Rise Above, Part 5. The Usefulness of Court

The crows try to keep the eagle grounded.  The eagle’s strength is the ability to fly to higher altitudes, to Rise Above.  

You are an eagle.  You are meant to soar. But one level of oppression by the crow today, perhaps the main level, is socioeconomic oppression. 

Contemporary society can take a person who on the surface is relative to the majority lowly and struggling, and effectively cause them social, psychological, and economic death.  Principally through social stigma.  To effectively ostracize them, to make them into outliers beyond their own choice.  

Those blessed with family stability, social acceptance, and a typical middle class standard of “success” or higher may not see the reality that there are many, not merely a tiny percentage, who are pushed to the margins to perpetually struggle upstream just to carve out their own little niche in life.  

At the center of the clique today are the narcissists, with unfolding, concentric circles of enablers around them, reaching outward towards the perimeter. They enable the narcissist first and foremost so they also don’t get in some manner targeted and alienated.  Those who have different weaknesses than narcissistic tendencies end up not near the center, nor within those concentric circles of enablers.  

They typically end up on the margins.  I’m sure that socially darwinistic dynamic has always played out in society as a consequence of original sin.  There will always be people persecuted like Abel was persecuted by his brother Cain (in the extreme form of murder), or suffering souls like Job left to wander the planet in search of relief from their darkness, whose own friends turned their backs on him.  There have always been Christians who experience either physical martyrdom or some form of white martyrdom.  

If you have felt like there is a pattern in your life of white martyrdom or the like,  besides invoking the imprecatory psalms to ask God to exact His own vengeance on your enemy, to make them “your footstool,” as Scripture says, you don’t always have to roll over and take it, or just move on. 

You are a child of God made as much in the image and likeness of God as the elites or their enablers.  You have just as much moral and legal rights to dignity, peace of mind, and legal justice.

So, Rise Above, at least some of the time availing yourself of the Law and the option of going to Court.  I think that approach is more commonly taken if you have the money for an attorney, and your life can sustain the drama of a legal battle.  

But in the long term, you can’t afford to always or near always surrender your rights and not stand up for yourself. You must choose your “battles,” which means sometimes you must go to battle to defend yourself from the aggressor and person who instigated the conflict.  And to defend those like yourself of similar status. 

I think one of the impediments is the person typically thinks that if they cannot afford an attorney, or secure one based on a contingency arrangement, that means they cannot effectively represent themselves in civil court.  If you can handle yourself well in small claims court, truth be told there really isn’t a big leap to doing the same in civil court, except, for the most part, more time, hearings, and paperwork. 

Also, in the first place, you can certainly prepare well all documentation, a timeline, and witness list in a folder given to attorneys, and plead your case to at least be taken on contingency, if necessary making several appointments.  Nonetheless, considering the ethical reputation lawyers have earned for themselves, you can certainly Rise Above even them and represent yourself.  

And remember, according to the constitution, you have a right to a jury trial of your peers.  Also, I think according to most jurisdictions, the Court typically will give financial considerations based on your income level and personal debt, in terms of all court fees.  

The whole point in most cases is not actually going to trial in front of a jury, but to build your case against the defendant and their lawyer’s case, to then negotiate settlement outside of court.  

In an age of entitlement and greed, most people, especially if they represent large corporations or organizations, will never apologize or make amends in a personal way.  The “apology,” the restorative justice, the compensation boils down to a judge or jury determining guilt, and ordering the defendant to pay compensation in the form of $$$ (for pain and suffering, punitive damages, etc).   Or much more often in the form of a settlement. 

Then use that fair compensation to better your life and those around you, in a Christian way, THAT is the justice.  THAT is your closure, making you at least somewhat whole again. Though probably never entirely whole.

You will Rise Above, over time. 

We are all encouraged and empowered to take care of ourselves, to seek help from others, and to seek what is fair and just, in which justice is, as St. Thomas explained well, “rendering to the other what is owed them” (see his Treatise on Virtue and his Treatise on Law).  Just as everyone of us can be to some extent his own physician, or to educate themselves, so you can also be in a general, informal sense, to a certain degree, your own lawyer. 

If you are charged with a crime, or sued for a large sum in civil court, in which you are the defendant, then it is of course foolish to represent yourself in court. HOWEVER, if you are the one suing in civil court, or simply leveraging that possibility to settle a grievance outside of court, you don’t have much to lose if in the end you represent yourself or lose in court.  

The bully is empowered to be a bully by means of the knowledge that statistically most of the people they bully will not have the staying power or will power to go the distance, assuming you can’t or won’t seek a “legal process” that implicitly could lead to a jury trial.  They assume you will probably be a doormat.  But they and their ilk are morally disoriented focusing on material survival at ground level, like a crazed flock of crows pecking at the dirt, whereas you have moral compass, divine purpose, and are pointing your beak upwards into the sky to hopefully soar.  

Like an eagle. They are crows, and you are an eagle, at least an eagle-in-training earning your wings. 

The bully is hedonistic, driven by the utilitarian pleasure principle (laid down by the “Enlightenment” philosopher John Stuart Mill), so on a personal level in their internal constitution, they have little staying power, while you are driven in contrast by the quest for wisdom and virtue, and so are willing to walk through fire to get justice.  

To go the distance, to plug away and persevere through the 15th round, so to speak, with the interior peace that the very act of seeking justice gives you peace, regardless if you win compensation. 

For the vulnerable, the underdog, the marginalized, if this is their mentality then it is their SECRET weapon.   This was the strategy of Mohammed Ali when fighting and beating George Forman, which he called, and popularized as “Rope a Dope.”  Your enemy has no right to know your strengths, so keep them secret from them, keep them guessing.  

They will train more to be strong, powerful, and to dominate.   But you will train to outsmart, outmaneuver, to be resilient, to be ten times better at taking punches, to Rise Above.  The health of muscle tissue is not only the ability to do physical work and move limbs across a lever system.  

A bodybuilder may have large muscles, or a deadlifter may be able to dead squat 500 pounds.  But how resilient is their muscle tissue to injury; how long does it take to recover?

But you will focus instead on building resilience, smart and calm reaction,  and speed of recovery, in addition to strength and power.  Your goal is to wear out the bully and make them eager to give up.  And then you artfully create a resolution in your favor.  Or you turn back and defend yourself with a calculated degree of what is called “defensive aggression.”  

You don’t just defend yourself defensively, like blocking a punch, you end their aggression by knocking them down until they don’t get up, figuratively speaking. You will be prepared and know when to switch from the “Rope-a-Dope” strategy of the underdog, weak only at surface level, and turn the tables on the aggressor and defeat them. 

You do this through an attitude of seeking both justice and mercy.  Through an attitude of mercy, you are able to pursue justice and restitution instead of revenge, which belongs only to God, by means of any legal, authoritative process in which ultimately there is some human being with God-given authority to judge and punish justly.   Taking a “legal” approach, which implicitly could lead to the grievance being brought before some form of “court” or “judge” enables you the underdog to defend yourself in the first place,  but also avoid falling into the sin or at least psychological state of “unforgiveness.”     

Bitterness and wrath will wear down the bully themselves while taking a civil and calm approach will be one of your secret weapons.  Every time you re-engage them, you wear them down, because it saps their energy levels to respond to you, or even to ignore you, being consumed by negative emotion, whereas you being consumed by calm and reason, you are sustained by the positive emotion of righteousness which is what you feel emotionally when pursuing justice.  

Avoiding bitterness and self-righteousness, which is relative to you the actual state of mind of the aggressor which weakens them over time in the “battle,” then over time you grow strong and actually stronger than them.  Maintaining that frame of mind, combined with going the distance, will generally result in eventual victory.  It isn’t a guarantee,  but high likelihood.  

That is part of the nature of injustice in society, that if the defender wishes to defeat the aggressor, and get justice, it often takes a drawn out process and period of time.  Think to yourself “so be it.”

It took centuries for the early Christians to have their rights to the true Faith upheld by the Roman Empire.  Some battles are worth fighting, even if it takes some time.  Stop choosing to never or rarely defend yourself.  Weigh when a situation is gravely impacting your life or your loved ones, in terms of money, employment, livelihood of all kinds, health, or social standing.  

And then Rise Above.  Document, have witnesses, a detailed written Timeline as it unfolds, stay calm, respond within the law, and always consider that you have the secret weapon in the U.S.A., despite all its flaws, that as long as there is some basic merit to your case, then you have a right to a trial, and to ask a jury of your peers to use their God-given authority, by means of government, to judge and order restitution.

