experiencing some roadblocks, it is difficult to see people in this light.

Do you share this perspective?

 

[Elf01]

My mom passed away a couple weeks ago, and I am trying to resurrect this thread now that the funeral is over and I am trying to get things back in order.

Off topic but I’m so sorry to hear that. I’ll pray for her soul and comfort for you and your family.

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you. It is heart-warming when we on the CAF behave like people who actually put aside everything else and care for one another.

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

My mom passed away a couple weeks ago, and I am trying to resurrect this thread now that the funeral is over and I am trying to get things back in order.

What this thread addresses is the “demonizing” you mentioned here. Specifically, we can see God in one another when we have the eyes of the Spirit, but when we are experiencing some roadblocks, it is difficult to see people in this light.

Do you share this perspective?

I’m sorry for your loss OneSheep. I now how that is. And I’ve also been distracted lately, not for sorrowful reasons though but because we’re flooded with work due to grape harvest in Northern CA. Hardly time to escape to a forum even or anywhere else for that matter such that I’ve been hit and miss with these threads.

What this thread addresses is the “demonizing” you mentioned here. Specifically, we can see God in one another when we have the eyes of the Spirit, but when we are experiencing some roadblocks, it is difficult to see people in this light.

Do you share this perspective?

Yes, I don’t know what the root of this is but pride and competitiveness and fear/insecurity all seem to be related and to contribute. Grace, love, and humility, also related, are the antidotes that open our eyes as I see it.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m sorry for your loss OneSheep. I now how that is.

Thank you fhansen.

And I’ve also been distracted lately, not for sorrowful reasons though but because we’re flooded with work due to grape harvest in Northern CA.

We’ve just reduced our degrees of separation. My brother sells grapes (all valley fruit) in Visalia, so you and he probably know some person in common.

Yes, I don’t know what the root of this is but pride and competitiveness and fear/insecurity all seem to be related and to contribute. Grace, love, and humility, also related, are the antidotes that open our eyes as I see it.

That grace comes in the form of love and humility, yes, I agree. But there is also the ingredient of “knowing the way” so to speak, and utilization of the gift of understanding, all of which can be gleaned from the Gospel.

So far, we have covered some of the instances where Augustine’s roadblocks had been overcome. Shall we move onto the roadblocks that he could not transcend?

… keeping in mind the harvest schedule limitation, of course…

 

[Magnanimity]

Applying the same concepts, what is the “emotional propellant” behind the words (i.e. “fall”, or “rejecting it as not enough”). Is Aquinas feeling something negative toward humanity concerning the word “fall”? Is he feeling a little resentful about about “rejecting oneself as he is”, in which one should accept oneself as is and ideally do so, with a gut-level reaction toward the motive behind “rejecting oneself as one is”?

I believe that Newman says in his Grammar of Assent, “We must accept ourselves as we are and not as we hope to be, ideally.” This is, of course, a great spiritual insight. It would seem to apply to all rational creatures, whether human or angelic. Part of spiritual work, I suppose, consists in taking an accounting of who/what one is, even on the individual level, one’s limitations and one’s potentialities. (More later…)

 

[fhansen]

Yes! I think a great deal of our unhappiness, practically all of it, comes from this non-acceptance of who we basically are, and non-acceptance of God as deservingly superior to who we are

 

[Magnanimity]

To distinguish roadblocks, we can find where there is truly some negative emotion involved, like an on/off button.

Are you distinguishing here between things as they are in themselves and our internal reactions to those things?

Okay, is the word “inflated” used with a negative affect? If so, it is a gut-level feeling about having such “inflation”. If I’m using the word with negative affect, then there is likely an underlying rule in my conscience, such as “I should not inflate”.

I had in mind the sense of pride being, in the first definition I used, “to think more highly of oneself than one ought to.” The inflation comes in bc one has exceeded the reality of one’s actual self. Hence, the unreality involved. So, I guess it would be rendered “I should see things as they really are (including myself).” So I suppose, in some circumstances, a person could be prideful in this specific, unhealthy way and yet genuinely unaware of the mistake they’ve made in their own self-estimation. But as one matures in life and grows in wisdom, as you say,

one should accept oneself as is

But, help me to see the forest that you’re after here @OneSheep, I feel I may be getting lost in my own trees. I don’t want to get hung up on whichever particulars I find interesting. I want to know exactly what universal ideas you’re after. I know this thread has had a fair amount of engagement so far, but I’m not confident that I’m connecting all the dots that you’re after. Sorry! I can be a little “thick” sometimes.

