Dioceses accepting "older vocations"....any suggestions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigRedpg51
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Before this thread gets shut down, I’ll give you some advice:

The Religious of the Church are supposed to be examples to the layity. For far too long now, the laity have had very few good religious to emulate. What we are used to is religious in our parishes and diocese being timid people who are not courageous Catholics in any way. Quite frankly, we’re used to them being scaredy-cats. And, here’s news for you: this is not “hate”. Hate you can find. I’f you’ve protested in front of an active abortion clinic, then you know hate, and you can in the future distinguish between hate and disagreement. Calling an argument on the internet with some Catholic layperson “hate” is jsut the sort of weenie, over-the-top, mega-over-sensitive, cowardly attitude that we’re used to religious having. Man up. We need to be able to look up to you.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
Before this thread gets shut down, I’ll give you some advice:

The Religious of the Church are supposed to be examples to the layity. For far too long now, the laity have had very few good religious to emulate. What we are used to is religious in our parishes and diocese being timid people who are not courageous Catholics in any way. Quite frankly, we’re used to them being scaredy-cats. And, here’s news for you: this is not “hate”. Hate you can find. I’f you’ve protested in front of an active abortion clinic, then you know hate, and you can in the future distinguish between hate and disagreement. Calling an argument on the internet with some Catholic layperson “hate” is jsut the sort of weenie, over-the-top, mega-over-sensitive, cowardly attitude that we’re used to religious having. Man up. We need to be able to look up to you.
Click to expand...
I think that you owe Brother an apology. Whether or not you agree, you do not have the right to speak to him or anyone in the manner that you are doing. It is condescending and rude. Yes, I am a religious and I will take you on. This is not the way to communicate with people. There is no charity in the above statement and there are not facts.

If you want to say something that you find lacking in religious life you may do so. It will certainly be helpful to religious to know what others are looking for. We may be able to learn something or at least respond to your questions and concerns. But to say that a group is this or that is neither helpful nor factual.

Why don’t you make a list of what you would like to see in religious and share that with Brother and the other reacers, instead of insulting? What do you want to see?
  1. More prayer?
  2. More penance?
  3. More silence?
  4. More enclosure or less enclosure?
  5. More ministry and if so, what areas?
  6. Less ministry and if so, what areas?
  7. More habits or less habits?
  8. More ecuation and if so, in what disciplines?
  9. A greater presence or lesser presence and if so in what areas of Church life?
Those kinds of statements are facts that can be discussed between two civilized people. The statement that you make above is offensive. What is represents to me as I walk into this thread is that you are not as Catholic as you portray, because in the Catholic tradition, there has always been a great respect shown for religious. Don’t tell me that they deserved it.

My holy Father Francis founded our community at a time when religious life was at its lowest point in the history of the Church. I’m not talking numbers. I’m talking morals, orthodoxy, fidelity to their rules, fidelity to their founders, fidelity to the Gospel and fidelity to the Church. It was truly a Dark Age for religious life. Even then, he taught his brothers that true Catholicism was to show the greatest respect for religious and clerics. He taught them to keep their mouth shut and never raise their voices or opinions against anything that the clergy or religious did, but to speak only of sin without mentioning who the sinners were. This was the most profound example of true Catholicism in history. It required great humility and great discipline.

If we’re going to speak of the needs of today’s Church and the needs of religious life, as well as the clergy, we would do well to take the advice and example of our holy Father Francis. State what you need, what you believe is needed, condemn the sin, and never never insult the sinner, especially religious and clergy. This is true Catholicism.

If you are truly Catholic and do agree with the principles set forth by Francis of Assisi or a Mother Teresa on how to speak to and about religious and you’re not aware of how your posts are sounding, I can understand that. But then you need to be aware that they are confrontational and not charitable or conduscive to dialogue.

Please pray for me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
See, this is what I’m talking about. Maybe Religious are insulated enough that criticisms like this will always fall on deaf ears. Everything is so…fragile with Religious. No criticisms. No unpleasantness allowed.

I watched a TV program interviewing a group of nuns, they were heading out to start a new community in a different state. They went on and on and on about how afraid they were, and how much they were having to rely on Christ to get them through this fear. I wanted to yell at the Tv set “Criminy! You’re moving to a different state. You’re taking several of your order with you. You have no dependents, no children, no one to feed, no insurance to afford, no job you can lose. You will live out your life without any real chance of temporal failure. What in blue blazes are you so afraid of ?!?”

You’ve twigged to one thing…respect to those who deserve it. Case by case.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
See, this is what I’m talking about. Maybe Religious are insulated enough that criticisms like this will always fall on deaf ears. Everything is so…fragile with Religious. No criticisms. No unpleasantness allowed.
Click to expand...
If you know this, then why do you do it? It would seem to me that you do not disrespect others wishes. That’s part of charity. You can ask questions, make suggestions and offer ideas without being critical. Are you saying that you want to be able to criticize and you want others to tough it out? It doesn’t work that way. I don’t know if you’re married or not, but spouses don’t put up with much of this either. Why should religious?
I watched a TV program interviewing a group of nuns, they were heading out to start a new community in a different state. They went on and on and on about how afraid they were, and how much they were having to rely on Christ to get them through this fear. I wanted to yell at the Tv set “Criminy! You’re moving to a different state. You’re taking several of your order with you. You have no dependents, no children, no one to feed, no insurance to afford, no job you can lose. You will live out your life without any real chance of temporal failure. What in blue blazes are you so afraid of ?!?”
Click to expand...
There is more to change than the material things that you have identified. Once again, the manner in which you want to communicate is uncharitable. Do you know anything about the relationships that these sisters left behind? How much do you know about their new mission and its challenges? Do you know about their future living conditions and work situations? Do you know anything about their new bishop and how easy or difficult it may be to work with him? Do you know how long these sisters were living in their current placement and how threatening change may feel to them? Are they not allowed to feel apprehension like any other human being?

You have to remember that these are human beings, not machines. They have feelings. Religious were not cut out of a cookie cutter. We are made of flesh and blood. We are someon’s brother or sister. We are somone’s son or daughter. We are someones’ auntie or uncle. We have given everything up to follow Christ. But we are not immune from human feelings and emotions. We may not always express them, but they are there.

Most of us are not afraid of questions. Many of us, including me, enjoy a good dialogue or debate about a theological or pastoral question. We also enjoy good communication with others. But we are not open to unpleasantries that are unnecessary. Life provides its own unpleasantries. We don’t have to create them for others.
You’ve twigged to one thing…respect to those who deserve it. Case by case.
Click to expand...
According to Christian tradition, every human being deserves respect.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
According to Christian tradition, every human being deserves respect
Click to expand...
The respect accorded for intrinsic human dignity yes, respect for opinions and assertions, no. But, I think you understood that distinction without me responding. I think there’s an opportunitistic debator’s core beneath the carefully mamnaged exterior.
Once again, the manner in which you want to communicate is uncharitable.
Click to expand...
I relayed a story about my personal feelings and reaction to what I saw. At some point, being told that frankness is unchaitable gets very, very old. I think that happened in about 1980, back when all the Religious I knew had perms.
Most of us are not afraid of questions. Many of us, including me, enjoy a good dialogue or debate about a theological or pastoral question. We also enjoy good communication with others. But we are not open to unpleasantries that are unnecessary. Life provides its own unpleasantries. We don’t have to create them for others.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. We do in fact have to create human unpleasantness from time to time. The best example is fraternal correction.
Do you know about their future living conditions and work situations? Do you know anything about their new bishop and how easy or difficult it may be to work with him? Do you know how long these sisters were living in their current placement and how threatening change may feel to them?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes, but why should that matter in the least? Think about that before you answer.
Are they not allowed to feel apprehension like any other human being?
Click to expand...
Ah, here’s the crux. Their spiritual forebears hopped onto Spanish galleons destined for lands truly unknown to spread the Gospel and often died cruel deaths in the service. I can look up to those great martyrs. I cannot look up to and will not make excuses for modern Religious who whine about relocating from one ZIP to another. It’s embarassing and shameful…and it’s a truly bad witness to lay people in genuinely tough situations who look on.

Hey look, I can call a spade a spade and the Religious in the discussion cannot. Why am I not surprised?
 
ipwnuathalo said:
The respect accorded for intrinsic human dignity yes, respect for opinions and assertions, no. But, I think you understood that distinction without me responding. I think there’s an opportunitistic debator’s core beneath the carefully mamnaged exterior.

I relayed a story about my personal feelings and reaction to what I saw. At some point, being told that frankness is unchaitable gets very, very old. I think that happened in about 1980, back when all the Religious I knew had perms.

Actually, no. We do in fact have to create human unpleasantness from time to time. The best example is fraternal correction.

Actually, yes, but why should that matter in the least? Think about that before you answer.

Ah, here’s the crux. Their spiritual forebears hopped onto Spanish galleons destined for lands truly unknown to spread the Gospel and often died cruel deaths in the service. I can look up to those great martyrs. I cannot look up to and will not make excuses for modern Religious who whine about relocating from one ZIP to another. It’s embarassing and shameful…and it’s a truly bad witness to lay people in genuinely tough situations who look on.