That is one critical way to Rise Above the crows like an eagle,  not only spiritually or psychologically.  The Catholic Church after all, has never taught a spiritualistic doctrine to only wait for justice to be given out by God directly, or in the next life.   Scripture does give a process of fraternal correction, and internal resolution, but does encourage  legal justice when the enemy continues to stonewall, by going to court after all internal efforts are exhausted. 

And the last point, remember, if you stand before a jury in civil court, in contrast to criminal court, you are not required to prove your case “beyond a reasonable doubt” but only to “be more likely true than not.”  You only have to show that evidence and testimony TILTS somewhat in the direction that your allegations are the truth.  

Think about that the next time you get screwed over by a mechanic, health care provider, or corporate organization.  The next time you experience bona fide harassment, discrimination, assault, or the like.  Or the next time someone in trusted authority re-abuses you while reporting bona fide abuse. 

Rise Above.  Always keep the “usefulness of court” in your back pocket as another one of your secret weapons.  

What Does it Mean to be a Catholic “Traditionalist”?

You may have noticed from the title of my blog I identify as a “traditionalist.” For some, ironically even within the traditionalist community, that is a politically incorrect, inflammatory ideology.  Let me explain then my traditionalist views.  

They ARE politically incorrect, but for me they ARE NOT  an ideology. 

I will preface that by saying there are secondary aspects that are ideological, and that we all naturally follow ideologies of all sorts. The Marines have a different ideology about a military code of ethics than the Navy.   In the world of fly fishing, there is a camp that ideologically believes all tied flies should be of natural materials.  In medicine, allopathic medicine is ideologically different than osteopathic or naturopathic medicine.  And in terms of the Latin Mass movement, I am okay with different ideologies about lifestyle, manner of dress, educating children, and the like, as long as that is only one’s own philosophical set of principles in addressing a particular area of life, rather than treating their own sub-set of traditionalist thought as if it were Magisterial teaching and dogma binding on all. This phenomenon can be a problem, so much so that the local SSPX priest once gave months worth of conferences to humorously and insightfully point out different trad ideologies treated as being Magisterial.  

Where do you think I have developed much of my own “traditionalist” understandings, after all?

To be clear, being a traditionalist is rather primarily a DOCTRINAL stance.

Case in point, the Church already definitively condemning religious liberty, or the Church already condemning the idea of widely joining in and conforming itself to the so-called “ecumenical movement,” or condemning absolutely communicatio in sacris, that is active participation in non-Catholic worship.  These are already identified by the actual Magisterium as doctrinal errors, not just by the likes of Archbishop Lefebvre or Michael Davis.  

For me, I follow the Catholic Church absolutely, and the Catholic Church herself has already taught that Sacred Tradition, i.e. both the unwritten Word of God, and the collective traditions of the Church, are, according to her DOCTRINE, BOTH obligatory to conform ourselves.  

To say it again, it is a constant DOCTRINE, that is established, obligatory teaching, that every pope, bishop, priest, deacon, and layperson is strictly bound to uphold and follow the Ecclesial tradition as being intrinsically united to and intrinsically expressing the Divine Tradition.  Modernism and the conciliar ideology turns this on its head reducing Ecclesial tradition (the Latin liturgy, Gregorian chant, Thomism, Scholasticism, etc.) to a mere personal preference. 

And this is frankly, to say it again, one of the fundamental errors of the post-1988 Ecclesia Dei side of the traditionalist movement (FSSP, etc) to treat traditionalism as either  a radical ideology to be avoided, or on the other hand a movement of personal preference.  We can all admit this is the fact, reject this as a DOCTRINAL error, while otherwise giving some support for those groups (but not the errors).  I say this as someone who has spent seven years mainly with the FSSP, then ten years with the SSPX (before they left town), and the last eight years between the FSSP, diocesan TLMs, Maronite rite, and sporadic attendance still at the nearest SSPX two hours away.

Being a traditionalist goes above and beyond ideology, or group, or personal preference   Pope St. Plus X said every Catholic should be a traditionalist, and what he meant was upholding and defending Tradition/tradition  from modernism, and the revolutionary spirit of the Enlightenment.  This meant preserving Thomism in the seminaries, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, chant, the spirit of the Roman liturgy, the Social Kingship of Christ, the monarchical nature of the Church, integralism which subordinates intimately every government officially to the Church and Supreme Pontiff, the DOCTRINAL fact the Pope (and Church hierarchy) have BOTH spiritual AND temporal power over the world, and the like.

