Encouraging vocations

[Flame_of_Christ]

Hi all, the Lord bless us all with peace.

I have a concern that I thought I would bring it up here to listen to others advice.

My concern is that due to the realization that everybody in life has a vocation to know, love and serve God, we in the Church have not encouraged religious vocations as we should. I always hear how God wants you to be holy in your state of life and in some sense although I agree with this wholeheartedly, it seems that we are not viewing the special call to religious life as special any longer. I wonder if the devil has secretly crept in to the church and is working to stop people from seriously considering a religious vocation by telling them that they will just be fine by not embracing this special calling.

Am I wrong, but hasn’t the Church in all ages except ours, given religious vocations with a special place in the church. Doesn’t St. Paul agree with me that “the one who chooses to remain celibate does better”?

What if the devil is trying to destroy vocations to the priesthood and ultimately destroy the availability of the sacraments?

these are my concerns and I would like to know where you all stand.

God bless us all!

 

[duchess453]

That does make some sense. However, one must also look at changing times. Parents no longer would be happy with seeing their children in the religious life, they want them married and to see grandchildren. And children are in a lot of cases less and less exposed to what religious life is to the point where though they may respect the position they feel no interest in learning what it really is anymore.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Part of my concern is the off hand remarks that people make about priests and religious thinking that children are not listening.

Believe me, they are listening, and when they see adults “encourage” vocations and speak well of priests and religious in their presence but then make off hand remarks about them behind their backs they notice it and it hurts vocations greatly.

 

[JReducation]

Hi all, the Lord bless us all with peace.

I have a concern that I thought I would bring it up here to listen to others advice.

My concern is that due to the realization that everybody in life has a vocation to know, love and serve God, we in the Church have not encouraged religious vocations as we should. I always hear how God wants you to be holy in your state of life and in some sense although I agree with this wholeheartedly, it seems that we are not viewing the special call to religious life as special any longer. I wonder if the devil has secretly crept in to the church and is working to stop people from seriously considering a religious vocation by telling them that they will just be fine by not embracing this special calling.

Am I wrong, but hasn’t the Church in all ages except ours, given religious vocations with a special place in the church. Doesn’t St. Paul agree with me that “the one who chooses to remain celibate does better”?

What if the devil is trying to destroy vocations to the priesthood and ultimately destroy the availability of the sacraments?

these are my concerns and I would like to know where you all stand.

God bless us all!

I strongly suggest that you separate the question into two parts. Why are people not embracing the priesthood? Why are people not embracing religious life?

I always encourage this, because priesthood is not religious life. Priests are ordained, not consecrated. Religious are consecrated men not ordained. Some men are both.

Actually, the number of men entering the priesthood rose and the number of men entering religious life dropped from 2005 to 2010. This year’s applicants to the seminary is the highest in five years. I think it was Georgetown University that did this study. I could be wrong on who did the study. But I read it here. Someone posted it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

My concern is that due to the realization that everybody in life has a vocation to know, love and serve God, we in the Church have not encouraged religious vocations as we should.

Sadly, I have to agree with your point here. I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and despite the fact I had religion or Christian ethics classes every year vocations (apart from marriage of course) never got more than a passing mention in the end 5 minutes of maybe 2 classes in high school from what I remember.

 

[JReducation]

Sadly, I have to agree with your point here. I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and despite the fact I had religion or Christian ethics classes every year vocations (apart from marriage of course) never got more than a passing mention in the end 5 minutes of maybe 2 classes in high school from what I remember.

I’m wondering if that may have been a result of the larger number of lay teachers teaching religious education in our schools and catechetical programs. I’ll explain why I’m wondering. We volunteer at a secular parish. They have never seen religious in that parish.

After 25-years of its existence, the brothers came to do pro-life work in the diocese. So we volunteer to teach religious ed and do youth ministry. During our first year we picked up three brothers. Now there is a joke between the brothers and the secular priests and deacons in the parish. Brothers: 3 and Seculars: 0.

Before we came, all of the catechists and youth ministers were lay. They did not feel comfortable talking about religious life and priesthood, becaues as they pointed out to us, they don’t know how to explain the difference and how to encourage the kids in the right direction.

As one man put it. “It’s easy to point a girl, because women can’t be priests. But how do I know if a boy is a better priest or a better religious?” As I spoke with this wonderful man who has taught religious ed for a very long time, I realized that he knew there was a difference between religious life and Holy Orders. But he was not well informed on the details and he had no idea why God had allowed the emrgence of male religious life, when Christ had already instituted Holy Orders. As he put it to me, “I never understood why men became religious.”

That leads me to wonder how many lay teachers of religion really know the difference and can teach on vocations. I have met sisters who don’t know the difference and have heard them try in good faith to explain it to kids and not get it right. I have a friend who is a diocesan deacon and he once said, “I never realized that being a religiuos brother was a vocation. I always thought that brothers were men who could not handle the studies for the priesthood. Suddently, you guys roll into town with doctorates and masters degrees in theology and ministry. I had to ask why weren’t you ordained.” He could not teach this to the kids in CCD, even though he was a deacon.

In the past, most religious education was done by sisters or brothers who taught in schools. These folks were exposed to religious life and the priesthood. They didn’t need to study the theology of it. They lived it. They could encourage vocations just by their presence. I attended a high school that had 40 brothers. Today, that same high school has about 8 brothers and it is no longer run by the brothers. Those kids get their religious formation from lay teachers.

As much as I love lay catechists and am grateful for the work that they do, not all of them have good training in sacraments and consecrated life. Naturally, they shy away from teaching on it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

I think you’re spot on Br. JR. We only had lay teachers, and we technically “shared” a priest with another high school and the parish he was assigned to. Needless to say, he was around when we had a mass or when we had confessions (once in Lent) and that was it.

I think it would have been great if the school had him give a talk to the some of the classes on the priesthood or something. I did even know there was such a thing as monks though because we have an abbey in the diocese. It would have been even nice to have a talk from one of them.

 

[JReducation]

I think you’re spot on Br. JR. We only had lay teachers, and we technically “shared” a priest with another high school and the parish he was assigned to. Needless to say, he was around when we had a mass or when we had confessions (once in Lent) and that was it.

I think it would have been great if the school had him give a talk to the some of the classes on the priesthood or something. I did even know there was such a thing as monks though because we have an abbey in the diocese. It would have been even nice to have a talk from one of them.

Then you have another situation. The number of parishes run by secular priests is increasing. Most male religious who are priests or brothers do not work in parishes. Secular priests usually belong to a diocese. They are known as diocesan priests and a small number belong to societies, but they are not religious. They are known as clerical societies such as the SSPX, FSSP, Maryknoll, Institute of Christ the King and Opus Dei.

Diocesan priests make up the bulk of the priests in parishes. They usually know little or nothing about religious life and the spiritual life. Religiuos life and Christian Spirituality are not required courses for secular priests. Some seminaries do not teach these courses and others offer them as electives. Given the electives, most diocesan seminarians will take courses in pastoral counseling, catechesis, or hospital ministry, because these are more practical for them. These men are not going to be religious so they really don’t need to know about religious life and most of them do not want to do spiritual direction ministry so they don’t need Christian Spirituality. They get their spirituality from their spiritual directors. But they don’t focus on the spiritual life as a discipline. You’re not going to find too many diocesan priests who can promote the religious life or guide a person toward it, because there are not many who have studied it. There is not room in the curriculum for that many courses. The few diocesan priests who are trained in religious life and spirituality take additional courses or go for an advanced theological degree.

Religious brothers and priests who are both: religious and clerics, must study Christian Spirituality and Religious Life as part of their formation program. But the formation program for these guys is usually at least two years longer than it is for the average diocesan priest. They usually have at least 6 months postulancy and one year novitiate dedicated solely to the study of spirituality and religious life, some communities require more than that. But these men are not usually in parish ministry or schools any longer. Most of us have returned to the original ministries of our founders. Most of our founders did not intend for us to serve in parishes or schools. There are few communities of men religious that were founded for parish ministry or for education.

If a Director of Religious Education, a Catholic School Principal or a Diocesan Pastor invites us to speak to their population, religious will gladly do so. But that rarely happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

The monks I spoke of are Benedictines, and several of them are actually taking care of parishes (or a cluster of them in different small towns) in the diocese right now. Shows you how strapped we are for priests here right now

 

[JReducation]

The monks I spoke of are Benedictines, and several of them are actually taking care of parishes (or a cluster of them in different small towns) in the diocese right now. Shows you how strapped we are for priests here right now

Many religious have volunteered to help bishops by taking care of parishes. The Franciscan family has been doing it since the 1800s, but now we’re starting to pull back. After a number of years parish life begins to have a very negative effect on religious life.

