Some people asked what is meant by "vulgar" goods...
Other good words for "vulgar" goods (RE: what Impeditive Goods impede) would be "lowly" or "carnal" or "base" goods... Overall: impeditive goods block the goods that the 4 "Vices of Attraction" desire to attain (vainglory; greed; gluttony; lust)...
I find it interesting that stoicism has parallels with Christianity. I believe it is because some stoics, in their pursuit of Logos, were unknowingly looking for Christ.
"A noble man compares and estimates himself by an idea which is higher than himself; and a mean man, by one lower than himself. The one produces aspiration; the other ambition, which is the way in which a vulgar man aspires." -- Marcus Aurelius
My struggle with forgiveness being the counter-virtue to wrath is that wrath may occur when someone has done nothing wrong, but pride asserts an injustice that actually is not the case. Thus, the person experiences wrath at a perceived (apparent) injustice. In such a case forgiveness is not appropriate and actually doesn’t counter the false narrative. Aquinas does however mention meekness as counteracting wrath.
A few thoughts (but I defer to you as the priest here)...
You might say that my chart tries to take a pastoral approach. I first created this chart for students (Middle School students) and so I selected for some words/concepts on the Virtues side that I thought would be more accessible for them. Regarding "Forgiveness", my reasoning had one further layer--you are certainly right that a person doesn't need to forgive something that another person didn't do wrongly!--buut...if, *subjectively*, they think the person did something wrong to them, then the advice I give to the child (or sometimes adult) is to forgive the person for the [perceived] wrong they did to them. As they grow & mature in moral/spiritual formation, they should learn to discern whether the person even did anything wrong to them in the first place so that they can be more justly oriented toward others.
Second, ultimately, in the proficients & perfects it seems to be the case that they view everything anyone does to them (even the worst of wrongs) as nothing of evil because they so perfectly see how it all fits into the greater glory of the providential plan of God... I'm thinking here of my favorite line from Brothers Karamazov "suffer with joy the dishonor that providentially befalleth thee, and hate not he who dishonoreth thee--for it is the medicine of Jesus sent to cleanse the vain soul."...I think this is where we ultimately want to grow to, and seems to line up with what you're getting at.
Thank you for explaining a bit more, especially about the pastoral approach. I’ll state that I definitely believe forgiveness is a remedy to some experiences of wrath. Nonetheless, I do think in terms of regulating children’s emotions it helps to pick apart the causes of the passion to examine more closely their reasoning. For Aquinas, anger ultimately occurs due to a composition a perceived hope and a perceived injustice. But, part of the reason this can be dysfunctional is if our pride defines what is unjust or what it is we have control over (I.e. hope to address). There are those who cling to such false narratives and to the degree that this is voluntary and not merely innocent error, that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that meekness addresses this. Asking one’s self “is it really unfair?” Or “Can I really change this?” Are good questions that can help generate meekness. In conflict resolution techniques staying curious or wondering helps not being the mind to judgment with too much haste.
In some cases forgiving others can actually mask the wrath with false benevolence. The narrative is that the cop that pulled me over for speeding acted unjustly, but I benevolently forgave them. Wrath remains present because a cruel and false narrative remains.
So insofar as forgiveness is an extension of meekness I see a good value to stress it. But I don’t think it always applies in regard to this deadly sin. I think it’s why Dante and Aquinas stressed it as such. But I’m only lightly saying this. I’m just not really sure where this notion of forgiveness as a counter virtue came from.
Overall I appreciate the chart, especially as it divides the irascible and concupiscible passions. I also appreciate that you do not conflate pride with vainglory. I made that mistake ages ago.
I like this. I will change it to Meekness for future iterations and will try to think of a way to word Meekness such that it is simple enough to capture the essence of the virtue-and-contrary-vice pair. The challenge I've run up against in making charts like these and using them with students is I want to strike at the heart of a thing while being digestible enough to begin the movement away from the vice / toward the virtue right away.
For example, my first iterations of "Lust" were opposed not by "chastity" but by "dignity"... Not because chastity isn't obviously the more proper counter-virtue, but because for students that (in this case) had no exposure to the language of the Church's intellectual tradition, "chastity" meant nothing to them, but they had a previous concept for "dignity". It worked well, and I packed the same essential characteristics into "dignity" that are there in "chastity".
Forgiveness operated the same way with regard to Wrath.
You'll also notice that I don't use the conventional "Heavenly Virtues" in other places either. Sloth is often opposed by "diligence", but I find that this is counterproductive in our protestant work-ethic modern culture. It's not important that you keep yourself busy, it's important that you not avoid *truly difficult* things. Thus I think the modern mind is better attuned to counter the vice of sloth by emphasizing the aspect of sloth that is "softness" and the counter virtue which breeds "toughness", i.e. courage.
