Catholic Thought discussion

The fourth chapter, titled “God’s Silence in the Face of Evil Unleashed” furthers the understanding of silence as it pertains to evil in the world. It examines why God is silent in the face of evil, silence as a proper reaction toward evil, and silence in understanding sickness and death.

Christ alone can give man the strength to confront evil and come to terms with it. He offers himself as the only power of helping mankind to conquer suffering. “Apart frpm me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). By the strength of his Cross, he has the power to save mankind. The most beautiful cry possible is an outburst of love for God. Suffering is often the expression of immense love. It is redemptive. Suffering and sorrow show that we are alive, guiding the physician more precisely in his diagnosis. It is necessary to accept suffering and to cope with it in silence. There is no injustice in the world that does not find a prayerful response to God. (P. 283)

But Sarah emphasizes that silence “is not a form of passivity.” To fight injustice, man must turn to God and His love.

We must involve God in our combat against injustice. I like to keep saying that are true weapons are love and prayer. The silence of prayer is our only equipment for combat. The silence of invocation, the silence of adoration, the silence of waiting: these are the most effective weapons. Love alone is capable of putting out the flames of injustice, because God is love. Loving God is everything. All the rest has not the slightest value to the extent that it is not transformed and elevated by Christ’s love. The choice is simple: God or nothing… (P. 292)

While Cardinal Sarah understands man’s rebellion in the face of injustice, he does not support many of the modern approaches to combat such injustice. In what I find to be one of the most insightful paragraphs summarizing the modern condition, Sarah is repulsed by the noisy struggles from all sides.

Modern existence is a propped-up life built entirely on noise, artificiality, and the tragic rejection of God. From revolutions to conquests, from ideologies to political battles, from the frantic quest for equality to the obsessive cult of progress, silence is impossible. What is worse: transparent societies are sworn to an implacable hatred of silence, which they regard as contemptible, backward defeat. (P. 336)

That paragraph is at the center of the book’s theme.

I have been struggling with this book. I think I realized my issue with this chapter. I am not sure I can explain it. It is the way Sarah develops his thoughts. His thoughts do not feel as if they are laid out in a linear fashion which builds, but are laid out in parallel fashion, thought next to thought. Because of the way he does this, I feel as if I am never getting a full handle on his thoughts, but rather am picking up nuggets here and there. This chapter made it clear as I struggled to figure out what Sarah thinks a Christian response to evil should be. Of course, we can expect "silence" to be his answer given the title of the book. But, certainly he can't be suggesting that Christians simply offer up a prayer for those who suffer, then go on about their business. He asks early in the chapter, "What was the response of Jesus?" and he answers it with the cross. I answered "he made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the Temple. He called the Sadducees white washed sepicors and brood of vipars." Sara's answer sounds like silence, mine does not. Although I agree with Sarah that prayer of intercession for those suffering and petition for our own suffering is not passive, I don't think prayer stands alone. St. James, in the second chapter of his letter, chastises Christians who see others in need and do no more than wish them well and offer them a blessing without concretely meeting their needs. Later in the chapter, Sarah describes his own opposition to government corruption in his country, so it is clear that he does think that the Christian response is not limited to silent prayer. But what should it be? He condems some social responses that fight social evil, but he does not explain where the line should be drawn. As an example of silence, he uses the wailing of the mothers of the Holy Innocent. Wailing is not "silent" but it is not an active opposition to the perpetrators of the violence. Further, he uses "evil" to designate everything from a child's death from disease to systemic poverty, from the suffering from war to laws that condone that which is immoral. He talks about his voicing of opposition to government policies then praises the poor who stoically accept their situation with dignity. Who is allowed to speak up against systemic injustice or violence? What does it mean to advocate for silence in the face of social evils when you hold up the work of Mother Teresa as a model who spoke out on behalf of the suffering as well as met their needs? Should the Christian response be different when the suffering is not a moral evil, a child dying from cancer, the devastation of an earthquake, verses when the suffering is from a moral evil, slavery, legalized abortion, laws that perpetuate poverty or deny some access to full dignity? I know that it was said earlier that this is not a "how" book. Sarah is promoting silence. But, it leaves me with questions and confusion. He seems to argue both sides of an issue at times. It is probably clear in his mind, but he does not develop it on the page in a way that it is clear in my mind.

Irene wrote: "I have been struggling with this book. I think I realized my issue with this chapter. I am not sure I can explain it. It is the way Sarah develops his thoughts. His thoughts do not feel as if they ...

I am not sure I can explain it. It is the way Sarah develops his thoughts. His thoughts do not feel as if they are laid out in a linear fashion which builds, but are laid out in parallel fashion, thought next to thought. Because of the way he does this, I feel as if I am never getting a full handle on his thoughts, but rather am picking up nuggets here and there. "

Yes, if you see what I wrote to in the Introduction and Chapter I, I said he develops his argument in a non-linear way.

As to silence in the face of evil, he does provide a few what seems perfunctory tokens to activism, but all his heart and energy lean to prayer (if you take prayer as passive) and silent resistance. That's because his identity, I think, is monastic, and Carthusian monastic at that. Read the second quote I posted above, especially this: "The silence of prayer is our only equipment for combat. The silence of invocation, the silence of adoration, the silence of waiting: these are the most effective weapons." That is his approach to combatting evil. He is not a protester. He finds that noisy. Read the third quote I posted above.

Personally I think he takes the argument too far, but my identity is not monastic.

Since he is not saying that silence is the answer for those with a monastic vocation, but for Christians, I think his thoughts have to be evaluated not on the basis of his monastic background but on the wider lens of the Gospel. And, since he holds up Mother Teresa and his own protest against abuses in his government, I am not sure he is arguing for adoration and invocation alone. He seems to want to steer away from an activism that implies that humans can shape the destiny of their lives or their society in the face of forces like evil or suffering. He wants the reader to recognize that whatever they do must be steeped in prayer and done as prayer. But his thoughts run in such circling back and around directions that, at least for me, he is not clear.

Irene wrote: "Since he is not saying that silence is the answer for those with a monastic vocation, but for Christians, I think his thoughts have to be evaluated not on the basis of his monastic background but o..."

I didn't say he says only advocates silence and prayer. I said he gives token nods to some form of activisim, which he actually contradicts eslewhere. His energy, his passion, his original thought all reside on the silence and prayer solutions. It's almost as if he feels an obligation to say something for activism but it's rather threadbare, almost platitudes. It doesn't follow the central theme of the book.

At least that's how I read it. How else would you explain the third quote above which I'll reproduce here:

"Modern existence is a propped-up life built entirely on noise, artificiality, and the tragic rejection of God. From revolutions to conquests, from ideologies to political battles, from the frantic quest for equality to the obsessive cult of progress, silence is impossible. What is worse: transparent societies are sworn to an implacable hatred of silence, which they regard as contemptible, backward defeat. (P. 336)"

He's obviously against ideologies, political battles, the "obssessive quest for equality," and the "obsessive cult of progress."

You picked up the same vibe above in your long comment.

Yes, he says just enough about service to the downtrodden or opposing moral evil to avoid being accused of ignoring or discounting the long Catholic tradition of saints who have done just that. Like you said in an earlier post, I think he goes too far. I appreciate his challenge for the modern world to respect and cultivate silence more explicitly. But I disagree with his apparent discounting, even condemning actively trying to remmody situations of suffering and injustice.

Diat asks a political question about Guinea Marxist regime and the Cardinal’s experience in it. The Cardinal responds in some detail. I would like to know where Cardinal Sarah read in Solzhenitsyn that the author of the “Gulag Archipelago” “made it perfectly clear that the Soviet leaders were convinced that they were leading the country toward an earthly paradise.” (p. 153) The Gulag era lasted several decades and several Soviet dictators. Solzhenitsyn spent many years in the Siberia which was a frozen quagmire of human rights abuses on a global scale.

Galicius wrote: "Diat asks a political question about Guinea Marxist regime and the Cardinal’s experience in it. The Cardinal responds in some detail. I would like to know where Cardinal Sarah read in Solzhenitsyn ..."

Since the whole point of the Marxist state is to usher in a Communist, classless paradise it's a safe assumption that the true believers in the Soviet government had that as their endgame.

Cardinal Sarah's approach to silence, i.e., active connection to God, in the face of systemic evil has to be understood in the context of his life. He talks about this time of his life in his other book God or Nothing.

He was bishop of Conarky, Guinea when the brutal Marxist dictatorship of Sekou Toure was ravaging the country. Sarah courageously preached the Christian message every Sunday from the pulpit. He was on top of the assassination hit list of the dictator, and the only reason he survived is because the dictator died of a heart attack.

This is a life experience few will ever come close to. He is not advocating inaction. He himself didn't practice inaction. He radically stayed true to Christ whom he loves above all else. His self-sacrificing care for his flock was all-consuming given the enforced brutal ideology and resulting misery they all had to live through. He even had contingency plans in place for he didn't expect to live much longer.

What Cardinal Sarah is rejecting is activism of any sort, for activism is always self-serving, i.e., noisy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_S...

He alludes to his resistance of the Marxist government; that is why I found his statements confusing. Maybe I need him to define "activism. Is it activism to call and write to elected representatives to advocate against separating children from parents at the U.S. border? Is it activism to march on Washington annually to call for an end to abortion? Is it activism to organize a boycott of as MLK did to try to change racist laws? What constitutes activism?