The Sacred Secular?

[The Historian]

 and nations if not yet baptised at least called and desired by God to be so.

​If they're not baptised then they're not a part of the Church.

[BarbTherese]

​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.

​All that is good has God as the origin or inspiration and all are called to a positive response in Graced free will either Christian or not.  I think it would be judging to say that the Christian earns more merit because of motivation.  True and actual motivation is not always easy to get at as to the truth of matters.  God is The Judge. Be that as it may, we do know that to strive actively to serve Christ in all things has great spiritual merit/is holy.  It is a distinct good with God as origin and inspiration etc.

"Judge not, that you may be not judged"

[BarbTherese]

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?

​It is God's Will that is Holy - no matter what that Will might be.  It is in embracing God's Will lovingly that we are made holy.  Obviously, the contemplative nun and the stay at home spouse are going to have different duties, different expressions of God's Will.

[BarbTherese]

​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.

​You might be quite correct in what you have to state, TH.  I would not know. 

Where this thread is concerned, however, I did not mean at all to denigrate the enormous value and contribution of the contemplative life.  Rather to ask a question and that was would contemplatives benefit personally from a limited period going about the 'out of cloister' duties out in the secular world?  I anticipated that an answer might be either be either in the affirmative or the negative and why.  Certainly, I tend to wonder that if they did spend time each out in the secular it might illustrate and witness quite loudly that the secular is sacred too.

[BarbTherese]

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. 

​There is a point possibly in the above to me.  The great commandment is to Love God with your whole heart and soul and neighbour as yourself for the love of God.  The atheist may well be acting out of pure love of neighbour, while a Christian might be acting for self - i.e. spiritual profit.  I ask myself, which is better?

[BarbTherese]

​If they're not baptised then they're not a part of the Church.

I agree.  I should have put into my post "potentially" as all regardless are beloved children of God and all are called to baptism.

[BarbTherese]

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.

 

​Wholeheartedly agree....all the vocations reflect some aspect of the Life of Jesus......and "to whom more is given more will be expected".

[BarbTherese]

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

​This cannot change the fact that both are acting under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.  The Christian MIGHT accrue more merit because of motivation - not of necessity however.  We cannot judge.

[The Historian]

​You might be quite correct in what you have to state, TH.  I would not know. 

Where this thread is concerned, however, I did not mean at all to denigrate the enormous value and contribution of the contemplative life.  Rather to ask a question and that was would contemplatives benefit personally from a limited period going about the 'out of cloister' duties out in the secular world?  I anticipated that an answer might be either be either in the affirmative or the negative and why.  Certainly, I tend to wonder that if they did spend time each out in the secular it might illustrate and witness quite loudly that the secular is sacred too.

​If my post came across as harsh I assure you it was not directed towards you, I was just addressing a general attitude I've perceived amongst many in the world.  It was more simply a response to Nihil's post rather than your own.

In answer to your question here, I would say that contemplatives absolutely would not benefit from a limited period out of their cloisters to live in the secular world.  The contemplative vocation is a specific vocation, the cloistered vocation is a particular grace given to some souls.  Some people are given the grace of a vocation to an active life.  The active life requires a retreat from time to time and must be founded upon the contemplative life.  This is because the contemplative life precedes the active life.  It is the superior of the two.  But the contemplative vocation does not require activity (except as put into practise in their immediate life in the convent).  To posit that contemplatives need to engage the secular world and an active life would be to contradict Aquinas, the Scholastics and the Early Church Fathers.

[BarbTherese]

Thank you for your response, AH.

To posit that contemplatives need to engage the secular world and an active life would be to contradict Aquinas, the Scholastics and the Early Church Fathers.

I do not think that contemplatives "NEED to engage the secular world".  I was wondering whether it would be of some benefit to them personally - and also wondering if they did so engage, would it address the problem that we do have that the secular is not regarded as sacred, providing a witness that it is sacred.

I accept indeed what you have said about Thomas Aquinas and also the Early Church Fathers and I do wholeheartedly accept too that contemplatives are given a very special Grace to live as they do.  Perhaps there is room in The Church for a way of life that is contemplative and also for short periods engaging in the secular world (rather than exclusively ministries within The Church) and as the sacred secular and as I continue 'to think on my feet', I think that there is such room. 

I am not questioning that on a theological scale, works within The Church of all kinds, are not holier than the strictly secular.  However that is an objective theological determination, when the human enters into things, then the subjective is operative and nothing can be more holy than The Will of God in soever how it may manifest.  I also tend to ponder, which is the more important, the theological grading or the subjective movement and feel that the latter transcends the former.

[BarbTherese]

A charism and gift of The Holy Spirit, I have read, most often is a response to a perceived need in The Church.

I do not have such a charism not being called to be any sort of foundress.  I can however sight a need in The Church and a potential response.

Edited April 17, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[PhuturePriest]

I am putting this into Debate as I suspect only that there MIGHT arise some debate.  What I quote below in the quotation box (and related questions) comes from a Post on Consecrated Virginity : http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/136912-consecrated-virginshermits-and-the-selfish-single-life/?do=findComment&comment=2722112

 

 

My questions arising are:

1 - Is the secular sacred?  Why/How do we know?

 2 -  Is there a "fortress mentality of creating walls between the sacred and the secular" in consecrated life and also amongst the laity? Why does this come about?

 3 -  Should those in consecrated life  -  all forms -  "live out their charisms 'in the world' " and what does this mean exactly? 

 

Rather than launch into responses of my own to the above, which would be lengthy, if this thread does have life, undoubtedly my own responses will unfold too.

​Pope Pius XII said that without cloistered religious, there would be no conversions. He said something along the lines of "they are the water that fertilizes the fields," meaning that without them, those of us who do go out into the world preaching in a direct manner would have no success whatsoever.

[BarbTherese]

​Pope Pius XII said that without cloistered religious, there would be no conversions. He said something along the lines of "they are the water that fertilizes the fields," meaning that without them, those of us who do go out into the world preaching in a direct manner would have no success whatsoever.

​I hold that contemplative life is indeed our powerhouse of prayer and without prayer we can do nothing. The subject of this thread is not about the validity of the contemplative vocation, which is not questioned in any way - nor is the 'active' religious nor priesthood in any way questioned.   I guess what I might be questioning possibly is the way of life itself, how it is lived out, and how it might speak more clearly to not only the laity but to the general society as well - as well as possibly benefit those within the life.  These are only questions!

When religious life was first defined within The Church, it was the days when 'the world' was regarded as sinful and contrary to The Gospel, working against The Gospel - and to be rejected.  Certainly then, and back then, religious life seen to be separated completely from the world had complete validity.  Back then, I guess the laity were left in the world as some sort of second class citizens in The Church - floundering in an evil world striving to save their own souls.  I think we still living with a layover per se of that incorrect thinking and the result.

Again, I am not making absolute statements, rather asking questions. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

As an addition, I cannot see why in societies where Islaamic women are quite free to wear their veils in the main, why religious women in habit and veils could not be seen to be, for example only, serving in shops, sitting at typewriters in an office etc. etc............i.e. about secular matters witnessing to the sacred of the secular.

I know that we are at this point we seem to be short of religious vocations- and here in Australia those we do have rarely wear a habit and even more rarely any sort of veil.  That is our now, not necessarily our future.

[PhuturePriest]

​I hold that contemplative life is indeed our powerhouse of prayer and without prayer we can do nothing. The subject of this thread is not about the validity of the contemplative vocation, which is not questioned in any way - nor is the 'active' religious nor priesthood in any way questioned.   I guess what I might be questioning possibly is the way of life itself, how it is lived out, and how it might speak more clearly to not only the laity but to the general society as well - as well as possibly benefit those within the life.  These are only questions!

When religious life was first defined within The Church, it was the days when 'the world' was regarded as sinful and contrary to The Gospel, working against The Gospel - and to be rejected.  Certainly then, and back then, religious life seen to be separated completely from the world had complete validity.  Back then, I guess the laity were left in the world as some sort of second class citizens in The Church - floundering in an evil world striving to save their own souls.  I think we still living with a layover per se of that incorrect thinking and the result.

Again, I am not making absolute statements, rather asking questions. 

​The world, insofar as the culture, should still be regarded as sinful and contrary to the Gospel. In fact, in 2,000 years, none of the sins have changed or diminished. They have simply become easier to commit and harder to avoid, making cloistered religious life more relevant than ever.