Religious orders that were not intended to be clerical orders begin to ordain too many men. Gradually they are transformed from brotherhoods to orders of priests.

Religious orders that were meant to have a very close community life often stretch themselves to help the bishops and find that they are assigning ment to live alone or in pairs. This is not condusive to community living. The result has been that these men become secular priests in a habit. They live alone, manage their own time, money and resources. They pray alone. They come and go without having to ask for permission. They have friends and relationships outside of the community and gradually no longer need their brothers as their support system. When they are recalled to live in community they find it very difficult.

Many religious orders were founded as brotherhoods. When they take up parishes they begin to ordain so many men in response to the needs of the ministry that clericalism sets in. Clericalism has almost destroyed some orders, because the non-clerical religious have rebelled. The will not be governed by priests, because the rule says that they are not to be governed by priests, but they are to be governed by those whom they elect, ordained or not. The priests refuse to be governed by lay men, when the rule says that lay men can govern the community. It has become a mess. Some orders have simply given up trying to follow their original charism. Others have split up into several orders and many of these orders have lost many good men who become confused and frustrated.

Another thing that has happened is that the younger men entering do not want to do parish work. They want to live the life that the founder wrote for them. This means that parishes then begin to suffer, because superiors don’t have the numbers they once had to assign to the parishes. The number of men available to the parishes is depleted and the parishes end up closing down when the religious have had enough and leave the parish.

Finally, many religious complain that the laity love having them in the parish as long as they are as available as a secular priest is. When these monks and friars put in three hours a day in a parish and the rest of the time is devoted to the Liturgy of the Hours, silence, community recreation, community work, community prayer, the laity rebels. We had a situation where the laity was very upset because the brothers would stop hearing confessions when the hour was up because they had to be at community recreation. The parishioners did not understand how important this activity is to a conventual community. They were scandalized that the brothers would rather play than hear confessions. No matter how much it was explained that the brothers did not feel this way, but that they had an a priori obligation to their community before the parish, the parishioners found it difficult to accept. Eventually they had to. They were given two choices by the bishop: accept the brothers on their terms or close the parish, because the diocese did not have men to assign. But there were hard feelings between the laity, bishop and religious.

It does not always work well if it’s done for an extended period… I know Benedictines in Texas who help run a parish or two, but they don’t live at the parish. The go there during office hours and return to the abbey at 4:30 every day. People are not too happy because they can’t have the monks in the evening and the lay people have to run all of the evening activities, but it was the only way that the Abbot would agree to help the parishes. It was either that or close the parishes.

You’re lucky up there, because most Abbots would simply not agree to having their men out of the abbey that much. Because those abbeys that have done this, as well as the conventual mendicants, have not been able to live their life as it was supposed to be lived. They lost many men. Many Abbots of monasteries and Ministers of friaries are no longer willing to take those chances. I wish the Bennies luck.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

It does not always work well if it’s done for an extended period… I know Benedictines in Texas who help run a parish or two, but they don’t live at the parish. The go there during office hours and return to the abbey at 4:30 every day. People are not too happy because they can’t have the monks in the evening and the lay people have to run all of the evening activities, but it was the only way that the Abbot would agree to help the parishes. It was either that or close the parishes.

I’m not sure what they do here. I did a quick check, and most that are out (5 of them) are within a half hour of the abbey (all small town parishes). There’s 1 other who I’m pretty sure is working full time at a parish an hour and a half away in a city (he’s filling in for a priest who’s on sabbatical for a year).

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure what they do here. I did a quick check, and most that are out (5 of them) are within a half hour of the abbey (all small town parishes). There’s 1 other who I’m pretty sure is working full time at a parish an hour and a half away in a city (he’s filling in for a priest who’s on sabbatical for a year).

I would imagine that the monk who is 90 minutes away from the abbey does not go back and forth every day. That would be horrible. The others who are closer to the abbey may live at the abbey and go to the parish to work. I have no way of knowing. But the one who is 90 minutes away is covering for a sabbatical year, that’s not a long-term commitment. Many Abbots and Ministers of friars do agree to this for a short period like that.

