Seen To Be

[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

[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]