The Sacred Secular?

[Kia ora]

While the life of an atheist humanitarian might outwardly look very much the same to a deeply devoted Christian (apart from the Sacraments and prayer), the REASOn why they are doing what they do is what makes those mundane things and acts of kindness sanctified

​The reason for any good act is that the Holy Spirit is inspiring them, both the atheist and the Christian.

[oremus1]

​The reason for any good act is that the Holy Spirit is inspiring them, both the atheist and the Christian.

​The Christian probably is doing the good works in order to serve Christ or obtain spiritual merit or fulfil a spiritual precept.

[oremus1]

Can I ask a related question:

Can the sacred secular ever be as holy as the exclusively sacred?

Like, is the life of a married stay at home spouse or a contemplative nun, who pretty much pray all day and read spiritual books, and spend most of their time doing churchy things, always going to be holier than a working husband or a working CV, or a generic office worker who spends much less time doing churchy things and praying since they have work and chores to do?

[The Historian]

From the small bit in your post, those religious who choose to join highly contemplative or strictly cloistered communities are rather denigrated. That does not seem consonant with Catholic Tradition.

​Do you find this surprising?  This is an era when the pope speaks more positively on the monastic tradition of schismatic churches and pagan religions than he does of the Church's own (see his letter on the year of consecrated life).  I can somewhat understand Francis on this point.  He was educated in the Jesuit tradition, which is a radical break with the Church's monastic heritage.  He, like almost every other Jesuit, doesn't really grasp what monasticism is.  I wish we could put the Soul of the Apostolate into every one of their hands!

But with the rest of those in the Church, the attack on monasticism, or rather, outright ignoring monasticism and the contemplative tradition, is an inherent assault on the Church herself.  Because these people who denigrate monasticism, who say monks should "come out of their fortresses", besides insulting the vocation of the monastic, demonstrate an astounding ignorance of theology, and simply expose their true aims of turning the Church into a charitable NGO.  Faith, hope and charity does not save souls anymore.  It's all about how many poor people you feed.  Or how much you support affirmative action.

The Pelagian mind doesn't comprehend monasticism.

[marigold]

Can I ask a related question:

Can the sacred secular ever be as holy as the exclusively sacred?

Like, is the life of a married stay at home spouse or a contemplative nun, who pretty much pray all day and read spiritual books, and spend most of their time doing churchy things, always going to be holier than a working husband or a working CV, or a generic office worker who spends much less time doing churchy things and praying since they have work and chores to do?

​You are mistaken in saying that stay-at-home spouses and contemplative nuns 'pretty much pray all day and read spiritual books, and spend most of their time doing churchy things'. You might have been exaggerating to make your point though, can't tell

From an Orthodox perspective, dissecting sacred vs. secular seems a bit arbitrary. There is no such thing as secular: everything belongs to Christ. It's just whether we realise it or not.

[oremus1]

​You are mistaken in saying that stay-at-home spouses and contemplative nuns 'pretty much pray all day and read spiritual books, and spend most of their time doing churchy things'. You might have been exaggerating to make your point though, can't tell

From an Orthodox perspective, dissecting sacred vs. secular seems a bit arbitrary. There is no such thing as secular: everything belongs to Christ. It's just whether we realise it or not.

sorry ​it should have said 'can'

My point was stay-at-home spouses and contemplative nuns CAN 'pretty much pray all day and read spiritual books, and spend most of their time doing churchy things'. IF THEY DID, does it mean their lives would necessarily be holier than those whose lives are subject to mundane things like full time office jobs, chores etc, since those people can afford to spend much longer praying and serving the institutional church

 

Edited April 15, 2015 by oremus1

[marigold]

sorry ​it should have said 'can'
My point was stay-at-home spouses and contemplative nuns CAN 'pretty much pray all day and read spiritual books, and spend most of their time doing churchy things'. IF THEY DID, does it mean their lives would necessarily be holier than those whose lives are subject to mundane things like full time office jobs, chores etc, since those people can afford to spend much longer praying and serving the institutional church

 

​No problem. And I think my answer is 'not necessarily'. It says in the Gospels that not all who say, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved. There are countless examples of people down through history who were sanctified doing nothing very churchy or official at all, both in your tradition and in mine. In fact, we emphasise how much a trial and a temptation those official, 'showy' things can be.

The great father of monasticism, Saint Anthony, was tempted and asked God if there were any people in the cities who lived a life as good as his. God led him to a shoe repairman who was doing nothing very special at all, but glorified God, and Anthony had to admit that this guy was even further along than him in the spiritual life.

[Kia ora]

​The Christian probably is doing the good works in order to serve Christ or obtain spiritual merit or fulfil a spiritual precept.

​even so, the desire and the will and the ability to serve christ or obtain spiritual merit or fulfil a spiritual precept all comes from the grace of god. i just meant that in the end, the reasons are the same for the atheist humanitarian and the christian humanitarian. no one can do good without the help of god. an atheist humanitarian who helps out of the goodness of his heart, even when he is not doing so in order to serve christ, is doing so because god is helping him to do so.

[oremus1]

​No problem. And I think my answer is 'not necessarily'. It says in the Gospels that not all who say, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved. There are countless examples of people down through history who were sanctified doing nothing very churchy or official at all, both in your tradition and in mine. In fact, we emphasise how much a trial and a temptation those official, 'showy' things can be.

The great father of monasticism, Saint Anthony, was tempted and asked God if there were any people in the cities who lived a life as good as his. God led him to a shoe repairman who was doing nothing very special at all, but glorified God, and Anthony had to admit that this guy was even further along than him in the spiritual life.

​
can you explain this a bit more please ? I don't get it

[Anomaly]

​even so, the desire and the will and the ability to serve christ or obtain spiritual merit or fulfil a spiritual precept all comes from the grace of god. i just meant that in the end, the reasons are the same for the atheist humanitarian and the christian humanitarian. no one can do good without the help of god. an atheist humanitarian who helps out of the goodness of his heart, even when he is not doing so in order to serve christ, is doing so because god is helping him to do so.

As a thought, it could be argued that a charitable act by an atheist humanitarian is more likely to be based in love, then a Christian who may be acting in obedience to an inferred directive.   Catholics would have to concede then that God's grace is operative in the atheist's heart, if all altruism is through God alone. 

[Credo in Deum]

No, probably the small amount I posted is to lead astray.  I think if we consider the whole life of Jesus, it is obvious (to me) that very strictly enclosed monastics reflect the prayer life of Jesus alone on a mountain.  Seems to me that obviously, those of us immersed in secular life in the laity (which is my experience) have not much time daily to spend alone in prayer - but the witness of our monastics, for example, do speak to us that we should give time to being alone in prayer...........indeed that we must.

The Gospels, I don't think, tell us that Jesus spent time alone in prayer every single day.  But I think as a pious Jew, which He was, He would have spent time daily in prayer.  These reflections on what we know of the Life of Jesus tell me things about my own life.

I always felt that Christ's hidden life represented best monastic life.  In that time He is under His superiors Joseph and Mary.  We can assume during this time Christ prayed and worked and while nothing is written specifically on what He did, we know as Chrsitians, He did everything for our benefit and salvation.  Now think of how the world views monastic life.  They say, "why not do something useful in the world?" Yet these people do not see what we see.  When we view religious we can see in them the hidden Chrsit, and we know what they do while being hidden is all being done to help save souls.

 

[Era Might]

I found the following interesting

He continued: "All the people who know the human personality -- may they be psychologists, spiritual fathers, spiritual mothers -- tell us that young people who unconsciously feel they have something unbalanced or some problem of mental imbalance or deviation unconsciously seek strong structures that protect them, to protect themselves."

 

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-warns-religious-orders-not-accept-unbalanced-people

​Sounds like the character of Sebastian in "Brideshead Revited":

  "So that was the end of Europe for  Sebastian. He went back to Morocco,
where he had been happy, and gradually drifted down the coast, from place to
place,  until one day when he had sobered up -- his  drinking goes in pretty
regular bouts  now--he conceived  the idea of escaping to the  savages.  And
there he was.

     "I didn't suggest his  coming home. I knew he wouldn't,  and he was too
weak still to  argue it out. He seemed quite happy by the time I left. He'll
never  be able to go into  the bush, of course, or join  the  order, but the
Father Superior is going to take charge of him.  They had the idea of making
him a sort of under-porter; there are  usually a  few  odd  hangers-on in  a
religious house, you know; people who can't quite fit in either to the world
or the monastic rule.  I suppose I'm something of the sort myself. But  as I
don't happen to drink, I'm more employable."

...

 "I think I can tell  you exactly, Charles. I've  seen others  like him,
and I believe they are very near  and  dear to God. He'll live on, half  in,
half out of the  community, a familiar figure pottering round with his broom
and  his  bunch of keys. He'll  be a  great favourite with the old  fathers,
something of a joke I to the novices. Everyone will know about his drinking;
he'll disappear for two or three days every month or so, and they'll all nod
and smile and  say in their  various  accents, 'Old Sebastian's on the spree
again,' and then  he'll come back  dishevelled  and  shamefaced  and be more
devout for a  day or  two in the  chapel. He'll probably have little  hiding
places about  the garden where  he keeps a  bottle and takes a  swig now and
then on the  sly. They'll  bring him forward to  act as guide, whenever they
have an  English-speaking  visitor;  and he will be completely  charming, so
that before  they go they'll ask about him and perhaps  be given a hint that
he  has high  connections  at home. If he lives  long enough, generations of
missionaries in all kinds of remote places will think of him  as a qwerty old
character  who  was  somehow part of the  Hope  of  their student days,  and
remember him  in  their  masses.  He'll  develop  little  eccentricities  of
devotion, intense personal cults of his own; he'll be found in the chapel at
odd times  and missed when he's expected. Then one morning, after one of his
drinking bouts, he'll be  picked up at the gate dying,  and  show by  a mere
flicker  of the eyelid  that he  is conscious  when they give  him  the last
sacraments. It's not such a bad way of getting through one's life."

     I thought of the  joyful  youth with the Teddy-bear under the flowering
chestnuts. "It's not what one would  have  foretold,"  I said. "I suppose he
doesn't suffer?"

     "Oh,  yes, I think he does. One can have no idea what the suffering may
be, to be maimed as he is -- no dignity, no  power of  will. No  one is ever
holy without  suffering. It's  taken that form with him.  . . . I've seen so
much  suffering in the last few  years; there's so much coming for everybody
soon.  It's the  spring  of love  . .  ." And  then  in  condescension to my
paganism, she added: "He's in a very  beautiful place, you know,  by the sea
--  white cloisters,  a bell tower,  rows of  green  vegetables,  and a monk
watering them when the sun is low."

[Kia ora]

As a thought, it could be argued that a charitable act by an atheist humanitarian is more likely to be based in love, then a Christian who may be acting in obedience to an inferred directive.   Catholics would have to concede then that God's grace is operative in the atheist's heart, if all altruism is through God alone. 

​obedience can come from love. indeed, the ideal obedience comes only from love of god. an atheist obeys the law of god as well which is inscribed in everyone's heart. an atheist is only more loving than a christian if he listens to that directive and is obedient to god's commandment to love and the christian doesn't.

in any case, the idea that an act of charity by an atheist humanitarian is more likely to be based in love is a misunderstanding of what i mean. any love that exists in a person comes from god (indeed, is god). there's no way that an atheist humanitarian is 'more' based in love than a christian humanitarian, because if both are truly acting in charity out of charity (love), then the same spirit is motivating them, and it becomes absurd to talk about who is more or less loving. all are equally loving when it comes to god. god is the great equaliser.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Kia ora

[Egeria]

I can't speak for stay-at-home spouses, but anyone who thinks that contemplative nuns can "pray all day and read spiritual books" needs to spend a while in a monastery. Perhaps nuns exist who can do that, but I haven't met any yet, and I've met quite few. 

 

[BarbTherese]

 ​CVs are apostles in 'things of the spirit and in things of the world'. It is in the Rite.
My questions to you:

> Who is the Church? the hierarchy? all the faithful? all people and nations? Having answered that question, consider, what is service to the church?

> In serving others, especially the least of our brethren, we serve Christ. Who are our brethren? Those who come to institutional catholic charities seeking help? Those who come to church? Or all people in all circumstances?

> Consider Jesus and Mary doing normal chores, Jesus living a hidden life subject to work in his twenties. They were not in a monastery. Would it have been holier if they were?

> what is evangelical poverty? Is it a measure of what you have? or your attitude towards what you have? How can this idea be applied to other virtues and counsels

I think you get what I mean now.

While the life of an atheist humanitarian might outwardly look very much the same to a deeply devoted Christian (apart from the Sacraments and prayer), the REASOn why they are doing what they do is what makes those mundane things and acts of kindness sanctified

​Who is the Church etc.?  All the baptised and also all people and nations if not yet baptised at least called and desired by God to be so.  To be called by God is holy and all that is good and holy comes from God and has Him as the origin.  Jesus is God and The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth.

In serving others? All are beloved children of God without exception.

Consider Jesus and Mary etc.?  No matter what they were about, Jesus and Mary were always united with The Will of The Father.  Would they have been holier in a monastery? A. No.  Nothing is more holy in life than the Will of God and embracing  it lovingly as Jesus and His mother did all their lives.

Evangelical poverty?  I believe that materially it is in that I donate monthly in five directions.  To support my parish and the priest fund (2 Mass collections).  I also donate monthly to a missionary organization as well as two other charities for the needy.  Materially, I live simply and humbly.  Most everything that I have in the way of furniture and all electricals, whitegoods, have been donations. I buy my clothing in second hand stores.  Re evangelical poverty and the spirit, I strive for simplicity and humility primarily asking the Grace of these virtues.  St Albert tells us that humility is the foundation of all the virtues.  Primarily, how poverty is to be lived out under my private vows is spelt out in the Rule of Bethany.

I strive never to judge and ask of The Lord this Grace - hence to me 'gold is wherever it is found', no matter who the person might be.