The Origins of Spiritual Theology

Spiritual theology is that part of theology that, proceeding from the truths of divine revelation and the religious experience of individual persons, defines the nature of the supernatural life, formulates directives for its growth and development, and explains the process by which souls advance from the beginning of the spiritual life to its full perfection.  (Jordan Aumann, Spiritual Theology, p. 22)

The Nature and Origins of Spiritual Theology

Spiritual theology seeks the connection between the articles of the faith, the perfection of the Christian life, and a kind of knowledge called “mystical,” a kind of knowledge arrived at through an ecclesial and personal encounter with the Living God.   In this sense, it is a part of the science of theology which attempts to bring the mutual relationship of mystical and theological wisdom into rational consciousness and discourse.

To study, to contemplate, to prayerfully reflect, to read (lectio); these activities were not originally distinguished from one another in the writings of the saints and mystics during the patristic era.   They converged on an approach to sacred doctrine rooted on devotion to Christ and dedication to the mission of the Church.  The active presence of the Risen Lord in the life of the Church evoked theological contemplation in which rational discourse, urgent longings of the heart, and the attending of one's whole being to the Word made flesh converged.  An integration of the speculative and the practical, the affective and the intellectual was achieved in the preaching and theological reflection of the time.   Unfortunately, this integration was not maintained and the kneeling theology that produced great saints and theologians became fragmented.  Spiritual theology can be seen as part of an effort to recover and restore an approach to the spiritual life which is rooted in a profound encounter with Christ through sacred doctrine.

After the great scholastics revived interest in a disciplined pursuit of spiritual and theological questions, one of the earliest pioneers of this study was Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris.  He believed that the knowledge which flowed from Christ's presence in the soul or mystical knowledge could not be a direct object of theological research, yet at the same time he acknowledged its importance for the Christian life and attempted to elucidate those parts of the Christian life he believed could be studied. 

He did not assume, as is oftentimes presumed today, that the inability of human reason to understand or manipulate something rendered it outside the range of the truth.  He did not equate fact with truth or product with knowledge.  Like the scholastics, he was the inheritor of a tradition of thinking in being is the object of knoweldge and truth is the adequation of the mind to reality: veritas est ens.  As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, "all that is, is true." 

For Gerson, mystical theology includes both un-demonstable loving knowledge of divine goodnesss arrived at in contemplation and an intellectual understanding of the truths of the faith that can be applied in discerning ones practical experience of God.   He distinguishes practical mystical theology (arrived at in contemplation) from speculative mystical theology (arrived at by study).   He considers mystical contemplation in terms of the transformation of the affections toward the goodens of God.  Although the cause of this mysticism is ineffable (a special work of grace), the effects and the fruits of it can be explored.  Furthermore, (and this is important) he also understood that contemplatives were subject to grave error if they were not rooted in a pure understanding of sacred doctrine.  In other words, mystical theology does not replace but rather requires scientific theology. (See Jordan Aumann, Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition, San Francisco: Ignatius Press (1985) 168-173, chapter 7.)

Introduction to Spiritual Theology - lecture notes

The Nature and Scope of Spiritual Theology

Spiritual theology is that part of theology that, proceeding from the truths of divine revelation and the religious experience of individual persons, defines the nature of the supernatural life, formulates directives for its growth and development, and explains the process by which souls advance from the beginning of the spiritual life to its full perfection.  (Jordan Aumann, Spiritual Theology, p. 22)

History

Spiritual theology seeks the connection between the articles of the faith, the perfection of the Christian life, and a kind of knowledge called “mystical,” a kind of knowledge arrived at through an ecclesial and personal encounter with the Living God.   In this sense, it is a part of the science of theology which attempts to bring the mutual relationship of mystical and theological wisdom into rational consciousness and discourse.

After the great scholastics revived interest in a disciplined pursuit of these questions, one of the earliest pioneers of this study was Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris.  He believed that the knowledge which flowed from Christ's presence in the soul or mystical knowledge could not be a direct object of theological research, yet at the same time he acknowledged its importance for the Christian life and attempted to elucidate those parts of the Christian life he believed could be studied. 

He did not assume, as is oftentimes presumed today, that the inability of human reason to understand or manipulate something rendered it outside the range of the truth.  He did not equate fact with truth or product with knowledge.  Like the scholastics, he was the inheritor of a tradition of thinking in being is the object of knoweldge and truth is the adequation of the mind to reality: veritas est ens.  As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, "all that is, is true." 

For Gerson, truth includes un-demonstable mystical knowledge of divine goodnesss arrived at in contemplation.  He considers mystical contemplation in terms of the transformation of the affections toward the goodens of God.  Although the cause of this mysticism is ineffable (a special work of grace), the effects and the fruits of it can be explored.  Furthermore, (and this is important) he also understood that contemplatives were subject to grave error if they were not rooted in a pure understanding of sacred doctrine.  In other words, mystical theology does not replace but rather requires scientific theology. (See Jordan Aumann, Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition, San Francisco: Ignatius Press (1985) 168-173, chapter 7.)

From the 16th to the 20th centuries, spiritual theology became divided between what was called “ascetical” theology and “mystical” theology. Ascetical theology had more a moral element and concerned the day to day discipline of the Christian life and the ordinary life of grace. Mystical theology tended toward a theology of prayer and contemplation as well as speculative considerations of the mysteries of the faith in relation to extraordinary mystical phenomenon.  Twentieth century theologians began to question the wisdom of separating these areas of study. They also became concerned that this kind of theology was not considered ‘academic’ or ‘scholarly’ or in any other sense a serious field of knowledge.   Yet the attempt to demonstrate the validity of spiritual theology as a science has created a diversity of opinion as to whether the field should be considered a dogmatic or moral branch of theology.  

The 20th century pioneers of this field, mostly Thomists, began an apologetic to establish the field as a legitimate science with its own object and appropriate method of research. At the same time, theologians coming from the Ressourcement schools also became aware that this branch of theology should not be separated from other theological efforts: these other branches needed reference to spiritual theology if they were to remain with the stream of the tradition of the Church. Spiritual theologians, especially those out of the Thomistic and Ressourcement schools, see that research in spiritual theology is vital to the life and mission of the Church because if it is forgotten, the very raison d’etre of the Church is at risk. As one of the pioneers of the twentieth century renewal of this field, Fr. Juan Arintero, explains: “We must examine and consider attentively the hidden and mysterious development of the inner life of the Church. This consideration is fundamental and the most important of all, because this inner life and the exigencies of this vital process are the course of the Church’s development in doctrine and organization.”  (Introduction, Mystical Evolution.)

Object

Spiritual theology is a disciplined exploration of the spiritual life of the Church and is especially concerned with mystical knowledge, a kind of knowing that results from encountering Christ.   This kind of knowledge is “mystical” insofar as it involves a union with the mystery of Christ through the holy mysteries unto union with the Holy Trinity.   It is a contemplative knowledge that anticipates the ultimate end of the Divine Economy, the perfect unity of creatures with the Holy Trinity in which the fulfillment of all desire is realized – that eternal beatific vision of inexhaustible and exceeding Love.  We are aiming at true theological wisdom, a wisdom that ought to inform all the various branches of theology.

