Creation and Ignatian Spirituality
CREATION AND IGNATIAN SPIRITUALITY
The created universe and especially the earth is very much an element of discussion in contemporary theology and spirituality. The humans are not only over-consuming natural resources, but are slowly destroying it the process. Global warming, increasing water scarity and the disappearance of natural species leading to an imbalance in the processes of nature are indications of the human abuse of nature. Behind this praxis lies an attitude that has, on the one hand, a materialistic outlook on nature that denies God’s causality and agency and, on the other, the assertion of the total lordship of the humans over nature. Such practice is further worsened by an unjust use of nature egged on by individual and collective egoism. As it is commonly said, 20% of the world’s population is consuming 80% of the world’s resources. In this way a small minority of the humans is not only depriving the majority of their rightful share, but also denying the rights of the future generations to have an earth that is habitable. In such a context there is an insistence on a just and controlled consumption of nature’s resources by the humans who should learn to live in harmony with nature. What is not good for nature is not good for the humans either. What has Ignatian spirituality to contribute to such a way of life?
The first text that will strike us in such a search is, of course, the Principle and Foundation.
Human beings are created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and means of doing this to save their souls. The other things on the face of the earth are created for the human beings, to help them in the pursuit of the end for which they are created. (SE 23)
Taken in itself it does not seem to be too encouraging to ecologists. The perspective is very creationist and instrumental. God seems to have created the world and left it out there for use or abuse by the humans, though the intended goal is to serve God. But the way that Ignatius developed the implications of the Principle and Foundation, however, heavily qualifies such an attitude. First of all, while the things of nature are there to be used for the glory and praise of God, attachment and desire are discouraged by the principle of ‘indifference’. Things are not to be possessed, but only used. But even when using them one is open to God’s will. One has no control over anything, but is ready to accept from the hand of God sickness or health, wealth or poverty, etc. Then there is the second principle that is also moderates the consumption of resources. We have to use the goods of this world in so far as they are necessary – tantum quantum. So no overconsumption, no greed. It is not even simply moderation. We have to use things in so far as they are necessary for our goal. It may be more or less. It is determined not by our will or desire, but by the goal that we have to achieve.
The Contemplation on the Two Standards takes us one step further, making it more personal. The option for poverty, not only controls inordinate desires for goods and pleasures, but is also, a self discipline that controls consumption. Another reason for conspicuous consumption among the humans is the search for honour and prestige. One wants to be considered and looked up to as a rich and powerful person. If we are renouncing power and status we can limit our consumption to essentials. Such a practice acquires a spiritual connotation. It will certainly protect the earthtoo from the depredations of a consumer culture.
In the preludes concerning the use of light and darkness during prayer, in the contemplations involving the application of the senses and in the use of breathing in vocal prayer Ignatius shows great sensitivity regarding the relationships between the spirit and the body in the humans and between the humans and the cosmos.
The relationship of the humans to nature acquires a mystical dimension with the Contemplation to Obtain Love. In that we contemplate God present and active in creation. The creatures are no longer objects to be used, but become expressions of God’s love. Among contemporary ecological thinkers it is a fashion to divinize the earth as a Mother Goddess. They claim to go back to the primal religions. Feminists join ecologists to highlight the divine feminine of the earth as a contrast to a male creator God. Others divinize the earth in a pantheistic sense, looking on it as an emanation of the divine. Some tendencies in Hinduism, for example, may support such a divinization of nature. Ignatius carefully walks a middle path. As it is said in a general way, he “finds God in all things and all things in God”. It is not identity, nor is it total difference. God is the life and the power behind nature. Nature mediates a relationship that is not ontological, but relational, personal and free. The relationship is not merely interactive, but a communion in being and action. Nature and the earth are neither mere objects, nor are they autonomous subjects, but are living and acting mediations. It is this community between God, the humans and the earth that Raimon Panikkar calls the “cosmotheandric communion.” In Chinese culture it can be called the cosmic harmony of the Tao.
We can push this reflection further in a new direction, inspired by Ignatius, but not pursued by him. He does say that the response to the love that God manifests in creation is to love God in return. This consists in offering to God God’s gifts to us, that is ourselves and all that we have. But following Jesus’ new commandment, “Love one another as I have loved you”, we can say that sharing God’s creation with others is one way, perhaps the only human way of giving back to God God’s gifts. Just as God manifests God’s love for us though the mediation of creation, we too can manifest our love to God and to others through sharing the riches of creation.
This is what happens in the Eucharist. The assembled community of the humans share food and drink, ‘the fruits of the earth and the work of human hands’. Food and drink as symbols of life unite the community in one shared life. When the community does this in memory of Christ the shared life becomes the life of Jesus and of God transforming the food and drink into the body and blood of Jesus. In this way, the earth becomes the body of God. Creation, nature and the earth cannot have a higher destiny. The Eucharist then becomes the symbolic celebration of cosmotheandric communion. Of course, the symbol would be real only if such a communion is actualized in the world. This is what Paul, writing to the Corinthians, insists on. (1 Cor 11) Protecting creation then becomes protecting God’s body as the mediation of love between God and the humans, among the humans and between the humans and creation.
Philosophically this cosmotheandric communion can be explored in terms of the Hindu Advaita or non-duality and the Chinese Tao.
Taken as a whole, then, the Spiritual Exercises make it possible for us to experience cosmic harmony or cosmotheandric communion.
Michael Amaladoss, S.J.
1