Are Catholics becoming utilitarian Christians?

[CollegeStinks]

The modern world pretty much hates men overall. Unless of course the man is a pushover and a stay-at-home dad who allows a woman to be the man of the house. (But God forbid a woman choose to stay at home and raise the kids, then she’s a traitor to her fellow woman.)

Men, in general, are cast aside. And the only people who have any respect for male clergy on this entire planet are traditional Catholics anyway. Most modern Catholics hold priests with disdain. So the issue has broken down before you’ve even made a point, since the first part is false - that male clergy have respect in our society - THEY DON’T. And men in general - even worse.

Why do some Catholics view male clergy with respect? Because the Church says to do so. The ones who have respect for male clergy are the ones who have always listened and will always listen to the Church. Why don’t they view average male religious with respect? Because the Church has not even attempted to say to do so. But She has done her fair share in the past several decades, joining in with the modern world, in fanning the flames of hatred for the men of our society, largely at the hands of the self-proclaimed “feminist pope.”

I’ll be awaiting somebody to write about the “Masculine Genius,” and maybe then we can get back on the right track.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know. I think that marriage fits under this heading as well. There is a Catholic tradition of marriage that has been distorted over the centuries to both extremes. One school advocates irresponsibility and the other group advocates submission of women. The Church never embraced either of those points of view, regardless of what Paul said. At the end of the day, it was the Church who chose to include the Pauline letters in the bible and it is the Church who interprets those letters, not us. The Church’s interpretation is not the one that the man in the pew gives them. It’s often different from the interpretation that the average parish priests gives them, because he’s not always well educated in Biblical Studies and exegesis.

We can certainly agree that there are traditions in the Church that have been distorted and as a result of the distortion, people have been hurt or simply ignored. In many instances, wives and religious brothers are treated the same. They have a function rather than an identity.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I don’t know. I think that marriage fits under this heading as well. There is a Catholic tradition of marriage that has been distorted over the centuries to both extremes. One school advocates irresponsibility and the other group advocates submission of women. The Church never embraced either of those points of view, regardless of what Paul said. At the end of the day, it was the Church who chose to include the Pauline letters in the bible and it is the Church who interprets those letters, not us. The Church’s interpretation is not the one that the man in the pew gives them. It’s often different from the interpretation that the average parish priests gives them, because he’s not always well educated in Biblical Studies and exegesis.

We can certainly agree that there are traditions in the Church that have been distorted and as a result of the distortion, people have been hurt or simply ignored. In many instances, wives and religious brothers are treated the same. They have a function rather than an identity.

Brother, another point:

The writers of the New Testament were not robots, or to use a more recent example President Obama’s autopen which enables him to sign bills from thousands of miles away . They were men born in their times. As such, some of their attitudes spill over into scripture. Slavery was “normal”. The women of their day were “submissive”. I think many people, including many Catholics, make the mistake of believing that the Church was “frozen” in 33 AD. The overwhelming majority of matters that concern Faith and Morals, sure (although the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, for example, shows that official dogma can “evolve”), but many other things can change: our understanding of slavery, our understanding of the role of women, dress at Mass, etc. The genius of the Church (a reflection of the genius of our Father, and our Savior and the Holy Spirit) is that we can evolve. Some of the other faith traditions simply can not.

*although, even from the get go, the Church was light years better than the society of its time. The Church’s stance against abortion is an example that quickly leaps to mind

 

[iloveangels]

… Some people never really understood the difference between male religious and priests, especially male religious and religious priests. They assumed that all priests were religious.

Among many Catholics, this is the rule rather than the exception. They simply don’t know the difference at all. They assume all male religious are priests, and they think all priests are religious. They don’t think about “orders” much at all except in a very general naive way. They assume all priests are, or should be, in parishes too. In addition, many Catholics think that all priests take the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. All this is a topic that actually comes up very rarely in parish life.

Others had never met a male religious…

Also very, very common.

Some said that they felt that male religious life was not an emergency. We should wait until we have more priests to dwell on male religious life.

Yes, many laypeople simply do not have a mental category for brothers or friars or monks. They have no idea what they do or how they fit in. Also, there are very few sisters in the schools now or anywhere else where most Catholics can see them, and almost no brothers, monks or friars. Out of sight, out of mind.

You have to remember that for the great majority of Catholics, particularly in the USA, the Church is the parish. And the notion of what a parish is and does has changed in the last 50 years. It’s not really the center of most Catholics’ lives on a daily basis, spiritually or otherwise. If you go to an event on a weeknight, it’s usually not at the parish. The parish is where you go to mass on Sunday. If you volunteer it’s probably for a liturgical ministry, again on Sunday. The priest has a huge role in the lives of Catholics since he’s usually the only figure that laypeople see that is affiliated officially with the Church–except for the bishop, which to them seems like just a bigger more powerful priest who is the boss of the other priests.

 

[iloveangels]

Middle-aged, married laywoman here: I don’t know if American Catholics are becoming utilitarian: I think in this country we have been utilitarian all along, and that even goes for pre-Columbian “America.” People have always defined themselves by their roles.

And I think it boils down to this, for most of us: I don’t think most people see the “utility,” if you’ll pardon the expression, of prayer, unless we happen to have a fairly engaged prayer life ourselves. We tend to identify ourselves by what we “do,” rather than who we “are,” and unless that “doing” is pretty obvious, “being” gets lost. I’m speaking from firsthand experience as I say this. Currently, I’m recovering from pretty serious spinal surgery, and it’s pretty obvious that much of the world considers me useless. However, I had been fortunate enough, foresighted enough, or opportunistic enough (take your pick) to have done the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, 19th Annotation, and when my Jesuit spiritual director got to the point in his chronic illness that he had to go to the Jesuits’ infirmary, we continued our sessions via Skype. Having gone through that experience taught me the very real “utility” of prayer, even a life of prayer, even in my everyday life, and some months later, when I was attacked by a psychiatric patient and herniated a few discs and could only walk with great pain, could not work, and needed assistance at home, prayer, meditation, and spiritual reading were about the only things I could do, along with some TV watching and knitting (both of which can get mind-numbingly boring.) I honestly think that digging deeper into my spiritual life while I’ve been physically incapacitated is the sole most important thing I’ve been “doing.” In fact, I think it’s one of the few reasons I’ve been able to hang onto my sanity, have maintained a decent attitude toward recovering (i.e., the virtue of obedience can also be applied to following doctors’ orders strictly and without whining, gratitude can be expressed towards one’s caretakers, and so forth,) as well as having hung onto the virtue of hope, regardless of my physical condition. Currently I am offering a rosary novena for the soul of the person who attacked me, who has had such a horrible life that I would suspect that demonic influences might be afoot there in addition to her psychiatric illnesses (multiple.) I have to walk for half an hour a day, anyways: Why not say a rosary a day for this person? If nothing else, it will help my residual anger, frustration, and grief, and Mary may see fit to actually help her achieve some semblance of health.

Father Jack taught me well, in other words, even as I watched his physical condition deteriorate before my eyes.

But back to the original question: I think if you mention the word “monk” to most Americans, what pops into their minds is something like Monk’s Bread or Christian Brothers’ Winery. They really don’t have a clue that underneath it all what holds this whole ball of wax that we call the world together is the Mind of God, and connection with God requires prayer. And they don’t have a clue that prayer, study, and meditation is actual work.

Maybe what is needed is better catechesis as to the actual benefits of prayer, as well as how to do prayer, meditation, and spiritual reading. If you sat the average Joe Catholic down and asked him what prayer was, he could probably give you the Baltimore Catechism definition. Ask him about meditation, he’d probably look at you with a blank stare. Throw the term “lectio divina” at him, and he’d say, “Huh?” That is, until he came to experience these things for himself.

But understand this, please, Brother: This middle-aged, married, injured but not so “whiney-spiney” appreciates what you and your brother religious do to help keep this whole ball of wax together!

This is a very good post. We have not stressed the development of the spiritual life anywhere near enough in parish life or in Catholicism in the last 50 years at all. People often turn elsewhere because of this enormous neglected piece, too.

 

[JReducation]

There is another thread running on TC Forum about the Oratorians. Someone seems pretty upset to find out that the Oratorians don’t make vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Then there was a poster who completely mis-explained the vows. I’m paraphrasing, but he said something like the profession of vows is a restatement of what we already do or some such thing.

I know that he was trying to say that everyone is called to live the evangelical counsels. But he reduced religious profession to a renewal of some kind, missing the idea that religious profession is actually going over and beyond what we’re supposed to live by.

They assume all priests are, or should be, in parishes too.

Every Thanksgiving the Franciscans on EWTN do a special on their community. They tell about their vocation and what they’ve been up to this year and so forth. It’s really very nice, because it shows how they are truly a family. This year, someone started a post on CAF, because the poster was upset that they have 16 friars in that community of which 6 are priests and none of them are in parish work. The poster was complaining that it was a waste of priests to be sitting around just being friars and brothers to each other. He or she was hoping that the bishop would set them straight and send them to work in a parish.

The person completely missed the boat. These men did not join the Franciscans of the Eternal Word to be parish priests. They joined to be brothers to other brothers. The priesthood is their way of serving the people who come to EWTN. They celebrate mass and hear confessions for these folks. They don’t really need a ton of priests. That’s the reason that only six out of 16 are ordained and they’re not worried about not having more priests. They have a surplus. They don’t need six masses in one day. But that’s OK. At the end of the day, they are Franciscans and that is what identifies them. Their priesthood is a vocation within a vocation. They could be diocesan priests and not be consecrated religious, if being a parish priest is what God wanted of them.

We have one priest in my community who is our “Go To Guy”. If you want something fixed, Br. Bill can fix it. The man has never baptized anyone in his life. He has never witnessed a wedding. He has yet to celebrate a funeral. He celebrates mass 3 or 4 times a week and helps with confession at a local parish. At the end of the day he’s happy.

He tells us about the water filter that he installed at this center, the AC that he kicked to get it going, the water pump on the car that he had to dismantle in order to replace it, or the new shelves that he made for the baby diapers. He’s happy and he has time to be a lone and to pray.

We have Br. Chris who is also a priest. He’s the administrator of a pregnancy center. He too celebrates mass 3 or 4 times a week. He and Bill switch off. Only one can celebrate mass per day. All three houses attend the one mass. He also helps hear confessions at a parish. Chris has never celebrated mass outside of our house, never baptized, never buried anyone, never witnessed a marriage and never anointed a sick person. He’s very happy running his pregnancy center and putting his priestly ministry at the service of his brothers.

Yes, many laypeople simply do not have a mental category for brothers or friars or monks. They have no idea what they do or how they fit in.

I’ve noticed something here on CAF. When the laity gets to know us, the brothers, it seems to warm up to us and to develop a different image. There is birthday thread running for me that has been going since my birthday in September and another for Br. David. Br. David and I are good friends; but we’re very different. To being with, I’m Franciscan and he’s Carmelite. I’m old and he’s younger. I will never be a priest, because I’m not allowed to be one and he is going to be a priest. Yet, we’re both religious brothers and will always be religious brothers.

Those people on CAF who are not out to shoot our heads off have been very gracious to us. Some have even admitted that we’re not dumb oxen. That we actually know something about theology, philosophy, Canon Law, Scripture, and other ecclesiastical disciplines and that we may even know more than some priests.

