Disrespect

[elizabeth_anne_1]

As uncalled for as disrespect is- perhaps it is important to point out that people don’t, or shouldn’t enter religious life or be ordained to the priesthood for human “respect.” None of us should be shocked, religious or not, to receive some disrespect in our walk with the Lord, Who Himself was disrespected…“No servant is greater than his master.” Also, in the promising of the “hundred-fold” blessing for those who “leave everything to follow” the Lord said they would receive these things “with persecutions…” and thus far none as pointed out in the epistles, “none of us has resisted to the point of shedding our blood.” Please God we will given the opportunity.

So, if you are discerning the priesthood or religious life and think, “I will be respected…” perhaps that is an honest human motivation, but please be certain to realize that you should follow a vocation for a supernatural motivation- namely that God calls and the grace is given.

By the way- whatever it is that is causing the attacking and the “us” versus “them” attitude in the forums is NOT OF GOD- He is not in the business of causing division…

 

[anode]

Interesting thread.

I posted the link to the SNdeNamur sister who was in sweats–she supervises the academic careers of the players, with very good results. Her foundress, Ste. Julie, not only didn’t wear a habit, she wore the dress of the poor, whom she protected and championed. Of course, the sister-‘coach’ in question was criticized for this.

I am interested in women’s vocations in the US, especially apostolic, and have noted for years that there is great hostility on the forums (fora) towards active non-habited sisters. This is manifest by posters who aren’t members of religious instututes, never were, usually are men, usually are in middle age (young posters may prefer a habit–this is different) and generate a great deal of hostility towards “women’s libbers” in general.

Other male posters, who think they have vocations to the diocesan priesthood or to religious life, don’t like their priest or bishop or the Novus Ordo rite. They are negative in the extreme.

Many of these negative posters also believe that the non-habited orders are dying out. They are shrinking, true, but were too large originally–they still attract and keep candidates and have adapted to the times, selling their huge obsolete buildings and adapting their apostolates to serving the poor, like Ste. Julie, for example, originally intended. The habited orders, with very few exceptions, are attracting few candidates that *stay. *

These attitudes do nothing to foster vocations in the US.

 

[Cowfold]

As uncalled for as disrespect is- perhaps it is important to point out that people don’t, or shouldn’t enter religious life or be ordained to the priesthood for human “respect.” None of us should be shocked, religious or not, to receive some disrespect in our walk with the Lord, Who Himself was disrespected…“No servant is greater than his master.” Also, in the promising of the “hundred-fold” blessing for those who “leave everything to follow” the Lord said they would receive these things “with persecutions…” and thus far none as pointed out in the epistles, “none of us has resisted to the point of shedding our blood.” Please God we will given the opportunity.

So, if you are discerning the priesthood or religious life and think, “I will be respected…” perhaps that is an honest human motivation, but please be certain to realize that you should follow a vocation for a supernatural motivation- namely that God calls and the grace is given.

By the way- whatever it is that is causing the attacking and the “us” versus “them” attitude in the forums is NOT OF GOD- He is not in the business of causing division…

One of the more ‘down to earth’ and sensible posts on this somewhat otherwise confused thread.

 

[anode]

Although disrespect (a new noun I didn’t grow up with, but useful…) is to be frowned on, it does have its uses–it’s the opportunity for “So, out with it”–say what you’ve gotta say and I’ll (or we’ll) try to counter it–with politeness, grammar, syntax, and maybe even some eloquence. IF there is ‘disrespect’ out there, better to have it said and out there, than unsaid and unopposed.

 

[joandarc2008]

One of the more ‘down to earth’ and sensible posts on this somewhat otherwise confused thread.

Anode I can understand what you are saying - however, someone such as the above poster following someone on to this thread to make a snide comment instead of looking at his own behavior smacks of the exact thing that is being spoken of on this thread. It is tough to encourage vocations with your right hand and smack a priest in the head with your left.

 

[anode]

Anode I can understand what you are saying - however, someone such as the above poster following someone on to this thread to make a snide comment instead of looking at his own behavior smacks of the exact thing that is being spoken of on this thread. It is tough to encourage vocations with your right hand and smack a priest in the head with your left.

What you say is true. AND I must say, to counter my own argument, that those mouthing off aren’t interested in hearing the other side…

*and smack **a priest *in the head with your left–or a nun or sister, either.

oh, well…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Anode I can understand what you are saying - however, someone such as the above poster following someone on to this thread to make a snide comment instead of looking at his own behavior smacks of the exact thing that is being spoken of on this thread. It is tough to encourage vocations with your right hand and smack a priest in the head with your left.

Thank you for noticing and pointing out this behavior.

