Church, Religious Orders after Vatican II

[Marauder]

Is “poor” always defined as economically poor? I recognize that this question might mean a different thing here and in India, for instance. Although Mother Teresa of Calcutta made a remark about loneliness being the leprosy of the west.

I know you wanted Brother JR to answer and his answers are always better then mine but it depends on what you are referring to. If you are talking about what St. Francis wanted for his friars. Yes he wanted them to always be “economically” poor. If you are talking about who he wanted his friars to serve then again it is the “economically” poor.

Would St. Francis only preach to the “economically” poor? No . He would preach to all who would listen, but most of his service itself was given to the economically poor at the time (i.e. the lepers, those outside the gates of the city, etc.)

Under St. Francis’ ideals Franciscan would own nothing, both individually and as an Order so they would truly be economically poor. They would accept handouts from anyone, but own nothing. Through the ages and with changes to property ownership rules and the such, definitions of this have changed but in the end 1st and 2nd Order Franciscans are to be both physically poor and serve the poor. Due to the fact that St. Francis realized not everyone could give up everything to follow him due to other commitments (i.e. family, diocesan priests, etc.) the 3rd Orders were created. They to should be committed to serving the poor, but they don’t have to be economically poor.

This is primary difference between the Franciscans and the other Orders that existed at the time of St. Francis. For the most part the other Orders themselves as a whole were rich since members entering the order were required to give their money to the Order. Franciscans were (and still are in regards to most Franciscan branches) required to give all their money to the poor before entering, not the Order.

 

[iloveangels]

I know you wanted Brother JR to answer and his answers are always better then mine but it depends on what you are referring to. If you are talking about what St. Francis wanted for his friars. Yes he wanted them to always be “economically” poor. If you are talking about who he wanted his friars to serve then again it is the “economically” poor.

Would St. Francis only preach to the “economically” poor? No . He would preach to all who would listen, but most of his service itself was given to the economically poor at the time (i.e. the lepers, those outside the gates of the city, etc.)

Under St. Francis’ ideals Franciscan would own nothing, both individually and as an Order so they would truly be economically poor. They would accept handouts from anyone, but own nothing. Through the ages and with changes to property ownership rules and the such, definitions of this have changed but in the end 1st and 2nd Order Franciscans are to be both physically poor and serve the poor. Due to the fact that St. Francis realized not everyone could give up everything to follow him due to other commitments (i.e. family, diocesan priests, etc.) the 3rd Orders were created. They to should be committed to serving the poor, but they don’t have to be economically poor.

This is primary difference between the Franciscans and the other Orders that existed at the time of St. Francis. For the most part the other Orders themselves as a whole were rich since members entering the order were required to give their money to the Order. Franciscans were (and still are in regards to most Franciscan branches) required to give all their money to the poor before entering, not the Order.

That makes sense, Marauder. Thanks. After thinking about it, I think I understand why poverty is the issue too. I may be wrong, but I think there are two reasons that come out of what he wrote, and the first may identify economic poverty specifically, although the tradition certainly does also. [And of course, I have heard that he had plenty to say about it. I remember reading, perhaps in this very thread, that he took a monastery apart with his own hands. Yeah, that’s meaning what you say. LOL ]

EDIT: He, meaning St. Francis throughout my reply. Sorry for the ambiguity.

 

[iloveangels]

I’m pretty sure, based on what I’ve read about these things, Mike, that this isn’t really a contradiction to what Br. JR has said. You’re talking about women’s orders, which had a remarkable rocky road after the Vatican II instruction to recover their charisms and simplify. I remember reading the details of the story of Carl Rogers and the IHM sisters in California, which I think is characteristic of the sort of thing you are describing. What happened was pretty grisly, but it was also fairly explainable without resorting to the liberal/conservative dispute that we tend to head to instinctively.

What happened was that this order sought to re-discover its charism, and for whatever reason found it difficult to do so. And such a thing is always made more difficult by sheer numbers (think teaching algebra to a class of 100 without interruption). Well, they didn’t find it easy to do. And this being 1964 (do you remember 1964?), it seemed like the sky was a limit, nothing was too new, and nothing was impossible. So they didn’t rule much out. And after they met Carl Rogers and his less scrupulous helpers who showed up on the scene, even less was ruled out. Rogers and company had a very good reputation, and were specialists in “non-directive therapy” and they were supposed to help the sisters discover what they were about. Only they didn’t. They helped them discover something else. To make a long story short, it all crashed. Very little is left of the order to this day.

