Seen To Be

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='18 November 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1258507983' post='2004596']
I think its important to remember that not all communities have the same expression of the ideal of poverty.
[/quote]


This is very true I think and essentially poverty is about poverty of spirit. Ideally, to my mind (and mind you, I am outside of religious life per se or as it is commonly understood) the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience should have an element of "seen to be"...........while it remains entirely possible for a religious to indeed be seen to be poor, chaste and obedient, and yet never arrive or approach that essential poverty, chastity and obedience of spirit. Hence, ideally, and to my mind, a religious is seen to be (in a literal sense as it were) by virtue of the structure in which she is living and as poor, chaste and obedient, and is in an interior senses striving to be poor, chaste and obedient in spirit.
It is also, of course, quite possible to have wealth and yet be poor, chaste and obedient in spirit. We have recently celebrated the feastdays of St. Margaret of Scotland and Elizabeth of Hungary - both queens who lived as if they "had not" as far as worldly wealth was concerned. I think one of them (memory often fails me) was careful to always dress well so as not to embarrass her husband in a public sense and of course the king - and this was absolutely virtuous.
What is concerning to me is that those outside Catholicism can and do note (if they are exposed to it) just how well some religious and priests do live (and of course priests do not make a vow of poverty, although I dont think this is really commonly understood).
Outsiders (including Catholics outside of religious life) can find the conditions under which some religious and priests do live as contradictory. And what I am saying is that especially in an age of, and we are asked to focus on, evangelization..........some are perceiving double standards within the very structures that represent in a witnessing manner to the best of Catholic life - i.e. religious and priesthood. The Catholic Church generally is perceived to be materially wealthy often due to what others see as evidence of material wealth and in those who stand for what is the best and 'highest' in Catholic life - our priests, nuns and religious. Of course, arguments and valid ones can be presented why this is not necessarily so.........again, what I am asking and what my essential point is is - should we be seen to be and as a first point in evanglizing in order to present and seen to present a sacrificial spirit in the interests of those materially poor and similar matters?........or doesn't it matter and it shouldn't matter and if not, then why not.

Some even find it hypocritical - and justly can one present many reasons why it is not hypocritical at all. But this is how, I am saying, some and perhaps many may be perceiving. Indeed, The Lord does provide amply - one hundredfold - and in very many ways for those who have left all for the sake of The Kingdom and followed His call...but Jesus did point out that The Kingdom is people - and people who are servants.....I have even heard of communities receiving large financial gifts etc. etc. What I am pointing out, I guess is, should such donations be spent on themselves when more than half the world goes to bed hungry, strarving, homeless. Many arguments could be presented why such donations should be spent on themselves.........and again, thus, what I am pointing out is should religious strive to be "seen to be" rather than having good arguments [u][b]if[/b][/u] asked why they are not seen to be.

What should be the priority in a general sense? I realize there may be valid exceptions for some particular reason or another.


Barb
PS.........I am not speaking of the cost of the habit only of course. Although my own personal opinion is the simpler the better - and there are plenty of communities around with quite simple habits. While not speaking of the habit only, it is an public expression of religious life that for sure is a public witness simply because what we wear can to a very large degree 'speak' about identity. Who I am.
Of great interst to me are the Sisters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta. When Mother Teresa first chose her habit it did not appear as a religious habit in any way manner or form, I dont think. It was, in fact, the witness of the lives of Mother Teresa and her Sisters that triggered that her habit be recognized everywhere and as a religious habit and that of jolly good religious. I think my point is there without going further.

Edited November 18, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

[quote] "Poverty of spirit is more about being willing to sleep on the floor than actually sleeping on the floor."[/quote]

Perhaps.............but one may well find that one's poverty of spirit was tested even found wanting if one [u][b]HAD[/b][/u] to sleep on the floor. Sometimes I can think I am something or other and when it is tested, I find that who and what I thought I was, was not so at all.