Hey look, I can call a spade a spade and the Religious in the discussion cannot. Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...
I think that you do not understand religoius life. You do not understand the religious person. You certainly have a mistaken notion about the religious of yesteryear who went to foreign lands and suffered martyrdom. You’re reading what is written about the, which is very heroic. But you are assuming that they had no human feelings and emotions about leaving their home, families, religious communities and the world that was familiar to them. The were not stoic. They were human beings, just like these sisters. Because the historians don’t write about their inner feelings or fears does not mean that they did not exist. I can show you letters by many of our great Franciscan saints and martyrs who had great fear of leaving the known for the unknown. They left out of obedience. Not because they had no fear. They trusted that God would calm their anxiety and would give them strength to obey and to serve. This is all that I’m hearing you say that these sisters are saying. So there is no difference.

Once again, you finish your post with a flippant remark and expect to be taken as a credible Catholic. I’m sorry. I cannot take as a credible Catholic anyone who is deliberately disrespectful. Don’t give me the nonsense about calling a spade a spade. Honesty does not have to be disrespectul or arrogant.

My suggestion is that you tone it down and guide yourself by the list that I gave you above. I think it’s pretty comprehensive and will help you frame what you have to say in a way that others will want to respond and share with you. So far, you have not invited any sharing. You have just made comments. How does that invite anyone to share what they know or what they think? Is this how you run communication in your home?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
And I think that this is one more exchange with a Religious in which the Religious is…oh…sort of divorced from reality, I think.

In the threads on evolution in other forums, one side accuses anyone who is a skeptic of Darwinian evolution of being ignorant. It’s par for the course. Everyone is used to it. It’s part of the landscape of the exchange.

Likewise, in my life, part of the landscape of any exchange with a Religious is head games. Always, always. I have no idea which orders ever bothered with formal training in Rodgerian techniques, but every Religious I’ve had experience with is a diagnoser and attempts to take control of every conversation as the facilitator. In the diocese I’ve lived in, it’s a truism that no Religious was ever satisfied with a conversation if it didn’t end with someone crying. It’s a culture of psychoanalysis, catharses, breakdowns, and the expectation that everyone is some sort of addict and needs a process.

I just can’t really see Francis being like that.
 
Also, let’s not forget what raised the ire of the Religious against me in this thread in the first place:

I wrote:
Roght now, in several diocese in Texas, they will accept a half-boiled turnip into formation. Abp. Gomez in San Antonio appears to be accepting pretty much any breathing person, and a few recent ordinations here have been older men. For sure, you don’t have to actually “know anything” or “believe anything” so the standards are pretty low across the board.
Click to expand...
…and I maintain that this is just the basic news of the day, common knowldge to all interested Catholics who have contact with that diocese. They ordained nobody for almost a decade, they lowered the academic standards of the local seminary, they let Fr. Crazypants Rolheiser’s OMI’s do the theological training, the liturgical training is a mess, and Abp. Gomez is quite famous for his triuphant report that he was “able to institute prayer and the Mass” at this seminary.

The last transitional deacon who breezed through the local parish didn’t know whether it was necessary to assent to the Marian dogmas or not, and thought it was A OK to dispose of any leftover matter of the Eucharist in the trash after Mass. Brillilance.

Why not just retract what you posted above and admit that people who live in a place are qualified to report to the world what conditions are like in that place? Like I said, the OP might end up in a jam, and not have any other course by which to fulfill his vocational aspirations to the priesthood. I’m letting him know, there’s at least one diocese that not only would probably take him, but desperately needs orthodox candidates.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
And I think that this is one more exchange with a Religious in which the Religious is…oh…sort of divorced from reality, I think.

In the threads on evolution in other forums, one side accuses anyone who is a skeptic of Darwinian evolution of being ignorant. It’s par for the course. Everyone is used to it. It’s part of the landscape of the exchange.

Likewise, in my life, part of the landscape of any exchange with a Religious is head games. Always, always. I have no idea which orders ever bothered with formal training in Rodgerian techniques, but every Religious I’ve had experience with is a diagnoser and attempts to take control of every conversation as the facilitator. In the diocese I’ve lived in, it’s a truism that no Religious was ever satisfied with a conversation if it didn’t end with someone crying. It’s a culture of psychoanalysis, catharses, breakdowns, and the expectation that everyone is some sort of addict and needs a process.

I just can’t really see Francis being like that.
Click to expand...
Stop making silly statements about religious life and go read this. If it doesn’t help you understand us, at least it won’t hurt you either.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=382256&page=2

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Ah, so much becomes clearer.

Probably not in the way you intended, but clearer nonetheless.
 
Convert from Judaism who is obsessive about standards of interpersonal behavior.
 
ipwnuathalo said:
Convert from Judaism who is obsessive about standards of interpersonal behavior.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am a convert from Judaism.

No, I am not obsessive about conducts of interpersonal behavior.

The two have nothing to do with each other. Interpersonal behavior requires charity, respect and discretion. Actually, those are not my own rules. They are part of the of Francis’ teachings to his brothers about fraternity and how the brothers are to show love for each other. That’s one of the many points in his writings and example that has kept us together as a family for 800 years and has made us the largest religious family in the Church today. We have a very good system of communication with very specific rules of engagement. When a brother violates those rules, he is no longer allowed to engage with the other brothers until he is willing to follow the rules. They promote charity, clear communication, focus on the issues and not the persons, and move things along.

Focus on the person is reserved for the superior alone. Only those who are superior to another have the right to pass judgement and the authority to correct. This too was part of Francis’ teaching to his brothers. He was very tough about this. No one but he and his canonically elected successors could ever touch the character, motives or intent of another brother. And no one could ever say a word about a superior or a bishop. That was forbidden. The reason was very simple. One must always exercise great humility and remember that one is a greater sinner than one’s superiors, if one dares to question them.

The exercise of fraternal charity consists in the exercise of restraint when speaking to one’s brother. This was always taught to the brothers by Bonaventure when he was the superior general. He was known to be one of the most intelligent men in Church history, but also one of the most humble brothers in the Franciscan Order. One of the most beautiful examples of humility that Bonaventure gave us was his resignation as a Cardinal, because there were problems in the curia, but he felt it was not his place to criticize his brother bishops. So he returned to his friary and became the dishwasher of the community. From there he wrote his greatest theological writings that along with those of Aquinas and Scotus helped correct many errors in the Church without attacking anyone in particular.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
ipwnuathalo said:
And do you consider yourself my canonical superior?
Click to expand...
No I do not and am not. Therefore, I do not question your intent. Though canoincally and theologically religious do have a very special place in the life of the Church and in her structure. But that’s another thread altogether.

I only ask you to modify your style. You probably have some very good motives. But you’re not at the other end reading what you write and how it souinds. This is what I’m trying to tell you or have been trying to tell you. So stop being silly and just talk plainly about what you want to know or say, without calling people stupid or whatever other word means the same.

Stop making general statements about religious. Because they do not apply Finally, stop mentioning bishops and their diocese by name. That’s not even allowed on CAF. I don’t know if you know this or not.

There is nothing wrong with saying that you diagree wit ABC. But we do not make it a point to say that another person is wrong for agreeing with ABC. That only starts a conflict. It doesn’t help anyone else understand why you disagree. In the end, remember, if someone does not agree with your disagreement, it does not mean that they are less intelligent or too fragile or whatever. It simply means that they disagree.

Now I do have one question for you, because you did intrigue me above. What does being Jewish have to do with interpersonal communication? I was not sure if you were putting them into the same sentence for convenience sake or if you saw some connection between the two.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
BigRedpg51 said:
Hello Fellow Catholics,

I am a 57 years old ‘cradle-Catholic’, am finally debt-free, and am able to follow God’s calling for me to enter the priesthood of the Catholic Church. I am certain of this calling. However, all of the dioceses that I’ve inquired into so far have told me that I’m too old. Almost all of them have lowered their maximum seminary entry age to 35-45 yrs. old.

I’ve even made inquiries to the three major seminaries that used to specialize in ‘older vocations’ – Sacred Heart in Hales Corners, WI; Holy Apostles in Cromwell, CT; and Pope John XXIII in Boston. All three of their vocations directors have told me that they did not know of any dioceses that were still processing ‘older’ or ‘second career’ vocations anymore.

Do any of you know of a diocese that I might try?

(your suggestions would be most gratefully appreciated!)

God bless you all,
John
Click to expand...
My diocese surely accepts older men. Arlington Diocese (VA). They just ordained somebody in their early 60s last year. Good luck.

Pax†
 
Thank you, Catholic Fireman…but I’ve already checked with your diocese, and they will not consider a man of my age.

Thanks anyway!

God bless you!
John
 
Wow, I wonder what the deal is? I know the priest they ordained was in his 60s. Must have changed their rules. Good luck and keep us posted!

Pax†
 
CatholicFireman said:
Wow, I wonder what the deal is? I know the priest they ordained was in his 60s. Must have changed their rules. Good luck and keep us posted!

Pax†
Click to expand...
It may not have been a rule, but an exception.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top