V
valient_Lucy
Guest
:bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:
- Status
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Realising this is not the thrust of your dissertation.The Church was able to get around St. Bruno, because fortunately, St. Bruno never wrote a canonically approved rule. The Carthusians are governed by statutes that St. Bruno wrote and they modify through a democratic process.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
www.chartreux.org/textes/eng/st-en-1.htm
M
manualman
Guest
Great discussion. To clarify, I think there are two VERY different motivations out there when people ask for citations and authoritative backup for claims and direction (even from clergy and bishops).
A great example of this holy prudence (IMO) is when Mother Angelica outmaneuvered the USCCB’s attempts to essentially take over EWTN from her even though they’d already proven their inability to start up a catholic cable TV channel. Certain bishops absolutely attempted to use their authority to modify (water down) EWTN’s content. They refused by restructuring in such a way that EWTN was a lay-lead endeavor not subject to direct episcopal control like religious - run endeavors are.
- They don’t want to obey, they want to do it “My Way.”
- They are genuinely concerned about the motivation and fidelity of the person in authority giving the order. Sadly, this has many times been warranted in recent decades as those in authority implemented their own agendas in mere the Name of Vatican II, covered up their own sexual wrongdoings and those of their friends, misused their authority to silence priests and deacons in their dioceses who dared to preach on orthodox subject not ‘in vogue.’
A great example of this holy prudence (IMO) is when Mother Angelica outmaneuvered the USCCB’s attempts to essentially take over EWTN from her even though they’d already proven their inability to start up a catholic cable TV channel. Certain bishops absolutely attempted to use their authority to modify (water down) EWTN’s content. They refused by restructuring in such a way that EWTN was a lay-lead endeavor not subject to direct episcopal control like religious - run endeavors are.
J
JReducation
Guest
No it is not. But it’s a good example. For example, if you take this sentence out of the Carthusian Statutes, one can see the difference between a rule and statutes.
As a result, the General Chapter of 1971 approved and promulgated the Renewed Statutes, which were revised and corrected with the co-operation of all the members of the Order.
(Parr 3)
They have the freedom to revise their statutes. The Jesuits function the same way too. They have statutes. With the permission of the Vatican, they can revise them.
Those orders that have a rule, are not allowed to revise the rule. The rules are sealed, only popes can revise them and it has never happened. Orders with rules can revise their constitutions. But the constitutions cannot say anything that contradicts the rule.
Usually, constitutions address things that are not in the rule or explain how something in the rule is going to be executed. For example, in the Franciscan Rule it says that the friars are to obey Francis and his canonically elected successors without questioning. The constitution cannot change that. What each obedience has done is to add to their constitutions statements that encourage the superiors to dialog with the friars. However, the constitutions cannot order superiors to dialog, because it’s not part of the original rule, nor was it a practice in which Francis engaged.
There are differences between religious families and schools of spirituality. However, they all focus on one thing, living the Gospel within the Church as the Church interprets the Gospel. That last part is the key. The Gospel is not open to our interpretation. Our interpretation has to match that of the Church. If we feel that we have found something new, it must be submitted to the Church for verification. In Catholicism, there is not such thing as private intepretation of scripture. Even the great founders, teachers, doctors and mystics, who had sublime experiences with the scriptures alwasy submitted to the Church’s interpretation of their experience and the message that they received. This allows for diversity between the diffferent schools and unity through the authority of the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
Good for her!
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
manualman
“So difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history, when, on the one hand, those who afterwards write it find long periods of time intercepting their views, and, on the other hand, the contemporary records of any actions and lives, partly through envy and ill-will, partly through favour and flattery, pervert and distort truth” (Plutarch, 46-120 A.D. Greek historian)
“So difficult a matter is it to trace and find out the truth of anything by history, when, on the one hand, those who afterwards write it find long periods of time intercepting their views, and, on the other hand, the contemporary records of any actions and lives, partly through envy and ill-will, partly through favour and flattery, pervert and distort truth” (Plutarch, 46-120 A.D. Greek historian)
J
JReducation
Guest
That is a layman’s version, not the Franciscan version of how things happened. If the bishops had wanted to take over EWTN they could have done so very easily through the local bishop. The rule of the Poor Clares says that they must obey the local bishop in all things, without question. It also says that they may not preach where the local bishop does not allow them to do so. It says that they own nothing. Everything is held in trust for the local bishop, even if they raise the money. The Poor Clares are a cloistered order. They owe their obedience to the local bishop. Unlike the friars who owe our obedience to the Minister General of the community. The Poor Clares are not autonomous from the bishop. Ultimately, anything that they start in his diocese is under his authority and he makes the final call.
