Seen To Be

[zunshynn]

I think I understand where you are coming from Barbara Therese, and I think you have a point... we definitely need to be careful not to cause scandal by appearances, but at the same time, we can't cater Some people will be scandalized by everything related to the Church because they have that predilection. I also suspect that if someone is scandalized by percieved wealth of a monastery, part of the reason they may be scandalized is simply by the fact that they cannot SEE the monastery and go in it. That doesn't mean that it would be appropriate to remove the enclosure. I have never met anyone scandalized by any habit for seeming "too rich"... and only once or twice did I meet, for example, anyone that thought the monastery itself at OLAM was also made of marble, and gold like the Shrine. Most people realized the monastery itself was pretty simple.

On the opposite perspective, I've known people to have been scandalized by our failure to give enough to adorn that which belongs to God properly. I remember meeting a Baptist once who told me, "Sister... I been in a lotta churches... a lotta Catholic churches too... and lemme tell ya... this is the only one that believes that Jesus really lives here."

Surprised, I said... "oh, that's not true... why would you come to that conclusion?"

"Well, Sister... If they all believe it, why don't they give Him the best like here?" There's something to that. Not every church is going to be elaborately adorned, and that doesn't mean that God isn't being given the best. The Missionaries of Charity, for example, have simple, but very beautiful chapels. But they serve a different purpose than a basilica or a shrine.

And selling the church's artwork to museums to help the poor, but so that the public could still appreciate it, would be wrong, if you ask me.

The church's artwork is a form of worship of God. It is part of our heritage, but it's more than that. It's our spiritual heritage. It's in honor of Him, to aid people in adoring Him. It's not just for us to look at and enjoy like looking at artwork at the Louvre. It's for us to look at and be inspired to adore God. Selling sacred art to a museum prevents that artwork from fulfilling its purpose. What would selling it to museums do? Then, it's no longer available to people to see unless they pay to go in the museum?

There were a number of times when Rev. Mother was building the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament when she picked something out, and one of the benefactors insisted that no way, they wanted her to get something nicer. For example the marble... originally Mother was going to get tile. One of the benefactors insisted that she get marble, and that she would pay for it. Now, is there anything "wrong" with a church made with tile? No, not necessarily... but that doesn't mean that marble is too much.

Edited November 19, 2009 by zunshynn

[BarbTherese]

Yes, we do have an obligation to be humbly grateful for gifts offered to God if through us and to communicate it. We also have the obligation of a vow of poverty if one has been made. We also have an obligation towards the poor of this world when we have plenty and they may be starving to death and homeless in that God’s Gifts including materiality’s are not gifted to be our possession/ownership, rather in stewardship. We also have an obligation to witness to the Gospel.

Where is the priority? How do we prioritize?

Of course there are variables that apply to “seen to be”. Just as one cannot set one rule to the exclusion of all others that determines Charity – sometimes a certain act may be charitable in a situation and in the next situation I may need to act in a different way. Exactly the same applies to “seen to be” if one chooses to apply it. But I think as the thread has unfolded to date that the majority lean where religious life (as one example) is concerned is that there is no obligation to be “seen to be” and it does not apply as any sort of objective……… [u][b]if[/b][/u] I have read things rightly. I really did not expect so much activity in this thread (so much for expectations) and I may not be able to give any more time to it.

[rosamundi]

I think it depends how you see the material wealth of the Church. Do you see it as signs of someone’s devotion, that they wanted to give God of the most beautiful and best, and the Church holds that in trust for the future, or not? As the Body of Christ, the Church's wealth belongs to us all, and I don’t believe that we have the right to flog it off to the highest bidder and deprive future generations of the chance to see it.

