Simone Weil

[Nihil Obstat]

As you say, difficult but not impossible. :)

Possibly in danger of offering scandal of presumption to count very strongly on it.
I think it is dangerous to hold in too high regard those who are, informally speaking, manifestly heretical.

[Kia ora]

Informal usage indeed, because she was never a part of the Church and so she can't be a heretic.

 

In any case, how strange it is that a 'heretic' could have such a profoundly positive impact on successive Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI.

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Informal usage indeed, because she was never a part of the Church and so she can't be a heretic.

In any case, how strange it is that a 'heretic' could have such a profoundly positive impact on successive Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI.

Well, a Christian can certainly be a heretic without being aware of it. If you are going to claim that she was indeed so radically outside the Church that she could not be judged a heretic, then it seems that my point is proven.
Essentially, she was either a heretic or an unrepentant pagan. I hope and pray she had a change of heart at the eleventh hour.

[Kia ora]

Her being a heretic, of whatever kind, doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you. My sympathies have always been with those who love Love, even those who are outside of the Church or the bounds of Christianity altogether.

 

Anyone who expresses a sliver of the kind of compassion, the kind of deep sympathy, the willingness to act on behalf of their neighbour or enemy, that Jesus Christ showed in His perfect form, is my teacher, because they show themselves to be a slave of Jesus Christ.

 

After my year of working at the factory, before taking up my teaching job again, my parents took me to Portugal, and there I left them to go alone into a small village. My soul and my body were shot to pieces as it were. That touch with affliction killed my youth. Until then, I had never had the experience of affliction, except my own, which being my own, seemed of little importance, and which anyway was only a partial affliction, being biological and not social. I knew well that there was a lot of affliction in the world, I was obssessed by it, but I had never felt it in a prolonged way. When I was in the factory, mixed up with the anonymous mass in the eyes of everyone and in my eyes as well, the affliction of others entered into my flesh and my soul. Nothing separated me from it, I really had forgotten my past and I expected no future, it being difficult for me to even imagine the possibility of surviving this exhaustion.

 

What I experienced there marked me in such a long lasting way that even today, when a human being, whoever it might be, in any circumstance, speaks to me without brutality [my emphasis] towards me, I can't help but have the impression that he must be making a mistake with regards to me me, and that this mistake will unfortunately probably disappear. I received then, for perpetuity, the brand of slavery, like the red-hot brand that the Romans used to brand on the forehead of their most hated slaves. Since then, I've always thought of myself as a slave.

 

It was in that kind of state, and in a miserably physical condition to boot, that I went into that little Portuguese village, which was, alas, as miserable as I was. I was alone, it was in the evening, under the full moon, it was the same day as the patron saint festival. It was by the sea. The wives of the fishers were making their way around the boats in procession, carrying candles and singing hymns that were surely very old, and of such sadness that they tore at you. Nothing can make you imagine it. I had never heard anything more poignant, except the singing of the boatmen on the Volga. There, I was suddenly certain that Christianity is the religion of the slaves par exellence, that slaves can't help belonging to it, and me among them.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2015 by Kia ora

[BarbTherese]

Possibly in danger of offering scandal of presumption to count very strongly on it.
I think it is dangerous to hold in too high regard those who are, informally speaking, manifestly heretical.

 

I was posting about baptism of desire - and as you stated it is difficult but not impossible to consider such a disposition in the subject under discussion. 

 

Baptism of desire cannot be considered "offering scandal of presumption to count very strongly on it" since I was not implying that I was in any way counting "very strongly on it" - rather that baptism of desire was a potential, a possibility, in the case of Simone Weil and a potential consideration and aspect put forward only regarding her situation - and I further added that only God can judge and indeed one puts oneself in spiritual danger if any attempt at particular and final judgement should be made:

Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
 

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.

 

 

Simone Weil might have been "manifestly heretical" - I would not know.  But she certainly was an outstanding human being.  We are all a mixture of saints and sinners and what makes my sin less serious than another's?  "To whom more is given, more will be expected".  And how does one measure that one is given more or given less than any other person?

Edited February 4, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[Nihil Obstat]

The possibility of scandal would lie in someone, thinking that such a person was justified in and through her good works rather than through baptism by water, possibly following her example. That is why it would be dangerous to assume she desired baptism when her life and her actions offer tenuous evidence at best, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary.
To explicitly reject baptism is in and of itself damning. We must hope she either repented or was tragically ignorant. We should be very careful not to hold her up as a paragon of holiness or an example to be imitated inasmuch as imitation of her errors could surely damn a soul.
Presumption comes into play when we assume she desired baptism even though the evidence itself implies otherwise. It is a form of universal salvation, which we know to be false.

