They're clever, aren't they?

Monastic Vows

O’Murchu redefines the vow of poverty to be a vow of sustainability. (And while I am at it, celibacy becomes relatedness with others, and obedience becomes collaboration.) He argues that the traditional meanings of the vows actually do violence to the vowed person as well as the rest of humankind.

I love the idea of sustainability and relatedness, but I think it is more apt as an amendment to former-day monasticism. I also think the distinction between collaboration and relatedness is a stretch in a metaphorical sense, when compared to how distinct obedience and celibacy seem. Inasmuch as O’Murchu’s virtues will likely encourage the former three virtues if planted in good soil, I commend the ideal. However, I am too familiar with the parable of the seeds and the Amazon basin to believe there is that much good soil out there. So, I think (admittedly, superficially, without doing the required reading), O’Murchu is completely correct in almost all senses, but the observation seems like it derails a train that could go to better places faster if put in the proper context.

I think what does damage to the vowed person is the implication that a life free from transgression is what God wants. That gives rise to all sorts of self-image problems, and institutionalized bad self-image should be a no-no.

When I refer to transgression or conflicts like passion vs. rationale, I tend to use the word/concept of “striving” to illustrate many traits that we must endeavor to overcome not because we want them eradicated, but because we need them to be kept in balance. Churches across the country pronounce Christ’s words, “all are sinners” with a damning accusatory tenor, but I think Jesus was trying to excuse guilt by means of admitting the universality of transgression. One might easily argue that Eden was even a transgression trap, so what’s that? Further, the zugot make it clear that (to borrow Jesus’ metaphor) the prodigal son is greater than his brother because he has made a greater journey toward God. Israel, after all, literally means “struggles with God”, not “sits placidly basking in God’s glory”.

And I think poverty and chastity make much more sense in that context, and in that context, they seem far too valuable to discard. While I don’t agree with either in the absolute sense, it’s clear to me that we cannot make much use of ourselves if we are constantly dwelling in bestial passions, much moreso when they so often come at the expense of others’ welfare, and are therefore counterproductive to cooperative aims.

In fact, since significant evidence suggests that we literally are not able to think properly when we sense conflict vs. our mating and survival instincts, it’s rational for me to believe that since most of our society has their heads kept unnaturally below the waterline of these forces (for the sake of someone else’s profit), that we need to first solve this problem before we can make the strides forward that seem so inexorably dependent on clear, globally-centered thinking.