Celibacy

[JReducation]

Brother, I respectfully disagree with the way you have put this. Yes, every Priest is called to one Priesthood of Christ - however, it is not one Church with three different heads. It is one priesthood that has schism’d perhaps irreconcilably. Yes, some may wish for these Churches to come back together but right now - they are not in communion with each other - although they may be invited to take Eucharist. I am speaking strictly on theory and certainly hope I am in no way being disrespectful - but that is what I see - so at this point comparing Eastern and Roman is just like comparing Anglican and Roman or Anglican and Eastern. Schisms happen.

Wait a minute. I think there is some confusion here. The Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches are not the same Churches. All of them are truly apostolic and all have have is called Communioin In Sacris, meaning communion in sacrament. In other words, their priests all participate in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Now to the other point, the Eastern Churches are not Roman Catholic, but they are Catholic and in full communion with Rome. They have their own traditions and their own canon law, that’s why they have a married and a celibate clergy. They evolved separate, but parallel to the Roman Church. They are not in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Their patriarchs vote in the election of the pope. They can be elected to the papacy. In fact, some Eastern Catholics have been popes.

The Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches share the same history and the same liturgies. We say liturgies, because each Church celebrates liturgy differently. Aside from the Eastern Churches, which are often call Uniate Churches. These Catholics are not Roman Catholic, but they are truly Catholic.

The Orthodox Churches are in schism with the Roman Church. However, Paul VI and John Paul II lifted all the excommunications and they lifted the excommunication against us. Both sides lifted the anathemas against each other. That’s why we often see the Holy Father with the different heads of the different Orthodox Churches. They are also referred to as “Your Holiness.”

All of these Churches, because there are more than one, have valid and licit sacraments, meaning that they can legally celebrate the sacraments. Catholics, Roman or Eastern, are discouraged from receiving sacraments in the Orthodox Churches, but if they do, the sacrament is valid and legal. Their priests are in schism, but they have full faculties and are neither excommunicated nor suspended. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that they have a place in the Universal Church.

I think that you may have confused the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches. They have the same traditions, celebrate liturgy the same way, use the same languages, have the same organization, but they are juridically separate. As the schisms occurred between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, almost every Eastern Church had a remnant that remained in communion with the Church of Rome while maintaining their autonomy in liturgy, language, laws, government, traditions and even catechism. The catechism part has to to be explained, but that would be for another thread. Suffice it to say that they explain dogma and doctrine differently, but share the same beliefs. Our catechisms use a Thomistic model and they use a mystical model.

The Eastern Catholics can be members of Roman Catholic religious orders and still celebrate the liturgy using their form and their laws. My order has at least one obedience that is Eastern Catholic. We may have more, but I am not sure. We don’t mix the friars, because it throws things off. You can’t have two liturgies in one religious house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BLeev]

No one really lives out their “celibacy” as all celibacy is, is not marrying. A promise of Celibacy is a promise to ones bishop and the Church not to marry.

If this is all you see celibacy as then you have a very narrow understanding of it. You are merely viewing it from a negative aspect which is really so inspiring to mention on a vocations thread to say that it is no more than just a life of not being married. It is not just a promise to one’s bishop and the Church.

Sacerdotalis Caelibatus #13 The sum of these objections would appear to drown out the solemn and age-old voice of the pastors of the Church and of the masters of the spiritual life, and to nullify the living testimony of the countless ranks of saints and faithful ministers of God, for whom celibacy has been the object of the total and generous gift of themselves to the mystery of Christ, as well as its outward sign. But no, this voice, still strong and untroubled, is the voice not just of the past but of the present too. Ever intent on the realities of today, we cannot close our eyes to this magnificent, wonderful reality: that there are still today in God’s holy Church, in every part of the world where she exercises her beneficent influence, great numbers of her ministers – subdeacons, deacons, priests and bishops – who are living their life of voluntary and consecrated celibacy in the most exemplary way.

