Are Catholics becoming utilitarian Christians?

[JReducation]

I attended a really great seminar today. The topic was “Male Religious Life in Catholic Tradition”. The speakers were two laymen, both males. One is a theologian and the other a scripture scholar. The target population was lay people and diocesan priests. The focus was strictly male religious, not the priesthood, nor sisters and nuns. The seminar is an effort to comply with the Holy Father’s observation to the American bishops that they were promoting the priesthood, but that they need to promote male religious life just as enthusiastically.

I just thought I’d share some things that they said and ask the question at the top, in the subject line. When they said it, they did not pose it as a question, but as a fact. To summarize the idea, they were saying that the average layman does not appreciate male religious, unless he’s a priest, because of the Protestant influence on American culture. American culture has become utilitarian. People’s worth is measured by what they can do for us. We think of people in terms of roles rather than position.

I had not thought of it this way. They made some interesting observations. One of them was that the average American Catholic has a love-hate relationship with priests and sisters; while the relationship with male religious who are not priests is one of indifference. They explained that sisters offered a service or services that the average Catholic family needed, especially in the areas of education and healthcare. Priests celebrate mass and hear confessions. They also run parishes, albeit administration is not part of priestly formation, but it is part of the job description.

However, the male religious is the unidentified Catholic. Neither sisters, nor diocesan clergy, nor lay people really have much use for male religious, because of the role mentality. The point being made was that male religious life is not about fulfilling an apostolic role in the Church. Many male religious communities were founded to meet certain needs such as education and healthcare. However, the majority were founded for the benefit of the religious, not the surrounding community. Because we are one body, the Church, what is beneficial to one part of the body, is good for the whole. What benefits the religious man, benefits the whole Church. They pointed out that because people can’t see the benefit, the appreciation and the effort to promote vocations to that way of life is not there. Therefore, there is a need for education.

They pointed to men like John the Baptist who was not an apostle, but lived a celibate life, a life of prayer and penance. They pointed to John the Evangelist who was not as active in missionary work as was someone like Paul. John was the contemplative and the mystic.

Christ lived the consecrated life observing the Evangelical Counsels, in community with his apostles, maintaining an intense life of prayer, penance, discipline and union with the young Church. Of Christ we can say that he was both a religious and a priest.

They pointed out that male religious are not given to the Church to fulfill a role, but to occupy a place that cannot be occupied by just anyone. The life of the male religious in the Church is that life which is to come in the Kingdom of God. His place in the Church is a prophetic place. By the way that he lives and by the effort that he makes to make progress on the journey to holiness, he bears witness to what is and what we’re called to be. We are sinners. We’re called to be saints. From saint to sinner there is a trajectory that has to be traversed. The male religious models how to make the journey. The example is for all to imitate.

He places the effort and pains of his journey on the altar with Christ and offers these to the Father for the salvation of all men. By living his life in this time and space, he draws upon the Church many graces. The one speaker, the scripture scholar, pointed out that the male religious is the alter Christus who is the first-born among many brothers. Like Christ, he is a brother to all men. The vow of chastity liberates him to be a brother to all.

They moved on to vocations. They asked people in the audience how many had ever thought of entering religious life, not the priesthood or diaconate. They asked how many have ever encouraged their sons, brothers and friends to explore this possibility. No one had thought about it for themselves and no one had suggested that anyone else consider it either.

The final questions were why not consider it and why not promote religious life for men? The responses were genuine and interesting. 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.

Others had never met a male religious and this was the first time they were hearing a clear explanation about this way of life. 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. The speakers added that we’re running the risk of losing something that is essential to the life of the Church and they quoted several Church statements on this matter. Apparently, this is not a new problem. It’s only the second time that I have seen it addressed with the lay faithful. The first time was Cardinal Dolan in NY.

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

 

[Saints_Alive]

I can’t answer for anyone else, but from a simple monk all the way up to the Cardinals, I have much respect and admiration for them. I see monks, brothers, and cloistered nuns as having devoted their life to the service of Holy Mother Church at the same level as clergy.

I respect and admire Third Orders as well.

I think I’d feel just as comfortable asking for spiritual advice from a religious as I would asking a priest.

