Author: Autism Consecrated

  • ACAT 24: Capital Sins Through Autistic Lenses

    ACAT 24: Capital Sins Through Autistic Lenses

    The Baltimore Catechism lists seven “capital” sins as those which most blatantly present obstacles to our ability to trust God’s love.  The term “capital,” as used here, comes from the same root as “captain,” which is a useful image of how temptations work.  Beyond choices on a flow chart, each temptation acts like an enemy captain determined to undermine our loyalty to God.  These “captains” subvert our trust in God by introducing resentment, jealousy and doubt to our daily doings.  In theory, any temptation we name might be an agent of such things, depending on the circumstances.  Even innocuous or essential items can subvert our love of God if viewed or used wrongly.

    At any rate, these are the capital sins (or, chief temptations leading to sin) as listed in the Baltimore Catechism:

    • Pride
    • Covetousness
    • Lust
    • Anger
    • Gluttony
    • Envy
    • Sloth

    We now look at each temptation as viewed through the lens of living with autism.

    Pride.  Most of us are familiar with “pride” as a positive statement of celebrating our gifts.  As embodied by social movements, pride is a way to showcase the best of who we are, as we are.  However, we are vulnerable to two detrimental mindsets: competition, and focus on strength.  The first can be avoided if we agree that every person has gifts worth celebrating — even those who do not share the particular views, attributes or talents we celebrate in ourselves.  Unless we recognize that everyone has something valuable to contribute, we turn celebration into competition. “Pride” done right is about our gifts, not superiority.  Secondly, we must include our weaker and less developed areas in presenting our gifts, lest we fall victim to the mindset that our worth comes only from our strengths – or worse, that we must minimize or camouflage our weak spots.  Finally, we can find ourselves reluctant to celebrate others because of their strengths (jealousy) or because of their weakness (doubt).  In all things, let our “pride” be in God’s designs and not our own desires.

    Covetousness is the habit of looking unhappily at ourselves and resentfully at the gifts of others.  Thoughts like these are common temptations and not sinful unto themselves; it is in entertaining them, and acting on them, that sin comes in.  We are especially vulnerable when conditions are hard, when people are unkind, and when exhaustion sets in.  When we find ourselves depleted, marginalized or overlooked, it seems all the more unfair that others are favored.  Why are some people more easily accepted?  Better able to function?  Better liked?  Temptation is ripe when we focus on the status of others.  The antidote is remembering that social capital is an illusion of perception, not a reflection of our objective worth.  Opinions change like the wind.  Our value is constant.  If we can persevere through fluctuations in opinions, we are less likely to wish for more than what we are.

    Lust is a word we most associate with sexuality.  However, it applies to anything we wish to take for ourselves, without giving anything in return, for our pleasure alone.  In the throes of a craving, resentment, jealousy and doubt can sharpen the sense of scarcity while our focus (possibly even fixation) drives us to act.  Lust underlies most addictive and predatory behavior, whatever the gratification may be – food, money, sex, power or social status.  We resent the craving, we are jealous of anyone who has what we want, and we doubt anything else can satisfy.  Lust is the opposite of trust, and the opposite of love.  Lust not only harms the other, but the powerful rush of gratification sets up habits which are very difficult to change.  The antidote is actively cultivating gratitude for what we have, trusting that God will provide what will bring us true joy over the long term, not just momentary pleasure.  As lust develops by habit, so too does this mindset of gratitude.

    Anger  A sin? Not by itself.  Anger is a human emotion, and part of our design by God.  Anger is a useful and essential part of relationships and moral development.  How else could we express outrage against aggression or violations of human dignity?  Anger is a signal of wrong, a stir to corrective action and a protection against harm.  Anger only becomes sinful when it is the product of resentment, jealousy and doubt.  Dissatisfaction with what we are, or focus on what we are not, is more rooted in fear than justice.  It may feel the same as useful anger, but the object of such resentment ultimately is God and His designs conflicting with ours.  An honest look can tell whether or not we are drawing closer to God or departing from Him in our moments of anger, and that will determine if it is useful or sinful.

