Hermit monks plan monastery on remote Wyo. ranch [Incomprehensible Opposition to Catholic Monastery in Wyoming]

  • Thread starter Thread starter fkjuliano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that there is a substantial difference of opinion present among monastics in the US. The Poor Clares in Greenville SC built a new monastery recently–very simple, one story. They moved because they were being surrounded by the encroaching city and noise and their former monastery needed a lot of serious work. Their property was valuable, being commercial, so they sold it, bought property far out of town, started a capital campaign which promptly filled, and built. They have no debt. They are growing.

However, the Poor Clares in VA built a huge monastery styled like an Italian hill town on the top of a mountain (VA-style) that they had to level. At the time of their building, they had a blog, since discontinued, in which the abbess frankly described all the dunning they had to do of the local dioceses to come up with the money. I don’t know if it’s paid off or not. They have had a lot of drainage problems and require maintenance men to change the light bulbs in their high-ceilinged choir.

The PCPA’s in Arizona, the ‘desert nuns’, are also building a grandiose Italian-Renaissance styled monastery , and they feature prominently in their blog opportunities to buy windows, etc in it. I don’t know how the fund raising is going. It is an immense project. These are also Poor Clares, very different from those in Greenville, SC.

The Benedictine women’s monasteries have tried to divest themselves of their huge 19thc. monasteries, or turn them into senior care, both for their members and the communities at large. One monastery was saddled with a single gigantic building, which included the monastery, college and novitiate, over 100,000 squ feet, which they finally managed to get torn down, after getting no takers to buy it. Others, such as Duluth OSB’s of St. Scholastica, still have their gigantic plant, but which contains their excellent college. They are filled with elderly sisters,s but have entrants and new members. If you asked many of these communities whether, if they had the chance, armed with entrants and money, they would commit to building huge edifices again, I am certain that the vast majority would say “No”. And these are Benedictines, with their history and tradition of Stability, one of their vows, education in their many schools, the great monasteries of yore.

I suspect that the Benedictine men’s monasteries also have difficulties in upkeep of their immense buildings, but have no information. All of these monasteries are shrinking, even as many, Sts. Meinrad, Vincent, John, attract new members. The shrinking Trappist communities have large holdings AND property to maintain. The Carthusians are definitely shrinking in the western hemisphere; however I must add that the nuns are increasing, now about 75 worldwide. Soon there may be more Carthusian nuns than monks!

The Dominican nuns of Summit NJ had a foundress who envisioned 15 separate chapels for the 15 decades of the rosary. Fortunately she was able to build only one(?) unit before financial reality intervened. However, because her building was incomplete, it was filled with a lot of inconveniences and incongruities which were able to be addressed only recently.

I personally think that it is unwise to commit to vast architectural piles, no matter how traditional or inspirational they may be to some, as no one knows what the future may bring. Life appeared to be very stable in the Middle Ages, and for a long time it was. Then it wasn’t. And things happen much faster these days.

Something else to consider is that fact that the armies of lay brothers/sisters who maintained these vast structures don’t exist anymore. Someone is going to have to maintain all of this, not only the housekeeping but the electrical, plumbing, heating, etc. All of this assumes a large novitiate, which may be present now, but which may not continue.

All of this resembles those poor married couples who until recently had two well-paying jobs and who found a bank who was willing to lend them far more for a home mortgage than they had any reason to expect. Many of these homes are now in foreclosure.
I know some of the houses of which you’re speaking. You are confusing sisters with nuns, but that’s OK. Remember, both the Franciscan and Benedictine families have sisters and nuns. Nuns do not run colleges or ever mingle with the outside world, sisters do, even those who live in monasteries. These monsteries are a little different from those of enclosed communities. They serve different functions.

