Steven over at Flos Carmeli writes of his alarm at an arid intellectualism repulsive to normal people - that he describes as akin to Manichaeism - that he perceives in many people who sincerely wish to explain and defend the teaching of the Church. He notes that religious people are often criticized as backwards and anti-intellectual, but in fact an overabundance of Catholics who are all head and no heart is hurting evangelization.
I think this is one of those situations (if this makes any sense) where there are two sets of complementary virtues that make up one of the aspects of the completely developed spirituality, and the population "divides" itself based on which half they find easier.
One who is excessive on the one side is commonly called "rigid." This person has a deep devotion to his duty and can't understand why others don't. His vice is that he lacks sympathy with the human heart, and this hamstrings his apostolate in the way you describe. Moreover, his sense of being right lulls him into a complacency that may preclude spiritual growth.
The contrary excess I have heard called "squishy." For this person, feelings trump everything. He will compromise truth and real love if these conflict with their dictates. Sometimes it may be out of pride or love of comfort, but often it is often out of a misguided sense of compassion.
I wonder sometimes if the squishy sort does more violence to the truth objectively speaking, yet the rigid type is more culpable because being the knowledgeable one he ought to know better.
Just like a human body, some things call for rigidity, like bones, and others for flexibility, like skin, in the right amounts and in the proper places. But with original sin in the picture this is easier said than done, and people will often just concentrate on applying the one they're best at uniformly to every situation.
Have you ever read Brideshead Revisited? Al should really be the one to post on this since he was the one that originally pointed it out to me - in his characters Waugh skewers the vices that hold people back from spiritual growth. Bridey is the rigid one; Julia the squishy one. But Julia is the one that manages to integrate the two halves before the end of the book - she finally learns how to make a sacrifice - perhaps even a heroic one - to live the truth in love. Bridey was probably never in any substantial danger of damnation, yet he remains stuck in a sort of arid spiritual infantilism. If anyone converts it will be in spite of him rather than because of him; it is Julia's example that moves Charles to convert.
Are you rigid? Are you squishy? What do you need to do to integrate the virtues you lack?
Recent Comments