As someone once said, trying to explain the difference between property held by the Crown, and property held by the person, Elizabeth Windsor, “The Queen, as Mrs. Windsor, does not own The Crown Estate, but Mrs. Windsor, as The Queen, does own The Crown Estate.” In other words, she “owns” Buckingham Palace and the rest of the Crown Estate by right of who and what she is, but she doesn’t “own” it in the sense that she can’t sell Windsor Castle because she fancies buying a nice bungalow in Birmingham. (I don’t want to get into a “rights and wrongs of the monarchy,” debate, here, but there is an equivalence, I think).

In much the same way, the Church “owns” great material wealth, but it holds it in trust for the real wealth of the church, which is its people, the Body of Christ, its spiritual wealth, if you will. And by selling that which brings beauty into the world, and saying “the Church, in her worship and her life, must do everything on the cheap and shoddy,” we deprive the Body of Christ of the opportunity to rejoice in beauty, and see therein a foretaste, a ghost, a shadow of the life that is to come. It behoves us to drag people up to the heights, rather than shove them down to the depths.

Jesus didn’t say “the Temple should be torn down, its wealth sold, the money raised used to feed the poor.” He didn’t criticise the widow for giving her last mite to the Temple, He praised her.

Often, things have only become valuable over time. There are churches and convents which were built in the middle of a slum, because that’s where the need was. Over time, there has been redevelopment, and many changes, and now the building is on a piece of land which is worth millions, and whilst there is still a need for mission, the nature of the mission has changed.

Should we demolish the church, sell the land, spend the money on the Church’s outreach programme? Maybe. Except without the church there to act as a base, its mission in the area disappears, and the people it ministers to will no longer have that example of the things which are not of this world before them as a reminder that there is more to life than this, whether “this” is grinding material poverty, or the spiritual poverty which so often replaces it as an area goes “up in the world.”

Here, I’m thinking of a church in London which is in the middle of an area which is at the same time the red light district, has many homeless people in the area, and is [i]also[/i] extremely wealthy because it is a popular place for media companies to be based. There is great material poverty cheek by jowl with great spiritual poverty, and the church has a mission to both the spiritually and materially poor. If the church were to disappear, and be replaced by another office block, then the materially poor would have nowhere to go to be physically fed, and the spiritually poor would have nowhere to go to be spiritually fed. We should be a city on a hill, a light to the world, not creeping around ashamed of the things that our predecessors did to show their love for God.

[organwerke]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='19 November 2009 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1258585490' post='2005113']
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.
[/quote]

Thank you for your explanation.
Yes, now the things are a bit clearer to me.
This reminds me a concept that I often heard: that poverty isn't a material condition, but a spiritual one, and in particular it doesn't consist in having nothing, but in not becoming too fond of material things.
According to this vision, people can be poor also if they live in richness, and, similarly, they can be "rich" also if they have got very few things...
I confess that I was never too convinced by this idea: if it is true that it is different to be really poor from looking like poor, it is true that if you want to be really poor, others should also see that you really are.

perhaps is it the same thought you expressed?
Anyway, to be clear, I think these things firstly thinking to myself, since I can say I never lived in poverty, and I could be much poorer than I actually am.

[osapientia]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='18 November 2009 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1258602166' post='2005394']
thread has unfolded to date that the majority lean where religious life (as one example) is concerned is that there is no obligation to be “seen to be” and it does not apply as any sort of objective……… [u][b]if[/b][/u] I have read things rightly. I really did not expect so much activity in this thread (so much for expectations) and I may not be able to give any more time to it.
[/quote]
I realize, Barbara Therese that you may not have the time to respond to this.

I don't think anyone here on phatmass is completely ruling out the notion of "seen to be" as I believe you intend it....but I do think we are applying a bit of "caution" with regard to those who might judge The Church or a religious based on a misunderstanding or worse. For instance there are those who would simply use the concept to advance their own anti-Catholic agenda. I could see that happening quite easily....in effect using your perfectly reasonable and (to my opinion) important and virtuous notion of "seen to be" for quite another purpose.

