Is classical/traditional Catholicism dualistic?

[GloriousOrder]

Friends,

I’m having a bit of a difficult time with the traditional Catholic mindset. Obviously many modern Catholics have taken on more contemporary ideas that are not ‘traditional’, so the issue is best posed on this sub-form.

Now, an intimate Franciscan brother has been instructing me privately, as a friend, in the Catholic faith, in order to fill the gaps of my breathtakingly slapdash catechism classes. He has to deal with my very legalistic, formulaic mind which is confused by abstract ideas of the heart. It is very difficult to get things across to me unless they’re put categorically, distinctively, and in scholastic ways. Please excuse me if I ever go overboard!

When I think about Catholicism in its classical sense, filled with fiery Augustinian denial of “the world”, many things pop to mind. I think of celibacy. I think of cutting off hands for engaging in masturbation, and making up wives’ tales to discourage it. I think of condemning the life of the world and upholding the life of the spirit. Monasticism was upheld as a great virtuous ideal of life, and the qualifier “religious” became an adjective describing people no longer in the world, and a noun to name those people. The very term became dualistic, because not everyone could be “religious”; those working in the fields as peasants were “secular”/“lay”, and those inside the cloister were “religious”.

Why did this crop up? It sounds so absolutely dualistic and even quasi-gnostic, like a shadow of spiritualism. Those who aim for “true perfection”, say so many Medieval saints, must become religious/monastics. Why is this perfection denied to the people who did not enter the cloister or take on the habit? It sounds like the same dualism the Church condemned as vile heresy.

Protestantism appears to have forced the Church to abolish the distinction between the world and the cloister, by getting the Church to admit that even lay people could be “religious”, perfect, holy, etc. Is this an error the faithful fell into by mindset during the so-called Dark Ages? Is there a sort of dualism in Catholic views of the world? Does traditional Catholicism really see this world as a testing ground which we are to try to exit speedily in a state of spiritual grace, so as to enter the only world that really matters? This is a big Protestant club against the Church, because if it’s true, all sorts of immoral worldly behaviour can be justified: “since this world doesn’t matter and is fallen, and we should only have our eyes on the next world, the perfect world, to the exclusion of serious personal moral reformation in this one.”

What do you think?

 

[sedonaman]

… Is there a sort of dualism in Catholic views of the world? …

I always thought dualism meant two mutually-exclusive ideas could both be true at the same time.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Friends,…

…The very term became dualistic, because not everyone could be “religious”; those working in the fields as peasants were “secular”/“lay”, and those inside the cloister were “religious”…

I always saw it exactly opposite, as in not all can hide from the world god created, many have to and many choose to live in the world god created

… Is this an error the faithful fell into by mindset during the so-called Dark Ages? Is there a sort of dualism in Catholic views of the world? Does traditional Catholicism really see this world as a testing ground which we are to try to exit speedily in a state of spiritual grace, so as to enter the only world that really matters? This is a big Protestant club against the Church, because if it’s true, all sorts of immoral worldly behaviour can be justified: “since this world doesn’t matter and is fallen, and we should only have our eyes on the next world, the perfect world, to the exclusion of serious personal moral reformation in this one.”

What do you think?

I think the man in the cloister is fallen, much as the prodigal son was fallen however the prodigal son faced the world and thus lost the worldly possesion and was redeemed while the brother never faced the world and harbored hate!

 

[Monica4316]

GloriousOrder,

I think I have the same sort of mind lol this is how I’ve come to understand this topic…

gnosticism, and other “dualist” heresies, - focused on the material world being evil, and the spiritual world being good. This is indeed a heresy.

In Catholicism, the material world is not and never was considered evil. For an example of this, - look at St Francis of Assisi. He lived in the middle ages, but - he praised God in creation. (that is the real reason he spoke so much of nature, not because he was an early environmentalist as some today think he had a spiritual reason).

What IS considered evil, is the flesh. The “flesh” is everything in us that is opposed to God… so pride, lust, anger, - are all in this list. The ascetic tradition, which exists both in the West and in the East, - tells us that we can decrease things of the “flesh”, ie: the “passions”, through mortification, fasting, and other ways of disciplining our bodies. The reasoning behind this seems to be that by putting our body into submission to the mind, the mind would be more submissive to the spirit and the will - as it was for Adam and Eve. We can see in the lives of the Saints that this actually works. So - it’s not that the physical is evil, but we are trying to bring it into submission, to make ourselves more humble, and to fight temptation. There is also spiritual mortification - bringing the will into submission - which is “higher up”, if I can use that phrase, and is more meritorious. But they are related and one leads to the other.

I don’t know if my understanding is off, but that is how I see the world/spirit distinction. Taken that way, Catholicism is not gnostic. Gnostics believed that the material world itself is evil.

The next point you addressed is the distinction between this world and the next, and religious life and laity.

Similarly to material and spiritual realities, - the Catholic Church does not teach that this life is bad or evil or that we must get it over with asap to get to Heaven. This life is meant to glorify God, as is the next. But the reason there’s so much focus on getting to Heaven, and almost ignoring or rejecting any “earthly” joy, which is found in the writings of many spiritual authors like in the “Imitation of Christ” - is because we so easily put the earth above Heaven. This life is not bad, at all, it’s a gift from God, which is why murder and abortion and suicide are all wrong. But - life in Heaven is even greater. So it’s a matter of ordering things properly. St Augustine talked about “disordered love”, and how we put things above God. We focus on Heaven, in order to learn to put it first, and earth second - and that goes against the inclinations of our fallen nature, so - it’s difficult, and that’s why it’s probably talked about so much.

As for religious life vs being a lay person… lay people are called to this too. For example, St Francis de Sales’ book “Introduction to the Devout Life”, is written for lay people, but it talks about how to “not be of the world” quite a bit. However, there are reasons why people in religious orders actually do this to a greater degree, and we can see this in the Gospels. This is not influenced by gnosticism or any heresy, or even a dislike for this life or this world, - but rather, - religious life is a way to perfection because it involves putting God first in a more direct, more full way. Lay people can also live holy lives, by all means. But it does seem that religious life is special, for several reasons…

• Jesus said, “if you wish to be perfect, sell all that you have”… and the rich young man couldn’t do it, and then Jesus implied that he could still be saved. So - we can be saved without giving away everything we have, but if we do this, we would be perfect. Those who join religious orders, take a vow of poverty and give away all their earthly possessions.
• Jesus said that those who love their families, etc, more than Him, are not worthy of Him. Most of us aren’t faced with the choice between Our Lord and our families. But - in the case of religious life, - monks and nuns are.
• basically, - the religious intentionally give away everything - possessions, families, careers, money, the opportunity to have a family themselves, - in order to say: that they love God even more than those things. And through that action, a lot of their attachments are purified. For the rest of us, - our attachments will be purified either through prayer and growing in love for God, indulgences, suffering, or Purgatory.

I don’t know if this makes sense… but this is how I see it. It does put religious life sort of above ‘regular’ life… so then you get the question, - what happens to the VII teaching that we are all called to be Saints? that is still true, and it didn’t start with VII we ARE all called to holiness, and not everyone is called to religious life, and people can achieve holiness in other ways as well. The difference is that it might be harder to learn to put God first, without having to make these sacrifices. But it’s definitely possible, and there are many Saints who were lay people. The reason it’s possible is because it is love for God that really counts, in the end. Regardless of how someone learns to love God, if they truly love Him, they can be a Saint, - whatever state of life they find themselves in. But if God calls them to religious life, it would be important for them to say ‘yes’, or try their best to do His will.

God bless

 

[Monica4316]

This is a private revelation, but it helped me to understand the role of religious life… Jesus said the following to Sr Josefa Menendez (book: Way of Divine Love)

"He explained to Josefa the different responses of mankind to God’s offer of love.

'Some have truly known Me, and urged by love, have ardently desired to make an entire sacrifice of themselves to My service, which is that of My Father. They begged to be told the greatest thing they could do for Him, and My Father answered thus: ‘Leave your home, give up your possessions, and having surrendered self, come, follow Me, and do whatever I tell you’.

Others, moved by all that the Son of God had done for their salvation, offered themselves to Him, endeavouring with good will to make a return for His goodness, by working for His interests, but without entire renunciation of their own. To these My Father says: ‘Observe the law which the Lord your God has given you. Keep His Commandments, and erring neither to right nor left, live in the peace which belongs to faithful servants.’

There are others again who have little understanding of God’s great love, yet they have an upright will and live under the law, but without love. These servants have not volunteered to carry out all God’s orders…yet a slight indication of His Will is often enough to enlist their service, since they are men of good will.

There are yet others who submit to their God, not so much through love as through self-interest, and only fulfill the law as far as is necessary to ensure their salvation.

Yet, do all men offer God their service? Are there any who through ignorance of the great love of which they are the object, make no response to all that the Son of God has suffered for them? Alas! …there are many who know and despise it… but a far greater number are entirely ignorant of it…’

For each of these Jesus Christ has a word of love:

'I will speak in the first place to those who do not know Me:

My sons, who from infancy have lived apart from your Father, come, I will tell you why you do not know Me… for once you realize the affection I bear you, you will not resist My love. It is often the case that those brought up far from their parents have little affection for them: but when by chance the sweet love of father or mother is manifested to them, there awakens a keener appreciation of this warm devotion than is found in those who have never left home.

To you, who not only do not love, but hate and persecute Me, I say: 'Why this hatred? … What have I done to deserve persecution at your hands? … There are many who have never asked themselves this question. Today when I ask it, they will perhaps say: ‘We do not know’. Behold, I will answer for you:

If from childhood you have never known Me, it is because no one has ever taught you about Me; and as you grew up, nature also was developing in you love of pleasure and enjoyment, a longing for wealth and freedom. Then came the day when you first heard of Me, and how to live according to My will; that to do so you must love and bear with your neighbour, respect his rights and his goods and gain a mastery of your own nature, in a word, live subject to a law. Hitherto, subject only to your own natural inclinations, if not to your passions, not knowing even of what law there was question, to you I say, is it to be wondered at that you should protest, should wish to enjoy life, to be free, and to be a law unto yourself?

In this lies the beginning of your hatred and persecution of Me. But I, your Father, love you, and even as I see your blind revolt, My Heart is filled with tenderness for you. So the years in which you led this life sped by, and they were, perhaps, many… Today I can no longer restrain My love for you, and the sight of you at war with your best friend compels Me to enlighten you as to who I am.

Dearly loved son, I am Jesus, which name signifies Saviour! why else are My hands transfixed with nails which fasten them to a cross? On it, for love of you, I died. My feet are wounded, My Heart wide open, riven by the lance after death… Thus do I stand before you that you may know who I am and what My law is. But do not fear - My law is one of love… and in knowing Me you will find peace and joy. It is sad to live as an orphan: come, My sons, come to your Father.’

so the “some” in the beginning are the religious, and the “others” are good lay people who wish to serve God. I know that many Catholics will probably completely disagree with me on this, but I really can’t argue with what’s in Scripture and Church tradition and many writings of the Saints. Jesus also told St Faustina that the religious are like the sun, whereas lay people are like the stars.

 

[WFS5801]

Protestantism appears to have forced the Church to abolish the distinction between the world and the cloister, by getting the Church to admit that even lay people could be “religious”, perfect, holy, etc. Is this an error the faithful fell into by mindset during the so-called Dark Ages? Is there a sort of dualism in Catholic views of the world? Does traditional Catholicism really see this world as a testing ground which we are to try to exit speedily in a state of spiritual grace, so as to enter the only world that really matters? This is a big Protestant club against the Church, because if it’s true, all sorts of immoral worldly behaviour can be justified: “since this world doesn’t matter and is fallen, and we should only have our eyes on the next world, the perfect world, to the exclusion of serious personal moral reformation in this one.”

What do you think?

I think if you don’t have “serious personal reformation in this world” you won’t go to Heaven. I don’t see any dualism here, I just see that living our short earthly lives with the intention of attaining Heaven is what Christ and his Apostles taught us to do.

[19] Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] **But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: **where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. [21] For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also. – St. Matthew 6

[1] I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. [2] And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God. – Romans 12

[16] For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. [17] And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever. – I St. John 2

 

[meltzerboy]

Friends,

I’m having a bit of a difficult time with the traditional Catholic mindset. Obviously many modern Catholics have taken on more contemporary ideas that are not ‘traditional’, so the issue is best posed on this sub-form.

Now, an intimate Franciscan brother has been instructing me privately, as a friend, in the Catholic faith, in order to fill the gaps of my breathtakingly slapdash catechism classes. He has to deal with my very legalistic, formulaic mind which is confused by abstract ideas of the heart. It is very difficult to get things across to me unless they’re put categorically, distinctively, and in scholastic ways. Please excuse me if I ever go overboard!

When I think about Catholicism in its classical sense, filled with fiery Augustinian denial of “the world”, many things pop to mind. I think of celibacy. I think of cutting off hands for engaging in masturbation, and making up wives’ tales to discourage it. I think of condemning the life of the world and upholding the life of the spirit. Monasticism was upheld as a great virtuous ideal of life, and the qualifier “religious” became an adjective describing people no longer in the world, and a noun to name those people. The very term became dualistic, because not everyone could be “religious”; those working in the fields as peasants were “secular”/“lay”, and those inside the cloister were “religious”.

Why did this crop up? It sounds so absolutely dualistic and even quasi-gnostic, like a shadow of spiritualism. Those who aim for “true perfection”, say so many Medieval saints, must become religious/monastics. Why is this perfection denied to the people who did not enter the cloister or take on the habit? It sounds like the same dualism the Church condemned as vile heresy.

Protestantism appears to have forced the Church to abolish the distinction between the world and the cloister, by getting the Church to admit that even lay people could be “religious”, perfect, holy, etc. Is this an error the faithful fell into by mindset during the so-called Dark Ages? Is there a sort of dualism in Catholic views of the world? Does traditional Catholicism really see this world as a testing ground which we are to try to exit speedily in a state of spiritual grace, so as to enter the only world that really matters? This is a big Protestant club against the Church, because if it’s true, all sorts of immoral worldly behaviour can be justified: “since this world doesn’t matter and is fallen, and we should only have our eyes on the next world, the perfect world, to the exclusion of serious personal moral reformation in this one.”

What do you think?

This sounds to me like an interesting and scholarly perspective, and I suppose there is some truth to it. For example, in the Middle Ages, the misery of the world–a “veil of tears”–as experienced in the daily lives of peasants, was viewed by some Catholic thinkers as the preparation for a better world to come. Add to this the ennobling dimension of suffering as a means of coming closer to Jesus. On the other hand, I don’t think the premise of your argument would pass the ultimate test according to Catholic doctrine. As I understand it, one’s moral life in this world matters greatly both for its intrinsic worth and as a means for salvation in the next world. Catholicism is not a sola fide religion. Rather, the PRACTICE of faith, both through the Sacraments and moral behavior toward others, is a requirement proclaimed by Jesus. In short, for the true Catholic, this world DOES count and is not a mere pastime or testing ground for the world to come. Perhaps some knowledgeable Catholics on the Forum can add to this or correct my interpretation.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have no idea what OP means by question posed in thread title and his post is not much help.

If as he seems to be asking he sees a mutually irreconcilable divide between active and contemplative life, that is not traditional, classical Catholic spirituality or teaching.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, I would say that properly understood, Christianity is not dualistic. Personally, I think Protestantism, at least in this day and age, tends more that way than Catholicism, but both understand that it is something to be avoided.

That being said, it always seems to be a temptation for people to fall into that way of thinking. Many people do feel Augustine tended that way, especially in the few years afer his conversion when he was still coming from a strong Manichean and Platonic perspective. Certainly he claimed that taking pleasure in sex was always a venial sin, even if done expressly for the purpose of procreation, which seems rather anti-flesh.

As far as monasticism. Yes, I think sometimes people may get the wrong idea about it. Personally, I go back and forth on the idea that it is a higher calling than worldly life. On the one hand, in a way it more closely approximates the life we are told to expect in Heaven, without the distractions of daily life in the world. A monastic is often able to go much farther in certain spiritual disciplines than most others are because of the nature of his living situation. OTOH, marriage can also be a vocation that requires real spiritual sacrifice and is also a way to grow spiritually. One could argue that monastics have it easy in that they are free of the difficulties of family life, and difficulties are always a spiritual opportunity. And of course there would be no monasteries without the worldly community.

In the end, I think the main point is that they are callings, and the only justification we need for them is that God calls some people to them.

 

[Warrenton]

Monasticism was upheld as a great virtuous ideal of life, and the qualifier “religious” became an adjective describing people no longer in the world, and a noun to name those people. The very term became dualistic, because not everyone could be “religious”; those working in the fields as peasants were “secular”/“lay”, and those inside the cloister were “religious”

You raise an interesting point, which really can only be resolved in a “traditional Catholic” way.

It is important to recollect that traditionally, Catholicism not only aimed at, but actually created a unique culture that integrated all aspects of society. The culture has not survived intact, and people make false assumptions based on the ruins that they see.

In the Catholic world, there were all manner of “religious,” from cloistered nuns to mendicant preachers to lay monseignors and military or quasi military brotherhoods. Things that we perceive as totally secular, such as professions, had their own patron saints, feasts, acts of charity, and chapels. Some, like lawyers, were almost clerical, others, like musicians, less so, but still outwardly religious in a way that would seem odd today - I am thinking of the minstrel’s column in (I think) Abingdon Church in Old Blighty.

All the holidays were Church holidays. All the “welfare” was done in the name of Christ, from food, to orphans, to subsidized housing, to legal aid, to the hospital. Just imagine a public defender in a modern city asking not for money but for the prayers of a crack addict for a fee!

The largest building they saw was the Cathedral. Most people were related by blood or marriage to someone in the Church. A parish priest would no sooner “remodel” the church and throw out the old Crucifix, or tear out the rood screen than he would attempt to fly off the belfry - indeed, the latter would have been more likely.

In that world, in the Catholic world, in the world that perhaps most recently existed in Poland before invasions, or in Mexico before the disgusting revolts of the 1910’s and 20s, what context do you suppose the words of St. Augustine were heard?

In their accutate context. Do the words strike us as discordant today?

Of course, because we have lost our “ear.” We live in an age in which 40 days without meat seems unendurable.

The spiritual discipline of the holy is harsh beyond measure to the profane man, no?

But to the holy, or at least even those who lived in a holier environment, is was all of a piece, unified, and sensible. It was simply “life.”

Cheers!

 

[manualman]

I think the OP has been much more influenced by protestant propaganda than he’d like to believe. Humans have been and always will be flawed creatures and every age will have its blind spots and unique foibles. But catholicism is and always has been the LEAST dualistic religion I can imagine. Nothing else that I am aware of upholds the reality, dignity and importance of BOTH the physical everyday world AND the ethereal, spiritual. Almost everything else elevates one and denigrates the other.

Monasteries do not denigrate the laity. They EXIST as places in which the monks PRAY FOR the laity with the understanding that prayer WORKS and that these prayers have real effects which are manifest in the world.

All of your examples seem to be caricatures, straw men or at worst, misunderstandings based on human cultural failings rather than a dualist catholic spirituality.

Where dualism is the WORST today is the miltantly secular culture. On the one hand, they claim to celebrate “human rights”, but have utterly rejected any sane basis upon which to defend those rights.

 

[Julian0404]

Drop your adjectives of “classical” and “traditional” and do not push the faith through such filters.

If you wish to learn, then learn what JESUS gave us. What is Catholicism? Where did it come from? How was it given to us? Who was it’s author? In whom does it’s authority rest?

If the answers to those questions above cannot find a foundation in your heart, then simply ask JESUS to guide you.

You will find through the history of the world many variations of the faith, many heretics, many bad leaders and even Popes, but somehow the faith has managed through all of those and that to be.

You will not come to JESUS on your own, you will come to JESUS by asking for JESUS to come to you. By inviting HIM to teach you and lead you. JESUS is the “mold” in which HIS believers rest, as opposed to the mold of your intellect in which you wish to form JESUS in some scholastic endeavor to understand HIM - not going to happen.

 

[fred_conty]

Friends,

I’m having a bit of a difficult time with the traditional Catholic mindset. Obviously many modern Catholics have taken on more contemporary ideas that are not ‘traditional’, so the issue is best posed on this sub-form.

What do you think?

Hi,
An important consideration is what Christ is calling us to do in life. For some it seems rather clear and for others it is a struggle. But this is vital to know whether a person is called to a higher union with Him, and what special work He is calling that person to do. Or it may be Holy life in an active field whether as single or married. This seems to be the
way it usually works but there are exceptions. Thus the parable said some seed produces hundred fold, some sixty fold, and some thirty fold.

The church has said that some people God has predestined to heaven because of their special calling. These God raises up in the church to give us inspiriation and encouragement, as well as enlightenment to the world. These are the great saints which we are familiar with. I look at them and only see that they have one thought in mind, whether sick or heathy, single or married, evangelistic or quiet, etc., the work and mission of Christ’ kingdom and an enormous amount of energy to carry it out. Rather than dualistic, they were focused on one thing and treated any interferences as blessings from God.

However Christ implied some dualism in the spiiritual life when He told us to pray because the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. He is referring to the crack in our human nature created by sin, called concupisense which inclines us toward sin. And the saints were aware of this and practised different methods of self denial to curb this very thing. St. John the Baptist wore a garment made from camel’s hair. Abstinence from meat on Fridays is a sort of camel’s hair garment of denial for Christ’s crucifixion for us. We are all familiar with adictions which are only controlled only by saying no. So in this was there is a constant struggle or dualism between body and spirit. The saints knew that it was paramount for the spirit to rule with an absolute iron hand which was accomplished by prayer, or God’s strength.

 

[Julian0404]

FRED CONTY: Would you be exact and provide the source and reference which I can read that states that the Church has declared that some people are predestined for heaven?

 

[fred_conty]

FRED CONTY: Would you be exact and provide the source and reference which I can read that states that the Church has declared that some people are predestined for heaven?

Hi,
“God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessness to heaven.” FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA by Ludwig Ott, P.242

He cites Rom. 8; 29 and following.
++++
“God predestines no one to go to hell…” Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1037

Councils of Trent and Orange are cited.​

Behold the Lamb of God, all who eat, all who drink, shall live. Hymn

 

[Julian0404]

Hi,
“God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessness to heaven.” FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA by Ludwig Ott, P.242

He cites Rom. 8; 29 and following.
++++
“God predestines no one to go to hell…” Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1037

Councils of Trent and Orange are cited.​

Behold the Lamb of God, all who eat, all who drink, shall live. Hymn

Yes, but where does the Catholic Church officially declare, state and profess that GOD employs “predestination” ?

 

[Julian0404]

Fred, we are both on the same journey for Truth and to live according to JESUS as guided by the HOLY SPIRIT through the authority of the Pope and Magisterium.

I do not wish to appear obstinate or challenging in my comments, but the Church has always taught “free will” versus “predestination”, as you cannot have both. There have been many over the ages who, in stating their opinion have been misinterpreted or misunderstood and thus had their opinion extrapolated as if it were the teaching of the Church.

The closest “predestination” declaration that I have read, but that still does not proclaim it, is from St. Louis De Monfort, in his book and teachings on the Rosary, wherein he declares - paraphrase - that if there were ever a sign of predestination, it would be the love for and daily praying of the Rosary.

However, I thank you for the reference and I will purchase and read Father Ludwig work.

 

[fred_conty]

Yes, but where does the Catholic Church officially declare, state and profess that GOD employs “predestination” ?

Hi,
The doctrines of the council of Trent presuppose it. D 805, 825, 827. Cf. D 316 and following.

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation.

I believe Mary would be the prime instance of this, being the Mother of God.

And God being unlimited can do whatever He wishes to do which takes into account the use of freewill. How? That is another question, the mystery.

 

[JReducation]

Friends,

I’m having a bit of a difficult time with the traditional Catholic mindset. Obviously many modern Catholics have taken on more contemporary ideas that are not ‘traditional’, so the issue is best posed on this sub-form.

Now, an intimate Franciscan brother has been instructing me privately, as a friend, in the Catholic faith, in order to fill the gaps of my breathtakingly slapdash catechism classes. He has to deal with my very legalistic, formulaic mind which is confused by abstract ideas of the heart. It is very difficult to get things across to me unless they’re put categorically, distinctively, and in scholastic ways. Please excuse me if I ever go overboard!

When I think about Catholicism in its classical sense, filled with fiery Augustinian denial of “the world”, many things pop to mind. I think of celibacy. I think of cutting off hands for engaging in masturbation, and making up wives’ tales to discourage it. I think of condemning the life of the world and upholding the life of the spirit. Monasticism was upheld as a great virtuous ideal of life, and the qualifier “religious” became an adjective describing people no longer in the world, and a noun to name those people. The very term became dualistic, because not everyone could be “religious”; those working in the fields as peasants were “secular”/“lay”, and those inside the cloister were “religious”.

Why did this crop up? It sounds so absolutely dualistic and even quasi-gnostic, like a shadow of spiritualism. Those who aim for “true perfection”, say so many Medieval saints, must become religious/monastics. Why is this perfection denied to the people who did not enter the cloister or take on the habit? It sounds like the same dualism the Church condemned as vile heresy.

What do you think?

There are some things that have to be defined in their historical context. You may want to ask Brother to help you.

Secular: means that which is not part of the consecrated life. It does not mean something that is bad or worldly. For example, we have many priests, but only 30% of them are consecrated men. The rest are secular men. In other words, they are not consecrated religious; therefore, they are not bound to follow the rules and vows of the consecrated life. However, this is not a sin. Not everyone is called to that way of life.

A religious: the term was applied to those entering the consecrated life because of a way of speaking at the time. It was common to refer to those who were entering a convent, monastery, friary, priory or other type of religious community as one who is intering religion. The people of that time used the expressing to mean “going deeper”

Religious: the term is applied to everything that has to do with the life of faith, whether it’s Christian or non - Christian, such as a religious practice. The term comes from the ancient Latin words to tie together or to re join. I like tie together, better.

The Church has always taught as a matter of doctrine that the consecrated life is a higher state in life. However, she has never taught that the person who is not a consecraetd religious is not called by God to be where he or she is. Quite the contrary, the Church has always said that all have been called to holiness. This was the preaching since the time of the Apostles and it has not changed. What makes it a higher state in life is the singular purpose of religious life. As some have stated so well, the religious is one who leaves everything to follow the Master. However, that is not possible for everyone. Is it a higher calling to leave everything, including family, one’s right to be a spouse, one’s property, one’s career and personal plans and desires, even one’s will and opinions? Yes it is. Is it possible or even desireable for everyone? Absolutely not. For some people it’s impossible, because of other obligations, their personality, the needs of the world in which they live or simply because they would do themselves great spiritual harm to attempt it. That’s why even in the religious life, there are degrees. Ther hermit lives in the most intimate relationship with the Lord, then the monk, then the friar, then the active religious and finally the members of secular orders and secular institutes. They all form part of the Church’s consecrated life, but to different degrees, each according to his gifts and means.

Then you have the priesthood which stands along, because no one can do what a priest does. It’s not a way of life as is relgious life. That’s why priests are either religious or secular. However, no one would say that a priest who is not a religious is any less than the brother or sister in religious life. He has a call to do something that no one else can do and it’s the most essential thing to the Church: the Eucharist and absolution from sins.

You may want to read “Vita Consacrata” by Bl. John Paul. It explains this very well and it’s an easy read. He goes light on the philosophical jargon.

God in his infinite mercy designed many paths that lead to heaven so that no one would be lost who seeks salvation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF