Catechetical Essay on Centering Prayer

Part One

A. Introduction

This essay is a catechetical response to the debate about Centering Prayer that has taken place within some sectors of the Catholic Church, and to some extent in Protestant ecclesial communities. There is a debate as to whether Centering Prayer is orthodox Christian prayer or whether it is New Age or too heavily influenced by Buddhist forms of meditation. To examine this debate, it is necessary to ask the question of what distinguishes Christian prayer from other forms of prayer, and/or Christian meditation from other forms of meditation.

To examine this question, we would be remiss not to rely on the excellent document by then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) titled Some Aspects of Christian Meditation. Also, we will rely on some other guiding documents of the Church as well as Sacred Scripture.

B. Some Personal Background

I am in a unique position to respond to this controversy because of my history studying Indian philosophy, in particular Buddhism. Some may think this would make me more apt to tend toward a Buddhistic interpretation of Christian prayer. The opposite is actually true. Understanding the differences between Catholic and Buddhist philosophical positions is essential to responding to this question: what makes meditation Christian and not Buddhist or New Age? (and other related questions). Note: I made up the term Buddhistic to represent the primary Western approach to Buddhism, which tends to be New Age and relativistic. So, I call it Buddhistic rather than Buddhist.

My own preparation to respond to this question includes the study of Buddhist philosophy, ritual, and practice, in academic settings and traditional settings, in India and in the USA with Buddhist clergy. I have studied closely many of the texts that make up what followers of the Buddha call Dharma or teachings as an undergraduate and a graduate student. I have around 60 semester credits of undergraduate and graduate study in Buddhist philosophy, East Asian psychology and in the history of Indian philosophy. The high point of my academic study was a semester studying as a non-matriculated graduate student in a seminar with Dr. Collett Cox. Professor Cox is a scholar of Indian Buddhism, Pali, Sanskrit, Philosophy of Religion and Buddhist Studies. She has been involved now for many years in the study of a Gandharan Abhidharma Buddhist manuscript fragment as part of the Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project on Early Indian Buddhism at the University of Washington. This study helped me gain a more advanced understanding of the history of the contemporary Western appropriation of Indian Buddhism.

Another key aspect of my study included a semester of training at the Library of Tibetan Works Archives in Himachal Pradesh, India. Here I studied Tibetan language as well as some key Indo-Tibetan philosophical texts with Tibetan Geshes (clergy with more advanced philosophical training). This is where the Tibetan government has remained in exile since the 14th Dalai Lama fled the Chinese occupation of Tibet and military takeover of Lhasa. My experience also included the study and practice of Buddhist meditation in monastery and retreat settings. Many of these were extended (up to a month) and included the traditional disciplines of silence and fasting. This was prior to my conversion to the Catholic faith.

All along I participated in many Western Buddhist milieus which made me sensitive to the opinions, desires, and cultural experience of those who participate in them. Further, I know ethnic Japanese and Tibetan Buddhist clergy as well as Western Buddhist clergy personally. When you have a personal relationship with people it is much harder to stereotype them or prejudge them. Without a doubt some of the best and kindest men I have ever met were Tibetan Buddhist monks. I have profound respect for their dedication to the philosophical life and for their singular focus on growing in compassion and insight, even though I disagree with some essential Buddhist philosophical positions.

Having had studied Buddhism in such a close way has also given me insight into Western New Age or what I call Westerners who are Buddhistic – Westerners who see Buddhism as compatible with relativism, scientism and materialism, utilitarianism and gnosticism. It isn’t. Nor would traditional Buddhists have any respect for the abandonment of moral norms and basic moral commands such as the prohibition against adultery, intoxication, fornication, stealing, lying, and murder (including abortion). Yet it seems that most Westerners who would call themselves “Buddhist” are more accurately called New Age, or Buddhistic.

Buddhistic seekers use techniques for focusing the mind and the body seeking basic psychological health and transcendence from the stress and suffering of life. This is understandable, however what makes it gnostic is that it is often divorced from the demands of justice and the natural law. Put another way this is the tendency to seek to feel good apart from doing what is good. What also makes New Age harmful is when it lacks discernment in respect to spiritual realities and easily lapses into pre-Christian superstitions, power seeking and magic. In the New Age one is never far from turning the corner into myth and superstition. This will be addressed more when we focus on ways of teaching prayer that should give a Christian pause.

From the Western side of philosophy as an undergrad I studied Ancient Greek Philosophy as well as some contemporary philosophy. In addition to that I studied early Christian asceticism and monasticism. I went to a public Liberal Arts college in Olympia, WA, called The Evergreen State College. Evergreen is known for an alternative approach to education that favors choosing focus areas within Liberal Arts and approaching that study through seminar study. My focus areas were Philosophy, Psychology and Religion. It was at Evergreen where I first learned about the relationship between the eugenicist Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood as well as a philosophical conception of God that was reasonable, and I could assent to. This was an integral part of my own conversion to Catholicism. It should be noted that my Classics professor, Dr. Andrew Reece, whose Ancient Greek Philosophy seminars opened me up to the Western conception of God converted to Catholicism a year or two after I did.

After graduating with my BA and converting to the Catholic faith two years later I departed from academic religious studies and headed in the direction of Catholic theology, studying for a Master of Theological Studies degree from St. Meinrad School of Theology. After this I did the coursework for a Master of Arts in Philosophy from Gonzaga University. One of the most critical courses in this study was a seminar on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I am so grateful for this study. Important for this particular work was other graduate courses in the Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Mysticism, and Christian Metaphysics. I am very grateful for the gift of being able to study with the scholar of Albertus Magnus (St. Albert the Great) and River Forest Thomist, Dr. Michael Tkacz. His approach to philosophy, more generally Aristotelian Thomist, is the philosophical orientation that I aspire to, even if I don’t know it near as well as Thomists like Dr. Tkacz.

Also, since becoming Catholic I have worked in catechesis in one capacity or another and now have a role in catechesis in the Diocesan offices of the Diocese of Baton Rouge (I have moved on from this role as of 1/1/2021 to work for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul). I am dedicated to passing on the Catholic faith in a way that has integrity and that is guided by obedience to the gift of faith that I received from the Church. As a catechist I seek to pass on my love of the faith, my desire to know Jesus more intimately, and my gratitude for being Catholic. Being baptized, confirmed, and receiving my first Holy Communion as a young adult was the culmination of an intense period of seeking truth. The truth found me and the new life I received is greater than anything I could have ever desired for myself.

