Community in Mission

For most of us, attachments to this world are THE struggle that most hinders our spiritual growth. 80% of the spiritual life is a battle about desire and the fundamental question, “What do you want most, the world and its pleasures, or God and his Kingdom?” So easily this world gets its hooks into us and we become attached to it. It is hard to break free from inordinate desires.

But what are attachments, and what are they not? Are there ways we can distinguish attachments from ordinary and proper desires? What are the signs that we are too attached to someone or something? To address questions like these, I want to turn to a great teacher of mine in matters spiritual, Fr. Thomas Dubay. Father died a little over a year ago, but he left us a great legacy of teaching through his books, audio recordings, and programs at EWTN. In addressing these questions, I would like to summarize what he teaches in his spiritual classic Fire Within, in which he expounds on the teachings of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

Here then are some excerpts (pages 133-135). Father’s  teaching is in bold, black italics. My own poor remarks are in plain red text. You may wish to read only Fr. Dubay’s text to begin with, and only read my additions if you think you want elaboration.

I. WHAT ATTACHMENT IS NOT:  Sometimes it is easier to say what a thing is not prior to saying what it is. In this Fr. Dubay disabuses us of wrongful and sometimes puritanical notions that are neither biblical nor Catholic since they reject as bad what God has made as good, and as a blessing. Scripture says,  God created [things] to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:3-4).

1. First of all, attachment is not the experiencing of pleasure in things, not even keen, intense pleasure. The complete avoidance of pleasure is neither possible nor advisable in human life … There is no doubt that the pleasures of the five senses easily lead to a selfish clinging to them for their own sakes, but nonetheless, the pleasures themselves are not blameworthy. God made them, and they are good.

The remarks here are very balanced. Of itself, taking pleasure in what God has made is a kind of thanksgiving and surely an appreciation of what God has created and given.

Yet, due to our fallen nature, we must be cautious that our experience of pleasure, like all our passions, does not become unruly, improperly directed, and take on a life of its own. If we are not mindful, pleasures can divert our attention from the giver (and His purpose) to the gift alone.

Consider that a husband properly enjoys intense pleasure in his intimate experiences with his wife. Correctly understood, there is little way he can NOT enjoy this, other things being equal. But these intimate moments have a meaning beyond themselves. They summon him to greater intimacy, appreciation, and love for his wife, and ultimately, for the God who created her. Further, these moments draw him to share his love and appreciation through an openness to the fruit this love will bear in his children.

Hence the gift of intimacy is wonderful and to be enjoyed to the fullest, but it is not an end in itself. When it becomes its own end, and exists in our mind only for its own sake, we are on the way to attachment and idolatry.

2. Nor is possessing or using things an attachment to them. We must all make use of things in this world to accomplish what God has given us to do. God is surely pleased to equip us with what we need to do his will, to build the Kingdom, and to be of help to others.

3. Nor is being attracted, even mightily attracted, to a beautiful object or person an unhealthy attachment. As a matter of fact, we should be drawn to the splendors of creation, for that is a compliment to the supreme Artist. Saints were and are strongly attracted to the glories of the divine handiwork and especially to holy men and women, the pinnacles of visible creation.

A gift to pray for is the gift of wonder and awe, wherein we appreciate and are joyful in God’s glory displayed in the smallest and most hidden things, as well as in the greatest and most visible things. We are also summoned to a deep love of, appreciation of, and attraction to the beauty, humor, and even quirkiness displayed in one another.

But here too these things are meant to point to God; they are not ends in themselves. And it sometimes happens that we fail to connect the dots, as St. Augustine classically describes, “Late have I loved you, O Beauty, so ancient, and yet so new! Too late did I love You! For behold, You were within, and I without, and there did I seek You; I, unlovely, rushed heedlessly among the things of beauty You made. You were with me, but I was not with You. Those things kept me far from You, which, unless they were in You, would not exist” (Confessions 10.27).

So once again, to be attracted by beauty is, of itself, good. But it is not an end. It is a sign pointing to the even greater beauty of God and his higher gifts.

II. WHAT ATTACHMENT IS:  St  John of the Cross [observes] that if anyone is serious about loving God totally, he must willingly entertain no self-centered pursuit of finite things sought for themselves, that is, devoid of honest direction to God, our sole end and purpose. St. Paul makes exactly the same point when he tells the Corinthians that whatever they eat or drink, or whatever else they do they are to do all for the glory of God … (1 Cor 10:31)

St John of the Cross explicitly states that he is speaking of voluntary desires and not natural ones‚ for the latter are little or no hindrance to advanced prayer as long as the will does not intervene with a selfish clinging. By natural desires the saint has in mind, for example, a felt need for water when we are thirsty, for food when hungry, for rest when fatigued. There is no necessary disorder in experiencing these needs … to eradicate these natural inclinations and to mortify them entirely is impossible in this life.

Of course even natural desires can become unruly and exaggerated to the point that we seek to overly satisfy them and they become ends in themselves. Fr. Dubay makes this point later. St. Paul also had to lament that there were some whose god was their belly and who had their mind set only on worldly things (cf Phil 3:19).

[More problematic and] especially damaging to normal development are what John calls, “habitual appetites,” that is, repeated and willed clingings to things less than God for their own sake. And here we come to some critical distinctions.

[W]e may ask when a desire becomes inordinate and therefore harmful. I would offer three clear signs.

1. The first is that the activity or thing is diverted from the purpose God intends for it. And this is very common today with sex and with many matters related to the body.

2. The second sign is excess in use. As soon as we go too far in eating, drinking, recreating, speaking, or working, we show that there is something disordered in our activity. We cannot honestly direct to the glory of God what is in excess of what He wills. Hence, a person who buys more clothes than needed is attached to clothing. One who overeats is clinging selfishly to food.

Yes, beer, for example, is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy. A couple of beers is gratitude; ten beers is a betrayal. God gives in abundance to be sure, but more so that we can share with the needy and the poor, than that we should cling to it selfishly as though it existed as its own end.

Sharing spreads God’s glory. As St Paul says, “All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God” (2 Cor 4:15). And again, “You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God” (2 Cor 9:11). Thus the abundance of God is directed to the spreading of His glory and to the widening of thanksgiving, NOT as an end itself, that we should hoard it. God’s gifts point back to Himself.

3. The third sign of attachment is making means into ends. We have one sole purpose in life: the ultimate, enthralling vision of the Trinity in glory, in our risen body. Everything else is meant in the divine plan to bring us and others to this final embrace with Beauty and Love … As soon as honesty requires us to admit that this eating or that travel, this television viewing or that purchase is not directly or indirectly aimed at Father, Son, and Spirit, we have made ourselves into an idol. We are clearly clinging to something created for our own self-centered sake.

This is often the hardest of the three to discern, but I think the heart of the difference between a thing becoming an end rather than a means, is the question of gratitude. How consciously grateful are we to God for the things and pleasures we enjoy? Do they intensify our gratitude or do they merely distract us from thinking about God?

Further, do they help me in my journey upward to God or do they merely root me more deeply in this passing world?

Another (scary) question is, “How easily could I give this up if I discovered that it was hindering me from God or that God no longer wanted it in my life?” This is hard, because we really enjoy certain things. But the key question is not that we enjoy them, but whether they lead us to God. And we must be honest about this, avoiding puritanical notions, but also avoiding self-justifying ones.

Here, too, an important thing to seek from God is not merely the strength to give up things with a sour face and bad attitude, but that through His grace we actually begin to prefer good things in moderation over distracting things in excess. If we let God go to work, the good begins to crowd out the bad in an incremental, growing way.

[Therefore:] an attachment is a willed seeking of something finite for its own sake. It is an unreal pursuit, an illusory desire. Nothing exists except for the sake of God who made all things for Himself. Any other use is a distortion.

In Jesus’ time, the smallest homes of the very poor might be little more than a square, stone structure covered with a whitewashed sort of stucco. There would typically be one larger multipurpose room and a smaller back room for the animals. Some houses in hilly regions were partial cave dwellings, built up against the limestone rock face, perhaps with the front section built onto it. The traditional site at the house of the Annunciation in Nazareth seems to have employed this strategy. However we need not conclude from this that Joseph and Mary were destitute. Many homes employed the “hillside strategy” that made use of hollowed out caves. Such structures were easy to build and there was a certain natural coolness to them.

Another sort of house, also common among the working poor and typical village-dwellers, was one built around a central open court with small rooms opening onto it. (See the drawing at the upper right; click the picture for a larger view). This kind of building had the advantage of needing only short beams for the roof structures, since the central court had no roof. The open concept retained the coolness by allowing air to move freely through. Cooking could also be done in the open central court, when the weather permitted.

If the family had some animals, they were often kept in part of the house at night.

Families, sometimes including several generations, tended to live under one roof and had little or no privacy.

The roof was of real importance in everyday life. It was a flat roof with just enough slope to drain off the rainwater. Rainwater was carefully collected into cisterns or large containers, for in the more arid climate of the eastern Mediterranean every drop of water was precious. The roof of the house was flat and sturdy, enabling people to venture up on it. Since the roofs were used so often, the law of Deuteronomy required guard rails to be installed to prevent falling.

The roof areas in effect provided an open second floor. On the roof, tools would often be stored, laundry would be put out to dry, and people would often gather to talk, especially in the evening. Scripture also speaks of it as a place to retire and pray. In the evening when it was cool, people sat and talked, and in the better weather would often sleep there. The climate of the Mediterranean provides a rather perfect setting for this at most times of the year. Some also placed tents and other coverings on the roof.

Except for the roof structures, which included wood timbers, the basic building material in Palestine was stone. The limestone provides excellent building material and as the stones were fashioned into a wall, they would be coated with a flat, fixed stucco-like material and smoothed over. Foundations were dug with great care as Jesus also said to build upon rock rather than sand. The mortar was used to bond the stone that was made of clay mixed with shells and potsherds.

As for the structure of the roofs, wooden trusses were necessary, since the roof would be used as a kind of second floor. Then a kind of wattling or firm lattice of straw mats would be covered over and smoothed with hard clay. Yearly repairs were made just prior to the rainy season. Most of the inner doors were narrow; only the door facing the street was wider and had a hinged door that could be secured.

In poorer homes the floor was simply pounded earth. The more affluent might have pebbles or baked clay tiles. Wooden floors could be afforded only by the very wealthy.

Only the very wealthy could afford to have water piped to their houses. Ordinary people went to the well or spring-fount, or perhaps a local stream, and collected water with skins, jars, and all kinds of pitchers. Some larger towns did have conduits or aqueducts that brought the water to certain public areas. The washing of clothes was done away from the main house lest water run back in.

Generally there was no need for a lot of heating, except in the cooler months of the year. Most of the houses therefore had no fireplaces. If it did grow cold, there were charcoal braziers where small fires would be kindled.

Lighting was not very abundant. Small oil lamps were used. It will be recalled from above that much time was spent out-of-doors so interior lights were less necessary.

Furniture was extremely simple. The chief object in the home was the chest. There were chests for provisions and chests for clothes. For the poorest families, chests doubled as tables. Since clothing was simple, there was little need for many different sets or changes of clothing, and thus there was less need for numerous chests and the sorts of insanely large closets many have today.

Most moderately well off families did have a low table at which to recline and eat. People in this region and time reclined on their left elbow and ate with their right hand. Sitting on chairs at higher tables to eat was rare.

The kitchen as we know it did not exist. In small houses cooking was done out back on an open fire or in a fire pit. Utensils were kept in a chest. In larger houses the courtyard might be the place of the cooking fire and kitchen items were kept in a storeroom.  Only the largest homes had a dedicated area with a fiery oven.

Bedding was rolled out on the floor; the bed as a piece of furniture off the floor, as in our homes today, was largely unknown at that time except among the very wealthy. Family members stretched out on mats, covering themselves with their own cloaks. Many slept on the roof in the warmer months.

Many even smaller houses seem to have had a bath of some sort. The ancient Jews were conscientious about cleanliness and saw it as related to holiness and ritual purity. The usual bath (often called a mikveh) was narrow and one stepped down into it. Bathing was for hygiene to be sure, but there were also ritual baths that the Jews took. In the Holy House in Nazareth, a mikveh is located in or near the house and adjacent to the carpenter shop of Joseph.

Latrines were more likely outhouses and were situated away from the main dwelling. They may have been shared facilities between several domiciles, depending on the size and layout of the town or village. There is an excerpt in the Torah in which Moses instructs the ancient Israelites to “build your latrines outside the camp.” It further states, “When you go to the toilet, take a paddle or a shovel with you and use the toilet and then cover it up,” suggesting that some sort of lime was thrown in after the use. Other directions about latrines were that they should be located in discreet, private locations. Certain archeological digs have uncovered the presence of latrines that consisted of a pit dug into the ground and of an enclosed, roofed chamber; basically an outhouse.

It was a simpler time to be sure, but still with all the basic needs of a home.

Okay, so we won today in the Supreme Court. The Hobby Lobby case went our way; score one for religious liberty.

But here’s a concern: why didn’t the Justices vote 9–0? To be even more clear, if religious liberty, a right given us by God and legally enshrined in the First Amendment, prevailed by only one vote where are we as a country? And how long will that one vote prevail? So, we can celebrate a narrow victory, but why was it narrow?

How have we reached the point in this country that those who hold a sincere religious belief contrary to the contraceptive mindset of the world, and who also sincerely oppose the killing of children through abortion, only narrowly escaped being required to both provide for and even pay for these sorts of things?

Where are all the liberals who march under the banners of tolerance? Where are the First Amendment zealots willing to stand with us? They are nowhere to be found, I suspect because it touches on abortion and contraception, which have become like sacraments for them.

I would like to think that, though I love the Scriptures and want everyone to have them, I would oppose in principle a law requiring every business to provide free bibles to all their employees or customers. I’d like to think that, if a Muslim business owner (or a pagan one for that matter) objected to being required to do this, I would stand with him in principle and oppose this requirement. Thus even if a non-Catholic doesn’t understand or agree with my principled opposition to contraception and abortifacients, is it really so much to ask that most justices (not just 5 out of 9) and most Americans agree that I ought not be required to provide and pay for these things?

Go with me to the Jewish delicatessen example of Bishop Lori some years ago as I adapt it just a bit. What if the current Administration or the Federal Government were to say to all Jewish deli owners, “It is just an outrage and downright un-American that you don’t sell pork sausage and hot dogs. Every American deli MUST provide these by law. And you must comply or face big fines”? Even though most Americans don’t understand or share the Jewish aversion to pork, I would think they would still be outraged by such an action.

Now suppose further that after the outrage the government proposed a compromise: “OK, you don’t have to provide the pork, but you must let us set up a kiosk inside your deli where we will offer it free of charge to your customers and employees, because, by gosh, whether you like it or not, you are going to offer pork in your Jewish deli!” Again, the outrageousness of such a stance would provoke great protests from most Americans regardless of how comfortable they are with eating pork themselves.

It is simply outrageous that four Supreme Court Justices, and many Americans, cannot see the clear and offensive proposition of the Government in this regard. And even if they don’t share our opposition, they ought to stand with us in principle.

But they do not. And this once again underscores the serious condition of our Nation and our Constitution. It is another example of the growing tyranny of relativism wherein reasoned recourse to agreed-upon principles is no longer possible. Thus, they win who are the most powerful, or have the most money, or have the most access. Granted, we won today, but barely, and by one vote; it could easily have gone differently.

Everyone, no matter his political or moral stance, should be very concerned about the growing intrusiveness and raw power of a government that thinks it can force people to act against their faith and to cooperate in what they think is evil. Catholic opposition to abortion and contraception is nothing new. It goes all the way back to Scripture, which condemned the use of “pharmakeia” (e.g., Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, and 18:23). The Didache and countless documents of the Fathers and the Magisterium have always upheld these views. We have not changed, the culture has. To compel us to provide and even pay for what we consider evil is wrong and un-American. It is shocking that so few Americans understand or appreciate this.

But wake up, fellow Americans. You may even find it amusing for the Catholic Church or conservative Christians to be attacked. But if this can happen to us, it can happen to you. Think twice, and then think a third time too. You have every reason to stand with us, and only bigotry and the desires of the flesh to oppose us. Make no mistake; you will be next. The Government will not cease its encroachment on basic liberties at the exit door of the Catholic Church. The steamroller is heading for you next. Stand with us.

We won today, but barely. It should have been 9–0. Wake up, America; your religious and other liberties are hanging by the thread of one vote.