Mar. 29, 2010, at 1:18pm
Two names given by Holy Scripture to the devil came to mind reading this article: Father of Lies and Legion.
According to some of the testimonies given to the apostolic visitors in recent months, some in this group knew about the founder’s double life, about the carnal acts he performed with many of his seminarians over the span of decades, about his lovers, his children, his drug use. But in spite of that, a fortress was built around Maciel in defense of his virtues, devotion to him was fostered among his followers, all of them unaware of the truth, his talents were emphasized, even among the upper hierarchy of the Church. This exaltation of the figure of the founder was so effective that even today it inspires the sense of belonging to the Legion among many of its priests and religious.
The cohesion of the leadership group, originating from its decades-long connection with Maciel, endures today in the bond that binds and subordinates everyone to Corcuera, and even more to Garza.
Garza concentrates two key posts in himself. He is vicar general, with control of administration, and he is the director of the congregation’s Italian province, headquartered in Rome, where the Vatican is. He took this second post shortly before the beginning of the apostolic visit, transferring his predecessor, Jacobo Muñoz, to the province of France and Ireland.
But in addition to this, Garza is the creator and absolute master of Grupo Integer, the holding company that acts as treasury and administrative center for all the works of the Legion in the world, with assets totaling an estimated 25 billion euros.
This groups with assets in tens of billions of dollars routinely send out fundraising appeals asking for money for its poor seminarians, who don’t have enough food of heat.
I am finding it increasingly difficult to trust or respect anyone who remains affiliated in any way with this travesty of a religious order.
Thanks for the inspiration Devra. When Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It wasn't just an admonition. He was stating a spiritual law. This law is better known in other traditions as the law of karma. What this means is that our actions, whatever they are, have an equal and opposite reaction. What we do defines us not only in the abstract, but in the concrete. This spiritual law pervades all existence, even our direct experience of the world. It's not something that is enigmatic. Newton's third law reflects this spiritual law in the concrete world and serves as a sign of its objective "form" in spirit for all observers of concrete phenomena. What you are talking about is actually more real than what you are suggesting it means. But how easy it is to forget that what we do always comes back to us.
Sep. 23 at 10:45am | See in context
Also, the human being undergoing these evolutionary changes prior to the fall would not be the human being as we define it today. It would have been so long ago that it would have probably been some other kind of creature.
Above when I said,
"If these negative emotions began to evolve as a result of the "human being" taking advantage of evolutionary niches having to do with survival and therefore at that time being beneficial to "man" and valued as superior over any other alternatives due to their survival value(very early on because animals have these lower emotions too), then the fall of man (man becoming aware of his condition) would have been subsequent to this starting point of the evolution of these negative emotions and would have also been the very same point in time (as the fall) that man became aware of a metaphysical objective reality that would have put his imperfect condition in stark contrast with this new discovery of an objective reality greater than himself."
It makes a certain kind of sense to deligate the title of human being to the creature who rose from the ashes of the fall of man.
Sep. 22 at 8:45pm | See in context
I just wanted to make it clear that Hawkins attributes the positive emotions to spirit and not to an evolutionary origin, or as I have categorized them, to the Catholic personalist's integral and non-dualistic connection with God through the Holy Spirit.
Sep. 22 at 8:15pm | See in context
What surrendering the emotion means is to give it up, to let it go- but giving it up and letting it go imply that there is some action involved on your part, which there is not according to Hawkins; the terms surrendering it, giving it up and/or letting it go just mean to allow the negative emotion to run out of energy on its own, which it will if you do not resist it, if you feel it in its full and if you do not judge it.
You let it be what it is and you let the energy behind it run itself out on its own once it is neutralized. Once you do this enough with all of your negative emotions as they come up, you will find yourself with a lot of time on your hands because there is no more negativity inside of you! Then, you can continue this process, because you can’t “kill it off” (original sin) as Flannery O’Connor wrote, but you can manage it! After you get the swing of it, you can focus on prayer and a willingness to let the Holy Spirit transform your life even more than you already are!
Sep. 22 at 7:50pm | See in context
So, the question would have arose, how do we get to God from here? After another vast and unknown amount of time, we arrive here and now and the question is still the same, but now we have more information to help us understand how we might go about it.
Hawkins suggests we administer what he calls the letting go technique. What this is, is a technique for neutralizing negative emotions.
The technique is as follows: One is to acknowledge the negative emotion without resisting it. Not act on it in any way, not even talk about it (against what Alice Miller recommends which is to discuss them with an enlightened witness). First acknowledge it, second, do not judge it, just let it be what it is. Third, feel it in its full without judging it (this is the crux because you will want to escape it, repress it, project it, judge it, etc.). Again, just let it be what it is without acting on it in any way (this is neutralizing it). Fourth, surrender it.
Sep. 22 at 7:47pm | See in context
Hawkins book is titled, "Letting Go, The Pathway Of Surrender", not "to Surrender".
Hawkins explains that the negative emotions have evolutionary origins. The explanation for them having negative ramifications for the personalist and the bridging connection for the Catholic personalist, I would suspect could only be to point the person in the opposite direction of the result of the fall, i.e. original sin; in the direction of God.
If these negative emotions began to evolve as a result of the human being taking advantage of evolutionary niches having to do with survival and therefore at that time being beneficial to man and valued as superior over any other alternatives due to their survival value(very early on because animals have these lower emotions too), then the fall of man (man becoming aware of his condition) would have been subsequent to this starting point of the evolution of these negative emotions and would have also been the very same point in time (as the fall) that man became aware of a metaphysical objective reality that would have put his imperfect condition in stark contrast with this new discovery of an objective reality greater than himself.
Sep. 22 at 7:43pm | See in context
Hawkins' books pertaining to this are "Power Vs. Force" and "Letting Go, The Pathway to Surrender".
I have attempted below to explain a personalist spirituality as it would pertain to these emotions. So, for the personalist the higher emotions would be states of being belonging attributed to communion with Holy Spirit of the Trinity in greater and lesser degrees according to the state or emotion experience, which depending on a given personalist, the person may experience these states as integral and personal, yet at the same time as an objective reality of the person’s being (in other words, something other-worldly). I say given personalist because these experiences may not be ubiquitous among personalists, and I say objective reality because according to Catholic doctrine any states of being attributed to the Holy Spirit would require an objective metaphysical derivation (i.e. the Trinitarian God).
Also, I think it necessary to point out the ontological distinction being made here because the quality of experience between the two categories of emotions is quite obvious and noticeable if you pay close attention to the magnitude of awareness of what is happening during the experience of an emotion (the higher emotions or states of being allow for greater awareness of experience).
Sep. 22 at 7:37pm | See in context
Hello, I contributed some posts about Alice Miller a year or two ago and saw this conversation and would like to contribute again. I have some information that might be helpful for people wanting to learn more about emotions. I have a lot, but I will try to be as brief as I can: First, thanks Jules for the great insight about the connection between the objective and the subjective. I really enjoyed that. And also, I enjoyed the quote about "blood does not flow in artificial limbs" from Alice Miller by Katie. Alice Miller sure has a way to get a point across. It's so effective.
So, here is some more information: David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. explained emotions the following way: the lower ones, or the negative ones (humiliation, blame, despair, regret, anxiety, craving, hate, scorn) have their origins in our evolutionary past and have evolved over millions of years as survival mechanisms within our evolving biology. The higher ones (affirmation, trust, optimism, forgiveness, understanding, reverence, serenity, bliss, ineffable) he has attributed to a higher degree of consciousness that is in operation during a person's experience of them.
Sep. 22 at 7:33pm | See in context
Carole, I read and admired your recent article on the need for a personal relationship with Jesus. I even started a post about it, but then found myself getting bogged down in the side issue of the meaning of phenomenology, which was I was afraid would overshadown my deep agreement with your gist.
I think many, if not most, of us have been raised to be deeply suspicious of the emotions. We confuse affective coldness or indifference with being "objective" and "rational", when, really, we're being out-of-touch—with ourselves, with others, and with God.
Sep. 20 at 4:53pm | See in context
Thanks Carole. I agree with you about John Paul II. He is very aware, it seems to me, of a specifically modern type of resistance to the very idea of God, which argues that a flourishing personal existence is impossible under the constant presence of an all-seeing and all-caring Being. God, in this frame of mind, is experienced as the biggest and most insufferable "Big Brother" imaginable.
It is important to show that this image of God, and of our relationship with him, is not true. God is all-powerful and all-seeing. But he does not have a "heavy hand".
Sep. 20 at 4:20pm | See in context
Copyright: The Personalist Project 2014 | Contact us
519 North High Street, West Chester, PA 19380