I’ve heard this story before and the Poor Clares and the friars chuckle, because some lay people have written this up as if they really knew the inside story or as if they really knew the mind of Clare and Francis. Even the Franciscans don’t know the whole story. Whatever decisions were made were made with the approval of the local bishop. In the end, he can pull the plug by pulling the network’s Catholic name and he can excommunicate the nuns for failing to observe the Rule as Francis and Clare wrote it. Francis and Clare made it very clear to us that they wanted the bishops to excommunicate us if we dared to challenge or question them. This was not an idle threat. Francis made it happen to Brother Elias, because he disagreed with him on how poverty should be practiced.
There could have been a million bishops who may have wanted control of EWTN, who knows? Only the local bishop has jurisdiction and has the final word, not Mother Angelica or any other bishop, because the network is operating out of one diocese with that bishop’s blessing… An abbess can present her case to the local bishop. Then she must submit to his judgment. This applies to all cloistered communities of women. A female religious can never outrank a male. That’s not allowed. A perfect example was the founding of the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. Mother inspired it. But she could not lead the foundation, because she is female. A Capuchin Franciscan was brought in to lead the foundation. She is the Mother of that obedience, but she never had authority over them. They get their authority directly from Francis through a Capuchin Friar Minor. The same happens with the bishop in matters outside of the religious house, such as a TV network. It gets its authority to operate as a Catholic ministry from the local Ordinary.
.
A major superior of man is equal to a bishop in authority. But not a major superior of women. Therefore, Mother could not make these decisions independently. That does not mean that she is ignored. She was the founder and the CEO for many years. She had the vision and the charism to make it happen. It would be foolish not to hear her recommendations. Everything happened as the bishop wanted it. We will never know how much or how little Mother and the bishop agreed, nor is it important.
It’s the same situation with all of Mother Teresa’s foundations. Mother ruled them, but only because the bishops allowed it.
There are some subjects that are best left to those who are on the inside, because we run the risk of adding to the story and making it bigger and better than it really is. The EWTN transition from the Poor Clares to a lay apostolate was not as dramatic as some have made it out to be, nor was there as much conflict as some people believe or claim they know.
If someone wants to see a simple example of the relationship between a Franciscan abbess and a bishop, let us recall that unfortunate comment that Mother Angelica made about an archbishop. She had to write an apology and also apologize on the air. That was commanded by the local bishop and the Holy See. Had she failed to submit to the authority of the bishop, she would have been excommunicated as per the orders of St. Francis. The only time that you can take on a bishop is when he commands you to sin. But it must be understood that you don’t decide what is sinful. The Church does. Otherwise, people can claim conscientious objection all over the place. It would be goofy.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
A Religious Order is based on a Rule. The first Rule of the Franciscan Order, was very simple and can be seen in the final version of 1223:
“The rule and life of the lesser brothers is this: To observe the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, living in obedience without anything of our own, and in chastity. Brother Francis promises obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope Honorius and his canonically elected successors, and to the Roman Church; and the rest of the brothers are obliged to obey Francis and his successors."
“The rule and life of the lesser brothers is this: To observe the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, living in obedience without anything of our own, and in chastity. Brother Francis promises obedience and reverence to the Lord Pope Honorius and his canonically elected successors, and to the Roman Church; and the rest of the brothers are obliged to obey Francis and his successors."
Code:
In the course of time, the call for reform has sounded repeatedly. Sometimes it had been inaugurated from within, and sometimes it had been imposed from outside, as with the 1335–9 reform statutes for the Religious Orders issued by Pope Benedict XII.
The first founders of Religious Life, St. Basil and St. Benedict, thought not so much of establishing an Order as of drawing up a plan of individual life, common to the use of monks who desired to be directed in their aspirations for perfection. Each monastery was independent, and was not even bound to a definite Rule; the community was left free to change the Observance, and a certain option could be allowed to the monks to choose which of several Rules they would follow. For a long time, the Canons Regular of St. Augustine's Order were not united in a Religious Order but lived according to various rules strongly influenced by the region. The history of the Religious Order of the Canons Regular starts with the communities of priests gathered around their bishop in the 5th century. Those of St. Augustine's Order might have been the most prominent one.
In the 13th century St. Francis and St. Dominic united their disciples in one vast association with an interior hierarchical organization of its own, and recognizable by the common rule, dress, and life. From that time forward, each Religious Order has been a corporation of Religious approved by the Church. And since we distinguish Institutes bound by solemn vows and approved by the Sovereign Pontiff from Institutes with simple vows, the expression "Religious Order" has been naturally applied exclusively to Institutes with solemn vows.
At first sight there may appear to be little to distinguish between a Religious Order and a Religious Congregation. The difference, however, is really fundamental. It lies in the nature of the vows taken by their members; in an Order they are solemn, in a Congregation they are simple. The difference between the two practically amounts to this, that simple vows are readily dispensed; while solemn vows are relaxed only in extreme cases. The bodies in which solemn vows are taken are alone properly called Religious Orders.
For more than a hundred years The Holy See has ceased to permit solemn vows in new Congregations.
M
manualman
Guest
With all due respect, mine is a paraphrased and much condensed version of Raymond Arroyo’s description of events in his biography of Mother Angelica.
You are right that in the final analysis, the bishop could have pulled the authorization for EWTN to call themselves catholic. But the way Arroyo (an insider to say the least) describes it, Mother made sure that to do so, the local bishop would be cutting off his nose to spite his face. Thankfully, that wasn’t something he was willing to do. Maybe it was simply inspiration that lead MA to Alabama and not LA to start the whole thing up?
There are, of course, other examples. I lived in Milwaukee in the early 1990’s and attended daily mass at a parish that the local bishop (Bshp. Weakland) refused to discuss or acknowledge. They had long lines for confession, lots of folks at daily mass, perpetual adoration, produced vocations (to religious communities, not diocesan). They refused to banish the statues, mothball the monstrance, hide the tabernacle (I’m not exagerrating), pull the kneelers, invite lay people to give homilies, do general absolution services, etc. All of which the bishop widely encouraged.
I admire the pastor (wish I could remember his and the parish’s name) for the way he accomplished this all without ever out loud criticizing the bishop’s leadership explicitly. He had a hard life, I’m sure.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is a good summary. Where did you find it? I’d like to bookmark it.
On the part that I bolded, I think that may be as long as 450 years or so. I believe the Jesuits were the last religious order to be founded. Afterward, the others are either congregations with simple vows or reforms within the religious orders such as the different Franciscan, Carmelite and Augustinian reforms. There are also some other major differences between solemn and simple vows that the article does not cover, especially the solemn vow of chastity and the solemn vow of poverty are very different from the simple vows of chastity and poverty. Vows trump promises made by diocesan priests. There are many layers here.
The last rule allowed in the Church was the Franciscan Rule. This gets a little tricky here. It is true that the last rule written by the hand of St. Francis was the rule of 1223. But the rule of St. Clare, which was originally written by Francis and later edited by the pope and re-edited by Clare was finally approved in 1253, just two days before she died. Pope Gregory IX grandfathered Clare’s rule, because he had been an old friend of Francis, Anthony and Clare when he was Cardinal Hugolino. He had also been appointed the protector of the Franciscans by Pope Honorius. Even though Honorius prohibited the writing of new rules, Gregory agreed to Clare’s rule, because it was a rescript of an already approved rule. He did the same for the Secular Franciscans. I believe they are the only secular order with a rule of their own and pontifical status. The other orders follow the statutes of the religious institute, not so with the Secular Franks.
The study of rules is a study in great humility. The Norbertines, Servites, Trinitarians and Dominicans are contemporaries with the Franciscans. Their founders presented a rule and the rule was rejected. They had to adopt the Rule of St. Augustine. Francis came along and presented his rule and it was approved. Yet, men like John De Matha, Dominic, the Norbertines, and Servites were always so loving and kind to Francis and his family. Their acceptance of authority and of the Franciscans and the exception made for them is a tribute to their humility and their holiness. These were definitely holy people. Today, people would be screaming about equal rights and fairness.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Raymond Arroyo can only write what he has access to. I’ve read his work. It’s well done. However, he never mentions the rule or the canons that govern in these situations. He is focussing on the subject of his work, Mother Angelica.