Many people do not know that most of the time, brothers are much better educated than priests. It has been monks and friars who have maintained the European culture alive, not the clergy. It was also monks and friars who saved the Church during the Middle Ages, not all of them were priests. The early Franciscans had two priests. The rest were not. Look at what they did for the Church. Anthony of Padua was a scholar and a great preacher for years, before he was ordained a priest. He was a priest for the last three years of his life. Francis denied him permission to be a priest for 15 years. Yet, who could compare with Anthony’s knowledge of scripture?

How many priests don’t we have who were educated in schools and colleges run by brothers? Many people don’t know that when St. John Bosco founded the Salesians he placed the brothers at the head of the schools, not the priests. The priests were the chaplains not the administrators. It was the brothers who kept the spirit of the oratory going. The priests were responsible for keeping the life of prayer and worship alive. They complimented each other.

 

[JReducation]

Also, there are very few sisters in the schools now or anywhere else where most Catholics can see them.

There are two situations that have affected the presence of the sisters in schools. One is a negative. Many congregations of sisters signed their own death sentence when they went forward without looking back at their roots and the original mission and charism of the community. This lead them down a path that was not in the mind of the founder.

Then there are those sisters who went back to their founders and realized that they did not belong among the middle classes, but among the poor. Most Catholic schools are among the middle classes. These were schools that originally served poor children. As time passed, these communities evolved and became more prosperous and the sisters overstayed in the schools. They should have been gone long before Vatican II. They should have handed the schools over to the bishops and moved on to poorer ares where they were needed. That’s where you’ll find them today.

You have to remember that for the great majority of Catholics, particularly in the USA, the Church is the parish. And the notion of what a parish is and does has changed in the last 50 years. It’s not really the center of most Catholics’ lives on a daily basis, spiritually or otherwise. If you go to an event on a weeknight, it’s usually not at the parish. The parish is where you go to mass on Sunday. If you volunteer it’s probably for a liturgical ministry, again on Sunday. The priest has a huge role in the lives of Catholics since he’s usually the only figure that laypeople see that is affiliated officially with the Church–except for the bishop, which to them seems like just a bigger more powerful priest who is the boss of the other priests.

We went through a period there where the parish priest was the center of parish life. If he couldn’t be present, then there was no parish life. Finally, this is changing. Parishes are running themselves… I volunteer to teach CCD at one parish where there are 35 ministries, all run by laymen. There is not a single priest involved in any ministry. The parish has 5 priests, four deacons, and 8 brothers. But the laity runs its ministries.

The laity was told to take the ball and run with it or the superior was going to pull his men, because his men were not there to pick the slack. At the end of the day, the community rotates and the parishioners stay. The community is a resource. It teaches the laity how to serve and how to evangelize. It’s an awesome parish. It’s open and running from 6:30 am until 10 PM every day.

This is a very good post. We have not stressed the development of the spiritual life anywhere near enough in parish life or in Catholicism in the last 50 years at all. People often turn elsewhere because of this enormous neglected piece, too.

That’s because we have become very focused on doing. Even Trads are very focused on doing. They want to see a May Crowning, 40 Hours Devotion, the daily rosary, weekly Benediction, etc. All of these things are good. But they can be reduced to rituals, if there is no understanding of the spiritual tradition behind them.

In my study of Church history, I find that people prayed the rosary because they had an understanding of the Mary’s place in the life of the Church and the family. They didn’t pray it just to have something to show that they were Catholic. There are other things like this. We want to do them because it’s the Catholic thing to do. That’s not a good enough reason. Why is it a Catholic thing to do?

 

[jwinch2]

It left me with the burning question, is it true that Catholics can no longer appreciate religious life for what it is rather than what it does for us, even though it is part of our tradition? Are Catholics becoming utilitarian Christians?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother,

I’ve been thinking about this thread and the questions you’ve posed off and on for the last several days. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts on the situation.

Frankly, I don’t think the issue is one which is primarily that of being utilitarian, though I concede that is likely part of it. However, I do think that there are some other, probably larger factors.

1. 
   *]A general lack of understanding of religious life. You have spoken about his many times, but quite frankly, I have come to believe that the situation is actually worse than even you have portrayed it. Most people have so little contact with consecrated religious, and the majority of the time they do, it is with sisters or priests, not brothers. As a result, they have little idea what a brother who is not also a priest would do on a day to day basis. Heck, most don’t have any idea what brother who is a priest would do for that matter.
   
   You might recall a thread a few months ago about the numbers of priests at EWTN these days and some outrage on the part of a particular Catholic based on the perception that EWTN was hoarding priests who should be out in the parishes where they are needed. This person, while I am sure being well meaning, did not understand that consecrated religious in that particular community, were not ordained to be parish priests. This is only one recent example, but it does serve to highlight the issue.
   
   It might be time for a bit of an education campaign on the part of the Church about what non-ordained brothers, friars, and monks do and what their role in the life of the Church actually is.
   
   *]The next thing is a general focus on the priesthood, probably related to the lack of vocations to the priesthood, which is something that the average Catholic can see impacting their lives. Larger parishes, few Mass times or times for confession, less interaction with their parish priests, the delegation of duties to deacons or lay persons such as catechesis, etc. are all things which affect the lives of the laity, thus, it is sort of staring them in the face all the time.
   
   *]Finally, a lack of real belief in the power and role of prayer. There is a thread going on right now about monks where someone made the claim that hiding away when they could be out helping people was selfish and a bit of a waste (i’m paraphrasing here). There seems to be an idea that if you are not participating in what would be referred to as some sort of active apostolate, then you must just be sitting around doing nothing worth while all day.
   
   Anyway, that’s where I am at on the issue.

 

[iloveangels]

…
We went through a period there where the parish priest was the center of parish life. If he couldn’t be present, then there was no parish life. Finally, this is changing. Parishes are running themselves… I volunteer to teach CCD at one parish where there are 35 ministries, all run by laymen. There is not a single priest involved in any ministry. The parish has 5 priests, four deacons, and 8 brothers. But the laity runs its ministries.

The laity was told to take the ball and run with it or the superior was going to pull his men, because his men were not there to pick the slack. At the end of the day, the community rotates and the parishioners stay. The community is a resource. It teaches the laity how to serve and how to evangelize. It’s an awesome parish. It’s open and running from 6:30 am until 10 PM every day.

This is really how it ought to work. Laypeople are very dependent and it’s part of why there is so little going on in many parishes. The priest simply doesn’t have the time to do everything for everyone while they just sit and nod with passive satisfaction that they’re getting a “talk” or whatever edifying bit they’re after. These days, there are quite a few very well educated laypeople, who have legitimate degrees in theology, religious history, project administration and pedagogy, and who are faithful to the Church. This is a good thing because we need a better model for catechesis and participation outside mass but inside the parish/diocesan structure. These well-educated people have the time and background to do a great job of reaching out, planning activities, carrying them out, & teaching.

This is also part of straightening out the massive confusion between roles in the Catholic Church. We have priests, we have religious and we have laity. People need to realize this and stop trying to blur the lines between the roles such that they’re all the same. Secular priests have their place in the Church; male religious whether ordained or not, have their part to play; sisters and nuns respectively have their parts to play; and last but certainly not least because they comprise most of the Church (!) are the laity who have a huge part to play in the Body of Christ. They are the first evangelists and teachers, the parents and businesspeople. We must recognize our parts and work together.

Right now what we have is like a choir where everyone wants to be a tenor, and no one wants to be a soprano, alto or bass. But most of the singers aren’t tenors and they sound like poultry trying. We need to each learn our parts and sing them TOGETHER. We need to be what we are, and dwell in it. This is the difference between a CHOIR and a noisy MOB.

That’s because we have become very focused on doing. Even Trads are very focused on doing. They want to see a May Crowning, 40 Hours Devotion, the daily rosary, weekly Benediction, etc. All of these things are good. But they can be reduced to rituals, if there is no understanding of the spiritual tradition behind them.

Agree. As a convert of almost 30 years, who has studied the culture for almost 30 years, I see this very clearly. There are a lot of interesting attitudes around these practices. It’s quite complicated how all this works. And it’s not working very well at present either. Much division, confusion and book-keeping going on. Also very little understanding, as you say, of the reasons why these things are done, or the history behind them. History is very sadly lacking in the understanding of many Catholics.

In my study of Church history, I find that people prayed the rosary because they had an understanding of the Mary’s place in the life of the Church and the family. They didn’t pray it just to have something to show that they were Catholic. There are other things like this. We want to do them because it’s the Catholic thing to do. That’s not a good enough reason. Why is it a Catholic thing to do?

And when does it become a prayer and why? Understanding that is important. As is understanding of how to use it to enrich the soul of the pray-er, and at the same time, to build up the family, the parish and the Body of Christ.

 

[iloveangels]

…
Finally, a lack of real belief in the power and role of prayer. There is a thread going on right now about monks where someone made the claim that hiding away when they could be out helping people was selfish and a bit of a waste (i’m paraphrasing here). There seems to be an idea that if you are not participating in what would be referred to as some sort of active apostolate, then you must just be sitting around doing nothing worth while all day.

This comes up very, very frequently too, because along with this utilitarian or minimalist idea about the Church that many people have is also the idea that the Church has to be only a social concern, aka some kind of glorified social program. People seem to have trouble looking at the whole reality of the Church, which is many things, including but certainly not constrained to, social outreaches to the poor and so on.

Catholicism is first and foremost a religion with a creed, and a Founder, a community and a long history. It is a way of life as much as a body of doctrine, yes, but it doesn’t consist merely in a list of practices. Far from it. It has never rightly consisted only of that. To reduce the Church to being a service institution to a series of ethnic groups, or a social service organization to a series of population segmentations, is a gross simplification, a disembowelment of what the Church really is.

The Church doesn’t only and primarily exist to deliver spectacles or edifying bits or rituals to waiting patrons. It’s much more than that. Much, much more than that. It’s not just glorified UPS service; there’s a whole new world to discover underneath all that.

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

I’ve been thinking about this thread and the questions you’ve posed off and on for the last several days. [snip for space]

Frankly, I don’t think the issue is one which is primarily that of being utilitarian, though I concede that is likely part of it. However, I do think that there are some other, probably larger factors.

1. 
   *]A general lack of understanding of religious life. You have spoken about his many times, but quite frankly, I have come to believe that the situation is actually worse than even you have portrayed it. Most people have so little contact with consecrated religious, and the majority of the time they do, it is with sisters or priests, not brothers. As a result, they have little idea what a brother who is not also a priest would do on a day to day basis. Heck, most don’t have any idea what brother who is a priest would do for that matter.
   
   You might recall a thread a few months ago about the numbers of priests at EWTN these days and some outrage on the part of a particular Catholic based on the perception that EWTN was hoarding priests who should be out in the parishes where they are needed. This person, while I am sure being well meaning, did not understand that consecrated religious in that particular community, were not ordained to be parish priests. This is only one recent example, but it does serve to highlight the issue.
   
   It might be time for a bit of an education campaign on the part of the Church about what non-ordained brothers, friars, and monks do and what their role in the life of the Church actually is.
   
   *]The next thing is a general focus on the priesthood, probably related to the lack of vocations to the priesthood, which is something that the average Catholic can see impacting their lives. Larger parishes, few Mass times or times for confession, less interaction with their parish priests, the delegation of duties to deacons or lay persons such as catechesis, etc. are all things which affect the lives of the laity, thus, it is sort of staring them in the face all the time.
   