We should treat her as any pagan or heretic theologian. Take what might be good on its merits, but be quick to throw away the errors. Above all we cannot look at her uncritically.

[BarbTherese]

The possibility of scandal would lie in someone, thinking that such a person was justified in and through her good works rather than through baptism by water, possibly following her example. That is why it would be dangerous to assume she desired baptism when her life and her actions offer tenuous evidence at best, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary.
To explicitly reject baptism is in and of itself damning. We must hope she either repented or was tragically ignorant. We should be very careful not to hold her up as a paragon of holiness or an example to be imitated inasmuch as imitation of her errors could surely beaver dam a soul.
Presumption comes into play when we assume she desired baptism even though the evidence itself implies otherwise. It is a form of universal salvation, which we know to be false.

We should treat her as any pagan or heretic theologian. Take what might be good on its merits, but be quick to throw away the errors. Above all we cannot look at her uncritically.

 

No assumption was made that Simone Weil desired baptism -  only that it was a possibility put forward under certain circumstances.  Another possibility I can put forward is that Simone made an act of contrition at death with sincere sorrow for all her failings and sinfulness.

 

Neither was any assumption made that Simone could be justified by her good works alone.   Rather that the goodness that did exist in her was worth acknowledging.

 

With any and all persons the good in them is worth acknowledgement and imitation - while rejecting anything contrary to the good.....plain good old common sense in life's journey........and this applies to all without exception. If I come across a person I do not like, I strive to find the good in them somewhere and it never fails me - while I can sometimes fail my desire to find the good in everyone. Even our heralded and canonized saints had their faults and failings. 

[Nihil Obstat]

The difference is that with the saints the Church already tells us what is in conformity with doctrine. With a pagan/heretic we often have no such guide simply because it is beyond our usual interest.
By rejecting something so fundamental ad the necessity of baptism, in a way she sabotaged her entire theology. How can we trust a thing she says when her beliefs have the potential to damn so many souls to hell? On what other subjects did she so profoundly and radically fail to heed the Truth of Christ's Church?

[Nihil Obstat]

In terms of her lack of baptism, we should hope she overcame that failing, but on that alone we can never hold her up as a person to be followed or imitated. No faith truly from God can fail on such a deep level. While we hope her soul survived, I have no such hope for her theology.

[Nihil Obstat]

I understand that I will not make many friends with this pespective, and that does make me sad, but this is just something on which there can be no compromise. If we take seriously Christ's own words, the holy instructions from His own mouth, and the timeless and unchanging instruction of the Church, then this is simply a sine qua non. I am concerned for the salvation of souls, nothing more.
We can not afford to compromise on that point. No Christian can, much less any Catholic.

[BarbTherese]

Still friends, NH :)  Good friends can disagree, even argue heatedly although no heated arguments in this thread to my mind.

Certainly, there are some things about SW that are decidedly questionable.  There are also some things about her that are admirable.  We are all a mixture of the saint and the sinner and only God can discern which tips the scales in one direction or another.  Besides the fact that it is Jesus Himself who very sternly warns us to never judge and to do so is to risk our own salvation.

Insofar as this thread is concerned, it probably depends on the particular teaching of Jesus and His Church that one is 'coming from'.

[BarbTherese]

Gaudem et Spes:
.............. all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

 

______________

 

If I am a person of goodwill towards all men, then I hope sincerely for the salvation of all for whom Christ died - I do not, it seems to me, attempt to sit in negative judgement of them as a person which means, to me, that my desired good will towards ALL men is compromised if I assert that someone is damned and hell bound.

 

Be all that I have posted as it may, it is rightful and needed to challenge thinking that I regard as incorrect where the thoughts and theology of others may be concerned.  But it seems to me it is one thing to challenge another's ideas and concepts - and something else entirely to sit in some sort of judgement of them as a person.

[BarbTherese]

The difference is that with the saints the Church already tells us what is in conformity with doctrine. With a pagan/heretic we often have no such guide simply because it is beyond our usual interest.
By rejecting something so fundamental ad the necessity of baptism, in a way she sabotaged her entire theology. How can we trust a thing she says when her beliefs have the potential to beaver dam so many souls to hell? On what other subjects did she so profoundly and radically fail to heed the Truth of Christ's Church?