I think that’s an unfair statement about the bishop. The bishop was always very supportive. Case in point, he approved the Missionary Franciscans of the Eternal Word when no one else would, because there was a big question mark about their ministry. He approved them as a public association of diocesan right. This is not the action of a man who is unsupportive.
By the way, there was nothing wrong with their ministry. It’s that it was not clearly defined when they started. There is an unwritten rule in the Franciscan family that you cannot start a new obedience that duplicates what another obedience is already doing, unless you’re splitting an obedience because of size or differences in constitutions as is the case with the three branches of the Friars Minor.
As Catholics, we have to be very careful how we portray our bishops. To the non-Catholic it comes across as if we view ourselves in a different Church and view them as having a sinister conspiracy from which the faithful have to protect themselves. That’s a horrible image to protray and then say “Where there is the bishop, there is the Church.”
We understand that they are human beings. Like any human being, they have flaws. That’s been the case since the 12 Apostles. But they are not our enemies. They are our pastors and the rightful successors to the Apostles and they deserve our respect and to be spoken about with respect. We don’t have to agree with them or approve of their mistakes. However, I’ll use this analogy. My parents were not perfect. But I don’t air out their dirty laundry for outsiders to see.
I think this is where the spiritual masters were very wise. They kept their own counsel.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
JReducation
“If you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism; if you steal from many, it’s research” (Wilson Mizner)
My posting is from articles sampled surfing the net; reference notes often not recorded… like a sheep grazing pasture.
“In allegorical exegesis the Sacred Text is treated as a mere symbol, or allegory, of spiritual truths. The literal, historical sense, if it is regarded at all, plays a relatively minor role, and the aim of the exegete is to elicit the moral, theological or mystical meaning which each passage, indeed each verse and even each word, is presumed to contain…” (J.N.D. Kelly)
An eschatological interpretation of text is ordinarily taken to refer to the events at the end of time: unquestionably the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, the last judgment, hell and heaven, but also the much debated questions of the tribulation and the millennium.
In Francis people believed they had found fulfilment of Millennium Prophecy – similarity, transformation and conformity with Christ, with the miraculous stigmatization as climax and fulfilment.
The “Legenda Major” and “Actus beati Francisci et sociorum erius” proclaimed Francis an extremely realistic imitation Christi; the second Christ. The full flowering of the legend came with the arrival of the Fraticelli.
“If you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism; if you steal from many, it’s research” (Wilson Mizner)
My posting is from articles sampled surfing the net; reference notes often not recorded… like a sheep grazing pasture.
According to St. Augustine, allegory is a mode of speech in which one thing is understood by another, finding its authentic, profounder truth in the spiritual meaning which it symbolizes and believing that it hides the truth and at the same time reveals it. It hides the truth from the ignorant, whose eyes are blinded by sin and pride, hence they are prevented from the knowledge of the truth.
“In allegorical exegesis the Sacred Text is treated as a mere symbol, or allegory, of spiritual truths. The literal, historical sense, if it is regarded at all, plays a relatively minor role, and the aim of the exegete is to elicit the moral, theological or mystical meaning which each passage, indeed each verse and even each word, is presumed to contain…” (J.N.D. Kelly)
An eschatological interpretation of text is ordinarily taken to refer to the events at the end of time: unquestionably the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, the last judgment, hell and heaven, but also the much debated questions of the tribulation and the millennium.
In Francis people believed they had found fulfilment of Millennium Prophecy – similarity, transformation and conformity with Christ, with the miraculous stigmatization as climax and fulfilment.
The “Legenda Major” and “Actus beati Francisci et sociorum erius” proclaimed Francis an extremely realistic imitation Christi; the second Christ. The full flowering of the legend came with the arrival of the Fraticelli.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
JReducation
I’m very interested, would you kindly explore for us the phrase highlighted. Thanking you in anticipation.
P
Padraig1972
Guest
My answer to this one is yes. Because in our not always so humble human nature, we are often too concerned with turnings things into our convinience rather than the other way around.