It is true that many of the old orders of monks had a class of monks called “lay brother”. This was banned by Vatican II. Only those communities that had two classes of monks were allowed to have lay brothers. But this doesn’t really create a challenge in maintenance. You simply have one class of monks and everyone has to work. You no longer have the choir monks and the lay brothers. You now have the monks, some ordained and some lay, but all equally monks in solemn vows.

The Caremelite Monks do not have lay brothers. In fact, they have very few ordained monks, which is as monasticism should be. But that’s where the laity comes in. You hire lay people to do certain jobs. Like any other family, you do as much of the work as you can and then you hire people to do the rest. That’s one reason why monastic communities are not allowed to be poor. They cost a lot of money to operate. God always provides the money. He has lots of money.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I know some of the houses of which you’re speaking. You are confusing sisters with nuns, but that’s OK. Remember, both the Franciscan and Benedictine families have sisters and nuns. Nuns do not run colleges or ever mingle with the outside world, sisters do, even those who live in monasteries. These monsteries are a little different from those of enclosed communities. They serve different functions.

It is true that many of the old orders of monks had a class of monks called “lay brother”. This was banned by Vatican II. Only those communities that had two classes of monks were allowed to have lay brothers. But this doesn’t really create a challenge in maintenance. You simply have one class of monks and everyone has to work. You no longer have the choir monks and the lay brothers. You now have the monks, some ordained and some lay, but all equally monks in solemn vows.

The Carmelite Monks do not have lay brothers. In fact, they have very few ordained monks, which is as monasticism should be. But that’s where the laity comes in. You hire lay people to do certain jobs. Like any other family, you do as much of the work as you can and then you hire people to do the rest. That’s one reason why monastic communities are not allowed to be poor. They cost a lot of money to operate. God always provides the money. He has lots of money.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I was actually referring to monastics. These are the ones associated with the largest establishments, and the Carmelites in WY are apparently monastics.

The point re the lay brothers and sisters is that not only did they do the menial work, there were a lot of them. Not so now. The monasteries do have to hire folks to do this work, but not all of them have the money. They have to pay for their medical insurance also. The Conyers GA Trappist monastery complained openly (to the press) a few years ago about their difficulties in affording medical insurance, even with St Joseph’s Hospital there in Atlanta where Catholic religious tend to go.

All of this boils down to stewardship and prudence, aside from taste. Maybe the WY Carmelites and the desert nuns can pull it off. Time will tell. But many monastics who are on the web appear to be taking a different course, abandoning the huge albatrosses they have had to fill, clean and heat all these years, for smaller, more affordable, and more flexible surroundings much more suitable to their current missions.
 
I was actually referring to monastics. These are the ones associated with the largest establishments, and the Carmelites in WY are apparently monastics.

The point re the lay brothers and sisters is that not only did they do the menial work, there were a lot of them. Not so now. The monasteries do have to hire folks to do this work, but not all of them have the money. They have to pay for their medical insurance also. The Conyers GA Trappist monastery complained openly (to the press) a few years ago about their difficulties in affording medical insurance, even with St Joseph’s Hospital there in Atlanta where Catholic religious tend to go.

All of this boils down to stewardship and prudence, aside from taste. Maybe the WY Carmelites and the desert nuns can pull it off. Time will tell. But many monastics who are on the web appear to be taking a different course, abandoning the huge albatrosses they have had to fill, clean and heat all these years, for smaller, more affordable, and more flexible surroundings much more suitable to their current missions.
You build your houses according to your needs and your charism.

The point that I was making about the lay brothers is that they are a dying breed, because Vatican II banned the lay brothers, except in those orders where there were lay brothers in the foundation. There is only one monastic order that had lay brothers when they were founded, the Carthusians. The Benedictine orders adopted the concept, because it was a way of admitting less educated men to the religious life. They were assigned the maintenance of the monasteries and abbeys. I wouldn’t call it menial, when someone is feeding you.

Mendicants also adopted the “lay brother” concept too as well as other orders. The only mendicant order that was founded with lay brothers was the Dominicans, because they lived in Priories and they needed the lay brothers to run the priory. The other orders adopted the concept as their houses got bigger.

