How to Gain Self-Esteem?

I saw a review of "NutureShock", a new book on child development. It basically says that a lot of "accepted" thinking is poppycock. "A striking example is the latest research on self-esteem. As [the authors] remind us, the psychologist Nathaniel Brandon published a path-breaking paper in 1969 called "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" in which he argued that feelings of self-worth were a key to success in life. The theory became a big hit in the nation's schools; in the mid-1980s, the California Legislature even established a self-esteem task force. By now, there are 15,000 scholarly articles on the subject.

"And what do they show? That high self-esteem doesn't improve grades, reduce anti-social behavior, deter alcohol drinking or do much of anything good for kids. In fact, telling kids how smart they are can be counterproductive. Many children who are convinced that they are little geniuses tend not to put much effort into their work. Others are troubled by the latent anxiety of adults who feel it necessary to praise them constantly."

Another "guru" dethroned. (Brandon was a notorious cohort of Ayn Rand, by the way.)

So where does individuality and self-confidence come from? Here from Phillip Rieff:

"It is important to note that, in the development of Western culture, the meaning of discipline cannot be separated from its credal animus. [read: Judeo Christian heritage]. The conformity of action in mass organization is anti-credal. Deep individuality cannot exist except in relation to the highest authority. No inner discipline can operate without a charismatic institution, nor can such an institution survive without that supreme authority from a relation to whom self-confidence derives. Without an authority deeply installed, there is no foundation for individuality. Self-confidence thus expresses submission to supreme authority."

Rather "counter-cultural" thinking, don't you think? ONLY through adherence to our creed can we develop -- in our deep humility and guilt -- self-confidence and individuality.

(If you want a good example of charismatic authority personified, watch Monsieur Vincent, a 1947 movie which you can get at the public library. Then start to watch for them [I think we used to call them saints!].)

The Personal Practice of Renunciation

I've learned something very important from Phillip Rieff, namely, that I recognize who I am only by "saying no" to instinct. This I do in the guilty knowledge (of what I know I am capable of) against the light of God's absolute moral authority.

"Knowledge derived from the authority of charisma is no intellectual acceptance of renunciations; rather, ordinary everyday charisma, the practical personal knowledge of all, is the personal practice of renunciation. We learn on our bodies." Charisma, p 40.

The opposite is therapy, the renunciation of all renunciations. The world we (are invited to) live in more and more offers therapy, urging us to give up giving up. But only in renunciation can we live into our ideal selves in the loving, awful moral gaze of the Almighty.

There is a poem by Caroline Giltinan ("Achievement") which captures this, I think:

"The biggest thing I ever did
Was all inside of me;
There was a battle hardly won
With only God to see."

Before we move on to other things

Fr. John Neuhaus in his book "American Babylon" has a chapter on whether or not an athiest can be a good citizen.

He offers the following quote from Pope Benedict XVI in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi (Saved in Hope).

"The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is-in its origins and aims--a type of moralism. It is a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history. A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God. It is for the sake of morality that this God has to be contested."

Neuhaus offers another quote.

Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the papal household, takes our question from a different angle:

The world of today knows a new category of people: the atheists in good faith, those who live painfully the situ­ation of the silence of God, who do not believe in God but do not boast about it; rather they experience the ex­istential anguish and the lack of meaning of everything: They too, in their own way, live in the dark night of the spirit. Albert Camus called them "the saints without God." The mystics exist above all for them; they are their travel and table companions. Like Jesus, they "sat down at the table of sinners and ate with them" (see Luke 15:2). This explains the passion with which cer­tain atheists, once converted, pore over the writings of the mystics: Claudel, Bernanos, the two Maritains, L. Bloy, the writer J. K. Huysmans and so many others over the writings of Angela of Foligno; T. S. Eliot over those of Julian of Norwich. There they find again the same scenery that they had left, but this time illumi­nated by the sun.... The word "atheist" can have an ac­tive and a passive meaning. It can indicate someone who rejects God, but also one who-at least so it seems to him-is rejected by God. In the first case, it is a blameworthy atheism (when it is not in good faith), in the second an atheism of sorrow or of expiation.

Neuhaus offers evidence of the fact that our country's founding priciples rely on a certain belief that there is a God whose divine hand must be reflected in the way we govern ourselves.

His answer to the question of whether or not an athiest can be a good citizen is offered in the following quote from the last pages of this chapter.

"In such a nation, an atheist can be a citizen, but he cannot be a good citizen. A good citizen does more than abide by the laws. A good citizen is able to give an ac­count, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part-and to do so in continuity with the constituting moment and subsequent history of that regime. He is able to justify its defense against its ene­mies, and to convincingly recommend its virtues to citi­zens of the next generation so that they, in turn, can transmit the order of government to citizens yet unborn. This regime of liberal democracy, of republican self­governance, is not self-evidently good and just. An ac­count must be given. Reasons must be given. They must be reasons that draw authority from that which is higher than ourselves, from that which transcends us, from that to which we are precedently, ultimately, obliged."

Reflection While Showering

I was showering early in the afternoon on one of those rare weekdays that I was off from work. The hot water felt so wonderful trickling down my body creating a sense of warmth and comfort. [Warning; please do not try to envision this scene as it may be detrimental in producing the intended effect of this reflection.]

This is not the first time that the following thoughts have occurred to me. Quite often it occurs to me, while showering, that I have been particularly blessed by God with the ability to perform such an everyday function. A function which is not readily available to many people in this world.

And so my thoughts go from the blessings of the shower to a consideration of the many other blessings, small and large, that have been heaped upon me by the good Lord. And my mind naturally turns toward gratitude. It is not that I feel that I don't express gratitude for these blessings, rather I ask myself the question, "Do I show enough gratitude?" Of course, I'm asking myself this question in the comfort of a nice home in a nice suburb, living a life in which I have wanted for very little. Most of my time is spent tending to the small everyday tasks that I find necessary. Do I spend enough of my time, talent, and treasure in gratitude to the Lord for all he has given me? I don't know and it's probably a question I'll be asking myself when I am asked to meet Him.

Whenever I express this idea to others they often respond that I might be just a little guilty of scrupulosity. Perhaps I am. Who of us is able, though, to go through life without considering such a question? Do I give enough? I'll never know the answer in this life. I do think however that regardless of what the answer to that question might be at any point in time I should strive all the time to be more like St. Francis who was willing to give it all away or more like St. Therese who was willing to spend her entire life praying and serving others.

Lord help me to be equal to the task. Amen

Actions, Not Intentions, Make Us Who We Are

Joseph Brodsky, 1987 Literature Nobel Prize winner, wrote a poem each Christmas for many years, all of which are collected in his book, Nativity Poems. In an interview at the end of the book, the interviewer asks Brodsky what kind of believer he is. Brodsky comments he is not firmly convicted, but believes "Calvinist." In explanation he says, "Why I say Calvinist -- not particularly seriously -- is because according to Calvinist doctrine man answers to himself for everything. That is, he is his own Judgment Day, to some extent. I don't have the strength to forgive myself. And, on the other hand, I don't feel any particular attraction or respect for anyone who could forgive me. When I was younger, I tried to figure this all out for myself. But at some point I realized that I am the sum of all my actions, my acts, and not the sum of my intentions."

I agree with his attitude: Our actions build us and render us unto judgment.

The connection between our actions and self-possession is explicitly recognized by the author of James (1:22-25):

"Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the owrd and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does."

Teilhard at Vespers

It has been a while snce I've posted anything to the blog. In doing this post I discovered that many of you had not been invited to participate. An oversight I hope that I've corrected.
The following editorial was published in the August 17-24, 2009 issue of America the Jesuit magazine. It is lengthy but good stuff.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Teilhard at Vespers
The church seems forever to be embracing those she once held in suspicion. Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer, is the most famous among them. But there are others, too, like Thomas Aquinas, Joan of Arc and Ignatius Loyola. The most recent candidate for rehabilitation is the Jesuit paleontologist, evolutionary philosopher and spiritual writer Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Vatican watchers have taken note of Pope Benedict XVI's appeal to Teilhard during an evening prayer service he celebrated July 24 in Aosta, Italy, as a sign of re­appraisal of the priest and his thought. Citing Teilhard's `great vision;' Pope Benedict urged that "we consecrate the world, so it may become a living host;' a phrase reminiscent of the French Jesuit's eucharistic theology, in which all cre­ation becomes an offering to God.
Teilhard articulated his vision during an expedition to the Ordos Desert of Inner Mongolia in 1923. Lacking the elements of unleavened bread and wine to celebrate Mass, he composed a poetic prayer, "Mass on the World" (pub­lished in Hymn of the Universe; Harper, 1961), offering the whole of creation in its evolutionary history as a host to God. Pope Benedict has previously praised the sense of cos­mic liturgy in the Eastern church. His appeal to Teilhard adds the distinctive resonances of the Frenchman's vision: a cosmos evolved over time and increasingly known by scien­tific investigation; a spiritual process that comes to con­sciousness in humanity, a humanity whose spirituality is found in activity as well as passivity; and a humanity called not only to live in the world but also to transform it.
The pope's prayer in fact puts emphasis on our obliga­tion to "transform the world:" In adopting this theme, his thinking seems to have developed along the same trajectory as that of Pope John Paul II. After the Second Vatican Council, both expressed dismay at the optimistic, Teilhardian tone of the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World;' with its focus on the cosmic Christ and its affirmation of the transformative power of the resurrection in history. ....

The pope appears to acknowledge that the kind of sensibility Teilhard possessed belongs to the full flowering of our human nature. To an unexpected degree, he voices trust in the graced capacity of human beings to transform the world and in so doing make it a more fitting offering to God. ...

Like Teilhard, Pope Benedict reminds us that the world we transform by our labor, our learning and our inge­nuity contributes to Christ's great offering of the world to God. The pope has pointed to an array of problems await­ing solution and transformation: the protection of human life and the environment, the expansion of the "responsibil­ity to protect' to include provision of food and water for needy populations, and the creation of international struc­tures to regulate speculation in financial markets and gov­ern a global economy. Will American Catholics rise to the occasion, leading our fellow citizens to meet these chal­lenges by taking new initiatives on behalf of the human fam­ily? Or will we allow ourselves to fall back, enthralled by the idols of self-aggrandizement and self-amusement that so captivate our culture?Decline is our civilization's future if recovery from the global fiscal crisis returns to the consumerist pattern of the late 20th-century America. Consumption has its place in creating a floor of material well-being. But after a point it becomes debilitating to the soul and to society. The trans­formation of the world certainly involves the expansion of markets-not primarily among the affluent, however, but rather among the poor. Furthermore, human creativity needs to be directed by fuller aspirations than improvements in material welfare alone, because human beings are more and desire more: aesthetically, intellectually, athletically, eco­logically, religiously. In whatever field we endeavor to trans­form the world-science, engineering, communications, business, the arts-we must aim at promoting sustainable, fully human development at rising levels of well-being for all and for everyone. At the end, when this transformation has reached its fullness, as Teilhard wrote, "the presence of Christ, which has been silently accruing in things, will sud­denly be revealed-like a flash of light from pole to pole:"