The only two right things to do is:
The only two right things to do is:
- Obey God without no if
s, buts or maybees. - Obey the church teachings without no if
s, buts or maybees.
L
laszlo
Guest
This view supposes that thet like God you know good and evil, and can tell what is God’s will and what is the Church’s will.
We are not so perfect, there are many many ifs buts and maybes in our life.
P
Padraig1972
Guest
Oh no - i do not know Gods intentions, i struggle too from time to time. Believe me, i do.
But we should try live up to the standard.
What would it be if we spent more energy on manipulate the Churches teachings rather than listening to God and obeying HIM?
None of us are perfect, but we should do max in effert to do good and be as good as possible.
But we should try live up to the standard.
What would it be if we spent more energy on manipulate the Churches teachings rather than listening to God and obeying HIM?
None of us are perfect, but we should do max in effert to do good and be as good as possible.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is all very true. Francis has been referred to by many titles, including by popes who have referred to him as: The Mirror of Perfection, The Perfect Christian, The Most Catholic Man, The Alter Christus, recently Pope Benedict referred to him as “The Authentic Believer” in his speech to the bishops of the Italian Conference and as “The Living First Beatitude” in his book Jesus of Nazareth: Part I .
Where I’m a little confused here is how you tie this in with the great humility of the holy men of his time: Dominicans, Norbertines, Trinitarians and Servites. If you can help me understand, I would appreciate it.
As I see it, these men wee true examples of obedience to the Church and trust in God’s providence for them. They were so obedient and so trusting in God’s Divine Providence, that they were OK with the fact that their rules were reduced to statutes to be appended to the Rule of St. Augustine, while this little brother from Assisi, who was not a priest, who was a self-made theologian, a penitent, a rag-muffin with no sense of direction and no plan was given Carte Blanche and Pope Innocent went as far as to say that the Rule had been truly of Divine Revelation. Later Pope Honorius would echo the same thought and seal it with a bull so that no one could tamper with it, except another pope. That’s all very beautiful, because it speaks of the holiness of the Franciscan rule.
But along with my awe for the Franciscan Rule, which is actually very short. Were it not for the admonitions and the Testament, there would be a lot of questions about the Rule itself. All that aside, there other men were great scholars. They were priests. They were great and holy preachers. Some were martyrs. They were great missionaries. The external work of the Franciscan family pales in comparison to their work. Yet, they quietly accept what the Church hands to them and the restrictions she places on them. They do not question her. Instead they do two remarkable acts of heroic virtue. They trust Divine Providence and they love the Franciscans, because the Church loved them. John de Matha and Dominic paid special tribute to Francis at the Lateran Council. Legend has it that Dominic put aside his belt and wore the cord under his scapular. There is a historical fact that John de Matha, the founder of the Trinitarians, decided to provide some protection for the Franciscans. He had a very devout and wealthy connection in Italy. He entrusted Francis and his family to his friends who became life long benefactors of the Franciscan family.
This is true obedience. Obedience proofs itself through love and trust, as Christ did at Calvary. It does not equivocate, argue, dissect, over analyze, hold grudges, or continue to churn a point over and over as if it is butter. Once the Church’s authority has made up its mind, obedience entrusts itself to Divine Providence and loves what the Church loves and makes due with what the Church hands us. That’s why I’ve always admired these men as much as I admire Francis, who got what he wanted. But the man who has to compromise and continues to love, to obey and knows when it’s time to move on and keep silence is a hero of virtue. I think that their example was not lost on Francis. Because he adds to his rule, by way of admonitions, directives that almost describe to a tee what these men did.
We must look at men like these with great admiration and learn from them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
This may be a little off thread, but maybe other people would be interested. I’ll try to use bullets to make it clearer and then you can ask questions.
**POVERTY **
Solemn Vow:
The individual may own nothing.
The community may own nothing. *
*The Holy See may grant an indult to own property as a corporate body, as long as the property reverts to the Church at any time that the Church so chooses.
Simple vow
The individual has the canonical right to retain ownership of his or her assets and any assets that he or she may inherit. He may dispose of them during his life as he wishes. He may have access to those assets per the superior’s discretion. St. Katherine Drexel, The Millionaire Nun, was an example. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, was allowed to keep tuition money to support her children. However, the founder and the constitution may dictate that the individual may not own or inherit anything as is the case with the Brothers of the Poor and the Missionaries of Charity. This is a self-imposed obligation, not a moral or canonical obligation.