    Gluttony is the temptation to take more than we need.  It goes back to scarcity, which is rooted in doubt.  Some of us genuinely struggle with knowing when we are satisfied and when we are not.  Autistics in particular can have a tricky time moderating things that feel good, especially as they provide periods of relief to our perpetual anxiety.  Sometimes we genuinely need others to suggest where healthy limits are so that we concretely see the cutoff between just enough and too much of whatever we enjoy — be that food, drink, music, screen time, reading, and anything else that delights us.  A quick rule is: if our joy lingers after we stop, it’s more likely to be healthy than if putting it down makes us fret about craving more.

    Envy is the temptation to resent other people’s happiness.  When we are anxious and exhausted, it is challenging to see others at rest and not feel anger or hopelessness at our own condition.  Autism is not for the faint of heart, and gratitude when our very bodies feel constantly under siege can be a long shot.  How, then, can we counter this temptation?  One thought is to remember that nobody is ever perfectly happy.  In the same way our own struggles are often invisible, others also struggle unseen with their own hidden needs.  It is important to remember that we are not losing the race if someone else is where we want to be; we simply are not there yet.  Sometimes, we need to remind ourselves these things hour by hour.

    Sloth.  Given this word’s association with laziness, we need to make the distinction between willful inactivity and actual, legitimate conditions under which autistic people are called unproductive.  Lack of energy is a reality among autistics for numerous reasons: the drain of social demands, decreased muscle tone, variances in blood pressure and metabolism, migraines, connective tissue anomalies and chronic pain, just for starters.  These are actual physical, cognitive and neurological conditions associated with autism and have nothing to do with our character.  In fact, most autistics, if asked, will express the wish for more energy and the ability to do things on par with the rest of our communities!  Sloth is the choice not to act when action is needed and we are capable of acting.  It is up to each one of us to know in our hearts and minds what our capability is – and to be honest with ourselves in making these decisions.  When we live congruently within our abilities and our limits, we have nothing to fear… and, we can (hopefully, politely) dismiss unwarranted criticism with a clear conscience.

    The capital sins are by no means the last word on right and wrong, nor do they contain everything we need to consider when examining the morality of our own behavior.  However, if we see these as some of the more common gateways toward seeking pleasure before seeking God’s design first, they make a useful starting point.

  • ACAT 23: Departures from God

    Our discussion on sin continues this week in step with the Baltimore Catechism, Lesson Six.  As we study various examples of sin, we can equally call this a study of our human faculties and how we respond to the opportunities which come our way.

    God desires a firm and freely chosen place in the heart and mind of each soul He creates.  Our hearts and minds are distracted, however, by the knowledge of evil which we now inherit as part of the human condition.  The degree to which we dwell upon these distractions is one indicator of how fully we trust and accept God in relationship to ourselves.

    The Catechism explains that sin is a willful – that is, freely chosen – departure from God.  This can be done by thought, by word or by deed.  As we consider this in terms of relationship, we can call to mind similar dynamics in any of our existing relationships, be these friends or family, neighbors or coworkers.  Imagine those elements which cause friction and erosion in our relationships.  Thoughts by themselves are not harmful, nor necessarily sinful, until we nurture and entertain thoughts which breed unrest.   Feelings are valid.  Thoughts come and go.  Many times, people act in irritating ways.  We can think and feel a hundred different ways toward the same person throughout any given day, but these thoughts will not erode our relationship with this person unless they take a practiced, divisive turn.  Likewise, if we are tempted by ideas that would lead to harm or use the other person as an object for our own thrill, we can choose to dismiss these thoughts or retain them.  If we retain them, we can well imagine how the other person would feel if these ideas were suddenly made transparent.  Thoughts which erode relationships and cultivate resentment tend to be sinful.  And, since thoughts lay the foundation for attitudes and behavior, then words and deeds logically follow suit.  Any thought, word or action which knowingly erodes and divides reflects a departure from God’s intended design for humanity.

    The question of “Yes, but is it sinful?” boils down to three factors, as the Catechism goes on to explain: seriousness of the matter at hand, degree of prior reflection, and our consent to the departure from God.  These are truths which can only fully be acknowledged deep within ourselves, and even then it can be difficult to reach absolute certainty.  The Catholic Church is very clear: sin exists, and all sin destroys our ability to trust and experience God.  A departure which meets all criteria – a serious matter which we have pondered and consent to carrying out – is considered a mortal sin, in that it is a full break from God that requires our repentance and renunciation to repair if we truly do not want to forfeit our relationship with God completely.  “Mortal,” in this sense, literally refers to the life of our soul.  Not every sin is this dire.  The majority of departures from God are venial, which comes from roots meaning “pardonable,” and refers to sin that stems more from weakness in the face of temptation than from calculated disavowal of God.  This is not to diminish the erosive power of venial sin.  Anyone can attest that a relationship can be just as easily destroyed by small erosion over time as by a single catastrophic break.