What the Vatican does not want is to have religious men living outside of their religious community, even for the sake of the parish. The Vatican prefers that the parish be merged rather than sacrifice the religious life. Religious are allowed to serve in parishes, provided that it does not interfere with their obligations to their religious community and that such ministry is consistent with the mind of the founder.

I realize that this sounds horrible to the poor lay person who may have to drive an extra 30 minutes to get to mass or the person who is very attached to his parish and sees it merged. But there is not much that religious can do in that situation without sacrificing their own vocation, which no one should ever ask another person to do. That would be like asking a person who is a parent to sacrifice their time with their children to serve on a parish ministry. This is acceptable as long as it is short-term. But when the person is not fulfilling his duties to his family, then there is no virtue in serving the parish. It’s an injustice.

In the past this was done, because no one knew the effects that it would have on religious communities. But now that we’ve done it and have seen the tragedy that it caused, we have to be more prudent in accepting certain invitations to take on certain ministries.

The biggest tragedy was when Vatican II mandated religious to go back to their roots. Religious superiors of men began to call them back to their religious houses or their religious practices. These men had entered their religious communities at a time when those communities ran parishes. They entered believing that this was what they were going to be doing. When they were called back to living a conventual life, they were confused, angry, betrayed and very unhappy. Thousands left.

As one man once told me, “I didn’t enter the Franciscan Order to pray the Liturgy of the Hours all day, to sit around with a group of friars eating and playing cards or spend my time in silence. I entered to be a priest and now they tell me that my first obligation is to be a friar.” He was angry and confused.

The tragedy was not caused because Vatican II demanded that religious return to their roots. That was not a tragic request. That was sensible. The tragedy was that the priests in those orders and congregations never thought much about the “old days” of their community. They figured that the community had evolved and this was the way things were supposed to be when they joined. Now the Church was telling them that they were out of compliance with their founders. I can imagine that some may have felt very guilty too. These men were trying to do the best they could to serve the people of God, never realizing that what they were doing was inconsistent with the mind of the founder.

The Pre-Vatican II Church made a boo-boo. But it was not an intentional one. No one knew how it would affect religious life. There was a need and everyone did the best they could to respond. It has taken 40+ years to fix this boo boo and it’s still not fixed. The good news is that the Holy Spirit called these religious charisms into existence and he will maintain those that are still needed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

I strongly suggest that you separate the question into two parts. Why are people not embracing the priesthood? Why are people not embracing religious life?

I always encourage this, because priesthood is not religious life. Priests are ordained, not consecrated. Religious are consecrated men not ordained. Some men are both.

Actually, the number of men entering the priesthood rose and the number of men entering religious life dropped from 2005 to 2010. This year’s applicants to the seminary is the highest in five years. I think it was Georgetown University that did this study. I could be wrong on who did the study. But I read it here. Someone posted it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The most reliable statistics are available thru CARA -Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which is part of Georgetown University.

cara.georgetown.edu

 

[JReducation]

The most reliable statistics are available thru CARA -Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, which is part of Georgetown University.

cara.georgetown.edu

I believe this is the one that was posted before. On the bottom it shows that the number of diocesan priests went up by about 2500 and the number of religious priests went down by about 1,000, but the number of brothers went up by about 250. That was only between 2005 and 2007. The statistics put in another place come up to 2009. They show continued growth in numbers among diocesan priests.

Of course they’re giving you numbers and not explanations. What happened in religious life of men is that the number of religious men went up, but they ordained 1,000 less men than they had done in the past. This is has two major causes and probably many little causes.

First major cause is that many religious communities are returning to their original charism and no longer requiring or even pushing ordination. They are promoting their way of life. And we can see this on many websites for religious men. There is very little mention of the priesthood by certain communities and some don’t mention it period.

The second major cause is the birth of many new religious communities of men that do not ordain and if they ordain they only ordain as many priests as they need for their purposes. It is not their intention to ordain their men to provide priests for the general population.

The prevailing attitude among religious communities of men is that the duty to promote parish priests belongs to the local bishop and the duty to run parishes belongs to diocesan priests, not to religious orders or religious congregations of men.

The other day I was talking to one of the friars who had just come back from a visit to EWTN and the Shrine (which he says is worth going to). That was just a free promo for the shrine. Anyway, as we were talking we were realizing that most of the religious that we see on EWTN are ordained, but they have never done parish ministry and some belong to communities that do not do parish work.

Fr. Corapi has not done parish work
Fr. Mitch has not done parish work
Fr. Benedict has not done parish work
Fr. Dubey has not done parish work
Fr. Wade has not done parish work

None of the Franciscans of the Renewal do parish work. They ordain about half of their men.
None of the Franciscans of the Eternal Word do parish work and they ordain less than half of their men, because there is no need for that many priests in their way of life.

In promoting vocations, which is what this thread is about, one must always remember that there are many forms of religious life that do not require ordination and that those who have ordained men, engage in many different and necessary ministries outside of parish life.

As important as the parish is, it is not the only place where one can serve as a priest or religious. I think that young men, especially, seem to be dividing themselves nciely between those who want to do parish ministry and those who will serve in other ways. The ones who are going to be engaged in full-time parish ministry are joining the dioceses and those who are called to serve in other ways are joining the religious life. This was the way it was originally meant to be. We just blended religious life with parish ministry because there was a need.

But the John Paul II generation of men seem to be taking us back to where we were when religious life exploded into the scene. They seem to understand the difference better than the over 40 generation. I have no intelligent explanation why this is clearer to this younger generation of men than it is to their parents. All guesses are welcome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BLeev]

They usually know little or nothing about religious life and the spiritual life.

I do not find this to be true. Besides, could you not make the argument then that most religious who are not ordained know little if anything about the diocesan priesthood?

Religious are consecrated men not ordained.

Last I checked there is still a consecration that men going into the diocesan priesthood go through - albeit not from a particular community, they are separated and consecrated through orders for service to the Church. You could explain to the person what you mean by this.

I don’t think you do but it almost sounds like you have a issue with diocesan priests. They may not know everything there is to know about religious life (which is alright) but you should not feel that you can get away by making them sound completely uninformed. While they might not be consecrated religious, as a priest, a man living In Persona Christi, the priest (whether religious or diocesan) is a man whose office alone deserves a little respect; in fact a little more than what your comments provide.

If you are going to compare diocesan to religious you could at least try to do it without making the prior sound inferior to the latter.

 

[JReducation]

I do not find this to be true. Besides, could you not make the argument then that most religious who are not ordained know little if anything about the diocesan priesthood?

Last I checked there is still a consecration that men going into the diocesan priesthood go through - albeit not from a particular community, they are separated and consecrated through orders for service to the Church. You could explain to the person what you mean by this.

I don’t think you do but it almost sounds like you have a issue with diocesan priests. They may not know everything there is to know about religious life (which is alright) but you should not feel that you can get away by making them sound completely uninformed. While they might not be consecrated religious, as a priest, a man living In Persona Christi, the priest (whether religious or diocesan) is a man whose office alone deserves a little respect; in fact a little more than what your comments provide.

If you are going to compare diocesan to religious you could at least try to do it without making the prior sound inferior to the latter.

No no no . . . that’s not what I’m trying to do here. I’m trying to clarify terms, not blow diocesan priests out of the water and I apologize if it sounded that way.

Let’s begin with the words consecrated and ordained. The theology of the Church and canon law have never taught that the Holy Orders is a consecrated state. It is a sacrament. The man who is ordained is not consecrated. He is ordained. To ordain is to send. That is what the Church does when she ordains a cleric. she sends him.

A religious is consecrated. He or she is not sent. It works the other way around. He is called into an intimate communion with Christ through the evangelical counsels and religious life.

The difference between those who are ordained and those who are consecrated can best be compared to the difference between John the Baptist and Peter. John’s role is prophetic. That is the role of the religious. He or she lives a life that proclaims the Kingdom to come. Peter’s role was pastoral. That is the role of the ordained. He is to shepherd the flock. The bishop is the shepherd, because he has the fullness of the priesthood. But the deacon and presbyter support the role of the bishop through their proper functions and roles, hence the term Orders.

John Paul II tried to clarify this through two different documents: Pastores Dado Vobis, which speaks about the pastoral mission of the ordained and Vita Consacrata, which speaks about the call to spiritual intimacy with Christ proper to the religious.

Regarding the study of the religious life and Christian Spirituality, this is the case in diocesan seminaries. Religious life and Christian Spirituality are not required courses for seminarians. They are electives. Some take them and most take other courses that they find more practical.

If you understand the sacrament, you understand the role and the ministry. For example, we have married deacons and married priests along with celibate deacons and priests. They live two different ways of life, but they share in the same priesthood of Jesus Christ. They share a common mission, but not a common way of life. Some priests are secular and others are consecrated religious. This divesity is possible, because Holy Orders is not a way of life. Unless a priest is a religious, he is not bound to a particular way of life. He shapes his spiritual life independently with the help of his spiritual director. The religiuos is given a rule of life that shapes his spiritual life in union with the other members of his community. Diocesan clergy are not bound to share a specific way of life or a common spirituality.

Holy Orders and Consecrated Life compliment each other. That’s why it is possible for some men to be called to both. It is also possible to be called to one or the other and for both men to compliment each other.

The Church makes the difference very clear in two ways. First, probably most importantly, throug the rites themselves. The words in the rite of ordination and the rite of profession are very specific. The rite of ordination specifically speaks about ordaining and being sent. The rite of profession of vows specifically speaks about being called to intimacy and being consecrated. The Church teaches as she prays and prays as she teaches. She can’t pray one way and teach or believe another.

The second way that the Church makes this difference in juridical. At the Curia in Rome there are two very distinct congregations. One is called the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the other is the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

The Congregation for the Clergy deals in all matters that have to do with the role and duties of the ordained, but does not govern the relationship between the priest and Christ. It draw the line at that point. In practical terms, the Congregation for the Clergy focuses on all matters that are sacramental, pastoral, formation of priests and disciplinary matters.

The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life does not deal with the functions of religious, but governs the internal life of the religious and his/her relationship with Christ.
This Congregation deals with community life, prayer life, formation, their rules and constitutions, their daily life, charisms and disciplinary matters.

If we look at what the Church treats in the two congregations we can see how the Church views each of them very differently.

Does that help make it clearer?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BLeev]

No no no . . . that’s not what I’m trying to do here. I’m trying to clarify terms, not blow diocesan priests out of the water and I apologize if it sounded that way.

Let’s begin with the words consecrated and ordained. The theology of the Church and canon law have never taught that the Holy Orders is a consecrated state. It is a sacrament. The man who is ordained is not consecrated. He is ordained. To ordain is to send. That is what the Church does when she ordains a cleric. she sends him.

A religious is consecrated. He or she is not sent. It works the other way around. He is called into an intimate communion with Christ through the evangelical counsels and religious life.

The difference between those who are ordained and those who are consecrated can best be compared to the difference between John the Baptist and Peter. John’s role is prophetic. That is the role of the religious. He or she lives a life that proclaims the Kingdom to come. Peter’s role was pastoral. That is the role of the ordained. He is to shepherd the flock. The bishop is the shepherd, because he has the fullness of the priesthood. But the deacon and presbyter support the role of the bishop through their proper functions and roles, hence the term Orders.

John Paul II tried to clarify this through two different documents: Pastores Dado Vobis, which speaks about the pastoral mission of the ordained and Vita Consacrata, which speaks about the call to spiritual intimacy with Christ proper to the religious.

Regarding the study of the religious life and Christian Spirituality, this is the case in diocesan seminaries. Religious life and Christian Spirituality are not required courses for seminarians. They are electives. Some take them and most take other courses that they find more practical.

If you understand the sacrament, you understand the role and the ministry. For example, we have married deacons and married priests along with celibate deacons and priests. They live two different ways of life, but they share in the same priesthood of Jesus Christ. They share a common mission, but not a common way of life. Some priests are secular and others are consecrated religious. This divesity is possible, because Holy Orders is not a way of life. Unless a priest is a religious, he is not bound to a particular way of life. He shapes his spiritual life independently with the help of his spiritual director. The religiuos is given a rule of life that shapes his spiritual life in union with the other members of his community. Diocesan clergy are not bound to share a specific way of life or a common spirituality.

Holy Orders and Consecrated Life compliment each other. That’s why it is possible for some men to be called to both. It is also possible to be called to one or the other and for both men to compliment each other.

The Church makes the difference very clear in two ways. First, probably most importantly, throug the rites themselves. The words in the rite of ordination and the rite of profession are very specific. The rite of ordination specifically speaks about ordaining and being sent. The rite of profession of vows specifically speaks about being called to intimacy and being consecrated. The Church teaches as she prays and prays as she teaches. She can’t pray one way and teach or believe another.

The second way that the Church makes this difference in juridical. At the Curia in Rome there are two very distinct congregations. One is called the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the other is the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

The Congregation for the Clergy deals in all matters that have to do with the role and duties of the ordained, but does not govern the relationship between the priest and Christ. It draw the line at that point. In practical terms, the Congregation for the Clergy focuses on all matters that are sacramental, pastoral, formation of priests and disciplinary matters.

The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life does not deal with the functions of religious, but governs the internal life of the religious and his/her relationship with Christ.
This Congregation deals with community life, prayer life, formation, their rules and constitutions, their daily life, charisms and disciplinary matters.

If we look at what the Church treats in the two congregations we can see how the Church views each of them very differently.

Does that help make it clearer?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It does … in light of all our other dialogues. Thank you.

Peace

 

[BLeev]

No no no . . . that’s not what I’m trying to do here. I’m trying to clarify terms, not blow diocesan priests out of the water and I apologize if it sounded that way.

Let’s begin with the words consecrated and ordained. The theology of the Church and canon law have never taught that the Holy Orders is a consecrated state. It is a sacrament. The man who is ordained is not consecrated. He is ordained. To ordain is to send. That is what the Church does when she ordains a cleric. she sends him.

A religious is consecrated. He or she is not sent. It works the other way around. He is called into an intimate communion with Christ through the evangelical counsels and religious life.

The difference between those who are ordained and those who are consecrated can best be compared to the difference between John the Baptist and Peter. John’s role is prophetic. That is the role of the religious. He or she lives a life that proclaims the Kingdom to come. Peter’s role was pastoral. That is the role of the ordained. He is to shepherd the flock. The bishop is the shepherd, because he has the fullness of the priesthood. But the deacon and presbyter support the role of the bishop through their proper functions and roles, hence the term Orders.

John Paul II tried to clarify this through two different documents: Pastores Dado Vobis, which speaks about the pastoral mission of the ordained and Vita Consacrata, which speaks about the call to spiritual intimacy with Christ proper to the religious.

Regarding the study of the religious life and Christian Spirituality, this is the case in diocesan seminaries. Religious life and Christian Spirituality are not required courses for seminarians. They are electives. Some take them and most take other courses that they find more practical.

If you understand the sacrament, you understand the role and the ministry. For example, we have married deacons and married priests along with celibate deacons and priests. They live two different ways of life, but they share in the same priesthood of Jesus Christ. They share a common mission, but not a common way of life. Some priests are secular and others are consecrated religious. This divesity is possible, because Holy Orders is not a way of life. Unless a priest is a religious, he is not bound to a particular way of life. He shapes his spiritual life independently with the help of his spiritual director. The religiuos is given a rule of life that shapes his spiritual life in union with the other members of his community. Diocesan clergy are not bound to share a specific way of life or a common spirituality.

Holy Orders and Consecrated Life compliment each other. That’s why it is possible for some men to be called to both. It is also possible to be called to one or the other and for both men to compliment each other.

The Church makes the difference very clear in two ways. First, probably most importantly, throug the rites themselves. The words in the rite of ordination and the rite of profession are very specific. The rite of ordination specifically speaks about ordaining and being sent. The rite of profession of vows specifically speaks about being called to intimacy and being consecrated. The Church teaches as she prays and prays as she teaches. She can’t pray one way and teach or believe another.

The second way that the Church makes this difference in juridical. At the Curia in Rome there are two very distinct congregations. One is called the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and the other is the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.

The Congregation for the Clergy deals in all matters that have to do with the role and duties of the ordained, but does not govern the relationship between the priest and Christ. It draw the line at that point. In practical terms, the Congregation for the Clergy focuses on all matters that are sacramental, pastoral, formation of priests and disciplinary matters.

The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life does not deal with the functions of religious, but governs the internal life of the religious and his/her relationship with Christ.
This Congregation deals with community life, prayer life, formation, their rules and constitutions, their daily life, charisms and disciplinary matters.

If we look at what the Church treats in the two congregations we can see how the Church views each of them very differently.

Does that help make it clearer?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It does … in light of all our other dialogues. Thank you.

Peace