Introduction to a Phenomenology of the Vows

What does Edmund Husserl have to do with the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience? Quite a lot, actually. In the late 19th century Edmund Husserl was developing a way of doing philosophy that would get us "back to the things themselves!" Previous to him European philosophy had become either idealist/relativistic (in its Hegelian and romantic versions) or empiricist/reductionistic (in its British scientific and skeptical versions). Husserl wanted to reclaim "the things themselves," to allow philosophy again to deal with reality, not just our projections (idealism) or our sense data (empiricism). To do this he founded (although not without help from his mentor, Franz Brentano) the way of phenomenology. If phenomenology can be expressed in two words they would be: intentionality and givenness. Intentionality is the most well known part of phenomenology it is the fact that "consciousness is always consciousness of something." "If we imagine a consciousness prior to all experience, it may very well have the same sensations as we have. But it will intuit [think] no things, and no events pertaining to things, it will perceive no trees and no houses, no flight of birds nor any barking of dogs (Logical Investigations I, section 23)." Husserl argues that there is no plain old consciousness, there is no "blank slate" as it were of the mind, but that we are always conscious of things, conscious of something as something. All our thoughts have intentional content these lights as a stop signal; those sounds as a fire alarm; that person as my wife. Things are not perceived neutrally but as things, and what these things are perceived as depends on my experience, background, traditions, etc. All thoughts are intentional they are thoughts of something as something. The second watchword for Husserl is givenness. Against the subjectivist notion of philosophy that says we project or create the meaning of the world, that we produce reality from our minds, Husserl maintains that it is the world that gives itself in intuition (thought as experienced). This notion of givenness is most famously put forth in Husserl's "principle of principles:" "Enough now of absurd theories. No conceivable theory can make us err with respect to the principle of all principles: that ever originally preventive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition, that everything originally offered to us in 'intuition' is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there (Ideas I, section 24)." What Husserl maintains here is that "the things themselves" are what dictate their terms to us; we do not impose meaning on the world but receive the terms of meaning from the things as they are given to us. We have different modes of knowledge and experience not because of our own subjective temperaments but because different things give themselves in different ways. A cube of salt gives itself to me differently than a advancing lion. In phenomenology I must pay attention to how something gives itself to me to find out what the thing is.

Okay, what does this have to do with religious vows? I think all three vows (poverty, chastity, and obedience) can be helpfully understood in terms of these two Husserlian notions: intentionality and givenness. For each vow this means paying attention to what the vow is referring to: just as thoughts are always thoughts of something, so too vows are not just vows but vows for something. And just as the things of the world are given to us in intuition, so too each of the vows gives to us something, presents something as given and only as given in a mode appropriate to the vow itself. Of course the ultimate given of each vow is Jesus Christ, and each vow allows Jesus to give himself to us in a particular way, as the poor Christ, the chaste Christ, the obedient Christ. We will in turn look at the phenomenology of each vow and the presentation of Christ in them. But why is this important? Why is this not just another exercise in ivory tower academics? I think Husserl is helpful because when people ask me about the vows they almost always conceive of them as (1) an act of giving something up; and (2) an act that I choose to do. While it is good (or bad!) for my ego to have people lauding me for my "discipline," "commitment," and "sacrifice;" and while these aspects of the vows are true, I don't think they are the primary reason for taking (or living) the vows. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, bears witness to the true reason for the vows: "The Church continually keeps before it the warning of the Apostle which moved the faithful to charity, exhorting them to experience personally what Christ Jesus had known within Himself. This was the same Christ Jesus, who "emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave . . . becoming obedient to death", and because of us "being rich, he became poor". Because the disciples must always offer an imitation of and a testimony to the charity and humility of Christ, Mother Church rejoices at finding within her bosom men and women who very closely follow their Saviour who debased Himself to our comprehension. There are some who, in their freedom as sons of God, renounce their own wills and take upon themselves the state of poverty. Still further, some become subject of their own accord to another man, in the matter of perfection for love of God. This is beyond the measure of the commandments, but is done in order to become more fully like the obedient Christ (LG 42)." The vows are not so much about giving up something as about opening up our lives to the reception of a gift given to us: Jesus Christ. The vows are not a negative act but the positive act of conforming ourselves more and more to Christ who has offered himself for us and seeks to abide in us more perfectly. In order to better understand how the vows conform us to Jesus Christ, I think Edmund Husserl and his thought can be a valuable companion, just as he was a valuable teacher to both St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) and Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, and a major philosophical influence on Blessed John Paul II. So, let us get "back to the vows themselves!" Or perhaps better, to the One we know and love in them.

Phenomenology of the Vows: Poverty

"Why do you hate money and possessions?" I think this is the first thing that many people, especially non-Christians think when they hear about the vow of poverty - the voluntary acceptance to live a materially simple life, with all things held in common. "That sounds like communism!" This is not an unreasonable reaction to the religious vow, yet I think it is mistaken in what it sees as the meaning of the vow. As we discussed in the introduction to this series, Edmund Husserl's phenomenological method can be helpful in understanding what the vows are all about, and what they are not about. In particular we noted that phenomenology has two key notions: intentionality and givenness.

"Christ of the Breadlines" by Fritz Eichenberg Intentionality means that we never just think, we always think about something. Givenness means that our perception of reality, of any individual reality, is shaped by the mode it is given to us - we don't impose terms on the world but receive the world according to its own terms of presentation. We made this specific in relation to the religious vows by saying that vows are always for something, not just acts of the will without purpose. And the vows are always about being open to something given to us, in the case of the vows, the person of Jesus Christ as poor, chaste, and obedient. Phenomenological analysis can help us correct our thinking on the vows and help us to appreciate them more as well as the person we receive through them. Let us now turn to the vow of poverty under these two notions: intentionality and givenness. Intentionality - the vow of poverty is not the rejection of something, it is not against money, possessions, or wealth; it is for something first and foremost. The intentionality of the vow is to be for Christ in a particular way. The Second Vatican Council notes this aspect in its reason for taking vows: "First, in order to be set free from hindrances that could hold him back from fervent charity and perfect worship of God, and secondly, in order to consecrate himself in a more thoroughgoing way to the service of God (LG 44)." Religious taking the vow of poverty are not running away from the world or some part of it, but running towards the world as free men and women in Christ. And this running towards may entail letting some things go. Think of it this way: when you go swimming you generally remove your winter coats and snow shoes - but you would not say that swimming is an act that rejects winter coats and snow shoes; rather to swim you must unburden yourself of these things. The vow of poverty is similar; the vow is not about rejecting material things but about unburdening oneself of material goods in order to be closer to Christ. For as the Catechism teaches: "In the consecrated life, Christ's faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come (CCC 916)." For Dominicans the vow of poverty is undertaken in imitation of the first apostles, the ones sent by Christ to preach the Gospel: "Saint Dominic and his brothers imitated the apostles who, without gold, silver or money, proclaimed the kingdom of God (LCO 30)." This notion of poverty was immediately implemented in the Church, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common (Acts 4:32)."

Holy Father Dominic meets Holy Father Francis

Evangelical poverty is about freeing ourselves for a mission of preaching and for a deeper union with Christ. The Dominican Constitutions put it this way: "This spirit of poverty urges us to put our treasure in the kingdom of God's justice, with a lively trust in the Lord. That spirit offers release from servitude and indeed from solicitude about earthly matters, enabling us to move closer to God, to be more readily available to him, freer to speak about him fearlessly (LCO 31)." It is all too easy to think that poverty is about practicality, about being "freer" in the sense of more able to respond to current situations, moves, crises, etc. But the freedom given in poverty is deeper than this practical freedom; as these quotations make clear poverty is about being free for Christ and union with God first; all practical benefits are secondary or accidental to this evangelical freedom. Givenness - Poverty is not just about giving something up, it is most importantly about receiving something, or rather receiving someone - the poor Christ. For in becoming poor ourselves, we strive to know Christ as poor. There are many ways to know any object. I can know a football as brown, or as soft or hard, or as leading to a friendly and enjoyable game. We can know Christ in many different ways, but his poverty seems to be a particularly important way. St. Paul speaks of the poor Christ in II Corinthians 8.9: "For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich." The Catechism highlights Christ's birth as an example of this poverty, a wonderful theme to think about this Advent and Christmas: "Jesus was born in a humble stable, into a poor family. Simple shepherds were the first witnesses to this event. In this poverty heaven's glory was made manifest (CCC 525)." The Lord makes his poverty known to a would-be disciple: "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Matt. 8.20)." And St. Paul sings of Christ's poverty in his marvelous hymn: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself,taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.And being found in human form, he humbled himselfand became obedient to the point of deatheven death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the namethat is above every name, so that at the name of Jesusevery knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11)." The vow of poverty allows us to experience, to meet the poor Christ, the suffering Christ. Of course we take this vow because we have had some experience of Christ in his poverty that draws us to seek him more. Here the dynamic relationship between intentionality and givenness stands out. Christ gives himself to us as poor, under the aspect of his poverty. We may have met him in the Gospels, in an image of the cross, in humble service to others. We respond to this encounter by taking a vow, not just any vow, but a vow of poverty. We want to know poverty more intimately so that we can know him more intimately. Our intentionality in the vow of poverty gives us more of Christ, who first gave himself to us.

Phenomenology of the Vows: Chastity

In this series so far we have looked at the vows from the perspective provided by Edmund Husserls account of phenomenology. Specifically we have used his concepts of intentionality and givenness to highlight aspects of the vows in general and poverty in particular. Intentionality means that thought is always of something, it is not just thought. Givenness means the thing thought is thought as it is given, in a particular way. The thing determines the way we think it. So we might sum up Husserls account as Thought is about something as something. Almost a tautology, but when interpreted along the above lines a profound reflection on our grasp of reality. In discussing the vow of chastity, I would like to add another important aspect of Husserls phenomenology to our tool kit: phenomenological bracketing. Phenomenological bracketing, or bracketing for short, is an essential element to Husserls project, and it means something similar to its grammatical root. To bracket something is to put it aside in a way, to keep

it out of consideration for the moment. For Husserl, Phenomenology is able to work with the concepts of intentionality and givenness because it brackets certain things out of consideration, thus phenomenological bracketing (or epoche, to use Husserls fancy Greek term). What does he bracket? The phenomenologistmust practice an epoche. He must inhibit every ordinary objective position, and partake in no judgement concerning the objective world. The experience itself will remain what it was, an experience of this house, of this body, of this world in general, in its particular mode. (Phenomenology).

James Watson and Francis Crick at the lab Husserl wants us to bracket out of considerationthe objective world! This seems to be the most radical version of skepticism and relativism imaginable in order to understand the world we need to ignore or forget its existence! But Husserls whole project is about getting back to the things themselves; how can he possibly mean this? Bracketing is the attempt to get behind the natural attitude of the world that we all have in everydayness. The natural attitude is the basic attitude of the scientist in the lab: the world is one of objects to be categorized and used in experiments; it is a world of utility. Husserl sees this as a fine attitude for science but he thinks it is not about reality in its entirety but if we want to know reality as reality, as it is, than we need to bracket the objective facts of the objects we see and attend closely to how we receive them in our experience of consciousness, in particular under the aspects of intentionality and givenness. All this is fine and good in a course on Husserlian phenomenology, but what does it have to do with the vows, in particular the vow of chastity? I think it is of immense value for understanding this vow especially in the current modern climate. Let me explain. Of the three vows I think it is obvious that chastity (shorthand for celibate chastity for the religious) is the most difficult to understand in the modern world: It just doesnt seem to make sense to most people on the street. It seems unnatural to refuse to marry. The great Dominican moral theologian Servais Pinckaers, OP makes this difficulty clear: The natural inclination to marriage is universal. Every human person has it, and it is the basis of an inalienable right. It is also the basis of natural law Yet some may be called to renounce marriage and the exercise of sexuality (Sources of Christian Ethics, 448). I submit that the vow of chastity, at first glance, looks a lot like the process of phenomenological bracketing: both seem to be radical denials of the world and surely on the wrong track to understanding and living in the world. If we want to understand the world in itself, bracketing it from consideration surely does not seem to be the right thing to do. Just so, if we want to live a life of love in the world to the fullest, surely renouncing the most basic of human interpersonal inclinations is not the way to do it!

Fr. Servais Pinckaers OP But just as when we better understood what Husserl meant by bracketing we saw the importance of it for his phenomenology, so too when we better understand what the Church and the Order mean by the vow of chastity we can see the importance and rightness of it. We can begin by realizing that just as the natural attitude is actually not natural at all according to Husserl, so too the natural understanding of human nature in modernity is not natural in traditional terms. This is because the natural attitude of the world in terms of human nature is physical, not natural; it does not admit in any significant way the spiritual aspects of being human, naturally human. And indeed if we were not spiritual as well as physical beings, then generation would be the greatest fruitfulness and chastity would be insane or at least undesirable. But we are spiritual beings, animals informed by a rational soul and the intellectual capacity to transcend the material to contemplate the forms of things below and things above. In fact, according to the Catholic tradition (among others) this is precisely what makes us humans in the first place: our ability to transcend the world in contemplation. And so, if this is what makes humans unique, then directing life towards this human activity is also perfectly natural. Servais Pinckaers, OP explains: The ideal of virginity received its legitimate status from nature itself, not indeed from the inclination toward generation but from the yearning for knowledge of divine truth, seen as humanitys highest good. The choice of virginity or perfect chastity was therefore not opposed to the task of marriage, since it was motivated by the fulfillment of another task, which we might say was even more natural: the progress in the knowledge of truth and goodness for the benefit of all society (SCE, 448). The Dominican Constitution says something similar in terms of loving God with an undivided heart: The brothers who promise chastity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven follow in the footsteps of Saint Dominic who for the love of God preserved unblemished virginity throughout his lifeWe ought to value our profession of chastity as a special gift of grace, by which we unite ourselves more readily to God with an undivided heart, and are more intimately consecrated to him (LCO 25-26). Now, to be sure, the vow of chastity also allows a friar to better love all those around him: Dominic was so much on fire with zeal for souls that he receive all in a broad embrace of charity and since he loved them all he was loved by all in return, spending himself fully in the service of his neighbor and with compassion for the afflicted Impelled by our apostolic vocation we are wholly dedicated to the Church, and thus to love humanity more fully (LCO 25-26).

St. Dominic and his Friars Fed by Angels - G. Sogliani

Of course, contemplation of God and love of others are by no means from exclusive; far from it! The final object of our contemplation is God, the God who is Love. Our contemplation should lead to acts of love and charity to our brothers and sisters, and the vow of chastity allows us to respond to this loving contemplation in the most universal way. And this response of love, which is practiced first amongst our Dominican brothers, rebounds to the whole Church as we live out this radical gift of charity. As Fr. Pinckaers concludes: The power of the Gospel ideal of virginity enlivened by the charity of Christ is manifested notably by its ability to call forth new types of communities, consecrated to the evangelical life through renunciation, contemplation, and devotion. It is the proof, founded on facts and a long history, of the supernatural fruitfulness of Christian virginity (SCE, 452).

Phenomenology of the Vows: Obedience

As Virgil and Beatrice were to Dante, so Edmund Husserl has been our guide to the three evangelical counsels. We have seen how his notions of intentionality and givenness enrich our understanding of what the vows offer to us and how we relate to them. Along the way we have also discovered other parts of Husserls philosophical project, such as the phenomenological reduction and the process of transcendental bracketingthe removal of all that is contingent and inessential in search of what is true. It is finally time to turn to obedience, the counsel according to the Dominican Constitutions that is pre-eminent among the counsels: By obedience a person dedicates himself totally to God and his actions come closer to the goal of profession, which is the perfection of charity. Everything else too in the apostolic life is included under obedience (LCO 19.1). And yet what seems more counter-intuitive to todays culture than obedience? Isnt that something for children and young people living at home? Why do grown men, Dominican friars, make this promise of obedience, including poverty and chastity under its yoke? Once again, Husserl can be of help. What in Husserls thought would correspond to obedience, the pre-eminent counsel? This must be his principle of all principles: No conceivable theory can make us err with respect to the principle of all principles: that ever originally preventive intuition is a legitimizing source of cognition, that everything originally offered to us in 'intuition' is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there (Ideas I, section 24). Everything given to us in intuition, everything perceived, is presented according to its own mode of disclosure: we do not dictate terms to the objects we find in the world. This is not a form of nave realism: what you see is what you get. To see things as they are in themselves requires hard phenomenological work; we must follow the difficult and delicate steps of the phenomenological reduction. Husserl offers an example:

I have a particular intuition of redness, or rather several such intuitions. I stick strictly to the pure immanence; I am careful to perform the phenomenological reduction. I snip away any further significance of redness, any way in which it may be viewed as something transcendent, e.g., as the redness of a piece of blotting paper on my table, etc. And no I grasp in pure seeing the meaning of the concept of redness in general, redness in specie, the universal seen as identical in this and that. No longer

is it the particular as such which is referred to, not this or that red thing, but redness in general (The Idea of Phenomenology, 44-45). Seeing something as it is in itself means stripping it of all the contingent and non-essential elements. It means looking close at the thing as it is given to consciousness as an intentional object. Seeing in this way is no mean feat, nor is it a normal daily occurrence! The vow of obedience is similar: If we want to be free we must obey. The Catechism links freedom with obedience in this way: The more one does that is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to the slavery of sin (CCC 1733). The Dominican Constitutions similarly stress the need for obedience in the achievement of freedom: Because obedience plants the roots of self-discipline in our hearts it is of the greatest benefit to that freedom of spirit characteristic of the children of God, and disposes us to self-giving charity (LCO 19.3).

Pope Honorius III and St. Dominic - L. da Ponte The vow of obedience is an offering of ones freedom in return for a greater freedom in the service of the highest good: Gods will. When a friar takes the vow of obedience he is offering himself as an instrument of God under the direction of his superiors. We again meet the structure of intentionality: obedience is for something, it is for the apostolic life in fulfillment of the Gods call. Although easily misunderstood, obedience is not a negation of freedom, but a development of authentic freedom in serving the good, serving God in a particular way. Obedience is not against freedom, but for it! The notion of givenness also illumines obedience because when the vow is lived out one receives something, or rather, someone: Through obedience, we imitate Christ in a special manner, Christ who always obeyed the Father, for the life of the world. We are thus more closely united to the Church, to whose building we are dedicated, for its common good and that of the Order (LCO 18.1). Just as the other vows give the religious Christ in a special way (the poor Christ, the chaste Christ), the vow of obedience gives him Christ as obedient to the Father, the one who St. Paul speaks of when he says: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,

being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:5-8). Obedience unites the friar to Christ who always followed the Fathers will. But this obedience is not easy, especially given the assumptions about freedom and maturity in the world today. It is difficult to imagine that others know better than you do about what is right and wrong, yet it is nevertheless true! We do not see the world correctly unless we are trained to see it correctly, with the eyes of faith, and obedience is the primary lesson in the school of vowed learning. With obedience we learn to order our desires and passions rightly towards true and authentic goods instead of fleeting and apparent ones. Like the method of phenomenology, this kind of seeing takes patience and practice; it is by no means an easy task. But the promise of both phenomenology and obedience is surely worth the effort: to see the world as it is and to know ones proper place in it according to Gods will. Because Husserl has been our guide on this journey it is appropriate to end with a passage from another journey, Dantes Paradiso. In Canto III Dante meets Piccarda who inhabits the first circle of Heaven. In response to his question about whether she has any desire to move to a higher place she says:

Paradiso Canto II.49 G. Dor For it is of the essence of this bliss to hold ones dwelling in the divine Will, who makes our single wills the same, and His, So that, although we dwell from sill to sill throughout this kingdom, that is as we please, as it delights the King in whose desire We find our own. In His will is our peace: That is the sea whereto all creatures fare, Fashioned by Nature or the hand of God.

In Gods will is our peace, for obedience gives us Christ, and everything else along with him.