I am also a traditionalist in a DOCTRINAL sense about the Novus Ordo Mass.  The nature of the Mass, and the central act of the Mass, was already settled once and for all by the Council of Trent.   No Pope has the authority to give the liturgy of the Mass a Protestant form or spirit, that contradicts the Council of Trent, and especially to invert the Mass, making the secondary ends primary (the memorial, communal aspect), and the primary aspect secondary (the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, offering Christ on the Cross to the Father to save souls). 

See the Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae presented by the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, to Pope Paul VI.   LINK

Also, no Pope, and no bishop, let alone all the bishops, has the authority to permit if not establish an effectively new religion (modernism/liberalism) to co-exist with the true Faith side by side within the institutional structure.  That is to approve of a liturgical atmosphere, music, architecture, novel version of the priesthood, novel version of parish life etc. that collectively, clearly represents this new religion, which the Fathers of Vatican II themselves at the Council NEVER intended.  We are forced to recognize that the true Church has become hijacked and eclipsed by an Ape of the Church, just as the Moon eclipses the Sun, as saintly theologians of the past predicted.  At the same time we are forced to figure out what exactly constitutes the Ape and how to avoid it.  

And my traditionalist DOCTRINAL position is then, to preserve my faith and help uphold The Catholic Faith, to generally avoid the reforms of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and that general atmosphere.  Applying this DOCTRINAL stance forces me to have to drive long distances to traditionalist enclaves largely separate from the mainstream, and to suffer with the stigma of being labeled a social outcast, rebel, or schismatic, simply for being what Pope St. Pius X called a "traditionalist" and following doctrine to its practical conclusions.

At the same time there is a lower tier to traditionalism than doctrine and that is theological position.  There are many differing theological opinions about how far we can or should go into traditionalism, whether we must comply with the demands of consensus to keep our Latin Mass (publicly accepting the doctrinal errors of the Council and liturgical reform, which is what one does when giving total public acceptance, in order to be allowed the Latin Mass), while privately believing otherwise.

The problem then is the Preference Mentality which reduces Ecclesial tradition and the TLM down to a matter of private preference,  to a movement of liturgical preference (vs. doctrinal obligation) which ironically is itself not doctrinal in orientation, nor in accord with Church Doctrine, but is itself an ideology. 

Lastly, there are three main theological/ecclesiological positions in the traditionalist movement.  That of the Ecclesia Dei movement, the SSPX, and Sedevacantism, each which could be further subdivided into particular positions.  The key is that all three focus on the DOCTRINE of the Faith, while there are differences in practical approach.  The Sedevacantists need to distinguish between what the MAGISTERIUM itself says about the limits of papal infallibility, verses the THEOLOGICAL opinions of the “Ultramontists,” treating their theory as if it is official Magisterial teaching.  The SSPX cannot impose its positions on the FSSP and similar groups about relations with Rome, EXCEPT when those groups are going against DOCTRINE (by officially accepting what are truly Doctrinal Errors as being “true” in order to be allowed to function and say the TLM). Much of the other disputes are otherwise legitimate differences since they are theological positions not violating the Magisterium, on questions that have not been settled (yet) by the Magisterium.

There are of course other facets of being a traditionalist on even  lower levels: philosophy, culture, lifestyle, etc.  There is plenty of room for debate about those aspects.

But if there is one outcome I would desire for every reader of this blog post, it is to understand what the Church herself says about being traditional and opposing modernism.  What is most at stake goes above and beyond preserving ancient liturgical beauty, the  social traditionalist enclave of the TLM, it goes far beyond preserving in the short term easy access to a local TLM.  

Traditional Catholicism, aka traditionalism, is about preserving the true Faith and Church for the next hundreds or thousands of years until the Second Coming of Christ.  We the laity especially need to stand up and say a resounding NO to the new religion for our families and decedents, and defend the traditional religion of Christ.

In this sense, all Catholics today should be “traditionalists.”

Rise Above, Part 4

See parts 1, 2, and 3 below.  This is part 4.  I want to talk to people going through extreme hardship, in which desolation outweighs consolation, in which those who are prejudiced or even worse indifferent to helping you through your plight far outnumber those who look at you in a fair and balanced way, and do care.  Not merely with a word or two, but with consistent action. 

You want to fly like an eagle but feel imprisoned in a dark dungeon under the Earth, in part by those problem people, the crows.  There is a way out.

