Comments on: Spiritual Letters, by Abbot John Chapman

By: kostenloser poker

kostenloser poker — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:57:52 +0000

kostenloser poker…

encipher.cardinal whiskers prows?…

By: Vocation at Cornell Society for a Good Time

Vocation at Cornell Society for a Good Time — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:37:53 +0000

[...] it - and so I was thinking about the issue of religious vocation. Also, Ambrosius’ recent post had inspired some thoughts along these [...]

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:52:09 +0000

As I understand it, the life of religion should be somewhat odd or difficult for just about everyone who undertakes it. This is because it is a supernatural sort of life, that is, it requires setting aside certain natural goods: wife, children, etc. Inasmuch as we’re human, we’re oriented towards these things as natural goods.

It strikes me that perhaps too often in the recent past, precisely those have taken up “religion” who felt that they could have no other life, i.e. because of strong homosexual inclinations. But religion wasn’t designed for homosexuals. On the other hand, I don’t think that homosexuals - as long as they struggle against those inclinations, etc. - shouldn’t be excluded from religion, even if, perhaps, they should be excluded altogether from the priesthood, as requiring a level of paternal disposition, which (I don’t know) the strongly inclined homosexual may not be able to have.

Anyway, enough said on this topic (at least for me). I don’t mean to press the point in any obnoxious way.

You have spoken very elegantly in recommendation of this book, Ambrosi.

By: Ambrosius

Ambrosius — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:56:00 +0000

Certainly, I understand this view, to which you’ve often referred. The tack taken by Chapman is not to say that it’s an evil to enter Religion without a call, so much, but that it’s impractical and most likely to lead to disappointment; he mentions that intellectual conviction cannot carry one through, etc. Basically, though the clean medieval view seems safe, it can lead to error by being cleaner than actual life. In Chapman’s view, life in Religion is meant for those who feel they can have no other life.

But I’d advise picking up the book and reading all he has to say. Little has to do with disputed points like these; the bulk is simple, solid, profound insight into the spiritual life. I’ve read every page with profit, and with a decided sense that I could return again and again.

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:23:01 +0000

Not being a pastor, I can hardly say! but as a matter of practical pastoral care, I don’t see what help this notion of a “particular call” can be. Isaiah received a particular call, and so did the Apostles. But I don’t know of anything in the theology of the Catholic Church that indicates that those men who are called to religious life are can expect to receive a “particular call.” “Wait for the particular call!” we say today, because if you don’t, the whole thing may be a failure. So then the young man or woman has two pressures: (1) the pain of leaving the world coupled with (2) I may be deceiving myself and so I’m cruising for a miserable bruising if I take up this life.

Whereas on the medieval view - as well as the view very sensibly explained in Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery - the only pressure is the obvious one of leaving the world. That is, if you decide to enter religious life, you’re inevitably doing the right thing - provided you’re not seriously ill, laden with debts, etc.

Abbot Chapman sounds quite representative of much modern discussion of this question. I just find St. Thomas Aquinas’ “any excuse is a good excuse for entering religion” to be more plausible - and it certainly takes the mystery out of the business. There’s no agonizing over whether a “particular call” has been received. As St. Thomas says, even if the devil himself tells you to enter religion, you ought to take it as good advice even if from a mortal enemy.

Anyway, Ambrosi, I don’t mean to entangle you in answering for Chapman - just some thoughts of mine.

By: Ambrosius

Ambrosius — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:10:57 +0000

More the former, though it’s not very clear — he’s writing to a layman who’s considered entering an order on those general principles but without a particular call, and does — this is interpolation, and from memory, but I shall carry on — seem a bit incredulous that it even worked then, but he doesn’t go so far as to claim he knows it didn’t; he only says he’s pretty firmly convinced it doesn’t work now.

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:06:06 +0000

So it might be more that, given his experience, he’s surprised that they ever endorsed such a principle? Or does he say: “Wow, we can all see that it worked beautifully then; but in my experience, it doesn’t work today.”

Sorry to press on letters, as you say, I’m just curious.

By: Ambrosius

Ambrosius — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:01:46 +0000

These are letters, remember, so it’s not much of an argument in terms of length — but yes, he seems to think that the medieval idea doesn’t work out, at least in practice today. There’s an implicit sense that he’s drawing the opinion partially from some arguments not fully spelled out, but mostly from practice: the final word is given to experience, which has told him that those who enter based on general principles, but no personal calling, fail; while the cases where the man who enters has overcome obstacles to enter, are successful.

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:56:45 +0000

Interesting - so he recognizes it as a medieval notion, but then makes an argument that such an understanding was based on certain circumstances that don’t obtain at all times?