Light On Dark Water

The Way It’s Supposed to Work

The time will come when you will encounter, more or less unexpectedly, the shock of hearing our doctrines contradicted. Even if the shock is not violent, you will, nevertheless, be aware of the intellectual atmosphere of our times, and perhaps unconsciously you will breath in the air that surrounds young men of the present day, and in time you will be surprised to find that it has intoxicated you, and that you feel uncomfortable in the atmosphere of faith. You will notice that an outwardly spiritual life does not correspond with your interior reality, and undoubtedly, in your surprise and discouragement, you will be tempted to leave behind what will seem to you burdensome and a hindrance to the free development of your intellect. 

Few people, especially few young men, escape this crisis of faith. Perhaps we should not regret it, were it not that so many become depressed and irremediably disturbed spiritually. Those who by God's assistance and by the means about which I now speak pass safely through this dangerous time, possess from then on a courageous spirit and really understand what faith is.

–Elisabeth Leseur

It seems to me that anyone growing up in a Christian home now will hit, or be hit by, this atmosphere and this crisis as soon as he begins to think at all past childhood. I have no broad data, but it seems to me that the majority do not come through, but succumb pretty quickly. Often there is no sense of crisis at all; they just fall into modern secular assumptions, which they experience as liberation (which it certainly is with respect to sex and other pleasures). Leseur was presumably writing roughly a hundred years ago, since she died in 1914. Now we don't need to qualify "atmosphere" with "intellectual"–it's an all-encompassing and almost inescapable thing, all the more powerful because so much of it bypasses the intellect.

Maclin Horton

44 responses to “The Way It’s Supposed to Work”

  1. Louise

    Few people, especially few young men, escape this crisis of faith. Perhaps we should not regret it, were it not that so many become depressed and irremediably disturbed spiritually. Those who by God’s assistance and by the means about which I now speak pass safely through this dangerous time, possess from then on a courageous spirit and really understand what faith is.
    Wow! I definitely had that experience but was partially in the milieu that you describe, Maclin. I agree with you there.
    There was a pertinent post on FB today quoting Chesterton on the modern person who feels, rather than thinks.

    Reply
  2. Mac

    And what’s so frustrating is that they think they’re thinking when they’re really only feeling.

    Reply
  3. Louise

    And that mightn’t matter so much if the thinking they did was reasonable in the first place. For example, whenever I read my pro-life update things in FB, I often feel angry and sad about the bad stories I read. Now that is quite right and I probably feel before I think reflectively, because I’m a woman. But if I had erroneous views about the sanctity of life, my feelings would be different.
    A lot of times our feelings are not really right or wrong as such – they just are, but we can’t make them, rather than reason, the guide for how we behave and what we believe.
    This is what’s so frustrating about the modern mind.
    Paradoxically, when I’m not really aware of my feelings, they have more of an opportunity to run my life. If I’m aware of my feelings I can calmly express them, rather than simply exploding. The interaction between reason and emotion is pretty important, imo. At least, it is in my life. But the way I view life ultimately comes down to a set of principles which should hold, no matter what emotions are going on.

    Reply
  4. Mac

    “I probably feel before I think reflectively, because I’m a woman”
    I don’t think you’re allowed to think that. Much less say it.:-)
    What I mean about people thinking they’re thinking is that they adopt some viewpoint which is considered the one held by Thinking People. But they haven’t really examined the matter very carefully themselves, they’re reacting to the prestige of the Thinking People. And not every thinking person gets to be one of the Thinking People.

    Reply
  5. Paul

    Nor, sadly, is every one of the Thinking People actually a person who thinks.

    Reply
  6. Mac

    Yeah, that’s what I meant to convey with the sarcastic capitalization: not the people who actually think, but the people who belong to the group having the reputation of thinking.

    Reply
  7. Louise

    I don’t think you’re allowed to think that. Much less say it.
    I didn’t think it. I felt it. And then typed it. 🙂
    Actually, a while back, Janet sent me this marvellous essay about St Edith Stein’s understanding of women, written by a nun. It was really marvellous. She says – among other things – that women feel things like “vibes” a bit more than men do and such like.
    I do think that it’s proper for women to feel, in the first instance, and then certainly to think rationally (which we can do – it just doesn’t always look that way!) about those things which stir up the emotions.
    For people who seem to believe they really do “question everything” modern people sure don’t seem to question much.
    What I mean about people thinking they’re thinking is that they adopt some viewpoint which is considered the one held by Thinking People.
    Well I agree with that.