Note: Celibacy is mention as a gift of self, not a negative understanding which is only focussed on the lack of marriage.
Note: This life of celibacy is seen as a consecration of the deacon, priest or bishop. Again no focus on the negative.

religious makes no such thing. A religious makes the evangelical counsels, the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.

Uh, yeah you do. I know that these are ‘vows’ but when it comes to celibacy, it’s celibacy. It is a false dichotomy that you and others are spreading that is attempting to explain the vow of chastity as something different than celibacy.

A secular priest who contracts a marriage in the Catholic Church but fails to disclose that he is a priest would contract a valid though illict marriage. A religious who attempted the same thing would have an invalid and illicty marriage.

:tsktsk:This is not true! The Code of Canon Law, Canon 1087, under the section of ‘Specific Diriment Impediments’ says, “Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.”

I find it funny here how non-religiious love to argue points of religious life with actual religious living that life.

Ok, I find it funny too, that you a religious, did not know that a priest is not canonically free to get married. If he attempts marriage it is invalid, end of story. Guess that might explain your other misconceptions about diocesan priests and the celibacy they live.

And what are you trying to do by making a point like that in the end, saying you are a religious and we are not? This does not mean that a lay person can’t know and understand doctrine and understand the truth. So by making this comment are you making your authority over the rest of us felt? That’s so humble! I didn’t realize religious were infallible - we should let Benedict know.

 

[BLeev]

Ok … so there seem to be a few brothers a few brothers here. At least one of you (JReducation) I have been going back and forth on. There is either a problem in how I am trying to explain my point or there is a problem in me trying to figure out what many of our religious are saying. So here is my question for them only.

How do you explain your life of chastity? As a religious, what is it? How is it lived out? You live chastely through the vow you have taken - so how is that distinguished in comparison with celibacy, or is it?

I am just beside myself because it seems like there are comments making it sound like the celibacy of a religious (priest or not) is different than a diocesan priest. If celibacy is not just celibacy in the end - why is that so?

 

[joandarc2008]

Wait a minute. I think there is some confusion here. The Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches are not the same Churches. All of them are truly apostolic and all have have is called Communioin In Sacris, meaning communion in sacrament. In other words, their priests all participate in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Now to the other point, the Eastern Churches are not Roman Catholic, but they are Catholic and in full communion with Rome. They have their own traditions and their own canon law, that’s why they have a married and a celibate clergy. They evolved separate, but parallel to the Roman Church. They are not in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Their patriarchs vote in the election of the pope. They can be elected to the papacy. In fact, some Eastern Catholics have been popes.

The Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches share the same history and the same liturgies. We say liturgies, because each Church celebrates liturgy differently. Aside from the Eastern Churches, which are often call Uniate Churches. These Catholics are not Roman Catholic, but they are truly Catholic.

The Orthodox Churches are in schism with the Roman Church. However, Paul VI and John Paul II lifted all the excommunications and they lifted the excommunication against us. Both sides lifted the anathemas against each other. That’s why we often see the Holy Father with the different heads of the different Orthodox Churches. They are also referred to as “Your Holiness.”

All of these Churches, because there are more than one, have valid and licit sacraments, meaning that they can legally celebrate the sacraments. Catholics, Roman or Eastern, are discouraged from receiving sacraments in the Orthodox Churches, but if they do, the sacrament is valid and legal. Their priests are in schism, but they have full faculties and are neither excommunicated nor suspended. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that they have a place in the Universal Church.

I think that you may have confused the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches. They have the same traditions, celebrate liturgy the same way, use the same languages, have the same organization, but they are juridically separate. As the schisms occurred between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, almost every Eastern Church had a remnant that remained in communion with the Church of Rome while maintaining their autonomy in liturgy, language, laws, government, traditions and even catechism. The catechism part has to to be explained, but that would be for another thread. Suffice it to say that they explain dogma and doctrine differently, but share the same beliefs. Our catechisms use a Thomistic model and they use a mystical model.

The Eastern Catholics can be members of Roman Catholic religious orders and still celebrate the liturgy using their form and their laws. My order has at least one obedience that is Eastern Catholic. We may have more, but I am not sure. We don’t mix the friars, because it throws things off. You can’t have two liturgies in one religious house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You are right - I did confuse the Eastern and Orthodox - thank you for the correction - this is how I learn.

 

[joandarc2008]

OK, everyone - please forgive me again for asking the stupid question. Aren’t we as Catholics - Eastern and Roman- laity, clergy, and religious alike all called to Chastity but only some called to celibacy?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Uh, yeah you do. I know that these are ‘vows’ but when it comes to celibacy, it’s celibacy. It is a false dichotomy that you and others are spreading that is attempting to explain the vow of chastity as something different than celibacy.

You are wrong.

Celibacy and Chastity are complementary and go together but when I made my vows it was a vow of Chastity, not once was celibacy mentioned.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I
Ok, I find it funny too, that you a religious, did not know that a priest is not canonically free to get married. If he attempts marriage it is invalid, end of story. Guess that might explain your other misconceptions about diocesan priests and the celibacy they live.

Never said he was free to canonically get married.

Secular priests and religious are two different things, I do not see your need to make them one.

In another thread you mistaken say that a secular priest is consecrated, he is not, he is ordained, a religious is consecrated.

 

[BLeev]

You are wrong.

Celibacy and Chastity are complementary and go together but when I made my vows it was a vow of Chastity, not once was celibacy mentioned.

So you don’t consider yourself celibate? Your argument for this seems kind of silly. You are saying that you think you are not celibate because your vow of chastity didn’t mention the word celibate? So, for example, if you were to see a sign on a bench that read ‘Wet Paint’ would you know what it was communicating or would you need to see a sign that said ‘You Should Not Sit Here Because This Paint Is Wet And It Would Ruin Your Clothes If You Did.’ I would want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re smart enough to know why they wrote the ‘Wet Paint’ sign and that you understand the meaning and significance of what the person is communicating. Yet you sound as though you convinced you are not a celibate even though you made a vow of chastity. The life of celibacy is implicit to that vow just as the message the person wants to convey is in a sign that has two words on it. I would also want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew you promising to be celibate as you made your vow of chastity. Simply, what is this vow without a life of celibacy?

Brother you are mistaken and it saddens me that any religious who has made vows has difficulty seeing this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, CCC 915 “Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.” If you don’t practice chastity in celibacy as the CCC says, what do you practice it in?

How can you say that you never made a promise of celibacy in your vow of chastity. What do you call yourself if you do not call yourself a celibate? Not to frustrate you but how do you live chastely if you are not living celibately? I do not understand.

 

[BLeev]

Never said he was free to canonically get married.

Secular priests and religious are two different things, I do not see your need to make them one.

In another thread you mistaken say that a secular priest is consecrated, he is not, he is ordained, a religious is consecrated.

CCC1535 Through these sacraments those already consecrated by Baptism and Confirmation for the common priesthood of all the faithful can receive particular consecrations. Those who receive the sacrament of Holy Orders are consecrated in Christ’s name “to feed the Church by the word and grace of God.” On their part, “Christian spouses are fortified and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and dignity of their state by a special sacrament.”

And you were wrong about a priest getting married. You said that that priest could enter into an illicit but valid marriage and that is saying that he is canonically free to marry. I suggest you don’t use examples that have terms you not familiar with. This is what was said by you - I only pointed it out. Anyone who goes back and reads it can see that.

Priests are not necessarily consecrated religious but they are consecrated through Orders in their being ordained a priest. If you have ever seen an ordination the priest’s hands are consecrated with Chrism. This is a real consecration. I am not trying to make them one. If you read the whole thread there are some that are trying to say that celibacy for a diocesan priest is different that the chastity of a religious priest. This I am trying to show is one and the same thing. I know that there are many differences between a religious priest and a diocesan priest beyond that - but the vow chastity and celibacy are promises or vows to the same thing.

 

[JReducation]

The celibacy that a secular cleric promises has an overlap with the vow of chastity, but also has its own quality, if you will. Before I continued, I just want to explain why I say “secular” instead of diocesan. Not all secular priests belong to a diocese. Some belong to societies such as: SSPX, FSSP, Maryknoll, Missionhurst, Opus Dei, etc. The majority of secular clerics belong to a diocese. We call them diocesan deacons, priests or bishops.

I think we’re mixing up the meaning of our words and unfortunately, the writings of the Church today are not helping. In their effort to explain something so that everyone understands it, they have have used words interchangeably and that seems to be causing more confusing.

Let’s begin with celibacy. The external sign of celibacy is that the person does not marry. There is an unseen or spiritual side of celibacy. The person voluntarilly promises to live this way to serve God’s people as deacon, priest or bishop. Accepting this call to live this way he is also anticipating life in the Kingdom of Heaven where men and women are not given to each other in marriage. But the greatest motivation here is that he does this freely for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. We can’t see any of this, except that he does not get married.

Canonically, a when a secular man is ordained, just a few minutes before, he is interrogated and he is asked to promise celibacy. He is not asked to make a solemn vow. There is a conical difference between a vow and a promise. But that’s a topic for a thread on canon law. I don’t think that we have one on CAF. You’ll just have to look it up in canon law. Again, the exeternal effects between the vow and the promise look quite similar, neither a religious nor a secular cleric get married. Therefore, they are both celibate men. They should also be chaste men, because all men and women, even married ones, are called to chastity.

In the old language this was a little more clear, because the word that was used was not celibacy, but continence. Continence implied that the person took on a discipline of self-mastery over the senses for the love of God and his people and for the sake of the Kingdom. All that has not been changed. The word was changed. That just added to the confusion.

Let me see if I can fit this into one post. A religious does not make a vow of celibacy. We make a vow of chastity. The vow of chastity has several elements to it that overlap with the promise of celibacy that a secular cleric makes. But it also has other elements that are not found in the call or vocation of the secular cleric.

The overlapping parts are that we all live celibate lives. We all respond to our call out of love for God and neighbor and for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Now come the other elements that make the differences.

1. It is a vow, not a promise.
2. It is an act of consecration. A deacon, priest or bishop does not make an act of consecration. When the Church says that those who receive Holy Orders consecrate their lives, she is using the term to mean that they give their lives. When the Church uses the term consecration toi refer to religious, she means that they give their lives and that the state in which they live will never come to an end. The religious will continue to live this life in heaven. Whereas, there is no need for a deacon, priest or bishop in heaven, becaues the Church triumphant does not need their ministry. The consecation in the case of the ordained comes to an end at death. No one celebrates mass in heaven. The consecration of the religiuos does not end at death, because in heaven he or she continues to live in intimacy with Christ and cotinues to live a life of eternal praise and continues to live within the perfection of charity. There is the difference here. That’s why the law speaks about ordination. Though in theological writings the word consecration is often used interchangeably. Personally, I believe it confuses rather than help. Ordination is very clear, to be called forth and then sent out. Yes, the hand of the priest are consecrated. But let us remember that deacons, priests and bishops aer all ordained. It is only the hands of the priest that are consecrated. In other words, the person is not consecrated, the person is ordained…

Let me continued with chastity on another post, because I’ve run out of room here.

BRB

 

[JReducation]

As I said before, there is a legal difference between a vow and a promise. Actually, there is also a theological difference. You can find it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The explanation is long as heck. It goes into the different kinds of vows: simple and solemn and the different kinds of promises, etc.

So Chastity is a vow, the consecration is different, because it does not come to an end at the person’s death. But there is more to it.

The person who makes the vow of chastity in a religious community if giving up his/her right to a belong to a biological family, not only the right to have a biological family. This is also part of the vow. You no longer belong to your family of birth. You are bound by the vow of chastity to a new family, which is your religious family. There is a giving of yourself in mind, body and spirit to your brothers or sisters. This is not part of the promise of celibacy made by secular clerics. They continue to belong to their biological families and they do not belong to a religious family. That’s why you will often see retired diocesan priests living with a family member. Whereas an elderly or sick religious will live and die with his brothers, because he has no family to go to, even if he has 10 biological brothers. The community dimension of the vow of chastity is not found in the promise of celibacy, nor in the chastity that everyone is called to live. Not everyone is bound by a vow to surrender his entire person to a community, as one surrenders to the care and love of a family. The religious does this.