I think it's important whose eyes (and heart) are doing the seeing when considering what someone else is "seen to be". I think a great example is the Baptist man mentioned above in this thread. In his eyes OLAM was seen to be a witness to belief in Real Presence (paraphrase)"...the only church where the people actually believe Jesus LIVES here". Not too shabby an observation if you ask me. On the other hand I have met those who "see" OLAM and think "those are POOR Clares? No way, these people are living high on the hog". And worse I know people who look at OLAM or any church similarly adorned and see only idol worshipers.

Which of these "seen to be's" is OLAM?

For another example I can tell you that I had personal direct interaction with several very poor looking religious (with a well known reputation for living very poorly) that wasn't quite so lovely. I was running a concert at a parish and these religious called to ask for free tickets - saying they were very poor and could not afford to buy them but would like to come. The parish secretary did not feel as if she could "make the call" on giving out free tickets so she called me. I called the person who had made the request and asked how many tickets they would like to have...the answer astounded me...they asked for $400 worth of tickets. I knew the parish couldn't afford to buy those tickets out of parish monies, but I didn't want to argue, explain or deny them access so I bought the tickets out of my own money and never received so much as a "thank you".

Who lives out their poverty better - OLAM with their "luxurious" shrine...or those who asked for something to use for their own entertainment all the while wearing "rags"? Who also, in my opinion, asked for more than was needed. And what about me....did I "see them to be" in violation of their own notion of poverty because I gave more than I really wanted to and sank into some form of resentment?

The concept of "seen to be" isn't wrong per se (in my opinion) it's just very, very subjective and difficult to "get my head around".

A religious or The Church in general could be driven to distraction trying to please everyone. My guess is that all of us at one time or another, as individuals and as The Church, need to re-assess our commitments, motivations and actions. We all need to re-evaluate how we are "seen to be", especially by God.

For me, regardless of wealth (or perhaps more accurately perceived wealth) I'd like to be "seen to be" compassionate, kind and merciful. There's an old Amy Grant song called: "My Father's Eyes". My favorite lyric from the song is: "...when people look inside my life I want to hear them say, she's got her Father's eyes".

Would that all of us could have our Father's eyes....those who "see to be" and those who are "seen to be".

Pax
Osap

[rosamundi]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='18 November 2009 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1258584830' post='2005097']
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."
[/quote]

John Chapter 12 v 1-12

1Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. 3Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5"Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" 6He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

[brightsadness]

In the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox Churches the priests, monks and nuns may be very poor and the church and monastery and vestments very splendid. Is this not how it should be? The glory is to God.

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

I have to jump in here. When our Benedictine was looking at the place where she ended up entering, the guest house was full. One of the guests (a non-Catholic if that matters) knew of the nuns from college and was visiting. She would NOT stop talking about how "rich" the community was, how much land they had, etc. I began to wonder if she had walked around with a calculator, trying to figure out monies. Eventually, one evening, a serious (heated) argument erupted between this guest and another. The complaining guest was finally confronted by a blood sister of one of the nuns. She brought out some truly excellent points...this particular community values education (as many do in all truth), artistic expression (on every level) and is open to women of all ages (no restrictions). The "blood sister" said something along the lines of "These women didn't come to the Monastery as paupers. They came with houses, bank accounts, inheritances, IRA's, etc. - did you want them to just throw it all away or give it to the community that they were planning on digging deep roots within?" The beauty that surrounds our daughter was created by the Nuns, their Oblates, volunteers, friends, and family. Beauty is important in our Faith, Tradition, Culture and for some - if not many - the creation of such beauty is a form of prayer and interaction with God. It is certainly an experience of creation, which comes only from God.

As a family, we are involved with our parish and all of our children do community service with various Catholic agencies/communities. Some of the Sisters (and Priests...well, let's not go there right now) DO live better than those they serve. That is true.

BUT. Poverty is a very subjective term and can really only be defined by the community and the individual constitution of the Order. As an example, the Sisters who work with the poor - it would be foolhardy and very impractical to ask them to drive unsafe cars, be malnourished and go without insurance. Even the airlines tell us to make sure we put our own face-masks on in the event of an emergency before taking care of our children. A malnourished, sick, cold, broken down sister in rags would not be able to offer as much help to a poverty striken neighborhood as a one who is well and strong. Just because Sister drives a Honda and sleeps in a house that has air conditioning and gets regular meals doesn't mean that she doesn't experience poverty.

I have no doubt that her poverty comes in ways we can't imagine; the poverty of not being loved in a special way by another human being in a singular relationship (i.e., marriage), the poverty of living in community and having to consider the greater good at all times as opposed to immediate needs (wants or wishes). I am sure you get the point.

I often hear people (especially at the parish level) bemoaning the richness of the Church. The conversation almost ends with someone suggesting that we sell everything and give it to the poor. I have heard many times how horrified Christ would be if He stepped foot within St. Peter's and saw the opulence. I - on the other hand - believe that our greatest contribution and treasure within the institutional Church has been our collective support of the arts. Literature, poetry, sculpture, music, painting, architecture, etc.

I do not believe that money solves all issues; though I realize when we don't have it - it can certainly feel like that. Our angel with Down's will be who she is until the day she leaves this planet. We have faced all kinds of issues with her and I can assure you all that all the money in the world can't solve the multitude of issues we have faced. The very worst that we have faced have been our collective feelings of helplessness, depression and loneliness. Walking through the gorgeous retreat center's property - or spending the weekend at the Monastery; meditating upon the stations that are gorgeous and hand crafted - have given me respite and fulfillment in ways I can't fully explain. My husband has found great solace in traveling and studying monastic architecture. The Church was right in incorporating beauty as a foundation, for beauty lifts the spirit and reminds us of our blessed spark of God's grace within our souls in a manner that almost nothing else can. There is also the benefit this work that belongs to s/he who creates the beauty...the benefit of discipline, the perfection of a craft, the contribution to the salvation of souls, etc.

As usual, this is much longer than I had intended, but I suppose like Osap and many others here have said, we really never know what is happening - these things are just too difficult to judge. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't St. Benedict mention in his Rule that we should anticipate one another in honor? Basically - to look at one another and see the very best in them - as a loving parent would do to their child? Let us delight in what some of our more "well-known" communities have done to further glorify our Lord. And when we see a community or a member living a scandalous life, bringing shame upon their Order and Our Family, we are bound to pray for them and for ourselves. We are a Family and when is hurting, we all are...

Okay! Enough of me!

Pax,

TradMom

[Saint Therese]

I think its really easy for us to judge how "poor" a community is and place a value on that while we live our comfortable, easy and definitely NOT poor lifestyles.

[FSM Sister]

We are confusing two points here: the wealth preserved by the Church, and the lifestyle of religious serving the church. The church does not have a vow of poverty; religious do. Mother Teresa, on many occasions, turned down a donation that came with strings attached. Her sisters MUST live in actual poverty. They use common sense (i.e., they don't drive around in unsafe cars) but no one can look at the Missionaries of Charity and say, "They live too well."

I find none of the arguments in favor of wealthy monasteries to be consistent with what Christ teaches in Scripture. Canon law is very clear on the vow of poverty. Religious must, in fact, be poor. That being said, it is up to those who have the authority in the church to determine whether or not the rule of a particular community is consistent with the code or not. In other words, it doesn't matter what WE think, or what Phatmassers think.

Here is what Rome has to say on that.

[b]Proclaimed by His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on October 28, 1965

[/b]13. Religious should diligently practice and [b]if need be express also in new forms that voluntary poverty which is recognized and highly esteemed especially today as an expression of the following of Christ[/b]. (Again, emphasis mine) By it they share in the poverty of Christ who for our sakes became poor, even though He was rich, so that by His poverty we might become rich (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9; Matt. 8:20).