 

You may have misunderstood me.  What I meant was that with the saints The Church canonize, they are not all perfection - rather a mixture, like the rest of us, of sinner and saint; however, I believe that with our canonized saints it became very obvious to The Church that the scales and balance tipped well and truly towards the saint in them.  They are canonized for heroic virtue i.e. holiness and sanctity.

 

I was not commenting on the theology, concepts and beliefs of the saints.  Although obviously because of their heroic sanctity much if not all of their theology, concepts and beliefs must have been spot on or there would not have been virtue to heroic virtue.  They quite obviously put into practise what they believed leading to their heroic virtue.  Thought most often will precede action.

[Kia ora]

The possibility of scandal would lie in someone, thinking that such a person was justified in and through her good works rather than through baptism by water, possibly following her example. That is why it would be dangerous to assume she desired baptism when her life and her actions offer tenuous evidence at best, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary.
To explicitly reject baptism is in and of itself damning. We must hope she either repented or was tragically ignorant. We should be very careful not to hold her up as a paragon of holiness or an example to be imitated inasmuch as imitation of her errors could surely beaver dam a soul.
Presumption comes into play when we assume she desired baptism even though the evidence itself implies otherwise. It is a form of universal salvation, which we know to be false.

We should treat her as any pagan or heretic theologian. Take what might be good on its merits, but be quick to throw away the errors. Above all we cannot look at her uncritically.

 

I don't think anyone said here that justification comes through works. Holiness is a gift of grace. Not anything from our will. And grace alights wherever it will.
 

[BarbTherese]

I do believe that all the baptised are gifted sufficient Grace for holiness, it is our response (free will) that can be lacking.  If some were not so gifted, then the universal call to holiness would be faulted. While holiness has it's origin in God and His Grace therefore, the will must choose the response and then enact it (Actual Grace).  Grace does not act independent of our free will, rather co-produces with free will while the actual origin of Grace is God.

 

______________

http://www.rosary-center.org/ll46n2.htm

In every meritorious act God enters by His grace in moving the will towards good and enables man to do the good act whatever it may be. This is simply a transient influence, a divine impulse, that leaves the will perfectly free to act or not act. God never compels action, nor interferes with freedom of choice. But the fact that our free deliberate acts are “co-produced” by the grace of God and our free will, is clear from the Council of Trent which speaks of the repentant sinner returning to God “by freely assenting to and cooperating with grace.” (Denz. 797) And St. Paul, writing to the Philippians, reminds them of this dependence, “for it is God who of His good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance.” (2:13)

[Kia ora]

But even our response to the sufficient grace that God gives us is something that is permitted to come about from another grace that comes from God, efficient or efficacious grace, is it not?

 

Here is something Weil says about it:

 

Grace fills up, but it can only come in where there's an emptiness to receive it, and grace is also what makes this emptiness.

 

We cannot stand this emptiness inside us, and so we fill it up with all sorts of distractions or things. But Weil recommends us to simply wait for God. In French, it is an attente de Dieu. It is the name of one of her books, Waiting for God.

 

And attente doesn't just meaning waiting, but also attention. We must be attentive, quiet, we must listen for the still small voice, even though silence is like torture and we like to fill it up with a wall of sound. Humans are very inattentive and impatient beings. Jesus told us that He'd be back soon. We couldn't wait, and so we prefer to be idolators worshipping gods we can touch than have an absent God.

 

I think of grace like this. We are like a field. We can clear the field of trees and weeds, we can sow the seeds, but we are not responsible nor can we control whether the seeds will grow. Instead we must simply plow and wait. Likewise we can prepare ourselves as best we can for grace, but that's all. We must simply be hospitable homes for the Holy Spirit.

 

Weil herself talks about something called decreation. It is the destruction of the 'I' or the ego or the will, so that we can be truly empty for God to fill us up. But even decreation is nothing done by us, God decreates us and we can only consent to it or deny His decreative work. Consent is I suppose, a cooperation of a kind, a kind of synergy between God and human, but a cooperation that is devoid (an appropriate word choice, I think) of our will. Our will is only 'willing' insofar as it is willing to die to God, to let itself be crucified like Jesus was.