Vatican II made it clear that there would be no more lay brothers. There are monks and friars who are not ordained, but they are not lay brothers. They are solemnly professed choir monks or if they are mendicants, they are solemnly professed friars.

As a result of the mandate from Vatican II to do away with the lay brothers, the numbers have died by attrition. Very few communities are allowed to admit lay brothers. Everyone must be admitted as a full monk or friar, lay or cleric. What this means is that the choir monks, lay and cleric have had to take on the duties that were those of the lay brothers.

The Poor Clares are in a different situation. There are two rules for Poor Clares. Some follow the Rule of St. Benedict and others follow the Rule of St. Clare. It seems that the ones who follow the Rule of St. Clare are the ones who are doing financially well, such as the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration. I think part of it is because they have always enjoyed a very special place in the heart of the Holy See. They get a lot of support from bishops around the globe. Right now they are up to 20,000 around the world. There are more Poor Clares than Friars Minor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I don’t like the way it looks is not a reasonable excuse to stop it.
 
Actually my mind was seeing Hoss Cartwright while I was envisioning monks in log cabins. I need a cowboy emoticon.
I like, that.Cowboy monks!
Real cowboys have great opportunities for contemplation out on the range.Might be good monk material.😉
 
I like, that.Cowboy monks!
Real cowboys have great opportunities for contemplation out on the range.Might be good monk material.😉
Might be but if you’ve ever been in the barn at chore time or ever fixed fence you’d understand the “language barrier” that might just keep them out!😉
 
I like, that.Cowboy monks!
Real cowboys have great opportunities for contemplation out on the range.Might be good monk material.😉
Somewhere online I read an article about these same monks when they first started. There was a picture of one driving a tractor–in his brown robe.

Wish I could post the link but they have been in the news so much lately that I can’t find it–too many recent articles to choose from.

Here are a couple of links from a while ago that might give an idea of their progress:

trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_4ed4a3d4-b3ee-5045-99a6-913343957faf.html

This one references a 2007 article but the original doesn’t seem to exist at the link given in the article:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1870225/posts
 
No one is ‘stopping it’. People are just weighing in on its appropriateness, given the locale and the small size of the monastery.
Hopefully no one will stop it. All they are trying to do is build a church on their own property(or soon to be theirs) out in the middle of nowhere. How can anyone even remotely conceive of a manner in which this could be in any way described as inappropriate? If this is inappropriate then so is every single church and monastery ever constructed. That’s what people who oppose this are really saying. Catholics should not be allowed, period.
 
I have to admit that a Gothic cathedral reaching up to 15 stories would look a bit out of place in the Wyoming landscape. Perhaps something a little more aesthetically compatible with the surroundings.

As for people protesting the idea of a monastery nearby we shouldn’t be surprised because people don’t like any type of development close by as it is and get used to hearing municipalities squalling about a lack of taxes being paid on property owned by religious institutions. I think it’s only a matter of time before that privilege is removed by broke, tax hungry cities/towns/counties & states.

The lady complaining about the only contribution to the community to be prayer…well it’s a fine sign of the times and illustrates a total misunderstanding of what a monastery is for and what it does.
The surroundings will adapt.
 
Anti-Catholicism is a result of atheism being the official government religion.
 
What I find disheartening here is the position of some Catholics, because it brings back memories of days that I thought were long gone. There was a time in the history of Catholic Europe where the lay faithful felt that they had to have say in whatever religious did. They tried to control and dictate to them. Finally, in the 1200s the Church declared that the laity never had authority over religious. The bishops only had authority over those religious of Diocesan Right.

