Author Topic: Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?  (Read 3312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline innocenza

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • Reputation: +16/-0
Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2010, 07:04:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I knew the Church used the term scrupulous-- it's in the Baltimore Catechism, and probably occurs long before that.  But I also wondered how the Church defined it.  Someone told me the definition of a scrupulous person, for Catholic purposes, is an individual who regards things as sinful that are not sins.

    It's a good definition in one sense; but on the other hand, sin involves not necessarily only an act but the intent that motivates the act.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3480/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #16 on: October 09, 2010, 07:35:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If we make an earnest morning offering, and offer to God, the good, bad and ugly,  we are covered and need not worry about what piece of the cake I should choose, the bigger or smaller. BTW, I loved the story.   :laugh1:


    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1242
    • Reputation: +197/-119
    • Gender: Male
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #17 on: October 09, 2010, 11:37:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: MaterLaeta
    Most of my family - since they are not trads and highly disagree with my stance on such things - tend to call me uptight, legalistic, and uncharitable.


    They're in for a shock, to act indifferent towards the salvation of your own children is the the height of uncharitableness.

    To let your children be engaged all kinds of occasions of sin will undoubtedly cause them to fall eventually into mortal sin.

    Such children if never ultimately corrected, never taught the faith, and finally end up in Hell will unceasingly curse their parents.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #18 on: October 10, 2010, 12:38:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Literally speaking, the number of choices or actions (if any do exist) that are 100% neutral, must be very, very few.

    The reason I say this is, even among things like "which top should I wear, the plain or the striped one?" there will almost always be other circumstances attached to the decision. Maybe the plain top is ever so slightly more modest than the striped one, for instance. Even if both are far less scandalous than MOST tops... still, if there were any difference between them, then you could say, at least technically, that there is some minute element of choice between good and evil.

    This is why it's a slippery slope to let ourselves think that many, or most choices or actions we make in life are really "neutral". The fact is, most choices are accompanied by many details that make them take on a moral character.

    Eating is good, because it nourishes the body. Eating candy is not good, because it really doesn't do the body any good, and is very likely to do it harm instead. Eating vegetables is good. Eating back to back vegetables (gluttony) is bad. So can we say that "eating" is neutral? No. Really it depends on many factors associated with the choice, from what we eat, to how full we already are. Most choices are like that.

    We can say that thinking that far is "scrupulous" ... but we also shouldn't be nonchalant about everything, either.

    People can make fun of someone who has come to a point in their spiritual life, where they have weeded out all mortal sins, and are now focusing a lot of attention on their venial sins. Many would call them scrupulous or even absurd for giving so much attention to "little things" that most of us offend God by without even giving it any thought. But the reality remains: these things are sins, and thus we should not do them.

    Being only human, it is impossible for us to avoid EVERY sin, because we are weak, and we get tired and distracted, and often do things simply because we weren't paying attention to what we were doing. But while it may be impossible for us to AVOID every sin, we should take care to develop a realistic attitude that it MATTERS whether or not we do such things. That we're weak, we cannot help. Whether or not we KNOW we're weak, and whether or not we're sorry for it, is another matter.

    In the realm of human actions or choices in general, it is very, very difficult to think of a situation where you can make a choice like "red or blue" where it will NOT be attached to other circumstances that make the choice a matter of right or wrong to some degree (however slight). Some would say it's ridiculous to think that far. But as Catholics, I think it's important that we do understand this... that this is a fact that all of us face day by day in our lives... and I think it is important that we understand that it does matter. Like with the issue of venial sins (which such bad choices would likely fall under), with all of our actions (thoughts, words or deeds), we should also cultivate an attitude that we DO care, rather than just ignoring everything short of murder.

    I think the bottom line is, while we can't make ourselves sick trying to avoid tiny mistakes, we also shouldn't have the attitude that nothing but mortal sins register on the moral radar of our conscience. It should matter to us, at least in a general way, whether or not the things we think, say or do are offending God (Whom we profess to truly love more than life itself), or whether they are truly innocent. To some reasonable (healthy) extent, we ought to make an effort to understand that most actions have a moral element, and we ought to try, at least in general, to have a good and sincere will to avoid ANYTHING that offends God.

