Vows in Developed Society vs in Subsistence

Since the religious vows were first formulated in a subsistence society it seems that they should be reformulated in a developed society. What do you think?

FROM SUBSISTENCE TO DEVELOPMENT: Religious Life and the Vows

Father William Ferree, S.M., a provincial superior of the Society of Mary during the effervescence of the late 60's, used the progress of people from subsistence to development as a general organizing principle to explain all social phenomenon. For him, this movement explained from where we came and to where we are going as a people. It was the basis of his general theory of social justice: our social requirement to organize life for the good flourishing of all. He frequently referred to this progression from subsistence to development in teaching and writing. Since religious life and the vows were formulated in a time of subsistence, it might be appropriate to reflect on the meaning of the life in reference to new understanding that comes with development.

Subsistence is a cyclical way of life in which most are poor and live from hand to mouth. Everyone is poor with the exception of land owners, money changers and royalty. Scarcity characterizes everything. A few are rich and progress is not a common notion for people living a subsistence life. Development brings progress, education, an orientation to the future, and an abundance of everything. Wealth is fixed in subsistence, whereas in a development society wealth is created.

Frequently the word “economy”is used as object of the adjective "subsistence", and most often is the limit of the values with which subsistence is analyzed. Other disciplines and social, psychological and spiritual theories, however, can also be analyzed in reference to subsistence.

Although Ferree alludes to this movement from subsistence to development in his circular letter on the vows, #1 and #2, he does not elaborate in detail and leaves open conjecture about how the understanding of the vows might be different in the two eras.

Before referring directly to the three vows of religious life, it might be useful to further contrast subsistence and development by noting specific examples of characteristics which change in this progression since change in everything is the dynamic element in the movement from subsistence to development.

The most important dynamic might be between scarcity and abundance. In a subsistence society everything is scarce, not only material goods but information, relationships, and dreams. Under subsistence, life requires sharing, and hoarding is a common survival technique. While in a development mode abundance is the hallmark of everything from goods to technology. The common need is to solve the problem of distribution of goods. Knowledge is perhaps the best example of this dynamic of abundance since it can be distributed indefinitely.

In these two societies even virtue can be defined with different emphases on personal and societal needs. The best example of this might be the practice of social justice in reference to the distribution of an abundance of goods and opportunities versus a scarcity of these. In the development case, the virtue of social justice must be practiced in common rather than individually.

Perhaps the one area in which the contrast between the two modes of life is most striking is in the area of relationship to place. In subsistence societies, place is a very narrow concept. One seldom travels far away from home and life is generally spent close to one's family. Care of the earth is very important because the immediate neighborhood is the basis of livelihood and is all that is known. People are close to the earth and reverence it. As development takes place people become alienated form the earth and are more prone to exploit it. They travel further and develop relationships other than family. Diversity is a more common characteristic in a developed society.

Although community is held high in a subsistence society, it is limited to family and tribe, and the notion of globalization is unknown. Local self-sufficiency is a requirement for survival rather than reliance on the market. Money as a means of exchange is less common in subsistence. Common property under subsistence is replaced with private property under development. Community even looks different in the two societies if hospitality, ritual, and individual rights are considered.

Population control is unknown in a situation of subsistence. Families are large and provide additional workers and insurance for taking care of parents in their old age. Sex is for the sole purpose of procreation and marriage is arranged for the economic good of the family. With the ability to control births in developed societies, the purpose of sex takes on additional meaning and thus alters the purpose and time frame of marriage as well. In addition, length of life is longer in developed societies and the purpose of sex extends beyond the natural child-producing age.

Even religion is influenced by the movement from subsistence to development and our image of God undergoes profound changes. Scientific insights into the origins of the universe produce new cosmologies which replace long held stories to explain our origins. Genesis is replaced with the Big Bang. An understanding of new cosmology influences religious doctrine and new images of God are sought to reconcile with new knowledge. God the Provider is replaced with God the Originator. Dependence is placed on planning rather than on Providence. Original blessing replaces original sin, and heaven appears to be on earth. Even the Church acknowledges that happiness should be characteristic of this life as well as in the hereafter. The Kingdom of God is sought on this earth now.

The notion that personal or human rights acquire greater significance in a developed society influences all aspects of life and our sense of community profoundly. Coupled with a tendency toward secularism under development, one finds it hard to distinguish what is religious and what is secular.

Given the profound changes which have influenced human flourishing and life under development, it is worth speculating about how our understanding of religious vows, which were formulated at a time when subsistence was the common way of life, should be understood and practiced in an era influenced by and committed to the notion of development and all that comes with it. The developed world is what we have, we are committed to it, and there is no indication that the trend will be reversed. So, how should we formulate and practice the three vows in this developed world?

Ferree and others taught that the purpose of the vows was to be an eschatological witness, a sign, to the transitory nature of life on earth which when ended will be concerned about neither marriage nor possessions, nor with personal choice. Under an eschatological theory of the vows, those aspects of life are denied by the vows as a witness to the hereafter. Religious are supposed to be a sign that all in this life is to lead to a better life in heaven. Our purpose in life is to escape this world and the toil brought on by original sin.

So, we can ask: what should be the meaning and practice of the “vow of poverty” in a society that knows that the way to meet the growing human demand to feed the hungry and cloth the naked is to increase wealth? Or that the real human problem is not scarcity but the distribution of an abundance of goods and wealth?

What should be the meaning and practice of the “vow of chastity” in developed societies in which humans experience longer life, more complex relationships and in which the whole notion of sex and its purpose is redefined?

What should be the meaning of the “vow of obedience” in a developed world in which the level of education is very high, in which the notion of personal rights is high and in which the acceptance of the personal gift of each person is recognized as sacred and in which the value of collaboration is recognized to be the key to the solution to making progress.

In Poverty, Celibacy, and Obedience, Irish religious Diarmuid O'Murchu uses new wording to describe the nature of religious life and the formulation and practice of the three vows.

O'Murchu reflects on a religious life based on a philosophy of non-violence and suggests a new way of looking at the vows in which the objects of the vows are achieved in a non-violent context respecting persons, the earth and individual gifts. “If we are to adopt nonviolence as an under-girding value for vowed living, we cannot escape the painful truth that much of our living in the past—our attempts to keep the vows—was itself fundamentally violent”.

He writes: “A reformulation of the vows is long overdue, and it seems to me that we cannot develop a new theology or spirituality of the vowed life without a radical change in the language we use.”

Further he writes:'…how I live the vow of poverty in a wealthy Western European context requires a radically different response from that of being a slum dweller in Sao Paulo or Delhi. Context governs the criteria that make my liminal witness authentic or otherwise.”

O'Murchu writes about all three of the vows but here reflection will be made only on the vow of poverty as an example of the new language and understanding suggested by O'Murchu.

O'Murchu starts by suggesting that in the past the vow of poverty was concerned with stripping away all attachment to material goods to set free the soul for eternal life but was not concerned with care of the goods of God's creation. In addition, he says, the responsibility was on the individual person, and the collective wealth of the community was not subject to the same scrutiny. Of course, examples of excessive wealth of monasteries and religious communities are numerous in history.

For the vow for poverty, O'Murchu calls it the vow of mutual sustainability. “. . .in the old understanding of the vow of poverty ownership of goods belonged to the community rather than to the individual. This often led to widespread abuse and a great deal of irresponsible evasiveness. The notion of sustainability requires each and all of us to reclaim a real ownership of the goods entrusted to our care.”

In reference to all of the vows, O'Murchu uses the term “liminality” to describe the place and perspective from which religious should be living in this world. He is saying that we should be on the margins. “Liminal witness will strive to remain open to several interpretations for every aspect of reality. No question is ever closed, because such closure is an act of idolatry and often an act of blasphemy”.

If these perspectives anger you or thrill you, in either case, reading the entire text will make you think about the past and future of the vowed life. Perhaps you will be moved to write a comment to share your thoughts.