Catholic priest who fathered child is suspended

[JReducation]

Dear Brother,
You sound very human! A Superior and very human. The Lord moves in mysterious ways. Your thoughts give very reasonable and sound advice.
I’ll enter you into my analogue of those to pray for.

If it is not beyond grounds of discretion,tell us a little more of the Order of which are a member - you whet our appetite for more.

LOL, trust me, I’m very human and very fallible too. But the good thing is that I’m in good company. That being said, we’re known as the Franciscan Brothers of Life, though our actual name is much longer: Brothers of Life of the Order of Penance. St. Francis founded three orders.

1. Order of Friars Minor: which today has several branches, but they all follow the same rule. This is an order for men. They are mendicants.
2. Order of Poor Sisters: St. Clare and her sister were the first sisters. Later they grew and became known as the Order of St. Clare or the Poor Clares. They are monastic.
3. Order of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance.: originally it was an order for married persons. They were known under different names: Brothers of the Continent, Brothers of the Thrid Order of St. Francis, The Third Order of St. Francis, the Secular Franciscan Order. This order was to be an active order of men and women who lived in community, made vows, and did penance for those who do not do penance.

My community was born when two Capuchins (OFM Cap) and two Secular Franciscans (SFO) joined forces to found a Franciscan community that would work exclusively with Respect Life. i was a Capuchin and came from there.

We are very poor. We own nothing except what is needed for our ministry to the unborn. We serve as spiritual directors to people who are considering abortions, healing after an abortion, people who perform abortions, politicians and legislators who support abortion and those who oppose abortion. We are not married. We are celibate and we live in community. Our communities are called fraternities from the ancient wording in the rule, Fratres. We are itinerant. We move from place to place where there is a need to protect life. We have expanded our ministry to include the elderly, people living with disabilities, and anyone whose life is threatened. Our mission is to spread the Gospel of Life.

Our life is marked by an intense life of penance, prayer, solitude, silence, devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the Blessed Sacrament, manual labor, obedience, charity and detahcment from everthing that is not necessary for ministry. We do not own our houses, but live in homes that people lend us or rent to us. We share everything in common. No one has personal posessions. Each brother has a habit, two pairs of pants, underclothes, a toothbrush and nothing else. What is most beautiful about our life is that we depend totally on Divine Providence to provide for us. Some brothers hold positions that pay a salary, which is given freely to Respect Life Ministry. We do not run Respect Life ministries. We let each diocese do that. We come in and work with them under their direction and supervision, in keeping with St. Francis’ mandate that no brother is to seek an eclesial post or title. For example, my boss is a lay woman who runs the Respect Life Office, though I serve on the Board of Adivsors. Most of my day is spent in spiritual direction. I do retreats for those who need healing from the aftermath of abortion, men and women. We also take care of the babies when pareints choose to keep them. Many parents are very poor and they need to go to school or work. We provide training for them. While they are in our education program, we volunteer to go to the program and babysit in another space, while the parents are in class. We have a wonderful relationship with the young. We go around teaching lay people how to teach the young (teens) about the sacredness of life, chastity, marriage, family, aging, sickness and suffering.

We live in very small fraternities. Each community never has more than 10 brothers or less than 3. The idea is to avoid large fraternities so as not to become monastic. Francis did not intend to found an order of monks. The Brothers and Sisters of Penance were to be in the world, without belonging to the world.

There are many branches of the Brothers of Penance. My guess is that there are over 100 branches. Most are celibate, though the largest group is the SFO who are married. There are also female branches of the Order of Penance. Together, all of these branches compose the Third Order of St. Francis. It’s the third order, because it was founded third in chronological order.

That’s it in a nutshell. Hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[quacker66]

Men and women religious have been released from their solemn vows for centuries.

I also felt this priest should have requested that he be released from his vows, , married the woman, gotten a job and support his wife and child. The mother has had to fight for every bit of support she got as the child as maturing. And if the Church is going to allow vowed to remain in their religious community, then the Church needs to be prepared to support that child, and especially now, while he needs medical care for cancer. The Church should also be paying for the mother to remain home to care for the son. This is the compassionate thing to do.

I think too the Church needs to be upfront with religious and priests bearing children…because in the end it is the lay people that pay for the child’s upbringing.
And this is why I think the individual should be required to be laicized and take financial and personal responsibility for raising her/his children. Children need both parents. Children of single parents tend to have more problems as they are growing up and as adults. And the Church needs to recognize the importance of family.

I think the church needs to stand behind its rhetoric of the importance of the family, of life from conception to natural death.

I’m tired of Church coverups, excuses.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Dear Brother JReducation,
I hope I have been instrumental in opening a door facilitating more vocations. It reads a very worthy cause! Once again, thank you for your generosity.

‘The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd’ (Ecc 12:11)

 

[JReducation]

Men and women religious have been released from their solemn vows for centuries.

Men and women have been released fronm perpetual vows. That is common. Not solemn vows. That’s not that common.

I also felt this priest should have requested that he be released from his vows, , married the woman, gotten a job and support his wife and child.

For a marriage to be valid the parties have to enter into the marriage free of preasure. A shot gun wedding is rarely valid. No one in solemn vows can validly contract marriage. The solemn vows trump the wedding vows. That’s the difference between solemn vows and perpetual vows. Priesthood celibacy also trumps marriage. Unless you have a dispensation from both, solemn vows and the priesthood, there is no posibility of a valid marriage.

The mother has had to fight for every bit of support she got as the child as maturing.

The order did provide child support until the young man reached age 18.

And if the Church is going to allow vowed to remain in their religious community, then the Church needs to be prepared to support that child, and especially now, while he needs medical care for cancer. The Church should also be paying for the mother to remain home to care for the son. This is the compassionate thing to do.

There is no question that it may be compassionate. But the mother and her lawyers are saying that it’s a legal obligation, which is not true. No parent has a legal obligation to support an adult child. I will agree that we should be compassionate. You won’t get an argument from me on compassion.

I think too the Church needs to be upfront with religious and priests bearing children…because in the end it is the lay people that pay for the child’s upbringing.
And this is why I think the individual should be required to be laicized and take financial and personal responsibility for raising her/his children. Children need both parents. Children of single parents tend to have more problems as they are growing up and as adults. And the Church needs to recognize the importance of family.

The Church recognizes the importance of family. But the fact that a man is dismissed from his community and from the priesthood does not guarrantee that he will marry the mother of his child. When these things happen you can be sure that there is some serious dialogue with all parties involved to ensure that there is not hope for this marriage, before the Church allows a man to remain in ministry.

I think the church needs to stand behind its rhetoric of the importance of the family, of life from conception to natural death.

This is not an issue of the dignity of life from conception to the grave being threatened by an outsider. That’s the citation to which you’re referring.

This is the case of lawyers saying that the Church has a legal obligation that they cannot support in a court of law. So they take their case to the court of popular opinion where they can stir the emotions of the masses against the Church. Which is typical of lawyers when they can’t win a battle in court.

If this were handled in a qiet and humane way, they would probably get more assistance and support, with less resistance. But the lawyers are making a mess of this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Filioque]

I would have been better if they had suspended him when it happened 22 years ago, instead of covering it up and only suspending him when the cover up failed.

Well then just about every Religious Org, and Governmental/Political, as well as Private enterprize may have to be shut down. I find it a bit ironic that the “Catholic Priest Scandal” makes the headline news, and front pages, but the Story in the Christian Science Monitor, (Of all places) which outlines how the problem is more prevalant in Protestant Churches, but is under-reported because most Protestant Churches hire their own Pastors, and other staffers, and do not have a centralized authority can dismiss them, usually not telling the new Church about the molestations, or the affairs for fear of losing membership.

While I don’t support sin, or causing scandal from ones sins, I do think that the old ceremony of the Degredation of Clerics should be brought back… newadvent.org/cathen/04677c.htm It would stress the point a little more than just, “Suspending” a cleric.
once the crime has been verified.

I’m also glad for him that he was not an African American Baptist Preacher. At least according to an old co-worker who’s cousin, a “Preacher” was found dead in the trunk of his car, with his genetals cut off and placed in his mouth, for an affair." Charles told me, “That’s how Black Baptists take care of a Minister who molests, or forces himself on someone.” Although I think everywhere the Devil wants to tempt us to gravitate a far from God as possible, Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Pagan. The further we are dragged away from the Truths taught by Jesus, and the Apostles, the harder it is for us to humble ourselves and come back.

 

[JReducation]

While this is a sad story. I believe that it is equally sad that so many Catholics do not seem to understand the gravity and the binding effect of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and of solemn vows. Too many seem to believe that Holy Order and solemn vows of religious orders can simply be cast aside because someone sins. This is not true. Just like you can’t undo a marriage, because a married man or woman cheats. They are still married and the marriage continues to be valid, no matter how many times the spouse cheats.

Should a spouse, a friar, a priest cheat? Of course not. But are the sacraments of Holy Orders or Marriage undone and cast off because someone cheats? No. The church does not have that kind of authority. Do the vows of a religious who makes solemn vows cease to exist when he or she cheats? No. He is still bound by them. That’s why the Church allows very few religious orders to make solemn vows. In fact religous orders founded after the 1500s were not allowed to make solemn vows. They make perpetual vows. Solemn vows are very difficult to dispense with. They can be dispensed, but it’s not easy. You have to prove that the person did not intend to fulfill them when he made them. That’s very hard to prove. Or you have to prove that there was an impairment that made the vows null and void. But that impairement had to exist before the person made vows, just like the marriage vows.

Catholics need to understand that no matter how serious the sin, the work of God cannot be undone. This puts the Church authorities in a very difficult situation. You have to abide by the vows and the sacraments and at the same time, you have a sinful situation on your hands.

Fortunately, we can suspend immediately, without a hearing, when there is a case that involves children. But we didn’t have that before. That rule was just handed down from the Vatican this year by Pope Benedict.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Saint Francis of Assisi said one of the devil’s games is to set man against man.
We are encouraged to see one bad apple and think the whole crop rubbish.
But even that bad apple can have its uses.

Remember what Brother JReducation wrote earlier, yes there are sinners and some unrepentant souls in Religious Life; everyone has to carry the burden.
Because they are Religious does not set them above the rest of us (although some would have us think so). Neither does it make them easier to live with.

It is the gift given to an individual by God which is to be honoured.
We are children of a very wealthy Father, it makes us accountable, it’s not our money.

 

[Califman831]

too tired now to think of a way to blame Vatican II

 

[JReducation]

Saint Francis of Assisi said one of the devil’s games is to set man against man.
We are encouraged to see one bad apple and think the whole crop rubbish.
But even that bad apple can have its uses.

Remember what Brother JReducation wrote earlier, yes there are sinners and some unrepentant souls in Religious Life; everyone has to carry the burden.
Because they are Religious does not set them above the rest of us (although some would have us think so). Neither does it make them easier to live with.

It is the gift given to an individual by God which is to be honoured.
We are children of a very wealthy Father, it makes us accountable, it’s not our money.

There is wisdom in these words. I have been fortunate. I’ve lived in many religoius houses and have sin my fait share of human weakness, but have never had to live with this kind of sin. I can’t imagine the discomfort, the pain, the disappointment and the embarassment that those hwo live with a religious or priest in these circumstances must feel. I’m speaking from my experience, whenever I’m with someone who messes up, I feel uncomfortable and even responsble as evidenced by my own embarassment. I know that I’m ot guilty, but when you live in a brotherhood with someone and you have shared a life together, you develop a strong bond of family and these things hurt.

I lived in a house where a friar left wihout permission. I was devastated for a month. It was hard for us. Many people may think that we who are religious have no human feelings for our brothers. Nothing can be further from the truth. They are our brothers. Be they saints or sinners we love them, as in any family. It’s part of our gift or our vocation, whatever word you want to use.

The fact that we can’t just push a delete button and make the problem or the person go away, makes it more difficult. In this regard, I believe that there is part to religious life that the laity can learn from. It is this. In a family where there is real love, there is also real pain when one member sins… We must all have a greater awareness of the impact that our choices have on others who are closest to us. This is par of moral responsibility.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

My grandparents ‘had’ to get married, they were expecting my uncle at the time and the priest insisted on it. As I remember them, there was no love lost between them but it didn’t stop them having five kids. And I bet they’d be very surprised to hear that “getting married because you’re going to hae a child, when there is no love between the couple, is not a valid marriage”. Must tell my dad

That is considered a form of coercion, and in fact, many dioceses will not permit marriage whilst pregnant. Coercion renders the marriage invalid if found in investigation.

 

[JReducation]

That is considered a form of coercion, and in fact, many dioceses will not permit marriage whilst pregnant. Coercion renders the marriage invalid if found in investigation.

You are 100% correct. We have to be very caeful with the advise that we give and to whom we give it. While there are couples who are in love and because they do not wait unitl marriage, they end up pregnant, this does not mean that every couple who is expecting a child is in love. To insist that two people get married because “they have a duty to do so” is contrary to what the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that people ever have a duty to get married, become priests or religious. These are vocations, not duties. People must enter into them freely. Otherwise, it is coercion, not vocation and can be sufficient reason to declare the vows or the ordination, null and void.

In the case of marriage, this is the reason that the Church in many dioceses has a six month waiting period between the time that you approach your deacon or priest to get married and the time you actually marry. This allows you sufficient time to prepare for the marriage or to back out if you’re not sure.

In addition, to keep it in line with the topic of this thread. Even if it were easy to to dimiss a priest or religious from their state in life, it is no guarrantee that the person will marry and form a family with the mother and child. You cannot demand marriage. That’s a shot-gun wedding.

Finally, the Church discourages anyone who is expecting a child to marry out of duty to the child. The ideal is that children are born into an established marriage. However, it is never the dieal or even the greater good, to bring a child into a marriage that is not based on love, psychological maturity, and mutual complimentarity.

Because so many people do rush into marriage today, without thinking, our marriage tribunals are swamped with requests to have marriages reviewed for validity. This was not the case 50 years ago. People did not rush into marriage. Today it has become a social event. People rush in and rush out of marriage. Usually, the faster they get into it, the faster they get out of it too. It’s not a good plan at all.

I’m always amazed at how we want to use marriage as a solution to problems. I have argued this with people who say that we would have less pedophilia if priests were married. We would have less priests cheating if they were married. My question is always the same. When did marriage become a cure for either deviant behavior or promiscuity?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Holy Spirit’s gift of discernment is paramount,God only requires co-operation of our free will for the work of Grace.

 

[nlm]

While this is a sad story. I believe that it is equally sad that so many Catholics do not seem to understand the gravity and the binding effect of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and of solemn vows. Too many seem to believe that Holy Order and solemn vows of religious orders can simply be cast aside because someone sins. This is not true. Just like you can’t undo a marriage, because a married man or woman cheats. They are still married and the marriage continues to be valid, no matter how many times the spouse cheats.

Should a spouse, a friar, a priest cheat? Of course not. But are the sacraments of Holy Orders or Marriage undone and cast off because someone cheats? No. The church does not have that kind of authority. Do the vows of a religious who makes solemn vows cease to exist when he or she cheats? No. He is still bound by them. That’s why the Church allows very few religious orders to make solemn vows. In fact religous orders founded after the 1500s were not allowed to make solemn vows. They make perpetual vows. Solemn vows are very difficult to dispense with. They can be dispensed, but it’s not easy. You have to prove that the person did not intend to fulfill them when he made them. That’s very hard to prove. Or you have to prove that there was an impairment that made the vows null and void. But that impairement had to exist before the person made vows, just like the marriage vows.

Catholics need to understand that no matter how serious the sin, the work of God cannot be undone. This puts the Church authorities in a very difficult situation. You have to abide by the vows and the sacraments and at the same time, you have a sinful situation on your hands.

Fortunately, we can suspend immediately, without a hearing, when there is a case that involves children. But we didn’t have that before. That rule was just handed down from the Vatican this year by Pope Benedict.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Please help me understand why dispensation from solemn vows is more complicated than marriage vows for instance. It would seem as though there exist many reasons for the annulment of marriage vows.What makes solemn vows different?Both are a promise made before God. You said parish priests do not make vows…if I understood correctly. Do they not make the vow of chastity and obedience? I know a former priest who is now married and attends the local RCC and receives communion. Having been a member of the Cistercian order we had solemn vows and dispensation was possible and was indeed granted for reasons much less grave than this one.With all due respect, when I read all you have posted concerning the Franciscan order you seem to imply this order is very different from most. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.I was not aware of these apparently major differences from most other religious orders.The cistercians are an example of an order which has an additional vow, that being the vow of stability. The promise to live one’s life in one particular monastery. God bless. NLM

 

[JReducation]

Please help me understand why dispensation from solemn vows is more complicated than marriage vows for instance. It would seem as though there exist many reasons for the annulment of marriage vows.What makes solemn vows different?Both are a promise made before God. You said parish priests do not make vows…if I understood correctly. Do they not make the vow of chastity and obedience? I know a former priest who is now married and attends the local RCC and receives communion. Having been a member of the Cistercian order we had solemn vows and dispensation was possible and was indeed granted for reasons much less grave than this one.With all due respect, when I read all you have posted concerning the Franciscan order you seem to imply this order is very different from most. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.I was not aware of these apparently major differences from most other religious orders.The cistercians are an example of an order which has an additional vow, that being the vow of stability. The promise to live one’s life in one particular monastery. God bless. NLM

Your question is very valid and is not something that most people study in religious education. It’s not really something that affect the majority of Catholics. Let me try this one point at a time.

1. There are solemn vows, simple vows and promises.
2. A person may make a solemn vow, simple vow or a promise of celibacy (let’s use that one), but they are not equally binding. A solemn vow of celibacy trums the sacrament of marriage. You cannot validly attempt marraige if you are in a solemn vow of celibacy. If you are in a simple vow of celibacy or a promise of celibacy and you attempt marriage without a dispensation to marry, the marriage is illegal, but valid and binding. Not so in solemn vows of celibacy. There is no marriage without the dispensation.
3. To get a dispensation from a solemn vow, a lot depends on the order which you belong. Certain orders, such as Franciscans, have a rule that is sealed by a papal bull. Therefore, the rule cannot be changed. In the Franciscan rule it says that “it is never lawful for a brother to leave the order.” St. Francis wrote this into the rule and Pope Honorius sealed it so that it cannot be changed. The Franciscans cannot rewrite it. Only the pope can do so. No pope has ever wanted to rewrite or edit the Rule of St. Francis. This makes it very difficult for a Franciscan to get a dispensation from the vow of celibacy. Only the Pope can grant it. In other orders, the Major Superior can grant it. Does that help?
4. Popes have granted dispensations to Franciscans, but they have insisted that the friar go through an annulment process. This means that they must prove that the vow was not valid. To do so they have to show that they never had the intention to observe the vow when they made it. The friar has to put this in writing and swear to it in front of a tribunal. The other way around this is for the order to prove that the friar did not have the maturity or the psychological requirements to make such a vow, even though he had the best of intentions. Then the vow is ruled invalid and the dispensation is granted.
5. There is another way out. You can ask for a suspension of the vow. This means that you can leave an order that has solemn vows. You can get married and live within the laity. But you must return to your religious family if your wife dies and you are now available to fulfill the commitment that you made. I don’t know the case of the Cistersian in your parish. He can have been granted a dispensation by his Major Superior or he may have been granted a suspension of his vows. In either case, the external effect is the same, but the canonical effect is not.

TO BE CONTINUED

 

[JReducation]

CONCLUSIOIN

1. Now to your other question. Secular priests and diocesan priests do not make vows of any kind. They make two promises. Before they are ordained deacons they must promise to obey their bishop and they must promise to live a celibate life. Church law says that only the pope can dispense them from these promises. But this is Church law. It is not a holy rule. The law can be changed and a bishop can be granted this authority. Currently, the law says that only the pope can dispense with these promises. The difference between their promise of celibacy and the vow of celibacy is that it does not include community living. The secular priest promises not to marry. But he does not promise to take on a community as his new family, nor does he belong to a community. He does not promise to follow the spiritual guidance of any religious superior. He promises to obey his bishop. But the bishop does not qualify as a religoius superior. He does not guide the man’s spiritual life. Each priest follow his own spiritual journey. Diocesan or secular priests do not share a common spirituality, as do members of religious communities. That’s because they make a promise, not a vow, so they are not consecrated to a particular way of life or bond to obey a particular spirituality or rule of life. They can own property, make money, inherit money, live where they want to live, come and go at their leisure, take expensive vacations, charge for their services and keep their money just like any secular man. They even have to apply for a job like other secular men. When a post becomes open in a diocese, they go through the personell office, just like any other secular man. The pastor has to agree to hire them.

This is not the case in a religous community. In a Benedictine community all of the monks belong to the same house, because they have a vow of stability. In a Franciscan community the house belongs to the order and the friars cannot reject any one who is assigned to the house. This is part of the vow of poverty. No one owns the house, so no one has to apply to live there. The superior makes the assignment and that’s it. And no one has to stay put in any house, because they do not own it and they do not have a vow of stability.

In a nutshell, the Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, and Basilians each have very different criteria and law that govern them and govern the process of entering or leaving the order.

Other religous communities do one of two things. They either follow one of the rules above or they don’t have a rule at all. They write their own statutes. By doing so, they can also change those statutes democratially. The exempt orders: Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, and Basilians cannot change their rule without papal intervention. That’s where the complications come in.

The Carmelites have a very short and very simple rule. Much of what I’ve said above is not in their rule. This is not a problem for them. The Benedictines have a very detailed rule and most of these issues were addressed by St. Benedict and he left very specific directions on how to deal with it. The Franciscans have a rule that leaves a great deal to the pope to decide. Francis even wrote some things in his rule which he reserved only to himself to change and commanded his successors under pain of mortal sin not to disobey him., because these point were revealed to him by Christ himself. Pope Honorius approved and sealed these rules. Pope Benedict or any reigning pope can overrule the rule. But no one has ever done that.

Pope Paul VI was asked by the Major Superors for permission to grant dispensations. Pope Pual VI said no. Pope John Paul was also approached and he said that the rule was very clear and that he would not change it. Pope Benedict has never been asked, because he beat the friars to it. He said that the rule of St. Francis was revealed to St. Francis and must be followed as is.

For 800 years, from 1209 to 2009, we have been bound by the same rule. We can change only those things that the rule says we can change according to the needs of time and place. Whatever Francis said is absolute, cannot be changed without the pope. That’s why dispensations from our order are very hard to get. You have to get the pope to grant them. Popes don’t like doing that. They have done it. But they don’t do it quickly or happily. My guess is that they don’t want to overrule St. Francis where he says that “the brothers may never leave this brotherhood.” The popes want to be sure that the reason is so legitimate that Francis would approve. I"m guessing here. I’ve never spoken to a pope abouat it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nlm]

CONCLUSIOIN

1. Now to your other question. Secular priests and diocesan priests do not make vows of any kind. They make two promises. Before they are ordained deacons they must promise to obey their bishop and they must promise to live a celibate life. Church law says that only the pope can dispense them from these promises. But this is Church law. It is not a holy rule. The law can be changed and a bishop can be granted this authority. Currently, the law says that only the pope can dispense with these promises. The difference between their promise of celibacy and the vow of celibacy is that it does not include community living. The secular priest promises not to marry. But he does not promise to take on a community as his new family, nor does he belong to a community. He does not promise to follow the spiritual guidance of any religious superior. He promises to obey his bishop. But the bishop does not qualify as a religoius superior. He does not guide the man’s spiritual life. Each priest follow his own spiritual journey. Diocesan or secular priests do not share a common spirituality, as do members of religious communities. That’s because they make a promise, not a vow, so they are not consecrated to a particular way of life or bond to obey a particular spirituality or rule of life. They can own property, make money, inherit money, live where they want to live, come and go at their leisure, take expensive vacations, charge for their services and keep their money just like any secular man. They even have to apply for a job like other secular men. When a post becomes open in a diocese, they go through the personell office, just like any other secular man. The pastor has to agree to hire them.

This is not the case in a religous community. In a Benedictine community all of the monks belong to the same house, because they have a vow of stability. In a Franciscan community the house belongs to the order and the friars cannot reject any one who is assigned to the house. This is part of the vow of poverty. No one owns the house, so no one has to apply to live there. The superior makes the assignment and that’s it. And no one has to stay put in any house, because they do not own it and they do not have a vow of stability.

In a nutshell, the Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, and Basilians each have very different criteria and law that govern them and govern the process of entering or leaving the order.

Other religous communities do one of two things. They either follow one of the rules above or they don’t have a rule at all. They write their own statutes. By doing so, they can also change those statutes democratially. The exempt orders: Franciscans, Carmelites, Augustinians, and Basilians cannot change their rule without papal intervention. That’s where the complications come in.

The Carmelites have a very short and very simple rule. Much of what I’ve said above is not in their rule. This is not a problem for them. The Benedictines have a very detailed rule and most of these issues were addressed by St. Benedict and he left very specific directions on how to deal with it. The Franciscans have a rule that leaves a great deal to the pope to decide. Francis even wrote some things in his rule which he reserved only to himself to change and commanded his successors under pain of mortal sin not to disobey him., because these point were revealed to him by Christ himself. Pope Honorius approved and sealed these rules. Pope Benedict or any reigning pope can overrule the rule. But no one has ever done that.

Pope Paul VI was asked by the Major Superors for permission to grant dispensations. Pope Pual VI said no. Pope John Paul was also approached and he said that the rule was very clear and that he would not change it. Pope Benedict has never been asked, because he beat the friars to it. He said that the rule of St. Francis was revealed to St. Francis and must be followed as is.

For 800 years, from 1209 to 2009, we have been bound by the same rule. We can change only those things that the rule says we can change according to the needs of time and place. Whatever Francis said is absolute, cannot be changed without the pope. That’s why dispensations from our order are very hard to get. You have to get the pope to grant them. Popes don’t like doing that. They have done it. But they don’t do it quickly or happily. My guess is that they don’t want to overrule St. Francis where he says that “the brothers may never leave this brotherhood.” The popes want to be sure that the reason is so legitimate that Francis would approve. I"m guessing here. I’ve never spoken to a pope abouat it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Let me start by thanking you for the wonderful explanation. It has shed much light on your order among other things. I was a Trappist. We lived by the Rule of Saint Benedict. We had solemn vows.
Yes, parish priests are not bound by a promise or vow of poverty. I know some very wealthy parish priest. Some have real estate dealings while others have tried their hand at politics,.Others have taught at universities. You are also correct in saying that they charge for their services. I mentioned that in a thread one time and was almost told I was making that up.Thank you again. God Bless. NLM

 

[JReducation]

Let me start by thanking you for the wonderful explanation. It has shed much light on your order among other things. I was a Trappist. We lived by the Rule of Saint Benedict. We had solemn vows.
Yes, parish priests are not bound by a promise or vow of poverty. I know some very wealthy parish priest. Some have real estate dealings while others have tried their hand at politics,.Others have taught at universities. You are also correct in saying that they charge for their services. I mentioned that in a thread one time and was almost told I was making that up.Thank you again. God Bless. NLM

I know exactly what you’re talking about. I have a very good friend who is a diocesan priest. He’s a wonderful pastor and a holy man. He is an only son. His father died, leaving half of his assets to the son and the other half to the widow. The father was involved in some way with one of the big paint companies. In any case, he was very wealthy. Now, the son is very wealthy.

The first thing that the son did was to purchase a condo. He’s thinking that when he retires he’ll live there rather than a nursing home, which is what most diocesan priests can afford with the diocesan retirement plan. Well, all heck broke lose because Father purchased a condo on Miami Beach. No matter how much I tried to explain to people that he can have money and that he can spend his father’s money without intervention from the diocese, people still want to have a say on how much, when and how the priest spends money. But these same people don’t want the priest telling them that they cannot vote for someone who supports abortion. It’s almost a one way street in some people’s heads. They can tell the priest what he can or cannot do with his money or how much he can have, but he cannot tell them what is moral or immoral. God help us all!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nlm]

I know exactly what you’re talking about. I have a very good friend who is a diocesan priest. He’s a wonderful pastor and a holy man. He is an only son. His father died, leaving half of his assets to the son and the other half to the widow. The father was involved in some way with one of the big paint companies. In any case, he was very wealthy. Now, the son is very wealthy.

The first thing that the son did was to purchase a condo. He’s thinking that when he retires he’ll live there rather than a nursing home, which is what most diocesan priests can afford with the diocesan retirement plan. Well, all heck broke lose because Father purchased a condo on Miami Beach. No matter how much I tried to explain to people that he can have money and that he can spend his father’s money without intervention from the diocese, people still want to have a say on how much, when and how the priest spends money. But these same people don’t want the priest telling them that they cannot vote for someone who supports abortion. It’s almost a one way street in some people’s heads. They can tell the priest what he can or cannot do with his money or how much he can have, but he cannot tell them what is moral or immoral. God help us all!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You provide an excellent example with that story. I think the other problem with a priest spending money this way is the following. I am guessing that most Roman Catholics, if asked, would say that priests do have a vow of poverty.I also think that most people in a parish think that the priest lives on his salary from the church and that’s it. If that is the case, and he lives in a palace, then just how much money is he making becomes the question in people’s minds.I have heard these arguments myself on many occasions. Let me ask you this question. How would the “front line” Roman Catholic acquire the accurate information concerning these financial issues? Where would they go to ask? NLM

 

[JReducation]

You provide an excellent example with that story. I think the other problem with a priest spending money this way is the following. I am guessing that most Roman Catholics, if asked, would say that priests do have a vow of poverty.I also think that most people in a parish think that the priest lives on his salary from the church and that’s it. If that is the case, and he lives in a palace, then just how much money is he making becomes the question in people’s minds.I have heard these arguments myself on many occasions. Let me ask you this question. How would the “front line” Roman Catholic acquire the accurate information concerning these financial issues? Where would they go to ask? NLM

That’s a very good question. If they are asking about diocesan priests, the best place to ask is the priest themselves. If they are asking about religoius, they can ask any religious.

I say this only because every diocese does things differently. In the diocese where I’m currently stationed diocesan priests are self-employed. They are not employed by the diocese or the parish. The parish pays them a salary, but as an independent contractor. This means that the priest pays taxes, pays his full FICA, his car, auto insurance, personal gas, food and all of his personal property (TV, cable, cell, computer, etc).

In some dioceses secular priests are on the diocesan payroll. However, their salaries are lower, because the diocese pays for 1/2 of their FICA.

Religious who are employed by the diocese are in a different situation. The diocese does not offer us retirement, medical insurance or salaries. They pay the religious order a stipend for a fixed number of religious. If the order assigns more religious to the house, that becomes the order’s financial responsibility. For example, in one parish that we staff, the diocese pays for one brother (the parrochial administrator). There are four of seven of our brothers who live and work in that parish, becasue the constitution says that no friar can live alone. The other three who work at the parish do not bring in any income from the diocese. The stipend that the diocese pays for the one must be shared by all. The order has to pay the diocese rent for the three that live in the house. The diocese only provides housing for one. The diocese also provides car expenses for one. There is only one car at that house for four friars. But the expense has to be divided by four and 1/4 is covered by the parish.

What happens in this case is that I used to be a high school principal. When I was a principal I earned a salary. I live in a fraternity made up of the other three. We are about four miles from the parish. The community would take some money from my salary and give it to the friars at the parish. The rest of my salary was used by the three of us who live at this house.

I’m no longer a high school pincipal, since I have cancer and have no idea how long I’ll be around. But currently, we are completely subsidized by the order, because all of us work for Respect Life and this office pays not salaries or stipends. So we bed for our food and rent money. But God is very good and we get something. It’s really funny, because God waits until we’re down to our last $10.00 and then someone will hand us some money. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nlm]

That’s a very good question. If they are asking about diocesan priests, the best place to ask is the priest themselves. If they are asking about religoius, they can ask any religious.

I say this only because every diocese does things differently. In the diocese where I’m currently stationed diocesan priests are self-employed. They are not employed by the diocese or the parish. The parish pays them a salary, but as an independent contractor. This means that the priest pays taxes, pays his full FICA, his car, auto insurance, personal gas, food and all of his personal property (TV, cable, cell, computer, etc).

In some dioceses secular priests are on the diocesan payroll. However, their salaries are lower, because the diocese pays for 1/2 of their FICA.

Religious who are employed by the diocese are in a different situation. The diocese does not offer us retirement, medical insurance or salaries. They pay the religious order a stipend for a fixed number of religious. If the order assigns more religious to the house, that becomes the order’s financial responsibility. For example, in one parish that we staff, the diocese pays for one brother (the parrochial administrator). There are four of seven of our brothers who live and work in that parish, becasue the constitution says that no friar can live alone. The other three who work at the parish do not bring in any income from the diocese. The stipend that the diocese pays for the one must be shared by all. The order has to pay the diocese rent for the three that live in the house. The diocese only provides housing for one. The diocese also provides car expenses for one. There is only one car at that house for four friars. But the expense has to be divided by four and 1/4 is covered by the parish.

What happens in this case is that I used to be a high school principal. When I was a principal I earned a salary. I live in a fraternity made up of the other three. We are about four miles from the parish. The community would take some money from my salary and give it to the friars at the parish. The rest of my salary was used by the three of us who live at this house.

I’m no longer a high school pincipal, since I have cancer and have no idea how long I’ll be around. But currently, we are completely subsidized by the order, because all of us work for Respect Life and this office pays not salaries or stipends. So we bed for our food and rent money. But God is very good and we get something. It’s really funny, because God waits until we’re down to our last $10.00 and then someone will hand us some money. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Once again for your explanation. As Trappists we had no link at all to our diocese except for the fact the Bishop liked the idea of having us within his diocese. There were no financial links at all. with the diocese as we did not work in any parish. We lived from the labor of our hands as per "The Rule ". I am sorry to hear of your health issues. I will include you in my daily prayers. God Bless. NLM