Posted on by Kurt Bodling

religious obedience

Note: Obedience in the sense of the evangelical counsels is a vow taken by religious which assumes that the superior will not demand anything contrary to the will of God. These vows don’t restrict persons so much as free them up from the necessity of making so many decisions; someone else becomes responsible for that and the vowed person can focus on God more readily. At least in theory, I suppose. It seems that it would have to be really hard for someone who has taken this vow to stand up and tell a superior, “No, what you’re telling me to do is contrary to God’s will.” And it seems that it could be easy for a superior to abuse the relationship. You understand, of course, that I have not taken a vow of religious obedience and don’t personally know how it goes.

Quote:
“Religious obedience is that general submission which religious vow to God, and voluntarily promise to their superiors, in order to be directed by them in the ways of perfection according to the purpose and constitutions of their order. It consists, according to Lessius (De Justitia, II, xlvi, 37), in a man’s allowing himself to be governed throughout his life by another for the sake of God. It is composed of three elements:

  • the sacrifice offered to God of his own independence in the generality of his actions, at least of such as are exterior;
  • the motive, namely, personal perfection, and, as a rule, also the performance of spiritual or corporal works of mercy and charity;
  • the express or implied contract with an order (formerly also with a person), which accepts the obligation to lead him to the end for which he accepts its laws and direction.

Religious obedience, therefore, does not involve that extinction of all individuality, so often alleged against convents and the Church; nor is it unlimited, for it is not possible either physically or morally that a man should give himself up absolutely to the guidance of another. The choice of a superior, the object of obedience, the authority of the hierarchical Church, all exclude the idea of arbitrary rule.”

Source: Vermeersch, Arthur. “Religious Obedience.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.

Posted on by Kurt Bodling

chastity

Note: Chastity in the sense of the “evangelical counsels” refers to temperate control of sexual desire and function. For those in religious orders and for other unmarried people it expands to avoiding all sexual activity (celibacy), but for most Christians (i.e., the married ones) it means remaining faithful to one’s marriage vows and avoiding sexual temptations. Martin Luther talked about the same thing in his Small Catechism explanation of the 6th Commandment: “…so that we lead pure and decent lives in word and deed, and each of us loves and honors his or her spouse.” But as you can see in this quote, chastity is closely related to abstinence and sobriety.

Quote:
“Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, which controls according to right reason the desire for and use of those things which afford the greatest sensual pleasures. The sources of such delectation are food and drink, by means of which the life of the individual is conserved, and the union of the sexes, by means of which the permanence of the species is secured. Chastity, therefore, is allied to abstinence and sobriety; for, as by these latter the pleasures of the nutritive functions are rightly regulated, so by chastity the procreative appetite is duly restricted.”

Source: Melody, John. “Chastity.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908.

Posted on by Kurt Bodling

voluntary poverty

Note: Voluntary poverty in the spiritual sense of the “evangelical counsels” doesn’t mean cashless groveling, but rather doing without frills, being frugal, and not being wasteful. It has a lot of overlap with the idea of simplicity, or simple living.

Quote:

“Voluntary poverty is the object of one of the evangelical counsels. The question then arises, what poverty is required by the practice of this counsel or, in other words, what poverty suffices for the state of perfection? The renunciation which is essential and strictly required is the abandonment of all that is superfluous, not that it is absolutely necessary to give up the ownership of all property, but a man must be contented with what is necessary for his own use. Then only is there a real detachment which sufficiently mortifies the love of riches, cuts off luxury and vain glory, and frees from the care for worldly goods.”

“The vow of poverty is ordinarily attached to a religious profession; a person may however bind himself to a modest and frugal life, or even to follow the direction of an adviser in the use of his property. The vow may be perpetual or temporary. It may exclude private possession, or even to a certain point possession in common. It may entail legal disability or be simply prohibitive. It may extend to all goods possessed at present, or expected in the future; or it may be limited to certain classes of property; it may require the complete renunciation of rights, or simply forbid the application to personal profit, or even the independent use of the property.”

Source: Vermeersch, Arthur. “Poverty.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.