Christian materialism

[Bubba_Switzler]

Many of the religious Saints had their religious congregations to promote their causes and bring them to attention, but you don’t find that as much among laypersons. Yet there are millions of devoted parents and spouses sacrificing themselves every day quietly for their loved ones. I think of those parents,esp., who are caring for disabled children, or spouses caring for their ill or disabled spouses. How many of them are exhibiting heroic virtue in their efforts that we don’t recognize?

That is certainly plausible and more charitable than the view that the clergy is patting itself on the back.

We have a family with 14 children in our parish, the father was severely disabled in an automobile accident. They care for him at home. He can’t talk or walk or do anything for himself, yet they feed him, bathe him, etc., and bring him to Mass in his quad chair. His wife, besides raising the children who are still at home, cares for him and sees to his spiritual as well as physical needs. She also is active in the parish. That is well above and beyond ordinary virtue, yet she probably will never be recognized as a Saint. And she is showing her children, by her example, the path to holiness. That is a pretty good example of how marriage brings holiness, I think.

This, and the one previously, are good counterpoints to the pathetic scenario that Warrenton described earlier. Of course there is more to being declared a saint but surely there ought to be more emphasis on stories such as this.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In a more direct answer to that last question, YES I think that there IS, unfortunately, “something” implicit in this regard. There is a common popular perception that one must live the life of Mother Teresa of Calcutta in order to attain sainthood. It think, therefore, that a REVIVAL of the Catholic spirit in the 21st century MUST involve a recognition of the COMMON Catholic’s efforts using true “Christian Materialism”. Opus Dei? Perhaps that’s the vehicle…

I have some reservations about Opus Dei but I am intrigued by the concept of Christian Materialism and the idea of a holy lay life. I do think that is something the Church needs to focus on more.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, we know it is possible from the lives of the apostles. St. Peter was married, presumably with children. But is is certainly harder to be a saint when married with children.

This is really the core issue, I think. My heart rebels against your assertion (which is not to say that I can prove you wrong but, rather, that my intuition is that there is something wrong with it somewhere.)

Why? Because our priorities change. Husbands and fathers must protect their wives and children first. They cannot - and should not-be “in the world” during their children’s youth. They should be at home teaching and admonishing with psalms, as King David said.

We’ve been pretty loose so far with the term “in the world” but until this point there was at least a semblance of shared meaning. Now I find that no longer to be the case. Allow me to elaborate.

Of course, strictly speaking, a hermit who lives in a desert cave eating insects is “in the world” but what we usually mean by that term is someone living and interacting socially in a normal (i.e. secular) way.

To me, then, a father is very much living in the world both in his career and family life. He is doing what we would otherwise expect even atheists and pagans to do.

St. Paul for this reason urges the single life as the best path to sainthood.

That may be overstating the matter but here is the essential quote: 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35 And more here:
newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

This is a hotly debated subject (some historians suggest that Paul was among those expecting the world to soon end with a second coming). It is certainly a basis for the view that the celibate, i.e. clerical, life is a superior calling.

This of course does not mean a married man cannot get to heaven. I look at it this way. Married men and fathers, if they do their job right, help make saints. In turn, those saints pray for the married men and fathers of the world.

Keep in mind that saithood essentially entails 1) our certainty that a person when to heaven, and 2) our treatment of the person as a model of Christian behavior. Now my concern here is not with the formal process of sainthood so much as the potential holiness of the married life and my impression that the Church does not offer enough married models.

Outside the home, the best thing husbands and fathers can do is refuse to cooperate in the degradation of Christendom. OUr contribution, so to speak, is negative. We can resist. Our “affirmative action,” should be focused in the home.

I think you are overlooking a great deal of opportunity outside the family. Firstly, there is the matter of dealing rightly with one’s coworkers and of making a contribution through one’s efforts there both materially and spiritually. Then there is the entire sphere of social and charitable activities.

Both teachers and KOC are at bottom voluntary, like clubs. The old chivalric orders were voluntary up to a point, but once a vow was made, it was permanent. I think it would be good to encourage more laity to take part in the visible work of the church under formal obedience, with corresponding physical tokens of the vow, be it habits, communal living or something else.

Yes, this does make sense though communal living is obviously not compatible with a family life. OD seems to have something like this.

