kenod said:
An emotional state may be unhelpful, but is it ever wrong? Is it only actions that can be wrong?
I think it could be helpful to at least acknowledge that
emotions or emotional states are part of being human, that for most of us they are something we experience day in & day out, and that from a psychological, social and humanistic perspective ...
of course they aren't "wrong!"
But I'd be interested to hear a more
thoroughly Catholic perspective on these "deadly sins" that people seem to be quibbling about, if that is available. And Kenod, if I'm not entirely mistaken, that commentary - if forthcoming -
might just suggest that yes, certain emotions
ARE simply "wrong." The context will have to do with our moral obligation to CONTROL ourselves,
including our behavior, but also our thoughts and feelings. This is NOT something that is
impossible to do. It IS quite attainable.
Jesus symbolized this for us according to the same tradition that was well established in his day. We still maintain the symbolism and connotations in our current culture. "Stilling the emotional waters," which can call to mind all sorts of imagery, conveys this basic idea. And
walking on water is the language and the imagery that was used 2000 years ago to demonstrate that Jesus HAD attained to this level of self-mastery.
Now I realize that many people have pretty well been taught something like ...
oh, you mean that miracle Christ PERFORMED (oh that's right, a circus!) - in which He
literally walked on water!
Err, ok, whatever. IF Christ actually walked on water, that changes my point NOT ONE WHIT. It only further demonstrates that He wished to thoroughly etch this event into the minds and hearts of those looking on. St. Peter, if we recall, is supposed to have faltered, lacking the faith/determination/confidence/self-mastery to follow Christ's example ... and this also fairly well conveys to us something of the STAGE of St. Peter's spiritual attainment. Those that love the miracles need to remember - St. Peter
DID walk on water.
It is, after all, right there
in your Bible. He simply wasn't able to maintain, and reach his destination.
Was not St. Peter, on occasion, the proverbial hothead, and was this not conveyed in the Bible? Did not the other Apostles demonstrate
their lack of emotional self-mastery? Just because these days, most individuals STILL lack this degree of spiritual attainment, does not mean that it's okay to spout off and carry on like a two-year-old,
just because other people do it, and just because we lack the self-control or self-mastery to keep our cool. In this sense, an angry display
is "wrong," and exemplifies part of our current challenge, something we need to conquer.
Some of these sins, like gluttony, sloth and lust, have much more to do with sensualities or runaway physical desires. The focus is less on the emotional life, than on the physical. Others, like pride and greed, are focused more on the intellect, or on the mental life. Our egos can easily swell out of all due proportion to the rest of our being and YES, this
is something which is "wrong in & of itself," I would suggest. Is it also something that we know intimately and identify with as part of being human? Yep. And it's still -
a deadly sin.
I would find it helpful if someone would list the
`Seven Cardinal Virtues' which
complement, and essentially negate, the deadly sins. Discussion will show that
we have to aspire and strive to embody these virtues, just as we must focus and discipline ourselves to avoid or curb the sins. And NONE of this occurs, so long as we follow the path of least resistance. But again, the psychologist will look at all of this from a very different perspective ... and I don't know too many
Catholic psychologists or psychiatrists. Hmmm ...
Namaskar,
andrew