Due to my own personal history and conversion to the Catholic faith via the study of Indian Philosophy I possess a unique perspective to address the controversy around Centering Prayer. I seek to do it in a way that will hopefully make a substantive contribution to this debate and provide a reference point for those seeking one. I could see this being useful for those catechists and clergy in parish work, who are called to teach prayer but sometimes lack a systematic understanding of what makes meditation and prayer Christian. I could also see it being useful for those who want to be better prepared to evangelize and catechize educated Westerners who have been influenced by the increasingly Buddhistic milieu of secular Western culture. Most importantly purpose of this catechetical essay is to help those who serve the Church recognize what makes meditation and prayer New Age and the fundamental similarities and differences between it and Christian meditation and prayer. The answers to these questions will come later in this essay. This catechesis is meant to be synthetic, not syncretic, it is meant to add perspective to this debate from the perspective of communion with the Catholic Church in faith and morals.

C. Context

It has disappointed me to see from the Catholic side, especially from what I would call devotional Catholics, the caricatures and misunderstanding of Eastern meditation and the fear around meditation as such, especially since meditation is a Western, Latin term, not a Buddhist one. I will address some of these caricatures so that we can gain a deeper understanding of the essential differences between Buddhist, New Age and Christian meditation. I have been less surprised to see misguided Western appropriation of Buddhistic methods of meditation. Like their approach to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic faith these seekers take a cafeteria approach to the East, even a materialistic approach.

At the same time we must reverently recognize that all seekers are made by the Creator for divine communion, that their desire for transcendence comes from God. So, I will always seek to respect this movement toward transcendence and not lapse into irreverence or an attitude that undermines human dignity. We should praise the Creator for the desire to transcend the merely material – he gave us this desire! As a catechist my aim is to help orient this movement toward its fulfillment in Christ through His mystical body. Without a doubt the majority of these particular seekers lack study and training in the depth and breadth of Christian meditation and prayer and are seeking an experience of the Absolute Reality, of the Holy, of God, in a culture that is materialistic and reductionistic.

It is probably safe to say at this point that a significant number of contemporary Westerners are agnostic and practically atheistic, even if they have some sort of Christian affiliation and go to Church on Sunday. This means by-and-large people lack the resources to discern proposals for meditation and prayer and lack criteria by which to judge and approach them to know if it will help them grow in the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), or undermine them. This response will seek a remedy to that. In the next section in this catechetical response to the controversy over Centering Prayer there will be an examination over the question of the necessity of prayer for disciples of Christ.

Part Two

A. Universal Sense of Prayer

In the previous chapter, I said that I would next lead into a Christian sense of prayer and its intrinsic role in the salvation and sanctification of the human person. However, I sensed that first we needed to establish what prayer is in the most universal sense in various cultures, which I do in this section, and then distinguish prayer from meditation, which will be in the next section.

Prayer is intentional communication with God (or gods). It can be spoken, written, or communicated through affections, sighs, groaning, prostrations, attitudes, dispositions, and by other interior and exterior ways of intentionally communicating with God. The essence of it though is threefold:

It is intentional
It is communication
Its object is God (or gods).

If a human act contains these three features, then it is prayer even if God is poorly or incompletely perceived as an impersonal divine reality, as gods, or even as heavenly ancestors. This would be prayer wanting of completion in the gift of Christian faith, but nevertheless prayer. Prayer is a universal human act and not limited to Christians because it is part of the nature of every human being to have the desire and capacity to communicate with his Creator, even when this capacity is wounded by sin and alienation. That is why it is important to examine prayer at a universal level so that Christian prayer can be better illuminated.

In a weekly Catechesis that began in 2011 on the topic of prayer Benedict XVI wrote that prayer in ancient cultures were oriented toward a transcendent source, Another. He mentions a story from ancient Egypt where a blind man asks the divinity to restore his sight praying, “My heart longs to see you… You who made me see the darkness, create light for me, so that I may see you! Bend your beloved face over me”.¹ The former Pontiff remarks, “That I may see you; this is the essence of prayer!” There is here truly a sense of an ultimate presence and source of goodness that the blind man desires to be touched by – to see with the heart.

A traditional Tibetan Buddhist prayer that celebrates the birth of the great Indian Buddhist philosopher and founder of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava, and invokes his intercession reads, “You are renowned as the “Lotus-born”, Surrounded by many hosts of ḍākinīs. Following in your footsteps, I pray to you: Come, inspire me with your blessing!” To Tibetans, Padmasambhava is considered a second buddha (awakened one) in his own right and in that sense he (similar to a priest) mediates the divine reality to those seeking to awaken to it. Thus, the invocation seeking his blessing. It is not wrong, nor lacking in virtue for the pre-Christian to seek transcendent truth and in fact those who commit their lives to it have a type of piety. Yet, it wouldn’t be right to call this prayer Christian, it rather speaks of prayer as a universal human phenomenom.

A New Age prayer from a the website of a self-proclaimed “spiritual teacher” named David Cunliffe reads, “I cleanse myself of all selfishness, resentment, critical feelings for my fellow beings, self-condemnation, and misinterpretation of my life experiences. I bathe myself in generosity, appreciation praise and gratitude for my fellow beings, self acceptance, and enlightened understanding of my life experiences.” These aren’t bad desires at all, in fact these are good things to wish and pray for, yet, it wouldn’t be right to call this prayer Christian. What is missing?

Here it should also be noted that there are many prayers and invocations that are intentionally and directly opposed to Christ, prayers that invoke the power of Satan, prayers that are meant to harm others, prayers that are meant to manipulate, and undermine what is true, and holy, and good. Obviously, nobody would claim that such prayers are Christian.

Yet still we see that the human heart is made to be oriented toward a source that is more powerful than it – because there are powers greater than it, and most importantly one that is all-powerful, i.e., not bereft of any possible power – God. So, whether it is the prayer of pious pre-Christian peoples, or the prayer of fallen away Christians who know nothing more than human-centered new age prayers, there is still prayer. It happens in the person and is oriented toward, as Benedict XVI mentioned, Another, even if this Other is conceived in a more rudimentary way as in principles or virtues – such as in atheism. But Christian Prayer is not distinguished by the fact that a person is doing it, or that the person doing it may have means of a remote and proximate preparation, or that it is in relationship to Another – what makes it different, again, is its Object.

Christians believe that, “The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for.”² And we recognize that this desire is expressed by man universally, irrespective of culture and epoch, it is intrinsic to human nature because the Creator freely made the human person for loving communion with Him. In his own words Benedict XVI remarked, in “prayer of different epochs and civilizations emerge the human being’s awareness of his creatural condition and of his dependence on Another superior to him, the source of every good. The human being of all times prays because he cannot fail to wonder about the meaning of his life, which remains obscure and discomforting if it is not put in relationship to the mystery of God and his plan for the world.”³ In the pagan cultures we see invocations that await a complete response, at times in need of purification of harmful notions of the transcendent reality of the true God. But we truly do see the orientation of cultures to a divine source and cosmic plan that transcends the world as we know it, again, even when it is still shrouded in myth and superstition.