At the risk of over simplifying St. Escriva’s approach, Opus Dei takes the position that, as our Lord said, “The rich will keep getting richer.” This being the case, OD has made a concerted effort to evangelize them. So did the early Church. There is nothing wrong with using the rich to do the needful work of the Church. The only danger is that the ethic of the rich can come to infect the Church after a while. This happened in the Germanies in during the 1400s, with the result everyone knows. The proper antidote is a strong monastic establishment to act as a check on those tendencies. This is why I hesitate to endorse the OD method as a “comprehensive” vehicle for Church-wide renewal - though as I have said, I do agree it has an important role.

Enlisting the rich seems like an obvious partial solution and it does seem that the rich are going to use their influence (and I’m not sure that’s necessarily bad, see nytimes.com/2011/02/07/nyregion/07parochial.html). I was more objecting to the tendency to flatter the rich.

You asked why the bishops would push back against some changes an OD pontiff might make. Because they would perceive it as a loss of power. If very wealthy lay people had more of a say, the bishops would have to listen to them. If monks and nuns had more of a say, bishops would have to listen to them. They don’t want that, especially if the wealthy laypeople, monks and nuns turn out to be more traditional. There is risk. The more power in society the Church has, the more it has to answer for its failings. It cannot sit on the sidelines throwing stones at the governments. But as we have seen, we can’t sit on the sidelines anyway. The abuse scandal has shown our enemies will ferret out our failings and despoil the Church regardless of whether we fight or submit.

This is the sort of politics that doesn’t much interest me though I recognize that we are all human. The abuse scandals have certainly provided enemies of the Church with a lot of ammunition and I find myself often disgusted by the official responses.

 

[davidv]

Oh, for pity’s sake!

Please explain this comment.

 

[Warrenton]

We’ve been pretty loose so far with the term “in the world” but until this point there was at least a semblance of shared meaning. Now I find that no longer to be the case.

I agree: I misapplied the term. I had in mind this idea: a saint engages the world “as such”, for instance: St. Francis Xavier converted the world, St. Francis of Assisi preached to the world, and St. Escriva enlisted the world into his Christian works. Most husbands, while in the world, pursue the ends of the individual family. Even a hermit renounces the world in a way that sends a message to humanity in general.

I don’t want to be doctrinaire about this. I agree that there is much good work laypeople can do.

I simply observe a hierarchy of merit, at the top of which is the martyr and at the bottom of which is the apostate. Our initial associations regarding “saint” I think dictates our separate approaches to our discussion.

Taking up your definition of saint, though, I agree that there is no reason a husband and father cannot be one.

You have voiced concern that I devalue the good work an ordinary, middle class husband can do. Your concern is well taken. Now I add that I do not want you to devalue the same man’s role in “building saints” and resisting evil as I put it: if our “Joe Average” succeeds in doing what I envision his primary role to be, then he is fulfilling a Christian ideal of a very high order.

 

[Warrenton]

Please explain this comment.

By all means. I felt your statement that bishops don’t demand anything because, like Christ, they seek to persuade not to coerce to be, how can I say it? - somewhat hyperbolic.

The drift of the conversation did not raise the spectre of inquisitions, the rack and iron maiden, summoners and pardoners and whatnot.

“Demand” was used in its everyday sense, as in, the bishops demand that we go to church, get confirmed, avoid abortion, honor the king. We said demand, but the sense was more at “require,” and without legal force, the Church’s requirements at bottom are left to the consent of the faithful.

And if it comes to it, Christ made plenty of demands, from “sleeper, awake” to “get the behind me, Satan,” to “Take, eat.”

 

[McatholicN]

They cannot - and should not-be “in the world” during their children’s youth.

But isn’t the message we are discussing - that of Christian Materialism - basically saying “live in and love the world and strive to become a Saint”? If this is so, why should one not be “in the world”.

 

[Warrenton]

But isn’t the message we are discussing - that of Christian Materialism - basically saying “live in and love the world and strive to become a Saint”? If this is so, why should one not be “in the world”.

Because it is not our world.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

While I think there are some important issues that are being shunted to the side our discussion has, in the main, focused on the most critical issue and so I will continue on this path and return to the other isues later.

Let’s also agree that martyr’s have earned their sainthood many times over and set them aside for the time being. I hope I have not said anything so far that would lead you to think I was undervaluing them.

