Thomas Merton on St. Bernard of Clairveaux 

Wow, I never heard Thomas Merton's voice. Never knew he was taped. Thanks for posting this! Much needed inspiration for this morning.

one of the great voices of mysticism in the modern era. Read his poetry, look at his artistic photography...just a genius.

Thanks for uploading this insightful lecture of Thomas.

I'm doing a report on Thomas Merton, and I'm telling you I love this guy.

I could listen to brother Thomas talk forever. It's a shame he didn't live longer.

We are all in the monastery. Right now, right here. I used to listen to these tapes constantly in the 80's... Thanks for posting this!

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Great post...love anything Merton! Thanks!

I appreciate Merton's honesty. Merton said that the contradictions in his life were evidence of the mercy of God.

This is wonderful. Where ever did you find it? Where can we find more recordings of Thomas? One of the greats. The reach of his voice is immeasurable.

For me, The Seven Storey Mountain and The Sign of Jonas had the most influence. His other stuff confused me. Monastic life is great and wonderful. Life with my wife and children is also great and wonderful. Jesus worked through him to get to me when no other could.

when we turn freedom of loving into a love of possession or idea is a way of loving wrong .God through his grace can change this but we must be open to conversion.

Thanks for contributing with your intelligent answer.

Thomas Merton VIVE!!!! Muito obrigado a quem postou esta pérola preciosa. Conheçam também a música de um filho espiritual de T. Merton chamado URBANO MEDEIROS (do Brasil). Linda e santa música!!! abraços, Dr. Marcelo, médico

How right Thomas Merton is!

Thank you.Much appreciated.

One can love wrongly by not conforming to God's will. By not remaining in his love . One can love God but to wrongly love him would mean that felling that just loving him is good enough. His will must be conformed to. In terms of being a monk they must adhere to the Rule of Saint Benedict. That is how a monk who has vowed has chosen to love God by following the Rule.

Merton went into Zen and Eastern religions. Orthodox monk Seraphim Rose has a lot to say about how Merton went astray.

Thank you.

This is awesome!!

he's brilliant!!!!!!

Great teachings.

His thoughts on love are like health. you can have good health or bad health, but not no health, unless you're dead. Same with spirituality and love, you can have it in a negative sense or a positive, but its there. Its part of our nature.

Orthodox monk Seraphim Rose says that Merton got in over his head with Zen practices towards the end of his life. Read Seraphim Rose.

God is love. That means that God is the only one who can love perfectly and who is Himself the definition of love that is pure: self-giving, unconditional thought, feeling and action for the good of another. As people made in God's image, we have to love. The problem is that because we're fallen, our love is always an imperfect reflection of God's love, and therefore of God. So while it is right and good that we "love" -- our love is only analogous or similar to God's love in certain respects.

Thank you so much. Is a recorded voice a relic? I do feel closer to this saint hearing his voice. Thank you, Journeys2008.

>Even for Merton though his hang ups had consequences on others. We always overlook this which is wrong. Merton treats us to this wonderful treatise on humanism -and you can see he approves of physical love: ‘Man loves naturally is giving glory to God -following his nature is doing God’s will -living according to nature is NOT bad. Love is a natural instinct and is GOOD’ -he says.The problem and conflict arises in interpreting Bernards injunction to ‘control these emotions under God’s Will’

Man has free will and chooses salvation or damnation freely.

Thank you for this. I've never heard Merton speak before and wondered if he still had any trace of accent from living in the UK. Obviously not. His teaching sounds like a strange mix of Christian psychology with a bit of Hinduism mixed in: "God and the emotions and people are all one." He was clearly a very astute, animated, involved teacher though. What a privilege it would have been to sit in on one of those classes.

This man is truly a saint.

Merton had a problem of his own with love, so he knew whereof he spoke. He fell in love with a nurse who was taking care of him in the local hospital after back surgery. They began to meet privately and things were heating up. So, being a good monk, he reported on himself and ended the relationship. Though painful, he understood that love in his case was wrong.

it might be worth your reading the Vatican 2 documents on this issue. They are very illuminating. Nostra Aetate for example (1965)

He is my favorite Future Saint

that`s true love

How can you love wrongly ? It's either love or it isn't.

I'm an Orthodox layman. I find Merton far more useful to read than Seraphim Rose. read the Seven Storey Mountain. Much better writing than Rose ever did, beautiful autobiography. Merton is very good on the Desert Fathers, and according to people who knew him was intently reading The Art Of Prayer in his last years -- St Simeon the New theologian, St Theophan. I've read both. Rose suffers (no fault of his own) from many very flaky followers -- particularly his biographer.