Somebody else mentioned that to focus on wanting to look poor (re the habit) could be just as bad as the opposite, since it was focusing on oneself. There may be some validity in this........however, my point is that in looking poor (or seen to be) it is a way of witnessing and in the interests of evangelization and not appearing to be contradictory. I am stating "appearing to be" which, of course is not necessarily the actuality. The "seen to be" poor is in the interests (motivation) of witnessing to poverty and seen to be generally a witness to poverty in the interests of evangelization and The Gospel (not vanity over dress and what to wear) - Barb

Edited November 18, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

[quote]I don't really know how much the materials for my habits cost, although I think it would qualify as poor material. I did not get the scratchiest, hottest fabric, either. Mine was made of fabric that was relatively airy, and comfortable to me. Was I not being sacrificial enough? Maybe... I don't know. I really didn't think too much about it... life is pretty short... would God have wanted me to concentrate more on the specifics of how I practiced poverty? I kind of doubt it... I think He would have preferred that I think about Him than about what material my habit was made out of. If I had gotten really itchy material, would that austerity have made me holier? What if I was so uncomfortable I wasn't able to concentrate on Jesus or putting my best effort into my work because all I could think about was how itchy I felt? I don't know... part of me thinks that is a different form of self-centeredness that doesn't help one's relationship with God. But maybe I'm wrong, and that was a serious problem. For all I know, not fully and wholeheartedly practicing poverty that religious life entails, especially as a Franciscan, could have cost me my vocation, if I did actually have one to religious life.[/quote]

Thank you for the above SaintTherese.................First, my purpose in this thread was not only re habit - but the whole issue of "seen to be" in religious life as a priority. Secondly, I do not mean that religious orders should descend to the ridiculous re habit. They need to be functional according to the demands of the particular way of life. I do not mean at all to buy the very cheapest material - though it will itch and be overly hot or not warm enough etc. etc. As St. Albert stated "common sense is the guide of all the virtues".
I am also talking in a quite general sense about religious life............not speaking to (or not meaning to speak to) particular religious already within religious life and thus under a canonical vow of obedience. What is the saying - flower where you are planted, I think it is.

I am also addressing "seen to be" as a witness to The Kingdom which is the baptized called to be servants..........and servants especially of the poor no matter the type of poverty - but it is inclusive of material poverty.

Barb
PS Please excuse the consecutive posts, I am in a different time zone probably than most i.e. Australia.

Edited November 18, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[GraceUk]

This is an interesting thread. I know people who aren't catholics have a problem with communities vowed to poverty owning land and property worth millions in prime positions. It's a difficult problem.

But day to day life I agree should be simple. But I think food should be adequate as there is no point in people becoming ill because of a bad diet. I had read somewhere that in one community you had to ask permission for a drink of water. I was quite surprised at this. I can perfectly understand people not being allowed to go in the fridge for whatever they wanted to snack between meals or even not allowed coffee when they wanted. But I can't understand the water rule. As if you are thirsty would it not be unhealthy not to drink. Shows how little I know about religious life!

[Lilllabettt]

I think sometimes poverty can be ostentatious. It can be a source of pride to be "seen to be" very poor ... to run around in rags, barefoot and skinny and congratulate oneself (and be congratulated by others) for being sooooo impressively poor.

It also may allow one to think to oneself: "I have a poor habit, I get sneers. She has a rich habit, and people look at her. Wow, how great a martyr I am, especially compared to her."

I think some people find it harder to be radically, materially poor. Other people find it much more humbling to accept whatever God provides, and to risk being judged by others looking from the outside as not being poor enough.

It also depends on the mission. For some congregations, poverty is practiced because it is an aid to evangelization. Other congregations don't have evangelization as their main goal. Maybe their purpose is medical care or prayer or just personal sanctification ... so they're allowed to have whatever possessions deemed helpful to achieving that. And then other communities live with the poor, or have hospitality as their apostolate ... they may be seen to be "living well," but really they live that way for the sake of the poor, or their guests.

Some Sisters drive fancy cars because they have been donated, and in their community's practice of poverty it is against the rule to turn up one's nose at a donation because it is "too rich," because a really poor person would accept with gratitude whatever God provided. Some communities build grand monasteries because they are actually living in God's house, and the house itself is dedicated to God and is designed to give glory to God.