The lesson to be learned out of all this is NOT that it’s bad to re-discover your real charism, far from it! The lesson to be learned is not to depart from it in the first place, or failing that, to be careful to identify it correctly if you have to return to it.

And also perhaps, there’s a second smaller lesson. It’s important that when any religious organization is started that it have a very distinct charism and a charism that can be lived. It’s not my job to discern that, nor yours really, but nevertheless, it’s a necessary caution for any new group.

Sorry. This is just an edit and I didn’t realize it was going to make a whole new post out of this! Oooops.

 

[JReducation]

I would like to issue some words of caution here. We’re trying to talk about religious life after Vatican II in the context of Catholic tradition. It’s really important that we don’t turn our discussion into a sociological analysis. The reason being that when we discuss these things and start putting on the table all of the sociological events and phenomena that happened during the second half of the 20th century, we run the risk of leaving God and Tradition out of the equation. I’ve seen this happen too often, not only in religious communities, but in dioceses, parishes, institutions, ministries and lay organizations.

My personal practice is to limit myself to what was said by the founders, what was said by the Church and what religious did or did not do. Pope Benedict likes to say something that I really appreciate. “God does not use human logic.”

When the Holy Spirit inspired these founders, He did not use human logic and neither did they. They heard his voice and they responded. If they had used human logic, many religious communities would never have come into existence. Look at the Missionaries of Charity. Sister Teresa was a nun, a Social Studies teacher and a school principal. What preparation did she have to live outside of the cloister among the sick, orphans, dying, hungry, and homeless? What assets did she have when she left the convent?

The only thing that the Church gave her was an indult of exclaustration that allows a nun to live outside of the cloister. The woman was not even a sister. She was a nun. There is a big difference between the two vocations. They’re not even called to live by the same vows or the same way of life. However, God called and she responded. Here we are, 50 years later. Sister Teresa was dispensed from her vows as nun and made profession of simple vows as a sister on the same day and founded two congregations of mendicants, one for men and one for women. No one had ever founded a community of mendicants after St. Francis of Assisi. His was the last such community, until 1946.

Why have the Missionaries of Charity grown into a powerhouse of the apostolate? Why have they become the model of every new religious community that seeks to serve Christ by living with the poor and serving him among the poor? Because they don’t over analyze anything. They listen to the voice of God and they trust. Mother taught them well. When they do something and it falls apart, it means one of two things, you made a mistake, so fix it or you did everything the best you could and God’s not very interested, so leave it alone.

Many religious communities ended up on Death Row when they started to analyze the charism of the founder and strategize how to preserve it and modify it to fit the 20th century. If anyone ever figures out how to modify something without changing it, let me know how it’s done.

Religious life is like a house. You start out with a cute little Cape Cod. You realize that you need a bigger kitchen and an extra bedroom, because grandma is coming to live with you. You proceed to add to the existing house. It’s still the same house, but it has that annex in the back. If you decide that you’re going to raise the roof and change the façade, then it’s no longer a Cape Cod. A Cape Cod has very definite attributes.

The purpose of a constitution is to make those additions according to the movement of the Holy Spirit, with simple trust in God that he will never ask you to change was he originally inspired the founder to do, because God does not go around changing his mind. As new things come up, God will inspire the community, leading it to respond in a way that builds on what he inspired at the beginning. He does not give you a whole new set of blueprints. He gives you the blueprints for the addition. God is not into the business of remodeling the religious families that he raises up in the Church.

The religious and secular order, religious congregations, institutes of apostolic life and secular institutes may have to take on new apostolates and new ways of dealing with certain things, as long as those things that they take on are in addition to what the founder erected and not a change to what the founder erected.

To use the Franciscan example . . . the Friars Minor were to live among the poor. They were to be obedient to the Church, especially the local bishop and the superior. They were to preach through word and service. OK, if you live among the poor, guess who’s going to be served first. Guess who’s going to hear the Gospel first. Bingo! Your neighbors.

It does not mean that you never go over to that wealthy parish to teach a CCD class or preach a Lenten mission, because they’re middle class. No. Francis did these things. He preached to a Sultan, to an emperor and to a pope. None of them lived in squalor. However, did Francis live among them? No. He went in, did what God directed him to do and he left. He trusted that God would send the right person or people after him to do the rest.

There are things that are accidental, which can change over time. For example, the early Franciscans did not own property. Today, in many countries, you must have a deed to a property and it must be in your name. These are accidents, not essential. The property is owned by the order for a very specific purpose. When that purpose ceases to exist, their right to the property also ceases to exist, unlike the secular man who can own property for his satisfaction and security.