Even in contemporary atheism there are self-contradicting references to principles such as justice and truth which implicitly invoke an eternal source (otherwise they are rendered meaningless). One atheist author invokes the holy trinity of science: reason, experimentation, and observation as the one and true saving power. While it is not difficult to feign atheism it is much harder if not impossible to follow it through to its consequences – because the human being always exists in relationship to principles, forces, and wisdom that transcends him. He cannot, in the end, remove his own reality, which always is a mystery that transcends him. Does the atheist pray too, then? Certainly not Christian prayer, but if worship is a way of prayer then the atheist often prays (worships – offers to) an idol of science or of human reason. Such principles for the atheist have soteriological value, i.e. they have the power to liberate man in an ultimate way.

So, we can say prayer understood as petition, invocation, praise, worship, repentance, adoration, and thanksgiving is something so central to human experience that there is no human heart that doesn’t pray in one way or another. We see here that the question of prayer is not at issue here: the question becomes what the object of prayer is. Again, what is Christian prayer?

All cultures have ritual, all have techniques of meditation and prayer, all burn stuff that is fragrant (incense) as some type of offering, there are postures, clergy, places of worship, etc.. Even the contemporary atheists have their Sunday Assembly. What is different is not in what man does so much as how the object of worship, of meditation, and of prayer is known and then responded to. This is a hint to remember later in this essay that we are wrong if we emphasize a criticism against a type of prayer or meditation because it uses a method. This misses the point.

It is the object of Christian prayer and what that object asks of the human person that distinguishes it from non-Christian prayer. Before we visit directly the object of Christian prayer and its necessity for salvation, we need to take a moment distinguishing between two terms that are commonly confused, by ordinary Christians as much as by non-Christians. We need to distinguish meditation from prayer and examine the contemporary usage of the term meditation.

Part Three

A. Introduction

Reflecting on the biblical words that are translated as meditate is helpful because it reveals a few different things: 1) That meditation is intrinsic to Christian discipleship and is rooted in Jewish tradition (not Buddhist or New Age.) 2) That the various meanings of the biblical words that are translated as meditate help us to better understand what meditation actually is. 3) In gaining a better understanding of what meditation is we see its relationship to prayer.

First of all, it should be pointed out that meditate is an English translation of a Latin term: meditatio.

Often times Latin dictionaries define meditatio as meditation, which for our purposes doesn’t get us anywhere because we have already established that it is the Latin word that meditation comes from. That doesn’t tell us what it means. Sometimes it is also defined as a lesser form of contemplation. That is not a whole lot of help either because there are various definitions to the word contemplation and it is beyond the scope of this present essay to define contemplation. Even in Catholic tradition contemplation is used in very different ways by St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. John of the Cross. Another definition that is often given is to think about something. But if meditating is nothing more than to think about something then it renders it too imprecise to be of any real use as a term. We are all always constantly thinking about things but thinking and meditating have distinct definitions. If meditating is merely thinking, then who needs to meditate? (As it would already be happening without any effort or intention on our part due to the fact that we are constantly thinking).

So, it isn’t enough to consult the meaning of the Latin term meditatio, we need to look at some biblical terms that it is used to translate. But first we have to address its contemporary uses in respect to Buddhist and New Age practices to help us understand some contemporary non-Christian applications of the term.

B. The use of the term in reference to Buddhist and New Age practices

Meditation is not a “Buddhist” term. The term meditation as such (being an English word) is not to be found in any ancient Buddhist text. Similar to the exercise of us looking at the many biblical words that meditate is used to translate we would need to do the same thing with Pali, Sanskrit or Tibetan texts. However, it should be noted that meditate is only used in a general and popular way primarily by non- specialists in reference to Buddhist practices. Practitioners of Buddhism or specialists are going to use the specific transliterations such as vipaśyanā, smṛti, śamatha, maitrī, or gtong len, etc.. The term meditation could only in an imprecise way be used to translate these terms – which are inseparable from the philosophical aims of Buddhist teaching. Some of the Buddhist terms generally referred to as meditation more closely approximate what we would call focusing attention, or interior recollection or mindfulness, but other terms can’t be understood apart from Buddhist cosmology and doctrine as they have a specific soteriological function based on these beliefs. Perhaps the Buddhist term that is closest in meaning to the western term meditation is bhāvana, which means an interior practice.

It should also be noted that nowhere in Buddhist practice can meditation be reduced to merely “emptying the mind” or “not thinking”. These are caricatures based on ignorance of the traditions. One of them is based on conflating the Mahayana doctrine of Śūnyatā with the practice of directing the mind to the object of meditation. Śūnyatā is a philosophical position that rejects the existence of an eternal absolute (namely God and souls).

Meditation on emptiness for a Mahayana Buddhist then is the practice of applying focus to an analysis of reality aimed at deeper insight into this claim. In respect to the claim that meditation in the East is about “not thinking” this is even further from the truth. As a mental discipline it seems universally the foundation of meditation is focusing the mind upon an object, never merely “not thinking” (It is true that there is also so called “object-less” meditation in Buddhism, or non-dual meditation, but really the object here is awareness as such, rather than an object of awareness).

Whether in Asian Buddhism or in the Christian religion meditation is a practice that involves intentionality and focus on a higher or transcendent reality, a deeper truth, or experience of being. This isn’t what makes Christian meditation distinct from Buddhist meditation, nor is the fact that both tend to direct the mind from its default and often constant state of thought-fantasy that keeps us from focusing on what is perceived as most essential (to Christians – God and His Kingdom).

Meditation, universally, requires focus and attention. Buddhist forms of meditation cultivate this, which is a virtue because it actualizes an important human capacity. When we try to apply the mind to anything important, it probably isn’t the best time to be doing our laundry list, fantasizing about our future, brooding over the past, or worrying about whether we will get the promotion. A rejection of Christian forms of meditation based on a notion that they are cloaked forms of Eastern practices of creating a void in oneself or not thinking are simply not credible and based in ignorance of these cultural traditions. Sadly, many faithful and otherwise skilled Catholic catechists (clerical and lay) resort to such faulty arguments.

As Christians we reject Buddhist meditation, again, not because it uses activities of focus or recollection and develops these human capacities in an admirable way but because we believe it aim is based in a mistaken view of reality – namely that there is no Creator, that God doesn’t exist, that the World is an illusion, that there is no such thing as a human person (no self), reincarnation, and that we are bound to the law of karma (rather than merciful love). The purpose of Buddhist meditation is to escape human being, rather than receive it as a gift. This is far afield from the Gospel.

So, meditation is not a Buddhist practice or method as such, it is a Western term sometimes imprecisely applied to what we think Buddhists, particularly monks, are doing. To discern whether a meditation practice is Buddhist or not, we must ask, what is the goal? What is its object? It is there that we can test whether it will undermine Christian faith, or even be inimical to it.