First and foremost there is the way of Christ.  To offer your cross daily, in remission of the punishment due to sin, but even more to store up eternal treasures and rewards in heaven.  But especially to follow His example in dealing with enemies.  To be patient with them, to fraternally correct them but not excessively, to accept the crosses they cause you which God allows through the virtue of meekness, and most of all to forgive them. 

That will lead to escape from their torments, by Rising Above them, setting you free.  From them, and their effect on your mind. 

Rise Above them and your dark place.  Last summer my wife and I interviewed the traditional Benedictine sister who had cared for Sr. Whilhelmina in the last years before she died.  I asked the sister “Considering the readers of the blog will be reading this interview (which the Mother Superior had approved), and some of them may be going through extreme suffering in their life, especially those having severe pain, if Sister Whilhemina were alive right now sitting here, what would she say to those people?”  Keep in mind Sr. W is now widely considered to have a miraculously incorrupt body, to be a saint, and the cause of many medical miracles.

The Sister answered without hesitation as if she immediately knew the answer, saying “She would say to go to your Mother, to Mary.”  She then paused a moment and said that Sr. W would also say to be devoted to prayer itself, to have a devotion to a daily schedule of prayer.  

She said she remembers  when caring for Sr. W in her last period of life, asking her for one piece of advice to help her at the time being a novice to become a good nun.  She said she expected her answer to be something like focus on humility or charity, but instead she advised her to focus on daily piety, that this seemed profoundly wise.  This sister was telling us, and you the reader, and me, especially those going down a dark tunnel,, so to speak, that the key to dealing with it all is not only prayer,  it is a devotion to a daily prayer schedule itself, like a monk or nun, or priest, but of course tailored for the lay state.

The third order of the SSPX gives a good structure for its members: daily rosary, daily 15 minutes of mental prayer or spiritual meditation, and twice daily praying the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

But at the least, prayers right out of bed, morning prayer, prayer before and after meals, ejaculatory prayers (like the eastern Jesus Prayer, or the Hail Mary), crossing yourself passing a cemetery or a Catholic church, evening prayer, and prayer right before you sleep.  Ideally, following Catholic tradition and not novelty.  

For me, this interview, what this nun said she thought the sainted Sr W would tell people going through extreme hardship, hit home as a revelation.   Everything we need, including the ability to Rise Above the hardest of situations, comes from God’s grace.  And God’s grace comes from a personal relationship with Him in which we submit ourselves in trust of Him through prayer.  But human nature tends to not commit itself daily to a structure of prayer; in other words, we all tend not towards just following a good routine by making good daily choices everyday, against the weak inclinations of our fallen state.  So we need a pre-planned, consistent daily, schedule, but also to subordinate ourselves to that schedule as a daily Rule of life.  

The result is you will be able to Rise Above all hardship at least internally if not also externally.  It’s a hard fact of life, not strictly taught to me growing up, or in my adulthood by the Church (traditional side vs. the navus ordo side), that this is key to Rising Above hardship.  Without it, it is very difficult to Rise Above.  With it, it is much easier to Rise Above, if not a certainty you will. 

There may be some of you currently gravely grieving the loss of a family member, going through severe illness, or severe financial hardship.  You might be confined to a bed or chair.  You might be forced to live in a nursing home.  You might feel utterly alone on this planet.  

Rise Above.  Through prayer.  Through a daily schedule of prayer.  Through devotion to that schedule.  That is a lesson I’ve recently more maturely learned, thanks to Sr. Whilhelmina.

Psychological Meditation for Mental Health. My Thoughts on Buddhism

Buddhism began as a mixed bag.  There were bad and false elements, and there were good and true elements.  Buddha broke way from the religious paganism and oppressive system of the Hinduism of his childhood to focus instead on inner enlightenment and achieving a perpetual state of peace, separate from any orientation (or lack therefore) to deities or religious devotion to spirits.  For him this meant eventually escaping cycles of rebirth and achieving an eternal state of complete happiness. Personally, he being brought up Hindu, and never officially rejecting any form of theism, I suspect he implicitly believed in God on some level, and also did not explicitly embrace total and absolute nihilism of the conscious self or individual person.  The old Catholic encyclopedia has an excellent article on him and Buddhism, which discusses the positive and the negative 

Buddhism evolved beyond the original  teachings of Buddha, especially in northern India, and then across China, Japan, and most of Asia as a very elaborate religious system of pagan, polytheism, to the point of extremely bizzare, esoteric practices, even from an Asian point of view. And that false religion has now been co-opted by the profiteering industry of the New Age movement here in the modern West, such that what is often called Buddhist thought and meditation has little to do with the historical person or original monastic philosophy of life of Buddha.  They co-opted not only the very externally attractive, pagan, overtly religious version of Buddhism seen in counties like Tibet, but the lower level, more philosophical and psychological system created by Buddha himself represented in southern India and certain southeast Asian countries like Berma.

A Catholic of course cannot positively engage with the rituals, religious practices, or opposing religious doctrines of either form of traditional Buddhism, the more religious one vs the more philosophical one, especially in the name of ecumenism, which would be a false ecumenism.  The true meaning of ecumenical is actually referring to theological relations between the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches both in full communion with the Pope, not the relationship of the Church with heretics, schismatics, or oriental pagans. 

On the other hand, since grace builds upon nature, and our understanding of Divine Revelation is assisted by understanding all General Revelation to mankind, especially in the form of Philosophy (this is not only a teaching of the Universal Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, but of the Papal Magisterium), then we certainly can learn from the Philosophy of Buddha and Buddhism, in particular the more purely, non pagan, non religious system seen originally in southern India. 

If Socrates believed in many gods, Plato believed in reincarnation, and Aristotle’s concept of God tended towards a mechanistic, Deistic version of God, yet the Church has learned much from them, then certainly we can learn from the wise and benign philosopher Buddha and some of his intellectual followers. 

We moderns today need to see things again through the lens of Nature and Human Nature, to be brought back through them, if we are to delve maturely into the Mysteries of the Faith, and likewise make use of what Nature and Human Nature provides us (that is what the Creator provides us by means of Creation) to help cultivate our interior and spiritual life. 

For example, some Catholics, in particular Catholic men, rightly make use of some of the practical wisdom of Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism in how to develop one’s psychological and moral state in daily life. 

In the case of Buddha and philosophical Buddhism, however, we do not have anything equivalent like the medieval Catholic version of Scholasticism that synthesizes the best of western pagan philosophers (like Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle) with the sphere of Faith.  The  bridge between the Christian West and Buddha is either the polytheistic, magical world of Buddhist monasteries, or the New Age movement. 

The reason I think looking to Buddha and the philosophical and practical psychological side of Buddhism can be very useful, for some, that is if we do not engage the religious or adapted New Age aspects of it, is that the modern West is extremely broken not only spiritually and morally, but psychologically.  And for many re-establishing mental health is integral to maintaining their Faith.  

Buddha was a hermit, and then after founding a new monastic philosophical discipline of life, became a monk.  He greatly represents the contemplative life, which St. Thomas taught all activities should be oriented to, that the contemplative side of life is primary for every person, including married people with busy modern lives. 

But the modern mind is not oriented to contemplation.  It is nearly always in a state of obsession, over analysis, excessive focus on the self, and heavy, complicated thought processes.  Our emphasis is on conceptual, logical  thinking that revolves to the extreme around our own ego, and pathologically worries about the distant past and future, more than intuitive, creative thinking about Life, God, and what St. Augustine called the Eternal Now. New Age thinkers like Eckardt Tolle, influenced in part by Buddhism, are then partly right, that much of our psychological problems will be resolved by rising above the ego and perpetual state of analytical thinking (more left brained thinking), and focus more on contemplative and philosophical modes of thinking (more right brained thinking).  But where the likes of Tolle are wrong, and in part Buddha, is that ultimate happiness for you them comes from an eternal extinguishing of the conscious self and cognitive thinking.  

The Catholic Church however teaches, on the contrary, that the perfect man is one who fully knows and loves God through their conscious mind and will in this life and in the next.  That in heaven our ultimate perfected state keeps the self and consciousness intact.  We will not dissolve into a monist (the philosophy that there is only the whole without distinct parts) or pantheistic (the philosophy that God and creature are literally one divine being and essence) reality.  

At the same time, what we learn from Buddha, is the primacy of contemplation and the transcendent.  We learn what our mental state is supposed to look like.  If we were to look into the mind of the average modern man, brought up according to all the philosophical errors of the Enlightenment philosophers, we would see a state of confusion, extreme complexity, obsession, excessive perpetual analysis, and anxiety. In that kind of state, a parent cannot reason well how to discipline their child, or a doctor how to prescribe a proper, holistic treatment plan for their patient.  In that frame of mind, most all of us are fraught on some level by obsession, anxiety, depression, and cognitive distortions of all kind. 

What the Buddhist practice would have you achieve, besides “Nirvana,” which truth be told is at best a partially true ideal yet still vague and nebulous, is a proper state of mind from the time you wake up until the time you go to bed.  A state of mental peace, calm, contemplative thinking, love of wisdom, creativity, wonder, and openness to reality.   The difference is that we Christians have the gift of Faith to know that reality is the Holy Trinity, and divine incarnation of Jesus Christ.  Yet, if we strip away the esoteric and Hindu residual elements and keep instead the philosophical form of Buddhism, we have much to learn how to calm the mind and achieve a proper state of mind.  That would mean leaving aside any nihilism or pantheism, and developing the art of psychological meditation, and meditative practices.  I would argue that with the exponential rise of mental illness in the West, which is largely the result of mental trauma due to the social and moral collapse of society, working on mental health, to treat and more importantly, prevent mental illness (not the same as spiritual illness or lack of faith or prayer) is integral to preserving your sanity and therefore spiritual life as a Catholic.  

And when I look across history and the globe, the best practical example I see of this, despite certain errors (remember Plato, for example, believed in reincarnation), is that of Buddha and his original followers seeking peace through silence and practices designed to calm the mind.

As much as some readers might strongly object to this, this is the reality.  Addressing mental illness and mental health involves both the religious and spiritual practice of the Faith (examples: daily rosary, Divine Office, and spiritual meditation), but also cultivating mental health and tranquility.

We all do this when we take meditative walks thinking about Nature to unravel our obsessive thoughts, creating music or art, or journaling   Sitting quietly and in a still posture, resting the mind, unclogging the mind, re-orienting it to metaphysical reality, simply by focusing on nothing but your breath, is no different.  Except that an entire eastern culture has been cultivating this psychological practice as part of daily life for 2,400 years.

The crux of the matter, however, is how to properly integrate Buddhist-inspired psychological mediation into your daily life without blurring it irreverently with the Faith and spiritual meditation.  If you are too lax in your approach, you could jeopardize your Faith; if scrupulous about it, you may miss out on a critically useful  activity in your daily life, that will not only help you through severe hardships like severe illness (physical and/or mental in nature), but keep you afloat from falling into despair or your typical sins.

So having no personal knowledge of a traditional Catholic expose of Buddhist-style psychological meditation and practical philosophy of life, or a foolish inclination to delve into the occult, I can only glean on my own what to keep and use.  And it is something like this:

If you are going through a dark period of hardship, or even more to strengthen your mind to better deal with such a crisis if/when it should emerge, in addition to the prayers mentioned above, and also the sacraments, every day engage in:

1. At least 15 minutes of Buddhist-style meditation, even better for 30 minutes, and for twice a day.

2. This is not the same thing as your fifteen minutes of “mental prayer” that is spiritual meditation directly praying to God, said at another time each day.    It is a mental health exercise to re-set the central nervous system into the right state and rhythm, while letting your mind open itself to all reality, both divine and created.  

3. Ideally sitting in a quiet place, very still, eyes closed, hands held still in your lap, focusing on your breathing. Alternatively, laying down or taking a slow walk focusing on your breathing and stilling the mind.

4. Whenever the long train of obsessive thoughts  starts emerging into your conscious mind, be aware of them, accept the reality they are tempting you to think on them, but instead immediately re-focus on your breath and therefore let those thoughts drift away.

5. Possibly include a mantra-like phrase, not a Buddhist or pagan prayer, but instead a Christian phrase or just something positive like “I am a child of God,” or “Life is beautiful.”  Per the moral teachings of Buddha (and Christ) keep your focus on charity, love, kindness, peace, forgiveness, and compassion. 

It is not easy to integrate this into your daily schedule, or retrain your mind to do this, but over time your parasympathetic nervous system will re-structure to dominate instead of your sympathetic nervous system. Just imagine how this would help bedbound paralytics cope with lifelong severe pain and immobility, severe mental illnesses like narcissism, schizophrenia, or bipolar, or to use another example to help Christians wrongfully imprisoned in the Siberian gulag do the time without losing their minds…or souls.

We all could benefit from this, to rise above our state of obsession and internal conflictedness, to achieve not only a state of virtue, but of inner balance and harmony.