    No, we can't literally avoid every evil. No, we can't loose sleep in terror of every minute sin or negligence. No, we should not be obsessed (scrupulous) about such tiny things. But we should impress upon our intellect the reality that almost every human action CAN be right or wrong to some extent, or in some sense, and we ought to have or cultivate in ourselves that good will to avoid even smaller transgressions when we recognize them.

    Virtue, remember, is essentially "a good habit". Humility, for example, is essentially the habit of thought and action of not thinking more of ourselves than what is true. Prudence is the "habit" of not being foolish in our lives. We need to develop a similar "habit" whereby we hope eventually to be able to avoid even smaller transgressions very naturally, just as a man with the virtue of prudence comes to very naturally avoid imprudent choices, or the man with the virtue of humility comes to very naturally see himself always in an honest and true light.

    The key is that virtue is a HABIT... but one that, once acquired and firmly established in us, usually becomes like second nature to us... something we do NOT have to think about constantly or agonize about. Those virtues can be acquired by gently turning ourselves in the right direction, and quite calmly and sanely taking reasonable steps toward that direction.

    There is a healthy, sane (not agonizing, scrupulous) way to become more perfect in our lives. If you impress the truth upon your mind about these small decisions, and keep a good will to really try to do better in them when you can, chances are you will at least start to do better in them. I think the habits will follow upon that good will, as long as we are willing to act upon it. We should be careful not to become scrupulous, but being more mindful of our actions in general probably wouldn't hurt anyone, especially if until now, they have only ever paid any attention to or cared about the grave sins and imperfections in their lives.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2270
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #19 on: October 10, 2010, 03:45:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Dulcamara
    In the realm of human actions or choices in general, it is very, very difficult to think of a situation where you can make a choice like "red or blue" where it will NOT be attached to other circumstances that make the choice a matter of right or wrong to some degree (however slight).


    I have a number of equally modest t-shirts, where there really is no moral consideration involved in the choosing of one, especially when you consider that I'm going to be wearing the same cardigan over whichever one I choose!


    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #20 on: October 10, 2010, 07:22:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: clare
    Quote from: Dulcamara
    In the realm of human actions or choices in general, it is very, very difficult to think of a situation where you can make a choice like "red or blue" where it will NOT be attached to other circumstances that make the choice a matter of right or wrong to some degree (however slight).


    I have a number of equally modest t-shirts, where there really is no moral consideration involved in the choosing of one, especially when you consider that I'm going to be wearing the same cardigan over whichever one I choose!


    This is what's known as "getting lost in the example".  :facepalm: My point wasn't that no two shirts are equally modest. (We all know if you have two of the same shirt, they would be.) My point was simply that like in the case where they WEREN'T both equally modest, most decisions in our lives DO entail other circumstances or things that do put a moral twist on the question.

    Yes, I'm sure if we look really hard, we can find SOMETHING that is neutral, as far as we can tell. But the fact is, you'd have to look pretty hard in real, everyday life to find such an example. (Eg, while we could THINK of some, if we thought long and hard, there probably aren't very many we're likely to encounter in real, everyday life that are truly so.)
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2270
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #21 on: October 11, 2010, 03:49:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Dulcamara
    Quote from: clare
    Quote from: Dulcamara
    In the realm of human actions or choices in general, it is very, very difficult to think of a situation where you can make a choice like "red or blue" where it will NOT be attached to other circumstances that make the choice a matter of right or wrong to some degree (however slight).


    I have a number of equally modest t-shirts, where there really is no moral consideration involved in the choosing of one, especially when you consider that I'm going to be wearing the same cardigan over whichever one I choose!


    This is what's known as "getting lost in the example".  :facepalm: My point wasn't that no two shirts are equally modest. (We all know if you have two of the same shirt, they would be.) My point was simply that like in the case where they WEREN'T both equally modest...