                In summary, the direct object of spiritual theology is the encounter of the Holy Trinity in the contemplation of the Church.   In this sense, spiritual theology corresponds with what the ancients called theology or mystical theology.  Namely, a participated knowing of the ineffable inner life of the Trinity by grace. 

In itself, this knowledge is beyond the ability of human speech to fully communicate. But the truth bearing statements of our faith, the articles of our faith, bear the truth of this knowledge above all.  Theologians and mystics struggle to articulate it.  Garrigou-Lagrange observes, “The mystics … explain the hyperbole and antithesis to which they have recourse in order to draw us from our somnolence and to try to make us glimpse the elevation of divine things.” He goes on to conclude, “No one can know the true meaning of the language of the spiritual writers if he is unable to explain it theologically; and, on the other hand, no one can know the sublimity of theology if he is ignorant of its relation to mysticism.” Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, trans. Sr. Timothea Doyle, OP, London: Herder (1948) pp 16 and 20.

Method

Like every science, the study of sacred doctrine in general and spiritual theology specifically has a method proportionate to the wisdom to which it aspires.  The method for this science includes prayer, polemics, ressourcement, the wisdom of the saints, inductively providing insight into the spiritual life, deducing conclusions about different expressions of the spiritual life from the application of sacred doctrine.  A brief consideration of each of these elements of method in spiritual theology might be helpful.

1. Prayer

From ancient times, the goal of theological study has been this wisdom, especially as it is produced by the mystical operation of this Gift of the Spirit in the Christian life.  One studied theology to be a saint.  As the branches of theology became atomized, first from philosophy and then from one another, theological wisdom, which had been a unifying principle for the study of sacred doctrine, came to be neglected, more and more.  As a result, the unity of life and study was shattered.  It became possible to be a theologian without regard for personal sanctity.  The contemporary pursuit of spiritual theology puts contemplation at the heart of its endeavor.   The theologian must not only talk about prayer, the study of this wisdom must pray.   Accordingly, the study of spiritual theology demands that theology and prayer should go hand in hand:

Prayer and theology are inseparable.  True theology is the adoration offered by the intellect.  The intellect clarifies the movement of prayer, but only prayer can give it the fervor of the Spirit.  Theology is light, prayer is fire.  Their union expresses the union of the intellect and the heart.  But it is the intellect that must 'repose' in the heart, and theology must transcend it in love.  Olivier Clement, Roots of Christian Mysticism, p. 183

2. Polemics

The tendency in spiritual theology in most schools is to generalize religious experience found in manifold spiritualities, especially non-Christian spiritualities, to arrive at principles common to them all.  It is assumed that the mystical knowledge acquired through the faith of the Church is commensurate with changes in consciousness achieved in non-Christian meditation techniques.  This effort often obscures the uniqueness of the Christian claim and the very purpose of prayer itself.   While other religions attempt to attain the absolute by method, Christianity claims that no method is sufficient.  Union with God is possible only because God himself makes it so.  Spiritual theology bears relation to sacred doctrine or revealed truth.  It asserts the possibility of a real relationship between God and man because of Christ’s passion and death.   By Christ’s redemptive work, the Gift of the Holy Spirit is given as an actual possession through grace and by grace raises the soul so that it might participate in the very life of God.  To protect this character of the faith of the Church, spiritual theology can engage in a polemic in relation to other spiritualities to distinguish itself and its claims. 

3. Ressourcement

                Spiritual theology draws from both Scripture and Tradition to define the perfection of the Christian life, principles and spiritual counsels for the Church today.   To accomplish this, it must have recourse patristic and medieval theological sources.  These sources not only are authoritative for the effort, but later developments can only be properly understood against this fuller context of the Church’s experience of the Lord.

4. The Wisdom of the Saints

Spiritual principles and counsels are found in the lives of the saints.  But the saints do not always articulate these with great precision or even exemplify them in a way that is universally accessible.  Think the example of a stigmatist who bears in his body an extraordinary mystical grace for the building up of the Church, but he does so not because everyone should aspire to receive the same grace.  The task of spiritual theology is to provide a more precise understanding of their counsels and descriptions of the spiritual life without compromising the accuracy of their insights and modes of expression.

Here, the careful art of hagiography becomes vital for spiritual theology.  The writings of the saints are generally commensurate with their lives of holiness.  The witness of their lives generally shed light on what they articulated as important for the spiritual life.   Therefore, a spiritual theologian needs to understand the life history of the saints he utilizes in order to provide the proper theological context for the counsels and descriptions a saint might provide.  A good history of the life of a saint will actually integrate the development of his spiritual writing with his growth in holiness

5. Integration of Deductive and Inductive methodologies

Garrigou-Lagrange argues that following only an inductive approach to the theological sources and the saints does not allow clarity or precision or conclusions.  Likewise, limiting oneself to only a deductive approach will limit the understanding not only the saints or other theological sources being considered, but also obscures the understanding of definitions, principles and counsels themselves.  Spiritual theology seeks to integrate both efforts.  In the writings of the saints and the mystics, how they approach principles and counsels must be closely attended to.  Their descriptions of these, even if hyperbolic, are often more accurate than what can be expressed with theological precision.  At the same time, the meaning of these counsels remains obscured and subject to misunderstanding if only a inductive method is followed.  Thus, the wisdom of individual saints is weighed against the broader tradition to deduce more precisely the principles their writings and witness contain.

Context

There are some who agree with this and then conclude that theological reflection is reducible to the merely subjective.   They assume that the experiential knowledge being sought is an intuitively affective kind of science which in different ways makes people feel better about themselves.  By its nature, such knowledge does not admit of a disciplined study unless approach out of the psychological science.  In itself it is impenetrably private and inaccessible to reason.  Thus, in many seminaries and spirituality centers, a serious disciplined pursuit of spiritual theology is replaced by therapeutic meditation and group sharing: spiritual exercises my colleague Fr. Gawronski calls, mere mental hygiene.  Because of this, the faithful are constantly subject to the the popularized versions of the latest spiritual trends, trends that are irrational either because their pre-critical psychology or uncritical theology – whether it be Transcendental Meditation, Eneagram, or more recently Reiki.  John of the Cross’s concept of spiritual gluttony might apply – religious experience is reduced to a consumable good.  The result is confusion over Catholic identity and a lack of confidence in the power of the Cross and Catholic teaching.

In reaction to this, especially among young conservative seminarians, prosaic forms of piety rooted in sentimentality spring up.  While the restoration of novenas and other devotionals can be extremely edifying, failure to understand the nature of these in relation to the growth of charity in the life of prayer can be devastating, as John of the Cross often points out in his works.  The spiritual life is reduced to vocal recitations, a merely magical sense of the faith, a certain narrowness regarding holiness (St. John of the Cross’s spiritual pride) and a lack of confidence in the mercy of God.

The point is that today, more and more, the spiritual life has become regarded as something intrinsically irrational.  This trend is due largely to the failure to form men trained as spiritual experts, intellectually vibrant with spiritual principles and counsels that a sound study of spiritual theology can yield.  The task is to provide a disciplined study of this field so that irrational approaches to the spiritual life might be avoided and a better informed spirituality might develop for priests, religious and the lay faithful.

The Nature and Scope of Spiritual Theology

To define spiritual theology as a theological discipline, we should begin by calling to mind the competing definitions of theology in general.  For Anselm it is faith seeking understanding.  For St. Thomas, it is the study of God and all things in relation to God.  The kind of knowing it yields, or at least ought to yield, is a participation in God’s knowledge of himself.  For this reason all theology ought to have a spiritual character no matter the branch or particular discipline taken up.  From ancient times, the goal of theology has been wisdom, especially the mystical operation of this Gift of the Spirit in the Christian life. 

There are some who agree with this and then conclude that theological reflection is reducible to the merely subjective.   This is because they understand the wisdom attained by prayer to be reducible to the sum total of psychological functions which prayer and contemplation involve.  They assume that the experiential knowledge being sought is an intuitively affective kind of science which in different ways makes people feel better about themselves.  Such a view is unable to break away from the merely subjective and is constantly haunted by the tendency to mistake one’s experience of one’s own ego with God.  In fact, a purely psychological approach to prayer cannot adequately distinguish experiences of God from experiences with oneself – because to judge experience one must go beyond what is merely experiential. 

In many seminaries and spirituality centers, a serious disciplined pursuit of spiritual theology is replaced by therapeutic meditation and group sharing, in a whole class of so called spiritual exercises my colleague Fr. Gawronski calls, mere mental hygiene.  Static matrix are sometimes proposed where students plot their own spiritual experience against the poles of positive and negative, cataphatic and apophatic.  Sometimes students and professors mistake the ability to articulate certain ideas about spiritual experiences with the wisdom that comes from God.  A self-sufficient attitude emerges in which one believes oneself as having mastered prayer because a technique and the jargon around it have been acquired.   There are no objective principles in such discussions.  A propose vocabulary is used to explain a proposed experience.  A form of Gnostic jargon – whether psychological, charismatic, evangelical – is contrived to describe psychological experiences.  Those who use the jargon are believed to have had the experiences it describes.   To be sure, these experiences may real – but is the way they are understood accurate?  Without understanding personal experience as something which plays out on a far greater reality, a standard that stands above my own experience, how do I know what I am experiencing is real?  Such approaches to the spiritual life are ultimately unsatisfactory because the encounter with God is thought to be exhausted in terms of explanations of those spiritual experiences that can be talked about, the experiences that live only at the surface of the psyche. 

In reaction to this, especially among young conservative seminarians, external forms of piety sometimes rooted in sentimentality spring up.  They want something deeper than that which can be ferreted out in a group discussion about how one feels after practicing a prayer method.  They turn to more traditional and vocal forms of prayer.  While the restoration of novenas and other devotionals can be extremely edifying, failure to understand the nature of these in relation to the growth of charity in the life of prayer can be devastating, as John of the Cross often points out in his works.  The point is that today, more and more, the spiritual life has become regarded as something intrinsically irrational.  This trend is due largely to the failure to form men trained as spiritual experts, intellectually vibrant with spiritual principles and counsels that a sound study of spiritual theology can yield.

Spiritual theology, although sometimes healing to study, is not primarily affective or intuitive – although a certain creative intuition is requisite for its development.  Spiritual theology, as an object of study and a discipline, is rooted in an objective ecclesial experience of the Holy Spirit.   The discipline of spiritual theology has been called the queen of the theological sciences.   This is because its specific object is simpler than all other branches of theology.   But because of the simplicity of its object, spiritual theology is also the most difficult to adequate define.  It concerns a kind of knowledge called “mystical,” a knowledge arrived at through an ecclesial and personal encounter with the Living God.  The problem is that this kind of knowledge is super-conceptual, more accurately conveyed by means of description than definition. 

At the same time, the descriptions of this kind of knowledge lack precision, its truth difficult to judge or discern.  Because of this difficulty, some believe it is impossible to bring this to bear on the theological enterprise.   Yet, the object of spiritual theology sheds essential light on both speculative and practical theological efforts.  Those in both branches are aware that there is an essential connection with spiritual theology, but each sees spiritual theology in relation to its own sphere.  That is why there is a diversity of opinion as to whether this branch of theology is best seen as part of morals or dogmatics.  The dispute probably is analogous to that physicists have had on whether physical light is a particle or a wave.  Just as physical light is simpler than both particles and waves, the knowledge studied in spiritual theology acts different according to either the speculative or practical questions put to it.   . 

The object of spiritual theology is the encounter of the Holy Trinity in the contemplation of the Church.   In this sense, it corresponds with what the ancients called theology.  Namely, a participated knowing of the ineffable inner life of the Trinity by grace.  This kind of knowledge is “mystical” insofar as it involves a union with the mystery of Christ through the holy mysteries unto union with the Holy Trinity.   It is a contemplative knowledge that anticipates the ultimate end of the Divine Economy, the perfect unity of creatures with the Holy Trinity in which the fulfillment of all desire is realized – that eternal beatific vision of inexhaustible and exceeding Love.  This science is vital to the life and mission of the Church because if it is forgotten, the very raison d’etre is at risk. Juan Arintero explains: “We must examine and consider attentively the hidden and mysterious development of the inner life of the Church.  This consideration is fundamental and the most important of all, because that inner life and the exigencies of the vital process are the course of the Church’s development in doctrine and organization.”

.  

To come to this knowledge, over and above revealed truth and reason’s efforts to understand it, the experiential is necessary.  Confirming this approach, Juan Arintero, the father of the 20^th Century Dominican school of Spiritual Theology at Salamanca and the Angelicum in Rome, explains what ‘mystical’ means:

“Mystical” means the same as “hidden.”  The mystical life is the mysterious life of the grace of Jesus Christ in faithful souls who, dead to themselves, live hidden with Him in God.  More properly it is the interior life which just souls experience when, animated and possessed by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, they receive more and more perfectly, and sometimes clearly perceive, His divine impulses, delightful or painful, whereby they grow in union and conformity with Him who is their head until they become transformed in Him.”

A working definition for spiritual theology might be articulated as follows:

Spiritual theology is that part of theology that, proceeding from the truths of divine revelation and the religious experience of individual persons, defines the nature of the supernatural life, formulates directives for its growth and development, and explains the process by which souls advance from the beginning of the spiritual life to its full perfection. (Jordan Aumann, Spiritual Theology, p 22)

            What is the definition of spirituality and how is Christian perfection related to it?

Spirituality refers to the spiritual life, the life of the spirit.  It takes up the question about how to thrive as a human being.   All serious spiritualities take up three fundamental human experiences – the desire for the infinite, angst at existence, and fear of death.  There are three paradoxes in this – that a finite being should yearn for the infinite, that an existing being should be uncomfortable with existence, and that a finite, contingent being is a afraid of its own contingency.   We find in us a passion to go beyond our own nature or for union with something beyond our nature.  At the same time, we are not at ease with our existence.  We carry this sense that things are not the way they ought to be.   Some is out of kilter.   Finally, we are haunted by a fear of death, a fear of suffering and personal disintegration – physical, psychological, spiritual.  We have an instinct for self-preservation which is not at peace with the realization that the “self” to be preserved, no matter what we do, will inevitably perish.  Any true spirituality tries to answer the question: Why should we live and thrive, if in the end it is but folly to have tried to do so?   