   *]Finally, a lack of real belief in the power and role of prayer. There is a thread going on right now about monks where someone made the claim that hiding away when they could be out helping people was selfish and a bit of a waste (i’m paraphrasing here). There seems to be an idea that if you are not participating in what would be referred to as some sort of active apostolate, then you must just be sitting around doing nothing worth while all day.
   
   Anyway, that’s where I am at on the issue.

1. 
   This is where my blood pressure rises when I hear people gripe about Vatican II. The fact is that because there was no Internet in the 19th century and other means of communication were minimal, very few people knew that Vatican I almost decimated religious life. Had it not been for Vatican II, I would be sitting here communicating with you. Religious brothers would have been a memory. It was a result of poor understanding of Vatican I’s theology of the priesthood and the fact that Vatican I assumed that everyone present knew what Trent had said about religious brothers and sisters so that it did not need repeating. Guess what?
   

   This is really how it ought to work. Laypeople are very dependent and it’s part of why there is so little going on in many parishes. The priest simply doesn’t have the time to do everything for everyone while they just sit and nod with passive satisfaction that they’re getting a “talk” or whatever edifying bit they’re after. These days, there are quite a few very well educated laypeople, who have legitimate degrees in theology, religious history, project administration and pedagogy, and who are faithful to the Church. This is a good thing because we need a better model for catechesis and participation outside mass but inside the parish/diocesan structure. These well-educated people have the time and background to do a great job of reaching out, planning activities, carrying them out, & teaching.
   
   This is also part of straightening out the massive confusion between roles in the Catholic Church. We have priests, we have religious and we have laity. People need to realize this and stop trying to blur the lines between the roles such that they’re all the same. Secular priests have their place in the Church; male religious whether ordained or not, have their part to play; sisters and nuns respectively have their parts to play; and last but certainly not least because they comprise most of the Church (!) are the laity who have a huge part to play in the Body of Christ. They are the first evangelists and teachers, the parents and businesspeople. We must recognize our parts and work together.
   
   Right now what we have is like a choir where everyone wants to be a tenor, and no one wants to be a soprano, alto or bass. But most of the singers aren’t tenors and they sound like poultry trying. We need to each learn our parts and sing them TOGETHER. We need to be what we are, and dwell in it. This is the difference between a CHOIR and a noisy MOB.
   
   Agree. As a convert of almost 30 years, who has studied the culture for almost 30 years, I see this very clearly. There are a lot of interesting attitudes around these practices. It’s quite complicated how all this works. And it’s not working very well at present either. Much division, confusion and book-keeping going on. Also very little understanding, as you say, of the reasons why these things are done, or the history behind them. History is very sadly lacking in the understanding of many Catholics.
   
   And when does it become a prayer and why? Understanding that is important. As is understanding of how to use it to enrich the soul of the pray-er, and at the same time, to build up the family, the parish and the Body of Christ.

   

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

This is where my blood pressure rises when I hear people gripe about Vatican II. The fact is that because there was no Internet in the 19th century and other means of communication were minimal, very few people knew that Vatican I almost decimated religious life. Had it not been for Vatican II, I would be sitting here communicating with you. Religious brothers would have been a memory. It was a result of poor understanding of Vatican I’s theology of the priesthood and the fact that Vatican I assumed that everyone present knew what Trent had said about religious brothers and sisters so that it did not need repeating. Guess what?

Pope Leo XIII (an OFS) also greatly increased the numbers of the OFS, by basically making it a club, not an order. Numbers went way up, and quality went way down (I am told)

 

[JReducation]

Pope Leo XIII (an OFS) also greatly increased the numbers of the OFS, by basically making it a club, not an order. Numbers went way up, and quality went way down (I am told)

His Holiness was a product of Vatican I. Again, as usual, it was not the Council the minimized the role religious and secular brothers. Trent had made this very clear and had incorporated this teaching into the infallible doctrine of the Church. Religious life is actually one of the doctrines of the Church.

What happened was that the shortage of priests demanded that Vatican I address the vocation of the priest. Vatican I never distinguished between regular and secular priests, because it was speaking of priesthood, not individuals called to different ways of life.

Those who read or heard what Vatican I said, took it to mean that the priest was mean to engage in pastoral care, without exception. Even today, when Pope Benedict speaks of the priesthood, most people believe that he’s saying that all priests are mean to be in pastoral care. This is not the case and has never been the case. Many priests are brothers. They belong to communities of brothers called friars or to abbeys of brothers called monks. Not all friars or monks are priests.

But as a result of this misunderstanding, the religious orders began to ordain large numbers of men and place them in parishes. Anyone who was well educated or had academic potential was singled out to be ordained. The image that this created was that brothers who were not ordained were less intelligent.

Perception has a way of becoming reality. The sisters in school, perceiving that the well educated and talented men became priests and the illiterate and learning disabled men became brothers started to track their students.

By the 1950s, we had a surplus of priests in the religious orders and a small number of very educated and very competent men in the brotherhood, most of whom taught schools. The less educated did manual labor. These men were on their way out. They had had it.

Those who lived in religious houses where there were ordained and non ordained religious lived in parallel universes. The priests had money, cars, friends outside of the community and social influence, all of which is contrary to the vocation to the religious life. The brothers scrubbed floors, did laundry, cooked, cleaned house, cleared tables and shined shoes for the priests. It was disgusting to see priests get up from the table and leave their dirty plates, walk off to the recreation room to smoke a cigar and their non ordained brothers cleared the tables and did the dishes. Then the non ordained brothers could go to their own recreation room. Even though this was one order, with the same vows, they could not recreate together, pray together or share the work.

The result is what you’re seeing today. Over 25,000 brothers left religious life between 1960 and 1980. This threw some orders into a panic. If you lost the non ordained brothers, you ceased to be the order that the founder dreamed off. Rome could suppress you or worse, declare you to be a clerical institute instead of a fraternal order. That’s when councils and general chapters started to take Vatican II’s demands that religious return to their roots very seriously.