Fast forward to the 1500s in Spain – Teresa of Avila sets out to found new Carmelite houses. Again the lay community in the towns and villages where she places her monasteries complained and even sued her. The cases were brought before civil and ecclesial tribunals. The Church ruled again. The lay faithful could not object to these or any religious houses. She added one more point to the law, which is still in effect today. Once a bishop gives his consent for the erection of a house in his diocese, the faithful of that diocese must assent. The house has a right to exist and it is the authority of the religious superior and the bishop, working together, that determine the nature, size, location and other details. Interestingly enough, even the bishop cannot retract, once he has consented, nor can his successors. It takes an Apostolic Act to retract the permission. In other words, the local church (diocese) is stuck with it and has to learn to live with it.

Fast-forward again to the French Revolution – the French laity and government decide that they want to eliminate the religious and secular clergy from their midst. Again the Church condemns such actions as contrary to Church law and she excommunicates a lot of people for it. Actually, most excommunicated themselves.

For a long time, it seemed that Catholics were clear on the separation between the religious and the Catholic laity. The religious get the permission of the local bishop to do what they need to do or want to do and the faithful of the diocese assent to the authority of the bishop and show restraint in these matters and often become great supporters of the erection of new religious houses and new religious communities in their diocese. Those Catholics who are not part of the diocese either lend support from a distance or simply ignore it, because it has nothing to do with them.

What I see some people doing and saying is scary. It’s a step backward in history. Here we have a group of consecrated religious who have been given canonical authority by the local bishop to erect a house. The design and location had to be approved by the bishop. We have Catholic laymen, once again, protesting something that canon law allows. Does anyone else see this as a step back to the days of interference with the affairs of the religious?

One would have to prove that the erection of this house is a violation of canon law to have a legitimate case in the Church. No one has offered such proof. Why bother with this? Let these holy men go out there and build and let them pray for us. Good gravy!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Hmm, Br. Jr, I didn’t see it from that perspective (maybe because I am not religious :p) I find it scary, in that people are trying to fit this religious community into an American style of thinking. While most of the religious may indeed be American, the Rule they live by and the tradition they follow is definitely not American (It is Catholic). Equating a nice, large Church and chapel to “wealthy” religious is a little unnerving to me. Maybe because I went to college in a monastic community, the Church and worship spaces do nothing in enhance the “wealth” or status of the individuals, but rather God. The religious themselves live in small sparse quarters, with few possessions. 🤷 I wonder if it comes from a misunderstanding of the vow of poverty, and how poverty works in Christian/Catholic thought/experience.
 
Hmm, Br. Jr, I didn’t see it from that perspective (maybe because I am not religious :p) I find it scary, in that people are trying to fit this religious community into an American style of thinking. While most of the religious may indeed be American, the Rule they live by and the tradition they follow is definitely not American (It is Catholic). Equating a nice, large Church and chapel to “wealthy” religious is a little unnerving to me. Maybe because I went to college in a monastic community, the Church and worship spaces do nothing in enhance the “wealth” or status of the individuals, but rather God. The religious themselves live in small sparse quarters, with few possessions. 🤷 I wonder if it comes from a misunderstanding of the vow of poverty, and how poverty works in Christian/Catholic thought/experience.
You make some very good points here. I made the same points before. The living quarters of the monks are usually spartan.

But from the perspective of a religious, this is rather daunting to say the least. The last thing that we want is to go back to the days when religious had to adapt and conform to the secular Catholic demands.

First of all, it’s not doable. You have as many demands as you have individuals. Everyone has an idea and how many ideas can you please at one time.

Secondly, the religious life has roots that go way back. As you say, it’s not always American. There certainly are American religious communities with statutes that were written for Americans and by Americans. But the great orders, as they are called, do not follow these. We follow rules and statutes that go back hundreds of years or even two thousand, such as the Carmelite Friars (not the same as the monks). These customs are not going to fit neatly into our American backdrop. The American Catholic has to accommodate, both the lay person living on the outside looking in and the person who is entering.

Third, what I’m hearing the monks say is that they want to live the life that St. Teresa of Avila lived. That means that they owe their allegiance to her, not to us. We must respect that.

I have lived through this conflict and it’s very unpleasant. In the 1980s the Franciscan men were given permission to reorganize in order to follow the Rule of St. Francis more closely. Long story made short, different Franciscan communities of men have emerged from within the larger community (i.e. Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of the Immaculate, Franciscan Brothers of Life, Franciscans of Peace, Franciscans of the Eucharist, Franciscans of the Eternal Word and several others).

A group of us went to live in a very poor neighborhood. We rented the back porch of a lady’s house. It was an enclosed porch. Six of us lived on this porch. It was our dining room, chapel, dormitory, rec room, library, etc. The neighbors complained to the bishop because we were not involved in the local parish. Instead, we walked the streets all day long. Some of us, such as me, had come from teaching theology at the seminary, serving as pastors, confessors, teachers and one was a wonderful cook. Suddenly, there were these Doctors of Theology, Masters of Divinity, Doctor of Education and professional chef, roaming the streets and begging for food.

It took a while to convince people that we were obeying St. Francis. It finally took a very harsh letter from the bishop telling the local Catholics to back-off and admonishing them that neither he nor they had the authority to trump the vision of the founder.

Such interference makes life very difficult for everyone, because people get angry over things that they should just leave alone. They don’t affect our daily lives. The interior life of a religious community is disturbed when they have neighbors complaining and making demands on them. That’s not why you enter a mendicant or monastic order. These orders are not meant to have open access for everyone around them. They just want to be left alone to do what God calls them to do. The only thing that they ask from the people is for their prayers and their financial support. Their presence gives a lot more than they receive. You can’t put a price on grace.

Yesterday, I went to a public school in the inner city. It’s a very poor school. I walked in wearing the medieval Franciscan habit that my community wears. It’s not the modern long habit. It’s the ancient habit, just below the knees, with a chord and a cowl. I was invited to a health fair. I knew that they would be passing out condoms and talking safe sex at the different display tables. The principal told me that I could not mention religion. I agreed to go.

I set up my little table with flyers and a poster board about life, abortion, the effects of contraception and post abortion healing. Since I was not allowed to say anything about religion, I did not have a single religious item or book on display. It was just me and my poster and pamphlets. I took a clicker with me. I wanted to count how many kids would come to my table. I clicked 123 kids. The great thing was the five kids, independently, recognized the Franciscan habit. They had seen pictures in history books. They proceeded to share the little knowledge that they have about Franciscan “monks” with their peers who were nearby. Unfortunately, they got the monk part wrong . . . we’re not monks. But that’s ok. It’s not the fault of monks that they are not Franciscans. 😃

There moral of the story . . . grace can work in very strange places and in very unexpected ways.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
What I find disheartening here is the position of some Catholics, because it brings back memories of days that I thought were long gone. There was a time in the history of Catholic Europe where the lay faithful felt that they had to have say in whatever religious did. They tried to control and dictate to them. Finally, in the 1200s the Church declared that the laity never had authority over religious. The bishops only had authority over those religious of Diocesan Right.

Fast forward to the 1500s in Spain – Teresa of Avila sets out to found new Carmelite houses. Again the lay community in the towns and villages where she places her monasteries complained and even sued her. The cases were brought before civil and ecclesial tribunals. The Church ruled again. The lay faithful could not object to these or any religious houses. She added one more point to the law, which is still in effect today. Once a bishop gives his consent for the erection of a house in his diocese, the faithful of that diocese must assent. The house has a right to exist and it is the authority of the religious superior and the bishop, working together, that determine the nature, size, location and other details. Interestingly enough, even the bishop cannot retract, once he has consented, nor can his successors. It takes an Apostolic Act to retract the permission. In other words, the local church (diocese) is stuck with it and has to learn to live with it.

Fast-forward again to the French Revolution – the French laity and government decide that they want to eliminate the religious and secular clergy from their midst. Again the Church condemns such actions as contrary to Church law and she excommunicates a lot of people for it. Actually, most excommunicated themselves.

For a long time, it seemed that Catholics were clear on the separation between the religious and the Catholic laity. The religious get the permission of the local bishop to do what they need to do or want to do and the faithful of the diocese assent to the authority of the bishop and show restraint in these matters and often become great supporters of the erection of new religious houses and new religious communities in their diocese. Those Catholics who are not part of the diocese either lend support from a distance or simply ignore it, because it has nothing to do with them.

What I see some people doing and saying is scary. It’s a step backward in history. Here we have a group of consecrated religious who have been given canonical authority by the local bishop to erect a house. The design and location had to be approved by the bishop. We have Catholic laymen, once again, protesting something that canon law allows. Does anyone else see this as a step back to the days of interference with the affairs of the religious?

One would have to prove that the erection of this house is a violation of canon law to have a legitimate case in the Church. No one has offered such proof. Why bother with this? Let these holy men go out there and build and let them pray for us. Good gravy!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
The Catholic laity will end up paying for it. Not the bishop or the diocese or the religious themselves. The Catholic laity. Many religious institutes these days strongly rely on the Catholic laity to help them, not only financially, but also with financial planning, AND to get them out of financial messes the institutes got into by overreaching in their ambitions to build. This situation especially describes rapidly growing small orders who want to build on an ambitious scale, thinking that their rapid growth is going to last forever. It may or may not. One such community notoriously racked up so much debt because of building, necessary maintenance, and the acquisition of satellite dependent monasteries, that it finally had to appeal to its–laymen–for ideas on bailing out. It is still bailing.

I have two objections to the WY Carmelites’ plans. One is the appropriateness of a charterhouse-like ‘Gothic monastery on that scale’ --in Wyoming. However this is only my subjective opinion. The other objection has to do with the long-term financial planning necessary for such an undertaking and my questioning whether these monks gone through this process. “The Lord will provide”–is not enough. There aren’t many Catholics in Wyoming. There will be visitors and pilgrims, however not necessarily wealthy ones. It may be that the community leaders have gone through this process and have wealthy donors lined up, with gifts of money, stocks, land and gifts of the donors’ life insurance sufficient to pay for it.
 
What I find disturbing is that people are even being asked what they think of the Monks “right” to build on their own property. And the comment that “it isn’t a good fit for a western setting” is just plumb ridiculous. What about an oil derek or an open pit mine? Those don’t look like a cowboy to me. Who are we to make those decisions?

Besides its a moot point; the Impact statement was acepted by the local gov’t.
 
Atheism is the official religion of the government. That’s how SOCAS is currently interpreted by the courts.
Defining atheism as a religion is dubious at best. Some of it’s proponents defend it with zeal but a defining it as a religion is problematic.
You can search my posting history for the reasoning behind why Atheism is a religion. I don’t have to rehash it in every thread that this comes up in. You’ve heard the term “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…”?
 
I have two objections to the WY Carmelites’ plans. One is the appropriateness of a charterhouse-like ‘Gothic monastery on that scale’ --in Wyoming. However this is only my subjective opinion. The other objection has to do with the long-term financial planning necessary for such an undertaking and my questioning whether these monks gone through this process. “The Lord will provide”–is not enough. There aren’t many Catholics in Wyoming. There will be visitors and pilgrims, however not necessarily wealthy ones. It may be that the community leaders have gone through this process and have wealthy donors lined up, with gifts of money, stocks, land and gifts of the donors’ life insurance sufficient to pay for it.
Really it is none of the laities business what kind of financial planning any religious institute has done or is doing. That is internal to the institute. Seeing that this is an institute of diocesan right the bishop may be involved.

But to be blunt, it is really none of your business.
 
If and when they start dunning the laity and me for money to support their efforts, then I will respond that 'it’s none of my business".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top