Christian materialism

[Bubba_Switzler]

So let’s set aside the extremes, the poor and the rich, and the issues of charity and social justice for the moment.

I want to look simply at the typical middle-class Catholic. Is San Josemaría Escrivá right in asserting, as I think he has, that the lay life is a viable path to holiness, even sainthood, without extraordinary ascetic sacrifice (allowing for the usual practices such as lent)?

The intersting secondary question is to what extent the Holy Spirit speaks through the clergy vs. the layman. On the one hand, you have traditonal Catholic clerical magesterium and, on the other, the Protestant belief that anyone who picks up the Bible is channeling the Holy Spirit. Is Opus Dei leading the way toward more lay involvement in Church teaching?

 

[Warrenton]

I want to look simply at the typical middle-class Catholic. Is San Josemaría Escrivá right in asserting, as I think he has, that the lay life is a viable path to holiness, even sainthood,

The intersting secondary question is to what extent the Holy Spirit speaks through the clergy vs. the layman. . Is Opus Dei leading the way toward more lay involvement in Church teaching?

Yes, St. Escriva was right that middle class life can be led in a holy way. Where I hesitate is to call middle class life “a path” to holiness. He certainly brought spiritual regimentation - which is a good thing - up to date for many, many people who had been sort of ignored, especially after V2.

I think Opus Dei does lead toward more lay involvement, but not in a bad way. I am not against lay participation, or lay leadership, in principal. Historically, there were many lay positions of authority in the Church, and of course many clerical positions that were virtually lay positions. For example, sextons, masters at universitites, monsignors, even some cardinals, if you go back far enough. To me, the important thing is to clarify the “chain of command.” My understanding of Opus Dei is that the “priest in charge” is never hard to find or too far away.

To sum up: I think St. Escriva did great work. I think many of his ideas are deeply suggestive, and more successful than alot of work done by the bishops. But as a pradigm for comprehensive reform, I think we need to look elsewhere.

 

[James224]

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

Jesus was poor and lived a life of asceticism for example when he went into the desert to fast. His whole life was filled with sacrifice. For us, we who may have things are to act as if we don’t in the sense that we put material things in their place. You can be wealthy and be holy as long as you detach yourself from things. We have to put things in proper order. This is the danger of the Health and Wealth Gospel that is being promoted in protestantism.

 

[davidv]

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.

Our bishops don’t “demand” because they are following the lead of their leader(Jesus). Our faith, and our response to it, is drawn from us by invitation rather than being forced on us by coersion.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus was poor and lived a life of asceticism for example when he went into the desert to fast. His whole life was filled with sacrifice.

I disagree. John the Baptist was an ascetic, he lived in the desert, wore camel hair, ate locusts, etc. Jesus, by contrast, was criticized by the Pharisees as a drunkard and a glutton which, while almost certainly hyperbole, suggests he did not lead an ascetic life even if he had no posessions. And, with the noted exception of his time in the desert, he did not avoid socialization but, rather, participated in it directly.

I think this is half of the core issue which some describe as owning without being owned.

But there is another side, the idea that participating socially and materially is essential to moral development as a Christian. In other words, the world has a purpose beyond being a temptation to avoid.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Our bishops don’t “demand” because they are following the lead of their leader(Jesus). Our faith, and our response to it, is drawn from us by invitation rather than being forced on us by coersion.

My reply here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7526553&postcount=15

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, St. Escriva was right that middle class life can be led in a holy way. Where I hesitate is to call middle class life “a path” to holiness. He certainly brought spiritual regimentation - which is a good thing - up to date for many, many people who had been sort of ignored, especially after V2.

It does seem that Opus Dei is not your run-of-the-mill collection of middle class consumers. They do lead a semi-monastic lifestyle, themselves, working lay jobs in the day but returning to a commune at night.

But let’s set that aside and explore the question: what is unholy about the middle-class life? (And by that I don’t mean middle-class vices like infidelity and divorce but, rather, is there something about the middle-class life itself that is unholy?)

I think Opus Dei does lead toward more lay involvement, but not in a bad way. I am not against lay participation, or lay leadership, in principal. Historically, there were many lay positions of authority in the Church, and of course many clerical positions that were virtually lay positions. For example, sextons, masters at universitites, monsignors, even some cardinals, if you go back far enough. To me, the important thing is to clarify the “chain of command.” My understanding of Opus Dei is that the “priest in charge” is never hard to find or too far away.

