HistoricalChristian.Faith

Does ranking the contemplative life above the active demote the dignity of ordinary work?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: sound — the traditional ranking of contemplation above action (Mary chose “that good part,” Lk 10:42; Aquinas, ST II-II q.182) orders a hierarchy of acts and ends, not the dignity of persons or the goodness of honest labor: the same texts and the same Aquinas that rank contemplation highest expressly refuse to blame the active life and command manual work as honourable. The reading does not demote ordinary labor — with the honest concession that the ranking, wedded to the monastic two-tier ideal, did in practice help reserve the word “vocation” to the cloister, which the Reformation had to overturn (a fact about reception, not about what the hierarchy entails) · the ranking is held by Thomas Aquinas

The claim

Our Lord then does not blame the actions, but distinguishes between the duties. For it follows, Mary hath chosen that good part, &c. Not thine a bad one, but hers a better.

— Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 104, on Luke 10:41–42 (as displayed with the commentary on Luke 10:42). The interpretation under weighing is the one that answers a modern worry: when the Christian tradition ranks the contemplative life above the active — Mary’s hearing above Martha’s serving, the cloister’s prayer above the workshop’s toil — does it thereby demote the dignity of ordinary secular work? The reading advanced here holds that it does not: the ranking is one of acts (contemplation as the higher kind of act) and of ends (knowing God is not for anything further), not of the worth of persons or the goodness of labor — and the very tradition that draws the ranking is careful to say, in as many words, that the active life is not blamed.¹

Who advances it — and the worry it answers

The ranking itself is old and near-universal: from Origen and Ambrose through Augustine, Cassian, Gregory the Great, and Bede, the fathers read Martha and Mary as the two lives and gave the contemplative the palm, and Aquinas gathered the tradition into the flat verdict that “the contemplative life is simply more excellent than the active.”² The worry is the Reformation’s: that this hierarchy, joined to the two-tier scheme of “counsels” above “precepts” and the monastic ideal of a higher life, drained the dignity from secular labor and reserved the very word “vocation” to the priesthood and the religious orders — so that the plough and the workbench became a second-class Christianity. Luther levelled exactly this charge, tearing down the ranking of a “spiritual estate” above a “temporal” one. The interpretation advanced here does not deny that practical drift (see the assessment below); it denies the narrower and more basic claim — that ranking contemplation above action, as such, demotes the dignity of honest work.³

The evidence for

The reading rests on what the ranking’s own authors say when they draw it — and on what Aquinas, its sharpest exponent, does with the active life elsewhere.

The fathers rank the two lives without blaming the lower. The Mary-and-Martha texts are the seat of the ranking, and every major expositor pairs the ranking with an explicit refusal to disparage the active life. Augustine: our Lord “does not blame the actions, but distinguishes between the duties… Not thine a bad one, but hers a better” — and he presses the point against the very misreading in view, that if Martha’s service were blamed, then “let men give up ministering to the needy… let works of mercy be unheeded, knowledge only be cultivated” (which he rejects as absurd).⁴ Ambrose: “Nor is Martha rebuked in her good serving, but Mary is preferred because she has chosen the better part.” Gregory the Great: “Martha’s care is not blamed, but Mary is praised, for great are the rewards of an active life, but those of a contemplative are far better.” Bede: because Christ says Mary chose not a good part but the best, “Martha’s part may also be indicated as good.” Cassian: in praising Mary Christ “was saying nothing about Martha, and in no way was he giving the appearance of criticizing her.” The ranking is comparative (better/best), not privative: it exalts contemplation without demoting the good it is ranked above.⁵

Aquinas, who ranks contemplation highest, commands labor as honourable. The same Secunda Secundae that calls the contemplative life “simply more excellent” (q.182 a.1) holds manual labor to be genuinely commanded: it is “directed to four things” — livelihood, the removal of idleness, the curbing of concupiscence, and almsgiving — and, where a person has no other lawful means of support, it “comes under a necessity of precept… whatever his condition may be” (q.187 a.3). A ranking of lives that leaves manual labor a duty binding on every condition is not a demotion of labor.⁶ The ranking is of acts and ends, not of persons. Aquinas ranks contemplation above action for the reasons Aristotle gives — it engages the highest faculty on the highest (divine) object, is loved for itself rather than for a further result, and consists in rest rather than in labor toward a product. That is a claim about the kind of act and its end (knowing God is not for anything beyond itself), not about the worth of the one who performs it — exactly the distinction the liberal-arts tradition draws when it lifts the trades into a dignified calling while still ranking making a lower kind of act than knowing.⁷ Aquinas even gives the active life the precedence in the concrete case. The ranking is not absolute in practice: “in a restricted sense and in a particular case one should prefer the active life on account of the needs of the present life,” the active life is “more directly concerned with the love of our neighbour,” and the merit of external labor borne for Christ’s sake is a sign of the charity in which the essential reward chiefly consists. Christ himself, and the apostles, chose the active life of preaching and service in this life. The tradition that ranks contemplation highest as an act can and does rank the active life first in the order of Christian love.⁸

Adversarial assessment

What holds. On the interpretation itself the case is clean and the tradition unusually explicit. The ranking is stated by its own authors as comparative, never privative — Martha is “not blamed,” her part is “also… good” — and the sharpest exponent of the ranking, Aquinas, in the same breath makes manual labor a precept binding on every condition, calls the active life the more direct exercise of neighbour-love, and grants it the precedence “on account of the needs of the present life.” A hierarchy of contemplative and active acts simply does not entail a hierarchy of the dignity of the persons who perform them, any more than ranking a symphony above a good meal demeans the cook. The demotion does not follow from the ranking.

Where the worry has a genuine foothold — and where it over-reaches. The Reformation critique is not simply a mistake; it has hold of something real, but the real thing is a matter of reception and practice, not of what the hierarchy entails. In the medieval settlement the contemplative ranking did not stand alone: it was braided together with the counsels-above-precepts scheme, the prestige of the monastic and clerical state, and a narrowing of the word vocatio to the “call” into religious life — and that bundle, in practice, did leave secular labor looking like a lower-grade Christianity, which is why the Reformers had to universalize the doctrine of calling to recover the dignity of the ordinary station.⁹ But that is a claim about the practical effect of a whole medieval arrangement, not about the logical content of the ranking of the two lives; the over-reach is only in the slide from “the ranking helped underwrite a two-tier practice” to “the ranking itself demotes the dignity of work.” Read precisely, the ranking of the two lives and the dignity of ordinary labor are the two answers to two different questions — which act is higher, and whether the worker has a true calling — and the tradition affirms both. That the medieval church did not always keep them apart in practice is the Reformation’s just complaint, and it is weighed on its own terms where it belongs: on the argument that “vocation” is rightly extended from the monastery to every honest trade (rated sound).

The ascetic prizing of labor is not the demotion either. The monastic tradition’s use of manual labor as a discipline against idleness (Cassian, Benedict) can sound like “work is merely a remedy for sloth, a rung below prayer.” But that treats labor as a positive discipline ordered to the soul’s good, not as a servile necessity to be escaped; it is a claim about work’s function in the ascetic life, distinct both from work’s origin (weighed on “is manual labor a penalty of the fall?”) and from its dignity. It folds in here rather than counting against the reading.¹⁰

Assessment

Sound. That ranking the contemplative life above the active demotes the dignity of ordinary work does not follow from the ranking itself. The Mary-and-Martha tradition draws the ranking in the same breath as it refuses to blame the active life (“not thine a bad one, but hers a better”), and Aquinas, who states the ranking most flatly, in the same work makes manual labor a binding precept, names the active life the more direct exercise of neighbour-love, and grants it precedence in the concrete case. The ranking orders a hierarchy of acts and ends, not of the worth of persons or the goodness of labor — two different questions the tradition answers separately and both in labor’s favour. The one thing the reading must concede — and does — is historical rather than logical: the contemplative ranking, wedded to the counsels-above-precepts scheme and the prestige of the monastic state, did in practice help reserve the language of “calling” to the cloister, and it took the Reformation’s universalizing of vocation to recover the dignity of the secular station. That practical drift is real and is weighed on its own terms elsewhere; it does not show that the ranking of the two lives, rightly understood, demotes the dignity of work. So stated, the interpretation is sound.

Sources