                In Christian spirituality, the spiritual life is in itself supernatural and is ordered to supernatural union with God.  This means that this life comes from God who is both the object and principle of all theology.   In Christian spirituality God is revealed as the object of desire.   Sin is revealed as the source of our restlessness.  Death is revealed as the consequence of sin.  The supernatural spiritual life of the Christian is ordered to overcoming the power of sin and death through the restoration of union with God.   Since this life comes from God in the order of a gift, it is called grace. Insofar as this gift makes the soul itself holy, it is called sanctifying.  Insofar as it is given for the building up of the holiness of others, it is gratuitous.   Insofar as it is given existentially in the present moment, it is actual.   Insofar as it inclines the faculties of the soul to exist in a new way and act with ease in a certain manner, it is habitual.  Insofar as it requires the soul’s activity for its effect, it is cooperative.  Insofar as it is under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, it is operative.  Sanctifying grace effects substantial union with God.  Grace in the faculties effects psychological union with God.  Graces that enable or cause action lead to actual union with God. 

1.       Are there objective principles on which the spiritual life is based in the Catholic Tradition? 

There are objective causes of the spiritual life.  Spiritual theology identifies, describes and reflects on the consequence of this principles.  In doing so, it proceeds scientifically, building on a body of knowledge. 

The first is God himself.   The reason why we yearn for God is that we are made in his image, he is our archetype to which our whole existence is oriented.  We can only thrive as we move toward him.  What is more, however, the One God is in movement toward us.  He is Love – divine eros.  And this movement toward us causes our movement toward Him.  

Another principle is the law of sin.  Only Christianity identifies original and personal sin as the cause of the angst we have over our own existence.  Because humanity is in a state of having resisted God, it has a sense that its existence is not the way it ought to be.  Because of sin, each person is subject to futility and death: all that is good, noble and true about each of us is diminished and perishable.  We fear this dissolution because it destroys the very purpose by which we thrive.  

There is also the principle of grace which is sewn over the laws of nature and sin, restoring and perfecting the image and likeness of God in our existence, and overcoming and conquering sin and death.   Grace is the source of human perfection, the beginning of a new kind of existence by which human nature realizes its desire for union with God.  It is a pure gift given by God himself so that his desire for man might reach fruition.

2.       Why does Spiritual Theology articulate counsels for the spiritual life?

Since the object of spiritual theology is the spiritual life, articulating and evaluating spiritual counsels is an important art.  The spiritual life in the Catholic Tradition is ordered to the perfection of charity in the life of grace.  This implies the spiritual theology also gives an account of progress in the spiritual life as well as the supernatural organism – the unfolding of the life of grace within the soul.   In the wisdom of St. Thomas, this requires a grasp of the mystical operations of the gifts of the Spirit as the perfect the infused virtues.  Insight into these questions requires grounding in theological anthropology, psychology and the divisions of grace. 

There is a careful balance to be maintained in all this.  On the one hand, a vision of the whole or wisdom concerning the spiritual life and the ability to articulate it is necessary if proper distinctions are to be made so that counsels might be more clearly understood.  On the other hand, respect for the descriptions provided by the mystics is necessary because they penetrate this wisdom more deeply and extensively.  Even if their ability to articulate what they see is not precise, their understanding and descriptions are much more accurate than the discipline of spiritual theology can achieve. 

In other words, important counsels are found in the lives of the saints.  But the saints do not always articulate these with great precision.  The task of spiritual theology is to provide a more precise understanding of their counsels and descriptions of the spiritual life without compromising the accuracy of their insights and modes of expression.

Here, the careful art of hagiography becomes vital for spiritual theology.  The writings of the saints are generally commensurate with their lives of holiness.  The witness of their lives generally shed light on what they articulated as important for the spiritual life.   Therefore, a spiritual theologian needs to understand the life history of the saints he utilizes in order to provide the proper theological context for the counsels and descriptions a saint might provide.  A good history of the life of a saint will actually integrate the development of his spiritual writing with his growth in holiness.

                4. Jesus, The Holy Bible and the Seven Great Doctors of the Spiritual Life

A. How is Jesus the Life, the Truth and the Way for Christian perfection?

St Thomas “Beatitude constitutes mans ultimate perfection” see I-II q 3 a 2 and 4; I, q 26

Christ is the efficient cause, meritorious cause, and mystical head of the spiritual life: That is life in union with Christ by which we enter into beatitude.

Remember the reasons for the Incarnation – (1) for our salvation and reconciliation to God, (2) to reveal Father’s love, (3) to provide example of obedience and a model for holiness, and (4)to deify humanity.  (See the CCC #457-460)  The purposes are achieved through both visible and spiritual missions (see ST I,43) in the mystery of the Church. The Coming of Christ established his mystical Body. 

Jesus is the Way: In is by virtue of our incorporation into that body that we experience that Jesus is the means of holiness.  As members of his mystical body, Christians find in Jesus the Way to the Father.   We are saved and reconciled to God through our living faith in Him.  The doctrine of parrhesia is key here – namely, that as members of his mystical body we hold fast to Christ Jesus by a living faith.  He is our holiness. 

Jesus is the Truth: Through his mystical Body he communicates himself to us.  In this way he is the Truth which we incorporate into our lives.  The doctrine of the exemplarity of Christ through whose example the truth about God’s love is revealed and the truth of about the human person is made manifest.  In this we have a model to imitate, and our ability to imitate Him is given to us by Him.

Jesus is the Life.  As head of the mystical body and by his work of redemption, Christ is the efficient and meritorious principle of the spiritual life.  By imparting his Holy Spirit to us, he establishes us in:

Order   (hierarchy – we have a place in the mystical body of Christ under his headship.)

Perfection (full of grace – He is our perfection and source of beatitude)

Power (The spiritual life advances with reliance on the Lord, it all comes from him)

How do we receive Christ in this way?  Through the sacraments and living faith.  It a unique way through the Eucharist.   Because of Christ, Christian spirituality and its perfection seeks the glory of God as its ultimate end and sanctification is the proximate end.  Incorporation in Christ is the only way of attaining both ends.  Everything depends on living the mystery of Christ with ever increasing intensity because Christian spirituality is nothing other than an intimate participation in the mystery of Christ.

In this context we know that Christ commanded us to be perfect in this life.  Given our sinfulness is this really possible?  To answer this question we must consider the nature of Christian perfection.   Perfection is the condition of being completed or finished without excess or defect – the end of a process, a totality and plenitude, a fullness of being – sense these words have many meanings depending whether we are speaking about specific or a totality of acts, the term perfection is analogous.

Perfection is absolute and relative

 – Absolute perfection is found only in God, creatures are relatively perfect (in relation to him)

– Relative perfection can be:

(1)essential (a perfection of the very substance of the soul),

(2)operative (a perfection of the psychological actions of a soul),

This is transitory in the life, permanent in the life to come.

(3) final (a permanent state, the beatific vision), instrumental, primary

(pertaining directly to charity)  and secondary (pertaining to other virtues formed by charity).

In Christian perfection, it consists primarily, but not exclusively in charity, in charity friendship love of God.  Essentially sanctifying grace and operatively charity either in itself or through other virtues.  The acts of other virtues attain to a secondary perfection that serves the union with God that charity establishes.  Instrumental perfection is expressed through the evangelical councils – they are instruments that aid in the pursuit of perfection.

St. Thomas explains that Christian perfection consists especially in charity because charity  alone unites us with God while the other virtues initiate or prepare for this union.  (See Summa II-II, 184 a 1.)  How do we attain this perfect love – is it really possible in this life?  (See Summa II-II, 184, a. 2) Not in terms of the object loved, that is God, we can’t love God perfectly as he deserves – this is absolute perfection possible only to him.  Not in terms of the lover, that is the soul in relation to God, we can’t always have our affections turned toward him – this is a final perfection possible only in the beatific vision.  However, on the part of the lover in relation to things impeding a perfect love, perfect love is possible in two ways:

1)      By removing anything contrary to charity like mortal sin

2)      By removing any desire that hinders one’s affection for God – these would not be sinful desires, but desires for otherwise good things that distract us from loving God.

                What then is Christian perfection, the object of this study? St Thomas “Beatitude constitutes mans ultimate perfection” see I-II q 3 a 2 and 4; I, q 26

Christ is the efficient cause, meritorious cause, and mystical head of the spiritual life: That is life in union with Christ by which we enter into beatitude.  The glory of God is the ultimate end, our sanctification is the proximate end and incorporation in Christ is the only way of attaining both ends.  Everything depends on living the mystery of Christ with ever increasing intensity because Christian spirituality is nothing other than an intimate participation in the mystery of Christ.   In this context we know that Christ commanded us to be perfect in this life.  Given our sinfulness is this really possible?  To answer this question we must consider the nature of Christian perfection.

Perfection is the condition of being completed or finished without excess or defect – the end of a process, a totality and plenitude, a fullness of being – sense these words have many meanings depending whether we are speaking about specific or a totality of acts, the term perfection is analogous.

Perfection is absolute and relative – absolute perfection is found only in God, creatures are relatively perfect (in relation to him) .  Relative Perfection can be considered under the following aspects:

(1)essential (a perfection of the very substance of the soul);  (2)operative (a perfection of the psychological actions of a soul transitory in the life, permanent in the life to come); (3) final (a permanent state, the beatific vision), instrumental, primary (pertaining directly to charity)  and secondary (pertaining to other virtues formed by charity).

St. Thomas explains that Christian perfection consists especially in charity because charity alone unites us with God while the other virtues initiate or prepare for this union.  Summa II-II, 184 a 1.  This means that Christian perfection consists primarily, but not exclusively, in charity, that is friendship love of God.  Another way of saying this is that Christian perfection is essentially sanctifying grace and operatively charity either in itself or through other virtues.  The acts of other virtues attain to a secondary perfection that serves the union with God that charity establishes.  Instrumental perfection is expressed through the evangelical councils – they are instruments that aid in the pursuit of perfection.  

How do we attain this perfect love – is it really possible in this life?  Summa II-II, 184, a. 2  Not in terms of the object loved, that is God, we can’t love God perfectly as he deserves – this is absolute perfection possible only to him.  Not in terms of the lover, that is the soul in relation to God, we can’t always have our affections turned toward him – this is a final perfection possible only in the beatific vision.

However, on the part of the lover in relation to things impeding a perfect love, perfect love is possible in two ways:

By removing anything contrary to charity like mortal sin

By removing any desire that hinders one’s affection for God – these would not be sinful desires, but desires for otherwise good things that distract us from loving God.

                To continue this discussion, it must be observed that Spiritual theology needs to be distinguished from pre-critical reflection on spirituality.  Pious reflections on spiritual experiences are not always disciplined, organized or precise.  Sometimes they might not even be accurate.  The discovery, analysis and synthesis of insights logically arranged with a certain precision of expression characterize theological research.  Pious reflection is theological to the degree that it does this, but reflection does not have to be disciplined.  It does not need to discover, analyze or synthesize anything.  It can be arranged without regard for logic or precision of expression.  Reflection explores connections by musing intuition.  Sometimes it can more accurately describe a spiritual experience than any theology, precisely because of the imprecision of expression and relaxation of logic it allows.  However, because not all intuitive connections we imagine are actually true, pious reflection frustrates a clearer understanding of the spiritual life.  Spiritual theology, because it is focused in a disciplined and precise way on the end of the spiritual life and all things that lead to that end, offers greater clarity into the spiritual life and experiences that pious reflection seeks to express.

                Spiritual theology can be distinguished from other theological sciences because of its object.  Like dogmatic theology, articles of the faith comprise the scope of spiritual theology.  To study spiritual theology one needs a good working knowledge of dogmatic theology:  Christology, Soteriology, Pneumentology, Mariology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology.  All these branches of theology concern God’s work in as it is visible in history but also as it invisible in the soul.  Spiritual theology looks more specifically at God’s spiritual work in the soul.  To properly understand this assertion, we must bear in mind that God’s work in the soul is always in some sense ecclesial.  This is because the human soul is relational – it lives in a matrix of relationships and cannot be extracted from this web without doing violence to its very nature.  Another way to say this might be that from the standpoint of the dogmatic disciplines, spiritual theology seeks what can be understood about what the Lord is doing in the hearts of men. 

                But spiritual theology is not only speculative like these branches of theology; it is also practical like moral theology.  Whereas dogmatic theology explores revealed truth for its own sake, moral theology seeks to understand how one should live in light of this revelation.  Spiritual theology takes up specifically all those questions about life related too growth in holiness.   Some in fact would rather that it be considered as part of moral theology.  But the scope of moral theology is much broader than that of spiritual theology.  Moral theology studies the whole Christian life from the standpoint of doing what is right and avoiding what is evil for the glory of God by means of grace.   Spiritual theology studies primarily those aspects of the Christian life by which union with God can be increased and brought to perfection – it seeks reasons for maintaining the discipline of the Christian life, for taking up one’s cross and following the Lord.

Defining Spiritual Theology

Although it examines and articulates counsels for growth in the life of grace, Spiritual Theology is a dogmatic discipline.  A contemporary combining of what was once treated separately as ascetical and mystical theology, this branch of theology brings to the highest level of human consciousness the relation of sacred doctrine to the perfection of Christian holiness.  The discipline is, therefore, an integral part of theology as a speculative science of God and all things in relation to God as this proceeds from Divine Revelation.

To be both accurate and precise in its conclusions, it holds together both theological wisdom and mystical wisdom.  Thus, beyond arguing from principles to conclusions, Spiritual Theology also requires a contemplation open to wonder and adoration over the great things God is accomplishing in the life of the Church, things so astounding that in whatever is understood about God and His ways, there is always disproportionately more that is beyond all understanding.

Spiritual Theology is alive with the Word of God.  Animated by the study of the Sacred Page, this discipline accepts the Holy Bible as the inspired and inerrant witness to the Source and Author of all life.   Furthermore, this vitalizing contemplation of the Living Word is carried out the context of the life of the Church.

Spiritual theology searches for the spiritual sense of the Sacred Page, especially when that spiritual sense is co-extensive with the literal.   With an eye to the analogy of the faith, this lectio divina even examines the development of the spiritual interpretation and application of various passages in the writings of the saints and mystics.   Thus, the sacred reading which informs this discipline also extends to other authoritative sources in different ways. By this effort this science illuminates in a disciplined manner the difficult to discern connections between the propositions of the faith and the witness to Christian holiness in the lives of the saints.

By its nature a "kneeling theology," Spiritual Theology draws it language and principles from the scientific terminology of various schools of theology and theological disciplines to discern the metaphorical descriptions of the mystics and the spiritual teachings of the Doctors of the Church.   In this way, it serves all the other branches of theology by relating their conclusions to the ultimate end of the divine economy.   As a unifying branch of research, it is in this sense the "Queen" of the theological disciplines.  At the same time, speculative though it is, it is also a science whose conclusions find practical application in the most vital of all human enterprises, the art of all arts, spiritual direction.  

Reviving My First Blog on Spiritual Theology

This blog is written for students of spiritual theology.   Spiritual theology involves the disciplined wonder by which connections within the content of sacred doctrine are critically explored.  At the same time, it is a contemplation of the mystery of our faith in a life changing way.  It is theology studied on one's knees.  It is conducted so that study of the sacred page and all sacred reading opens to a conversation with God by Word and Silence -- the Word of the Father and the silent adoration of his creatures.

Nazareth

Lectures in November reflected on 21st Century Masters of the Spiritual Life as proposed by Fr. Aidan Nichols. I have stressed in these the theology of hope and Peguy's insight that the basis of our hope (and therefore our prayerful yearning) is found in God: We hope in God and yearn for him because he hopes and yearns for us even more. Spiritual formation begins with an encounter with Christ that opens up an experience of God's love and hope for us. More recently we have been applying this concept to the various states of life in the Church. A state in life is a stable and committed way of life that does not easily changed and is sealed by some kind of consecration: matrimony, holy orders and religious consecration. Many of the faithful do not live in a state of life - but preparing for or living in a state of life is the normal means of growing in holiness for most of the mystical body.

Lay faithful whose spirituality has a secular character grow in holiness through ordering the good things of the world to God - helping to build a civilization of love. Engagement with the world and participation in human affairs and relationships are key to realizing this vocation. The work world, the political world, the culture all must be ordered to God. G.K. Chesterton provides a vision for this. Spouses order the greatest created good of this visible world to God through giving themselves to one another in nuptial friendship open to life and exclusive faithfulness to one another. Parents grow in holiness as the primary educators and catechists of their children when they impart not only the content of the faith and the truth about what it means to be human, but when they teach how to love, how to give oneself in service to God and through God to the world.

On the other hand, those consecrated by Holy Orders have a spirituality with an ecclesial and ministerial character. They grow in holiness by ordering the Church to Christ, the mystical body to the head. This is especially true of the bishop but analogously of the priest and the deacon. The priest, by faithfulness to his ministry and prayer, is a living icon of priesthood of Christ just as the deacon is a living icon of Christ the servant. The liturgical ministry is primary here in a manner it is not for any of the other faithful. Dom Marmion points in this direction. Although the liturgy is the source and summit of the Christian life for all the faithful, liturgical ministry is a special means of holiness for the clergy.

Finally, those consecrated through poverty, chastity and obedience are a living image of the holiness of God for the Church. Their discipline of life in some sense separates them from the world and by adhering to this 'anachoresis', they signify by their lives the holiness God has called us all too. This is curious because anachoresis does not mean that they are disengaged from the plight of the world or indifferent to suffering. On the contrary, precisely because they have withdrawn from the fight and fury, flight and flurry of the visible world, they see the spiritual values at stake that those of us who are overly engaged in temporal affairs can easily lose sight of. Edith Stein and St. Therese are witnesses to this. By their love of wisdom and simplicity, they help the Church refocus its activities and keep its eye on the ball - the love of Christ.

As laity or clergy or religious, we are all called to the same holiness, but the means for each is different - not so much in kind as in degree. Engagement with the world or the ministry or separation from the world is something everyone is involved with in every state in life. But for the laity the note is on engagement, for the clergy ministry, and for religious separation. Despite this difference, when we consider the signs of the time, there is a special image or ideal that can be applied to each state of life that could help each one realize its vocation in a more compellling way for our contemporaries. This is the ideal of Nazareth, a favorite theme of contemplatives in the 20th Century, it may provide insight into how to live in the 21st Century. Below is an article I have been working on that seeks to apply this to priestly formation.

Reflection on Nazareth
As the Concrete Historical Ideal of the Seminary

We need a concrete historical ideal for a seminary that is biblically based and compelling for our post-modern era. Jacques Maritain once suggested that The Holy Roman Empire served as the unrealized but always sought after concrete historical ideal for culture and civilization in the Middle Ages. Similarly, the Modern Seminary, conceived after Trent, seems to have utilized a Medieval Monastic model. But in the post-modern era, is this ideal still compelling? The insights of mystics and the founders of new religious movements of the 20th Century point to a new ideal, one that recovers the biblical basis of monasticism while addressing the deep questions of young men at the beginning of the 21st Century.

That the modern seminary drew its inspiration from medieval monasticism but this ideal has become idealized: awareness of human nuances and supernatural subtleties once realized in that loving communion have fallen out of collective consciousness because the ideal does not have a living concrete expression, or, at the very least, such expressions are very rare today. Thus, the ‘medieval monk’ is used as a ‘straw man’ to belittle contemplation as opposed to pastoral charity or else reduce apostolic effort as a servile activism. Ironically, the genius of medieval monasticism is found in its ability to constantly combine in ever renewing ways prayer and work, contemplation and apostolate. In true monasticism, contemplation is not opposed to pastoral charity, any more than work could oppose prayer. Rather, as in every authentic expression of Christianity, in the monastic community the liturgy is dynamically woven into an industrious tapestry of life through which the splendor of God’s plan shines forth in a host of holy friendships, in staggering cultural achievements, and in countless acts of love hidden in the ordinary stuff of life.But it is precisely because we no longer see monasticism in this way that the Medieval Monastery is not able to provide a compelling ideal.

The mystics of our time, like the medieval monks, promote the idea that Christians, and priests in particular, must be both contemplative and apostolic. To express this ideal, they tend to refer to the image of Nazareth, the home where Jesus grew into manhood. Their observations suggest that Nazareth may provide a better concrete historical ideal, a more compelling reference point for inspiring Christian formation in general, and diocesan clergy for the 3rd Millennium specifically.

If Nazareth is to inspire christian formation, before it can be applied as an ideal, the reality it conveys needs to be contemplated. But how do you contemplate something hidden? For, indeed, Nazareth is a hidden mystery, accessible only by faith, faith informed by friendship love of God, faith for the sake of God. Therefore, contemplation of Nazareth begins with an act of faith: an ascent of the mind to ineffable realities and a loving leap into the mystery of Christ himself.

If the contemplation of Nazareth begins with a prayer, a petition of the heart, mystics have associated this petition with consecration to Jesus through Mary.[1] That is because consecration, as a petition, appeals to the Heart of Christ who holds and is held in the heart of Mary. Since Christ has given himself over to his Church completely, his memories, the memories of his mother that also belong to him, are a gift for those who ask. As a gift, these memories, especially the memories of Nazareth, should be seen as part of the inexhaustible riches of Christ in the heart of the Church. The experience of mystics suggests that petitionary character of consecration potentially impetrates access to this gift.[2] .

When pondered in faith, Nazareth as a glimpse of Christ before his public ministry is both the place where he is first loved, humanly formed, and divinely forming and loving others. When contemplated as the first place where Jesus was known and loved, Nazareth opens up the possibility of a more profound intimacy with Christ. As a place where Jesus formed Mary (and Joseph), and was formed by them, Nazareth also reveals stages of growth in hope filled living faith as well as a principle for integrating a communion of Christian love with preparation for a sacrificial mission.

Nazareth as a place of profound intimacy with Christ is a key insight of Catherine de Hueck Doherty and Bl. Charles de Foucauld. For both of them, the contemplative outlook that Nazareth evokes inspired their desire to seek to serve Christ not in great deeds but hidden, ordinary ones. Catherine emphasized loving attention to small details of ordinary life and Charles understood this principally in terms of embracing the obscurity of a life of silence in the actual city of Nazareth itself. But for both of these mystics, loving Christ in ordinary activities and loving Christ in prayer were two sides of the same coin.

Catherine understood that, like Mary in Nazareth, we realize the joy of living with Christ by serving him in the ordinary things of life. She used this insight to form her staff to see sorting buttons, preparing meals and folding laundry in terms of serving Christ. She used this insight to exhort the staff to do everything for love of Christ. In this way, everything becomes a prayer, an expression of love.

Charles saw (at first for himself while actually living in Nazareth, and then for the new community he dreamed of forming while he lived with muslims in deserts of Morrocco) that the Lord calls those he loves for periods of loving contemplation in their life so that they can become radically dependant on the providence of God the Father. Learning to love the Lord in this sort of hidden contemplative life, one is prepared for radical apostolic endeavors because he has learned to surrender completely to the loving will of the Father. Nazareth for those who want to follow Christ is the place where surrender to the Father’s will begins, where it is learned, just as Christ learned.

The experience of these two mystics is validated by the theological reflections on this same reality by Father Philippe. He develops these ideas by considering Nazareth as a place of progressive surrender to the will of God. First he considers Nazareth after the sojourn from Egypt as a place where the sanctification of ordinary work and prayer began to be realized. After the finding of Jesus in the temple, Mary ponders the mystery of the Father in a new way that evokes a deeper surrender. The value of her humble working the household is even more obscured by the service to the Father in worship (ministry) that Christ must be about in the temple. Finally, there is the death of Joseph, a loss that occasions an even more radical and total surrender to the loving providence of the Father.

Pastores Dabo Vobis and the Program of Priestly Formation provide a picture of the seminary formation not inconsistent with what mystics attempted to present with their reflections on Nazareth. Placing the relationships in priestly formation on the matrix of the communion of love in the Trinity is the best way to prepare men to give themselves in the ministry. At least, Gaudiem et Spes, 24 seems to validate this insight:

"The Lord Jesus, when praying to the Father that they may be one . . . even as we are one has opened up new horizons closed to human reason by implying that there is a certain parallel between the union existing among the divine persons and the union of he sons of God in truth and love. It follows, then, that if man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere gift of giving himself."

This passage asserts that the Trinity as a communion of love is the standard, pattern and the source of power by which all relationships should be established and measured. When this principle is applied to priestly formation, it clarifies for us that the identity of each seminarian can only be revealed in communion of love of the Church. Formators and peers ought to serve as the visible and concrete sign of this communio in the here and now for the men entrusted to them for formation. But how do we know whether these relationships have been properly ordered, conformed to the communion of life of the Trinity, a real participation in the communio of the Church? The link is the eternal plan of the Father, the divine design. Unstated and assumed but worthy of mention is the fact that a formation design that orders the mutual relations in priestly formation in the right way, according to the plan of God, makes this visible and concrete sign of the Church more compelling and effective.

Relationships: the Context for Formation

If effective priestly formation is to advance, it is important to clarify who the chief agents of spiritual formation are and how their complementary roles work together. It is also important to identify objective and measurable criteria for each of these agents so that their effectiveness can be seen. Again, the task here is to discern the divine design, the Father’s plan for spiritual formation. We must ask, “How does the Father desire to order those being formed in relationship to their formators and their tasks?”

The list of formators should be considered in its broadest sense. It is important to note that the PPF and PDV already offer a broad description of these when it comes to addressing overall formation in all its aspects. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in many institutions to take a narrow view of the scope of spiritual formation in terms of its criteria and agents. Such a view inhibits a more dynamic implementation of Pastores Dabo Vobis. By building on and expanding the material on the agents of spiritual formation contained in PPF and PDV, a future Spiritual Formation Design will provide an invaluable resource to bishops and other formators.

Identity for Mission

Standing between the men God entrusts to us to become priests and their ability to answer this call is not only immaturity but deep wounded-ness. We must not assume that fit candidates for the seminary are those who have it all together. The men who come to seminary should be assumed to be broken and very in need of healing. Prevalent and widespread abuse of the the Internet and other media are simply symptoms of the deep, profound wounds to be healed. Often times disobedience or lack of docility are brought up as major formation problems. But aren’t timidity and lack of initiative even worse problems in formation? And what about matters of intimacy, chastity and friendship? What kind of obedience or docility is it when men do not know how to act like men, when they do not know what it is to be fathers, when they are not able to be present to one another?

When it comes to addressing the wounds, we have made frequent recourse to psychological counseling. The healing they need is not merely psychological (although it might include that). It is the healing of salvation that transforms wounds into intercession and compassion for others, especially for enemies and those who hurt us (see CCC 2843). Therefore, we should not place too much confidence in psychological resources. They will help to some extent. But spiritual healing requires spiritual means.

When this healing (a healing in the sense of salvation) is not afforded men, many of them are not able to deal adequately with a fear of rejection. This screws up their discernment and openness to progress. They are so afraid of rejection that a culture of love and healing is not possible in the seminary. Fear of rejection can only be healed through encouragement and prayer: praying over and with men, men praying over and with each other.

Nazareth symbolizes a household of healing, encouragement and prayer. If there was ever admonishment (My child, why have you done this?), it was came in the context of love and prayer. Such a context can dispose seminarians to imitate the Lord in Nazareth: Jesus "went down with them" and "lived under their authority" (Luke 2:51). The way Madonna House addresses this is in Chambers of Her Heart, a book on their “presem” program, is compelling. It proposes that the seminary needs to be an experience of Nazareth: a home of love and prayer where obedience can be learned just as Christ first began to learn obedience by what he suffered (see Heb. 5:7-8).

Teaching, Practicing and Evaluating:

There is a prevailing assumption that human formation precedes spiritual formation. While grace builds on nature, it is also true that nature is healed and perfected by grace. Therefore, human and spiritual formation do not precede each other but go hand in hand. As one is healed spiritually, he becomes more capable of human maturity. As one grows in human maturity, he becomes more open to grace.

But this insight is lost today. It must be said that emphasis is placed on human formation above and beyond spiritual formation. Human formation is believed to be an area for the external forum. In human formation, clinical psychology offers something that at least appears objective and measurable. (ie. Does he exhibit avoidant behavior? Does he disassociate? To what degree is he narcistic? etc.) With objective benchmarks and flags to watch for, human formation is easy to understand and to apply.

Spiritual formation is reduced to the internal forum. Consigned to the realm of spiritual direction, judgments concerning someone’s spiritual growth appear to be subjective and the criteria for spiritual progress undefined. In spiritual formation the sorry state of spiritual theology has not arrived at agreed upon and objective criteria. This does not mean spiritual criteria do not exist (in fact, they are abundant in tradition), but that important work in this area is yet to be done.

With only vaguely discerned criteria, explaining to an individual seminarian specifically what to work on spiritually and how to measure his progress is a tentative enterprise. This is only compounded when spiritual directors adopt a model of spiritual direction that does not aid spiritual formation. When a spiritual director views his primary role as giving feedback (or worse, airing his own problems) rather than as part of a total formation team whose goal is to form a priest, he is not directing with the end in mind. Further, the obscurity around criteria and the presumption that spirituality is a matter strictly for the internal forum limits spiritual growth as a real consideration in evaluation of readiness for ordination.

Since the criteria provided by clinical psychology provide human formation with clearer objective criteria, we cannot be too critical of the tendency of formators to see these as more reliable than criteria used in spiritual formation, and thus, to focus on human maturity in determining whether someone is ready for ordination. But the result is that a spiritually immature individual can be recommended for ordination simply because he has some acceptable good human virtues, obeys the rules and externally demonstrates some sort of docility. Is it possible for someone to exhibit all these measurable behaviors and still not be ready for the ministry?

The results of not addressing spiritual formation in a systematic way have had a devastating effect on priestly formation. Men are able to get through six to seven years of formation without really having been formed in a priestly spirituality. Consequently, the value of contemplation, Liturgy of the Hours, and popular piety are not appreciated by many in the ministry. Instead, many priests today are privy to a superficial activism in the ministry which distracts them from greater intimacy with the Lord. This in turn undermines the discipline of simplicity, obedience and celibacy in priestly life. For without intimacy with the Lord, why should such discipline be embraced?

Principles at Work in Teaching, Practicing and Evaluating

A communion of love patterned in some manner after the Trinity should provide the basis for formation, especially spiritual formation. The ordering of formators among themselves, their complementary duties and their relationships to those they form should conform to the divine design of the Father, the pattern the communion of love in the Trinity. This sounds so theologically abstract until we direct our attention to where this was first realized, namely, Nazareth. It is more than the work of pious imagination to assert that the Holy Family is where our Lord was formed by Mary and Joseph. It derives from the logic of revealed truth that this is where the Son of God first learned to do and teach all the things that he does and teaches in his public ministry. Great mystics and founders of communities of the 20th Century have grasped this insight. It is an insight for our time.

This place of the “hidden mysteries” as the Catechism calls them (see 531-534) provides a model for the overall formation, and especially for ordering and discerning the spiritual formation of men for the priesthood. Catherine of Madonna House and Charles de Foucauld both focus on the importance of Nazareth in their own spiritualities. For both, Nazareth is a place where the duty of the moment is learned and practiced, and through this where hidden intimacy with the Lord is found.

Jesus learned to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, and clothe the naked at home with Mary and Joseph. The Holy Family entails an invitation to journey into a greater love in a hidden way where there is no room for fear of rejection but instead a culture of trust. The Holy Family is also a place where true masculine values are learned: those of perseverance in unappreciated hard work, taking initiative, courage in the face of evil, gentle compassion for the down trod, fighting for what is just, generously accepting responsibility, using authority wisely, and providing for others.

Formators need to look to the love shared by the Holy Family as a model for how they perform their work, as a standard to discern the seminary culture. Not only formators, but also seminarians need to be able to contemplate this model with their formators. There is a need in formation for spiritual paternity and maternity to be exercised and received in the lives of those being formed. Rather than a clinical or institutional model that envisions formation as something done to someone, a family model speaks of the forbearance and commitment to deal with someone as they are.

The family model means blessing, instructing and admonishing with the model of Nazareth as a school of love. This model extends to praying with, for and over one another for healing and encouragement among formation faculty, among seminarians and between seminarians and formation staff. As stated earlier, formators need to be in touch with the wounds their men bear. This means that they more deeply commit themselves to submitting to God their own wounds and even allowing their own weaknesses to be used by God to instruct seminarians, like a father might wisely do with his son in family life.

Establishing Nazareth as a model for formation in this way will require a greater vulnerability, something like the vulnerability parents and children share with one another in families. When we had strong families, this was not necessary. Today, however, some of the lessons of a truly Catholic family life need to be learned over. Seminaries and other places of formation need to be attentive and open to this.

Again, Madonna House has adopted this under the direction of Venerable Catherine Doherty de Heuck. As explained in Chambers of her Heart, the whole life of the seminary community becomes formative when it is ordered to the divine plan and when seminarians are taught faithfulness to the duty of the moment. The kitchen is not a place where we “help the cooks” but rather a where we learn to feed the hungry, the laundry where we clothe the naked, et cetera.

My point is that the image of Nazareth offers a vision for a formation in a culture of love that speaks to the principles at work in teaching, practicing and evaluating the subcommittee needs to develop. Looking at how Charles de Foucauld and Catherine Doherty de Hueck used this image in forming their communities spiritually in the 20th Century offers a good standard for us as we discern a design for spiritual formation.


[1] Cardinal Berulle introduced the practice and theological understanding of Consecration to Jesus through Mary in an attempt to help contemplatives realize a deeper conversion. St. Louis de Montefort developed the theological basis for this practice. In the 20th Century, the usefulness of this practice for a deeply apostolic life was promoted by Maximillian Kolbe and Catherine de Hueck Doherty.

[2] Simply put, this means that anyone who humbly asks to love Christ more and serve the Church has the possibility of seeing Nazareth with the eyes of Jesus and Mary. If anyone has any qualms that such a method is not sophisticated enough, then they would also have problems with both the Ignatian and Franciscan traditions whose ways of prayer are both founded on the notion that a graced filled imagination can allow us to see salvation history through the eyes of those who participated in it. I do not have the space to provide the detailed analysis required to illustrate this assertion but invite a review of the observations of Maximilian Kolbe, Catherine de Hueck Doherty, and John Paul II on this point