"All your dissatisfaction with the Church seems to me to come from an incomplete understanding of sin. What you seem actually to demand is that the Church put the kingdom of heaven on earth right here now, that the Holy Ghost be translated at once into all flesh. The Holy Spirit rarely shows Himself on the surface of anything. You are asking that man return at once to the state God created him in, you are leaving out the terrible radical human pride that causes death. Christ was crucified on earth and the Church crucified in time. . . The Church is founded on Peter who denied Christ three times and who couldn't walk on the water by himself. You are expecting his successors to walk on the water. All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful. Priests resist it as well as others. To have the Church be what you want it to be would require the continuous miraculous meddling of God in human affairs."
-----Flannery O'Connor, from a letter to a fan who was complaining about the church
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Blah! Old Flannery sounds like a Calvinist here, "All human nature vigorously resists grace etc." Wasn't she a catholic!? Grace is a "form" or "perfection" of Man -- having been made in the first place to be a paticipant in God's life -- and, as such, is quite agreeable to human nature, were it not for sin always getting in the way. The infallible St. Thomas makes a nice distinction:
"I answer that, The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (Question [60], Article [1]; Question [63], Article [1]), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.
Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question [50], Article [1]). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue." (ST, 1st part of 2nd part, Q 85)
Of course, she probably wasn't intending to write a rigorous philosophical manifesto for her fan. I guess the sentiment is clear enough and well-taken.
On a similar note, when's the next scrabble/tetris tournament chez Stratton?
Here's a better Aquinas quote from the Summa Contra Gentiles (the good attained through grace "transcends the order" of human nature, while grace itself is called a "perfection intrinsic to man" etc.):
That the aforesaid Assistance is called 'Grace,' and what is the meaning of 'Grace constituting a State of Grace'XXIX, XXX: B. II, Chap. XV): hence it is said: Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things that thou hast made (Wisd. xi, 25). But a special tie of divine love is observable in connexion with those to whom He renders assistance, enabling them to attain the good which transcends the order of their nature, namely, the perfect fruition, not of any created good, but of God's own self. This assistance then is aptly called 'grace,' not only because it is given 'gratis,' but also because by this assistance a man comes to be, by a special prerogative, 'in the good graces' of God.
This grace, in the man in the state of grace, must be a form and perfection of him who has it.
1. That whereby a man is directed to an end must be in continual relation with him: for the mover works change continually until the body moved attains the term of its motion.* Therefore the aid of grace, given man by God for arriving at his last end, implies some form and perfection intrinsic to man.
Hence in Scripture the grace of God is spoken of as light: Ye were once darkness, but now light in the Lord (Eph. v, 8). The perfection whereby man is led on to his final end in the vision of God is appropriately termed light, light being the principle of vision.
Hereby is set aside the opinion of some who say that the grace of God is no positive quality in man (nihil in homine ponit), as no positive quality is ascribed to the courtier who is said to be in the good graces of the King, but rather to the King who has an affection for him. We see how this mistake arose, from failing to observe the difference between divine love and human love: for divine love is causative of the good that it loves in another, but not so human love.
(SCG, III.151)
John, thanks for your posts. But I do have to say, Acquinas-shminas. =)
I think Flannery was talking more about the "now and then" or "present but not yet fully actualized" aspect of the kingdom particularly as it relates to sinful human beings as part of the church.
I took her point to be that her reader was always looking for perfection in the body of Christ when the type of perfection looked for was not offered. The crux of that point being that Christ and the Holy Spirit will not violate our wills and make us perfect (a very Catholic conception!) with a wave of the wand. And I won't even get started on her hint that grace is resistable (clearly not Calvinistic!).
I blogged it because I think it points at a deep truth about the church we'd all do well to realize. . . namely that it's a human institution slowly and painfully on it's way to becoming a divine body. We ought not be surprised, or frustrated like Flannery's reader, when leaders and lay people (even ourselves) fail to meet the standard. We ought rather to accept it simply as a fact that we're all hopelessly bound up in our sin, and covered by grace in the midst of our sanctification.
For God to perfect us and bypass sanctification, thereby bringing the kingdom to pass in all it's fullness here and now, would be antithetical to the whole scheme of salvation. . . .it would be akin to Christ calling upon the legions of angels in Gethsemane instead of dying on the cross.
In short, it would involve a violation of man's free will on a level contradictory to the entire mission of the gospel. It would, as Flannery says, "require the continuous miraculous meddling of God in human affairs," when in point of fact God has chosen to work in much subtler and messy ways by leaving the work in the hands of his followers, and by requiring faith in things not seen.
Point taken, Christopherson. I just think the last part is very clumsily expressed. It's not human nature that "vigorously resists grace"; my love of sin is the cause of that. If loving sin is part of my very essence or *nature* (very precise words), how could Christ assume my nature without becoming himself sinful? Guys like St. Thomas were rather careful, linguistically and otherwise, when dealing with notions like sin and grace.
(The bit about "continuous miraculous meddling" seems similarly awkward to me. A conversation for another time.)
Perhaps accusing FO'C of Calvinism is a little unfair... but then again perhaps accusing Calvin of Calvinism is a little unfair too!
PS: I'll let your dig at the Angelic Doctor pass this once, but be careful... you could be adding thousands of years to your stay in purgatory.
Isn't there a bar around here where we can pick up the threads of this conversation? =)
Post a Comment