Contemplative prayer puts the faithful believer on a path to be filled with God's love, so that s/he loves with the love that God is! Our sense of love is not god! And that's a love that is different that what we usually call love. Maturing as a person, growing spiritually, always involves a maturing understanding and embodiment of love, being able to live and act that is more and more consistent with the love that is God.

Define love.

Also-what about the poor nurse and her feelings -when he was forced to end the relationship. Merton was aware of the contradiction here but we are not privy to his thoughts on this but might be surprised at where it would have taken him. Also - dont forget Merton had a relationship with a poor cleaning woman when at Oxford and had a child by her (both killed in the Blitz). This informed all his thinking on Natural Love (and guilt) and was a pime motivation for entering the Catholic Church.

Merton felt attraction towards the nurse. Attraction is not love. Most people think attraction is love. They fall head over heels over someone and think its love but that is not love. True love does not need someone to help express it. Love for ones brother/sister is an all embracing, nonjudgment decision to accept that person where they are and respect their decisions. In this decision, we are not emotionally bound to them or them to us. That is true love.

Ordo caritatis is the key point. The right order of love, he gets into this about 9:30. You'd need to hear the rest to get the entire point. Pick up some of Merton's writings and you'll soon understand the point.

"A twisting or perversion of true love" as you write, is not love in the first place. Its impossible to love wrongly. The issue here is that most people do not know "love". They equate an emotional bond or attraction with love. That is not love.

well said.

"Consequently you can find as pure, as true and as selfless a love (often more) in a sexual relationship than in a 'celibate one' (and without the dangers implicit in the latter)." I (know) this to be so.

@belucky208 I know this is two years ago but I wanted to answer this. It could mean loving from the ego. If one is loving from that then there is no confusion.

@belucky208 Merton answers your question in the first chapter of "No Man Is An Island."

absolutely

I love God, and I love fleshly pleasure. If and when I can give up the latter, it will only be through Grace, because it is beyond my power. Camping alone in the woods helps...

True love does not judge. Merton was struggling with his own understanding of love as well. He was torn between the emotional bond he felt towards another human being and his emotional bond with his concept of God. It was his own limited understanding of God which led him to believe he needed to "confess" his feelings towards the nurse. Again, true love is all embracing, non judging and does not involve this emotional bondage.

One can love wrongly because one's aspiration toward God is often frustrated by self-interest, or misguided interest, or - worst of all - fear. E.g., the mother or father who refuses to allow his or her high school child to ever go out with friends for fear of what could happen. The parent may believe that he or she is loving the child, and in love trying to protect the child, but in fact the parent is acting in fear, not love. Love can be wrong because creation is a blessed uncertainty.

If you've decided that human beings are simply robots, there's not much one can say. But it does divest you of all responsibility, and it's a cowardly way to live (imo). We have free will, and God's grace leads us to Him - the sad truth is that most people, in the final analysis and if they're honest with themselves, would rather "their will be done" always and in all ways.

Beautifully put. But why was his 'understanding of God' in conflict with his 'natural' feelings towards the Nurse? Where did his (and many others) theological struggle with 'natural' relationships originate from ? The 'limited understanding' was imposed on him and others (now afflicting many non monks - secular clergy etc with horrendous consequences) by the theology of relationships, celibacy, chastity, obedience, virginity hoisted upon him by being a Trappist. >

How did he go astray?

One cannot love money and sex. Love does not require an emotional, physical or mental element. We are attracted to money and sex so we call it "love". That`s the problem. Most people confuse their attraction and/or emotional bond to someone/thing as love. Love is not a chemical reaction. Love is all embracing, nonjudgemental and has no need for giving or taking. It simply is.

> ... and therefore, according to you, your eternal destiny

Love of God is 1st commandment. By love of God we love all others. The body is a temple of God who is reflected in the heart of everyone. We have to see the Lord is present in the heart of all and love them accordingly. Jesus said what you do unto others you do to me. If we love God we automatically love others. God is not love, love is not God. He is the source of love and the object of love. Love is reposed in God. We have an eternal relationship with God and our objective is to remember God

actually ... not only Thomas Merton... don't judge anyone..."for with whatsoever judgment ye mete, with that judgment too shall ye be judged"

But Cistercian theology of sexuality doesn’t try to control it but fears it, outlaws it and therefore repress it. Merton knew this but there was no way round it other than to renounce his vows. Emotional bondage can result as much from bad theology as much from embracing natural love. Consequently you can find as pure, as true and as selfless a love (often more) in a sexual relationship than in a 'celibate one' (and without the dangers implicit in the latter).