    Readers will likely note that our study has not included any specific list of dos or don’ts.  God’s law is not a list of rules, so it would not be practical to list what is sinful and what is not.  God does not dole out permission or watch over humanity with a running count of our infractions.  God exists, and God loves.  We either trust His love or we skirt around it, sometimes outright deny it.  There are as many ways to depart from God as there are individuals who depart from Him.  Sin is about our soul’s relationship with God, bottom line.

    The good news is that God’s relationship with us is constant and alive.  If we depart from Him, He waits for our return without abandoning or condemning us.  And, He has given us a clear and definitive way back for each and every instance of departure.  No soul is ever without the opportunity to be restored to the relationship God intended with us from the beginning.

  • ACAT 22: Sin and Law

    ACAT 22: Sin and Law

    Original Sin – Actual Sin – Mortal Sin – Venial Sin

    Many people have heard by rote the types of sin “taught” by the Catholic Church.  This line of thinking characterizes the Church as a group of elders who gather to define what constitutes naughty behavior, and who further go on to assign spiritual penalties to such transgressions.  Such ideas go all the way back to the Middle Ages and beyond, and are about as accurate as thinking the public education system invented the alphabet for the purposes of issuing report cards.

    No church or religion invented sin.  And, no church or religion “teaches” sin.  The Catholic Church ascribes to the idea that there are metaphysical laws which define the universe in which we live, meaning that God created all things and all creatures with its own purpose and design.  Humans, as you may recall from previous posts, were created and designed to know God, to love God, to receive God’s love and to live harmoniously with the way in which God imagined all people to express and fulfill their talents.  Just as we plan and design our crafts with particular form and function, so too does God create people with intentional design.  The intended form and function of something can be said to be the laws under which that “something” operates.  An automobile has form and function which can vary from car to car but must have certain basic principles met before it is a “good” automobile.  In other words, if a piece of machinery follows the “laws” which makes something an “automobile,” it functions well.  If not, it falters, or fails, or functions as something that does not qualify as an automobile.

    The same phrasing can describe humanity.  The “laws” which make something “human” are how well we know God, love God, receive God’s love and respond to God’s intended design.

    Sin is the consequence of not following the law… that is, not following God’s intended design.

    Thus: Nobody can “invent” sin.  Sin is a state of misalignment.

    With that in mind, let us see now the two ways that misalignment occurs:

    • ORIGINAL SIN: The inherited misalignment that originated with Adam and Eve, the first two humans, whose very makeup was altered by their choice to see and know evil;
    • ACTUAL SIN: The choices people make which go against God’s intended design.

    The phrase “original sin” is meant to signify that we begin our earthly lives in misalignment, since God’s intended design for humanity was not to know evil.  Yet, once our ancestors chose to do so, it could not be un-seen.  Our lenses no longer pointed solely at God.  Think of it as someone altering the process before it even begins, such that everything coming out has this design flaw, and our minds now have a sharp focus on, and skew toward, things that divide and destroy relationships (since that is, in essence, what evil is – the destruction of our relationship with God).

    NOTE!

    “Original sin” does NOT mean that God created damaged goods, or that people are set up to fail from birth.  In fact, God provided a correction – a “patch,” if you will – for original sin, and that is baptism.  (We will discuss baptism in greater detail in future posts.)

    Another note!

    Humans have free will, free choice, and are never coerced or manipulated by God or His Church into doing anything.  If one finds an example of coercion, it is not authentically of God.  Period.

    “Actual Sin,” then, is the term used to describe those times when we choose something that is not part of God’s intended design.  As one can imagine, there are degrees of sin which range from accidental to carefully calculated.  The bottom line is, all sin is a deviation from God’s intended design (or, in metaphysical terms, a violation of natural law).

    With such a range of degree of sin, can we expect that sin’s consequences are equally variable?

    NO.

    Earthly, material consequences are variable.  Spiritual consequences are not.  The consequence of every sin is a break in our relationship with God.  Sin disrupts our act of loving God and our ability to receive God’s love.  Each and every time.