I think we (religious especially) shouldn't compare the "authenticity" of the practice of poverty of religious communities or of one another. Different expressions yes, but authenticity, no. That will almost always end in rash judgment, of ourselves or of the other.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Lilllabettt

[osapientia]

[quote name='GraceUk' date='18 November 2009 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1258550302' post='2004756']
This is an interesting thread. I know people who aren't catholics have a problem with communities vowed to poverty owning land and property worth millions in prime positions. It's a difficult problem.
[/quote]
I realize that people outside the Catholic Church (and some inside as well) do see this as a problem and often many of us shy away from trying to "explain" it. I honestly think that a very valid point can be made by deferring to St. Paul - who, in the Scriptures, very clearly explained (when others complained) that the worker is worthy of his wage.

Most of the land and buildings occupied by communities(especially land and buildings now worth millions) were donated to communities by committed brothers/sisters in the Faith who felt that the work/existence of the community was worth this "wage".

I'm certain that over time the gifts were abused and certainly some religious fell to sin in this area...but I don't really see much of that happening today. Many communities struggle to pay health insurance and other expenses for their members despite the buildings they may live in.

Further, in my opinion, it would be terribly unwise and quite lacking in gratitude to simply vacate a building (or toss away a gift given by someone probably moved by the Holy Spirit) on the premise that it doesn't seem poor. (not that I saw this suggested directly anywhere in this thread)

Not everything is as it seems to be or as it is seen to be. Be aware also that when land or buildings are given the gift sometimes comes with a stipulation from the benefactor that it can NOT be sold. I know one community very well for whom this stipulation was a part of the benefactor's gift...he simply did not ever want to even imagine future members of the community being without a home...so even they they may struggle in some areas (or even be quite materially poor) they can not sell their land to solve their problem. When people give gifts of this magnitude (buildings/land) they are doing so to establish something that will last through time..often they don't want it to be subject to whim or economic stress which we all know can come and go like the tides. It's also true that land now worth millions was most likely not worth that when it was received by the community....and at least in the US, land worth "millions" is not terribly uncommon...in fact I can probably pick out two or three homes in my neighborhood that are worth millions of dollars at this point and I don't live anywhere FANCY...just happen to be in the metro area of a major US city....paying millions for a home goes with the territory.

Others may look on in disdain, but if they do so without knowing the whole story I think it's likely a simple case of judging one's neighbor and I don't believe we ought to even consider it.

Edited November 18, 2009 by osapientia

[rosamundi]

The Shrine at OLAM was paid for by some rich benefactors, as I understand it (I'm sure more knowledgeable people than me can correct me if I'm wrong, here). Should Mother Angelica have turned down their gift because it was "unsuitable"? Should she have said to these people, who wanted only the best for God, that their desire was wrong and the King of Kings should be enthroned in concrete and steel? I don't know. It's not my place to say. But I was brought up to believe that you smiled and said thank you for a jumper that was four sizes too big and made you look terminally ill because bottle green wasn't your colour. You don't start setting limits on other people's generosity.

Yes, there is an argument that the Church should sell its wealth and give the money to the poor. In my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it, this argument is rubbish. Fine, sell the Sistine Chapel and Michaelangelo's Pieta and all the rest of it, and the world's richest people will hide these things away in their private vaults and maybe take them out once a year to go "my precious, look what I've got and you haven't, tee hee hee hee hee." And the poor are left with what, exactly? All the money in the world will only go so far, and Jesus Himself said "the poor you will always have with you."

At the moment, people can walk into any church in the world and see the most stunning examples of art. I know of a church which has an El Greco Crucifixion just hanging there, behind the altar. Anyone can walk in and see it. Put it on the open market and it will end up in some private owner's collection and you might be lucky if you see it once a year. Sell the riches of the Church and the poor will still be there, [i]and[/i] they'll have nothing but breeze-blocks and polyester to look at. Blech.

It is no accident that the Anglo-Catholic churches in London are found in what used to be the slum areas. The Kingdom of Heaven has gates of pearl and pavements of gold and walls of precious metal, and our worship is a foretaste of this. The gold candlesticks may be painted wood, but people put effort into creating something that brought the heart and mind to the things not of this world, and who are we to say that it's not important?

[BarbTherese]

It seems that the general consensus leans towards there is no need to be "seen to be" in religious life - for various reasons.

[quote]I think sometimes poverty can be ostentatious. It can be a source of pride to be "seen to be" very poor ... to run around in rags, barefoot and skinny and congratulate oneself (and be congratulated by others) for being sooooo impressively poor. [/quote]

There is truth in the above of course. Not that I meant (as per a previous post in this thread) that there should be extremes (rags, barefoot and skinny) and ostentatiosness There could well be an equal truth too (for the sake of 'argument') in being proud and vain because one has a 'nice' habit and 'nice' surroundings I guess - good food and a shiny car. I wouldn't know...........and for the purposes of this thread and the question posed, I was thinking about those outside religious life both Catholic and non Catholic who are 'looking in' and if religious had any obligations or necessity towards them to be "seen to be" in the interests of evangelization.

Seems the general consensus on Phatmass.com is that there is no need to be "seen to be".

My purpose was not to challenge those who are religious and their particular Order's expression of religious life. I really meant to pose a quite general question and not to arouse any sort of individual sensibilities - certainly not to be offensive either. My apologies if I may have been so - it was accidental and not deliberate.

Mine is a general question about religious life etc. in general.

We should indeed, I think, "make a virtue of necessity" and "flower where we are planted". In essence spirituality is not about what can be observed but about interior motivations. I can do a very good act, with lousy interior motivations. Just as one can do what appears to be a negative act, but my interior motivations are sound and of virtue. For the purposes of this thread none of this was what I had in mind .......again, rather a general ideal in the interests of evangelization primarily for the purposes of this thread anyway.

Mine was a general question only about religious life etc. therefore (in this instance and thread) and negative comments I have heard from both Catholics and non Catholics and my own experience. It seems to me that generally in this thread to date that it is felt by possibly the majority that there is no obligation or necessity for religious etc. to speak to these negative observations by being "seen to be".

Thank you very much to all who have posted.....and who may post...........Barb

[BarbTherese]

[quote]Yes, there is an argument that the Church should sell its wealth and give the money to the poor. In my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it, this argument is rubbish. Fine, sell the Sistine Chapel and Michaelangelo's Pieta and all the rest of it, and the world's richest people will hide these things away in their private vaults and maybe take them out once a year to go "my precious, look what I've got and you haven't, tee hee hee hee hee." And the poor are left with what, exactly? All the money in the world will only go so far, and Jesus Himself said "the poor you will always have with you." [/quote]

Why not sell art treasures to public art galleries under the condition that they are not sold to private individuals and that they must be displayed to the public? And not sell until these conditions are met - having both a responsible concern for the art treasures and for the poor.

Sure, the poor will always be with us - many forms of poverty not only material. But because the poor will always be with us is not excuse, I dont think, not to do all in our power to alleviate poverty wherever we find it and whatever the form of poverty. It does not rest easy with me that we in the western world have such an abundance and that people - including women and children in the third world are starving and homeless. We are very vocal and passionate about the crime of abortion.......death through starvation can also be a crime in a world of plenty. I just wonder if on judgement we will be asked about this?
I am not posing extremes.......e.g. I am not saying that people should impoverish themselves in order to come to the aid of the impoverished. There is no common sense in that. I am not posing extremes at all please understand. What I am posing is the obligation to share in love of neighbour and in justice the material wealth that God may have gifted one(s) - not as any sort of reward nor any sort of wage........ but in stewardship.

Sometimes we can dig around and find rationalizations for our status quo and a refusal to grow (well I can anyway) and growth intrinsically is change. Sometimes because status quo suits us, we then proceed to rationalize the status quo.
[quote] "my precious, look what I've got and you haven't, tee hee hee hee hee."[/quote] I had to smile at this considering the context in which it was written.

[quote]The Kingdom of Heaven has gates of pearl and pavements of gold and walls of precious metal, and our worship is a foretaste of this.[/quote] So we should gather and retain what is precious in this world (gold etc.) in order to convey an impression/foretaste of Heaven? And this is to transcend the issue of poverty in our world? "The Kingdom of God is within you". Heaven and The Kingdom are all about people to my mind...without taking my statement to ridiculous extremes.

Jesus came to us as an impoverished homeless refugee as it were and He lived and died as a poor travelling teacher as it were. He contradicted the wealth of this world to my mind and made (literal)poverty holy witnessed to by the religious vow of poverty as I see it. Jesus was indeed poor in spirit also because God does not disdain becoming truly human. "6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. " http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=57&ch=2&l=8&f=s#x Poverty as chosen in imitation of Jesus and for the sake of The Kingdom is holy..........it can indeed be unholy when it is not chosen but situational anyway and can be unholy when it is forced especially through the refusal of those who could share denying same with those denied even the needs to survive.

The problem of poverty etc. in this world is a massive problem and what can I do. Well, I guess if we all say that then indeed nothing will be 'do-ed'. Each of us and no matter our call can do something and together (united) we can do marvels.

The goods of this world as are our spiritual gifts are for stewardship..........not rewards or wages. As I see it. And in the terms of The Kingdom of God, what greater reward and wage than to be His stewards, His servants..........through sharing the gifts He gives us and serving others?

Barb

Edited November 18, 2009 by BarbaraTherese

[osapientia]

[quote name='rosamundi' date='18 November 2009 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1258577447' post='2005014']
The Shrine at OLAM was paid for by some rich benefactors, as I understand it (I'm sure more knowledgeable people than me can correct me if I'm wrong, here). Should Mother Angelica have turned down their gift because it was "unsuitable"? Should she have said to these people, who wanted only the best for God, that their desire was wrong and the King of Kings should be enthroned in concrete and steel? I don't know. It's not my place to say. But I was brought up to believe that you smiled and said thank you for a jumper that was four sizes too big and made you look terminally ill because bottle green wasn't your colour. You don't start setting limits on other people's generosity.

Yes, there is an argument that the Church should sell its wealth and give the money to the poor. In my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it, this argument is rubbish. Fine, sell the Sistine Chapel and Michaelangelo's Pieta and all the rest of it, and the world's richest people will hide these things away in their private vaults and maybe take them out once a year to go "my precious, look what I've got and you haven't, tee hee hee hee hee." And the poor are left with what, exactly? All the money in the world will only go so far, and Jesus Himself said "the poor you will always have with you."

At the moment, people can walk into any church in the world and see the most stunning examples of art. I know of a church which has an El Greco Crucifixion just hanging there, behind the altar. Anyone can walk in and see it. Put it on the open market and it will end up in some private owner's collection and you might be lucky if you see it once a year. Sell the riches of the Church and the poor will still be there, [i]and[/i] they'll have nothing but breeze-blocks and polyester to look at. Blech.

It is no accident that the Anglo-Catholic churches in London are found in what used to be the slum areas. The Kingdom of Heaven has gates of pearl and pavements of gold and walls of precious metal, and our worship is a foretaste of this. The gold candlesticks may be painted wood, but people put effort into creating something that brought the heart and mind to the things not of this world, and who are we to say that it's not important?
[/quote]

Well said.

[rosamundi]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='18 November 2009 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1258580953' post='2005053']
Why not sell art treasures to public art galleries under the condition that they are not sold to private individuals and that they must be displayed to the public? And not sell until these conditions are met - having both a responsible concern for the art treasures and for the poor. [/quote]

I don't know if you know much about art galleries, but here in the UK, the wealth of art galleries is in their art. They are generally quite cash poor. If an important piece of art comes on the market, they have to beg and scramble to raise the cash to buy it, occasionally with the semi-connivance of the government, who will refuse a piece of art an export licence if it is "of significance to the nation" and there is a realistic chance of a museum or gallery raising the money.

But art galleries aren't as rich as private individuals can be, and if the metaphorical "you" is saying "sell that El Greco and give the money to the poor," then the Church is under an obligation to get the best price it can, so it can help more poor people. So it goes to a private individual, and is locked up in a vault or on their private walls, maybe to appear in a gallery a few years down the line in lieu of a swingeing inheritance tax bill.

[quote]I am not posing extremes.......I am not saying that people should impoverish themselves in order to come to the aid of the impoverished. There is no common sense in that. What I am posing is the obligation to share the material wealth that God may have gifted one - not as any sort of reward nor any sort of wage........ but in stewardship.[/quote]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that God and the Church is not deserving "the best." That churches should be functional and lack anything beautiful, and that if I were to come to church or a convent with something that I made, or had cause to be made, with love, and wanted to offer it to God as a sign of my love for and devotion to Him, I would be turned away with "that is too expensive for God, go away." And that seems to me to be impoverishment of spirit as well as material poverty, which is a shame.

[quote]So we should gather and retain what is precious in this world (gold etc.) in order to convey an impression/foretaste of Heaven?[/quote]

The Anglican Shrine at Walsingham is mostly gilded wood and painted plaster. They could have done it in bare plaster and wood, because that would have been cheaper, but they didn't, because they wanted it to look nice. It probably cost a bit more, but it was a sign of their love and devotion that they chose to spend that extra money on God's House.

We are an Incarnational people, and all our senses should be reached when we worship God.

Edited November 18, 2009 by rosamundi

[organwerke]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='18 November 2009 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1258579709' post='2005047']

Seems the general consensus on Phatmass.com is that there is no need to be "seen to be".

[/quote]

I'm reading this thread, and I'm finding it really interesting, but I can't understand what does "seen to be" exactly mean.
English is not my first language, so I have this problem that I can't understand what do you mean with this expression.
Anyway, I really agree with you, with your first post.
I don't want, as you, to do criticism in any manner, toward any religious reality.
But, the same, I understand your opinions about your experience, and I agree with you.
I'm not a religious person.
I did a sort of very little discernment towards religious life (a few vocational weekends, but they were not strictly "vocational" as to say only for people interested in religious life, but vocational in "general", open to every vocation).
Anyway...
For example I like very much the last congregation I've known.
It is an active/contemplative family, who has different ministries and also missions in poor countries.
I could say that it seems a quite rich institution, but a "richness" that doesn't "disturb".
It doesn't disturb because I found that there is a great love and charity in the sisters, towards the people they care of, and all the beauty of every building is shared with the people they care of.
An example.
In Florence, the sisters have a house in which they give hospitality and take care of orphans children, or children who can't stay with their family, and, beside the house, they have also some little flats for single women with their children.
the house is really beautiful: it is an italian villa, with beautiful frescos on the walls and on the ceilings, and a garden with hedges, and olive trees...a beautiful Medicean villa in the Florence's hills! The municipality of Florence gave this villa to the sisters for their apostolic work. The first time I visited them I thought: what a nice thing to give this house to the sisters and their "little children": it is a very good thing that it can be used by really poor people as these children, and these single women!
Yes, I think that when richness is [b]really[/b] shared with the poor people, it doesn't disturb, also because, beside this beautiful environment, they (the sisters) live a sober life.
So, in general, I don't mind how an insitute is rich if the poor people really take part of its goods.
Instead to me is very disturbing a richness that creates a gap between religious persons, and persons who live in the world, especially the poor of course.
And I can say there are several of these institues that, even if I don't want to criticize, anyway they don't attract me at all for this reason.
The same reason for, if I ever followed religious life, I wouldn't choose a congregation whose member live better than I do in the world...and nor one where they live as I do in the world, but only one in which I would have to renounce something.

[BarbTherese]

What greater reward and wage than to be chosen to be a member of His Mystical Body on earth and his steward and servant. What greater reward and wage than to be promised an eternity with Him in Heaven? Mark Chapter 12: "29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

31 [b]And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself[/b]. There is no other commandment greater than these."

[BarbTherese]

[quote]I'm reading this thread, and I'm finding it really interesting, but I can't understand what does "seen to be" exactly mean.
English is not my first language, so I have this problem that I can't understand what do you mean with this expression.
Anyway, I really agree with you, with your first post.
I don't want, as you, to do criticism in any manner, toward any religious reality.
But, the same, I understand your opinions about your experience, and I agree with you.[/quote]
Hi..........."seen to be" means that (as an example) religious take a vow of poverty. Should they then be "seen to be" poor - or doesn't it matter. This is the question I am asking in this thread. I hope that will make things a bit clearer for you.

Also, I understand that I can be mistaken - I am not meaning to state that I cannot. I personally feel that perhaps religious for example only (nuns, sisters and brothers) should be "seen to be" and presenting why I think so. But my mind is quite open to be changed in light of thoughts presented that seem to me to be better than my own just now. I thought that you presented some pretty good points in your post and thank you for sharing them..............Barb

[BarbTherese]

[quote]Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. You seem to be saying that God and the Church is not deserving "the best." That churches should be functional and lack anything beautiful, and that if I were to come to church or a convent with something that I made, or had cause to be made, with love, and wanted to offer it to God as a sign of my love for and devotion to Him, I would be turned away with "that is too expensive for God, go away." And that seems to me to be impoverishment of spirit as well as material poverty, which is a shame.[/quote]

Thank you very much for you kindness. I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding of my 'position' and it may well be that I have presented it poorly and it is open to misunderstanding. I did not mean to convey that our Churches should be deprived of the beautiful (we may, however, disagree over what we find "beautiful" - and as we know one man's meat as it were is another's poison i.e. we are all different). I think our Churches should be beautiful absolutely.............but I also think there is another obligation on us personally and that is to the extremely poor materially of this world. That in building our Churches we need consider and weigh both and make our decisions from there and with prayer to The Holy Spirit that we choose in Him.

I may be indeed that concepts about what is beautiful and what is not and regard to religion and our churches etc. generally may be undergoing change - with some anyway. And I am not suggesting that the some (for example) should impose their concepts on the other "some" - and vv. It therefore begs the general question, "What is beautiful in religious and spiritual terms and should this be expressed as a "seen to be"? And, again, it seems to me that here on Phatmass that perhaps "seen to be" as a general consensus is not important.

We need to listen and hear The Holy Spirit.

If a person comes with a gift, should they be turned away. No. No gift is too expensive [b]for God[/b]. However, it may well be too expensive for me and a vow of poverty. That is what I would need to weigh and discern hopefully in The Holy Spirit and with loving Charity and concern for the donating person or source always. I know that may seem rather vague but there are too many variables of which I can think in any given situation. What I am saying is that a genuine concern for the materially poor needs to be factored into considerations - and what may be a very real obligation towards them. No easy decisionn possibly, all things considered - no it would not be at all. I dont know at all, perhaps a very genuine concern for the materially poor is very much factored in. My question remains then where does "seen to be" come in and it seems to me here on Phatmass this does not matter.


[quote]The Anglican Shrine at Walsingham is mostly gilded wood and painted plaster. They could have done it in bare plaster and wood, because that would have been cheaper, but they didn't, because they wanted it to look nice. It probably cost a bit more, but it was a sign of their love and devotion that they chose to spend that extra money on God's House.

We are an Incarnational people, and all our senses should be reached when we worship God.[/quote]

I think the Anglicans at Wasingham have done well and my opinion and idea of the beautiful.

[quote]We are an Incarnational people, and all our senses should be reached when we worship God[/quote]

Indeed. We are an Incarnational people and ideally witness to the Incarnation (my previous post). What reaches our senses from anything 'humanly constructed' may be quite personal and totally different according to each individual - and not to be told how our senses should experience which is impossible as an actuality. Not that I am saying nor suggesting in any way at all that you are doing this - a general statement.

But my original question is and to expand it further than religious - should we be "seen to be". And as I said before, it seems to me that the general consensus her on Phatmass.com leans towards the negative and for a various reasons.

Barb