Seen To Be

[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.