 

[odile53]

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!

 

[Equites_Christi]

Great points, I think another reason most Catholics are “indifferent” to male religious is that they seem to lack much visibility. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.

For example, anyone who goes to a parish knows a priest, but the times I’ve met a brother have been very rare. This of course is just my experience, but I have a feeling it’s true for many other American Catholics as well.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think the issue isn’t so much utilitarianism (though I’m pretty sure that’s an issue as well for at least US Catholics) as it is a giant ? when it comes to the religious. We have a poor understanding and education on the religious and religious life and since we usually never really interact with them on the same level as we do with our parish priests we soon forget about them. The religious are like that kid who sat in the back of the class everyone forgot about because he was quiet and never caused problems.

I think a good way to start promoting religious life would be to start teaching ourselves and our children about the religious, the orders, their founders, and their place within the Church.

 

[Ruprecht]

Back in the 60’s I was a member of a teaching order of Brothers, no priests at that time. The original mission in France was to care for orphan children, which evolved into K-12 education. Here in New England our mission was to staff about a dozen high schools; we had over 3000 members world wide, in France, Canada, New England, Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Shores of USA, plus missions in Africa and England. The order lost over 2000 members in the ensuing 20-30 years, closed most of the schools and searched for a renewal of its charism. Most people outside of the school and famiiy communities had no idea of who we were or what we did. When people asked what the heck is a Brother, since we obviously were not monks in a monastery, I told most folks that we were male nuns!
BTW, I am happy to report that the community is again growing, new vocations are coming i, allowing more fully staffing of the schools they still run, and the Spirit is smiling on them. May God bless them all!

 

[Melchior_1]

I think a great example if the notion of Permanent Deacons who aren’t married. How many people would think “why not just become a priest if you aren’t married?”

 

[JReducation]

I know that many men are familiar with lay brothers, because many older Catholic men attended schools run by De la Salle Christian Brothers, Irish Christian Brothers, Xaverian Brothers, Marist Brothers and other congregations that I can’t remember right now.

When it comes to monks and friars, that’s a whole other ball of wax for most people. The lay brother teaches. If he’s an Alexian, Good Shepherd, or St. John of God, he nurses. But the monk prays and engages in some kind of labor. The lay friar prays and may do anything from being the community cook to running a parish that has no priest. He can be a physician or a theologian, a subordinate or a superior. What he does is not important to the community, because the friars belong to the mendicant families.

Mendicants are preachers, contemplatives and penitents. Our preaching takes different forms, from homilies to retreats to teaching or simply living the Gospel in a particular neighborhood. Anything that we do beyond praying, penance and preaching is just a use of the gifts that God gave us, not really part of the mission of the order.

For example, I’m a theologian and a physician. That is not important to my community. You don’t need to be either of those to be a Franciscan Brother of Life. In fact, I no longer have a medical license. I have not practiced in 12 years. You need to be committed to living the Gospel as Francis lived it and to serve the voiceless: the preborn child, terminally ill patient, person living with a disability and the immigrant poor. We don’t serve anyone else.

Our ministry is not written into Franciscan life. It’s a vocation within a vocation. The Franciscan life can be summed up in unquestioning obedience, poverty, prayer, fraternity and fidelity to the Magisterium. If you do that, you’re a good Franciscan, even if you sit on your thumbs all day. A friar can be lay or cleric and it makes no difference. As long as he lives the Gospel as Francis lived it. It’s not a call to do, but a call to be. It’s a call to be an evangelical man.

You folks may find this interesting. There were no brothers there except me. They deliberately excluded the brothers from this presentation. I was invited, because I’m a superior general, again . . . because of what I do.

Here’s another interesting piece of information. None of the sisters and diocesan priests could explain the vocation of the religious brother. One of the exercises was to role play how you would guide a young man to discern the vocation to be a brother. They couldn’t do it. They kept talking in generalities about a life in the service of God and others. As I sat there I thought to myself, “Everyone is called to serve God and neighbor.” That’s not what makes a religious brother different from other Christians. It’s how he does it. The life of the brother cannot be explained qualitatively or quantitatively. It can only be explained existentially. That’s what it is. It’s a way of existing before God and man.

I found it fascinating that the priests and sisters could not do it. Then they called up a Carmelite friar who is also a priest and he rattled it off as if he had been practicing it for months.

When asked to identify the brothers in the diocese, they couldn’t do it. Suddenly, I mentioned one of our brothers by name and everyone said, “Oh yeah, the Franciscans of Life.” One priest was very interesting. He said, “I never think of them as brothers, because they teach theology at the seminary, they preach missions and retreats, they do spiritual direction, they run pregnancy centers, they’re chaplains in hospice, and they do everything that I do except mass and confession.” What fascinated me was that Father was focusing on what our brothers do, not what they are. As long as he focused on what they do, he saw no difference between them and himself.

I walked away thinking to myself, “Brothers are an anonymous tradition in the Church.” They’re nameless. What was even more sobering was that in this diocese there ratio is 1 brother to every three priests. That’s a very high number of brothers. The brothers here can be grouped into three sets: the teachers, which are the majority; the monastic, which are the minority; and the mendicants, which are involved in pastoral care.

These folks don’t remember the teachers and don’t see the monastic brothers. The mendicant brothers they just blend in with the deacons and priests, because we DO the same work.

That’s what made me want to ask the question of people on CAF. Because CAFers come from many places. Maybe the phenomenon is not the same as in my diocese.

I guess this triggers another question in my mind. If I had to tell the men in formation how the faithful view their life, can I honestly tell them that the faithful see their life as part of the ongoing tradition of the Church?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Usige]

In my neck of the woods I can count on two hands the number of religious I have met; and one of those was our former Archbishop. (Okay maybe more since i did attend a Jesuit university).

I know we talked about vocation to religious life with some of the kids in confirmation prep, but since they had never encountered a religious that was not a priest the thought of a brother was kinda odd to them. Since they (and we) had no contact with religious it was all abstract.

 

[JReducation]

In my neck of the woods I can count on two hands the number of religious I have met; and one of those was our former Archbishop. (Okay maybe more since i did attend a Jesuit university).

I know we talked about vocation to religious life with some of the kids in confirmation prep, but since they had never encountered a religious that was not a priest the thought of a brother was kinda odd to them. Since they (and we) had no contact with religious it was all abstract.

In your experience, from you neck of the woods, the brothers are not part of Catholic tradition?

I’m not being confrontational. I’m trying to really get a feel for what you and others in your situation would answer to this statement. It’s an important question, because if it is true that Catholics do not see the brothers as an essential part of Catholic tradition and Catholic doctrine says they are, then there is a real failure somewhere.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[GloriaMaria]

I’ve never met a religious brother in real life.

Anecdote - since this is posted in Traditional Catholicism, I had an acquaintence tell me recently that a friend’s son was denied the opportunity to be a priest (he was in a traditionalist seminary), and told he may “only” become a religious brother for the SSPX. There is a perception that a religious brother is a “flunkee” for the priesthood. It was perceived as a punishment for something lacking.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

If I had to tell the men in formation how the faithful view their life, can I honestly tell them that the faithful see their life as part of the ongoing tradition of the Church?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

From my experience (which is limited) the answer would be “yesno”. We know that the religious life is a “part of the ongoing tradition of the Church,” we just have no clue what that really means. We’d probably give similar “umm…I think…umm…” responses you mentioned in your post if asked to explain it and what it means.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve never met a religious brother in real life.

Anecdote - since this is posted in Traditional Catholicism, I had an acquaintence tell me recently that a friend’s son was denied the opportunity to be a priest (he was in a traditionalist seminary), and told he may “only” become a religious brother for the SSPX. There is a perception that a religious brother is a “flunkee” for the priesthood. It was perceived as a punishment for something lacking.

This was one of the problems that Vatican II tried to correct with its decree on religious life, “Perfectae Caritatis”. Unfortunately, Vatican I left the bishops and clergy with the impression that the religious life was subservient to the priesthood, something which Vatican I never said. To say such a thing would be to contradict what Trent established as a doctrine, that there is no higher calling than the call to the consecrated life. Consecrated life in Catholic tradition is the religious life.