Then there is the covenant dimension of the vow of chastity. Among religious women we often hear them referred to as brides of Christ. Actually that’s an easy allegory used to explain something that is much deeper. In the vow of chastity, which is where religious women allegedly marry Christ, what actually happens is that the religious enters into a covenant relationship with Christ, just as Christ has with the Church, so that the religious belongs solely to Christ. Here is another difference, the religious, even if he is a priest, does not belong to the Church. A diocesan priest belongs to the Church. He takes his identity from his priesthood. A religious takes his identity from his vows, even one who is ordained. You are a religious first, then a priest, teacher, doctor, whatever.

This means that through the vow of chastity, the religious enters into a covenant with Christ where he or she lives solely for Christ, BUT he must do so in communion with brothers that came before him, those that are living now, and those that will come. The vow of chastity binds him to a family and outside of space and time. For example, I live my life for Christ in communion with our Holy Father Francis and the first 11 brothers who founded our order in 1209 and in communion with every other brother and sister who will join the Franciscan family in the future. The vow transcends space and time. That’s what allows the religious to continue living it in heaven. Because in heaven, that’s how we are all going to live. We are all going to live with Christ, in Christ, but in communion with each other, without all the other things that are part of being a Christian here. We don’t promise celibacy, because it is a given that if we belong in heart, mind, body and soul to our religious community, then we will be continent.

You can make a vow of chastity privately. Many saints did, such as St. Agnes or St. Cecilia. But what they were really promising was continence. a good topic for the spirituality forum.

For example, if you joined my community after 8 years of formation, you make solemn vows. I knelt before my superior and put my hands into his, as a sign of the covenant and I said:

“I, Brother Jason Richard, vow and promise to Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Holy Father Francis and to your brother, to observe the Rule of the Friars Minor living in obedience to our Holy Father Francis and all of his successors, without any property of my own or in common, and in chastity so as to live in eternal communion with the saints from this day forward. And I vow and promise to be faithful to the Gospel until death.”

Observe that we say, “vow and promise”. We make both, a vow and a promise. It’s a double commitment. But also noticed that we vow to observe the rule. Notice that the method in which we observe the rule is by living in obedience, poverty and chastity. They are not separated as three distinct commitments. Together they form one commitment. Chastity is inseparable from poverty and obedience. If you do separate it, then you do not have religious life.

While everyone is called to live the evangelical counsels, religious are the only ones who vow to live them and put their souls at risk if they fail to live them. How do we put our souls at risk? If a secular priest commits a sin against purity, it’s a sin and a breach of the promise that he made to God. There’s no argument there. If a religious commits a sin against purity, it counts as a sin against purity and as a very grave sin against the covenant between him and God, and between him and his brothers. He must confess it just that way. I can’t just confess impure acts. The secular priest does not have the covenant dimension or the community dimension.

Does this help clarify how the promise of celibacy made by a secular cleric and the vow of chastity made by a religious are overlapping, but different in some very essential respects?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BLeev]

Does this help clarify how the promise of celibacy made by a secular cleric and the vow of chastity made by a religious are overlapping, but different in some very essential respects?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It most certainly does. I seriously thank you for spending the time you did in putting these last two posts together. What you have said in these last couple posts have really clarified what we’ve been talking about. I apologize to you and anyone in here if it seems that I have been too forward with my questions or remarks but I felt that this was such an important topic, especially for people in discernment, that I wanted major clarification for mine and for their sake at what was getting thrown out here. So if I got under anyone’s skin - sorry.

And again - thank you.

