The art of doing nothing: A Catholic embrace of boredom
Inside Creative House | Shutterstock
Daniel Esparza - published on 05/08/24
In today’s fast-paced world, the concept of “wasting time” is often viewed negatively. Schedules are meticulously crafted, productivity is king, and any moment not actively “used” is viewed as a missed opportunity. However, from a Catholic perspective, there is significant value in what we might call “productive boredom.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us that, after creation, God “rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done” (CCC 299). This divine act of pausing sets an important precedent. The biblical text recognizes the importance of stepping away from our constant striving. In these moments of tranquility, free from the demands of productivity, a different kind of work can begin: the work of introspection –and simply being.
Boredom is not laziness
Now, boredom is not synonymous with idleness or laziness. Boredom can provide an opportunity for our minds to wander and for creativity to spark. Some commentators claim that St. Augustine once wrote that it is beneficial for the mind to be occasionally unoccupied. In that “emptiness” of sorts, a receptivity emerges, allowing us to connect with things and ideas we would often simply pass by, and appreciate the beauty of the world around us.
Consider the instances of sudden insight that have shaped history. Tradition claims that Archimedes, while bathing, observed the displacement of water by his body, which led to his discovery of the principle of buoyancy. Newton is said to have formulated the law of gravity after being struck by a falling apple.
These breakthroughs were not the result of relentless work, but rather moments of attentive idleness, where the mind was free to make unexpected connections. Needless to say, this attentive idleness is not born out of nothing: it is the consequence of a well-trained mind.
Affirming our own value
As Catholics, we believe that humans are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). This inherent value is not contingent on our achievements or production. We are worthy simply for who we are. Allowing oneself time for unstructured exploration, even unstructured prayer, or simply gazing at the clouds affirms this fundamental truth. It is in these moments of seemingly unproductive time that we can reconnect with ourselves, with God, and rediscover the value in the ordinary.
When faced with a seemingly unproductive stretch of time, it is advisable to embrace it. Allow your mind to wander, be present in the moment, and trust that even in the quiet, something positive might emerge.
There's the title for your next book Gene - "The Art of Pretending to do a lot but of Achieving Fuck-All".
ReplyDeleteBut enough of this persiflage: let us return to the point at issue that Gene is frantically trying to push down the page on this awful blog.
ReplyDelete[1] "the pinko-liberal left" does not exist as a choate political entity with a unanimous opinion. A non existent body can neither condone nor condemn anything.
[2] You have been completely unable to prove that any body of left wing opinion such as the Parliamentary or National Labour party condoned the PIE. It is true that several left wing figures were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the National Council for Civil Liberties. This does not mean that they condoned the PIE.
[3] The British left-wing did not condone the PIE, but even if they had, this would have had nothing to do with the fact that an American priest's abuse of children, which could have been prevented had Ratzinger unfrocked him when he was asked to in 1985, was allowed by this criminal dereliction to continue for another three years. This happened irrespective of any left wing viewpoints in another country. To suggest that there is a connection is demented. [4] The NCCL membership comprised all shades of political opinion, and despite being challenged to several times, you have offered no evidence for the political allegiances of its members.
"Compare this to the case of the PIE which advocated adults having sex with children and which was affiliated for almost ten years to the pinko/liberal extreme Left NCCL. Plus two future Labour Government ministers were involved up to their eyes. Plus a Labour Party parliamentary candidate, Peter Tatchell, advocating adult sex with children."
Simply repeating this pack of lies is yet another proof that you are barking mad. And as for this ridiculous allegation: "You and your ilk condoned all this Detterling", that is the kind of offensively moronic and cowardly filth to which you would not dare to sign your name, and I will not dignify it with a response.
I have neither bluffed, blustered or slithered in this matter. I have acknowledged what is true - that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL what time three Labour politicians were also members of the NCCL, that Mr Tatchell also supported the PIE what time he was a Labour candidate - although in supporting the PIE he was speaking on his own behalf, not the Labour Party's. I have pointed out the falsities, fallacies, lies and smears involved in your nonsensical attempt to prove that a non-existent body of left wing opinion condoned or condones the PIE, as well as pointing out why you are doing it - your complete failure to defend Ratzinger.
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
There is only one true thing in your farrago of nonsense - that I am a very old man, and that my lifetime achievements in four careers - teacher, counsellor, writer and musician - have been modest.
But at least they have been real: I feel no need to invent critical acclaim for a vanity publication like "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths".
GENE, AFTER FALLING INTO DETTERLING'S CAREFULLY LAID TRAP, WROTE:
ReplyDelete"DETTERLING YOU HAVE LOST IT! "Tee! Hihi! Hihi! Hihi! Glucksen! Glucksen!" Indeed! Detterling you take the biscuit. "
TO WHICH DETTERLING REPLIED:
"Absolutely not, Gene, I have nailed you as a two faced bastard of a hypocrite.
If I post to your blog your original filth about buggering my wife in English, you have obviously found a way of either blocking it or deleting it more or less instantly.
The seven translations above were all posted, and only when a back-translated item from Kazakh did your block on my free speech work.
You BLEAT about free speech and about how the left wing believe in it only when suits them.
And you do precisely that which of which you accuse the left wing.
A despicable performance by a despicable apology for a disgusting human being.
And as we all know by now "Detterling you take the biscuit." is what you say when you really mean "fuck, he's got me again."
And I repeat: not a word about my wife and family if you want to hold up your head in Uxbridge for the rest of your life.
Oh, and lest we forget:
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it
Gene "Fetherlite" Vincent claimed that Jesus condemned anal sexual intercourse and homosexuality. Challenged to produce textual evidence for this, he produced the following bogus waffle.
ReplyDelete"Do you think that Jesus would have had to even mention homosexual acts? In the Jewish faith the notion of such activity was anathema. He never mentioned bestiality either. Did that mean he did not condemn bestiality? But, Saint Paul said loud and clearly: NO SODOMITES SHALL EVER ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. And Saint Paul was the teacher of the faith par excellence."
Enjoy Detterling's magisterial demolition of this spurious crap.
No, Gene, stop trying to bluster your way out of the trap you made for yourself, you incompetent buffoon. I asked you to publish the chapter and verse of the Gospel where Jesus condemns sodomy [or indeed homosexuality]. You couldn't, and you can't, because he condemned neither. You then claimed that he must have done, because he "...did condemn fornication. Sodomy is the most vile form of fornication."
The only thing that Jesus said about fornication is to be found Matthew 5:32, which reads "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and. whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
This does not condemn fornication as such, but rather allows that a husband may divorce his wife on the grounds of her sexual infidelity without causing either of them to commit adultery in a subsequent marriage. Above all Christ does not provide a taxonomy of sexual misdemeanour whereby anal intercourse [including consensual heterosexual anal intercourse] is even defined as fornication, much less condemned as the worst variety of it.
"Do you think that Jesus would have had to even mention homosexual acts?"
What I think is irrelevant. You claim that Jesus condemned anal sexual intercourse as the worst kind of fornication and I asked you to give me the chapter and verse reference of where he did so. And you can't, because he didn't. You can't make stuff up and then expect not to be challenged to provide evidence.
"In the Jewish faith the notion of such activity was anathema."
And Jesus said that he came to fulfil the law, and that the law therefore could now pass away, as we would live under the law of Christ, not of Moses. Not to mention his breaches of Mosaic law: blasphemy, of the symbolic consumption of blood, dietary laws [Mark 7:19], overturning the money-changers' tables in the temple, eating with sinners, not washing his hands before eating, and forgiving the sins of others. No, Gene, the "Jesus the Jew" ploy is a non-starter. But the clanger that made me laugh until I cried was this:
"He never mentioned bestiality either. Did that mean he did not condemn bestiality?"
Once more, Gene "Fetherlite" Vincent takes careful aim and shoots himself in both feet. Not long ago, you fuckwitted OAF, you spent three weeks trying to smear me as a supporter of paedophilia by repeatedly asking this question:
"Did Detterling ever, even once, over the years denounce the PIE? Of course not!"
by which you meant to imply, because I had not denounced the PIE, that I supported it. And now you have finally acknowledged the completely bogus nature of that grubby tactic by pointing out that, just because Christ did not denounce bestiality we cannot infer that he supported it. In the same way, you should acknowledge [but you won't, because you are such a contemptible little weasel] that your attempt to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange using that sleazy tactic was the act of a complete sod.
"But, Saint Paul said loud and clearly: NO SODOMITES SHALL EVER ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. And Saint Paul was the teacher of the faith par excellence."
In this case, St Paul is a complete irrelevance. You claimed that Christ condemned anal sexual intercourse and homosexuality, and have completely failed to produce any evidence from the Gospels for this claim. [continued]
Nor was St Paul "the teacher of the faith par excellence." He was, like you, a bigot unable to countenance disagreement and an overweening bully. He was also the archetypal sexual inadequate unable to live down his prurient fascination with the sexuality he had never dared to confront. And his opinions about homosexuality and homosexuality have absolutely no basis in the the gospels of Christ, as you have just demonstrated by your complete failure to evidence them. And I am not the only one who thinks that St Paul corrupted Christianity into a creed that could sit well with canting bigots like you. Read and learn, Gene:
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. He reduced Jesus's ministry to his death and resurrection, and sought to impose his own rules."
Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul: "True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
Will Durant: "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Robert Frost: "Paul he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin: "The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sun-baked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul."
Martin Buber: "The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul."
Kahlil Gibran: "This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know."
Mahatma Gandhi: "I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience."
Carl Jung: "Saul's fanatical resistance to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw: "There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus. . . . There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus. . . . It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus. . . . was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."