    If they're not equally modest, it doesn't really matter if you're going to be wearing the same big cardigan over whichever you choose!

    Quote
    ... most decisions in our lives DO entail other circumstances or things that do put a moral twist on the question.

    Yes, I'm sure if we look really hard, we can find SOMETHING that is neutral, as far as we can tell. But the fact is, you'd have to look pretty hard in real, everyday life to find such an example. (Eg, while we could THINK of some, if we thought long and hard, there probably aren't very many we're likely to encounter in real, everyday life that are truly so.


    I don't think you have to look that hard. If you stop to think about every decision you make, you'll find a lot of them are neutral.

    I've a board for my children - one side is black (for chalk), the other is white (for marker pens). It is morally neutral which side they use.

    The order I do the washing up in and how I arrange it on the rack is morally neutral (although it makes sense to arrange things logically). How I peg things on the washing line is morally neutral. What colour towels I put out. Whether to have a side or centre parting when I brush my hair is neutral. Left sock first or right.

    I'm not intending to sound facetious, by the way, just suggesting that there are plenty of morally neutral decisions that we make all the time. In themselves, that is. As you say, there can be extrinsic factors which add a moral dimension. If my husband prefers a centre parting, then I should probably opt for a centre parting. But I do not care which sock he puts on first!

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #22 on: October 11, 2010, 09:44:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Picking and choosing a few examples doesn't exactly reflect real human life.

    I get up in the morning. But before I do, did I set my alarm? Did I let myself sleep in? Will that cause me to be unable to do my duties today?

    I get up to get dressed, and since I don't happen to possess a burka in my wardrobe, generally speaking, I get my choice of an array of more or less modest tops. I will usually have to pick from between some that really, truly are more or less modest. If the more modest ones are all in the wash, I am left with less modest ones to pick from, BUT... today, on THIS day, did I pick a top or bottom less modest than those available?

    Morning prayers. Am I letting myself be distracted? Did I just decide not to say a few because, gee... there's something I really want to do this morning?

    I go to breakfast. I have all the choices in my kitchen. There are DEFINITELY more and less healthy choices there. I WILL choose. I will also run the risk of eating too much, or, if I'm impatient to do something, perhaps not enough.

    On to chores/work. Am I doing them well, or simply rushing through them to get them over with? Each task can be done more or less poorly. I'm washing the dishes for everyone in my house. It's my duty. Am I doing a lazy job because I really don't care, or am I doing them like I would do them if Our Lord was coming to dinner (serving as if serving the Lord)? And these decisions will go for any work that I may do today.

    Interacting with people, as a human being full of human weakness, most of what comes out of my mouth will probably be wasted words. (A problem.) At worst it will be sinful words. They could have been edifying, or good or kind words. Every time I open my mouth to say anything, I have a choice to make instantly. What kind of words am I going to permit myself to say?

    Again, cooking for others... what kind of job am I doing? What kind of choices am I making picking out the food, ESPECIALLY since now, I'm talking about not just making choices for me, or doing work for myself, but for everyone in the house. Now my choices may have moral implications because of how they may effect those who will be eating it.

    Work. I write. But what I write is from first to last a question loaded with moral issues, from whether or not my work is sinful, to whether or not I permitted myself to be unfit for it, or knew I was and attempted it anyway without correcting the unfitness if possible, or rather giving it up if correcting my unfitness was not possible, to whether or not I publish or share it, and the consequences of that choice in the minds, hearts and souls of everyone who happens to read what I wrote, to the fact of the perfection (or lack thereof) in the work itself, and many more. To say nothing of that if I do too much, I am guilty of abusing my health, and that if I do it not at all, I am guilty of not doing my moral duty to at least try to make a living.