Meditation as a term is also used in respect to New Age practices. Because of this both Catholics and Protestants are at times suspect of any reference to meditation. Often it is caricatured as opening a channel to the demonic or at best as a type of navel gazing. Meditation, misguided and wrongly conceived, could be either of these things, and it may often be in New Age and in the neo-pagan revival. But, that is not what Christian meditation is, indeed the aim of Christian meditation is to overcome such influences.

The fact that the term meditation is applied to practices that aren’t Christian doesn’t justify the claim that there is no legitimate place for Christian meditation. It just means that Christian meditation is distinct, different, than these other forms, not so much in its methods or techniques on the natural level, but in its aim, its object.

We can trust that meditation is rooted in the life of Christ and apostolic tradition because of the many ways the term shows up in translations of Sacred Scripture (especially the Psalms, King David was the quintessential meditator!) So, we will now turn to a brief examination of the term meditate to see how it is used in Sacred Scripture.

C. Meditation in Sacred Scripture

First of all, it may be obvious but the English translation of the Bible I use is the Catholic version. Briefly I will say it is because the Catholic Bible recognizes the books of the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of the Old Testament as canonical. The overwhelming majority of references to the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, including a reference Jesus made to the Septuagint version of Isaiah. Luther’s reasons for discarding seven books of the Old Testament simply aren’t credible.

In the New American Bible Revised Edition the term meditate shows up 10 times. In the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition it shows up 27 times. In the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition it shows up 26 times. And in the Douay-Rheims Bible the term meditate shows up 40 times.

הגה: hâgâh

This Hebrew term that means to coo, groan, mutter, read out loud softly; to speak, and proclaim, is translated as meditate 5 times in the Old Testament (NRSVCE). An example of it is, “This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth; you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to act in accordance with all that is written in it. For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful” (Jos 1:8). Or we see it in the Psalms, “but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night” (Ps 1:2). Another Psalm reads, “I will meditate on all your work, and muse on your mighty deeds” (Ps 77:12). Looking at this term it is likely that when הגה is translated as meditate that we should view this way of meditation to include vocalization. Whether the law was actually being read or being recited from memory (it was more likely from memory) its purpose was to speak it in such a way that it was re-membered and interiorized. It was a slow way of speaking out the text where hearing it would reinforce the meaning and deepen understanding.

שׂיח: śı̂yach

This Hebrew term is also translated in the psalms as meditate and can have a range of meanings including to speak enthusiastically, praise, lament, taunt, mock, instruct, teach, to meditate with thanks and praise. An example is, “I think of God, and I moan; I meditate, and my spirit faints” (Ps 77:3). While it is not exactly clear which meaning is closest here by the context it seems more likely that this is an experience in relationship to God where lament is present. He is being focused on, and thought of, but it is brining up some pain, some lament, the Psalmist’s spirit faints.

A slightly different usage is found here, “On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate” (Ps 145:5). This usage of meditate seems to fit better with the notion of praise and it could also include the meaning to speak of the glorious splendor and majesty of God. Again, God is being thought of, dwelt upon, and in doing that it brings about an awareness that leads to praise or thanksgiving.

שִׂיחָה: sēkhä’

This Hebrew term that is translated as meditate shows up in one of my favorite Psalms: 119. “Oh, how I love your law! It is my meditation all day long” (Ps 119:97). And, “I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your decrees are my meditation” (Ps 119:99). This term really captures meditation as something that happens in the heart and leads to both love and understanding of God and the divine law. It brings up a notion of a time of thoughtful reflection upon the Word of God that leads to wisdom.

Interestingly, the English term meditate is used much less in New Testament translations than in Old Testament translation. The Douay-Rheims perhaps uses it most and employs usages of it that are closer perhaps to the broader range of original meanings – here connected with communication: “Who, by the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, hast said: Why did the Gentiles rage: and the people meditate vain things” (Acts 4:25).

Having established a sense of meditation in Sacred Scripture it is necessary to mention that the term meditatio didn’t really take on a more precise definition in the context of Christian discipleship until later centuries, particularly in the context of Christian asceticism and monasticism.

While there are some different usages of the term, I think the best way to understand meditation is looking at it in the context of lectio divina. But we must understand that when we do it this way it is not meant to exclude the fact that most meditation until books were readily available and literacy was high was done orally, and vocally, by memory. Singing and chanting, vocalizing, has always been central to meditation. Taking that into consideration and looking at the stages of lectio divina below the stage of reading could just as easily be replace with hearing, because reading is a type of hearing of the Word of God. It could also be envisioned as reading out loud. Here are the traditional stages:

Lectio – Reading
Meditatio – Meditation
Oratio – Prayer
Contemplatio – Contemplation

Rather than go through an exhaustive explanation of the stages of lectio divina at this point it is enough to recognize that meditation is situated somewhere between reading (or hearing) and prayer (intentional communication with God).

Meditation is preparatory to prayer but is in a way essential to it because it helps one to interiorize and understand the Word of God and in that sense through it inspiration to pray takes place. It is always meant to lead to prayer, to God, and isn’t an end to itself. It also isn’t merely reading, hearing, or just thinking about something. It goes deeper than that and requires intentionality, focus, and recollection. It asks of discipline, without which the mind and heart strays to Worldly clamors, and temptations. Its foundation is grace, but it doesn’t happen without effort. That is why so many of the ancients and the saints speak of how essential silence, stillness, and solitude are for prayer, because those settings are conducive to the type of meditation that would lead to authentic Christian prayer – Trinitarian prayer.

Meditation requires mortification (death to the World, the flesh, and the devil) and asceticism (spiritual exercise), its foundation is repentance and it is oriented to faith (repent and believe). Yet, it is lower than prayer, it is true that prayer is objectively higher because prayer is a more direct communication with God. We do have to be careful in making too firm a distinction between the two, though, while recognizing the distinction is useful and necessary. In practice, in experience, one is always leading to the other, one deepens the other and the lines between them aren’t as clear. But the distinction remains important.

We typically begin prayer through listening to the Word preached or by reading, we then bring it into our hearts, we probe it, we chew on it, we digest it – this is meditation. We apply our mind to it; we bring our entire person before the truth that we recognize and submit ourselves to it. It leads naturally to praise, petition, thanksgiving, repentance, adoration, etc. So, meditation is the intermediate stage between hearing the Word of God and prayer, it can help us grow in wisdom, understanding, familiarity with Jesus, and in virtue. Most importantly through meditation we often receive a deepening of the theological virtues of faith, hope and love – how can we not when in contact with the Word of God?