The community may own assets in its name and may dispose of them as it sees fit without the intervention of the bishop or the Holy See. It’s assets are its own. The Church cannot legally separate the religious community from its assets unless Canon Law is changed or the Holy Father himself intervenes. No one else in the Holy See has this power over their assets.
CHASTITY
First is must be said that the vow of chastity is different from the promise of celibacy that diocesan clergy make when they are ordained to the diaconate. Contrary to popular belief, the promise is made at the diaconate ordination, and repeated at the ordination to the priesthood. At that point, it’s just a renewal.
The vow of Chastity binds the religious to a family. By joining a family of brothers or sisters, he severs his natural ties with his or her biological family, which a diocesan priest never does. He or she gives to the Lord his or her natural right to be a spouse as his most precious gift and the only thing that we truly own that no one can take away from us. Observe that he does not surrender his right to be a parent. Why not? Because many religious are parents. They are widows and widowers. Also, no one really knows whether they can conceive a child, until they try. You give to Christ the right to marriage and the intimacy that comes from marriage, but you embrace Christ as the spouse with whom you will will be intimate until death. This is true for men and women. However, we don’t marry Christ as people say. That’s an allegorical term. This is not part of the promise of celibacy made by a diocesan or secular priest. He promises not to marry. It stops there. He makes no promises about his relationship with Christ.
In the vow of chastity the religious also extends himself or herself to embrace the community has his/her new family. He joins them. They don’t join him. He is like the child being born into a family where he will learn their ways, assimilate and contribute as time goes forward, just as in any biological family. He also promises to cherish them with a great love than he would for a biological family, because this family has been given to him by the Holy Spirit. This is not part of the promise of celibacy made by diocesan priests. They do not join a family. They remain part of their biological families Therefore, they are free to visit and even to live with them when circumstances allow. We are not free to do that.
Let’s go to the vows.
Solemn
If a person in solemn vows attempts marriage and manages to hide the fact that he’s in solemn vows, the marriage is invalid and the person is automatically excommunicated as well as the spouse, if the spouse knows. The reason being is that the marriage vows are also solemn vows. They are vows of equal rank. One cannot trump the other. The one that was in place first, becomes a canonical impediment for the second attempt to make solemn vows.
Simple
If a person is in simple vows and attempts marriage, the marriage is valid, but illicit. The person still incurs excommunication and has to apply to the Church for sanation. The marriage vows trump the religious vows, because they are solemn and the religious vows of a member of a congregation are not solemn.
However, there is a catch here. No religious may enter into a valid marriage within the Catholic Church as long as the vows are in effect. This was added to the Code of 1983. Not being a Canon Lawyer, I don’t know how they arrive at the conclusion that a Catholic marriage is always invalid, but a non - Catholic marriage can be valid but illicit for a religious in simple vows. Canon Law does not explain it. I know that it is explained to members of religious congregations. I belong to an order, so it does not apply to us. Therefore, we never studied it. We make simple vows for three to six years and then make solemn vows. But our simple vows expire. You are free to leave. If you have left before they expired, the Major Superior can dispense them.
As far as women are concerned, only nuns can make solemn vows. Sisters cannot, because sisters do not belong to religious orders They belong to congregations or to societies. All those women who taught us are not nuns. Mother Teresa was not a nun. She was a sister. Mother Angelica is a nun. The Franciscans are an order. The Missionaries of Charity started as a society and were changed to a congregation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
manualman
Guest
I may have not been clear. I forget his name, but I never got the sense that the local bishop was hostile to EWTN’s basic mission. But I did get the sense from the book that he was under enormous pressure from others at the USCCB. To be clear, it turned out he was UNwilling to cut off his nose to spite his face (which is to his credit, not detriment). But the board of EWTN clearly was reorganzied to be lay lead for that purpose (at least the way the book puts it).
I hear what you are saying, and I admire those who can live up to it. But I also have sincere sympathy for those who have suffered pain and confusion when their local bishop does things that seem incompatible with catholic principles. And there are limits to what I am willing to defend the former from criticism originating from the latter. I’ve lived too close to it.
- Status