SHORT RULES FOR THE DISCERNMENT OF THE SPIRITS
There is no single rule of discernment that is without exception, according to a Carthusian.
Cf. A Carthusian, The Call of Silent Love, translated by an Anglican solitary (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1995), page 160
“Fruits” is a definitive criterion, but they do not always immediately manifest.
Cf. Francisco López Rivera, S.J., “Obedience and Discernment,” Review of Ignatian Spirituality (January 2009) 40(120):
http://www.sjweb.info/documents/cis/pdfenglish/200912004en.pdf
Consolation is interior movement towards God and the morally good.
Cf. Galatians 5:22-23; Colossians 3:12-16
Desolation is interior movement away from God and towards the morally evil.
Cf. Galatians 5:19-21; Colossians 3:5-10
Consolation is life-giving. Desolation is life-draining.
Cf. Ali Newell, “Spiritual Discernment – what gives life / what discourages,” The University of Edinburgh, May 26, 2020:
Be aware of your feelings, use your head!
Cf. Brendan McManus, SJ, “Two Hints for Recognizing the Two Ignatian Movements of Consolation and Desolation,” IgnatianSpirituality.com:
Ask questions. Gather information.
Cf. Spiritual Exercises, Three Times for Making
a Good and Sound Election, Third Time; Second Set of 8 Rules, Fifth Rule
NOTES ON THE DISCERNMENT OF THE SPIRITS
ReplyDeleteDiscernment Is Iterative
Because discernment is a process active throughout life, which itself is in constant process, discernment is necessarily iterative. Generally, the task of discernment is not to settle dogmas with finality, but rather to evaluate, assess, and judge a mainly interior reality constantly in flux. Discernment is iterative because it asks us to revisit a changing existential reality.
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/07/discernmentwhat-is-it.html
Discernment Improves with Spiritual Maturity
What exactly consolation and desolation consist in is understood principally through one’s personal experience of the spirits. Theory by itself cannot fully explain them.
We learn how to distinguish between good and evil spirits by putting theory into practice, so that the gift of the discernment of spirits is the upshot of growing maturity in the spiritual life.
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2021/07/consolation-and-desolation.html
Discernment Advances with Age and Experience
“Wisdom is life experience applied to well-considered judgment.”
https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/01/aphorisms.html
To the extent that the gift of the discernment of the spirits depends on our capacity for making well-considered judgments, our application of this gift to the particular circumstances of our lives improves with life experience.
Gonzalinho
The first short rule, “There is no single rule of discernment that is without exception,” is a Russell’s Paradox.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a Russell’s Paradox? Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the Russell’s Paradox concisely and accurately, even if the explanation is not very accessible to our understanding. See:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/
—“Russell’s Paradox,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, October 12, 2020
“Some sets, such as the set of all teacups, are not members of themselves. Other sets, such as the set of all non-teacups, are members of themselves. Call the set of all sets that are not members of themselves ‘R.’ If R is a member of itself, then by definition it must not be a member of itself. Similarly, if R is not a member of itself, then by definition it must be a member of itself.”
Russell’s Paradox arises in the case of sets that are not members of themselves.
“Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself. Hence the paradox.”
The above description, even if precise, is rather abstract. It can be readily understood only through one or more examples.
The earliest example of the Russell’s Paradox is that of Epimenides, a Cretan philosopher (c. 600 BCE). He said, “All Cretans are liars.” Close examination will show that the statement is both true and false. It’s perfectly logical to make the statement, so that it is formally true. However, if the person who makes the statement is a Cretan, then the statement is also false—because he is a Cretan and we assume that the statement is true. So the statement is both true and false at the same time—a paradox.
The paradox can only be solved by treating Epimenides as an exception among Cretans, that is, he is a Cretan who is not a liar. In other words, he belongs to the set of Cretans who are not Cretans who lie. In the terminology of “naïve set theory,” he is a member of a set that is not a member of itself. Or, he is a member of a set to which he is an exception.
One widely accepted solution to Russell’s Paradox is that of Zermelo and Fraenkel, who basically say that we have to treat some members of a set as an exception to the set. They do not share all the properties of the members of the set.
So in the case of the Cretans who are all presumably liars, some Cretans, or at least one Cretan, Epimenides, is not a liar.
An explanation in symbolic logic of Russell’s Paradox and its solution according to Zermelo and Fraenkel is given in the Stanford Encyclopedia article cited above.
What I find more readily understandable is that given by Jeffrey J. Early, who at the time of publication of the following piece was an Undergraduate Physics Major at the University of Puget Sound. See:
http://math.ups.edu/~bryans/Current/Journal_Spring_1999/JEarly_232_S99.html
—Jeffrey J. Early, “Russell’s Paradox and Possible Solutions”
Going back to the first short rule, “There is no single rule of discernment that is without exception”—it is a Russell’s Paradox because it is a rule of discernment, and if it is a rule of discernment, then it must admit exceptions, including itself. However, if it is an exception, then it contradicts itself, because then it says that there are always exceptions. At the same time, if it includes itself as an exception, then it says that there are no exceptions. Therefore, the first short rule is both true and false at the same time.
One solution to this paradox—the solution of Zermelo and Fraenkel—is to regard the first short rule as at least one of the exceptions to the very rule it states. This solution I prefer.
Gonzalinho
IS IT ALWAYS NECESSARY TO FOLLOW YOUR CONSCIENCE?
ReplyDeleteWe must first define what we mean by the term “conscience.”
What is conscience? Catholic Dictionary defines conscience as an operation of the intellect and denies that conscience is an act of the will.
“The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.
“It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.
“Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.”
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32755
—“Conscience,” Catholic Dictionary
I agree with the Catholic Dictionary understanding that conscience is a judgment of the practical intellect concerning whether an action is right or wrong. According to this understanding, conscience is the moral judgment of a human being, who is always a moral creature.
However, I disagree with the Catholic Dictionary when it declares that conscience is not an act of the will. On the contrary, as a moral judgment, that is, as the assent of the will to the conclusion of the intellect, I would say that conscience is indeed an act of the will.
Because conscience is a judgment about what is right or wrong—it is an act of the will—a person who acts contrary to their conscience does what they judge to be wrong, knowingly so. Furthermore, if one’s conscience is erroneous and they act against it, they do what they hold to be morally wrong. Therefore, they contravene the moral law insofar as they understand it, and in doing so, they sin.
For this reason, it is always sinful to act against one’s conscience. Put another way, one must always follow one’s conscience. The injunction to always follow one’s conscience is a universal principle of moral theology. It is thereby a universal rule of discernment for which there is no exception.
However, the moral obligation to follow one’s conscience does not absolve that person from the moral obligation to form one’s conscience correctly.
“You need to make sure not just that your conscience is formed, but that it’s formed correctly. If it is, the moral judgments you make will be reliable. If it is not, your moral judgments won’t be trustworthy.”
https://www.catholic.com/qa/to-live-a-moral-life-is-it-enough-to-follow-your-conscience
—Catholic Answers Staff, “To live a moral life, is it enough to follow your conscience?” Catholic Answers
Gonzalinho
Photo courtesy of Coolarts223:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.deviantart.com/coolarts223/art/Glass-jar-with-natural-landscape-reflection-in-it-986678423
Gonzalinho
GOD WHISPERS, THE DEVIL SHOUTS
ReplyDeleteSee 1:36:
“If you want a very simple rule, it’s as follows. God whispers, the devil shouts.
“Now, the reason why the devil shouts is because he could[n’t] care less about free will. He’s like a salesman wanting to make the sale. He doesn’t care whether you want to or not. He wants to convince you at all costs to say yes. He’s trying to bend your will to say yes so that he can hook you and drag you into sin.
“God is not like that. He whispers because he’s inviting and he respects your freedom and your free will. You can say no to him even to the smallest or the largest things.”
https://youtu.be/eu539uGLixs?si=llnkxbJ08Bojcl65
—Uniquely Mary, “A Soul From Purgatory Contacted Me….Here’s What Happened,” YouTube video, 8:03 minutes, September 25, 2025
I wouldn’t exactly say that God “respects our freedom.” The way I’d put it is that God deals with us according to our nature, which is free—he does not change our nature once we are created, which means, among others, that he invites us to cooperate in his work and to correspond to his grace.
“God whispers, the devil shouts,” like almost all rules of discernment, admits of exceptions.
Cf. A Carthusian, The Call of Silent Love, translated by an Anglican solitary (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1995), page 160.
If God deems it appropriate and opportune, he will indeed shout, that is, he will communicate emphatically, possibly even forcefully.
God shouts, for example, when he casts lightning bolts on Mount Sinai or when he drowns the Egyptians in the Red Sea:
Now as all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the blast of the shofar and the mountain smoking, they became afraid and trembled. So they took up a position farther away and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we shall die.”
Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid, for God has come only to test you and put the fear of him upon you so you do not sin.” So the people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the dark cloud where God was.
—Exodus 20:18-20
To be continued
Gonzalinho
GOD WHISPERS, THE DEVIL SHOUTS
DeleteContinued
The Lord spoke to Moses: Stretch out your hand over the sea that the water may flow back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots and their horsemen. So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea returned to its normal flow. The Egyptians were fleeing head on toward it when the Lord cast the Egyptians into the midst of the sea. As the water flowed back, it covered the chariots and the horsemen. Of all Pharaoh’s army which had followed the Israelites into the sea, not even one escaped.
—Exodus 14:26-28
In a Greek text written by Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the seventh century, Abba Zosimas relates how he discovers Saint Mary of Egypt living as a solitary in the Jordan desert. She recounts to him how she was prevented by God from entering the church in Jerusalem during the Feast of the Exaltation of the Venerable Cross of the Lord, despite her repeated strenuous efforts.
“I was born in Egypt and when I was twelve years old I left my parents and went to Alexandria. There I lost my chastity and gave myself to unrestrained and insatiable sensuality. For more than seventeen years I lived like that and I did it all for free.
“…One summer I saw a crowd of people from Libya and Egypt heading toward the sea. They were on their way to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. I also wanted to sail with them. Since I had no food or money, I offered my body in payment for my passage. And so I embarked on the ship.
“…So I arrived in Jerusalem and spent all the days before the Feast living the same sort of life, and maybe even worse.
“When the holy Feast of the Exaltation of the Venerable Cross of the Lord arrived, I went about as before, looking for young men. At daybreak I saw that everyone was heading to the church, so I went along with the rest. When the hour of the Holy Elevation drew nigh, I was trying to enter into the church with all the people. With great effort I came almost to the doors, and attempted to squeeze inside. Although I stepped up to the threshold, it was as though some force held me back, preventing me from entering. I was brushed aside by the crowd, and found myself standing alone on the porch. I thought that perhaps this happened because of my womanly weakness. I worked my way into the crowd, and again I attempted to elbow people aside. However hard I tried, I could not enter. Just as my feet touched the church threshold, I was stopped. Others entered the church without difficulty, while I alone was not allowed in. This happened three or four times. Finally my strength was exhausted. I went off and stood in a corner of the church portico.”
https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2018/04/01/100963-venerable-mary-of-egypt
—“Venerable Mary of Egypt,” Orthodox Church in America, April 1, 2018
Subsequently, Saint Mary of Egypt repents of her life of fornication, retreating into the Jordan desert to embark on a regime of prayer and severe asceticism for the remainder of her life. She finally dies a holy death, according to the witness of Abba Zosimas.
In the account of the life of Saint Mary of Egypt, God acts forcefully in order to trigger her radical conversion.
Gonzalinho