    Reply
  8. Robert Gotcher

    I once read that men’s emotions are stronger than women’s, which is why they are prone to suppress them, or try to rigidly control them, lest they hurt someone or do something really stupid.
    Like Mel Gibson after a “few” too many.

    Reply
  9. Mac

    That thought has crossed my mind, Robert. Obviously there’s no way to know, since the strength of the emotion is by definition a subjective experience. But I wonder. Certainly women are more expressive of emotion. Does that mean the emotions are actually stronger, or that the controls are weaker? It also seems certainly the case that men are more likely to do some violence in the grip of strong negative emotion. Does that mean the emotions are stronger, or just that there’s some difference in the wiring that makes violent expression more likely? I don’t think anybody knows.

    Reply
  10. Mac

    “For people who seem to believe they really do “question everything” modern people sure don’t seem to question much.”
    Well, they question beliefs that they themselves don’t hold. Not a lot of daring in that, but it seems to satisfy the urge.:-/
    I’m pretty sure Janet sent me that same essay, and it was good. ‘that women feel things like “vibes” a bit more than men do and such like.’ Again, clearly true, if politically incorrect. Hard to say whether that’s the result of something mysterious but just a really strong sensitivity to tiny details of nuance in voice, face, etc. Though it’s far from infallible.

    Reply
  11. Louise

    I was very interested in that essay, because at the time I was reading a secular psychologist who has done a lot of work with married couples etc. What was interesting was the way she described masculine energy (which I prefer to call “essence”) and feminine energy/essence. Her theory is that both men and women have both types of energy in them (I think that’s true) but that men and women connect with each other best, especially in marriage, when each one is in touch with their relevant energy/essence. What she said about each was basically as follows: masculine energy is thinking acting, planning – essentially active. Whereas feminine energy is being, feeling, radiating, warmth etc. I believe this to be true and have experimented IRL a lot in how I relate to men in general. It seems to work.
    So, I was once in a situation where I disagreed about some content in a programme our Catholic community was planning to use in outreach. I didn’t tell the two men on the team what I thought (but I knew that my thoughts were sound) – I simply said how I felt about it and gave a personal account for why I felt that way. There was no argument at all and I had no set agenda for the outcome, I just left it to them to work out – but I had made my point and I’m pretty sure they took it on board and had come up with some kind of plan to work around the problem. It works.
    Anyhow, what this secular psychologist teaches about this lined up really well with St Theresa Benedicta’s (Edith Stein’s) thoughts.
    Now the psychologist is pretty worldly, so I cannot possibly agree with all she says, especially regarding sexual morals, but although she subscribed to the idea that feminism has been good for women, she does insist that it’s been really bad in our romantic relationships.
    So, for me, it’s pretty fascinating.
    Men certainly have feelings and both sexes succeed or fail at controlling them, it seems to me, but in general I would say that women feel more than we think and for men it’s the opposite. In fact, men are very sensitive, but there is normally something secondary about feelings for a man unless perhaps he is pushed beyond endurance with anger. At least, this is how it seems to me after reading and observing and running experiments in the field!

    Reply
  12. Louise

    Well, they question beliefs that they themselves don’t hold. Not a lot of daring in that, but it seems to satisfy the urge.
    Good point. I hadn’t quite formulated it like that.

    Reply
  13. Louise

    Incidentally, after reading the psychologist on the masculine and feminine essence, I was suddenly amazed by how beautiful women are. I mean just ordinary women. It was quite astonishing. and I was equally amazed to discover how marvellous men can be. Not that I had a bad opinion before but just to give an example, I was talking with a friend after Mass one day when Nick was away and he asked me how I was doing. Without really being very conscious of my wording, I said that I was tired of feeling cold because the wood supply was down to the big logs and Xavier and I were not well enough to chop them. So I drive home from Mass a short while later, and there is our friend, with his seminarian fiend in my driveway, chopping the wood! And that kind of thing happens all the time.

    Reply
  14. Louise

    Well a seminarian friend obviously not a fiend! I really wish one could edit!