I agree: I misapplied the term. I had in mind this idea: a saint engages the world “as such”, for instance: St. Francis Xavier converted the world, St. Francis of Assisi preached to the world, and St. Escriva enlisted the world into his Christian works. Most husbands, while in the world, pursue the ends of the individual family. Even a hermit renounces the world in a way that sends a message to humanity in general.

I’m not entirely clear on your terminoology but I think I understand your meaning, nonetheless.

The key question is whether, and to what extent, holiness and saintliness entails the renunciation of the world as it is (as exemplified by the hermit in contrast to the parent).

My position is this: that it is wrong to renounce the world in toto. There is both good and evil in the world and it is the evil that we are to renounce and not the good along with it.

I also disagree that a father raising his children, pursuing the ends of the individual family, is deficient in this respect. In addition to the way he raises his family there is also his work and social activities. Some men obviously have a smaller impact than others but none lack opportunity.

And if the measure of a man is the degree to which he transforms the world for the better then, again, we ought to take account of the ways that this occurs in a “secular” life as, for example, when someone invents a cure for a terrible disease. I am inclined toward an understanding of the Parable of the Talents in the most general sense.

I don’t want to be doctrinaire about this. I agree that there is much good work laypeople can do. I simply observe a hierarchy of merit, at the top of which is the martyr and at the bottom of which is the apostate. Our initial associations regarding “saint” I think dictates our separate approaches to our discussion. Taking up your definition of saint, though, I agree that there is no reason a husband and father cannot be one.

I think it’s worth exploring the question of what laypeople, fathers, mothers, etc., can do to make their life holy apart from ranking their role against the clergy though I am interested in the later as well if only because of it’s impact on the former. Sainthood is an extreme judgement.

You have voiced concern that I devalue the good work an ordinary, middle class husband can do. Your concern is well taken. Now I add that I do not want you to devalue the same man’s role in “building saints” and resisting evil as I put it: if our “Joe Average” succeeds in doing what I envision his primary role to be, then he is fulfilling a Christian ideal of a very high order.

While I appreciate and understand your point about “building saints” I think this is only part of what a husband/father does. Marriage, itself, is a partnership of mutual soul-building. And unless fathers are raising children for a clerical life, the same question applies even more starkly.

 

[McatholicN]

Because it is not our world.

What do you mean? I don’t think that answered my questions all that well.

(In Genesis doesn’t God give the world to us humans?)

 

[Warrenton]

The key question is whether, and to what extent, holiness and saintliness entails the renunciation of the world as it is (as exemplified by the hermit in contrast to the parent).

My position is this: that it is wrong to renounce the world in toto. There is both good and evil in the world and it is the evil that we are to renounce and not the good along with it.

I also disagree that a father raising his children, pursuing the ends of the individual family, is deficient in this respect. In addition to the way he raises his family there is also his work and social activities. Some men obviously have a smaller impact than others but none lack opportunity.

I think it is not wrong to renounce the world, because the lord of this world is Satan, notwithstanding that many good things remain. Russia was still Russian, even though the Gernams occupied parts of it. That is why Christian hermits are holy, of course, the Church has modified, or improved the life of the hermit by making it monastic.

I observe a hierarchy of holiness here. I think the life of the monk better than the life of the diocecesan cleric, and the life of the cleric better than the life of the married man, and the life of the married man better than the life of the bachelor, and the life of the bachelor better than that of the libertine. If I have been clear, one hopefully discerns a decending order of sacrifice, or difficulty, which is the rationale.

This, however, is not to denigrate any of the categories mentioned. For all I know, the libertine is like the sinner in Christ’s parable of the sinful man and the pharisee, bewailing his sin and imploring the Lord for mercy. The categories simply reflect a spiritual rigor, in the same way that the major leagues distinguish a higher level of play from the minor leagues, to borrow from baseball.

 

[McatholicN]

I think it is not wrong to renounce the world, because the lord of this world is Satan, notwithstanding that many good things remain. Russia was still Russian, even though the Gernams occupied parts of it. That is why Christian hermits are holy, of course, the Church has modified, or improved the life of the hermit by making it monastic.