The term “religious life” is a secular term. It only became part of the Catholic language in the mid 1800s. The original term used for an order was “religion”. Vatican I was trying to sort through the confusing language between words like consecrated, religion, religious, secular, lay, laity, and regular. It was also trying to distinguish between a way of life and a ministry.

The priesthood falls under ministry, not under way of life. The consecrated life falls under way of life. That’s why you can have some men who are both, priests and consecrated religious. Other men a simply priests or simply religious. For example, the SSPX, FSSP, Vincentians, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, and all diocesan priests are secular. Their way of life is secular. It means that they are not governed by a rule, nor do they make any vows to abide by the judgment of a community and are not bound to living the Gospel in a specific way. Like every other secular Catholic, they discern and shape their spiritual path to God. It’s not regulated.

Even if you join a society of priests such as the SSPX or the Vincentians, you’re still a secular man. You are free to walk at any time and join another society or a diocese. Your life is regulated by the society only as long as you wish it to be. There are limits to how much the society can regulate.

In the consecrated life, your life is regulated by the statutes that govern the community. You make vows that you can’t just walk away from without permission from the Holy See. The community decides everything from what you’re going to do as a ministry to how you’re going to live your daily life. It’s called a horarium. If you disagree with your community, tough luck. You owe obedience to the constitutions, the founder, the superior, the general chapter of the community and to the Holy Father under penalty of losing your immortal soul. The more serious the matter, the greater the danger. This is not the case for secular Catholics, even if they’re priests. Secular Catholics do not make such a vow. In essence, the consecrated religious vows “to get it right”. Each time he sins, let’s say against purity, he is guilty of the sin of impurity and he is also guilty of sinning against the vow that he made to God and man never to sin against purity. It’s a double whammy. That’s why the Council of Trent said that there is no higher way of life than the consecrated life, because of the intensity and solemnity of the vows.

The priesthood falls under sacraments. This particular sacrament is ministerial, meaning that it empowers a man to minister to the people of God. The Church at Vatican I tried to explain that there is no MINISTRY more important than celebrating the mass and absolving from sins.

Here we have two councils speaking of two different things. One spoke about a way of living the Gospel and said that the consecrated life is the most perfect way to live the Gospel. The other council spoke about ministry and said that there is no ministry (service) more sacred than celebrating the mass and forgiving sins.

The consecrated life is about how you live. The priesthood is about how you serve. Two different things.

After Vatican I, people got it all wrong and started to push the priesthood as the highest calling in the Church and only the most talented and intelligent could be admitted to Holy Orders. The less talented were told to become religious brothers. As a result, we had a vocation explosion of priests that lasted until the 1950s or early 60s. However, this was also the generation that molested children, cheated with money, had the highest rate of alcoholism in the history of the priesthood and produced some pretty cranky priests too. The focus was on numbers and not quality. They wanted large numbers of vocations with a high IQ and high grades.

In the meantime, the religious brothers were hidden away in the house as servants to the priests. It got so bad that in some communities the brothers were not allowed to speak to the priests unless they were spoken to. They did all the work and had none of the privileges or rights of the priests, even though they were in the same community.

Vatican II tried to correct this by insisting that religious life go back to tradition. The tradition was that the brothers could be priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, cooks, carpenters, or farmers, etc. Their vocation is to live the Gospel in the most perfect manner and to keep trying until they get it right. They are to keep the Gospel life alive in the Church. Without them, the Church loses something, just as Israel would lose something without the prophets.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Brother,

You need to gather all your posts here into book form. Yes, really

Call it Conversations about being a Catholic

All I ask for the idea is a signed copy.

 

[JReducation]

From my experience (which is limited) the answer would be “yesno”. We know that the religious life is a “part of the ongoing tradition of the Church,” we just have no clue what that really means. We’d probably give similar “umm…I think…umm…” responses you mentioned in your post if asked to explain it and what it means.

Thanks. This really helps a lot. Because it shows how much we have messed this up from Vatican I to this day. Prior to that time, religious men were a common sight. We read about them in history. Columbus traveled with four brothers. The first martyrs in North America were seven Franciscan brothers in what is today the state line between Georgia and Florida. Young Catholic men were educated by male religious.

Catholics never questioned the place of the male religious in the Church. They knew that there were some who could celebrate mass and hear confessions and that there were many more who did not celebrate mass or hear confessions, but were the epitome of holiness. It’s interesting, in religious orders such as the Franciscans, which was founded as an order of brothers, where priests were a minority, the number of canonized saints among the brothers is 2:1 compared to the canonized priests.

It’s also interesting that people remember St. Francis, but don’t remember that he was not a priest. They have a special devotion to St. Anthony and he’s often referred to as the preacher with the golden tongue. But people don’t remember anymore that Anthony was a religious brother for 15 years before he was ordained. He was a priest for about three years before he died. He was preaching and teaching long before he was a priest. He was ordained so that he could preach at mass. He did not become the wonder worker and the great preacher after ordination. This was a gift apart from Holy Orders. God is not handcuffed by our biases. Deo Gratias.

The Carmelites, which are probably the oldest religious order in the Church is a tradition of brothers who were hermits. They had a few priests among them to celebrate the sacraments for them. However, they took Europe by storm in the 13th century. Unfortunately, they also lost their hermits, because they became so involved in preaching. But these brothers brought with them a strong Marian tradition and an equally strong contemplative tradition that was easy for the layman to imitate, because it did not require living in a monastery. Hence you get the Secular Carmelite Order some years later.

Pope Benedict said something recently that was very important. He was speaking about the religious life. He said that the religious life has be the backbone of the Church’s apostolic mission. Without the religious life, the Lord’s command to fulfill the corporal works of mercy would have been impossible, because the deacons, priests and bishops have been tied down to parishes, administration, sacraments, and governance.

Who will deny that the corporal works of mercy are not an essential part of Christian tradition, besides Protestants?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

You need to gather all your posts here into book form. Yes, really

Call it Conversations about being a Catholic

All I ask for the idea is a signed copy.

If anyone wants to go through CAF and gather my stuff, I’d be happy to work with them to polish it up and get it published. You can publish it in your name. I don’t want the world to know of my existence.

As I say to my brothers, “Make sure that the world remembers your fidelity and forgets your name.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

BTW,

The Spiritual Assistant at the local OFS chapter is “just” a brother. I always wondered why we couldn’t get a “real” SA (ie, a priest).

I am an idiot. Or, perhaps better, I was an idiot. I am now not an idiot (well, about this anyway ). Grazie, fratello.

I will now always consider Brother Miguel (who is a saint, BTW) as important as he really is. And for that, thank you again.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

If anyone wants to go through CAF and gather my stuff, I’d be happy to work with them to polish it up and get it published. You can publish it in your name. I don’t want the world to know of my existence.

As I say to my brothers, "Make sure that the world remembers your fidelity and forgets your name."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Beautiful and brilliant, sir.

Although, the money gained from the sales could be used in your ministry (if that is allowed )

 

[Melchior_1]

If anyone wants to go through CAF and gather my stuff, I’d be happy to work with them to polish it up and get it published. You can publish it in your name. I don’t want the world to know of my existence.

A pseudonym could also work.

I think I might start compiling a few of your posts and we’ll see how far I get in the process.

As I say to my brothers, “Make sure that the world remembers your fidelity and forgets your name.”

Simply brilliant, I love this.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I don’t know if it doesn’t have something to do with the kind of society we live in. The modern world stands apart from previous ages by its rampant materialism, which is supposed to mean a lot of clever people discovering how to manipulate the laws of nature such that our lives are improved, but which actually means building up a huge, complex, unwieldy techno-industrial machine that we have to scurry around like stressed rats to maintain. Because our existence has been rearranged to depend on maintaining the machine, the status of contemporary man is defined by how much scurrying he does. This outlook spills over from temporal occupations into Ecclesiastical ones, with the result that states of life that don’t involve scurrying get the jaundiced look.

In the past it was simpler and more real. It was not that difficult to produce the basic necessities of life and there was no question of ‘getting on’ and improving one’s material lot, which was fixed. Improvement could be looked at from a supernatural angle instead, which left room for an esteem for the vocation of brother.