I’ve never caught onto this distinction before, cool. Thanks!All nuns and sisters are religious. Even secular orders such as the Secular Franciscans belong to a religious family.
The diocesan or secular priest’s counterpart is the layman.
Fraternally,
JR
There isn’t going to be any pressure from the Vatican. The Vatican has always practiced realpolitik. There is no way the Vatican would jeopardize good relations with the U.S. President over a graduation address.
Maybe it would be best if we took out the religious communities from places of higher learning, like universities. And replace them with diocesian clergy for the protection of the religious orders. And to keep the universities in check and under the supervision of the Bishops. Basically no religious orders are allowed to be tied in any way to places of higher learning apart from their abby, house, etc… This would also keep our religious orders from the stain of secularism, where the Bishops and the Vatican seem to lack control over in situations like this. I also read where Fr Jenkins has a payroll of over $400,000 a year, more than any Archbishop or Cardinal I know of. Does this money go to the Order?. Here is a link to salaries of ND staff including Fr Jenkins.From the beginning of Christian history bishops were responsible for local churches, later called dioceses. The local churches were composed of secular men and women.
Religious are not seculars. They are consecrated men and women. Therefore, they did not belong under the jurisdiction of the bishop whose job it was to care for the laity.
Religious communities grew into national and international families, since they were not limited to any local church. This allowed them to spread the mission and spirit of their founders around the world.
As they grew in size, they needed to answer to someone. The papacy took them under its wing. The papacy governed them and protected them. Thus it remains to this day.
A lay person belongs to the diocese where he was baptized and where he lives. A religious belongs to no diocese. He belongs to the universal Church. His mission is to serve the universal Church, not one jurisdiction.
Bishops often contract religious to help them run parishes, schools and other diocesan ministries when they have a shortage of qualified people to do so. But these are contractual relationships that can be terminated by either side at any time.
This also protects the bishops and the diocese. The diocese is not responsible for the financial or physical well-being of religious or for their education. They can make no demands on the diocese or its people.
This began with the first hermits of the desert and later with the first monastic communities founded by St. Benedict in the west and St. Basil in the east.
The two reasons that they do not fall under the authority of bishops:
There is one thing that we should fear above all things. When man allows himself to be guided by his punitive passions and desires to punish every infraction and over stepping the system, we run the risk of turning the Church into a theocratic dictatorship. The Bride of Christ is a mother, not a dictator.
- They are not secular or lay
- They belong to the universal Church, not any local Church
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
First, on a mundane note, there aren’t enough diocesan clergy to man the universities; second, the diocesan clergy, generally speaking, does not have the advanced degrees to teach at upper university level - this would mean even more laity, Catholic and otherwise teaching. What you suggest flies in the face of ancient Catholic practice worldwide, these orders have been approved by the Popes.
Romans 14:1-6.
Let’s look at this calmly and historically.
There are valid points presented by both of you. The Holy See does not want to engage in a conflict with the President of the United States that would endanger the diplomatic relations with the USA. This is important, because the relations between the Holy See and other governments gives the Church a portal to the nation’s leaders.OriginalUS, are you saying that you believe that the Holy Father would buckle under to an abortionist President just to maintain good relations.
Never would I ever believe that. Why does the Holy Father need good relations with Barack Obama?
The Vatican has already rejected a number of nominations for ambassadors to the Vatican from the US.:knight2:
The book John Paul II by Ray Flynn is an interesting look into the relationship between the Vatican and the US during Flynn’s ambassadorship. The biggest conflict between Pope John Paul II and President Clinton came over the Cairo Conference when the USA and the UN were forcing birth control and abortion on poor, developing nations as a way to solve the world’s problems. Most likely there will be the same type of conflict between the Vatican and Obama as there was between the Vatican and Clinton, since Obama is following the same pro-abortion, pro-contraception policies regarding foreign aid.There are valid points presented by both of you. The Holy See does not want to engage in a conflict with the President of the United States that would endanger the diplomatic relations with the USA. This is important, because the relations between the Holy See and other governments gives the Church a portal to the nation’s leaders.
On the other hand, the Holy See will not compromise on these issues. It will use local leaders to fight these issues. The local Catholic, including clergy and religious, are citizens of the USA. As citizens we have a right to voice our concerns and to oppose these legislations. This way the government can say anything it wants about Catholics, but it cannot shut them up, because they are citizens.
If the Holy See enters into a conflict with the White House, it can be dismissed, because it does not represent the interests of the American people, but the beliefs of the Catholic Church. As long as there is no diplomatic relations with the Church, there is no need to listen.
As long as there is a diplomatic relationship, the US has to listen, even if it does not like what it hears. Also, the Catholics in this country can be defended in an international court or other forum by the Catholic Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I don’t doubt for a moment that there are going to be tense moments between the two leaders. What does concern me are two things. 1) In my opinion, President Obama is not as respectful of religious leaders as President Clinton was. I believe that he will use every opportunity to convince others that the Vatican is intolerant and does not understand human suffering. In other words, he will go on the attack, while Bill Clinton was more diplomatic and a good communicator at the same time. Obama seems to be a good communicator, but a poor diplomat.
This seem to go along with the article I just read at National Review Online by George Weigel:
My husband and I watched the address together and he ( being a strong christian ) even mentioned that the president did not mention Jesus Christ as being Lord of his life. I think the president was trying to be diplomatic. But all of our churches have been infiltrated and evengelized. Us instead of them so it makes no difference as it may all swing the other way and then back again.