The Catholic Book Club discussion

4. The journey to Russia, to provide spiritual help to Polish emigrant workers, was a failure. Ciszek interprets his experience in this way: "It was God's will that I fail, so He could give me a lesson. He sent me to Russia so that I would fail there completely, thus I would learn about my weakness." But there is an alternative interpretation: "I insisted on going to Russia without God calling me to do it, so God made me fail." What do you think?

I think it was more that Ciszek insisted against his own superior's advice and thus God's will.

The first option. It is clear the vocation of Being a missionary in Russia but not in the terms he could imagine

I was meditating about both statements and two things called my attention:
1. Purpose: God has it for all of us.
2. Free will
I found in the second statement that free will could be compromised.
I believe the first statement describe with more accuracy what happened in Ciszek’s life.

Tania wrote: "I was meditating about both statements and two things called my attention:
1. Purpose: God has it for all of us.
2. Free will
I found in the second statement that free will could be compromised. ..."

I can't see why free will would be compromised in the second statement. In fact, if that interpretation were adopted (I don't mean I am adopting it) Ciszek would have exercised his free will precisely by taking the decision to go to Russia.

Free will is less free without the Will of God.

Ramón wrote: "Free will is less free without the Will of God."

Why, yes, real freedom consists in adapting our own will to the Will of God. But then, choosing the wrong decision is as much an act of free will as choosing the right decision, isn't it?

Well, if you choose something out of vanity or selfishness or out of self love. That is not an act of freedom, is an act of choice. For me choice is not the same as freedom. Freedom is not easy by ourselves we need help

Ramón wrote: "Well, if you choose something out of vanity or selfishness or out of self love. That is not an act of freedom, is an act of choice. For me choice is not the same as freedom. Freedom is not easy by ..."

Then how do you define free will?

This is the Wikipedia definition: Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Free will is the capacity to choose Good and reject evil. If you choose evil you loose freedom and you have will but not total freedom.It is not clear nowadays...

Ciszek describe it perfect Ramon, in the Spanish translation of the book he says :” El hombre es el único que ser que puede elegir no amar a Dios “.

Ramón wrote: "Free will is the capacity to choose Good and reject evil. If you choose evil you loose freedom and you have will but not total freedom.It is not clear nowadays..."

Right. But according to this definition, free will is previous to the actual choice. Therefore any choice, whatever it is, is not contrary to free will, but its consequence. A wrong choice can diminish our free will for further choices, but the wrong choice itself was a consequence of free will, which is what I meant at the beginning of this discussion.

On the other hand, a wrong choice does not have to be evil, it can just be mistaken. I think the second alternative in this question would have been an example of a mistaken decision, not an evil decision. Therefore it wouldn't necessarily have diminished Ciszek's free will for future choices.

I believe free will could be compromised because there is a condition of punishment - you went without God’s calling and that is why you failed .

At least in the way is presented sounds wrong. Under the human eye Ciszek’s purpose was correct. This man wanted to serve God so hard that God listened .

“Los probó como oro en el crisol”

I believe there is a rebirth of a new man.

Tania wrote: "I believe free will could be compromised because there is a condition of punishment - you went without God’s calling and that is why you failed .

At least in the way is presented sounds wrong..."

What I meant with the question was that God can get something good even from our wrong decisions. Therefore, even if Ciszek's decision was actually a mistake, God could transform the effect of his decision into a process that would lead to his own spiritual good, in accord with the title of the book: "He leadeth me."

No punishment was implied in the original question.

Manuel, I agree with you. You enriched my point of view. Even bad choices can be transformed in moments of Grace

Manuel wrote: "Tania wrote: "I believe free will could be compromised because there is a condition of punishment - you went without God’s calling and that is why you failed .

At least in the way is presented so..."

Agree..

Although I understand Ramon´s point.
There is true liberty in trusting God's will.

This whole conversation assumes God wills one and only one thing for each individual. I think rather that God really leaves us free to choose what we will be and do, in close conversation with Himself. It's almost as if He hangs on our choice, waiting to see which of several good alternatives we will choose. He works with us to make the choice, then He continues to work closely with us as we live out what we have chosen, adjusting as we go along.

Jill wrote: "This whole conversation assumes God wills one and only one thing for each individual... It's almost as if He hangs on our choice, waiting to see which of several good alternatives we will choose."

Yes, this is another view. It is possible that we may have several good alternatives, and that God lets us choose the one we prefer.

But the previous discussion was focused on a different situation: we may be given two choices, one good and one wrong (either bad or mistaken). The question was: What will God do if we choose the wrong one?

In fact, the situation suggested by Ciszek is this: He was certain that God wanted him to go to Russia, even against the advise of his superior; therefore he went. There's no suggestion here of two alternative good choices where God gave him the freedom to choose, accepting whatever he decided. Thus the previous discussion.

I perhaps missed the disobedience aspect of this - where was he advised not to go to Russia? He was when he was originally ordained and was sent to Eastern Poland instead, but then his mission was shut down, and it seemed there was a choice to be made.

I found it more interesting to ponder the question of how he tried to discern God's will. When you are faced with a major choice, how do you know what God's will for you is?

Perhaps you have all finished the book and it is clear that Ciszek made a mistake in thinking that going into Russia was God's will for him, but did he? Certainly it did not happen as he expected, but who can know what seeds were planted? I have just finished Chapter 4, so maybe I haven't read enough, but it isn't clear to me yet that we can say so clearly that he erred in finding God's will for him.

John wrote: "I perhaps missed the disobedience aspect of this - where was he advised not to go to Russia? He was when he was originally ordained and was sent to Eastern Poland instead, but then his mission was ..."

In chapter 2 Ciszek says that the Oriental rite mission in Albertyn was closed. But the Latin rite parish remained... I talked it over... with Father Grybowski, the only priest of the mission who would be left in Albertyn if I were to leave.

Strictly speaking, his superiors had left him some freedom, although it's not clear to me that they had approved the proposal to go to Russia. It looked more like his friend Makar's idea. So perhaps one cannot speak about disobedience.

John wrote: "I found it more interesting to ponder the question of how he tried to discern God's will. When you are faced with a major choice, how do you know what God's will for you is?"

Yes, this is question 3, which still got no comments :-)

John wrote: "Perhaps you have all finished the book and it is clear that Ciszek made a mistake in thinking that going into Russia was God's will for him, but did he?"

He says so, not once, but several times, in chapter 6:

I was tormented by feelings of defeat, failure and guilt.

In fact, the word failure appears many times in the book, although it not always refers to his initial decision, which he tries to show was God's will all the time.

I am with John, I am in chapter 3, and from what he describes, I don't see that he went to Russia against orders.

Mariangel wrote: "I am with John, I am in chapter 3, and from what he describes, I don't see that he went to Russia against orders."

From the beginning, I have said that it could have been a mistake, not a bad (evil) decision.

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "Perhaps you have all finished the book and it is clear that Ciszek made a mistake in thinking that going into Russia was God's will for him, but did he?"

He says so, not once, but several times, in chapter 6:

I was tormented by feelings of defeat, failure and guilt.

In fact, the word failure appears many times in the book, although it not always refers to his initial decision, which he tries to show was God's will all the time. "

So I'm now through Chapter 11 and, with the caveat about things yet to be revealed, I think I have to disagree with the idea that he felt his going to Russia was a failure to accurately discern God's will. I agree that he often beats himself up in various places about his failures, but these are specific and concrete failures, that I don't think apply back to his decision to go to Russia.

And looking back (I think it was Chapter 3) where he describes the joy of finding God's will, I got no sense that he felt he had erred.

John wrote: "I think I have to disagree with the idea that he felt his going to Russia was a failure to accurately discern God's will... I got no sense that he felt he had erred"

Yes, John, I agree with you. He didn't think he had erred. That's why I inserted question number 3, so that we could discuss the criterion he used to come to that conclusion.

When I said, when I wrote this question, that his mission to Russia was a failure, I meant (but didn't say) "humanly speaking." According to our normal way of looking at things, this is unquestionable. Then I offered two alternative interpretations: Ciszek's (it wasn't a failure, God always wanted things to go that way); and an alternative interpretation (it was a failure, but God got something good out of it anyway).

In fact, this what the initial discussion was about, but somehow it branched off in another direction. :-)