 

[OneSheep]

I believe that Newman says in his Grammar of Assent, “We must accept ourselves as we are and not as we hope to be, ideally.” This is, of course, a great spiritual insight. It would seem to apply to all rational creatures, whether human or angelic. Part of spiritual work, I suppose, consists in taking an accounting of who/what one is, even on the individual level, one’s limitations and one’s potentialities.

In the context of this thread, my eyes zeroed in on the word “ideally”.

If this ideal is applied to conscience formation, that is, our conscience is formed such that the ideal, in this case, is “acceptance”, and the repressed/resented capacity is “nonacceptance”, then that is how it would apply to the topic of “roadblocks” here. The word “must” in Newman’s words imply a disciplined ideal.

If the ideal is incorporated in such a way that a person, then, feels good/righteous when they have disciplined him/herself to “accept” and feels guilty/self-condemning about themselves when they do not “accept”, then there is a typical shadow dynamic at the core of this particular “rule” in the conscience.

In this case identification(jungian term) is going to involve admitting (perhaps painfully) that sometimes I do not accept, and then integration(also jungian term) follows from generative questions like “why does our loving God give humans the capacity for non-acceptance?” If the temporary answer itself leads to something involving condemnation of either man or God, the true answer is still yet to be found.

Bottom line: Yeah, I agree with Newman, but it is probably counter-productive to not accept our own capacity for non-acceptance. It is fruitful to pay a lot of attention to the way we use the word “must”. It could be, though, that Cardinal Newman was thinking the same thing.

Are you distinguishing here between things as they are in themselves and our internal reactions to those things?

I’m not only making that distinction, but drawing specific attention to the way that our internal reactions to things define the way we subconsciously see/perceive things “as they are”.

I had in mind the sense of pride being, in the first definition I used, “to think more highly of oneself than one ought to.”

This can be especially applicable to the topic if the person resents/represses his own capacity for “pride” and feels a negative affect (shame, guilt, condemnation, etc.) when he self-judges that he is thinking more about himself than he ought to (based on external data).

So, I guess it would be rendered “I should see things as they really are (including myself).”

Okay, is that another example of an “ideal”? “Should” can have different emotional/cognitive meanings.

 

[OneSheep]

So I suppose, in some circumstances, a person could be prideful in this specific, unhealthy way and yet genuinely unaware of the mistake they’ve made in their own self-estimation.

In my observation, it is either that they are unaware of the mistake, or that they refuse to admit the mistake (blindness), in which the refusal itself involves a deeper lack of awareness. I’ve yet to find other examples. What I have not found through observation is that people genuinely think themselves above others and are completely aware.

But as one matures in life and grows in wisdom, as you say,

one should accept oneself as is

What I said there was part of a question. Does the individual repress/feel resentful about not accepting himself as he is? If so, there is a shadow element involved, the discipline to accept oneself is part of the conscience.

I think that acceptance, as we age, also involves accepting when we/others are non-accepting. That said, with my philosopher-son reading over my shoulder today, I still need to at least say that non-acceptance sucks, without this, he says, my posts are misleading.

Non-acceptance leads to suffering, and suffering, well, is pretty sucky.

I know this thread has had a fair amount of engagement so far, but I’m not confident that I’m connecting all the dots that you’re after. Sorry! I can be a little “thick” sometimes.

Yeah, there are a lot of moving parts. We’ve covered how Augustine came to see, in his eyes lit by the Spirit, that even murderers can be acceptable as people like you and I. Perhaps we should move on to St. Augustine’s roadblocks, and doing so will help explain how it all works. Shall we?

BTW: I am also quite thick, I’ve just been studying this stuff for a very long time. There are a lot of dots to connect. What might be helpful are some self-reflection questions such as “what do I resent about myself”?

Here is a really good background resource that I recently ran across:

https://scottjeffrey.com/wp-content/uploads/Shadow-Work-Guide.pdf

 

[OneSheep]

Yes! I think a great deal of our unhappiness, practically all of it, comes from this non-acceptance of who we basically are, and non-acceptance of God as deservingly superior to who we are

I couldn’t have said it better, fhansen. At the same time, though, there is a place for some “meta” awareness. We have a capacity for non-acceptance, and that capacity, in itself, serves our wellbeing. So, while St. Augustine expresses non-acceptance of self and others (we are going to get to this), that non-acceptance serves a purpose, even though it caused him a bit of suffering, and the non-acceptance was part of the “roadblocks” that I hope to address. The roadblocks are grounded in the shadow core of the conscience.