    Recreations. All kinds of choices come into play, MOST of them not "neutral" if we look closely. I crochet. But I have sore wrists, which can actually be injured, even seriously, if I abuse them. This means not only how long I crochet, but how long I do ANYTHING with my hands, becomes a moral issue. I like to draw... something that is, if NOTHING else, fraught with moral choices. That I choose to do a silly work, instead of something that could have been beneficial to my fellow man, is in itself a choice that could be called "bad", if you want to go that far. I like music. But the industry is FULL of choices between good and bad music, some of it far less evidently so, and yet still being more or less bad than others. Two pieces of instrumental music, with no words at all, can be, one of them good, and one of them bad. (If you don't think so, I'd be happy to find one or two that I'm positive no person who wishes to be mentally, emotionally and spiritually healthy should make a habit of hearing). Some works are downright evil, made by downright evil people, and contain evil messages. These are moral choices that anyone listening to music makes. Or, if you like, I can choose between Mozart and Maya Fillipic, an unheard of, modern, independent artist that plays very pretty piano music... which is the moral choice between something that is "good" (Maya) and something that has been scientifically proven to have very interesting and very real benefits to it's listeners (Mozart). Or, I can choose between Mozart and Gregorian Chant, which is to choose between something with benefits for my body and mind, and something with benefits for body, mind and soul.

    The family rosary. Where is my mind when I am saying it? Am I in an edifying posture (or as much as possible) to those around me and to myself? Or am I acting like a slob, and just spewing words my mind is not on at all? My example is not only good or bad for myself, but also to others.

    Any time I go out of my door, there are the questions whether or not I am done with my duties, and if not, whether or not this venture outdoors is more important than they are, or otherwise cannot wait, and the question WHERE I am going, and WHO I am going with, and what it is I will be doing when I/we get there, and what dangers I may face, and whether or not they could be avoided, and what money I spend, and whether I had a right to spend it, and how moral was my choice of things to spend it ON? And so on. All just going out of my door, and each and every time I do.

    Did I take care of myself throughout the day? Did I show any concern for my own welfare? The welfare of others? Did I even bother trying to practice the virtues today? Did I make the least effort against my sins and vices? Am I sorry for any transgressions I did commit? If I offended anyone, did I apologize? If I did wrong to someone, did I make it right?

    Tonight, will I go to bed at a time that is good for the health of my mind and body, and for the doing of my duties, or not? It's getting cold, so will I be sufficiently warm for my health, or am I more concerned with just getting to bed so I can have fun tomorrow, without caring? Will I pray well before bed? Or will I have stayed up so late doing unnecessary things that I will hardly be awake during my night prayers?

    Life, unfortunately, does not let us pick and choose our choices. THIS is why I say most choices WILL be moral in some regard. I cannot opt to spend my whole day picking between the colors red and blue. (Though even in a coloring book, to color the daytime sky blue and the barn red, and not the other way around, is to make the work more perfect in terms of truth, sanity and thus true beauty rather than less so.) I will not spend my whole life choosing between two pairs of socks that are exactly the same, or whether to go right or left while walking in a circle. In reality, most of my life really will end up being choices between things that are not equal.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi


    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2270
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #23 on: October 11, 2010, 09:51:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Dulcamara
    In reality, most of my life really will end up being choices between things that are not equal.[/b]


    Well, I'm not arguing with that. I'm just responding to the title of this thread: Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?

    Yes they are. Even if they only represent 1 in 1,000,000, they exist and are possible. Some actions and choices really are morally neutral.

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #24 on: October 11, 2010, 10:08:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Or if you want me to use your examples...

    Quote
    I've a board for my children - one side is black (for chalk), the other
     is white (for marker pens). It is morally neutral which side they use.


    Unless they use the wrong thing for the wrong side, thus destroying property senselessly.

    Quote
    The order I do the washing up in and how I arrange it on the rack is morally neutral (although it makes sense to arrange things logically).


    Unless you put your sharp knives sticking up, in a place where people can be cut by them, or your plates in a position where they may fall and break, and hurt someone, or unless putting certain dishes in a certain spot increases the chance of breaking them.


    Quote
    How I peg things on the washing line is morally neutral.


    Unless you know your clothespins are faulty, so that your clothing may, due to your carelessness, be ruined by animals passing through your yard after they fall off of the line. Or unless you know that this particular article of clothing is sensitive to the light, and may loose it's color that way. Or if you have something hanging off your line that a child or animal could get tangled up in and hurt itself on somehow. Or if you know that on the other side of your fence, there is someone who will steal your clothes if they can reach them, then hanging them too close to the fence would be bad.


    Quote
    What colour towels I put out.


    If your bathroom is decorated predominately in blue, and you hang out bright, fire-engine red towels you will be inflicting physical pain on most people's eyes. If the towels are white, and you put them out for someone to use who has been working on the car, then you are willfully ruining them, more or less. Or if you put out black towels, knowing you will be working with bleach or cleaning with it, where they will almost certainly be effected... And so on...

    Quote

    Whether to have a side or centre parting when I brush my hair is neutral.


    Quote
    If my husband prefers a centre parting, then I should probably opt for a centre parting.


    Also if your next door neighbor whom you must see every day (were that the case) is attracted to women who part or wear their hair one way...

    Quote
    Left sock first or right.


    If you have a wound on your left foot that should be covered, then you should probably cover IT first. If an infant or a pet is sitting in a position to be kicked as you attempt the feat, then the foot that will not kick them, so that they have a chance to move. If your left sock ended up under your husband, who was sitting there putting HIS socks on before work, then you should start with the sock he's not sitting on. If your dog is eating your right sock, I dare say prudence would demand you first save IT. If starting with one foot rather than the other causes any physical discomfort that could be "stretched out of you" by starting with the other sock, then you should start with the other sock.

    Quote
    As you say, there can be extrinsic factors which add a moral dimension.


    My point was to say, there usually are. We may not notice them. But usually there are. Very rarely is a choice totally and completely detached from all other such circumstances, AND in the "good under the right circumstances" side of the moral spectrum.

    Obviously, all I have done was to suggest circumstances wherein these apparently "always" neutral things take on a moral character. But the problem is, most things do.

    No, which spoon I choose out of the drawer doesn't usually matter (although I happen to love fancy spoons, and ought to probably choose only ugly spoons because of it, for my own good). Choosing between two of the same kind of socks normally doesn't matter (though thin socks are horrible in the winter). But I think if we're honest we will recognize that most of the choices we really, truly are faced with in our own everyday life, do have such circumstances that give them that moral side to them, from how you arrange your dishes in the rack, to where you store the junk food if you have kids, to when you go out of your house and what you buy when you do, life is full of choices we make quite unconsciously, and which appear neutral, but which, on closer inspection do have a moral choice to them.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi

    Offline Dulcamara

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +38/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #25 on: October 11, 2010, 10:21:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are neutral actions even POSSIBLE?

    I think that every thought, word or deed that is possible to men, will have SOME moral character to it. My choice of two spoons will probably lead me to choose the best of spoons readily available. You might call this pride, selfishness, vanity of some kind. My choice of equally nutritious foods with no other circumstances to make the choice a bad one, will be a choice to do good to my body... thus, an actually good choice. My choice between painting my fence one of two equally unoffensive colors of equal price and so on, without any circumstances in the negative, becomes a good choice of beautifying my home, which, unless it prompts pride or vanity, would (as improving our surroundings does) increase our contentedness with our surroundings, and thus our general good mood (to however minute an extent). Red is perhaps a suitable color for our coloring book, but not a suitable color for our hair in church, or water in the painting of pictures (insanity).