 

She says something which I find very beautiful in Gravity and Grace:

 

Everything I see, breathe, touch, eat, all the people that I meet, I deprive them all of contact with God, and I deprive God of contact with it all when something in me says ‘I’.

 

I can do something though, for the sake of it all and for God, and by that I mean to withdraw, to respect their intimacy.

 

I should withdraw so that God can come into contact with the people that chance places upon my path, and whom he loves. My presence is intrusive, as if I found myself between two lovers or two friends.

 

I am not that young girl who is waiting for her fiance. I’m the unwelcome third to two who are bethrothed, and I should leave so that they may really be together. If only I knew how to disappear, there would be a union of perfect love between God and the earth on which I walk, the sea which I can hear…

 

 

Edited February 4, 2015 by Kia ora

[Catlick]

Weil herself talks about something called decreation. It is the destruction of the 'I' or the ego or the will, so that we can be truly empty for God to fill us up. But even decreation is nothing done by us, God decreates us and we can only consent to it or deny His decreative work. Consent is I suppose, a cooperation of a kind, a kind of synergy between God and human, but a cooperation that is devoid (an appropriate word choice, I think) of our will. Our will is only 'willing' insofar as it is willing to die to God, to let itself be crucified like Jesus was.

 

 

Very much smells like Jansenism, a very dangerous heresy which denies the rightful place of the human will in cooperating with divine grace.

 

It might be that Weil was onto something and that she can teach us some things. But with philosophy it is often hard to seperate truth from untruth. One has to have a thorough knowledge of Catholic theology (and Greek philosophy!) to do that. Do you have such knowledge? If no, read the Church Fathers and Doctors first.

 

I might sound harsh, but we've seen legions of faithful fall into heresy because uncatholic ideas captured their heart.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Catlick

[Nihil Obstat]

1 Corinthians 11: 3-5


[3] But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ. [4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him. [5] For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great apostles.


Galatians 1: 6-10

[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
 

[Era Might]

I was recently reading a history of the Council of Trent, and was struck by the human context of what (to me, anyway) was pointless beliefs about the necessity of this and the necessity of that and the formal working of grace. I don't find much value in those things if I take them seriously, but I do find much value in them as ways of speaking, which like all ways of speaking, is limited and imperfect. To speak of predestination, grace, justification, are all just ways of speaking about where our meaning and identity come from, how we live finite lives in a world much greater than ourselves, how we find meaning in failure and opportunity, etc. I've long outgrown taking these things seriously as actual ideas, but I do appreciate spiritual concepts as a way of speaking about things, such as the Holy Spirit as a tangible symbol of community and power and motivation and vocation, etc. It is on this level, too, that I look at people like Joan of Arc, Simone Weil, not to establish the truth or legitimacy of their spiritual strivings and claims, but just to understand the human drama that they lived through spiritual concepts. The fact that she excluded herself from baptism, I guess, if you take these things literally, is a damning fact, but I don't find that line of thought very revealing about anything, any more than taking Joan of Arc's "voices" literally does. Simone Weil was a remarkable human being, and how silly to reduce her to a damned pagan and heretic, in my opinion.

[Nihil Obstat]

I was recently reading a history of the Council of Trent, and was struck by the human context of what (to me, anyway) was pointless beliefs about the necessity of this and the necessity of that and the formal working of grace. I don't find much value in those things if I take them seriously, but I do find much value in them as ways of speaking, which like all ways of speaking, is limited and imperfect. To speak of predestination, grace, justification, are all just ways of speaking about where our meaning and identity come from, how we live finite lives in a world much greater than ourselves, how we find meaning in failure and opportunity, etc. I've long outgrown taking these things seriously as actual ideas, but I do appreciate spiritual concepts as a way of speaking about things, such as the Holy Spirit as a tangible symbol of community and power and motivation and vocation, etc. It is on this level, too, that I look at people like Joan of Arc, Simone Weil, not to establish the truth or legitimacy of their spiritual strivings and claims, but just to understand the human drama that they lived through spiritual concepts. The fact that she excluded herself from baptism, I guess, if you take these things literally, is a damning fact, but I don't find that line of thought very revealing about anything, any more than taking Joan of Arc's "voices" literally does. Simone Weil was a remarkable human being, and how silly to reduce her to a damned pagan and heretic, in my opinion.

Welp, I have long outgrown taking anything you say seriously, so I guess that makes us even. :idontknow: