Can a religious superior tell a sister under her care to change spiritual directors? Would the sister be obliged (vow of obedience!) to find a new pri

[Rosebud77]

Actually, the research on why people left religious life after Vatican II does NOT sustain the claim that “everyone wanted to do their own thing.” Many who left should never have been in religious life in the first place. They were admitted because of inadequa ste or nonexistent screening, among other things. Then they stayed because they were told that religious life represented a “higher state of grace,” and that God would condemn them if they “betrayed” Him by leaving. [Never mind what the Catholic community would do.] Of those who left because of the “changes,” the research shows that about half left because there were too many changes, and half because things were not changing fast enough…

I was talking about this with an old Spanish man recently who was lamenting the demise of orders there. There and here as in many small poor countries, when the huge orders flourished there was no way a young rural woman could be eg a nurse, a teacher except by joining an order. When families were large and poor you knew that your child would be fed and house and buried by the order. Here the sisters and priests would go round houses street by street each week, collecting their dues and asking families which if their children they were giving to God. I met one old lady froma family of seven chidlren all of whom had been sisters or priests and rhat was common. Nothing to do with a higher state of grace. It was like army conscription as Rome after the Famine sought to use Ireland to enlarge and empower the Church. Look up Paul Cardinal Cullen. And of course these man and women on the days before the welfare state had nowhere to go and no means of living if they left. The world changed. When more ways opened up for women they had that to move into.

 

[InThePew]

Of course it can be and sometimes is abused. That does not invalidate Holy Obedience in any way. And no you do not criticise a superior who is as Christ and to be obeyed if it is not against your conscience or the law. If you get worried re eg the brand of toothpaste then maybe you should think again re your vocation… being obedient in small things matters.

Fortunately, some might say, my own vocation doesn’t involve a vow of obedience - only a promise!

The rule of never criticising a superior was what caused many of the Legionaries’ problems and so it’s not surprising that it has since been removed from their constitutions. Similarly, while obedience in all matters (small or large) is fundamental to religious life, such obedience still has to be tied in to the order’s constitutions and I’d struggle to imagine a constitution which regulated the brand of toothpaste!

Returning to the question raised by the OP, what’s needed in such situations is dialogue and listening on the part of both the superior and member - especially in matters of conscience. Obedience (and for that matter authority) is after all a two way street. This (rather lengthy)document puts it far better than I ever could!

 

[Rosebud77]

Fortunately, some might say, my own vocation doesn’t involve a vow of obedience - only a promise!

The rule of never criticising a superior was what caused many of the Legionaries’ problems and so it’s not surprising that it has since been removed from their constitutions. Similarly, while obedience in all matters (small or large) is fundamental to religious life, such obedience still has to be tied in to the order’s constitutions and I’d struggle to imagine a constitution which regulated the brand of toothpaste!

Returning to the question raised by the OP, what’s needed in such situations is dialogue and listening on the part of both the superior and member - especially in matters of conscience. Obedience (and for that matter authority) is after all a two way street. This (rather lengthy)document puts it far better than I ever could!

You would be amazed what a zealous Sisters bulk buying can land Sisters with. And cost of course. A simple basic toothpaste is all that is needed in the spirit of economy. Obedience is never a two way street; that would assume the novice was wiser than the Mother. An order is like an army; each has to obey where she is to further the whole.

 

[Gertabelle]

Obedience in toothpaste brand!

When I was in the monastery, toothpaste brand had nothing to do with obedience. Whatever we were given was what we used. It’s not as though the nuns would add their requests to a monastic shopping list! We simply had what we had.

In that regard, there actually was an element of obedience in toothpaste (and every other tiny detail of life) that was tied directly into our monastic way of life, which included poverty. I chose obedience, and I chose poverty. In doing so, I gave up my choice of toothpaste brand.

Choosing religious life is choosing to surrender all – including one’s entire will. Of course it’s difficult! That’s how it functions as a path to sanctity!

Gertie

 

[Rosebud77]

Obedience in toothpaste brand!

When I was in the monastery, toothpaste brand had nothing to do with obedience. Whatever we were given was what we used. It’s not as though the nuns would add their requests to a monastic shopping list! We simply had what we had.

In that regard, there actually was an element of obedience in toothpaste (and every other tiny detail of life) that was tied directly into our monastic way of life, which included poverty. I chose obedience, and I chose poverty. In doing so, I gave up my choice of toothpaste brand.

Choosing religious life is choosing to surrender all – including one’s entire will. Of course it’s difficult! That’s how it functions as a path to sanctity!

Gertie

Perfect reply

 

[InThePew]

Choosing religious life is choosing to surrender all – including one’s entire will. Of course it’s difficult! That’s how it functions as a path to sanctity!

Very true - and very well put. Of course, the stricter the order, the greater the call to obedience. I guess if you’re in an enclosed order you can’t exactly be all that picky about much at all! Still, obedience also brings with it true freedom…

 

[John_Lazarus]

Fortunately, some might say, my own vocation doesn’t involve a vow of obedience - only a promise!

The rule of never criticising a superior was what caused many of the Legionaries’ problems and so it’s not surprising that it has since been removed from their constitutions. Similarly, while obedience in all matters (small or large) is fundamental to religious life, such obedience still has to be tied in to the order’s constitutions and I’d struggle to imagine a constitution which regulated the brand of toothpaste!

Considering Ultra-Brite was advertised as “Sex Appeal in a tube”, I can see the superior exercising some discretion there…

 

[InThePew]

Considering Ultra-Brite was advertised as “Sex Appeal in a tube”, I can see the superior exercising some discretion there…

Probably not a bad idea!

 

[SerraSemper]

Fortunately, some might say, my own vocation doesn’t involve a vow of obedience - only a promise!

The rule of never criticising a superior was what caused many of the Legionaries’ problems and so it’s not surprising that it has since been removed from their constitutions. Similarly, while obedience in all matters (small or large) is fundamental to religious life, such obedience still has to be tied in to the order’s constitutions and I’d struggle to imagine a constitution which regulated the brand of toothpaste!

Returning to the question raised by the OP, what’s needed in such situations is dialogue and listening on the part of both the superior and member - especially in matters of conscience. Obedience (and for that matter authority) is after all a two way street. This (rather lengthy)document puts it far better than I ever could!

You are right in thinking that a false sense of obedience led to severe problems in the Legionaries. Also, the manifestation of conscience (spiritual direction) is not something the superior has a lot of authority over. In fact, I wrote my canon law thesis on the topic because there were so many abuses in the name of obedience that the Pope had to clarify that the vow of obedience does not include permission for a superior to personally (or through others) pressure someone to disclose their matters of conscience to them (or to specific people). The penalty for a superior for even suggesting someone reveal their conscience (we’re not necessarily talking about sins here) when the Pope made his decree was excommunication. And the penalty for a subject not reporting it within so many days (30? 90? - I can’t remember) was excommunication. That’s how seriously the Church takes the right of privacy and the right to disclose spiritual direction matters to only people of one’s free choosing. It is a natural law right to privacy and even if a superior lined people up with a particular person as a spiritual director with time slots, one could simply go in and talk about the weather because that is your right and the vow of obedience does not coerce you into revealing anything to anybody you don’t want to in these matters.

If a novice mistress doesn’t like a particular s.d. then there is always the right of appeal to a higher superior.

My thesis is on Amazon and it provides a general overview of what is considered “matters of conscience” and its different types and the development of the rules about spiritual direction found in canon law. A spiritual director does not have to be a priest, and some relatively younger directors can be wise and qualified — or not. Yes, religious and priests have fallen into improper relationships but that does not excuse a blanket restriction on spiritual direction between people of a similar age. Those who believe their s.d. is qualified, competent, and knows what they are doing should negotiate with their superiors on the safeguards to be taken for the director-directee relationship to work.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

Nunsuch, I think that the Vat. 11 documents had a lot to do with the exodus of the religious and clergy. There was a new sense of freedom in making choices , both spiritual and personal. It was a time when the Vat. 11 Documents were not always understood and sometimes misread. The Vac. 11 Documents are still not fully understood by many. A point to consider is that the documents did not tell religious women to forego the habit, but that they did, and when they did vocations dropped significantly.

Certainly many women and men were not suitable for religious life, and many left because they were mismatched. The intent of the documents was to enhance the spiritual life, enhance the teachings and bring the church up to “speed” in the modern world. Still, I will contend that many left to live as they thought was right for them-aka-doing their own thing.

I was never told any of what you referred to, but 9 out of 11 of the same house left and did their own thing. Research is not always accurate, but often an overview. I would like to read your research as I am always open to learning.

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

I was told that if the novice mistress doesn’t like you seeing a particular priest for spiritual direction because he’s too young or your too close in age or some other reason like that, she will tell you that she would prefer you choose another director. I realize that religious vow obedience, but this vow has limits. Like if a superior asks you to do something sinful then of course we do not obey. Can a superior ask you to find a new SD? SD is something so personal between the directee and God, I’m just not sure if a superior can legitimately ask a sister to find a new one…

I could understand if there was some unhealthy relationship between the sister and the SD, but just because she doesn’t like the priest? Or thinks he’s too young? Or too close to the sisters age? Come on.

Most of the posters were right but 2 side notes.

Except during novitiate, a superior can tell a subject to go to a certain person as their SD. They can however say not to go to certain people.

A superior should only forbid a certain SD for serious reasons, not caprice. If the superior felt that this particular sister was likely to fall into a semi-romantic relationship, that’s a valid enough reason. I’ll give you another: in my religious community while you’re still in formation, you can only pick from priests of the community. After your ordained, you can choose outside the community but are asked to notify your superior at which point he can reject the SD.

 

[SerraSemper]

Most of the posters were right but 2 side notes.

Except during novitiate, a superior can tell a subject to go to a certain person as their SD. They can however say not to go to certain people.

Sure, a superior can give a list of acceptable SDs to a novice. But the novice does not have to disclose their conscience to the chosen SD if they don’t feel comfortable with the situation, or they may choose to share only certain things with the approved SD. One reason I wrote my licentiate thesis for canon law on the manifestation of conscience is that people need to understand what can and can’t be used in external formation and what constitutes internal forum matter. I have talked to plenty of superiors who don’t understand the distinction because they were never taught what’s acceptable or not.

A superior should only forbid a certain SD for serious reasons, not caprice. If the superior felt that this particular sister was likely to fall into a semi-romantic relationship, that’s a valid enough reason. I’ll give you another: in my religious community while you’re still in formation, you can only pick from priests of the community. After your ordained, you can choose outside the community but are asked to notify your superior at which point he can reject the SD.

And just how would a superior know that there is a semi-romantic relationship? Unless the subject is externally showing signs of the relationship? Inner attraction/temptation is one of the things that falls under internal forum and the superior may not inquire directly about it! (E.g. “Are you being tempted in a romantic way with your S.D.?”) That’s forbidden.

 

[Rosebud77]

And just how would a superior know that there is a semi-romantic relationship? Unless the subject is externally showing signs of the relationship? Inner attraction/temptation is one of the things that falls under internal forum and the superior may not inquire directly about it! (E.g. “Are you being tempted in a romantic way with your S.D.?”) That’s forbidden.

A good superior will discern easily. Good shepherds know their sheep

 

[MPSchneiderLC]

Sure, a superior can give a list of acceptable SDs to a novice. But the novice does not have to disclose their conscience to the chosen SD if they don’t feel comfortable with the situation, or they may choose to share only certain things with the approved SD. One reason I wrote my licentiate thesis for canon law on the manifestation of conscience is that people need to understand what can and can’t be used in external formation and what constitutes internal forum matter. I have talked to plenty of superiors who don’t understand the distinction because they were never taught what’s acceptable or not.

True. A superior can never require a manifestation of conscience. I think the Jesuits have an exemption from this but that’s an aside. Novitiate is the only time the superior can be a SD of a subject.

You may know since you did your JCL on this: can a novice request a 2nd spiritual director if they don’t want to manifest their conscience to any of the short list provided?

And just how would a superior know that there is a semi-romantic relationship? Unless the subject is externally showing signs of the relationship? Inner attraction/temptation is one of the things that falls under internal forum and the superior may not inquire directly about it! (E.g. “Are you being tempted in a romantic way with your S.D.?”) That’s forbidden.

I was presuming something like that. I was thinking of a priest who was overly flirtatious with sisters outside of SD so a superior forbid sisters in her community from going to him (i.e. the SD may show signs as well as the subject). I see many other ways a superior could make such a call from outwardly visible things.

 

[SerraSemper]

True. A superior can never require a manifestation of conscience. I think the Jesuits have an exemption from this but that’s an aside. Novitiate is the only time the superior can be a SD of a subject.

You may know since you did your JCL on this: can a novice request a 2nd spiritual director if they don’t want to manifest their conscience to any of the short list provided?

I was presuming something like that. I was thinking of a priest who was overly flirtatious with sisters outside of SD so a superior forbid sisters in her community from going to him (i.e. the SD may show signs as well as the subject). I see many other ways a superior could make such a call from outwardly visible things.

Novitiate is no exception to the protections of conscience the Church maintains for subjects. Superiors cannot force their subjects to reveal their conscience to them even if they are in the novitiate. I discuss this in my thesis which talks about what a superior can and can’t say… in formation…