Christian materialism

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was reading up on San Josemaría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, and the new movie, There Be Dragons and came across a new term, “Christian materialism” “in which the Christian is supposed to passionately love the world while fighting against his own lust, greed and vanity.”

It’s a provocative concept and an interesting contrast to asceticism.

Is Christian materialism, whether by the term or otherwise, regarded as an escoteric or heterodox view? How does it compare with asceticism, which has a very long history within the Church?

I’ve always felt that Jesus didn’t exemplify asceticism,as did John the Baptist, but something more involved in the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Josemar%C3%ADa_Escriv%C3%A1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Be_Dragons

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_materialism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_dei

 

[McatholicN]

I’d love to see some answers on this one. This shows promise of a good thread, I think.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’ve been doing some further reading on this topic. It seems my initial impression is correct, “Christian materialism” is a theological counterpoint to asceticism.

Escriva criticized those who "have tried to present the Christian way of life as something exclusively spiritual, proper to pure, extraordinary people, who remain aloof from the contemptible things of this world, or at most tolerate them as something necessarily attached to the spirit, while we live on this earth.

primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/opus-dei-and-christian-materialism.html

And:

Authentic Christianity, which professes the resurrection of all flesh, has always quite logically opposed ‘dis-incarnation’, without fear of being judged materialistic. We can, therefore, rightfully speak of a ‘Christian materialism’, which is boldly opposed to that materialism which is blind to the spirit.

escrivaworks.org/book/conversations-chapter-8.htm

I haven’t seen anything truly novel other than by emphasis relative to asceticism.

See also:

thenewstoday.info/2008/01/04/christian.materialism.html

 

[McatholicN]

I’ve always kind of been a lover of the world, so I’ve never really been very keen to asceticism. I’d like to know more about this. Has the Church ever said anything regarding Christian materialism?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’ve always kind of been a lover of the world, so I’ve never really been very keen to asceticism. I’d like to know more about this. Has the Church ever said anything regarding Christian materialism?

I am by no means an expert on this or anything Catholic, which is why I started this thread, but I have seen both pro-material and pro-ascetic arguments within Catholicism. Formally, I think, Catholicism advocates a union of material and spiritual. But in practice you get factions that favor one to the dimishment of the other.

I read one Catholic historian who described the history of the Catholic Church in terms of this battle between the materialists and the ascetics with each holding sway in different periods of history.

In seeking an answer you have to be very careful about the term “matieralism” without the “Christian” qualifier because it usually denotes an anti-spiritual philosophy, e.g. atheism or communism. Obviously San Josemaría Escrivá was not advocating this.

 

[McatholicN]

It’s really a shame that no one is posting on this. This is an interesting topic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is nothing wrong about owning physical things. The problem is when we get attached to it. God created the physical univese for us and gave us dominion over it. We own it. But we should never be greedy and want to possess it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There is nothing wrong about owning physical things. The problem is when we get attached to it. God created the physical univese for us and gave us dominion over it. We own it. But we should never be greedy and want to possess it.

This distinction is sometimes made between owning a thing and being owned by that thing.

I think this is a fine, general sentiment. But clearly asceticism goes much further than this in seeking to avoid worldliness. And from what I understand of Christian materialism makes a significant claim in the other direction, that we should love life.

 

[Warrenton]

I was reading up on San Josemaría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, and the new movie, There Be Dragons and came across a new term, “Christian materialism” “in which the Christian is supposed to passionately love the world while fighting against his own lust, greed and vanity.”

It’s a provocative concept and an interesting contrast to asceticism.

The theory is tempting, but I think I’ll hold out for “Christian Eroticism,” in which the Christian is supposed to passionately love the girl, while fighting against his own materialism, greed and vanity!

But, let me know if the Christian materialism works out!

 

[CB_Catholic]

When I read the title of this subject I immediately thought of the “prosperity gospel” being preached in some circles, which to me is plain old materialism under the guise of Christianity. It’s not what Jesus preached. But after I read through the posts I happily found out that is not what it is about.

It seems to me that the Church teaches that we can use the things of the world for ourselves and the betterment of others without being attached to them. If we are blessed with money, we use it to meet our needs and share what we have to help meet the needs of others. But our life should not revolve around possessing things, and our identities are not bound up in our material goods. Whatever we have is a gift from God and we should realize that ultimately all belongs to Him, not us, and what we have and how we live should be for His glory. Like St Paul said, we should be content in any circumstance, and we should be witnesses to Christ no matter what our state in life.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

When I read the title of this subject I immediately thought of the “prosperity gospel” being preached in some circles, which to me is plain old materialism under the guise of Christianity. It’s not what Jesus preached. But after I read through the posts I happily found out that is not what it is about.

That was my initial reaction as well upon first encountering the term, “Christian materialism” in the wiki description of Opus Dei. But when I clicked through I was quite pleasantly surprised by what I read.