    Reply
  15. Mac

    I could correct it for you, but it’s way too funny. 🙂

    Reply
  16. Louise

    😀

    Reply
  17. Mac

    More about the masculine/feminine stuff later–at work now.

    Reply
  18. Robert Gotcher

    Apropos women’s emotions: http://healinghamlet.com/healing-stories/letter-to-my-daughter-after-watching-the-bachelor-2/
    “Well here’s a little nugget of wisdom for you, sweetie. Not everything you feel is worth saying. There will be plenty of times when you will have emotions tumbling around inside of you like a litter of puppies on crack. Some of them will be worthwhile but some will be stupid and you should do your best to send them packing.
    You’ll meet plenty of girls who don’t agree with me. They’ll claim it is strength of character to blurt out any thought that crosses their mind regardless of who will be devastated by it. But honey, a woman of strong character has the wisdom to shut her mouth until she’s thought for a moment about what she’s feeling to decide whether it’s an emotion that she wants to own, an emotion that makes her into the woman she wants to be or one of those emotions that she should look square in the eye and say, ‘Yer outta here. You and the hormonal horse you rode in on.’”
    This can be true of men, too.

    Reply
  19. Mac

    That’s pretty funny. It does seem to me that women are more likely to just let fly with words that would have been better left unsaid. I’m sometimes amazed at the harsh things women say to each other. I’ve also often thought that one reason men aren’t generally quite as quick to do that, at least to other men, is that there is more potential for violence.

    Reply
  20. Mac

    “What she said about each was basically as follows: masculine energy is thinking acting, planning – essentially active. Whereas feminine energy is being, feeling, radiating, warmth etc.”
    I think that’s true. And I’ve seen several times over the years, in sort of pop culture discussions about the sexes, the observation that when a woman complains to a man about some problem, he tries to tell her how to solve it, when sometimes she just wants him to listen, especially if it’s an intractable problem like getting a quarrel with a friend or co-worker or something. Your story about the wood is an instance, and in this case fixing it was not only possible but what you really wanted. We prefer that sort of problem.:-)

    Reply
  21. Grumpy

    I think Robert’s point is fascinating – men are more emotional and therefore suppress and control their emotions more, thus appearing superficially less emotional. That fits my observations.
    It reminded me of something I realized when I was working on those things (and which superficially has nothing to do with men and women:). After years of reading both of them, I came to the conclusion that Maritain writes in a poetic, affective way but the source is his reason, and it’s pretty cold underneath. Gilson writes in a rational way, but it’s coming from depths in his heart.

    Reply
  22. Louise

    It does seem to me that women are more likely to just let fly with words that would have been better left unsaid. I’m sometimes amazed at the harsh things women say to each other.
    Now that is what The Psychologist (not quite up there with The Philosopher, but anyhow) would call “drama.” Now, without question, such “drama” is bad and to be avoided at all costs. It is far better for a woman to do her own emotional work (I loved the quote you offered, Rob!) including the kind of thing Rob’s quote was talking about, and then to express herself if she needs to in a calm way without blame. It certainly can be done and has made an enormous difference in my life in various relationships.

    Reply
  23. Marianne

    “men are more emotional and therefore suppress and control their emotions more”
    Isn’t that why we hate to see a man cry — because we know that if he’s let that control slip, it must be that something very deep has been touched in him?

    Reply
  24. Louise

    And I’ve seen several times over the years, in sort of pop culture discussions about the sexes, the observation that when a woman complains to a man about some problem, he tries to tell her how to solve it, when sometimes she just wants him to listen, especially if it’s an intractable problem like getting a quarrel with a friend or co-worker or something. Your story about the wood is an instance, and in this case fixing it was not only possible but what you really wanted. We prefer that sort of problem.
    Of course you do! You did see that classic skit on FB about the nail in her forehead, right? Oh man!
    It’s funny, because since I’ve been reading The Psychologist, I appreciate Nick’s problem solving much more than I used to and I had already just about beaten him into submission about the whole I Just Need Empathy thing, so now we get on just fine! LOL!

    Reply
  25. Louise

    I didn’t mean to derail this thread, btw.
    Grumpy, your comment – as is usually the case – was very interesting.

    Reply
  26. Louise

    Here, I hope you find this amusing 🙂
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

    Reply
  27. Mac

    True, Marianne. I remember a farmhand seeing my uncle cry at the news that his (my uncle’s) mother had died, and saying how painful it was to see. The uncle was a veteran of house-to-house fighting in Germany in WWII.
    Have to watch the vid later, still at work.

    Reply
  28. Robert Gotcher

    Grumpy, I’d say your observations about Maritain and Gilson are spot on. And I’d say that is why I prefer Gilson, but benefit intellectually from Maritain (Dare I say Gilson is better?).

    Reply
  29. Grumpy

    I think Gilson is simply the better philosopher, hands down.

    Reply
  30. Mac

    Interesting. I know a little about Maritain, but almost nothing about Gilson, so I can’t compare them.

    Reply
  31. Mac

    Very funny video, Louise.

    Reply
  32. Grumpy

    I just buy it that men would not have banged on for three millennia about controlling their emotions (from the Stoics to the self help cognitive therapists) unless they were totally out of control at heart! 🙂

    Reply
  33. Mac

    Very plausible. But it remains impossible to determine the strength of emotion to strength of restraint ratio for each sex.
    I think about that banging on fairly often, actually, every time there’s something in the news which involves people completely at the mercy of their emotions. It’s more often scary than otherwise.

    Reply
  34. Paul

    Grumpy, if you’ve read “The Peasant of the Garonne” I’d be interested to know what you made of it.

    Reply
  35. Mac

    I’ve read it, and liked it, but it was so long ago that I can’t say anything more specific.

    Reply
  36. Robert Gotcher

    I read Garonne many years ago, so can’t remember the details. I did get the impression that it was a little cranky.
    Henri de Lubac thought that many of the new Thomists in his day had unknowingly absorbed some of the rationalism of the modernity they were seeking to counter by a return to St. Thomas. Maritain wasn’t a neoscholastic like Garrigou-Lagrange, but de Lubac thought, at least, that he shared some of their tendencies.
    De Lubac rarely criticized anyone directly (a fact about himself that he regretted late in life). Schillebeeckx was the only one he ever directly criticized by name without couching his criticism in niceties.
    On the other hand, he was capable of the most biting irony when speaking of some of his opponents. One thinks of his remarks about Rahner. He also heaped subtle scorn on the cult of Maritain, poking fun at those who were devoted to their “Jack.”
    Gilson, on the other hand, was extremely sympathetic with de Lubac’s reflections on the supernatural, as their correspondence shows.
    Two bits of irony:
    Gilson, who tends to avoid the subliminal rationalism of the neoscholastics, did his dissertation on Descartes(!), the godfather of modern rationalism.
    De Lubac, Rahner, and Maritain are all lumped together as neomodernist infiltrators who derailed the council and poisoned the Church, by Cardinal Giussepi Siri in his book, Gesthemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement.
    Gilson, de Lubac, and other “existential Thomists” come under more or less heavy criticism by Lonerganians for being essentialists (undervaluing the unique, personal).

    Reply
  37. Grumpy

    I agree with most of that, Robert. Ae big difference between Gilson and Maritain was Gilson’s sympathy for de Lubac.

    Reply
  38. Mac

    I can’t even make an intelligent comment on this. I used to think that when I retired I would finally read all those people. Now I’m not at all sure I would. It seems too late to begin that project.

    Reply
  39. Robert Gotcher

    You should read Splendour of the Church or Catholicism by de Lubac. Esp. Spendour. Reading de Lubac is like attending a feast at a 5-Star restaurant.

    Reply
  40. Mac

    I have Splendour of the Church and may even have read it some 30 years ago, but if I did I don’t remember much about it. Maybe I only read part of it.

    Reply
  41. Robert Gotcher

    You read Splendour of the Ch, then.

    Reply
  42. Mac

    ?? Meaning that the fact that I don’t remember it means it was that book rather than the other? Or is that an imperative sentence? 🙂

    Reply
  43. Robert Gotcher

    It was a joke. You only read part of it. Gotcher humor. You should spend some time at our dinner table some time. No sentence goes unanalyzedandpunned.

    Reply
  44. Mac

    Oh, I see–I thought you were just abbreviating. I may only have read Splend.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Marianne Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress