A Bad Sacrifice

Photo by Pierre Bamin on Unsplash

In the Christian tradition asceticism, or the deliberate denial of certain pleasures and appetites, is considered one of the privileged paths towards greater holiness. The more one denies oneself of indulging in his or her appetites, the more likely it is that the person undertaking such denials is on the path towards sainthood (of the non-canonised variety).

Generally, this might be correct. Having said that, we have to qualify this somewhat.

In her book Glittering Vices, Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung argued that the kind of asceticism described above cannot be an end in itself. Drawing upon Thomas Aquinas, DeYoung argued that the denial of pleasure must be embedded within a more active pursuit of acquiring virtue. In other words, the negative denial of pleasure, in order for it to be fruitful, must also be coupled with the positive good of inculcating the habits that make one fulfil the dignity and nature that God had bestowed on the person’s being and community. In DeYoung’s words, asceticism must be tied to the “‘becoming’ or ‘befitting’ all that God calls us to be and do, and for those with whom we live out that calling” (150).

According to Thomas then, insofar as the former is connected to and fulfils the latter, then would the denial of pleasure be fitting for the Christian life. Uncoupled from this, the denial of pleasure can actually become an avenue for vice.

DeYoung alerts our attention to Aquinas’ observation that pleasure in and of itself is not an evil. Rather, pleasure is a temporal good that is fitting our embodied nature. Aquinas goes further still, actually saying that “the more natural and necessary the activity [for our embodied person…] then the more pleasure God designed to accompany the activity” (147). Pleasure then is actually good when it is befitting our nature and when it aids in the pursuit of virtue.

Because of this, an asceticism that is uncoupled from virtue, an asceticism for its own sake, becomes an avenue for vice for a number of reasons. First, an asceticism for its own sake will regard as an evil that which God designated a good, a rendering unclean what God has rendered clean (to paraphrase Acts 10:15). An asceticism for its own sake will say that pleasure itself, rather than the inordinate pursuit of pleasure, is evil. The subtle vice that creeps in then, is assuming that the ascetic knows more about pleasure than God does. This is the vice of pride.

Second, an asceticism for its own sake denies the good of a proper communal life. This is because this kind of asceticism turns the ascetic into a strange combination of hermit, athlete and influencer, who regards their ascetic practice as a personal achievement, rather than a work of God. This distorted asceticism draws attention away from others (including that of God), and towards the ascetic. An ascetic for its own sake will begin to emphasise one’s own virtue and compare it with the perceived vice of others when they properly enjoy the goods of this world. This kind of asceticism is a curving in upon oneself, as Augustine puts it, an expression of the love of self as the highest good.

Third, insofar as an asceticism for its own sake makes one’s own sense of virtue the central focus and purpose, the practice of denial of pleasure as a means of self-aggrandisement can actually mutate into a form of pleasure, a practice of the vice of gluttony. As DeYoung makes clear, gluttony can not only take the form of taking in too much physical food, but also the taking in of anything that feeds one’s ego.

The brake against this vicious kind of denial is then not only to practice denial in and of itself. Such a denial can risk creating the “sour faced saints” from which St. Teresa of Avila asked God to deliver her. In order that such sacrifices be fruitful, the acts of denial should lay the ground for an evaluation of oneself in light of the pursuit of God’s calling to fulfil your nature and purpose.

This requires not just the practice of denial by him- or herself. It requires the other practices in one’s own life, as well as the practices in one’s life with others, which we profess in the Creeds to be the communion of saints. These others are not a distraction to the call of virtue. Rather, they are the very aids to virtue, checking the degree to which supposedly holy practices get oriented towards the self rather than to others and to God.

Support Awkward Asian Theologian on Patreon, and help make a change to the theological web.