Some thoughts on contemplation and its relation to poverty

The ultimate end of man consists, in its essence, in contemplation. It is the "ultimate end" in the sense that it is the final cause of all our actions, that towards which all other acts are ordered. If something is a means, it cannot be the ultimate end. This ultimate end has other names: happiness, beatitude, perfection, among others. All of these names refer to the same reality: the attainment of the highest good, that which is sought for its own sake, and not for the sake of anything else. This ultimate end is also the fulfillment of human nature; for each thing achieves what is good for it by doing well as the kind of thing that it is. A man cannot, for example, achieve ultimate happiness by trying to behave like a dog. It is good for a human to be a human rather than a dog. Now, what distinguishes man from all other earthly creatures is his intellect. This is also the highest power in him in relation to his other powers because the intellect can consider universals. If our ultimate end, then, consists in the fulfillment of our nature, and by nature we are intellectual creatures, it would seem to follow that our ultimate end consists in something intellectual. It also seems reasonable to say that it will consist in the best part of us directed to the best things. We already noted that our intellect is the highest, that is, best, part of us. Consequently, when we direct our intellect to the best things, namely, divine things, we will be totally fulfilling our nature, which is what it is to achieve our ultimate good. This is why we use the word "contemplation," for it denotes an intellectual activity. But it is not contemplation of just anything; it is contemplation of the divine, in which our ultimate end consists.

Now, in order to achieve this ultimate end, one needs to be certain that what are called the "necessities of life" or "external goods" (e.g. food, shelter, etc.), which is to say, the things that are necessary to sustain one's own existence, are secured. If they are not secured, or one is not certain that they are, man, as an earthly creature, will have a natural inclination to secure those goods. For this reason, it is helpful--though not necessary (taken in a strict, logical sense)--for most people--though not all--to have some level of monetary security because for most people, a certain level of monetary security is what allows for the kind of existence-certitude that is necessary for achieving the ultimate good. So, to be clear, what is necessary to achieve man's ultimate end is being alive, or existing, not money (let alone great wealth); it's just that for most people, money is one of the main means by which one stays alive.

It should also be noted that the sort of ultimate good that is understood here is what Aquinas calls natural happiness ("happiness" here understood in distinction from pleasure, though they are often identified). This is opposed to supernatural happiness, which is known as the Beatific Vision, wherein the soul takes part in an intellectual activity by which it sees the Essence of the Divine Nature immediately. Unlike natural happiness, supernatural happiness cannot be achieved by man's natural powers. The Beatific Vision can only be received by God. Natural happiness, on the other hand, is achievable by man's own natural abilities. If that were not the case, it would not be worth seeking out in this life. Supernatural happiness is still worth seeking out even though it is not achievable by our natural powers because it is still possible that God grant it to us. One should note that both natural and supernatural happiness fulfill the definition of man's ultimate end discussed in the first paragraph: both consist, by their essence, in contemplation--the directing of the intellect, our best and highest power--toward the divine--the best and highest object. It's just that supernatural happiness is not something we can achieve on our own. What this means is that being alive--in the sense of one's material, earthly life--is necessary only for natural happiness and not supernatural happiness. Consequently, since money is not, strictly speaking, a necessary means for natural happiness, a fortiori, money is certainly not needed for supernatural happiness.

Is it then impossible for someone to contemplate (in the natural, not supernatural sense) in poverty? What about St. Francis of Assisi and the charism of his entire order? Does not God even call those who have monetary means to be poor in a certain sense so that they might receive Him more deeply? Is it not, then, in fact easier instead of harder to contemplate when one is poor?

How does one reconcile these two views? Again, to be clear, one need not be wealthy--that is, possess more money than one needs to secure external goods (I am taking "wealthy" in a broad sense)--to achieve man's highest good (in the natural, not supernatural, sense). One need be alive, and most people's main means of staying alive is monetary. When it comes to mendicant orders like the Franciscans, they recognize the danger, given original sin, in desiring money. For the desire of money, which in itself need not be disordered, can easily become disordered. This is what Jesus meant when he said that it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. For there is a danger that one may begin to see money as an end instead of a means. 

This is a very common sin people fall into and it is for this reason that St. Francis did what he did. He gave up all his riches to force himself to constantly remember that his ultimate end consists in something far higher than wealth and riches: God. Indeed, his faith that God would sustain him was so strong that he did not need money to allow him to contemplate. He contemplated knowing that God would provide for him without money. In other words, the certitude of his continued existence came from God instead of money. Needless to say, such certitude requires much grace.

This leads into the next point about whether it is in fact easier rather than harder to contemplate when one is poor. Again, what is necessary for happiness is not money, but the sustenance of one's existence, which most rely on money for. If someone is certain that his existence can be sustained without money, there is nothing preventing him from contemplating without money. In this case, it may be easier to contemplate in the sense that he need not worry about his appetite for wealth becoming disordered, which facilitates his attention to contemplation. What is also likely is that he would no longer need to worry about his appetite for other material goods growing to be disordered either. Such a case, however, is exceptional. As mentioned earlier, most people reasonably seek out monetary means for the sustenance of their existence. I say "reasonably" because most people will not become exorbitantly wealthy in their lifetimes, and those same people are fully aware of that. Hence, not all desires for money are desires for great wealth. Rather, most desires for money are simply ordered to the sustenance of one's existence.

I would like to end on a note about something that I mistakenly thought would be an uncontroversial claim: all earthly creatures have a natural inclination to stay in existence. For they all possess a certain recognition that one's own existence is itself a good, as if to say, "It is good that I exist." Hence, they desire to continue existing. If there is some person who denies the goodness of their own existence, it is a disorder. God built it into our nature that we recognize the goodness of our own being. For he also sees its goodness and how it is derived from His own goodness. It is also natural, therefore, for man, who is an earthly creature, to desire to maintain the necessities of life, since they contribute to the sustenance of his existence. Since these necessities of life are secured by exterior goods (e.g. food, shelter, etc.), it is reasonable for  him to seek out exterior goods. In this respect, it must be borne in mind that seeking out exterior goods is not tantamount to seeking one's ultimate end; that is to say, a man may seek out exterior goods while recognizing that those goods do not make up his ultimate end, and he may see the order that those goods have to the ultimate end, which is, of course, to see exterior goods rightly, since he does not seek them out for their own sake, but for the sake of something else.