There is a distinction between love and lust. Lust keeps us in bondage to the material world and love of God liberates. This is why celibacy is a prerequisite to the spiritual life. We have to discriminate between matter and spirit. Matter is temporary(like the body) and spirit is eternal (like the soul). crucify the body to liberate the soul. This means controlling the senses.Either we serve the senses or we serve God, either way we serve because service (love) is the constitution of the soul.

All spiritual 'gurtus' as you put it, depend on previous ones - that's what spiritual traditions are about. If they didn't - and stuck out liker sore thumbs we'd be suspicious of them (and rightly so). Thomas Merton stands in such a tradition. But he was brave - and took risks and was honest about his weaknesses, his wrong decisionjs and flawed humanity too. I'm not sure what you mean by' a real spiritual guru or leader' ... >

@belucky208 God is not only love, He is the object of the love which He is. Our love is an image of God to the extent that its primary object is God. So, to love wrongly means to put something else in the place of God as the primary object of love.

Loving from the ego is not love. What most consider love is actually an emotion. They feel an attraction towards someone and think its love. That is not love. True love is a decision which very few do, let alone know if. Love is accepting everyone where they are and not feeling the need to change them in anyway. Full, embracing, non-judgement is love. Merton and I will have to agree to disagree on this.

And you are judging the moment you judge that someone is judging!!!!

got me thinking (:

> ... - perhaps you could give us soime examples of such real ones that float your boat. It's in the 'wealness' - that lies the greatness.

I think to "love wrongly" is to love "for what I can get out of it" rather than to love "for the sake of the one I love". It's like saying "living wrongly" is to live in a way that does not promote my flourishing as a human being -- I still "live" but it's not a life worth living, and isn't really "life" in the true sense; just as loving selfishly is not really loving in the true sense. Paradox is very "Mertonian", and very Zen.

well belucky its very simple and common sense the answer to your question: because YOUR concept of love is not always GODS concept of love, you killing someone can seem to you as love, it happens in some crazy people, ,kudos

Are you saying that his straying into Zen and Eastern religions was a bad thing? I think if anything, it made him question his Catholic upbringing and beliefs. We often forget that Jesus` teachings were very simple and uncomplicated. The dogmas and creeds all came much later. We have complicated things. If we can get back to the root of Jesus` teachings, we will discover they are heavily influenced by the Buddha and other Eastern ideas.

As it says in that little book by my bed... we are created in the image and likeness of God. God is love... therefore we are love. We cannot love wrongly is God is love. That would mean God is wrong sometimes. There is no such thing as loving wrongly. Merton is confused. Lust would be loving wrongly but lust is not love. Lust is a passion. Love is not a passion. Love is God. God is Love. There is no wrong in love.

You have fallen into the classic dualism of assuming that Loving God is of a different quality than loving another human being. Since. for somebody who professes to be in favour of non judgemental love you seem to be making a lot of judgements - please tell me how can you tell if some one is loving wrongly (as you have done with Merton for instance). And conversly (although it shouldn't be - how you can tell you are loving God rightly?

Merton's cause will never go anywhere. It's a dead letter because of the business with Margie which came too late in his life to be dismissed as irrelevant, and rightly so, because it was stopping place in Merton's life and proved definite to some extent, with fatal consequences for his reputation. Merton was a man of contradictions, which he accepted in himself, but it is more difficult for others to accept. Make of it what you will, but he will never be beatified because of the affair which did not proceed well and ultimately ended even worse than it proceeded.

But Jesus had his favourites (John -the disciple whom he loved) -and displayed extreme emotions (fear, anguish, anger, sensual pleasure, joy, grief, sadness)- the gospels are full of them. He also loved Mary Magdalene in some special way (and her him) we cannot comprehend. And he did a heck of a lot of judging of other humans and his disciples too.There is overlap with other Eastern religions- but also sharp differences too. Going back to Jesus (or Buddhism) doesn't solve Merton's dilemma

But what's wrong with that emotion.You are implying that emotions and passions are inherantly bad. If you take away emotions you take away what it is to be human. How we control them and integrate them is another matter.. Also if love is NOT feeling the need to change anyone - say a partner - we are actually NOT loving them. It doesn't have to mean we're judging them. But if you're partner picks his nose in public (or private!) and you don't want to change that - that is NOT loving him/her.

WE MUST ALL REALIZE THE KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN LIKE FR. MERTON

So you are saying he was a human being?