When we speak about recovering our roots, it means living as Christ directed the founder to live and adding to that whatever Christ directs today. Christ does not create chaos and that’s the key here. He may push us out of our comfort zone, but he guides us through the night.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choliks]

-snip-
When we speak about recovering our roots, it means living as Christ directed the founder to live and adding to that whatever Christ directs today. Christ does not create chaos and that’s the key here. He may push us out of our comfort zone, but he guides us through the night.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Reminds me of Pope Benedict XIV’'s “Sint ut sunt aut not sint” - They must be the way they are or they will not be

 

[Mike30]

I’m pretty sure, based on what I’ve read about these things, Mike, that this isn’t really a contradiction to what Br. JR has said. You’re talking about women’s orders, which had a remarkable rocky road after the Vatican II instruction to recover their charisms and simplify. I remember reading the details of the story of Carl Rogers and the IHM sisters in California, which I think is characteristic of the sort of thing you are describing. What happened was pretty grisly, but it was also fairly explainable without resorting to the liberal/conservative dispute that we tend to head to instinctively.

What happened was that this order sought to re-discover its charism, and for whatever reason found it difficult to do so. And such a thing is always made more difficult by sheer numbers (think teaching algebra to a class of 100 without interruption). Well, they didn’t find it easy to do. And this being 1964 (do you remember 1964?), it seemed like the sky was a limit, nothing was too new, and nothing was impossible. So they didn’t rule much out. And after they met Carl Rogers and his less scrupulous helpers who showed up on the scene, even less was ruled out. Rogers and company had a very good reputation, and were specialists in “non-directive therapy” and they were supposed to help the sisters discover what they were about. Only they didn’t. They helped them discover something else. To make a long story short, it all crashed. Very little is left of the order to this day.

The lesson to be learned out of all this is NOT that it’s bad to re-discover your real charism, far from it! The lesson to be learned is not to depart from it in the first place, or failing that, to be careful to identify it correctly if you have to return to it.

And also perhaps, there’s a second smaller lesson. It’s important that when any religious organization is started that it have a very distinct charism and a charism that can be lived. It’s not my job to discern that, nor yours really, but it was a lesson that someone should heed.

The problem was though that instead of returning to their primitive charism as the Church clearly intended they deliberately sought out a new one. And it wasn’t just one order that did so. Many did, both male and female. Heck no less an order than the Jesuits themselves sought to re-define themselves into what they wanted to be today, not necessarily what Loyola would have wanted or expected and certainly not a return to their original charism which they thought they had outgrown and was unworkable any longer.

I do remember 1964 very very well. In fact from what I have read on here I am one of very few who actually lived more than a few years preceeding the Vatican II Council.and actually remember the old days pretty well.

 

[jwinch2]

The problem was though that instead of returning to their primitive charism as the Church clearly intended they deliberately sought out a new one. And it wasn’t just one order that did so. Many did, both male and female. Heck no less an order than the Jesuits themselves sought to re-define themselves into what they wanted to be today, not necessarily what Loyola would have wanted or expected and certainly not a return to their original charism which they thought they had outgrown and was unworkable any longer.

I do remember 1964 very very well. In fact from what I have read on here I am one of very few who actually lived more than a few years preceeding the Vatican II Council.and actually remember the old days pretty well.

Some of this return to the Charism of the founder is still being addressed. As you mentioned the Jesuits, I thought that this article which as linked by Brother JR on another thread might be of interest.

sjweb.info/35/documents/decrees.pdf

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

The problem was though that instead of returning to their primitive charism as the Church clearly intended they deliberately sought out a new one. And it wasn’t just one order that did so. Many did, both male and female. Heck no less an order than the Jesuits themselves sought to re-define themselves into what they wanted to be today, not necessarily what Loyola would have wanted or expected and certainly not a return to their original charism which they thought they had outgrown and was unworkable any longer.

I do remember 1964 very very well. In fact from what I have read on here I am one of very few who actually lived more than a few years preceeding the Vatican II Council.and actually remember the old days pretty well.

You may want to go easy on the Jesuits. While it is true that they have had many problems, it is also true that part of their problem is that they are an exception to almost every law that governs religious life.

1. Ignatius founded them as a society, not as an order. The pope elevated them to the status of an order so that he could grant them the privilege of making solemn vows. Only orders can make solemn vows. All other religious communities make simple vows. They’re not the same, do not convey the same graces, hold the same place in the heart of the Church, have the same rights and duties. Solemn vows are one rung up.
2. Here they were, an order, but one slight problem. They did not have a rule of life. Ignatius was not allowed to write a rule of life for them. The last rule of life that the Catholic Church approved was the third Franciscan Rule in 1223. After that, the Church said, “No more religious rules. Either use an existing rule or don’t use one at all.”
3. Ignatius did not like any of the rules in existence: Augustine, Albert, Basil, Francis, Benedict, or John de Matha. They were too structured. He wanted his men to be free from community life, free from common prayer, free from common mass, free to own property, free to travel anywhere without boundaries, and free to govern themselves instead of depending on a superior.
4. Ignatius did not want to give them a constitution either. A constitution would give them parameters, but would also restrict them in some ways. Basically, constitutions say: “Do this and don’t do that.” Ignatius wanted each Jesuit to listen to the voice of the Spirit. He walked his men through the Exercise, which they would continue to use to discern from then until today.
5. The Church wanted missionaries. This was not Ignatius dream. His dream was to reform the clergy. But he had made a vow to go where the pope sent him. Well, the pope kept Ignatius in Rome, but asked him to send his sons around the world.
6. Most of the time, they went alone. Unlike friars who go in twos, the Jesuits do not have such a custom. Ignatius never adopted it. Even when they live in the same house, each Jesuit prays, eats, works, plays and does whatever he does, on his schedule, though they try to spend some time together. Everyone needs fraternity of some kind.
7. They were encouraged, by the Vatican,to push the envelop in theological debate. The hope was to open the minds of their students by helping them understand the other side of the argument. It wasn’t to turn them heretic ,but help them see the mistakes of the heretics.
8. Finally, the Church did not then and does not now, demand that the Society of Jesus live a common charism. Ignatius made it quite clear to the Church, that the charism of the Society was to do all things, for the glory and honor of God. By all things,he meant that they would not limit themselves in their apostolic work or in the way that they live their daily lives. One Jesuit house can be radically different from another Jesuit house.

In the end, their charism is unity in diversity. They remain a brotherhood of very different men with very different missions. They have serve the Church well. In fact the number three man in the Catholic Church is a Jesuit. He’s the second in command at the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and the man whom Cardinal Levada put at the head of the dialogue with the SSPX. He is considered one of the best theologians and most faithful priests in the Church today. He’s a very humble man. Pope Benedict likes them and has appointed many of them to head different departments in the Vatican. My guess is that he admires their intelligence. What’s there not to admire? They are brilliant men. They only accept the cream of the crop into their order.

It’s really important to know what the charism of an order is supposed to be, from the inside, before we pass judgment on it. Reading a biography of a founder or a few writings by him, does give us the complete picture. Reading the writings and memoirs of the first generation tells us a great deal. These men, like the Apostles are the ones who hand down the tradition to the next generation. They are the ones who can faithfully interpret the mind of the founder, because they were with him. That’s something that I learned in Rome while studying Spiritual Theology. Never depend on the life story of the founder alone or only on his writings. God back and see if the first generation interprets these events and writings the way that you’re interpreting them. They know what the founder meant. He explained himself to them. You and I cannot have an Q & A with Ignatius of Loyola, but these guys did.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

After that, the Church said, “No more religious rules. Either use an existing rule or don’t use one at all.”

Out of curiosity, why? I can see why the development of a rule would need to be closely scrutinized and even very rare, but to prevent it entirely doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[JReducation]

Out of curiosity, why? I can see why the development of a rule would need to be closely scrutinized and even very rare, but to prevent it entirely doesn’t make much sense to me.

It does if we understand what a rule is. A rule is really a paraphrase of the Gospel inspired by the Holy Spirit. While it does not enjoy the same status as Divine Revelation, it does have a place in Church doctrine. The rules of the orders were systems for living the faith.

Pope Innocent III had declared that there was no more need for religious rules, because there were enough systems for living the Gospel. You had: Basil, Benedict, Albert, John de Matha and Augustine. When Dominic approached him with his rule for the Order of Preachers, Pope Innocent examined it and concluded that it had nothing new in it that had not already been said by one of the previous law-givers. He told Dominic to take the Rule of Augustine and to write a constitution that would address the mission of the Friar Preachers, because the way of life that Dominic was proposing had already been described by Augustine. What Augustine had not included in his rule was any specific apostolate and how it should be executed. So Dominic, being a very holy and humble man, proceeded to write a constitution for his Order of Preachers. They lived the Gospel according to the systems prescribed by St. Augustine and they engaged in the ministry of preaching according the the constitution that Dominic appended to the Augustinian Rule. This was in 1208.

In 1209, Francis of Assisi arrives in Rome with a new rule. Pope Innocent refused to read it. It has his belief that there were enough variations on the same theme, how to live the Gospel Life. However, God had other plans.

The cardinals read the rule and came back to Pope Innocent and said, "If you deny this rule, you deny the Gospel. You will in effect be saying that the Gospel cannot be lived as it is revealed. This rule is not a set of statutes and systems for living the Gospel, but it’s a commentary on the Gospel life.

Pope Innocent read it and gave it verbal approval in 1209. In 1221, Pope Honorius III asked Francis to make it a little more legalistic. It was very theological, but it lacked very specific laws: “Do this and don’t do that.” So Francis wrote it again.

In 1223, the friars were still very confused by the rule. It was still very much a theological commentary on the Gospel. It did not define their ministry, nor their place in the Church, nor their identity. Again, Pope Honorius asked Francis to rewrite the rule and address the friars’ questions. Francis sent the rule to Pope Honorius who read it and said, “This is truly the work of Grace. There is nothing human in this rule.” He sealed it and wrote a papal bull to go with it in which he decreed that henceforth, no new rules would be approved and that the Franciscan Rule was to be accepted as it was written by clergy and laity. No one was to critique it, reject it or attempt to change anything except another pope.

That was that. To this day, no new rules have ever been attempted. Many communities use one of the existing rules or they simply write a constitution that they can democratically rewrite at their general chapter. Of course, these constitutions still have to meet with the approval of the Holy Father. So when you see in a constitution that the sisters can wear pantsuits, that was approved by the pope or it would not be in there. The pope signs off on it. Though today, because there are so many constitutions, it’s usually the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life who signs off on these constitutions. But he may only approve them, if he believes that the content is acceptable to the Holy Father.

The mind of the Church is that after St. Francis, no one has come up with a way of living the Gospel that is not already reflected by: Basil, Benedict, Albert, Augustine, John de Matha and Francis of Assisi. In other words, there are only so many variations possible on the Gospel Life. The rest are differences in government, ministries, and externals. The core values and how they are lived have already been well explained by these spiritual fathers.

It’s kind of a way of saying, “It’s not broken, so don’t try to fix it. The existing rules are just right. Don’t tamper with a good thing.” The Holy See takes this very seriously when people even try to suggest a new rule or modifying one of the existing rules. Pope Paul VI is said to have had a fit when someone suggested that the Rule of St Francis should be rewritten, because it did not speak the language of modern man. Don’t ask me who that turkey was, because I don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[jwinch2]

…The existing rules are just right. Don’t tamper with a good thing." The Holy See takes this very seriously when people even try to suggest a new rule or modifying one of the existing rules. …

I can understand all of that, thank you.

What doesn’t make complete sense to me is why not just handle it as they did with Francis? If you use the standard of “does this Rule represent a way of living the gospel which is different from other Rules currently in place”, then it would seem things would pretty much take care of themselves.

The very fact that there are so many Congregations who do not have a Rule but rather constitutions, would suggest this as well. As you described above, the Jesuits are a great example of this. Are they not living the gospel by their way of life? If so, and they are doing it without one of the previously established Rules, then there must be more ways to live it then were established at the time of Francis. If there are congregations out there who are not living the gospel by their lives, then why have them at all?

 

[JReducation]

I can understand all of that, thank you.

What doesn’t make complete sense to me is why not just handle it as they did with Francis? If you use the standard of “does this Rule represent a way of living the gospel which is different from other Rules currently in place”, then it would seem things would pretty much take care of themselves.

The very fact that there are so many Congregations who do not have a Rule but rather constitutions, would suggest this as well. As you described above, the Jesuits are a great example of this. Are they not living the gospel by their way of life? If so, and they are doing it without one of the previously established Rules, then there must be more ways to live it then were established at the time of Francis. If there are congregations out there who are not living the gospel by their lives, then why have them at all?

The the Church’s logic is two-fold.

The best way to explain it is that the rules describe a way of living and a constitution describe a way of doing. Being and doing are both necessary to man. You can’t have one without the other.

The Church says that if you want to focus everyone on a specific way of being, there are five rules that do that, just pick one. If you want to focus on a way of serving, then you write a constitution. You can also do both, as do the Dominicans. They live the Gospel as Augustine taught it, but they serve as Dominic served.

Some founders, like Mother Teresa started with the doing. She heard Christ’s call to serve the poorest of the poor. To do this faithfully the sisters and brothers in her community need two strong values: poverty and obedience. Therefore, in her constitutions, Mother includes the theology of poverty taught by Francis and the theology of obedience taught by Benedict. Poverty and obedience are the means that strengthen them to serve the poorest of the poor. Mother, did not need to create a whole theology on poverty or obedience. Francis and Benedict had done this.

Other founders start with being. Mother Angelica heard Christ’s call to start a community whose way of life proclaims the Eternal Word. She founded the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word and gave them the Rule of the Friars Minor, which is Francis’ first rule. He wrote three rules for the Friars, one rule for the nuns and another for the secular order. The focus for these friars is to live rather than do. They can only choose to do that which fits into Francis’ description of the Gospel Life.

Today, many of the new communities (those founded after Vatican II) combine being and doing almost equally. One that comes to mind are the Missionaries of the Poor. They live like Francis, but they serve like Mother Teresa.

It’s really like one big tree where one branch splits off from another, but all are connected to the trunk which is the Church.

It is equally important to know that the Church deems the rules written to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Inspired in this context must never be confused with Revelation. These rules contain no new revelations. What the Holy Spirit did with these Masters was to draw their attention to Revelation and in particular to some aspect of Revelation to which they, their spiritual sons and daughters and the Church needed to bring to life.

Basically, the Church feels that if you take the six rules of life and put them together, you have a nice paraphrase of the Gospel, enough for other religious and lay people to pick and choose what they need for their journey.

When we say that the Jesuits do not follow a rule, it does not mean that they clueless. Though I have a good friend who’s a Jesuit and he’s rather spacey. But that’s one of his endearing qualities, not a Jesuit trademark.

St. Ignatius borrowed a great deal from the different rules. In doing so, his men are living the Gospel life, because these rules of life are taken from the Gospel. Their constitutions contain pieces from each of them. At the time of Ignatius, the Church did not need an additional way of living the Gospel. Therefore, the Holy Spirit did not inspire one, as was the case at the time of Francis.

During Francis’ time, there was a gap and the Holy Spirit inspired Francis in order to fill it. He could have chosen Dominic, but he didn’t. Why not? Probably because it would have changed the course of history to the detriment of humanity. God always chooses according to what is best for humanity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks!

 

[Melchior_1]

Brother JR, a question along the liens of “why is there no new rules”; why are there no new Orders?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks!

You’re very welcome. It’s a very hard subject to explain. I was afraid that I was going to cause more confusion than help.

Brother JR, a question along the liens of “why is there no new rules”; why are there no new Orders?

I can’t recall what year it happened, but it was after the founding of the Jebbies.

The Church decreed that every new religious community was to be a congregation instead of an order. The reason was probably financial and also something to do with heresy.

The orders make solemn vows. The individuals may never own property. The order can own property.

The congregations make simple vows. The individuals and the community can own property. Since the congregations exist for a particular ministry, it was often necessary to allow their members to keep their inheritances and other assets. These were often used to finance the ministry.

In addition, it is much easier to get rid of someone in simple vows than in solemn vows. Being the case that these were the 1500s and the Protestant Reformation party was just peaking, it seems that the Holy See felt that it wanted an easy way to get rid of religious who were heretics.

That was not such a good idea and the Council of Trent came out with the Right of Exemption. The Right of Exemption says that the individual religious is exempt from the control and influence of the bishop and the laity. The bishop has the obligation to protect the religious and the laity has the obligation to finance the apostolic work of the religious. If either fails to fulfill their obligation, the Holy See can impose severe sanctions, including interdict. It’s been done very few times.

The issue was that when people wanted to control the religious they simple yelled, “HERETIC!” Like crying “FIRE” in a movie theater. People knew that this could get a religious dismissed.

Also, in some places, the people were truly very poor and could not afford to support a religious house. It was fair that those religious whose parents died and left them a fortune should donate it to the charitable works of the community or start charitable works, as did St. Katherine Drexel. However, there were also those who had the means to support the charitable works of the religious and refused to do so on the grounds that those religious in simple vows could have assets as long as they did not use it on themselves. This is a two-edge sword. In effect, the local people were dictating to the religious rather than supporting. That was not the idea behind simple vows.

Today, religious communities overlap in so many ways that most people use the terms congregation and order interchangeably.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[jwinch2]

Brother,

I have noticed a bit of a trend of recent appointments to the Episcopate being from religious orders. Specifically, I have seen a number of Franciscans. I am curious to hear whether you have observed the same thing and if you have a thought as to why. Personally, I think we could all do with a healthy dose of humility and obedience so I am not at all unhappy to see this.

 

[JReducation]

Brother,

I have noticed a bit of a trend of recent appointments to the Episcopate being from religious orders. Specifically, I have seen a number of Franciscans. I am curious to hear whether you have observed the same thing and if you have a thought as to why. Personally, I think we could all do with a healthy dose of humility and obedience so I am not at all unhappy to see this.

Rumor, I repeat, RUMOR has it that he’s appointing many Franciscans and Benedictines because of the two orders vow of unquestioning obedience to the pope. Benedict and Francis wrote one thing into their admonitions. You’re only allowed one question. It’s like when you’re arrested that you’re allowed one telephone call.

You may ask, “Is this something that the CHURCH, not me, not my conscience, but the Church says it’s a sin?” Your conscience must be formed according to the mind of the Church. It’s assumed that your conscience echos the voice of the Church.

Once you answer, “No,” both Benedict and Francis command that even if you have a better idea or you think that you have a better idea, you keep your mouth shut and do what the pope says.

Benedict and Francis believed that it had nothing to do with infallibility, but with authority. You acknowledge the right of the pope to exercise authority over you and the faithful.

We used to have a joke that you could always identify a Franciscan or a Benedictine out of habit, because they were the ones who knew when to duck. Their training is like that of the military. If the superior or the pope says so, you go out there and do 100 push-ups in the rain, wearing nothing but a hat, because such a command is not a sin.

Another group that has a good reputation for obedience to popes are the Dominicans. I don’t know what percentage of the bishops are OP. I don’t think that Pope Benedict has ordained any OP bishops. But I may be wrong. Pope John Paul did, several of them. They are all very well liked and very respected in the Vatican.

Also, Franciscans bring to the episcopacy a certain simplicity. They are really very matter of fact guys. They are everyone’s brother. They play by the rules. But my take is that Pope Benedict likes them, because they think vertically. That’s because Franciscan and Benedictines have a strong sense of hierarchy. In these communities, if you bug the superior too much, you may end up in an igloo in Alaska. Of course they’ll put a cross on top of your igloo to identify it as a Catholic igloo.

It has been noticed that there are more religious being appointed to key posts than ever before, even though only 15% of the priests in the Latin Church are religious. The number of bishops who are religious and the number of officials who are religious at the diocesan and Vatican levels is much higher than 15%.

Pope Benedict has also appointed many Jesuits to key theological positions in the Church, one of them being the second in command of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith.

Obviously, the Pope is not talking about this. People are extrapolating. It makes sense that in a battlefield, you want bishops who are like marines. The pope shouts, “Duck” and they drop first and ask “Why?” later.

Time will tell how this will all pan out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Rumor, I repeat, RUMOR has it that he’s appointing many Franciscans and Benedictines because of the two orders vow of unquestioning obedience to the pope. Benedict and Francis wrote one thing into their admonitions. You’re only allowed one question. It’s like when you’re arrested that you’re allowed one telephone call.

You may ask, “Is this something that the CHURCH, not me, not my conscience, but the Church says it’s a sin?” Your conscience must be formed according to the mind of the Church. It’s assumed that your conscience echos the voice of the Church.

Once you answer, “No,” both Benedict and Francis command that even if you have a better idea or you think that you have a better idea, you keep your mouth shut and do what the pope says.

Benedict and Francis believed that it had nothing to do with infallibility, but with authority. You acknowledge the right of the pope to exercise authority over you and the faithful.

We used to have a joke that you could always identify a Franciscan or a Benedictine out of habit, because they were the ones who knew when to duck. Their training is like that of the military. If the superior or the pope says so, you go out there and do 100 push-ups in the rain, wearing nothing but a hat, because such a command is not a sin.

Another group that has a good reputation for obedience to popes are the Dominicans. I don’t know what percentage of the bishops are OP. I don’t think that Pope Benedict has ordained any OP bishops. But I may be wrong. Pope John Paul did, several of them. They are all very well liked and very respected in the Vatican.

Also, Franciscans bring to the episcopacy a certain simplicity. They are really very matter of fact guys. They are everyone’s brother. They play by the rules. But my take is that Pope Benedict likes them, because they think vertically. That’s because Franciscan and Benedictines have a strong sense of hierarchy. In these communities, if you bug the superior too much, you may end up in an igloo in Alaska. Of course they’ll put a cross on top of your igloo to identify it as a Catholic igloo.

It has been noticed that there are more religious being appointed to key posts than ever before, even though only 15% of the priests in the Latin Church are religious. The number of bishops who are religious and the number of officials who are religious at the diocesan and Vatican levels is much higher than 15%.

Pope Benedict has also appointed many Jesuits to key theological positions in the Church, one of them being the second in command of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith.

Obviously, the Pope is not talking about this. People are extrapolating. It makes sense that in a battlefield, you want bishops who are like marines. The pope shouts, “Duck” and they drop first and ask “Why?” later.

Time will tell how this will all pan out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for that.

I pretty much figured it was a “salute and execute” thing. To me it makes some sense in that most of the orders grew out of strife in the Church. For the Pontiff to use those same orders to fill leadership positions in the times we are in now, makes sense to me.

Frankly, I am glad to see it. Not that there are not many wonderful Bishops who are not religious. That is not it at all. Personally, I think we have a great Bishop here in our Diocese in Kevin Vann. I am happy because of the obedience issue and also the issue of orthodox teaching. Obviously I have a love for the Dominican charism and it certainly would not break my heart to see more Dominican Bishops , but at the end of the day, I don’t care whether they are Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, Secular, etc. If the Holy Father thinks that the sons of Francis and Benedict will get the job done and sees another role for the sons of Dominic, then I trust his judgement on the matter.

All I care about is that they pass on the faith properly, try to live the gospel, and defend the souls of their flock.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for that.

I pretty much figured it was a “salute and execute” thing. To me it makes some sense in that most of the orders grew out of strife in the Church. For the Pontiff to use those same orders to fill leadership positions in the times we are in now, makes sense to me.

Frankly, I am glad to see it. Not that there are not many wonderful Bishops who are not religious. That is not it at all. Personally, I think we have a great Bishop here in our Diocese in Kevin Vann. I am happy because of the obedience issue and also the issue of orthodox teaching. Obviously I have a love for the Dominican charism and it certainly would not break my heart to see more Dominican Bishops , but at the end of the day, I don’t care whether they are Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, Secular, etc. If the Holy Father thinks that the sons of Francis and Benedict will get the job done and sees another role for the sons of Dominic, then I trust his judgement on the matter.

All I care about is that they pass on the faith properly, try to live the gospel, and defend the souls of their flock.

At the end of the day what matters is that the bishop be a good shepherd. You don’t need a saint. Most saints make horrible administrators. I can make a very long list, beginning with St. Bonaventure, who was a cardinal and never spent time in his diocese, because the friars commanded him to write about Francis. He spent about 12-year meditating on the life of St. Francis, writing about him and preaching about him.

Franciscan, Benedictine and Dominican bishops have a long tradition of fidelity to their respective communities. That’s how the pope came to wear white. Pope Pius V always wore his Dominican habit instead of the papal robes.

Since we’re on TC Forum, it’s a good idea to observe that these orders have bailed the Church out in times of crisis. The Dominicans saved the day during the Protestant Reformation. The Benedictines kept Christianity alive in Europe. The Franciscans brought the laity back into the Church between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

As we go through another turbulent period in Church history, it makes sense that you put into positions of leadership bishops who are faithful, fraternal and diplomatic. A diplomatic bishop can get his priests to do anything. An authoritarian bishop can coerce and threaten. He can get submission, but the environment will be tense. What has proven to work has always been cooperation between the clergy, religious and the laity with their bishop. Coercion does not really work. Once the bishop is gone, everything goes back to the way it was. The idea is that a bishop plant seeds that bear fruit long after he’s gone. If what you get after he retires is, “Hey, let’s party again!” all of that muscle was for nothing.

Also, the laity needs spirituality. A religious, from whatever community, is going to bring spirituality to the Office of the Bishop, because he comes from a particular school of spirituality. If he’s a good religious, he will exude that spirituality in his ministry. Look at the story of St. John Neumann of Philadelphia. He was the consummate Redemptorist missionary.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Irish_Polock]

Since we’re on TC Forum, it’s a good idea to observe that these orders have bailed the Church out in times of crisis. The Dominicans saved the day during the Protestant Reformation. The Benedictines kept Christianity alive in Europe. The Franciscans brought the laity back into the Church between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

{Bold is mine} Brother, while I understand that the Preachers had a part in the defense of our faith throughout the reformation, I have to disagree with you on what you have said about the Dominicans saving the day. It is my understanding that the Jesuits were the tools used to counter said reformation. St. Robert Bellarmine comes to mind during this period with his work Disputationes. Of course there were other Jesuits whom had contributed to the counter-reformation throughout Europe besides St. Robert Bellarmine, but his work was by and large, the strongest refutation of Protestantism, and defense of the faith at the time. Would you agree?

What is your reasoning for saying the Dominicans “saved the day”?