By Be Scofield
Simone Weil and Dorothy Day were paying attention. Both of these radical mystics emerged in the early twentieth and responded to an era filled with great turmoil– two world wars paralleled with competing economic ideologies and the rise industrialism. Weil, from a French-European context and Day in an American setting each addressed the crucial topics of their time: religion, poverty, violence, nationalism, communism and capitalism, suffering, power and justice. While they both stemmed from middle class privileged backgrounds they worked diligently to connect thought to social action. They placed the margin at the center by highlighting the needs of the least among them; the oppressed, impoverished and afflicted while simultaneously deconstructing the social systems which produced these states. Their independence and radical thinking set them apart from the herd mentality; a mindset which they both heavily criticized. Day and Weil both refused to follow the left wing political trends that their contexts provided for them. They didn't accept communism yet continued to work for egalitarian goals by supporting labor causes and arguing for a less oppressive society. And they each embraced a spiritual path–Day became a full convert to Catholicism while Weil experienced the universal and cosmic divinity of Christ, yet refused to be baptized and never joined a Church. It was the quest for an "incarnated Christ"– a term they both identified with that perhaps most unites them. In simplest terms their lives are profound examples of a radical commitment in both body and spirit to the "other."
Both
Dorothy Day and Simone Weil struggled with their place within Catholicism.
Day’s challenge came not from her interpretation of the doctrines as did Weil’s
but rather how to reconcile her radical social analysis with the bureaucratic
and institutional structure of the Church. Despite Weil’s experiences of the
cosmic Christ while in Rome she never converted and refused to join a Church.
The claims of Catholicism were nothing but stringent dogma that excluded many
and ignored the multiple manifestations of divine love in the world. In
contrast Day found great freedom in her acceptance of the Church. It was her
rootedness in tradition, solidarity and truth that gave Day the conviction to
pursue her radical commitment of love.
Prior to Dorothy Day’s conversion
to Catholicism at the age of 30 she had a mixed relationship with religion.
Originally baptized as a Episcopalian at age twelve in her youth she loved
reading the psalms, praying and hearing about the saints. But while in college
she began deconstructing her faith believing as one of her professors said that
religion was for the weak. It was at this time that Day first became involved
in radical social movements, political organizing and Marxist ideology.
Dropping out of college after two years Day lived in Greenwich village and
began writing for a few socialist news presses. After an abortion with a
previous lover Day fulfilled her wish to have a child and in 1927 gave birth to
Tamara. This experience along with her disillusionment with life in New York
brought her to convert to the Catholic faith. “I will never forget my blissful
joy when I was first sure that I was pregnant–I had wanted a baby all the first
year we were together…When I was unhappy and repentant in the past I turned to
God, but it was my joy at having given birth to a child that made me do
something definite.”[i]
As a convert to Catholicism Day
adopted the doctrines and rituals that defined the church. It was only one day
after her conversion that Day participated in her first confession followed the
next day by the taking of communion. While Day infused her Catholicism with
that of the numerous philosophers, social critics and spiritual writers she
accepted a literal interpretation of Christianity:
I had a conversation with John Spivak, the Communist writer, a few years ago and he said to me, “How can you believe? How can you believe in the Immaculate Conception, in the Virgin Birth, in the Resurrection?” I could only say that I believe in the Roman Catholic Church and all that She teachers. I have accepted Her authority with my whole heart.[ii]
And she also questioned how anyone could find God outside of
the Church, “But I do not know how any one can persist in the search for God
without the assistance of the Church and the advice of her confessors, with the
experience of generations behind them.”[iii]
Day’s
submission to the Catholic Church–the teachings, dogma, doctrine and
institution represents the strongest difference out of any issue with Simone
Weil. Weil refused to convert, be baptized, take communion or support the work
of the Catholic Church. Christianity was for Weil a mystical truth most
powerfully signified by the cross on which Jesus was crucified. However, the
emphasis on the cross did not mean adopting any doctrine regarding Jesus’ death
or resurrection, rather it represented a principle of following the highest
truth and being willing to suffer the harsh consequences for it. According to
Weil the cosmic truth of Christ is the same truth of that found within many
traditions, “Every time that a man has, with a pure heart, called upon Osiris,
Dionysus, Krishna, Buddha, the Tao..etc. the Son of God has answered him by
sending the Holy Spirit.”[iv]
While
traveling through Rome Weil on a few occasions experienced the divinity of
Christ. First while in Assisi in 1937 Weil felt compelled for the first time in
her life “to go down on my knees.”[v]
In 1938 while in Solesmes suffering from splitting headaches Weil attended
liturgical services for numerous days in a row and here experienced another
spiritual awakening, “This experience enabled me by analogy to get a better
understanding of the possibility of loving divine love in the midst of
affliction. It goes without saying that in the course of these services the
thought of the Passion of Christ entered into my being once and for all.”[vi]
After a young Catholic awakened Weil to the supernatural power of the
sacraments and the metaphysical poetry of the 17th century she had
another noteworthy experience. While reciting the poem “Love” Weil states,
“Christ himself came down and took possession of me.”[vii]
Weil
refused to join the Church for many reasons but this didn’t mean that she never
thoroughly explored the issue. Weil’s letter to a French Priest in 1942 reveals
the sincerity of her quest and her struggle to reconcile the Church with the
cosmic truth of Christ.
I have been thinking about these things for years with all the intensity of love and attention of which I am capable. This intensity is a wretchedly feeble one because of my imperfection which is very great; but it seems to me it is always on the increase. In proportion as it grows, the bonds which attach me to the Catholic faith become ever stronger and stronger, ever more deeply rooted in the heart and intelligence. But at the same time the thoughts which separate me from the Church also gain force and clarity. If these thoughts are really incompatible with membership of the Church, then there is no hope that I may ever take part in the sacraments. If such is the case, I do not see how I can avoid the conclusion that my vocation is to be a Christian outside the Church.”[viii]
Both Day and Weil sought an
incarnational understanding of Christ. For Weil this meant submitting to the
universal principle of love. For Day this meant connecting her material world
with the spiritual. Through the body of Christ Day was able to find a unique
solidarity with her brothers and sisters. And it was her spiritual foundation
that served her passion for social justice. Day found renewal and
transformation in the Catholic rituals: the daily mass, the rosary, Benediction
and meditation. It was in this community that she found a shared place to
praise God. Using retreats, contemplative prayer, fasting and spending personal
time with priests Day deepened her faith and strengthened her resolve. Weil on
the other hand seemed to lack any structured spiritual practice; at least in
any conventional way. Perhaps hers was the physical labor she undertook, her
life, or her writing, or the beauty she found in Plato. “I believe that the
mystery of the beautiful in nature and in the arts (but only in art of the very
first order, prefect or nearly so) is a sensible reflection of the mystery of
faith.”[ix]
For
Weil God is synonymous with perfect love, divine compassion, beauty, truth and
justice. She articulated a form of a negative decreative theology, “The absence
of God is the most wondrous evidence of his perfect love…We must arrive at the
end of our existence in order to understand the concept of no longer being.”[x]
In Weil’s cosmology God is entirely absent and separate from the world. The
world is fallen in some form, “Goodness is impossible…Nothing that exists is
absolutely worthy of love. One has to love what does not exist.”[xi]
Therefore it is through a process of self-delimination that God creates. Thus,
drawing from Plato Weil idealizes a supernatural world in which beauty, love
and truth exist and shine upon us through grace.
