On October 25, Fr. Thomas Keating, architect of the Centering Prayer movement, passed away. Please join me in praying for the repose of his soul.
I have always tried to keep my criticisms focused on the practice of Centering Prayer, not on Fr. Keating himself or any of the others who teach or practice the method. My work has never been about personalities or judging others, but about combating the errors that can keep people from an intimate relationship with God through prayer.
That crusade has not come to an end. In fact, in some ways it has intensified.
Several months ago a Facebook friend informed me that Centering Prayer instructor Kess Frey had written a book in which he mentioned my work, among others’. I promptly bought and studied the book, Bridge across Troubled Waters. Now I have issued a response.
I updated and expanded Is Centering Prayer Catholic?The second edition of the book addresses Frey’s arguments as well as Fr. Keating’s. Dr. Anthony Lilles, Dean of St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California, wrote the foreword.
Dan Burke has invited me to record several episodes on Divine Intimacy Radio, talking about the book and the problems with Centering Prayer. I will let you know when they will air, so that you can join us.
My hope for all of us is that we attain the deepest intimacy with Christ possible in this life, so we can enjoy His presence immediately and eternally after death. May we live for Him alone.
Praying in the Dominican Church in Danzig by Daniel Chodowiecki (Wikimedia Commons)
This series by Dan Burke originally ran at SpiritualDirection.com. It is reposted her (slightly edited) by persmission.
In this third post we will explore the dangers of reducing God to a cosmic force along with ways we can better gain a healthy perspective on prayer and enhance rather than diminish our progress in prayer (you can read the first post here and the second post here).
Depersonalization
The final and most dangerous aspect of modern popular teaching on prayer is depersonalization. The danger here lies in an essential denial of two central doctrines of Christianity: first, the Incarnation (Christ really did come in the flesh) and second, the distinction between Creator and creature (I am not God and He is not me).
The historical reality of the Incarnation of Christ leads us to the critical understanding that God is person and we can commune with Him as such. This is similar to saying, “My wife is a person, and I am a person, and therefore we can commune most fully as persons.” Now, if I were to treat my wife not as a person but as an ethereal cosmic being, communication would break down in short order.
We can envision two contrasting scenarios that illustrate this point.
1. In the non-person prayer orientation, the husband claims to love his wife and yet stares past her in a self-entranced muttering while she stands ignored. It doesn’t matter that he intends or wants to love her, or is open to loving her; his approach is self-centered rather than other-centered.
2. In a person-oriented understanding of prayer, the adoring husband kneels before his spouse and recites poetry rooted in an exalted language of love and adoration. As he offers his love, all his attention is focused on her. She receives his love, as it is clearly for her alone. This is true intimacy, even if only the beginning of a more complete intimacy of the marital embrace.
God is not a distant idea or cosmic force to be communed with in some dazed stupor or blank mind created by the misuse of a mantra-centered method. These distant, ephemeral, and spiritual sounding descriptions of God and their related ideas are acid to the soul. They radically misrepresent who God is, how He has chosen to reveal himself to us, and what it means to be in a personal relationship with Him.
If God is in any way depersonalized, then his Incarnational essence and personhood can easily be morphed into some kind of cosmic force to be harnessed or absorbed into. Even worse, this can and does lead unsuspecting Catholics into the pseudo-faith of pantheism: “He is everything, and thus I am He.” In the end, the gurus of this false gospel seek to lead the naive practitioner to the center of their being where they then discover who they really are. The great triumph of this false prayer is the “realization” that we are God, because there is no substantive distinction between us (they call this “non-dual thinking”). Clearly, this idolatry will in no way lead us to heaven and is most definitely leading many down the broad path to spiritual destruction.
How can I protect myself?
The key to avoiding these errors is to be aware of them, but not to focus on them. Instead, we need to immerse ourselves in the truth. How? Begin with spiritual reading and meditation on the Catechism, and the Compendium of the Catechism, on the topic of prayer. These treatments are far from dry and, word for word, are the most valuable teachings on the topic in all of the Church aside from the words of Christ Himself. Second, we should immerse ourselves in the writings of the doctors of the Church, particularly those who have come to bear significant influence on how the Church understands what it means to commune with God (like Saints Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Thérèse of Lisieux). Modern writers like Fr. Thomas Dubay and Fr. Jacques Philippe provide fantastic resources on prayer that are faithful to this profound and rich Catholic tradition.
Beyond these helpful resources, there are a handful of publishers of materials on prayer and the spiritual life that can be trusted without reservation. Three of these are Emmaus Road Publishing, Ignatius Press, and Scepter Publishing. Emmaus Road publishes my book, Navigating the Interior Life, in which I provide a time-tested and practical road map to understanding spiritual direction and what it means to enter into a progressively deeper relationship with our Lord. They also publish Ralph Martin’s marvelous work on this topic entitled, Fulfillment of All Desire. For more recommended reading on prayer and the spiritual life, check out EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.
Finally, we should close with a profound example of an authentic relationship with God – a look into a heart that truly understands what it means to commune with the Blessed Trinity. In Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity’s prayer, we find a living and beautiful dismantling of all of the errors we have discussed in this series of posts.
“O my God, Trinity whom I adore, let me entirely forget myself that I may abide in you, still and peaceful as if my soul were already in eternity; let nothing disturb my peace nor separate me from you, O my unchanging God, but that each moment may take me further into the depths of your mystery! Pacify my soul! Make it your heaven, your beloved home and place of your repose; let me never leave you there alone, but may I be ever attentive, ever alert in my faith, ever adoring and all given up to your creative action.
O my beloved Christ, crucified for love, would that I might be for you a spouse of your heart! I would anoint you with glory, I would love you – even unto death! Yet I sense my frailty and ask you to adorn me with yourself; identify my soul with all the movements of your soul, submerge me, overwhelm me, substitute yourself in me that my life may become but a reflection of your life. Come into me as Adorer, Redeemer and Savior.
O Eternal Word, Word of my God, would that I might spend my life listening to you, would that I might be fully receptive to learn all from you; in all darkness, all loneliness, all weakness, may I ever keep my eyes fixed on you and abide under your great light; O my Beloved Star, fascinate me so that I may never be able to leave your radiance.
O Consuming Fire, Spirit of Love, descend into my soul and make all in me as an incarnation of the Word, that I may be to him a super-added humanity wherein he renews his mystery; and you O Father, bestow yourself and bend down to your little creature, seeing in her only your beloved Son in whom you are well pleased.
O my `Three,’ my All, my Beatitude, infinite Solitude, Immensity in whom I lose myself, I give myself to you as a prey to be consumed; enclose yourself in me that I may be absorbed in you so as to contemplate in your light the abyss of your [greatness]!” (http://www.elisabeth-dijon.org/v_en/prayer.html)
Dan Burke is the Managing Editor of the National Catholic Register, President of the Avila Institute, the administrator of SpiritualDirection.com, and the author of several books on mystical theology.
Kneeling in Prayer by Daniel Chodowiecki (Wikimedia Commons).
This series by Dan Burke originally ran at SpiritualDirection.com and has been reposted here (slightly edited) by permission.
In our first post we briefly reviewed the challenges that surface when we ignore the wisdom of the Church regarding the distinctions between the three different forms of prayer and the problem of spiritual naturalism. In this post we will cover the progressive nature of prayer and how a misunderstanding of this reality can lead us astray.
Ignorance of the progressive nature of prayer
The third error commonly found in most modern pseudo-mysticism is the absence of any acknowledgement, or understanding, of the progressive nature of prayer and communion with the Lord. In this case, the unsuspecting disciple is taught a prayer method without appropriate relational boundaries that define a loving relationship between persons.
How would you feel about a man who was openly and serially unfaithful to his wife, all the while cavalierly pursuing intimacy with her as a right or expectation? Similarly, these blind teachers will lead pilgrims to a method of intimate “contemplation” without any concern for the state of their soul or their relationship with the one with whom they are seeking intimacy.
Here’s a scenario that plays out every day in these groups that sell this spiritual poison (usually at around $200 per workshop): A Catholic sincerely desires to deepen their relationship with God. He is welcomed in with hushed-holy tones and loving smiles, directed to a prayer method, and coached to practice this method with the promise of “contemplation.”
However, there is often little concern about whether this pilgrim is actually in a state that makes it possible to even begin this prayer relationship. If this sincere pilgrim is living in mortal sin, he is incapable of fostering that relationship without first engaging in a repentance that begins with the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
To return to our spousal analogy, the unfaithful spouse must turn from his sinful ways and seek forgiveness and restoration. Upon the foundation of this restored relationship, holy intimacy can then begin to slowly develop, as faithfulness to the relationship is more fully realized.
The Cloud of Unknowing
A classic and specific example of this methodology comes through the use of the advice in the book, The Cloud of Unknowing. The unknown author of the book properly and very forcefully admonishes the reader that without serious preparation for the author’s advice through diligent ascesis (see next paragraph), they cannot and should not seek to tread the path revealed in the Cloud.
What does this mean? Repentance is merely a foundation of behavior that reflects what it looks like to have a loving relationship between persons. Turning away from sin and toward holiness is a long and challenging process known as “ascesis.” The pilgrim can expect a deepening level of intimacy with the Lord (up to the point of infused contemplation) to the degree that his life faithfully reflects a covenant of love between persons. An expectation of intimacy without this ongoing attention to a loving and honoring relationship is sinful narcissism that results in nothing more than self-worship of spiritualized emotions and delusion.
Suffice it to say that developing intimacy with God is not achieved instantaneously. Just as a child must learn to hold up his head, then roll, then crawl, then walk, and then run, our spiritual life develops in phases that are similarly predictable and understandable. In my book Navigating the Interior Life, I cover the three ways of the interior life that natively reflect different stages of growth in prayer and intimacy with God. Most treatments of this topic are no less than 500 pages in length – so we cannot dig into the detail here – however, the key is that depth of prayer comes through stages of development that cannot be bypassed through naturalistic methods.
In our final post on this topic we will explore the dangerous effects of a pseudo-spirituality that moves the soul into a depersonalized view of God. We will also turn the corner and focus on a few ways we can dig into the real thing.
Dan Burke is the Managing Editor of the National Catholic Register, President of the Avila Institute, the administrator of SpiritualDirection.com, and the author of several books on mystical theology.
Woman Praying with Rosary by Daniel Chodowiecki (Wikimedia Commons)
This series by Dan Burke originally appeared at SpiritualDirection.com and has been reposted by permission. Stay tuned for parts II and III.
A faithful follower of the Lord asks: Dear Dan, I enjoy reading more modern writers about prayer and the spiritual life but I am always worried about false teachings that could lead me away from the heart of the Church. How can I know when an author is not orthodox or teaches something that could lead me to deception instead of to God?
You are wise to be concerned about finding the pure teaching of God on the matter of prayer. If the enemy can confuse us about the manner in which we communicate with our Lord, he can do much damage to our faith. Unfortunately, it seems that for every one good book on the topic of prayer, there are ten that contain various kinds of pseudo-mysticism that sound good and can yield positive temporal outcomes, but lack authentic mystical tradition.
I will attempt here to provide a summary of the most common problems with modern teachings on prayer so that you can effectively navigate past the empty teachings of the world and toward the truth of God.
Lost without distinctions
With respect to trusting particular modern authors, the first and most common red flag is that they ignore the distinctions provided by the Church between the different kinds of prayer. Whether done out of arrogance, ignorance or sloppiness, this disregard is a signal that the author is not at all concerned with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and the thousands of years of spiritual wisdom in the Church. These are writers to avoid.
The Church outlines three distinct forms of prayer in the Catechism (part four, chapter three), each with their own definition and related teachings. These are: vocal prayer, meditation and contemplation. Often meditation and contemplation are incorrectly presented as the same thing, though they are not synonymous. When authors do this, any differences between these two distinct forms of prayer are ignored or explained away – an approach that is a sure path to confusion and a clear sign that you’ve uncovered unreliable teaching. This is particularly true because meditation is a work of the will and intellect of a person. Said another way, fruitful meditation can be experienced through the will and the intellect. Contemplation however, especially what is known as “infused contemplation,” is strictly the realm of God’s grace. In summary, meditation is the work of humanity (for the most part), and contemplation is the work of the Divine. Put in the light of faithful tradition, the danger of confusion between these two forms of prayer and the negligence of some modern writers becomes more clear.
“Prayer” methods rooted in spiritual naturalism
The second danger sign is a perspective that is rooted in a form of spiritual naturalism. This orientation is the outgrowth of well-intended persons using purely human means (e.g. psychology or non-Christian meditation techniques) to overcome common challenges in prayer. The confusing twist here is that these ideas are usually wrapped in spiritual terms in a way that often masks their purely human trappings.
For example, to deal with distractions in prayer, the pilgrim is instructed to focus on a “sacred word” or a mantra instead of receiving guidance on how to focus on and engage with the Lord himself. Though these purely human methods can help to minimize distracting thoughts, this positive gain is not in the direction of the Lord, but of earth or self. In the end, it does nothing, in and of itself, to draw one deeper into union with Christ in prayer. Properly used, these methods can provide fertile ground for focus on the Lord, but more often the end is silence of the mind and centering in self rather than engaging with God.
To be clear, the problem here is not necessarily in the methods, but in a shallow focus. This focus diverts our attention from the understanding that prayer is, in its essence, a communion between persons, not a spiritualized mental or psychological exercise. I am not discounting all of these methods wholesale. The problem is primarily rooted in misuse and a misunderstanding of authentic ascetical and mystical theology as the appropriate backdrop for the understanding and use of any prayer method.
In our Part II of this series, we will cover the progressive nature of prayer and how a misunderstanding of this reality can lead us way off the narrow path of a deepening relationship with God in prayer.
Dan Burke is the Managing Editor of the National Catholic Register, President of the Avila Institute, the administrator of SpiritualDirection.com, and the author of several books on mystical theology.
Has the Vatican ever addressed the topic of Centering Prayer or the teachings commonly held by those who advocate or practice Centering Prayer?
Yes, the approach to prayer commonly referred to “Centering Prayer” has been formally and specifically addressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (we provide the text of this important document below). Here’s a little background that might be helpful.
In a kind of spiritual awakening during the 70s and 80s there were a growing number of well-intentioned Catholics who began to explore the integration of non-Christian Eastern prayer practices and traditional forms of Catholic prayer. There were sufficient concerns about the outcomes of this effort to prompt a response by the Vatican through then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), who issued the letter below to all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church warning of the potential errors in this area.
One only needs a cursory understanding of the history and teachings of Centering Prayer to understand that it is clearly dealt with in this document. As well it is important to note that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not condemned or suppressed the Centering Prayer movement here or elsewhere. It simply proposes corrections, reforms, and redirection to ensure that those inspired to seek Christ through prayer do so in keeping with the time-tested and faithful traditions and inspirations of Christ and his Church.
Just to be sure that I am being charitable regarding this topic, I don’t condemn honest people seeking to deepen their prayer life through those who have popularized the method. All Catholics who care about their faith will constantly seek to improve their relationships with God and will thereby constantly find themselves correcting their spiritual trajectory. This gentle but specific treatment asks all of us to evaluate the practices and trajectory of our prayer lives to ensure we are pursuing God in a manner that pleases him and is thereby in keeping with Church teaching on the subject.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, if you are a serious Catholic seeking an authentic and profound relationship with Christ in prayer, this document is a must read.
*****
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 15, 1989
I. Introduction
1. Many Christians today have a keen desire to learn how to experience a deeper and authentic prayer life despite the not inconsiderable difficulties which modern culture places in the way of the need for silence, recollection and meditation. The interest which in recent years has been awakened also among some Christians by forms of meditation associated with some eastern religions and their particular methods of prayer is a significant sign of this need for spiritual recollection and a deep contact with the divine mystery. Nevertheless, faced with this phenomenon, many feel the need for sure criteria of a doctrinal and pastoral character which might allow them to instruct others in prayer, in its numerous manifestations, while remaining faithful to the truth revealed in Jesus, by means of the genuine Tradition of the Church. This present letter seeks to reply to this urgent need, so that in the various particular Churches the many different forms of prayer, including new ones, may never lose their correct personal and communitarian nature.
These indications are addressed in the first place to the Bishops, to be considered in that spirit of pastoral solicitude for the Churches entrusted to them, so that the entire people of God–priests, religious and laity–may again be called to pray, with renewed vigor, to the Father through the Spirit of Christ our Lord.