St Guiseppe Moscati wanted his profession in Medicine to reflect his total orientation towards God, and one of the ways he did that was to remain unmarried and celibate his entire life. When he had a free moment he continued contemplating God, and did not join in with others who might be gossiping about each others spouses or about the immoral lifestyle of some of their patients etc...... Gossip degenerates the gossiper more than the person being gossiped about. St Paul wrote about this problem 2,000yrs ago. Any necessary talk about patients, St Moscati exercised prudence without judging. Thomas Merton ended this 10min video with the expression "total orientation towards God".

.> If you look at the history of these core issues over seven hundred years of Cistercian history it is not a pretty one. Merton found terrible conflicts in the theology of the monastic life. The pain in not consummating this relationship was a result of the distorted understanding of the monastic life - the supposed superiority and set apartness of it (and virginity)..Because of his vows he was not free to 'understand' in the way the rest of us might from the outside. Tragic. >

But it's not as simple as that. Your theology is black snd white. Heaven and Hell (with a bit of purgatory thrown in?). I work with sexually abused youngsters and believe you me the 'reason' you so pompously and self righteously promote is overidden by the horrors of what they have endured (often from priests). Not all people change NO. Some are scurged for life. And they only change if we help them to, and it requires massive input, us putting ourselves on the line,- and yes a bloody miracle.

That of course depends on whether you believe in a God who has decreed such a dispensation. And in a Jesus who is his chief executioner And of course that simplistic concept of 'free will' too The sexually abused child who goes on to sexually abuse in their own right (highly topical in Catholic circles) - is just one example of the fallacy of that concept. Also - the religion you are born into - is not a function of free will. It's a matter of geography. And yet determines what 'you belive' >

But you are contradicting yourself - you ARE judging Merton by suggestinjg his feelings of attraction are not Love. How can YOU possibly know? None of us can. And to take emotions out of the equation actually dehumanises it. It suggests a Dehumanism. Not being emotionally bound to some one suggests the relationship of a couple of robots. What it indicates is a fear of emotions rather than celebrating them and integrating them into the True Self. This is at the very root of the monk's dilemma.

@belucky208 sometimes we don't love...when we don't, the energy goes from Love to something else. Maybe negativity is the best word. Ithink this is true anyway...blessings.

What *is* the will of *GHAD*.

If you "love" something wrongly, it is not love. If you hold something ahead of God, you are not properly aligned from a consciousness standpoint to love.

Even the "love" a parent claims for their child is not true authentic love. God`s love is nonjudgemental, all embracing and has no agenda. A parent has an emotional bond to a child but that is not true love. True love is not an emotional bond. That concept is archaic and when one is taught in that system, it is very difficult to understand this concept of love not being one of emotion. True love is acceptance of someone/thing w/o the need to agree or have that other entity agree with you.

But it isnt clear that Merton's believed his relationship with the Nurse was wrong-and indeed if he fell in love with her why should that be wrong. He reported himself because he was under obedience but this was incredibly painful to him and informs greatly Merton's theology of natural love as being God given. In a monastic context of course -there is a terrible contradiction here - and we are seeing its rotten 'fruit' falling today in the sexual malaise afflicting the enforced celibate life.

huh? we're not robots and we have reason. People change. It must be terrifying to live in your head - good luck!

Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Always was and always will be Divine. The dangers of establishing beliefs apart from the Bible is error. Jesus said We are to love the Lord our God with all our mind, heart, soul, and strength and our neighbors as our self. We can’t do that apart from the Indwelling power and grace of the Holy Spirit. Read the first chapter of Ephesians. He calls you His beloved and says you were in Christ before the foundation of the world. The Bible clearly states to avoid being a vegetarian. The brain needs red meat. Especially in times of spiritual warfare. Not having meat depletes the brain of needed sustenance.

these men are drunk, and don't call me Shirley.

Criticizing Thomas Merton.....He has a "big mouth..." ??? Are you going to tell us next that Mother Theresa had a big mouth? I pray for you.

In traditional Christian theology (Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic), God's love is highly judgemental. It's about as judgemental as it can get. It condemns some to eternal bliss but the majority to eternal dmanation. It has a massive agenda -one from which many human agendas in history have been derived with cruel consequences (Cistercians persecution of the Cathars is an example) - and incidentally parents punitve agendas towards their children - practised in many christian cuoltures troday.

No - I do terrible work with them, fill their heads with nonsense and make good grammar their number one priority in life..

You are the one living in your head. But worse than that - with no heart either. Use your God given 'reason' to work it out. It's not rocket science..

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense.