SPIRITUALITY IS RELIGIOUS

Fr. Christopher J.P. Sowers, S.T.B.

The latest book from perennial sophomore in religion, Dr. Sam Harris, is the perfect occasion to
take a moment and clear up a prevailing misconception. In Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality
Without Religion, Dr. Harris states, Spirituality must be distinguished from religion because
people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of spiritual experiences. He goes on
to argue that it is a mistake to interpret such events through the lens of one or another religious
doctrine.
True to form, Dr. Harris demonstrates just enough religious understanding to establish what
liCle religious understanding he actually possesses. To some degree, he can be forgiven this ill-
conceived treatise. He doesnt have a degree in religion, theology, or even philosophy. He has a
Ph.D. in neuroscience. No maCer how popular, Dr. Harris simply hasnt done the hard work
necessary to be able to actually contribute in any substantive way to the discourses surrounding
religion. Compounding this, a recent survey of Americans found that 20 percent now describe
themselves as spiritual but not religious. They are, no doubt, the target audience here. Like
Dr. Harris, they too struggle with a basic misconception easily remedied with some basic
theology coursework. But forgiveness always comes with penance. And in this case, penance
takes the form of correction.
To be blunt: Dr. Harris and those who mistakenly describe themselves as spiritual but not
religious misunderstand what exactly spiritual and religious mean. This
misunderstanding leads to the false idea that a person can have one without the other. This is
simply not true. Spirituality is religious. The reverse holds true as well. Religion is spiritual.
This is not to say that feelings or emotions like awe, wonder, insignicance in the face of natural
grandeur, and any other such emotion is inherently religious. Its true that everyone experiences
or can experience these emotions, including Dr. Harris. But, we arent discussing emotion here.
People dont say, I prefer awe and wonder without religion. The title of his latest book is not
called Waking Up: A Guide to Awe and Wonder Without Religion. No, our topic is spirituality.
The word spiritual means of or pertaining to, aecting or concerning, the spirit (OED). It is
noted that the word is used frequently in expressing or implying a distinction between the
material and nonmaterial; the body and the soul. As soon as we leave behind the material, the
physical, the measurable, the predictable, we have entered into the realm of metaphysics, the
realm of theology, the realm of religion. To be clear, spirit or soul and those states, conditions,
or qualities relating to it are religious notions.

1

The word religion, derives directly from Latin. Religionem or religio refer to a respect for what
is sacred, reverence for God. St. Augustine traces religio to religare, meaning to bind fast, to place
an obligation on, and thus referring to a bond between us and God. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church, quoting the Second Vatican Council, denes the soul as the seed of eternity we bear in
ourselves, irreducible to the merely material and having its origin only in God (CCC 33, cf.
GS 18 1). Thus, we are bound to God as the progenitor of our souls. We are the spiritual
progeny of God. And as the use of that word spiritual denotes, this is conducted through the
Spirit.
Our word spirit also derives directly from the Latin word Spiritus (Lt. breath), as in Spiritus
Sanctus. These Latin words were used in the Vulgate to translate pneuma in Koine Greek (e.g.
) and rua in Hebrew (e.g. or thy holy spirit). The Vulgate is still
the ocial translation of the Church, as Latin is still its ocial language. Thus, the word spiritus
is still in use today. It is used to refer to the Breath of God, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit. And, the
Holy Spirit is directly at work in our lives through divine inspiration, the regeneration of the
soul in Baptism, and sanctication of the person. These are all religious doctrines. Doctrines that
shape our understand and use of the word spiritual.
With this basic understanding of the words involved, we can return to this phrase spiritual but
not religious. It becomes immediately clear that it is an impossible notion. It aCempts to divide
that which cant be divided. Its a complete misconception. And, this would be enough if the
people who use this phrase, Dr. Harris included, actually used it to mean what the words
themselves convey. Instead, it is used for something else entirely. Its not socially acceptable to
be completely open and honest about our own egoism. Nor, do I believe, we are completely
comfortable with it ourselves. So, we dissemble. To put it plainly, spiritual but not religious is
code for Im interested in the those states, conditions, or qualities of my soul without the bond
between myself and God that makes it possible.
This aCitude of unfeCered individualism is particularly American. Founded by radical Puritans
who valued private interpretations based on the Reformers heretical notion of sola scriptura,
they colonized this land out of a desire to do things their way; to be their own people, with their
own laws, with themselves as their only authority. In fact, the entire spiritual but not
religious aCitude that is so prevalent today is the ultimate outcome of the Protestant program.
Once scriptural interpretation becomes a maCer of private concern alone, then so too does
religious doctrine, based as it is on Scripture. When religious doctrine is a maCer of private
interpretation, then adherence to religious doctrine becomes merely an option based on
individual whim.

2

Today, there are 40,000 Protestant denominations. Each of them believes, based on their own
interpretative authority, that they are the rightful bearers of the full truth of God. Most of these
are the product of a denomination or a church spliCing over private interpretations, disputes
over authority, and the consistent appeal to personal autonomy to believe as they wish. This is
the legacy of the Puritans, of George Whiteeld, of Jonathan Edwards, of Charles Finney, and
even Billy Graham. The Reformers displaced bishops by enthroning individual authority and
autonomy, so now this individual authority and autonomy is empowered to displace religion
altogether.
At its heart, it is the age old sin of pride, of entitlement, of concupiscence. It is the notion that
Im entitled to the things of God without God from whom those things come. My spirit is my
own, to do with as I please. Usurping the rightful place of the Essence of our existence with our
own ego and its whim, we bind ourselves to it. The self is now god and selshness, greed,
divisiveness, jealousy, and envy are the fruits of its spirit. Thus, the real signicance of
spiritual but not religious. It is a commitment to the spirit of the ego over against the Spirit of
God. It is only one more in a long line of deant invectives against the fact that we will always
be contingent upon God. Its fruits are all around us to see.
As Pope Francis stated last year, The culture of selshness and individualism that often
prevails in our society is not what builds up and leads to a more habitable world: it is the
culture of solidarity that does so, seeing others not as rivals or statistics, but brothers and
sisters. Solidarity springs from that seed of eternity that we all share and that binds us all to
God as children of God. There can never be solidarity amongst autonomous egos. Dr. Harris,
and those like him, who share in that spiritual but not religious misconception, desire to make
more room for themselves and their experiences in a world made habitable by their privilege.
Whereas, those who recognize our shared dependence upon eternity desire to make room for
others by rst making a habitable world for all.
Dr. Harris believes it is religion that is to blame for the violence, the horrible violence, that
creates deep divisions between neighbors, tribes, and nations. He hopes that by oering this
common ground of autonomous experience that it may lead to more peace, less violence.
Unfortunately, he fails to see that autonomous experience doesnt create solidarity. If we are to
have solidarity, it will only be gained by abandoning selshness. In fact, instead of trying to
separate our spirit from the Source of that spirit, we need to dive deeper into our shared bond
that comes from one common Progenitor. Only in unity with God, reaching out in love to each
other, can we create solidarity, and thus peace.

3