 

[curlycool89]

The person who makes the vow of chastity in a religious community if giving up his/her right to a belong to a biological family, not only the right to have a biological family. This is also part of the vow. You no longer belong to your family of birth. You are bound by the vow of chastity to a new family, which is your religious family. There is a giving of yourself in mind, body and spirit to your brothers or sisters. This is not part of the promise of celibacy made by secular clerics. They continue to belong to their biological families and they do not belong to a religious family. That’s why you will often see retired diocesan priests living with a family member. Whereas an elderly or sick religious will live and die with his brothers, because he has no family to go to, even if he has 10 biological brothers. The community dimension of the vow of chastity is not found in the promise of celibacy, nor in the chastity that everyone is called to live. Not everyone is bound by a vow to surrender his entire person to a community, as one surrenders to the care and love of a family. The religious does this.

Wow. That’s a dimension of religious life I’ve never heard before. I think that shows just how much of a commitment religious make to live their lives for Christ.

 

[JReducation]

Wow. That’s a dimension of religious life I’ve never heard before. I think that shows just how much of a commitment religious make to live their lives for Christ.

This and obedience are the two most challenging dimensions of religious life, because both of them require that you give something of yourself. Poverty requires that you give up things. But those things are not a part of your personality. They are not your wishes, dreams, hopes, desires and so forth. In other words, the things that you give up when you vow poverty exist outside of you.

When you vow obdience, you surrender your will, your desires, your opinions and your wishes. You may share them with your superior, if he allows you to share them. But when the rubber meets the road as I like to say, you must obey and do what you may not like.

When you vow chastity,you surrender your body to Christ, your sexuality, even your family history. You now belong totally to him and you exist for him alone. You live within a brotherhood of men or sisterhood of women who also live for him alone. But all of you make the journey together. In order to make this journey, there must be some giving of yourself to the other brothers or sisters. Otherwise, there is no community. Without community,there is not communion. How can you live in the Communion of Saints from the day that you make vows into eternity, if you can’t give yourself to your brothers or sisters? The essence of chastity is charity, even for married people and secular priests. You are chaste becaues you love.

The religous takes it to that next level, he loves within a family with whom he shares his life. He prays with the, plays with them, studies with them, travels with them, lives with them, and when he is away, he is still one of them. Together they follow the same rule of life, meaning that they live the Gospel the same way. They share the same ideals, which are the ideals given to them by the founder. They have a history, just like any other family. In many communities they even dress alike. They obey each other. For example, when the community meets in a chapter and makes decisions, everyone obeys, those decisions, even superiors. The voice of the community, together, is the voice of Christ the beloved… When you choose to live the chaste life in a religious order or religious congregations, this is what you’re getting into, a very special relationship with God, but along with brothers who heard the same call and are walking down the same path as you. Some walk faster than others. Some even trip. But they don’t stop being your brothers. The community does not stop being your family.

I think of myself. We have three new brothers coming to us on the 15th of April and I will be their Formation Director. But they are my sons, because I will be their spiritual father for the time that they are in formation. This is the family dynamic that comes into the picture with a vow of chastity. You really learn to love these men. If you’re a sister, these women. Some you even have a love-hate relationship, just like any other member of your family. That’s the big challenge. That’s when you have to show your greatest humility, patience, charity, compassion and all those other virtues. As I tell the men in formation, the best sign that you can give me to let me know that you have a call to live in community is if you can learn to think it and shut up. Because there are times and people that you want to throttle. So, think it and shut up. As St. Terese teaches us, those are the people to whom we should show the greatest charity with little signs of love. That requires a lot of purity of heart, which is Chastity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Wow. That’s a dimension of religious life I’ve never heard before. I think that shows just how much of a commitment religious make to live their lives for Christ.

This was why, traditionally, religious changed their names. They gave up their given names including their last names. They also, traditionally, lost all rights to inheritance.

Some orders even required a certain name to be taken. The Clerics Regular of St Paul (Barnabite Fathers) take Mary as their middle name.

 

[JReducation]

This was why, traditionally, religious changed their names. They gave up their given names including their last names. They also, traditionally, lost all rights to inheritance.

Some orders even required a certain name to be taken. The Clerics Regular of St Paul (Barnabite Fathers) take Mary as their middle name.

I don’t know about the Carmelites, but all of the branches of the Franciscans still lose our rights to inheritances. The night before final profession we must sign a legal document in which we give up all claim to any future income that may come to us by way of inheritance and we must name a beneficiary. This document is legalized. Some branches of the order still change our names. I changed my name. In my branch we don’t use last names. The Franciscans of the Renewal change their names. The Franciscans of the Eternal Word change their names. The Franciscans of the Immaculate change their names and most do. I bleieve that only the three branches of OFMs don’t change their names, but they still give up all iinheritances.

Another interesting thing is that you cannot assign you inheritance to the order. You must assign it to anyone outside the order. If your father owns Microsoft and you’re his only heir, you sign away that right to someone else outside the order and outside of the Church. This avoids of conflicts of interest and severs your ties with your biological family.

Most religious visit their parents and siblings once a year during vacation, which usually lasts about 10 days. In some communities the visits are less frequent. We visit our relatives every other year for 15 days. They can visit us four times a year.

There is that whole dimension of taking on a new identity and a new family. Unlike diocesan priests who remain within a diocese, unless they volunteer for the Armed Forces or the Diocese has a mission, religious go further away from their original home. A province can cover several states or an entire country. One of the advantages of being a diocesan priest is that if you join your home diocese you’re always near your biological family. Unless they decide to move away. We give that up and we go clear across the country or clear across the world. But you rarely go alone. You always go to where your brothers are.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

I don’t know about the Carmelites, but all of the branches of the Franciscans still lose our rights to inheritances. The night before final profession we must sign a legal document in which we give up all claim to any future income that may come to us by way of inheritance and we must name a beneficiary. This document is legalized. Some branches of the order still change our names. I changed my name. In my branch we don’t use last names. The Franciscans of the Renewal change their names. The Franciscans of the Eternal Word change their names. The Franciscans of the Immaculate change their names and most do. I bleieve that only the three branches of OFMs don’t change their names, but they still give up all iinheritances.

Another interesting thing is that you cannot assign you inheritance to the order. You must assign it to anyone outside the order. If your father owns Microsoft and you’re his only heir, you sign away that right to someone else outside the order and outside of the Church. This avoids of conflicts of interest and severs your ties with your biological family.

Most religious visit their parents and siblings once a year during vacation, which usually lasts about 10 days. In some communities the visits are less frequent. We visit our relatives every other year for 15 days. They can visit us four times a year.

There is that whole dimension of taking on a new identity and a new family. Unlike diocesan priests who remain within a diocese, unless they volunteer for the Armed Forces or the Diocese has a mission, religious go further away from their original home. A province can cover several states or an entire country. One of the advantages of being a diocesan priest is that if you join your home diocese you’re always near your biological family. Unless they decide to move away. We give that up and we go clear across the country or clear across the world. But you rarely go alone. You always go to where your brothers are.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for sharing that - it was truly beautiful. A lot of this up until now has been give up, give up, give up. This being shared is why IMHO I think people go into Religious orders as opposed to other ways of serving Christ.

 

[Cowfold]

Is ‘Celbacy’ not someway responsible for the trouble the Church finds itself in today?
I think it is!

The sad thing is that I wouldn’t mind if they were accused of affairs with woman, as that is a natural risk of those in community.

But interfering with children!

May they rot in Hell!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is ‘Celbacy’ not someway responsible for the trouble the Church finds itself in today?
I think it is!

The sad thing is that I wouldn’t mind if they were accused of affairs with woman, as that is a natural risk of those in community.

But interfering with children!

May they rot in Hell!!

To bad that the actual statistics do not agree with you.

The “sex abuse scandal” in the Church is the same as that within other christian denominations, as in schools, as in families, as in any other organization that works with children.

It is in no way proven that celibacy is in any way a cause of the problem.

Lastly, it is not very christian to wish people to “rot in Hell”. We should pray for their repentance and conversion.

 

[Cowfold]

To bad that the actual statistics do not agree with you.

The “sex abuse scandal” in the Church is the same as that within other christian denominations, as in schools, as in families, as in any other organization that works with children.
It is in no way proven that celibacy is in any way a cause of the problem.

Does that make it right !!!