I read parts of some of my recent posts to my son the philosopher (ABD) and he seems to think that I am not being genuine in this thread. He said something like “Hey, Dad, non-acceptance causes suffering and you are not explicit enough about that.” So here is my attempt to be more explicit. However, I think you and I have both agreed that there is a time for non-acceptance, even if it is communicated as non-acceptance of a person (though I emphasize that understanding and forgiveness are ultimate guides to holiness and oneness with God).

I don’t know if you saw what I put in another reply, but here is a psychological approach to what I am discussing on this thread. I can also reference shadow work to several places in the Gospel, which were (are) the starting points for my own shadow work. You might note in Jeffrey’s article how his wording correlates almost exactly with what you stated above concerning “inflation”.

 

[Magnanimity]

In my observation, it is either that they are unaware of the mistake, or that they refuse to admit the mistake (blindness), in which the refusal itself involves a deeper lack of awareness. I’ve yet to find other examples. What I have not found through observation is that people genuinely think themselves above others and are completely aware.

Agreed, there could be a “willful blindness,” a refusal to admit something that seems to be nagging at the corners of one’s consciousness. And there could also be, in a less formed consciousness, a genuine ignorance. We see this latter in young folks a lot (I myself was no exception!). Young people, with some regularity, tend to overestimate themselves but not in a morally culpable way–there seems to be some genuine ignorance involved there.

Perhaps we should move on to St. Augustine’s roadblocks, and doing so will help explain how it all works. Shall we?

Yes, that sounds good.

I’ve just been studying this stuff for a very long time. There are a lot of dots to connect. What might be helpful are some self-reflection questions such as “what do I resent about myself”?

Yes, I am noticing that I simply lack the required background in the Jungian approach to “shadows” to properly keep track of your lines of thought. I certainly don’t mind learning more about it, but it’ll be “on the fly,” you know, and so possibly lacking in the depth of engagement you’re hoping for (from me anyway).

But just let us know in which direction you’d like to head now.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Mag,

Been away from the books for a bit, now I have a chance to respond and start working on roadblocks.

Agreed, there could be a “willful blindness,” a refusal to admit something that seems to be nagging at the corners of one’s consciousness. And there could also be, in a less formed consciousness, a genuine ignorance.

What might be fruitful to pay attention to there are “willful blindness” and “a refusal to admit”. If I witness a person “refusing to admit” or exhibiting “willful blindness”, does that ever strike a negative affect within? If so, it is a reaction from the conscience, and likely has an element of the shadow at its core. In an adult spirituality, these little (or big!) negative affects are doorways to a deeper awareness. If I see and feel negatively toward a person who “refuses to admit” and I simply address the negativity with “I shouldn’t feel negatively” then I have bypassed the opportunity for deeper awareness.

I could elaborate more, but I’m trying to limit my words.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, that sounds good.

Okay! Let’s get started on roadblocks!

Remember, the starting points are the statements that St. Augustine makes that are absolutes, such as:

Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good…

-Book 31, Ch 31

I started this thread by addressing where Augustine had managed to lift some roadblocks (Book 2, Ch 5), and now I’d like to continue by addressing some of the roadblocks he had not addressed. These roadblocks are evidenced by instances when he is not seeing that all He made is good.

One of the major themes of his Confessions is his condemnation of many aspects of his childhood. He painfully confesses (names) his sins and his motives, and he claims them (identification), which is great, but does not take the next step, using the gift of understanding (through the Spirit) to see that even with those motives we are still “good”.

It is a matter of looking at the motives with an eye of Understanding rather than condemnation.

Here is the first instance of some negative affect (with a specified source of the affect) I could find in the book:

I myself have seen and have had experience with a jealous little one; it was not yet able to speak, but it was pale and bitter in face as it looked at another child nursing at the same breast.

-Book 1, Ch. 7

He uses this as part of the evidence of “sin within him (man) you (God) have not made” (first line of Book 1, chapter 7)

So, for starters, can we share in the identification, that we are all capable of, and have the capacity for, jealousy?

I am going to assume that whoever is reading this can make such an identification, can take ownership of this capacity for jealousy that we all share. But rather than “leave it at that”, the next step begins with a question:
Why do we have an innate capacity for jealousy?