With regard to religious poverty it is not enough to use goods in a way subject to the superior's will, [i][b]but members must be poor both in fact and in spirit,[/b][/i] their treasures being in heaven (cf. Matt. 6:20).


I hope this clears up some of the confusion. Again, this is not to single out one community and compare it to another. That responsibility belongs to each community. We only get to examine our own conscience, not that of our neighbor! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/upsidedown.gif[/img]

[osapientia]

[color="#0000FF"]We are confusing two points here: the wealth preserved by the Church, and the lifestyle of religious serving the church. The church does not have a vow of poverty; religious do. . Her sisters MUST live in actual poverty. They use common sense (i.e., they don't drive around in unsafe cars) [/color]
[indent][/indent]Personally I was aware that I was addressing two different issues. In regard to the notion of "seen to be" however, both these issues are often the subject of the same kind of judgement when it comes to the issue of determining the wealth of anything connected to The Catholic Church. Most people outside the Church do not make a distinction because they do not know that one exists....and so when addressing the concept of "seen to be", I addressed both issues.

[color="#0000FF"]but no one can look at the Missionaries of Charity and say, "They live too well.[/color]
[indent][/indent]I personally know people who believe even the MC's "live too well" based solely on the fact that they have a place to live and food provided to them (these people do not know, nor do they care about the nuances of the communal practices of the MC's regarding types of food or housing)...the fact that they will never have to "fear" homelessness (as an individual even though they have vowed individual poverty) is "too much" and "seen to be" not living "poorly". I think it is important to keep in mind that to a homeless person in the position to accept their charity, the sisters are indeed "wealthy". I want to be clear, this is NOT how I think of the MC's but rather some thoughts about how "seen to be" might be applied from different perspectives....which is why I object to a very broad application of the notion of "seen to be".

[color="#0000FF"]Mother Teresa, on many occasions, turned down a donation that came with strings attached[/color]
[indent][/indent]Mother Teresa was clearly following her call and her conscience and the teaching of the Church...no question. However again, depending upon an individual's perceptions, motivations, and possible biases if she did not turn down this type of donation EVERY TIME, she might be "seen to be" as less than faithful to poverty. Also because she and her community was/is so well known (certainly the action of the Holy Spirit is involved here) she/they have some "luxuries" not available to some communities in terms of the numbers of potential benefactors. A community who accepts a donation "with strings attached" may not have much of a choice or they may see those "strings" as a means of their benefactors heartfelt care and concern. They gratefully accept what comes to them as the action of the Holy Spirit in THEIR lives. Again, it's the outside judgement I find troublesome.

[color="#0000FF"]I find none of the arguments in favor of wealthy monasteries to be consistent with what Christ teaches in Scripture. Canon law is very clear on the vow of poverty. Religious must, in fact, be poor. That being said, it is up to those who have the authority in the church to determine whether or not the rule of a particular community is consistent with the code or not. In other words, it doesn't matter what WE think, or what Phatmassers think.
[/color]
[indent][/indent]I read this thread quite differently. I didn't understand any post to be defending wealthy monasteries. What I understood was that posters were concerned that the practice of the notion of "seen to be" in and of itself might be somewhat flawed in that the "see-er" could easily judge wrongly based only upon the "outside"....a judge the book by its cover scenario.

[color="#0000FF"]I hope this clears up some of the confusion. [/color]
[indent][/indent] The wealth retained by the Church and the lifestyle of religious are both liable to be subjected to judgement under the concept of "seen to be" which is why I think both were brought up in the thread.

[color="#0000FF"]Again, this is not to single out one community and compare it to another. That responsibility belongs to each community. We only get to examine our own conscience, not that of our neighbor![/color]
[indent][/indent]Absolutely...which again is why I object (in part) to "seen to be". I'll say it again - I believe the concept has merit but I think it must also be practiced with some prudence and an awareness that, as an outsider to a particular community, one might not be seeing the whole picture.