We haven’t yet defined Christian prayer as such or examined its necessity for salvation. That will be next. Then, having taken into consideration everything that has been introduced, we will examine a definition of Centering Prayer to ask the question of whether or not it is Christian prayer in the way it is defined. We will answer that question by asking whether it meets some criteria that we have established. Note: we are not asking the question of whether it is meditation, or whether it is prayer, but if and in what way it is Christian prayer, and if in any way (as defined here) it falls short of Christian prayer. This isn’t meant to be an attack on people who practice Centering Prayer, but rather a catechetical effort to help people who might practice Centering Prayer orient more completely to the Church’s own understanding of Christian prayer so that it achieves what the end of prayer begs of: completion in Christ through communion with Him.

Part Four

A Definition of Christian Prayer

A. Introduction

In Part One of this essay on a response to the controversy around Centering Prayer I briefly introduced the topic. I also introduced my background in the study of Indian Buddhist philosophy, as well as the History of Western Philosophy, and Catholic theology. In Part Two I introduced a universal sense of prayer and some examples of non-Christian prayer. I defined prayer universally as possessing 3 aspects: 1) It is intentional 2) It is communication 3) Its object is God (or gods). In Part 3, I examined the term meditation in non-Christian contexts and in the biblical context.

Importantly, as a foundation for this section on Christian prayer, we were introduced to some distinct features of Christian meditation and saw that meditation on the Word of God is intrinsic to the life of a believer. Those who think meditation is foreign to biblical faith may want to read that section.

B. A Definition of Christian Prayer

In Part Three I introduced the notion that meditation tends to be preliminary to prayer as such. I used the example of Divine Reading or Lectio Divina to illustrate this. To recall what was written earlier, the stages of Lectio Divina are lectio, meditatio, oratio, and contemplatio or reading, meditation, prayer, and contemplation. Each stage or phase changes in ways that are distinct enough to distinguish one from the other. In lectio, or reading, the action of man is primary. In contemplatio the action of God is primary. Meditatio moves from reading to interiorizing a deeper understanding of what is read. This deeper understanding, because it is of the Word of God, leads into a more direct relationship with God as revealed in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. Through the gift of faith God is seen as one who answers the petition of the poor, who is just and demands repentance for sin, but is merciful and receives repentance with purifying love. Prayer that may begin in repentance and prayer, may end in praise, in adoration, in acts of love. Acts of love may begin to be experienced as a love that is not borne of man but instead the love of the Creator, the gift of love being received in the heart can lead to contemplation or at least a deeper and affectual experience of prayer.

Now it is true, sometimes in the Catholic tradition, mental or interior prayer and meditation are used synonymously. This is not the definition of meditation I am using in this essay, as mental prayer is properly Christian prayer and meditation may have elements of Christian prayer but doesn’t necessarily (especially if not focused on Divine Revelation). One could meditate on anything, or use a meditation method for various reasons and needs, many that are natural, rather than supernatural. And mental prayer, or interior prayer, is something ordinarily seen as higher former prayer, which is by virtue of it being Christian prayer by definition supernatural.

So we have begun to recognize an important distinction between prayer and meditation. Meditation can be focused on things that aren’t divine (i.e. that are natural). But prayer, even in pagan cultures is always focused on figures who at least reflect divine powers (gods). In the Christian tradition prayer is always focused on God the Holy Trinity as revealed in the Paschal Mystery.

Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) wrote,

The Bible itself teaches how the man who welcomes biblical revelation should pray… In biblical revelation Israel came to acknowledge and praise God present in all creation and in the destiny of every man. Thus he is involved, for example, as rescuer in time of danger, in sickness, in persecution, in tribulation. Finally and always in the light of his salvific works, He is exalted in his divine power and goodness, in his justice and mercy, in his royal grandeur.

Thanks to the words, deeds, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the New Testament the Faith acknowledges in Him the definitive self-revelation of God, the Incarnate Word who reveals the most intimate depth of his love. It is the Holy Spirit, he who was sent into the hearts of the faithful, he who “searches everything, even the depths of God”, who makes it possible to enter in these divine depths.¹

As then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote, for Christians, the Bible itself teaches us how to pray. In the Holy Scriptures we encounter a people in a unique relationship with the Creator. This relationship isn’t impersonal, instead it is deeply personal, both on the side of man and of God. It demands of man fidelity to the Creator and it expects from God ultimately what God is – Wisdom, Goodness, Power, Presence, Enduring Love, Justice and Purpose.

In the New Testament we encounter those who experienced Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. We encounter a people who acknowledge Him as the definitive self-revelation of God. God communicates Himself completely in the Person of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is given as a gift to the faithful that they may evermore deeply participate in their salvation and sanctification in Christ, and as we have read above, enter into these divine depths.

Christian prayer is thus the prayer of a people who by the gift and act of faith recognize themselves as called from eternity to salvation in Jesus Christ. This call comes through the mystical body of Christ, the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church and thus is born of communion with Christ through His mystical body the Church. Christian prayer is always an ecclesial act and never merely an individual act. It makes no sense for a Christian to view himself or herself as separate in faith from the saving faith of which the Church herself is steward and dispenser. Christian prayer is rooted in Sacred Scripture and looks to the Word of God as the unique and inspired revelation of Divine Truth and it interprets this Truth as one body.

It also, importantly, leads to and deepens participation in the Sacred Liturgy (Divine Worship) and the most sacred Christian Mysteries (the Sacraments). It demands conformity to Christ in spirit and truth – that means it makes no sense to speak of a Christian prayer that is separate from the demands of the moral law, the spirit of the beatitudes and the greatest commandment. Christian prayer shares in a larger unity that is borne of apostolic faith, liturgy and sacrament, and moral life.

To speak as if there is something called Christian prayer apart from this unity is to misunderstand the nature of Christian prayer as such. Protestant Christian prayer, for instance, tends toward towards disunity because of an individualistic sense of prayer. This causes the proliferation of communities and “denominations” because of the notion that Christian prayer can happen apart from the unity of the mystical body of Christ. This mistaken notion of Christian prayer sees it as primarily an individual act rather than an ecclesial one. Indeed seeds of the Protestant rejection of Catholic unity can be found in notions of mysticism and prayer that saw ecclesial unity as tangential to union with God. Today we have a term for this perspective taken to its extreme: spiritual but not religious.

Some may read this as if I am saying that Protestant prayer is not Christian. It is not my intention to leave that impression. I recognize that many Protestant Christians have faith in Christ. Many, indeed, have died with Christ and been born anew in baptism. I also have witnessed how devoted so many Protestants are to prayer rooted in the study of the Word of God. I also realize that many Protestants, like many Catholics, are Protestant for accidental reasons rather than intentional decisions for or against Christian unity. And indeed, many Protestant Christians are devoted to work toward unity with the Holy Catholic Church. By the grace of God and the devotion of many there have been major advances in this unity.

The point is that by its very nature an approach to Christian prayer which tends towards individual interpretation over the corporate faith of the Church leads towards the proliferation of individual communities that are not in communion with one another and do not share communion with the Holy Catholic Church.

From the perspective of the Catholic faith, participation in Divine Worship through the Sacred Liturgy and reception of Holy Communion (the Body and Blood of Christ) is an essential sign and agent of Christian unity. To break this communion and go one’s own way, or to partake in this communion without actually possessing it is to define Christian prayer individualistically and apart from the mystical body of Christ. This ultimately creates a personal and individualistic spirituality (gnosticism) that increasingly isolates human persons from the saving mystical body in communion with Christ its Head. Thus Christian prayer cannot be separated from ecclesial communion without ceasing at some point to no longer be Christian. The further the prayer is from communion in faith and morals with the Catholic faith, the less truly Christian it could claim to be.

To recall, earlier in this essay I said that what distinguishes Christian meditation and prayer from other forms isn’t so much that it may use methods, such as breathing, focusing attention, repeating phrases (e.g. Rosary), silence, solitude, fasting, vigils, prostrations, postures, etc., but that what distinguishes it is its object. A closer look at the object of Christian prayer reveals how distinct it is from any other type of prayer. The object of Christian prayer can most properly be said to be the prayer-sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Lord. In fact, Christian prayer at its most fundamental level is the prayer-sacrifice of Christ the High Priest. This is why it can be truly said that the source and summit of Christian prayer is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Christian faith is faith in the redemptive sacrifice of the High Priest Jesus Christ. Thus the foundation of Christian prayer is not a method or act of the disciple, first, but faith in the loving-sacrifice of the Son of God (a faith that is always both personal and ecclesial).

Thus Christian prayer is dependent upon the gifts and acts of Christian faith, hope, and love. It is most fundamentally dependent not on man but on God, the act of God is prior and more fundamental than what man does in Christian prayer. That is why Eucharistic Worship is so intrinsic to Christian prayer because it is in Eucharistic worship where the one sacrifice of Christ is made sacramentally present and substantially communicated to those who partake of Him. It is through Eucharistic worship that Christian prayer is truly Trinitarian because it is united by the Holy Spirit to the perfect sacrifice of Christ to the Father for the redemption of man. Christ is the mediator in Christian prayer, rather than man.

Christian prayer, as mentioned above, also cannot be separated from what is true, good, and holy. Any notion of Christian prayer that seeks to accommodate and/or promote practices that deviate from the ascetical and moral demand of Christian discipleship must be rejected. In the early Church the process of purification and moral reform required to become Christian was quite lengthy. It demanded conformity to a new way of life, life in Christ, as a disciple. While this process of initiation may not be as explicit as it used to be, it is still implied by the content of the faith and preserved in the Holy Scriptures and Magisterial teaching of the Church.

For instance, it is not possible to pray as a Christian while practicing and promoting adultery (Sixth Commandment). This would be the prayer of a Christian who at least temporarily had rejected Christ. Truly a disciple of Jesus is on a path to live completely free of even the smallest movement of lust in the heart! Now it is true a Christian because of moral weakness and attachment to vice may lapse into the sin of fornication or adultery. Yet he knows it is a sin, that it is contrary to the Divine Will and repents of it rather than promote it as a good.

Similarly, a person could not claim to pray as a Christian while believing that it is okay to commit homicide of the most vulnerable among us, whether in abortion, for scientific experimentation, or euthanasia (Fifth Commandment). Further, one does not pray as a Christian who simultaneously promotes false gods or a relativism in respect to worship of the one true God (First Commandment).

A man who believes it is okay to steal and promote criminal and immoral business practices would not pray as a Christian if he did not repent of his crimes and see his sin as an offense to the Divine Law and worthy of punishment by the Creator. We live in an age where people who self-identify as Catholics, often politicians, publicly support positions that support intrinsic evils such as same-sex acts and calling a union based in a homosexual relationship marriage. Some of these same politicians support laws that allow the proliferation of pornography and contribute to sex trafficking. This makes a mockery of Christian prayer and worship, as if it were completely separate from the demands of justice and charity.

Again, Christian prayer makes demands upon a person to be obedient to the Divine Law as communicated by the mystical body of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church. It is meant to lead to ever deeper conversion, to a true turning away from sin as understood and defined by the Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. It casts off the old self and seeks to live anew in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, Christian prayer is intrinsically linked to the moral demands of life in Christ.

The prayer of the Publican exemplifies Christian prayer (Lk 18:9-14). The prayer of the Publican is not the prayer of a righteous man, no, but it is the prayer of a man who is willing to admit his sin before God and petition Him for mercy. Thus Christian prayer is linked to humility. This isn’t a false humility that excuses or explains away one’s own sins but instead a humility that reveals the most shameful aspects of one’s life and repents of them.

Returning to the words of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,

The seeking of God through prayer has to be preceded and accompanied by an ascetical struggle and a purification from one’s own sins and errors, since Jesus has said that only “the pure of heart shall see God” (Mt 5:8). The Gospel aims above all at a moral purification from the lack of truth and love and, on a deeper level, from all the selfish instincts which impede man from recognizing and accepting the Will of God in its purity.²

In Christian prayer the disciple is always still a creature, totally dependent upon the mercy and wisdom of God. While a true closeness and intimacy with God can develop in Christian prayer there is always an immeasurable difference between man and God, because man is a creature. And in this life he is a creature that will always to a greater or lesser degree be inclined to the three-fold concupiscence – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (1 Jn 2:16). That doesn’t mean that prayer always has to be prayer of repentance or penitential, there are many forms of prayer (petition, praise and adoration, thanksgiving, Ignatian contemplation, etc.). However, the disciple of Christ never graduates in this life to a place where repentance is no longer necessary.

To summarize what was introduced in this section defining Christian prayer we can say that Christian prayer is prayer that is inseparable from Catholic faith, Divine Worship and Sacrament, and Life in Christ. To speak of a Christian prayer that can be separated from ecclesial faith or from magisterial teachings on the Divine Law, or the need for every disciple for deeper conversion, is to adopt an understanding of prayer that works against Catholic unity and leads to isolation from the mystical body of Christ.

In the next section we will glean from this section to develop a way to judge a proposal for prayer to make a judgment about whether it is Christian or not. And then we will apply that criteria to the definition of Centering Prayer we are using.

Part Five

Criteria for Making a Judgement About Whether a Particular Way of Praying is Christian

Let’s briefly recap our extended discourse on Christian prayer by first noting 7 things that Christian prayer isn’t:

A psychological technique to manipulate consciousness – even if directing consciousness and attention is an important component of prayer.
Babbling empty words, mindlessly reciting formulas, or superstitiously collecting behaviors to win God’s favor.
A way of treating the Creator as a tool, or an instrument for our worldly desires – see prosperity Gospel.
A means of achieving our political desires.
It isn’t individualistic and purely dependent upon subjective notions of God – though there is a subjective dimension.
It can’t be reduced to a posture, a method of recollection, or a facade of holiness (i.e. looking prayerful in front of others).
A way of avoiding the demands of justice, the moral law, and charity.
It is not a means of primarily sensible consolation, even if sensible consolation takes place.

And now the 7 necessary criteria for Christian Prayer:

It is an act of communion with Jesus Christ. Christ is the way, truth, and life of Christian prayer. By being Christocentric it is also, Trinitarian, Communion with Christ is communion with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It is an act of communion with the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.
It is is primarily dependent upon Christian faith, hope, and love, rather than a method. (This is the case even when methods are used such as Rosary, Lectio, or merely focusing on a holy word or phrase such as in a centering prayer. And use of method in Christian Prayer is always subordinated to and dependent upon Christian faith, hope, and love).
It demands conformity to the demands of justice, the moral law, and charity.
It is sacrificial and leads to Divine Worship, its highest moment being the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
It looks to the Word of God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the means of salvation and sanctification.
It is always penitential, i.e. it leads to metanoia or conversion, and seeks all the ordinary means of reconciliation with the Father that are provided by the Divine Economy.

Any proposal for prayer (or meditation for that matter) that doesn’t meet the criteria above is not fully Christian prayer as understood by the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic, Church.

Determining if prayer proposals are New Age, Buddhistic, or even Protestant, depends upon analyzing whether these criteria are present or not. If they are not present it presents an opportunity for evangelization and catechesis. If they are present, rejoice! This is Christian prayer.

As Christians we possess a gift that we received from the Mystical Body of Christ: faith. We received faith through hearing and this faith leads to the saving confession that Jesus is Lord. We believe in the heart and confess with the mouth a faith that is ecclesial and always animated by the principle of communion even though prayer takes place in a human subject.

A further way to test our prayer, as a means of self-examination is to ask: is my present way of praying leading to deeper Christian faith, hope, and love? Does it seek to deepen these gifts? Is it leading me to a more faithful observation of the commandments, and the greatest commandment, or less?

In this way we can make a judgement about whether in our own practice, or in the way we teach prayer, something is missing. Because of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, it can easily happen that our practice of prayer backslides in this way. We can easily become reliant on things that are either accidental to Christian prayer, or things that must be subordinated to the theological virtues.

Perhaps this is where much of the concern has been place over certain Centering Prayer proposals. There is a concern that ecclesial faith, hope, and love have become subordinated to method or technique, which we know in the end is another form of idolatry and leads away from true worship.

In the next section of this essay we will see if the definition of Centering Prayer given on the Contemplative Outreach website meets these criteria.

Part Six

An Analysis of a Definition of Centering Prayer

A. Definition

Here I will insert the definition of prayer given on the Contemplative Outreach website on Centering Prayer:

Centering Prayer is a method of silent prayer that prepares us to receive the gift of contemplative prayer, prayer in which we experience God’s presence within us, closer than breathing, closer than thinking, closer than consciousness itself. This method of prayer is both a relationship with God and a discipline to foster that relationship.

Centering Prayer is not meant to replace other kinds of prayer. Rather, it adds depth of meaning to all prayer and facilitates the movement from more active modes of prayer — verbal, mental or affective prayer — into a receptive prayer of resting in God. Centering Prayer emphasizes prayer as a personal relationship with God and as a movement beyond conversation with Christ to communion with Him.

The source of Centering Prayer, as in all methods leading to contemplative prayer, is the Indwelling Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The focus of Centering Prayer is the deepening of our relationship with the living Christ. The effects of Centering Prayer are ecclesial, as the prayer tends to build communities of faith and bond the members together in mutual friendship and love.

B. Analysis

A quick read of this definition doesn’t necessarily support the claim of some that Centering Prayer is demonic or that it is subversive or inimical to Christian life.

Now it is true that there are many, many, books on Centering Prayer. Some may tend towards Gnosticism, and some may be more Protestant in their understanding of prayer, rather than Catholic. As a rule of thumb the more a type of prayer proposal is disassociated from God, from the moral law and life of grace, from the sacraments, and from the Mystical Body of Christ, the more problematic it can become from a Catholic perspective.

One can surmise that there is a way of praying that could be called Centering Prayer, and even make the claim to be a type of Christian prayer, that actually led away from Christ and away from the repentant posture of humility that is essential for Christian prayer. It is in this way, that if a type of prayer leads one away from Christ, away from the moral law, and away from the Church then it seems accurate to note that it is harmful. That is why we developed criteria in the previous chapter of this essay to make a judgement about whether a way of teaching prayer is Christian. It is also meant to guide teaching Christian prayer as such.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to examine everything that has ever been written about a way of praying called Centering Prayer but it should be enough to say that one shouldn’t assume that a way of presenting it does justice to Catholic Christian prayer. We need to be critical. Why?

Because we have a tradition of prayer that is over 2000 years old and rooted in the law and the prophets, we would be remiss not to understand Christian prayer in reference to this vast, and deep tradition. Also, prayer is intrinsic to the narrow road of discipleship and apart from it we cannot be saved, it is intimately bound up with Christian faith.

I chose the selection above because it is so closely associated with the contemporary movement that Centering Prayer came out of. In this way I am not looking through books scouring for the worst examples to make a negative point. Nor am I looking for more egregious definitions of Centering Prayer that come from people who aren’t well trained in Catholic Theology and couldn’t be expected to provide a definition that was Catholic.

Instead, it is assumed that the definition that is up on the website is one that the founders of the movement stand by. Hopefully by looking at this definition we can make an accurate assessment of the good aspects of it but also what could be problematic. To do that I will go through it section by section.

Initially, the first paragraph doesn’t seem problematic and indeed seems good. Basically, Centering Prayer has as its aim to increase a person’s awareness of the presence of God, and it mentions that it is meant to make the person more receptive to the gift of contemplative prayer.

From a critical perspective one might ask, though, how is this set in relationship to the purity of heart necessary to see God?

The path of Christian prayer, grounded in faith, hope, and love, both demands and makes possible purification of the heart through mortification, Sacraments, and Divine Worship.

We can’t really fault the definition for not relating prayer fully to life in Christ – the moral life and the Holy Sacraments – because every time we speak of prayer we aren’t going to be able to talk about all the dimensions of discipleship. However, this is something to be aware of.