I observe a hierarchy of holiness here. I think the life of the monk better than the life of the diocecesan cleric, and the life of the cleric better than the life of the married man, and the life of the married man better than the life of the bachelor, and the life of the bachelor better than that of the libertine. If I have been clear, one hopefully discerns a decending order of sacrifice, or difficulty, which is the rationale.

This, however, is not to denigrate any of the categories mentioned. For all I know, the libertine is like the sinner in Christ’s parable of the sinful man and the pharisee, bewailing his sin and imploring the Lord for mercy. The categories simply reflect a spiritual rigor, in the same way that the major leagues distinguish a higher level of play from the minor leagues, to borrow from baseball.

Hold on… what’s wrong with the world? (That sounded really stupid, didn’t it?) But really, how is enjoying geography, politics, and just plain having fun wrong? Why must we renounce this?

Are you saying everyone should become a monk?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think it is not wrong to renounce the world, because the lord of this world is Satan, notwithstanding that many good things remain. Russia was still Russian, even though the Gernams occupied parts of it. That is why Christian hermits are holy, of course, the Church has modified, or improved the life of the hermit by making it monastic.

Needless to say,vthis is precisely the view that I am inclined to reject in favor or Christian materialism and the reason I am hopeful for Opus Dei.

While I have encountered this view before I don’t fully understand the theological basis of it. Could you explain how you came to believe this.

It strikes me as a very dark, almost gnostic view of the world.

I observe a hierarchy of holiness here. I think the life of the monk better than the life of the diocecesan cleric, and the life of the cleric better than the life of the married man, and the life of the married man better than the life of the bachelor, and the life of the bachelor better than that of the libertine. If I have been clear, one hopefully discerns a decending order of sacrifice, or difficulty, which is the rationale.

I am unconvinced that difficulty and sacrifice is the best measure of holiness. One can always suffer for no end or even for an evil end.

 

[davidv]

Needless to say,vthis is precisely the view that I am inclined to reject in favor or Christian materialism and the reason I am hopeful for Opus Dei.

While I have encountered this view before I don’t fully understand the theological basis of it. Could you explain how you came to believe this.

It strikes me as a very dark, almost gnostic view of the world.

I am unconvinced that difficulty and sacrifice is the best measure of holiness. One can always suffer for no end or even for an evil end.

So, what does holiness mean to you, and how would you propose to measure it?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So, what does holiness mean to you, and how would you propose to measure it?

That is, to me, the essential question that I am exploring through Opus Dei’s Christian materialism. I’ ve said what I don’t think it is and I’ve said that I believe that in some sense any vocation can be holy.

Obviously holiness means keeping the comandments as taught by the Church. But as the greatest commandments (love God, love your neighbor) are the most ambiguous, much is left for discovery and judgement.

One small example came to mind on Sunday: how would a football player bee holy? I think holy football play would exhibit good sportsmanship, dedication to excellence, sacrifice for the team and fans, leadership on and off the field, etc.

 

[Warrenton]

Hold on… what’s wrong with the world? (

Dear Sir: I am. (with acknowledgments to GKC!!).

Are you saying everyone should become a monk?

No, no more than I am saying everyone should be the pope. That would be Adventist.
I am saying that there is an order of merit.

Nothing is wrong with enjoying things in the world. Monks enjoy things also, indeed, I have it on excellent authority that even Russian and Greek monks enjoy things: they never paint ugly icons.

Renunciation is a form of sacrifice. Chesterton, or perhaps Belloc (but it sounds more like Chesterton) said that we thank God for good wine by not drinking too much of it. Elsewhere, he answered Oscar Wilde’s question how we thank God for a sunrise: by not being Oscar Wilde.

Being drunk and being Oscar Wilde are just forms of worldliness. Because the world is fallen, it tempts us to overindulge. We sacrifice the temptation. The strongest spiritually among us sacrifice the most.

That’s all.

Our radical democracy conditions us to revolt at hierarchies, just like our cuisine conditions us to revolt at grubs or locusts for lunch. I sincerely believe that living good lives and avoiding sin, taking the sacraments will one day see all of us in heaven.

And once there, we will praise God for raising up holier men and women than ourselves.

 

[Warrenton]

While I have encountered this view before I don’t fully understand the theological basis of it. Could you explain how you came to believe this.

It strikes me as a very dark, almost gnostic view of the world.