    When it comes down to it, everything depends largely on the surrounding circumstances. BUT... if, when all is said and done, there is no evil to be done by a thought, word or deed, then it can only be (as far as I can tell) actually GOOD, because at the very least, it lacks evil. It is the choice to do something at least "innocent" rather than evil. If, when all is said and done, no matter what circumstances the thought, word or deed is chosen, it has something bad about it, then it is objectively evil. EVERY thought, word and deed, will be one or the other.
    I renounce any and all of my former views against what the Church through Pope Leo XIII said, "This, then, is the teaching of the Catholic Church ...no one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anythi


    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2270
    • Reputation: +887/-34
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Are "Neutral Actions" even possible?
    « Reply #26 on: July 08, 2011, 05:25:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've been reading Treatise on the Love of God by St Francis de Sales, and today I read a chapter which reminded me of this thread:

    Quote
    S. Basil says that God's will is made clear unto us by his ordinances or commandments, and that then there is no deliberation to be made, for we are simply to do what is ordained; but that for the rest we have freedom to choose what seems good according to our liking; though we are not to do all that is lawful but only what is expedient, and to clearly discern what is expedient we are to follow the advice of our spiritual father.

    But, Theotimus, I am to warn you of a troublesome temptation which often crosses the way of such souls as have a great desire to do what is most according to God's will. For the enemy at every turn puts them in doubt whether it is God's will for them to do one thing rather than another; as for example, whether they should eat with a friend or no, whether they should wear grey or black clothes, whether they should fast Friday or Saturday, whether they should take recreation or abstain from it; and in this they lose much time, and while they are busy and anxious to find out what is the better, they unprofitably let slip the time for doing many good things, the effecting of which would be far more to God's glory, than this distinguishing between the good and the better, which has taken up their time, could possibly be.

    We are not accustomed to weigh little money, but only valuable pieces: trading would be too troublesome and would devour too much time, if we were to weigh pence, halfpence, farthings and half-farthings. So we are not to weigh every petty action to know whether it be of more value than others; yea there is often a kind of superstition in trying to make this examination; for to what end should we puzzle to know whether it were better to hear Mass in one church than in another, to spin than to sew, to give alms to a man rather than a woman? It is not good service to a master to spend as much time in considering what is to be done, as in doing the things which are to be done. We are to proportion our attention to the importance of what we undertake. It would be an ill-regulated carefulness to take as much trouble in deliberating over a journey of one day as over one of three or four hundred leagues.

    The choice of one's vocation, the plan of some business of great consequence, of some work occupying much time, of some very great expenditure, the change of abode, the choice of society, and the like, deserve to be seriously pondered, in order to see what is most according to the will of God. But in little daily matters, in which even a mistake is neither of moment nor irreparable, what need is there to make a business of them, to scrutinize them, or to importunately ask advice about them? To what end should I put myself upon the rack to learn whether God would rather that I should say the Rosary or Our Lady's Office, since there can be no such difference between them, that a great examination need be held; that I should rather go to visit the sick in the hospital than to Vespers, that I should rather go to a sermon than to a church where there is an Indulgence? Commonly there is no such importance in the one more than the other that it is worth while to make any great deliberation. We must walk in good faith and without minute consideration in such matters, and, as S. Basil says, freely choose as we like, so as not to weary our spirit, lose our time, or put ourselves in danger of disquiet, scruples, and superstition. But I mean always where there is no great disproportion between the two works, and where there is nothing of consideration on one side more than on the other.

    And even in matters of moment we are to use a great humility, and not to think we can find out God's will by force of examination and subtlety of discourse; but having implored the light of the Holy Ghost, applied our consideration to the seeking of his good-pleasure, taken the counsel of our director, and, perhaps, of two or three other spiritual persons, we must resolve and determine in the name of God, and must not afterwards question our choice, but devoutly, peacefully, and firmly keep and pursue it. And although the difficulties, temptations and the variety of circumstances which occur in the course of executing our design, might cause us some doubt as to whether we had made a good choice, yet we must remain settled, and not regard all this, but consider that if we had made another choice we had perhaps been a hundred times worse; to say nothing of our not knowing whether it be God's will that we should be exercised in consolation or desolation, in peace or war. The resolution being once holily taken, we are never to doubt of the holiness of the execution; for unless we fail it cannot fail. To act otherwise is a mark of great self-love, or of childishness, weakness and silliness of spirit.


    Link


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16