Friday, June 19, 2009
Val J. Peter
The people who lived in this country before us for hundreds of years surrounded their lives with moral boundaries around money, power and sex. They tried to steer a course between puritanical suppression of pleasure, on one hand (being insensitive to the good things of life) and pagan indulgence (coming to wallow in materialism. Remember the ad for Chase Bank: “I want it all. I want it now.”) My thoughts here focus on a middle ground between the two. We call it the right balance between the two extremes. We call it moderation. It is the right balance that puts the brakes on the downward drag of materialism. It is the right balance that calls us to be slightly countercultural in order to break the pattern of political correctness, to go against the pleas that “everybody has it” and “everybody else does it.”
1. What are the basic elements of balance between riches and poverty, the basic elements of the right balance?
a. Many agree when I say many affluent Americans want too much and expect too much and that makes us very unhappy because in times of scarcity, such as now, we get frustrated. But even in times of great abundance, we feel an emptiness of material things.
b. The basic elements of balance or moderation are:
Gaining control over our wants, especially our sensual appetites. (more economic goods)
Gaining control over our appetite for gain. (more income, more wealth seeking)
Gaining control over our appetite for power. (money brings power…a $100 bill is a magic piece of paper)
Gaining control over our appetite for political correctness. (which brings a preference for prestige over truth and goodness)
In ancient and medieval times, these controls to gain a right balance of our material wants were lumped together in a very specific way:
In static economies of ancient and medieval times, extravagant living, time and again, involved depriving the poor of some means of livelihood. In economics, this is called a “zero sum game” where the pie is only so big. And you can only get a bigger piece from the pie by taking a piece from somebody else. Growing economies are not zero sum games.
Control over the desire for power and political correctness is much more needed today because of the strength of environmental reinforcement. This is a very important point. Let’s take the example of associative conditioning in the media changing people’s views. The first example of associative conditioning I can think of was in Hitler’s Germany where a Nazi propaganda machine cleverly would show a picture of Jews immediately followed by a picture of rats. If this was shown over and over again, as soon as you saw rats you thought of Jews and as soon as you saw Jews, you thought of rats.
In our time, associative conditioning is more subtle. You put together one after the other, pictures of an extravagant lifestyle and happiness over and over again. So much so that as soon as people think of happiness, they think of an extravagant lifestyle. This is coupled with the associative conditioning of pictures of the Church, coupled with old dumb men demanding stupid morality. So that when you think of morality, you think of old dumb men in the Church. And when you think of the Church, you think of old dumb men demanding morality.
2. So we have to work on a right balance (or moderation) between too much or too little.
A proper balance between the two can help us develop a moral compass and religious sensitivity.
The gospel of the Lord calls us to seek first the kingdom of heaven. The gospel calls us to look at the lilies of the field which neither sow nor spin, yet our Heavenly Father closed them in glory in abundance.
The birds of the air do not engage in commerce, yet our Heavenly Father feeds them.
The presence of wealth is not an automatic sign of divine favor.
Sensitivity to moral values comes from embracing the gospel and daily following the Lord.
The gospel says we are to pray: Speak Lord, your servant is listening. An affluent person prays: Listen Lord, your servant is speaking.
Look at the story of Dives and Lazarus in Luke’s Gospel. Dives did not kick old Lazarus. He did not spit on Lazarus. He did not make fun of Lazarus. He did not have Lazarus removed from his doorstep…Dives was condemned for none of these things. Then why was he condemned? Because he simply did not much even notice Lazarus. He simply accepted the world in which Lazarus existed. He just did not really care. He was indifferent. He was too busy with other things. The opposite of love in the gospels is not hate. It is simply not caring. (Remember in Gone with the Wind, Rhett Butler was saying to Scarlet: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a….” Indifference.
3. St. Theresa of Avila tells this story in The Interior Castle (the 3rd mansion) of a person quite affluent who loses some money on a bad investment. (It wasn’t the subprime mortgage crisis, but it was something.) He is simply crushed by it. He is anxious, upset, angry and out of sorts. Theresa asks: how can the Lord possibly get through to that person when he is so wrapped up in himself? What should he do? And she answers: he should admit he has a neurotic attachment to his wealth. He must pray to the Lord to give him freedom in this area.
4. Are there such things as people who think they can buy love? The man who pays a prostitute knows he is really buying sex and not love, but for a few moments he fantasizes that he is buying love. The same is true with most people who are so starved for love that they try to buy it with gifts to their children, etc. Except for a few brief moments here and there, it is unlikely that they really believe they can buy the love they feel they so desperately need. Most people who are hungry for love have never tried hard to let the Lord love them and they feel unloved under any circumstances. They are willing to settle for being liked. They can buy attention, even admiration. Love buyers tend to spoil their children. They give into the wishes and desires of their children and buy them all sorts of things they don’t need. Love buyers get admiration and attention. But admiration and attention are only poor substitutes for real love and they are never quite satisfied. But many love buyers just keep trying.
The people who lived in this country before us for hundreds of years surrounded their lives with moral boundaries around money, power and sex. They tried to steer a course between puritanical suppression of pleasure, on one hand (being insensitive to the good things of life) and pagan indulgence (coming to wallow in materialism. Remember the ad for Chase Bank: “I want it all. I want it now.”) My thoughts here focus on a middle ground between the two. We call it the right balance between the two extremes. We call it moderation. It is the right balance that puts the brakes on the downward drag of materialism. It is the right balance that calls us to be slightly countercultural in order to break the pattern of political correctness, to go against the pleas that “everybody has it” and “everybody else does it.”
1. What are the basic elements of balance between riches and poverty, the basic elements of the right balance?
a. Many agree when I say many affluent Americans want too much and expect too much and that makes us very unhappy because in times of scarcity, such as now, we get frustrated. But even in times of great abundance, we feel an emptiness of material things.
b. The basic elements of balance or moderation are:
Gaining control over our wants, especially our sensual appetites. (more economic goods)
Gaining control over our appetite for gain. (more income, more wealth seeking)
Gaining control over our appetite for power. (money brings power…a $100 bill is a magic piece of paper)
Gaining control over our appetite for political correctness. (which brings a preference for prestige over truth and goodness)
In ancient and medieval times, these controls to gain a right balance of our material wants were lumped together in a very specific way:
In static economies of ancient and medieval times, extravagant living, time and again, involved depriving the poor of some means of livelihood. In economics, this is called a “zero sum game” where the pie is only so big. And you can only get a bigger piece from the pie by taking a piece from somebody else. Growing economies are not zero sum games.
Control over the desire for power and political correctness is much more needed today because of the strength of environmental reinforcement. This is a very important point. Let’s take the example of associative conditioning in the media changing people’s views. The first example of associative conditioning I can think of was in Hitler’s Germany where a Nazi propaganda machine cleverly would show a picture of Jews immediately followed by a picture of rats. If this was shown over and over again, as soon as you saw rats you thought of Jews and as soon as you saw Jews, you thought of rats.
In our time, associative conditioning is more subtle. You put together one after the other, pictures of an extravagant lifestyle and happiness over and over again. So much so that as soon as people think of happiness, they think of an extravagant lifestyle. This is coupled with the associative conditioning of pictures of the Church, coupled with old dumb men demanding stupid morality. So that when you think of morality, you think of old dumb men in the Church. And when you think of the Church, you think of old dumb men demanding morality.
2. So we have to work on a right balance (or moderation) between too much or too little.
A proper balance between the two can help us develop a moral compass and religious sensitivity.
The gospel of the Lord calls us to seek first the kingdom of heaven. The gospel calls us to look at the lilies of the field which neither sow nor spin, yet our Heavenly Father closed them in glory in abundance.
The birds of the air do not engage in commerce, yet our Heavenly Father feeds them.
The presence of wealth is not an automatic sign of divine favor.
Sensitivity to moral values comes from embracing the gospel and daily following the Lord.
The gospel says we are to pray: Speak Lord, your servant is listening. An affluent person prays: Listen Lord, your servant is speaking.
Look at the story of Dives and Lazarus in Luke’s Gospel. Dives did not kick old Lazarus. He did not spit on Lazarus. He did not make fun of Lazarus. He did not have Lazarus removed from his doorstep…Dives was condemned for none of these things. Then why was he condemned? Because he simply did not much even notice Lazarus. He simply accepted the world in which Lazarus existed. He just did not really care. He was indifferent. He was too busy with other things. The opposite of love in the gospels is not hate. It is simply not caring. (Remember in Gone with the Wind, Rhett Butler was saying to Scarlet: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a….” Indifference.
3. St. Theresa of Avila tells this story in The Interior Castle (the 3rd mansion) of a person quite affluent who loses some money on a bad investment. (It wasn’t the subprime mortgage crisis, but it was something.) He is simply crushed by it. He is anxious, upset, angry and out of sorts. Theresa asks: how can the Lord possibly get through to that person when he is so wrapped up in himself? What should he do? And she answers: he should admit he has a neurotic attachment to his wealth. He must pray to the Lord to give him freedom in this area.
4. Are there such things as people who think they can buy love? The man who pays a prostitute knows he is really buying sex and not love, but for a few moments he fantasizes that he is buying love. The same is true with most people who are so starved for love that they try to buy it with gifts to their children, etc. Except for a few brief moments here and there, it is unlikely that they really believe they can buy the love they feel they so desperately need. Most people who are hungry for love have never tried hard to let the Lord love them and they feel unloved under any circumstances. They are willing to settle for being liked. They can buy attention, even admiration. Love buyers tend to spoil their children. They give into the wishes and desires of their children and buy them all sorts of things they don’t need. Love buyers get admiration and attention. But admiration and attention are only poor substitutes for real love and they are never quite satisfied. But many love buyers just keep trying.
posted by Fr. Peter | 4:21 PM