As a result, today, we have a huge movement in the Church, especially among male religious, to re-establish themselves as communities of brothers where within that vocation, some men are also called to the ministerial priesthood. However, this does not mean that they are called to parish life. They can serve as priests in many capacities or never do so, such as the case someone like Thomas Merton. The man probably never baptized, witnessed a wedding, buried anyone, anointed the sick, did spiritual direction, visited the sick, or heard too many confessions either. But he was a brother and a priest.

The same thing happened with the Third Orders. They were founded as true orders, not associations for pious old ladies. They had a mission, a structure, a rule of life, and a place in the life of the Church that was very different from that of the average layman. Today, there are offshoots of those orders, because men and women want to return to the roots. They don’t want to be analyzed in terms of what they do, but in terms of what God calls them to be.

My own community was founded by one former Capuchin and two former Secular Franciscans. The three were looking to return to the life of St. Francis, simple, prayerful, faithful to the Church, in service to the voiceless and free of the trappings that come with function. St. Francis was trapped in being, not in function.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

His Holiness was a product of Vatican I. Again, as usual, it was not the Council the minimized the role religious and secular brothers. Trent had made this very clear and had incorporated this teaching into the infallible doctrine of the Church. Religious life is actually one of the doctrines of the Church.

What happened was that the shortage of priests demanded that Vatican I address the vocation of the priest. Vatican I never distinguished between regular and secular priests, because it was speaking of priesthood, not individuals called to different ways of life.

Those who read or heard what Vatican I said, took it to mean that the priest was mean to engage in pastoral care, without exception. Even today, when Pope Benedict speaks of the priesthood, most people believe that he’s saying that all priests are mean to be in pastoral care. This is not the case and has never been the case. Many priests are brothers. They belong to communities of brothers called friars or to abbeys of brothers called monks. Not all friars or monks are priests.

But as a result of this misunderstanding, the religious orders began to ordain large numbers of men and place them in parishes. Anyone who was well educated or had academic potential was singled out to be ordained. The image that this created was that brothers who were not ordained were less intelligent.

Perception has a way of becoming reality. The sisters in school, perceiving that the well educated and talented men became priests and the illiterate and learning disabled men became brothers started to track their students.

By the 1950s, we had a surplus of priests in the religious orders and a small number of very educated and very competent men in the brotherhood, most of whom taught schools. The less educated did manual labor. These men were on their way out. They had had it.

Those who lived in religious houses where there were ordained and non ordained religious lived in parallel universes. The priests had money, cars, friends outside of the community and social influence, all of which is contrary to the vocation to the religious life. The brothers scrubbed floors, did laundry, cooked, cleaned house, cleared tables and shined shoes for the priests. It was disgusting to see priests get up from the table and leave their dirty plates, walk off to the recreation room to smoke a cigar and their non ordained brothers cleared the tables and did the dishes. Then the non ordained brothers could go to their own recreation room. Even though this was one order, with the same vows, they could not recreate together, pray together or share the work.

The result is what you’re seeing today. Over 25,000 brothers left religious life between 1960 and 1980. This threw some orders into a panic. If you lost the non ordained brothers, you ceased to be the order that the founder dreamed off. Rome could suppress you or worse, declare you to be a clerical institute instead of a fraternal order. That’s when councils and general chapters started to take Vatican II’s demands that religious return to their roots very seriously.

As a result, today, we have a huge movement in the Church, especially among male religious, to re-establish themselves as communities of brothers where within that vocation, some men are also called to the ministerial priesthood. However, this does not mean that they are called to parish life. They can serve as priests in many capacities or never do so, such as the case someone like Thomas Merton. The man probably never baptized, witnessed a wedding, buried anyone, anointed the sick, did spiritual direction, visited the sick, or heard too many confessions either. But he was a brother and a priest.

The same thing happened with the Third Orders. They were founded as true orders, not associations for pious old ladies. They had a mission, a structure, a rule of life, and a place in the life of the Church that was very different from that of the average layman. Today, there are offshoots of those orders, because men and women want to return to the roots. They don’t want to be analyzed in terms of what they do, but in terms of what God calls them to be.

My own community was founded by one former Capuchin and two former Secular Franciscans. The three were looking to return to the life of St. Francis, simple, prayerful, faithful to the Church, in service to the voiceless and free of the trappings that come with function. St. Francis was trapped in being, not in function.

Grazie, fratello.

Yup. The OFS (officially that now; not SFO) is beginning to re-awaken. Much of the namby pamby stuff is being thrown out. The majority of the stuff-the majority that is good, is being kept and re-emphasized. Thank God.

 

[iloveangels]

Grazie, fratello.

Yup. The OFS (officially that now; not SFO) is beginning to re-awaken. Much of the namby pamby stuff is being thrown out. The majority of the stuff-the majority that is good, is being kept and re-emphasized. Thank God.

We’re trying but we’re still not there yet. The problem is that we generally haven’t got the “being rather than doing” thing down yet. This attitude is very pervasive in modern life and hard to shake for many people, including Secular Franciscans. Sometimes you see it now, but often you don’t.

This “do things instead of be” attitude also gets confused with the instruction to care for the poor. Franciscans care for the poor because of who the poor are, not what they have or don’t have. It’s not our real aim, and it never has been, to be a social service agency or rid the world of poverty like just one more social program with a grand goal. That’s a modern ideal, but that’s not the point of the Franciscan life. We are not the ultimate social workers qua social workers. Rather, we see God in all created things, and goodness in all created things, because God is their creator. This extends to the personalities and troubles of human beings because God cares for each one of them, even the most miserable, sinful or poor. Every life is precious for itself, without qualifiers.

Mother Teresa’s charism is modeled on ours to some degree. She also took some rough criticism for seeing life this way. Some people thought that she should be overjoyed to take large donations of money, set up foundations to eradicate poverty and change her order to accommodate such schemes. She refused. That’s not the point and she knew it. She served the poor in the way that they needed to be served in that time and place. She helped them feel loved and valued as human beings because they are human beings and that’s the proper way to treat a human being–rich, poor or otherwise.

The reason we don’t spend much time catering to the rich is because they often don’t particularly want what Franciscans have to offer, even if they say they do. We don’t dislike them or refuse them; they are also creations of God. But there are other charisms like the Salesians, for example, that specialize in the sorts of ideas that they need to hear in order to grow and become more holy. Not everybody is a Franciscan.

 

[JReducation]

We’re trying but we’re still not there yet. The problem is that we generally haven’t got the “being rather than doing” thing down yet. This attitude is very pervasive in modern life and hard to shake for many people, including Secular Franciscans. Sometimes you see it now, but often you don’t.

This “do things instead of be” attitude also gets confused with the instruction to care for the poor. Franciscans care for the poor because of who the poor are, not what they have or don’t have. It’s not our real aim, and it never has been, to be a social service agency or rid the world of poverty like just one more social program with a grand goal. That’s a modern ideal, but that’s not the point of the Franciscan life. We are not the ultimate social workers qua social workers.

I would like to add something here. We serve Christ in every situation in which we live. That being said, our rule is very clear. Our place is among the poor. We’re not among the poor to be of service, but because we are part of the poor. In essence, we’re serving our neighbors.

As for the other part of getting the doing and being down, religious life is not the only part of the Catholic tradition that is having trouble here. I deal with many couples. I’m amazed at how doing has taken over the being in relationships between husbands and wives.

I gave a retreat once to our couples who are abortion risks. I asked the spouses, “What’s the first thing that you ask when you walk in the door at the end of the day?”

Here were the most common answers.

1. What did you do today?
2. Anything interesting happen today?
3. How was work?
4. Where are the kids?
5. Is dinner ready? I’m starving.

“How are you?” was number 12 on the list. As we can see, the primary concern is about doing. Then we wonder why marriage is in trouble.

I know a very good Catholic couple where the husband feels that if he does not bring home X amount of money a month, his wife won’t be happy. When I asked him why not he said that he wants her to have enough money on the credit card and in the check book so that she can buy anything the kids want or anything that she wants. My response to him was a question. “Are you her husband or her keeper?”

It is very clear that he defines his role in the marriage by what he provides for the family, not by his relationship with the family. He wanted to become a Secular Franciscan of Life and I had to turn him down. You don’t have a Franciscan vocation, if you have yet to see the difference between being and doing.

We Catholics have brought this on ourselves. This is not imposed on us by Vatican I, II or III when it comes. We have created our own slave state.

 

[iloveangels]

I would like to add something here. We serve Christ in every situation in which we live. That being said, our rule is very clear. Our place is among the poor. We’re not among the poor to be of service, but because we are part of the poor. In essence, we’re serving our neighbors.

Well stated.

As for the other part of getting the doing and being down, religious life is not the only part of the Catholic tradition that is having trouble here. I deal with many couples. I’m amazed at how doing has taken over the being in relationships between husbands and wives. …clip…
We Catholics have brought this on ourselves. This is not imposed on us by Vatican I, II or III when it comes. We have created our own slave state.

Great observations. All very true.

 

[iloveangels]

I would like to add something here. We serve Christ in every situation in which we live. That being said, our rule is very clear. Our place is among the poor. We’re not among the poor to be of service, but because we are part of the poor. In essence, we’re serving our neighbors.

As for the other part of getting the doing and being down, religious life is not the only part of the Catholic tradition that is having trouble here. I deal with many couples. I’m amazed at how doing has taken over the being in relationships between husbands and wives.

…clip…

We Catholics have brought this on ourselves. This is not imposed on us by Vatican I, II or III when it comes. We have created our own slave state.

Another thing: I don’t know if any congregations or societies or associations were actually founded on the intensive focus of this much doing rather than being, but there is somewhat of a focus difference between the old Orders and the newer Congregations. Some of the teaching congregations founded in the 17th-19th centuries, the ones who are sometimes falling out of existence now, were founded to staff hospitals and schools, sometimes in a very targeted narrow way. And some of the women’s congregations have very slight differences between them–the cut of the skirt or an eating custom or a manner of requesting an item for work. The way they were constituted has also turned out to be a bit of a problem, since some of those customs that were considered hallmarks for them are so outdated, and sometimes the institutions they were founded to staff no longer exist. At VII, when some of those congregations tried to go back to the wishes of their founders, they found that they simply couldn’t. Some of the women’s congregations weren’t even particularly sure how they were founded exactly. Some of them were brought here to serve particular dioceses and developed from there. This has left some of them a little adrift as time has gone by. There is an excellent book about this by Patricia Wittberg, called the Rise and Decline of Catholic Religious Orders: A Social Movement Perspective. Very useful and informative book.

I mention this because we have been trending towards this utilitarian focus for a long time, although we only in the last few years have really become as minimalistic as we currently are. It’s everywhere, not just religious life. It’s in family life, as you have mentioned Br. JR. It’s also in education and it’s in parish life as well. In fact, it’s in parish life with a vengeance. This is one of our greatest problems as Catholics.

There’s some degree of refounding going on in the women’s congregations. Unfortunately not all of it is in union with what the Church sees as appropriate activity. On the other hand, some is. I think this might happen, though, any time people find themselves having to come up with new ways of doing things. It must be difficult & confusing for them. I think we only hear about the ones who are acting out. I think there are probably many who would like to do the right thing but find it very difficult under circumstances not under their personal control. I can only imagine.

Add to that the fact that laypeople, who only see part of the picture, have an interesting opinion about sisters and are very utilitarian about them as well, seeking them out for their own edification and a misplaced sense of piety. It’s a big mess.

 

[iloveangels]

Pope Leo XIII (an OFS) also greatly increased the numbers of the OFS, by basically making it a club, not an order. Numbers went way up, and quality went way down (I am told)

Part of it was also the things that the Church was confronting at the time. The 19th century was a very deterministic and eclectic period in history. People expressed things differently than they do now, and people tended to see things from an entirely different perspective than they do now. Some ideas and traditions quite simply got lost temporarily in the translation.

Much of the disregard for Protestants that’s in Catholic culture stems from this period, when there was open and very explicit conflict between the Catholics and Protestants, on a scale we never see now. There were also disputes about authority in the Church, use of Scripture, and emphasis of doctrines. You can see the remnants of all of that now, even though the active arguments are really over for the most part, and we all live side-by-side in an uneasy truce because the general non-Christian culture has become so large and powerful.

In this climate of the 19th century, yes, the Secular Franciscan Order was transformed into, more or less, an arm of something called “Catholic Action,” designed to keep people in parishes and keep them Catholic, in the face of Protestant competition. This had the effect of making it sort of a sodality, and if my memory serves me correctly, it’s even called that in the Rule of 1883. Although there is a difference of emphasis in that rule that obscures some of the real nature of the Secular Franciscan Order, there is some good in that rule, and it may have preserved the Secular Franciscan Order through that time for us today.

It is also true that in the early 20th century, large numbers of people were recruited, vocation or not, and “enrolled” in the order in parishes almost as if it were an altar society. Many of them didn’t really have an idea what they had done because when you can sign up on the basis of one talk and one afternoon’s time, the realization isn’t apparent. There are many people who have been “enrolled” who are not currently in contact with the Order. All that has changed now, and this is good. We are being much more deliberate about this, and people are much more aware of what they’re doing when they are professed.

 

[JReducation]

Another thing: I don’t know if any congregations or societies or associations were actually founded on the intensive focus of this much doing rather than being, but there is somewhat of a focus difference between the old Orders and the newer Congregations.

This shows the chaos that happens when people use terms that don’t mean the same interchangeably. Other terms that were thrown around interchangeable were: sisters and nuns; brothers and lay brothers; friars and monks; friary, priory and monastery; and priest and religious.

But the key to the whole thing is order and congregation. An order and a congregation are two very different animals. Just like a zebra and a horse are different animals.

Without getting lost in 2,000 years of history, let’s just explain that religious orders were founded to live the Gospel Life. The term order came from the Latin term “ordo”, which meant structure. Men and women join orders to live the Gospel in a structured manner. Each order has its own expression of Christian Spirituality. Another way to understand the concept of expression is to understand the term focus. Every order embraces the whole of Christian Spirituality. However, it focuses more on one aspect than on another. For example, monks focus more on silence, solitude, and prayer. Mendicants focus more on prayer, penance, poverty and fraternity.

Now, I line up these words:

silence
solitude
prayer
penance
poverty
fraternity

None of them are action words. They’re all nouns. They describe how the person lives. They don’t tell you what he or she does on a day to day basis or what he or she is supposed to do for the world. Why not? Because what the person is supposed to do for the world is exactly what those words say. By living those words, he saves his soul and sanctifies the world. It’s that simple.

It is this structure and those values that the Church holds in such high esteem that the Council of Trent stated that the consecrated life is a) deliberately not part of the hierarchy of the Church so as not to become involved in the Church’s governance and dealings with the world; however b) it is essential to the life of the Church, because it preserves the spiritual life of Christ and the heavenly court. Therefore, orders could take on any apostolic work or none at all.

After Vatican I, the orders drifted away from this way of life where being took precedence over doing. The priorities became inverted. They became very involved in the daily activities of running the Church, especially education and parishes.

The congregations were very different. They are called congregations because the term says what they are. These were men and women who came together (congregated) to meet a specific need. Let’s take the Salesians. St. John Bosco saw the need to rescue boys. He created houses where the boys lived and studied. Because the Italian Government got on his case about not having the proper permits to run a home or a school, Don Bosco quickly said that his houses were neither homes or schools, but places where boys came to live the life of prayer. So the term oratory was applied to their schools. As he got older, he was worried about who would take care of his boys. He recruited form among his alumni. He found four men to carry on his life’s work of caring for and educating boys. He called this association of men The Salesians in honor of St. Francis de Sales who was the patron of the first oratory. These four Salesians continued his work and more joined them. Many became priests, many did not. They all made vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. They grew to become the world’s largest and one of the most powerful congregation in the Church today. Like this, so too many congregations of women came into existence. The largest of these are Daughters of Charity and the Sisters of St. Joseph.

The way of life of the congregations depends on the work that they do. They don’t get up in the middle of the night to pray the night hours of the LOTH, because they need to be up at 5:00 to pray, go to mass and get ready to teach all day or they’re already up in the middle of the night nursing the sick and they sleep during the day when the rest of us are praying the daytime hours.

They can’t have a tightly knit community life, if they have to drop everything and go each time their “clients” need them. They can’t have the beautiful and often complicated habits that they wore in the 18th century, because they sisters of the 18th century lived in a very different environment and had very different resources. The world in which today’s man and woman works, is very different. His manner of dress, his bedtime, his rising time and his tools are going to be very different, even if he’s doing the same thing that his predecessors did. It’s going to look different.

The orders, on the other hand, can go back to our origins. Our origins were grounded in being a certain kind of person and living the Gospel values by following a specific structure. As far as work was concerned, other than preaching done by the mendicants, there was nothing else that our founders planned for us. They heard Christ’s call to pray, do penance, detach from family, places and things, and to be together in a loving fraternity or sorority as Christ and his Apostles lived. As far as ministry was concerned, they were priests, teachers, cooks, gardeners, nurses, beggars, street preachers, porters and many other things. These labors changed according to time and place.