If we are teaching a type of prayer that is meant to root us in God, is the fundamental relationship of it to the demands and gifts of discipleship minimized? If so it may be a type of prayer that is approaching something more Buddhistic than Christian. This would lead someone away from the saving faith that proclaims that Jesus is Lord and that He was risen from the dead. The further one is from the communion of faith, the more muted this Gospel is.

Also, I think the experience of God is essential, and it mentions that this way of praying fosters an experience of his closeness. Praise God for this recognition! We need to focus more on a relationship with God as a relationship that is genuinely experienced in the depths of one’s being. Indeed the Fathers from the Synod on the New Evangelization mention this as one important facet of Evangelization in the contemporary context.

However, it is both through faith and reason that we know God is closer to us than we are to ourselves. Are the theological virtues subordinated to method, “relationship,” or experience? This is something to be aware of.

Those who are critical of Centering Prayer, I think rightly, mention the concern that if experience or method is more important than faith, one turns away from the gift of faith, and potentially becomes too dependent on self as the principle of salvation. This is very bad for a species with a problem rooted in self-will.

It should be noted, though, that it would be charitable to grant that the authors of this definition consider faith, hope and love in the context of ecclesial faith to be assumed as the foundation of Centering Prayer. An argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) isn’t the best, or most reliable type of argument and we should give our authors the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, interpreters may not assume this.

In the second paragraph we learn that Centering Prayer is meant to give deeper meaning to all types of prayer. This is great, when prayer lacks meaning to us it is quickly abandoned and we need to pray in a way that is meaningful.

What I wonder about this statement is if Centering Prayer is being used somewhat synonymously with interior recollection. Interior recollection is the ancient practice that accompanies prayer whereby a person collects himself to become unified in the Presence of God. By becoming more aware of the Presence of God, and being present to Him, we are more receptive to the spiritual, i.e. deeper meaning of the Word of God, in Scripture and Sacrament.

This point ought not be quickly passed over. In the seminal text on Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Fr. John Croiset, S. J., mentions that interior recollection is one of the four necessary dispositions for union with the heart of Jesus. Sadly, the practice of interior recollection is little understood by contemporary Christian faithful. This may be why people are often drawn to non-Christian forms of meditation, simply because this essential aspect of the Christian spiritual life has been somewhat lost as a living tradition. It has been traded for an activist understanding of spirituality and a rationalistic sense of faith.

Is Centering Prayer, as described above, merely a practice of interior recollection then? We can certainly say that this is perhaps its foremost component. Why not just refer to it in the way the Church has traditionally referred to it then? Or would it be better to simply teach and practice Christian prayer whose aim was to center one in Christ? These are some questions to consider in the teaching of prayer.

As Fr. Croiset, S.J., writes:

God does not make His presence felt where there is turmoil, “non in commotione Dominus,” a heart completely unguarded, and a soul in continual exterior distraction and occupied with a thousand superfluous cares and useless thoughts, is hardly in a state to listen to the voice of Him who communicates Himself only to a soul, and who speaks only to a heart, in solitude. “I will lead her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart.” [Osee 2:14].

Focus and recollection in God is integral to Christian prayer. That is what makes it a difficult discipline we would often much rather avoid. Our merciful God is also jealous, he demands our attention and sacrifice, not because He needs it, but because He created us for communion with Him and will not grant it in a situation of fraud (feigning prayer, honoring with lips but not with heart).

Insofar as Centering Prayer fosters interior recollection, this is a good thing, but why alienate it from the terminology and tradition of Christian Prayer as such?

In the third paragraph, the goal: communion with Christ, is beautifully expressed. So, is the source of this prayer: the Most Holy Trinity and faith in His indwelling in Christians united to His Mystical Body. Also, the goal is expressed as fostering our relationship with the living Christ (which is the first of the seven criteria of Christian Prayer I listed in previous chapter). This is most definitely the central feature of Christian Prayer as such.

However, in the last paragraph perhaps the central problem or concern with the way Centering Prayer is presented is laid bare, it reads:

The effects of Centering Prayer are ecclesial, as the prayer tends to build communities of faith and bond the members together in mutual friendship and love.

First, the effects of any Christian prayer should strengthen the Church and make up for what is lacking in the Mystical Body of Christ. However, it seems that prayer whose effects are ecclesial would be explicitly ecclesial from the outset. What I mean is that this definition is a little light on how it references what it builds up. The Church is more than a community of faith, although it is that too. But, one can assume it is written this way to be more ecumenical, to build unity, and perhaps open the way to deeper communion with Christ.

If you recall, in the previous chapter of this catechetical essay we said the second necessary criteria of Christian prayer is that, it is an act of communion with the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

Its effects will only be ecclesial to the extent that it in an ecclesial act from the outset. And these effects, if ecclesial in the Catholic sense, wouldn’t merely build up communities of faith, they would build up the Mystical Body of Christ, or the Ecclesia Militans. The effect of the prayer itself would be a nurturing of and deepening of ecclesial communion if guided by Christian faith, hope and love as understood by the holy Church.

We can see then, from this brief definition of Centering Prayer that there are some questions. Even if we assume that the missing aspects are implied one wouldn’t get that just from reading the definition.

The definition above satisfies criteria one – the goal of communion with Jesus. However, it doesn’t necessarily satisfy any of the other criteria. It isn’t clear that Centering Prayer as defined here is an explicit act of ecclesial (Catholic) communion, nor is the priority of Christian faith, hope and love, over and above method, apparent.

Further still, on the website promoting the prayer it seems unclear how Centering Prayer as defined is united to the Christian moral life, and the Holy Sacraments.

Without going any further into the other criteria, which are also absent, it seems that this particular definition of Christian Prayer isn’t fully Christian in the Catholic sense. Perhaps it would more likely be in a Protestant evangelical sense. Perhaps this community intentionally wants Centering Prayer to be a way to unify separated Christians, and this is a praiseworthy (and very Christian!) goal.

However, as defined and explained on the website Centering Prayer seems to be a practice that is somewhat divorced from or at least minimizes ecclesial communion as well as the source of unity – the Holy Eucharist – and the moral life.

In this way, those Catholics who have concerns with Centering Prayer are not without reason. That said, out of charity it should be assumed that Catholics who practice it do practice it in a way that is faithful Christian prayer as the Church understands prayer and teaches it. It would be uncharitable to assume otherwise. And the purpose of this essay is not to create an atmosphere of suspicion, but only to examine this controversy in a balanced way to assist in catechesis in respect to prayer.

Nevertheless, it still seems necessary to reframe Centering Prayer within the Catholic tradition of Christian Prayer so that it more clearly reflects that tradition and leads to communion rather than away from it.

^{1. Benedict XVI. (4 May 2011). General Audiences of Benedict XVI (English). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.↩}

^{2. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed., p. 13). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. ↩}

^{3. Benedict XVI. (4 May 2011). General Audiences of Benedict XVI (English). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. ↩}