I will attempt. When Adam fell, in part, the whole world fell with him because he had dominion of it. We became enslaved to Satan, and through mankind’s sin, Satan became lord of this world. Christ says as much, and repeats that He is not the Lord of this world, and that his kingdom is not of this world.

Like us, though, the world was created to be good. It says so in chapter one and two.

It retains is essential goodness, but is prone to abuse. Indeed, it is mostly the things of the world that do tempt us, or at least me. Love of beauty makes me acquisitive, love of people makes me lustful, love of leisure makes me slothful, and so on.

Renunciation of the good things of the world for the Lord has always been a holy practice, as the lives of the prophets show. Think of Nathan, Isaiah, John the Baptist. There they were, out in the desert, dressed in skins and eating grasshoppers. Paring down the distractions enabled them to hear the “still small voice” that God so often uses.

The great saints did the same. What did Jesus say to the rich young man?

Against this, we know that grace is a free gift, and different people get “talents” or “gifts of the spirit” in different degrees. For those called to a life of renunciation, there are great rewards in heaven if they accept. For the rest of us, who are not strong enough, we can pray and lead a more worldly life. Godly? Certainly? Sufficient for salvation? We have the Church’s warrant.

But, my friend, never since the world began has mankind been in danger of not being worldly enough.

The danger is rather on the other side. Which is why the Church has historically focused on asceticism. Some one has to. And if not the Church, then who?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I will attempt…

I am going to resis the temptation to argue and will ask, instead, that you simply keep in mind that there is an argument to be had with your position.

Rather I wish to inquire more specifically where you acquired the interpretation that you have. From reading catholic books or sermons or from Catholic school or CCD? (I assume you are not drawing it directly from the CCC.)

But, my friend, never since the world began has mankind been in danger of not being worldly enough.

The danger is rather on the other side. Which is why the Church has historically focused on asceticism. Some one has to. And if not the Church, then who?

The danger I see is on of a bifurcated Church that is holy on Sunday and worldly Monday through Saturday. The Church has always stood for integration be it faith and reason, spirit and flesh, even clergy and lay. What Christian materialism offers is a theory of unification that seems otherwise lacking or deficient.

In particular, a segregated clergy has a tendency to pontificate without real undertanding of the world that the rest of us inhabit. That leads, in turn, to the ay treeating the clrgy as narrow experts on the sacraments.

 

[Warrenton]

The danger I see is on of a bifurcated Church that is holy on Sunday and worldly Monday through Saturday. The Church has always stood for integration be it faith and reason, spirit and flesh, even clergy and lay. What Christian materialism offers is a theory of unification that seems otherwise lacking or deficient.

In some places, to judge from other posts elsewhere in CAF, we would be lucky if it was holy on Sunday.

But in general, I agree with what you say.

I think that there is more difference between your view and my view, than in my view with your view!

It might be worthwhile for me to add that notwithstanding my reservations, which I have set forth in as much detail as I can, my practical response to Christian materialism is “let’s give it a try.”

I tend to prefer a more ascetic approach, but rest assured, I will be praying for you - and I have nothing but affection for Opus Dei.

Our disagreement (if it even rises to the level of a disagreement) is broadly philosophical, not practical. Hopefully, I have not left you with the impression that anything in Christian Materialism, as advocated by St. Escriva, is wrong in practice.

Cheers!

 

[davidv]

In some places, to judge from other posts elsewhere in CAF, we would be lucky if it was holy on Sunday.

But in general, I agree with what you say.

I think that there is more difference between your view and my view, than in my view with your view!

It might be worthwhile for me to add that notwithstanding my reservations, which I have set forth in as much detail as I can, my practical response to Christian materialism is “let’s give it a try.”

I tend to prefer a more ascetic approach, but rest assured, I will be praying for you - and I have nothing but affection for Opus Dei.

Our disagreement (if it even rises to the level of a disagreement) is broadly philosophical, not practical. Hopefully, I have not left you with the impression that anything in Christian Materialism, as advocated by St. Escriva, is wrong in practice.

Cheers!

The phase “christian materialism” is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction.

If materialism is defined as: “In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance”, this is in direct conflict of the presence of the spiritual. This spiritual presence, God in particular, is at the core of christianity.

Any redefinition of the terms is confusing. Confusion is the ploy of the evil one.