Conventionally, "generosity" is opposed to greed--but I thought frugality was a better way for children (and adults) to set their sights on how they use their money.
Also "gratitude" is opposed to "envy", but I thought "good-will" encompassed more of what will help oppose envy.
I haven't seen anywhere where "discreet" is seen as the opposite to "vainglory", but I thought it was a good counter to it.
In all of these I provide "working definitions" and essential necessities (i.e. with "forgiveness" the essential property is: restraint of (unjust) recrimination. In the sense that Meekness fits that more perfectly than forgiveness (which I concede and agree with), the chart demonstrates its utility.
The deeper question would be, rather than the words I chose, look at the essential character of the different things and tell me if you think I got any of those wrong--either in the vices or the virtues. If there's one where it's like, "hey, you're getting ______ wrong, it's not ______, it's actually more properly _____." I would take that correction, try to verify the improved conceptualization, and adapt accordingly.
I'll close with this (side note: this comment could probably have been a substack post of its own), what you conceptualize as the essence of the vices (and virtues) will affect what you strive after. The single bolded words are the main contribution I'm offering to the everyday person to calibrate their value judgements of "virtue" around striving after: Just, quiet, simple, clean, dignified, tough, persistent, kind, and calm. Most people don't equate "humility" with being "just", but I think it's a profound notion to suggest: the humble person isn't "quiet" or "tame" or something of the like as most people imagine--no, the humble person is profoundly just. If one doesn't realize it (as most don't), they'll ascribe humility to someone who is not truly humble, and they will look at the just individual and think the person not humble.
I could go on, but hopefully this reveals more of the mind behind what's going on, what choices were made and why, etc.
I'll circle back to "Meek" and note that if you look at the essential definition "restrains: recrimination" and the one word snapshot "calm", these much more perfectly map onto meekness than forgiveness, and for that reason I can confidently say that the aspects of forgiveness that are shared with meekness are definitely being referred to in this, and those that are not, are not... but in the end, I think I'll switch it to "Meekness" in future iterations because you're argument is very satisfyingly convincing--I like it and am going to use it!
I struggle with practically understanding meekness. In your scenario about the ticket, is it meekness to restrain your emotions and understand that the policeman is doing his job and you were wrong to speed?
Meekness is an interior bending. It’s the ability to not be quick-to-temper. The example Dante gives in his poem on purgatory is of Mary who instead of accusing her Son of something unjust when lost for 3 days, she asks him a question. Her judgments were formable by the facts and not any rash judgment. In this way we can see meekness as the interior ability to bend to another’s narrative or insight or the facts themselves. Thus in the example of a person being pulled over, feeling it unfair meekness reigns this automatic judgment in and humbles the soul to entertain that the officer is actually doing something kind for me and for others.
If the case is that the person is wrong, we can still avoid extremes of demonizing or even seeing our own failings in a likeness to theirs.
All of this conversation is very insightful and I definitely think we need to be having it with our youth. I struggle sometimes with my own young adult children. My daughter is in education and sees it daily in the classroom.
We have so many kids that have not been taught these virtues and how to manage their emotions and responses. The walls of offense goes up, people generally feel attacked from seemingly innocent language or requests and feel victimized. Not to mention the parental influence.
We have a large group of all ages that could benefit greatly from this topic. Definitely needs to be focused on in our congregations.
I struggle with this too Father. I know the Lord hasn't given me what I deserve for I deserve his wrath. With that said, the betrayals I have endured have been painful.
Andrew Kevin Waller, the writer of Seven, once lamented that more people can name the seven deadly sins than the seven cardinal virtues, because the former were in a Brad Pitt movie.
One thing that is worded in a way that’s confusing for me is under the desires column for sloth. What does “Potentially (Self)” mean? Does a slothful person desire to have some sort of positive potential self identity or something like that?
No, sloth emerges from a desire to not have to *potentially* suffer… That is: you’re not suffering right now, but if you did something hard you would then have to suffer, or if you failed in achieving something difficult then you’d suffer, and so you avoid doing it altogether (the result = sloth). That’s what it means to say “Desire not to suffer potentially difficult or humiliating things”… the "(self)" just distinguishes it from envy/wrath which is ordered toward others, whereas sloth is ordered toward self.
So sloth is a desire not to suffer potentially difficult things, esp. as related to self…
Some people asked what is meant by "vulgar" goods...
Other good words for "vulgar" goods (RE: what Impeditive Goods impede) would be "lowly" or "carnal" or "base" goods... Overall: impeditive goods block the goods that the 4 "Vices of Attraction" desire to attain (vainglory; greed; gluttony; lust)...
Good timing. et cum Spiritu tuo. J+M+J
Thanks, AJ.
I find it interesting that stoicism has parallels with Christianity. I believe it is because some stoics, in their pursuit of Logos, were unknowingly looking for Christ.
"A noble man compares and estimates himself by an idea which is higher than himself; and a mean man, by one lower than himself. The one produces aspiration; the other ambition, which is the way in which a vulgar man aspires." -- Marcus Aurelius
Best,
Francisco
Wonderful article! Thank you for sharing with everyone. God bless!
This is very useful, thanks.
My struggle with forgiveness being the counter-virtue to wrath is that wrath may occur when someone has done nothing wrong, but pride asserts an injustice that actually is not the case. Thus, the person experiences wrath at a perceived (apparent) injustice. In such a case forgiveness is not appropriate and actually doesn’t counter the false narrative. Aquinas does however mention meekness as counteracting wrath.
Fr.,
A few thoughts (but I defer to you as the priest here)...
You might say that my chart tries to take a pastoral approach. I first created this chart for students (Middle School students) and so I selected for some words/concepts on the Virtues side that I thought would be more accessible for them. Regarding "Forgiveness", my reasoning had one further layer--you are certainly right that a person doesn't need to forgive something that another person didn't do wrongly!--buut...if, *subjectively*, they think the person did something wrong to them, then the advice I give to the child (or sometimes adult) is to forgive the person for the [perceived] wrong they did to them. As they grow & mature in moral/spiritual formation, they should learn to discern whether the person even did anything wrong to them in the first place so that they can be more justly oriented toward others.
Second, ultimately, in the proficients & perfects it seems to be the case that they view everything anyone does to them (even the worst of wrongs) as nothing of evil because they so perfectly see how it all fits into the greater glory of the providential plan of God... I'm thinking here of my favorite line from Brothers Karamazov "suffer with joy the dishonor that providentially befalleth thee, and hate not he who dishonoreth thee--for it is the medicine of Jesus sent to cleanse the vain soul."...I think this is where we ultimately want to grow to, and seems to line up with what you're getting at.
Let me know what you think!
🙏🙏
Thank you for explaining a bit more, especially about the pastoral approach. I’ll state that I definitely believe forgiveness is a remedy to some experiences of wrath. Nonetheless, I do think in terms of regulating children’s emotions it helps to pick apart the causes of the passion to examine more closely their reasoning. For Aquinas, anger ultimately occurs due to a composition a perceived hope and a perceived injustice. But, part of the reason this can be dysfunctional is if our pride defines what is unjust or what it is we have control over (I.e. hope to address). There are those who cling to such false narratives and to the degree that this is voluntary and not merely innocent error, that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that meekness addresses this. Asking one’s self “is it really unfair?” Or “Can I really change this?” Are good questions that can help generate meekness. In conflict resolution techniques staying curious or wondering helps not being the mind to judgment with too much haste.
In some cases forgiving others can actually mask the wrath with false benevolence. The narrative is that the cop that pulled me over for speeding acted unjustly, but I benevolently forgave them. Wrath remains present because a cruel and false narrative remains.
So insofar as forgiveness is an extension of meekness I see a good value to stress it. But I don’t think it always applies in regard to this deadly sin. I think it’s why Dante and Aquinas stressed it as such. But I’m only lightly saying this. I’m just not really sure where this notion of forgiveness as a counter virtue came from.
Overall I appreciate the chart, especially as it divides the irascible and concupiscible passions. I also appreciate that you do not conflate pride with vainglory. I made that mistake ages ago.
I like this. I will change it to Meekness for future iterations and will try to think of a way to word Meekness such that it is simple enough to capture the essence of the virtue-and-contrary-vice pair. The challenge I've run up against in making charts like these and using them with students is I want to strike at the heart of a thing while being digestible enough to begin the movement away from the vice / toward the virtue right away.
For example, my first iterations of "Lust" were opposed not by "chastity" but by "dignity"... Not because chastity isn't obviously the more proper counter-virtue, but because for students that (in this case) had no exposure to the language of the Church's intellectual tradition, "chastity" meant nothing to them, but they had a previous concept for "dignity". It worked well, and I packed the same essential characteristics into "dignity" that are there in "chastity".
Forgiveness operated the same way with regard to Wrath.
You'll also notice that I don't use the conventional "Heavenly Virtues" in other places either. Sloth is often opposed by "diligence", but I find that this is counterproductive in our protestant work-ethic modern culture. It's not important that you keep yourself busy, it's important that you not avoid *truly difficult* things. Thus I think the modern mind is better attuned to counter the vice of sloth by emphasizing the aspect of sloth that is "softness" and the counter virtue which breeds "toughness", i.e. courage.
Conventionally, "generosity" is opposed to greed--but I thought frugality was a better way for children (and adults) to set their sights on how they use their money.
Also "gratitude" is opposed to "envy", but I thought "good-will" encompassed more of what will help oppose envy.
I haven't seen anywhere where "discreet" is seen as the opposite to "vainglory", but I thought it was a good counter to it.
In all of these I provide "working definitions" and essential necessities (i.e. with "forgiveness" the essential property is: restraint of (unjust) recrimination. In the sense that Meekness fits that more perfectly than forgiveness (which I concede and agree with), the chart demonstrates its utility.
The deeper question would be, rather than the words I chose, look at the essential character of the different things and tell me if you think I got any of those wrong--either in the vices or the virtues. If there's one where it's like, "hey, you're getting ______ wrong, it's not ______, it's actually more properly _____." I would take that correction, try to verify the improved conceptualization, and adapt accordingly.
I'll close with this (side note: this comment could probably have been a substack post of its own), what you conceptualize as the essence of the vices (and virtues) will affect what you strive after. The single bolded words are the main contribution I'm offering to the everyday person to calibrate their value judgements of "virtue" around striving after: Just, quiet, simple, clean, dignified, tough, persistent, kind, and calm. Most people don't equate "humility" with being "just", but I think it's a profound notion to suggest: the humble person isn't "quiet" or "tame" or something of the like as most people imagine--no, the humble person is profoundly just. If one doesn't realize it (as most don't), they'll ascribe humility to someone who is not truly humble, and they will look at the just individual and think the person not humble.
I could go on, but hopefully this reveals more of the mind behind what's going on, what choices were made and why, etc.
I'll circle back to "Meek" and note that if you look at the essential definition "restrains: recrimination" and the one word snapshot "calm", these much more perfectly map onto meekness than forgiveness, and for that reason I can confidently say that the aspects of forgiveness that are shared with meekness are definitely being referred to in this, and those that are not, are not... but in the end, I think I'll switch it to "Meekness" in future iterations because you're argument is very satisfyingly convincing--I like it and am going to use it!
I struggle with practically understanding meekness. In your scenario about the ticket, is it meekness to restrain your emotions and understand that the policeman is doing his job and you were wrong to speed?
Meekness is an interior bending. It’s the ability to not be quick-to-temper. The example Dante gives in his poem on purgatory is of Mary who instead of accusing her Son of something unjust when lost for 3 days, she asks him a question. Her judgments were formable by the facts and not any rash judgment. In this way we can see meekness as the interior ability to bend to another’s narrative or insight or the facts themselves. Thus in the example of a person being pulled over, feeling it unfair meekness reigns this automatic judgment in and humbles the soul to entertain that the officer is actually doing something kind for me and for others.
If the case is that the person is wrong, we can still avoid extremes of demonizing or even seeing our own failings in a likeness to theirs.
That is a wonderful visual and very helpful. Thank you!
All of this conversation is very insightful and I definitely think we need to be having it with our youth. I struggle sometimes with my own young adult children. My daughter is in education and sees it daily in the classroom.
We have so many kids that have not been taught these virtues and how to manage their emotions and responses. The walls of offense goes up, people generally feel attacked from seemingly innocent language or requests and feel victimized. Not to mention the parental influence.
We have a large group of all ages that could benefit greatly from this topic. Definitely needs to be focused on in our congregations.
Great points and stack! Thank you!
I struggle with this too Father. I know the Lord hasn't given me what I deserve for I deserve his wrath. With that said, the betrayals I have endured have been painful.
Andrew Kevin Waller, the writer of Seven, once lamented that more people can name the seven deadly sins than the seven cardinal virtues, because the former were in a Brad Pitt movie.
Also, I have a theory...
https://youtu.be/pqpL5t3QFww
Great article, and the chart is super helpful.
One thing that is worded in a way that’s confusing for me is under the desires column for sloth. What does “Potentially (Self)” mean? Does a slothful person desire to have some sort of positive potential self identity or something like that?
William, great question.
No, sloth emerges from a desire to not have to *potentially* suffer… That is: you’re not suffering right now, but if you did something hard you would then have to suffer, or if you failed in achieving something difficult then you’d suffer, and so you avoid doing it altogether (the result = sloth). That’s what it means to say “Desire not to suffer potentially difficult or humiliating things”… the "(self)" just distinguishes it from envy/wrath which is ordered toward others, whereas sloth is ordered toward self.
So sloth is a desire not to suffer potentially difficult things, esp. as related to self…
Hope that makes more sense!
Thank you