 

[Cowfold]

Anode I can understand what you are saying - however, someone such as the above poster following someone on to this thread to make a snide comment instead of looking at his own behavior smacks of the exact thing that is being spoken of on this thread. It is tough to encourage vocations with your right hand and smack a priest in the head with your left.

And what sort of ‘gutter’ talk is that?

 

[Cowfold]

Anode I can understand what you are saying - however, someone such as the above poster following someone on to this thread to make a snide comment instead of looking at his own behavior smacks of the exact thing that is being spoken of on this thread. It is tough to encourage vocations with your right hand and smack a priest in the head with your left.

Trying to sound ‘pious’ and then reverting to ‘gutter talk’ does not become you.

 

[Shoshana]

I was one of the ones who criticized the nun in sweats. Criticizing those who disagree with the sweats on ANOTHER thread is against forum rules. I have been in the convent. My foundress was also a person who dressed like the poor of the time (they mostly all did). She even had GREY habits,out of humility, because her husband who had died was an ausive alcholic…and in french, being drunk all the time is ‘grey’. I am not getting into the transliterations here. She was canonized by JP2…that being said, we can disagree with something like that. It is not the end of the world. I also disagree with the monastery here in Niagara Falls, Ontario because the friars there are STEEPED into New Age. They also have icons of Jesus and gurus alongside, etc on a consecrated altar. Do we stand back and let it go?

Here is my response on the other thread of anode’s last post:

Yes, I have seen the other thread and on the whole I do respect all religious: priest or sister.

It is difficult for me to wrap my head around the sweats part. What difference would it make if she wore the habit to coach? I went to a private school and the nun in charge of all sports, still wore her habit. She would not be expected to do cartwheels or anything during these games. She even showed us how to get a basketball in a net with her habit on…Mainly, she coaches the students by her mouth. Wearing sweats or a habit is not relevant to the game.

It seems that some are saying that wearing a habit does not make the nun. This is true…to a certain extent. Wearing a habit gives witness to us laypeople that this nun is consecrated to our God. Sweats do not give one that impression. It makes one think of God seeing that symbol of a consecrated habit. The habit is also for the laypeople as it is also for the nun to remind the world that we are just on a journey here. It is a WITNESS. Again, sweats do not do that.

There probably are very good nuns who are not in habit as opposed to some who wear the habit. No different than my spriitual director who, 99% of the time, wears his collar EVERYWHERE. Isn’t that beautiful? He is a diocesan priest…

So, please respond to threads that are being used instead of using one that gossips about others on another…I again reiterate that I respect so many who are consecrated to the Lord. My director will affirm this (I just came back from confession with him)…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is difficult for me to wrap my head around the sweats part. What difference would it make if she wore the habit to coach?

The difference is that her order does not have a habit. The founder of their order did not wear a habit.

This is something that people do not understand. Some orders never had habits. They wore what the poor people wore, some of them developed into habits but it was never the intent of the founders to put them in habits so after Vatican II some of the orders went back to their constitutions and rules and looked back at their history and got rid of the habit that their founder never put them in.

 

[Shoshana]

The difference is that her order does not have a habit. The founder of their order did not wear a habit.

This is something that people do not understand. Some orders never had habits. They wore what the poor people wore, some of them developed into habits but it was never the intent of the founders to put them in habits so after Vatican II some of the orders went back to their constitutions and rules and looked back at their history and got rid of the habit that their founder never put them in.

Thank you for this…have a blessed Easter Brother David!

 

[JReducation]

On thing that happened with some congregations and institutes was that the fashions changed and the sisters and brothers never changed because they didn’t want to get caught up on the secular culture. They accidently created habits. This happened long after the founders were dead. This was more common among women than men. Just for example: Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Missionary Sisters of the Most Blessed Trinity, Sister: Parish Visitors, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity.

Many of these communities wore what was common in their culture. For example, Mother Teresa chose the sari because she wanted to found an Indian society. They cover their hair because the Medical Mission Sisters who trained Mother Teresa in nursing strongly suggested that she cover her head to keep out the heat and the lice. Normally, saris do not completely cover the hair. It was a practical reason. On the other hand, Mother Teresa also founded a mendicant congregation of brothers known as the Missionary Brothers of Charity. She never allowed them to wear a habit, not even a cassock. They have always worn street clothes. The same is true for the Marianists. Their founder forbade the use of a habit of any kind. Ignatius Loyola also forbade the habit. The Jesuits at that time adopted the cassock of the diocesan priests. Today they wear street clothes or a Roman collar.

My own Franciscan family has a very interesting history regarding the habit. St. Francis did write a habit into the rule of each order, he founded three. But he forgot to mention the color. We have no idea what color he intended. You will see Franciscans in black, brown, grey, tan, blue and white. The point is that the founders: a) forbade the use of a habit, b) never mentioned it in their statutes, or c) intend for a habit to be worn. Each religious family has its history regarding the habit.

However, it is also true that canon law does require a habit. Those communities that do not have one were given permission not to wear a habit. Every community must have their constitutions approved by either the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life or by the diocesan bishop, if they are a diocesan congregation. Now there is a move back to the habit among some religious families; but it’s usually those who had one written into their original statutes, rule or constitution and the newly founded communities. It is also true that some communities have a habit prescribed in their constitution or rule, but they do find a loophole around it. That’s unfortunate.

But before we criticize a religious for not wearing a habit, we should first read the constitutions approved for them by the Church. If the constitutions do not mention a habit, then none is required. Most of us, even religoius, would not know this about another community unless we read their constitutions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

Wow- I am learning a lot in small blurbs here. Now, one other thing that I notice is that we are all from different areas of the world and that sometimes our cultural differences may put different connotations on words. This may lead an innocent comment to become something offensive.

 

[Ocarm]

I was one of the ones who criticized the nun in sweats. Criticizing those who disagree with the sweats on ANOTHER thread is against forum rules.

I have to say I wasn’t aware of that, and since I referenced the thread here initially, you have my unreserved apology. My ignorance is no defence.

The question I’m about to ask will sound very pointed, I’m sure, but for what its worth, I am asking a sincere question, with good intent:

Since this thread concerns a lack of courtesy shown to religious here on CAF, and since I note you are a Forum Elder, may I respectfully ask whether ad hominem undermining of religious and their institutes based only on the absence of religious garb is permitted by forum rules? In other words, if a poster makes critical remarks regarding a sister’s personal dedication, or makes assumptions about lack of obedience to the magisterium, or about the putative good faith of their institute’s practices, or the likely survival of their charism, simply because they don’t wear the habit sometimes or at all, is this acceptable by CAF’s standards?

Since these kind of comments aren’t uncommon on the forums, it would help me to know if they are permissible or not. I hope you believe me when I say I’m not interested in scoring points in asking this, just in establishing what is and isn’t OK, because that will shape my responses in the future.

I also disagree with the monastery here in Niagara Falls, Ontario because the friars there are STEEPED into New Age. They also have icons of Jesus and gurus alongside, etc on a consecrated altar. Do we stand back and let it go?

Criticism is fine, and as has been stated above by several posters, may be productive. But I think there is a false opposition frequently resorted to here on the forums:

Either we have to let X do whatever they want, or we have to be critical of them in the most strident and discourteous terms without concern for their good standing or without even minimal attention to the expectations of charity and indeed, canon law – which tasks us to assume innocence, not guilt.

There is a middle path - be critical, because this is your right and sometimes your obligation, but do so in a Christian fashion and without arrogance or hate.

It bemuses and saddens me how often this path is ignored here on CAF – not just when addressing religious, but when referring to any human being, Christian or otherwise. I think this is a pretty minimal expectation of Christ’s faithful.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I also disagree with the monastery here in Niagara Falls, Ontario because the friars there are STEEPED into New Age. They also have icons of Jesus and gurus alongside, etc on a consecrated altar. Do we stand back and let it go?

First, we do not live in monasteries, we live in priories, but the Niagara Falls Spirituality Centre (it is in Canada so it uses the British spelling of Center) is not a priory, it is a retreat centre.

It is not a Catholic Retreat center any longer as if it was it would be closed as Catholics do not seem to support their retreat centres as they once did.

It is a Spiritual Centre. It has non-catholic programs run by non-catholics who pay to use the centre. I do not know about the altar issue you raise but to complain about non-catholic use of a centre is wrong.

It is not your Centre, it does not belong to the diocese so they have no say over how we use it. It belongs to the Carmelite Province of the Most Pure Heart of Mary and we allow non-catholic use so that the retreat centre can stay and have the Catholic programs it does offer. If we did not we would have to close it and sell it and there would be another casino in Niagara Falls which the government would love as they tried to force us out last year by attempting to deny our tax exempt status.

Which would you chose? (I think I already know thought)

 

[JReducation]

, may I respectfully ask whether ad hominem undermining of religious and their institutes based only on the absence of religious garb is permitted by forum rules? In other words, if a poster makes critical remarks regarding a sister’s personal dedication, or makes assumptions about lack of obedience to the magisterium, or about the putative good faith of their institute’s practices, or the likely survival of their charism, simply because they don’t wear the habit sometimes or at all, is this acceptable by CAF’s standards?

There is a rule on CAF that all posts must be charitable and they must not show contempt for Catholicism or anything Catholic. You can report it when it happens.

Criticism is fine, and as has been stated above by several posters, may be productive. But I think there is a false opposition frequently resorted to here on the forums:

Either we have to let X do whatever they want, or we have to be critical of them in the most strident and discourteous terms without concern for their good standing or without even minimal attention to the expectations of charity and indeed, canon law – which tasks us to assume innocence, not guilt.

I believe that there are two issues here. There are many angry people on forums, not just this one. They don’t just vent, they punish anyone who stands in the way between them and their truth.

The second issue is that the religious on CAF take this nonsense. I believe it’s time that we start to report it. We can report it using the little yield sign at the top or write to the forum administration.

This is the way that I look at it, if the laity wants the religious to be like the religious of the “good old days,” then you must also behave like the laity of the good old days. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

I grew up Jewish, but my mother would have slapped us silly if we ever made a rude remark to a Catholic priest, sister, brother or a Jewish Rabbi. It made no difference to her what religion the person represented. Charity and respect were universal, but there was a special courtessy that was extended toward clergy, religious and rabbis, at least in my house.

It was interesting, we had Capuchin Franciscan Friars in our neighborhood, along with a lot of Jews. But there was a mutual respect. The Catholic kids were very respectful toward the Rabbis too.

In my book, those are the good old days. It’s not one sided. It can’t be, otherwise we don’t really have a Catholic family. It becomes more like a feudal system with little surfdoms popping up all over the place.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Shoshana]

First, we do not live in monasteries, we live in priories, but the Niagara Falls Spirituality Centre (it is in Canada so it uses the British spelling of Center) is not a priory, it is a retreat centre.

You are right Brother!

It is not a Catholic Retreat center any longer as if it was it would be closed as Catholics do not seem to support their retreat centres as they once did.

You are right… it is hardly recognizable as a Catholic center…this is too bad as I have gained so many graces from so many retreats there. But, with my husband losing two jobs, the price of going is too teep. I would have loved to experience the one week-end retreat on St John of the Cross…but 3oo.oo$ +++ is way too much money. That being said, i understand the price is not bad really…the food is absolutely great and the rooms are very comfortable…couldn’t get better care!

It is a Spiritual Centre. It has non-catholic programs run by non-catholics who pay to use the centre. I do not know about the altar issue you raise but to complain about non-catholic use of a centre is wrong.

I have not complained about non-catholic programs…I personnally think is a very good idea. How many souls possibly will be enriched by the place and maybe become catholic? You say it is a spiritual center, i suppose that would fit the bill as many gnostic philosophy courses are being given (which is also called spiritual). They also call themselves ‘ecumenical center’…which means according ot the CC: amongst baptized christians. For heaven’s sake, courses based on the Course of Miracles are being given there…

If you read my post correctly, I complained about New Age which is neither Catholic nor Christian. So, having complained forthrightingly to the Center and to the bishop about practices that go against Catholic teachings let alone Christian, is a duty for all of us. The letters were read and approved by my spiritual director.

It is not your Centre,

You are right.

it does not belong to the diocese so they have no say over how we use it.

And that is too bad…for the courses given there counterfeit the gifts of the holy Spirit.

It belongs to the Carmelite Province of the Most Pure Heart of Mary and we allow non-catholic use so that the retreat centre can stay and have the Catholic programs it does offer. If we did not we would have to close it and sell it and there would be another casino in Niagara Falls which the government would love as they tried to force us out last year by attempting to deny our tax exempt status.

Brother David, read answers above

Which would you chose? (I think I already know thought)

Let them bring back the carmelite spirit. The courses I took (The Edith Stein Institute) were fabulous…but that was so long ago (15+ years ago)…way before they brought in these shenanigans.

If true and honest christian spirituality were always given (who cares about the denomination), then there would be no compromise. As of today, there are many compromises in keeping the Center open. Our CWL had their retreat there…I won’t name the priest…and there was a video given based on the gospel of Thomas. Huh? This is not New Age but it certainly confused the ladies from our parish. One stood up to this and she was yelled at in front of a lot of ladies…

I want them to remain open. But keep New Age, gurus, energy of the universe, etc etc out of it…

Am I being disrespectful? God bless…

 

[Shoshana]

Btw, my apologies for criticing the sister in sweats since their order never had one. My bad…please forgive me…:bighanky:

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Shoshana,

I hope I was not too hard with my last post.

If you have issue and you have written to the centre and receive no response or no response that satisfied you then I suggest that you write to the Provincial Offices, they are the proper authority, not the local bishop.

Go to our website, Carmelnet and click on the About Us link on the right hand side.

You will see the Provincial Office address, you can write a snail mail letter to there make sure you send it to the Provincial or if you scroll down a bit you will see an email address to the Provincial Office, again make sure you call it to the attention of the Provincial.

I hope this helps you out.

But again, even New Age can be called a spirituality and if they are paying and running their own classes I do not see how the blame can be place on others.