This is true, but let us suppose that, as some fear, Opus Dei “takes over the Chruch” and you get an Opus Dei pope. What would be the most extreme conceivable consequences of that? How might the Church evolve toward a fuller participation of the laity in the magesterium other than as a consumer of it?

To sum up: I think St. Escriva did great work. I think many of his ideas are deeply suggestive, and more successful than alot of work done by the bishops. But as a pradigm for comprehensive reform, I think we need to look elsewhere.

Note that I’m not so much suggesting his ideas as a comprehensive reform as exploring the boundaries of it.

 

[Warrenton]

what is unholy about the middle-class life? (And by that I don’t mean middle-class vices like infidelity and divorce but, rather, is there something about the middle-class life itself that is unholy?)

There are a couple of things that are unholy about middle class life.
First, it tends to atomize the social fabric. John gets up at 7:00 am. He grabs a cup of coffee, and meets Sue and Steve at the train. He does not see them again until the following am. John gets to work. He sees Barb and Bob from 9:00 to 6:00 pm. He knows only so much about them as he needs to know to get the job done. John gets home at 7:30, watches TV and goes to bed. Over time, he is practically a stranger to his wife, and a total cipher to his children as they get older. Bob never makes enough money to be really rich, so he is ever in a state of stress, worrying about losing what luxuries he has, and maintaining his status occupies a great percentage of his waking hours. This fear prevents him from giving more, prevents him from having more children, prevents him from speaking out. The fear of losing his possessions poisons all his relationships.

In this scenario, no one really know John, and John doesn’t really know anyone. Therefore, John cannot exercise real charity, because he is not obligated to love his neighbor “as himself,” which implies a deep understanding of his neighbor. This is the reason why the Church has always insisted that the basis of Christian life is in the home.

Thus, John lives his life, and if he does not sin overmuch, neither does he bear fruit. What will he say at the judgment?

I know none of this is original. And I don’t want you to think I think the solution is communism.

The only solution is to connect with each other through the Church. St. Escriva nailed that part - it is what made him saintly.

This is true, but let us suppose that, as some fear, Opus Dei “takes over the Chruch” and you get an Opus Dei pope. What would be the most extreme conceivable consequences of that? How might the Church evolve toward a fuller participation of the laity in the magesterium other than as a consumer of it?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are a couple of things that are unholy about middle class life. First, it tends to atomize the social fabric. John gets up at 7:00 am. He grabs a cup of coffee, and meets Sue and Steve at the train. He does not see them again until the following am. John gets to work. He sees Barb and Bob from 9:00 to 6:00 pm. He knows only so much about them as he needs to know to get the job done. John gets home at 7:30, watches TV and goes to bed. Over time, he is practically a stranger to his wife, and a total cipher to his children as they get older. Bob never makes enough money to be really rich, so he is ever in a state of stress, worrying about losing what luxuries he has, and maintaining his status occupies a great percentage of his waking hours. This fear prevents him from giving more, prevents him from having more children, prevents him from speaking out. The fear of losing his possessions poisons all his relationships.
In this scenario, no one really know John, and John doesn’t really know anyone. Therefore, John cannot exercise real charity, because he is not obligated to love his neighbor “as himself,” which implies a deep understanding of his neighbor. This is the reason why the Church has always insisted that the basis of Christian life is in the home.
Thus, John lives his life, and if he does not sin overmuch, neither does he bear fruit. What will he say at the judgment?

That is not a holy life. Agreed. It is a typical middle-class life, agreed. But I don’t think it really goes to my question.

Let me ask it differently: is it possible for a married father to live a holy life? To be a saint?

The only solution is to connect with each other through the Church. St. Escriva nailed that part - it is what made him saintly.

One can connect through the Church while still being a middle-class husband and father.

I think the Church might revisit its own history. It could start by re-creating the lay offices of the church, and demanding a fuller participation in the official prayer life of the church. For example, if someone wants to teach in a Catholic school, they make a promise to fulfill certain duties, like saying portions of the breviary, and wearing some kind of habit, even if only an academic gown or a mortar board. Same with the third orders, they should go back into habit at least when they are performing official duties. The chivalric orders could be reconsituted.

Very interesting. I am unfamilar with the lay offices (which you mentioned previously) but I know that Catholic schools are hiring more lay teachers due to the shortage of priests, brothers, and nuns. I’m not sure if the Knights of Columbus counts as a civalric order.

I think an Opus Dei pope would push the laity to be more visibly Catholic.

That is certainly a worthwhile idea.

I think that an Opus Dei pope might include more rich people of proven fidelity in decision making capacities, or perhaps in the diplomatic services. I could see a Burlesconi type person (minus the affair stuff, of course) being made a papal nuncio. I could see an economic based engagement with countries like China.

I hesitate to reestrict this to the rich but otherwise the idea is interesting. Often the rich are given such roles in exchange for donations which is not terrible but not entirely comendable either.

I would foresee a massive - and I mean massive - push back from the bishops. The French, Dutch and Germans would be practically frothing at the mouth and rolling in the aisles.

This is interesing. Why?

I would foresee an Opus Dei pope insisting on strong papal claims of supremacy, to the detriment of relations with the Orthodox.

More than a non OD pope?

 

[James224]

James224;7526303:

Jesus was poor and lived a life of asceticism for example when he went into the desert to fast. His whole life was filled with sacrifice.

I disagree. John the Baptist was an ascetic, he lived in the desert, wore camel hair, ate locusts, etc. Jesus, by contrast, was criticized by the Pharisees as a drunkard and a glutton which, while almost certainly hyperbole, suggests he did not lead an ascetic life even if he had no posessions. And, with the noted exception of his time in the desert, he did not avoid socialization but, rather, participated in it directly.

I think this is half of the core issue which some describe as owning without being owned.

But there is another side, the idea that participating socially and materially is essential to moral development as a Christian. In other words, the world has a purpose beyond being a temptation to avoid.

Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34 doesn’t show that Christ abused things (I think that is also what you are saying) but rather that he lived in the world. He showed that It was in all things, namely, food, drink, clothing, &c., that it is not the things themselves, but the inordinate love of using them, which is wrong. And so He taught that rich men may live religiously in their riches, and be saved. Also, by example, he practiced ascetisim as well, really, in all things even while he was among the people. In other words, He practiced perfect virtue.

Edit: I would add that when Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days, you know he didn’t just do it once. He must have done it on a regular basis to be able to do this.

As to your second point, yes we grow through temptation, suffering and various trials by being around others who are worldly but, at times, we must retreat into the spiritual desert to pray and fast. Also, we do charity for others, etc. Most of us are called to this kind of life and few are called to the more austere life of John the Baptist.

 

[McatholicN]

Would a fair summary of Christian Materialism be this?

To love your life and the world, and to strive for sainthood.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Matt 11:19 and Luke 7:34 doesn’t show that Christ abused things (I think that is also what you are saying) but rather that he lived in the world.

That is precisely what what I was saying. He lived in the world and enjoyed it, by all accounts. He defended his non-asceticism against the Pharisee critics who compared him to John the Baptist.

He showed that It was in all things, namely, food, drink, clothing, &c., that it is not the things themselves, but the inordinate love of using them, which is wrong. And so He taught that rich men may live religiously in their riches, and be saved. Also, by example, he practiced ascetisim as well, really, in all things even while he was among the people. In other words, He practiced perfect virtue.

Right. This is the virtue to be found in an ordinary lay life which is essentially what Christian Materialism is about.

Edit: I would add that when Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days, you know he didn’t just do it once. He must have done it on a regular basis to be able to do this.

Fair enough. And we might similarly suggest that there is a role for “fasting in the desert” even, perhaps especially, if most of the rest of your life is comfortable. That is, in large part, what lent is about.

As to your second point, yes we grow through temptation, suffering and various trials by being around others who are worldly but, at times, we must retreat into the spiritual desert to pray and fast. Also, we do charity for others, etc. Most of us are called to this kind of life and few are called to the more austere life of John the Baptist.

True. But I think Christian Materialism is saying something further: that there are moral lessons in enjoying life. When I encounter people who do not love life I almost never find them to be the least bit holy. They are, usually, quite bitter and at war with the world. On the other hand, many people who have been delt a bad hand, congential disease or oppression, still love life and take joy in the small pleasures that they are still able to experience.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Would a fair summary of Christian Materialism be this?
To love your life and the world, and to strive for sainthood.

Yes, I think that is a very fair condensed version. The key insight, I think, is that striving for sainthood need not require avoiding the world.

The question I am pondering here is what it means to strive for holiness and sainthood in the context of a middle-class life including one’s responsibilities as a husband/wife and father/mother.

 

[davidv]

Yes, I think that is a very fair condensed version. The key insight, I think, is that striving for sainthood need not require avoiding the world.

The question I am pondering here is what it means to strive for holiness and sainthood in the context of a middle-class life including one’s responsibilities as a husband/wife and father/mother.

How do you, if you do, see the responsibilities of spouse/parent being at odds with sainthood?

Saint Monica was married.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How do you, if you do, see the responsibilities of spouse/parent being at odds with sainthood? Saint Monica was married.

I don’t think you will find anywhere the Church saying that parenthood is unholy. It’s more subtle than that.

Consider, first, what % of Church-validated saints were married parents. How about beatified? There is a strong bias toward the clergy and clerical life in the Church’s treatment of holiness.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Catholic schools (at least when I was young) tended to regard the lay life as a lesser calling.

So we might consider: is there something implicit in Church teaching about being married and a parent that is an obstacle to holiness?

 

[CB_Catholic]

I don’t think you will find anywhere the Church saying that parenthood is unholy. It’s more subtle than that.

Consider, first, what % of Church-validated saints were married parents. How about beatified? There is a strong bias toward the clergy and clerical life in the Church’s treatment of holiness.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Catholic schools (at least when I was young) tended to regard the lay life as a lesser calling.

So we might consider: is there something implicit in Church teaching about being married and a parent that is an obstacle to holiness?

I don’t think so. The Church explicitly teaches that the graces given in the Sacrament of Matrimony help the spouses help each other achieve holiness. CCC 1638 and following. Also it teaches that it signifies the union of Christ and His Church. I think we are more aware of this teaching now because of the teachings of our late Pope, John Paul ll, than maybe we were before, but Christ raised marriage to the level of a Sacrament, and all of our Sacraments are means to holiness. I think the Church has always taught that marriage is a holy estate.

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? 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.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

I don’t think so. The Church explicitly teaches that the graces given in the Sacrament of Matrimony help the spouses help each other achieve holiness. CCC 1638 and following. Also it teaches that it signifies the union of Christ and His Church. I think we are more aware of this teaching now because of the teachings of our late Pope, John Paul ll, than maybe we were before, but Christ raised marriage to the level of a Sacrament, and all of our Sacraments are means to holiness. I think the Church has always taught that marriage is a holy estate.

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? 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.

CB Catholic, I think you make an excellent point here. I was raised in a luke-warm protestant/atheistic household, and when my parents divorced my mother had to go back to work. I was 8 or 9 years old at the time, and not quite old enough to be left on my own. When she advertised for a summer babysitter for me, the Catholic woman next door, who already had four children of her own, took me in for free. I walked over to her house every morning in my pyjamas, slept on her couch, ate breakfast and lunch with her kids and played with them all day. She treated me like one of her own! It was a tremendous help to my mother, and I remember thinking how wonderful her family and household were to me. It was the closest I ever came to having a real “family” experience. Decades later, when I began to consider becoming a Catholic, her kindness, gentleness and compassion were not forgotten. She had sewed a seed in my heart that bore fruit many years later. I am now a Catholic parent myself, happily married for over 25 years. So the question is, did that middle-class Catholic mother practice “Christian Materialism”? I say YES, she DID - for she used the modest financial resources that were available to her at the time to spread the gospel in the greatest way possible…by showing LOVE to her neighbour.

 

[AngloCatholic1]

I don’t think you will find anywhere the Church saying that parenthood is unholy. It’s more subtle than that.

Consider, first, what % of Church-validated saints were married parents. How about beatified? There is a strong bias toward the clergy and clerical life in the Church’s treatment of holiness.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Catholic schools (at least when I was young) tended to regard the lay life as a lesser calling.

So we might consider: is there something implicit in Church teaching about being married and a parent that is an obstacle to holiness?

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…

 

[Warrenton]

Let me ask it differently: is it possible for a married father to live a holy life? To be a saint?

 

[Warrenton]

Our bishops don’t “demand” because they are following the lead of their leader(Jesus). Our faith, and our response to it, is drawn from us by invitation rather than being forced on us by coersion.

Oh, for pity’s sake!