In
their own way and in their respective contexts these radical mystics appealed
to the principle of anarchism. For Day this meant establishing small Catholic
worker houses run by the members, working on communitarian farms, sharing
property, engaging in social justice, decentralizing power and critiquing the
bureaucratic state which produces oppression. She describes why she chose the
use of the term,
“The
word anarchist is deliberately and repeatedly used in order to awaken our
readers to the necessity of combating the ‘all-encroaching state,’ as our
Bishops have termed it, and to shock serious students into looking into the
possibility of another society, an order made up of associations, guilds,
unions, communes, parishes, voluntary associations of men [sic], on regional
vs. national lines, where there is a possibility of liberty and responsibility
for all men.” [xii]
As with many mystics, Weil saw the
social as a hindrance to discovering our true self. Whereas Day viewed the power of community (albeit small) as
a place to praise God, challenge social injustice and provide support Weil
offered strict warnings about the group mentality formed in the social: “A
collective body is the guardian of dogma; and dogma is an object of
contemplation for love, faith and intelligence, three strictly individual
faculties.”[xiii]
Furthermore, Weil viewed the society as demonic, “The social order…is
essentially evil, whatever it may be.” (Oppression P. 146) She saw the loss of
the individual within the collective, “Everybody knows that really intimate
conversation is only possible between two or three. As soon as there are six or
seven collective language begins to dominate.”[xiv]
They each tried to connect their
thought with action. Day was constantly involved in social protest; marching
with labor organizations, advocating for justice, refusing to follow the air
raid strikes, and giving up her middle class lifestyle to live in poverty. Weil
toiled in a factory awakening at 5am to pound sheet metal in parts, picked
grapes at a vineyard and participated in the Spanish civil war.
Communism
Both Weil and Day sought to define
the human condition beyond the mere drive for economic interests. As they were
involved in left wing environments–labor or justice causes they were working
closely with those who were rooted in or affiliated with Marxism and Communism.
They each rejected becoming members in these parties and critiqued the ideology
rejecting the notions of violent revolution, eliminating private property and
the materialism and atheism within communism.
Using the Catholic worker as the
platform Dorothy Day and co-founder Peter Maurin wrote about labor causes,
strikes, capitalism, the evils of industrialism and other economic injustices.
However, despite standing in solidarity with communists and Marxists they did
not join the movement. Yet the name of their organization “The Catholic Worker”
was as shocking to the established Church as it was to the Communist movement.
Never before had the two been paired together, up until this time they were
quite often viewed as archenemies.
Weil
took a much more direct approach and wrote a lengthy and thorough critique of
Marxism. Calling it ironically “the opiate of the people” she denounced almost
his entire theory outright. Chiding him for being unscientific and a victim of
the 19th century cult of progress and industry, Weil didn’t see much
significant difference between his system and capitalism. However, Weil did
reserve the word “genius” for Marx because of his pioneering work in
emphasizing an economic analysis of capitalism. Simply put, Weil saw no
evidence that the workers could throw off their oppressors or that a
revolutionary consciousness could be established. She powerfully stated, “The
whole of this doctrine, on which the Marxist conception of revolution entirely
rests, is absolutely devoid of any scientific basis….The term religion may seem
surprising in connection with Marx; but to believe that our will coincides with
a mysterious will which is at work in the universe and helps us to conquer is
to think religiously, to believe in Providence.”[xv]
Poverty, Affliction & Suffering
Day and Weil both drew connections
between poverty, suffering and God. Day drawing from her deep Catholic
background connected the suffering of Christ to the suffering of the poor,
When we
suffer, we are told we suffer with Christ. We are "completing the
sufferings of Christ." We suffer His loneliness and fear in the garden
when His friends slept. We are bowed down with Him under the weight of not only
our own sins but the sins of each other, of the whole world. We are those who
are sinned against and those who are sinning. We are identified with Him, one
with Him. We are members of His Mystical Body.[xvi]
Both paid attention to the needs of those suffering. For Day
this meant embracing a life of voluntary poverty by living with the basic
necessities. She sought to redefine her relationship to the poor by becoming
poor. This she felt was the only authentic way to address the issue and to
challenge the traditional hierarchical structure of charity. The poverty
created by social irresponsibility she shunned while she promoted the chosen poverty
(not destitution) of her and her fellow workers. A similar line of thought can be found within Weil. She
believed the social was a hindrance to discovering our authentic self and
sought to strip down her being to the bare necessity. She ate very little food,
dressed raggedly and shared her things. She sought to resist the societal
pressures to conform and was trying be a witness in solidarity with those who
suffered. Weil believed it was those who suffered most–the afflicted–who were
closest to God. Similarly, Day discussed how those in poverty are close the
divine,
One of the most distinguishing characteristics of Dorothy Day was her adamant pacifism. She actively protested World War I and the socialist magazine she worked for–“The Masses” took a staunch pacifist position. World War II was thought to be the “good war.” However, Day used the Just War Theory to condemn the war and directly opposed it. She also encouraged men to resist the draft for the war. For her principled opposition she was ridiculed and attacked. And she was opposed the Vietnam War in 1954 long before it had even been on the radar for much of the world and also opposed the Korean war. During the 60's Catholic workers burned draft cards and Day helped established the Pax group which later became Pax Christi.
Weil's position on war and pacifism
changed throughout the 1930's. Initially she condemned absolute pacifism but
then she served for a short while in the Spanish civil war and recognized the
futility of war. After this experience she opposed World War II. Heinz Abosch
describes her pacifism, “In a letter from 1938 addressed to Gaston Bergery, a
spokesman for pacifism and a future ambassador under Petain, Simone Weil
pleaded for non-resistance to Germany, stating her willingness to endure ‘a
temporary state of vassalage.’ Proceeding still further, she would even accept
“exceptional laws” against Communists and Jews.”[xviii] It was only later after the collapse of
France that Weil abandoned her pacifism.
Simone
Weil and Dorothy Day are two inspiring examples of people who sought direct
contact with reality. Their witness to injustice and suffering was an integral
part of how they understood social problems and central to their methods to
transform it. This unique ability to transcend the superficial nature of many
modern relationships was perhaps their most significant and powerful area of
synchronicity. Their approach to religion was the most divergent as Day
embraced the Church and its dogma while Weil rejected the institution and
identified with the cosmic Christ. However, they shared many similarities of
thought on communism, anarchism, poverty, and the destructive nature of force.
Weil’s life was cut short at age thirty-four and only leaves us to wonder how
she would have faced the challenges of the second half of the twentieth
century. Day lived until the age of eighty-three and left a long legacy of
social justice organizing behind her. Both of these mystics worked diligently
to connect their thought to action–always placing the concerns of the least
among them at the center for consideration. Their lives illustrate how to live
in a way that is informed by paying attention to the other. In this regard they
stand as two genuine engaged thinkers who worked to combine the spiritual with
the social in ways that redefined our understanding of relationships and our
purpose in life.
Endnotes:
[i] Day, Dorothy. The Long Loneliness. Quoted from “The Catholic Worker: Intellectual and Spiritual Origins” P. 7
[ii] Day, Dorothy. From Union Square to Rome, p. 144-145. Quoted in “The Catholic Worker: Intellectual and Spiritual Origins” P. 10
[iii] Day, Dorothy. From Union Square to Rome, p. 155. Quoted in “The Catholic Worker: Intellectual and Spiritual Origins” P. 9
[iv] Weil, Simone. Letter to a Priest. (New York: Penguin, 2003) P. 29
[v] Weil,
Simone. Waiting for God. (New York:
Harper Collins, 2001) P. 26
[vi] ibid p. 26
[vii] ibid. p. 27
[viii] Weil, Simone. Letter to a Priest. (New York: Penguin, 2003) P. 11
[ix] Weil, Simone. Letter to a Priest. (New York: Penguin, 2003) P. 60
[x] Weil,
Simone. Ecrits. P. 276. Quoted in Simone
Weil: An Introduction. P. 103
[xi] Weil, Simone. Schwerkraft P. 27. Quoted in Simone Weil: An Introduction. P. 105
[xii] (http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2009/08/dorothy-day-on-anarchism.html)
[xiii] Weil, Simone. Waiting for God. (New York: Harper Collins, 2001) P. 34
[xiv] ibid p. 35
[xv] Weil, Simone. Oppression and Liberty. Routledge, Great Britain. 1958. P. 43
[xvi] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/day.html
[xvii] Day, Dorothy. The Mystery of the Poor. Retreived on Dec. 5th, from
http://www.cjd.org/paper/mystpoor.html
[xviii] Abosch,
Heinz. Simone Weil: An Introduction. P.
80
[xix] Weil, Simone. Ecrits. P. 315. Quoted in Simone Weil: An Introduction. P. 83
[xx] Weil,
Simone. Imitations of Christianity Among the Greeks. P. 24
Comments