It seems to me that the Church teaches that we can use the things of the world for ourselves and the betterment of others without being attached to them. If we are blessed with money, we use it to meet our needs and share what we have to help meet the needs of others. But our life should not revolve around possessing things, and our identities are not bound up in our material goods. Whatever we have is a gift from God and we should realize that ultimately all belongs to Him, not us, and what we have and how we live should be for His glory. Like St Paul said, we should be content in any circumstance, and we should be witnesses to Christ no matter what our state in life.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is an idea put forward by San Josemaría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei. You will not find the term used, as far as I know, anywhere else and certainly not in the CCC. The reason I started this thread was to find out if there were any theological counter-points. I don’t think Escrivá’s concept is particularly radical with respect to the spirit/material teachings of the Church (e.g. ressurection of the body) but it does run against the ascetic tradition. The Church does not require you to be ascetic but it does revere ascetics.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The theory is tempting, but I think I’ll hold out for “Christian Eroticism,” in which the Christian is supposed to passionately love the girl, while fighting against his own materialism, greed and vanity!

It’s called “marriage”.

 

[CB_Catholic]

That was my initial reaction as well upon first encountering the term, “Christian materialism” in the wiki description of Opus Dei. But when I clicked through I was quite pleasantly surprised by what I read.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that this is an idea put forward by San Josemaría Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei. You will not find the term used, as far as I know, anywhere else and certainly not in the CCC. The reason I started this thread was to find out if there were any theological counter-points. I don’t think Escrivá’s concept is particularly radical with respect to the spirit/material teachings of the Church (e.g. ressurection of the body) but it does run against the ascetic tradition. The Church does not require you to be ascetic but it does revere ascetics.

I don’t know much about ascetics, but it seems to me that this would be a calling, not just a lifestyle to take up because it appeals to you. There would have to be a purpose for it, like God calling one to live an ascetic life to give one wisdom which could then be passed on, or to pray for others without distractions, or for repentance, or like John the Baptist, to prepare him to announce the way of the Lord. These are the ones the Church seems to revere. It would have to come from God, to serve His purpose, I would think. Jesus did not live an ascetic lifestyle most of the time except for when the Spirit led Him to, like the 40 days in the desert. But then again, I don’t know too much about it, or Opus Dei, but I got the idea Opus Dei was for every day living in the world, not against the ascetic tradition, just the average person living in the world. I watched some of St Escriva’s talks, and he seemed to be a rather happy, down to earth type person concerned with people living the Gospel in their lives, but I have not read much by him.

 

[Warrenton]

It’s called “marriage”.

I said “passionately” love the girl, not “patiently”!



I think this materialism thing is a seduction. It might work, it might even make a particularly shrewd advocate into a saint. But, it is not like marriage because he is not saying you get only one nice car, and have to live with it year in and year out, until death do you part. (Better hold out for an old Toyota truck). He’s implying you get as many nice cars as you want. This is attractive to men of a certain class, which was exactly the game Escriva was playing.

Big picture, this model won’t work for the rejuvenation of Christendom.

Why? Because bourgeois (sorry for the dated term, but it will do to save space) society is an aggregation of men and women engaged in a gladiatory competition to profit off each other, at the expense of the poor. Why do we do this? Because we have been bribed by nice things, and because we fear to lose those things. At bottom, this is simply un Christian way of life. It cannot be sanctified in toto, no matter how many masses we hear for it, or how many candles we light for it.

We need something a little less “proper.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I said “passionately” love the girl, not “patiently”!

Catholic marriage is not supposed to be passionate?!

I think this materialism thing is a seduction. It might work, it might even make a particularly shrewd advocate into a saint. But, it is not like marriage because he is not saying you get only one nice car, and have to live with it year in and year out, until death do you part. (Better hold out for an old Toyota truck). He’s implying you get as many nice cars as you want. This is attractive to men of a certain class, which was exactly the game Escriva was playing.

You are right that the comparison to marriage is not precise but my point is simply that marriage is a proper form of passionatly loving the girl and that there are, similarly, proper forms of other material experiences.

Christian Materialism goes further in asserting that experiencing and enjoying life is an important element of the Christian moral development. I am inclined to agree.

In fact, the Church does teach that there is nothing wrong with enjoying material things (e.g. a luxury car) with certain provisions (e.g. you can afford it, it doesn’t come at the expense of more important things, e.g. family or charity). It is not a sin for a Catholic to drive a luxury car. (Or for the Pope to wear nice shoes.)

Big picture, this model won’t work for the rejuvenation of Christendom. Why? Because bourgeois (sorry for the dated term, but it will do to save space) society is an aggregation of men and women engaged in a gladiatory competition to profit off each other, at the expense of the poor. Why do we do this? Because we have been bribed by nice things, and because we fear to lose those things. At bottom, this is simply un Christian way of life. It cannot be sanctified in toto, no matter how many masses we hear for it, or how many candles we light for it. We need something a little less “proper.”

You are essentially arguing for asceticism on the grounds that materialism necessariy leads to sinful behavior (e.g. neglect of the poor). I don’t buy this marxism (sorry for the outdated term, but it will do to save space).

Clearly Christian Materialism entails not being bribed by material goods. And as for gladiatory competition, that too is not unChristian. (I participated in many sports in Catholic school including boxing which is, quite literally, a gladiatorial competition.)

It is certainly true that Jesus instructed that “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matt 5:29-30)

But you are essentially arguing for gouging and cutting in the expectation that it must sin.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t know much about ascetics, but it seems to me that this would be a calling, not just a lifestyle to take up because it appeals to you. There would have to be a purpose for it, like God calling one to live an ascetic life to give one wisdom which could then be passed on, or to pray for others without distractions, or for repentance, or like John the Baptist, to prepare him to announce the way of the Lord. These are the ones the Church seems to revere. It would have to come from God, to serve His purpose, I would think. Jesus did not live an ascetic lifestyle most of the time except for when the Spirit led Him to, like the 40 days in the desert. But then again, I don’t know too much about it, or Opus Dei, but I got the idea Opus Dei was for every day living in the world, not against the ascetic tradition, just the average person living in the world. I watched some of St Escriva’s talks, and he seemed to be a rather happy, down to earth type person concerned with people living the Gospel in their lives, but I have not read much by him.

I am no expert on Opus Dei either but the gist of it seems to be to raise the value of the lay calling. I do remember in Catholic school being given the impression that the lay life is a less holy life.

 

[Warrenton]

But you are essentially arguing for gouging and cutting in the expectation that it must sin.

I don’t think I go that far.

But I do think poverty more likely to lead to heaven than wealth. Eye of the needle and all that.

While I respect the Opus Dei approach, and do acknowledge its successes, I tend to think it places a rather large bet on having either a very small camel or a particularly wide needle.

Now, this is not communism, because I will defend to the utmost the right of the poor to own, in fee simple and absolutely, what they do own.

And the gladiatory aspect is only bad insofar as it is real. Sport is good, because it is play. Racking a rent is bad, because it is real. Or put otherwise, if in the height of your manhood, you took to boxing infants, that would be bad, because it would be unfair.
Much of modern state-sponsored capitalism boils down to boxing with babies, or stealing from them.

Sooner or later, this has to stop.

If one looks at some of the really epic moments in the life of the Church, they prompted by an outpouring of the faithful for each other: the evangelization of the New World, the raising of the medieval cathedrals, the counter-reformation, the crusades.

It seems to me that major renewal will need to draw on the widespread desire for justice, for giving, and an outward focus.

I wish I had a better vocabularly for this than my dated marxist terms.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t think I go that far.

But I do think poverty more likely to lead to heaven than wealth. Eye of the needle and all that.

While I respect the Opus Dei approach, and do acknowledge its successes, I tend to think it places a rather large bet on having either a very small camel or a particularly wide needle.

Now, this is not communism, because I will defend to the utmost the right of the poor to own, in fee simple and absolutely, what they do own.

I don’t want this thread to become another marxism vs. capitalism thread so I’ll simply comment, in passing, that the above views are not Catholic dogma.

And the gladiatory aspect is only bad insofar as it is real. Sport is good, because it is play. Racking a rent is bad, because it is real. Or put otherwise, if in the height of your manhood, you took to boxing infants, that would be bad, because it would be unfair.
Much of modern state-sponsored capitalism boils down to boxing with babies, or stealing from them. Sooner or later, this has to stop.

I’m not sure what “racking a rent” is but it is inherent to the nature of the world that people make financial decisions that may turn out in their favor or disfavor as the future unfolds. Some regard this as a sport, perhaps, but most accept the verdict of reality and make do with what they have.

If one looks at some of the really epic moments in the life of the Church, they prompted by an outpouring of the faithful for each other: the evangelization of the New World, the raising of the medieval cathedrals, the counter-reformation, the crusades.

It seems to me that major renewal will need to draw on the widespread desire for justice, for giving, and an outward focus.

I wish I had a better vocabularly for this than my dated marxist terms.

Ironically, I have elsewhere (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=526846) posed essentially this question: why are the bishops not demanding greater charity from their flocks? Unfortunately the preoccupation with justice too often comes at the expense of charity.

 

[Warrenton]

I don’t want this thread to become another marxism vs. capitalism thread so I’ll simply comment, in passing, that the above views are not Catholic dogma…

I was not suggesting that my views are dogma.

Rack rent was an old term describing when a landlord set the rent at the break even point of the property’s income generating potential.

I will check out your other threads on this issue. I think you are correct, though, that charity is more important than social justice. Charity is, first of all, objective. Social justice is notoriously subjective. Second, with sufficient charity, many issues of social justice take care of themselves. Third, charity can be acheived, while social justice is seems to be an infinitely receding horizon.

Why don’t the bishops demand more charity? I wish I knew. Perhaps fear of failure.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was not suggesting that my views are dogma.

Rack rent was an old term describing when a landlord set the rent at the break even point of the property’s income generating potential.

I will check out your other threads on this issue. I think you are correct, though, that charity is more important than social justice. Charity is, first of all, objective. Social justice is notoriously subjective. Second, with sufficient charity, many issues of social justice take care of themselves. Third, charity can be acheived, while social justice is seems to be an infinitely receding horizon.

Why don’t the bishops demand more charity? I wish I knew. Perhaps fear of failure.

I am humbly grateful for your comments here and in the tithe thread. It’s good to see that we are not so far apart in our thinking after all, at least with respect to charity.