Hmmm :)

[Petergee]

While you are allowed to change sui juris Churches most likely the bishop of your new Church will not accept you as a candidate for the priesthood if it appears in anyway that the change was done so to get around canon law.

Yes. In fact you might find even the Anglicans, though they are laid-back about just about everything else, would be very hesitant about a Catholic who wanted to convert to Anglicanism just so that he could be a married “priest”. And of course the Catholic Church teaches that the Anglican “priesthood” is null and void, and that the anglican church teaches heresy. It’s not worth giving up the true faith just to be a married clergyman.
And no, even if you joined an anglican parish/diocese which was about to be or had been incorporated into the Catholic Church under Anglicanorum Coetibus, you wouldn’t be allowed to be a married priest in it.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you. I can see now what you mean. Religious Orders need to be faithful to their founding purpose or purposes, hence the V2 instruction to return to those founding purposes and way of life and to strive in future to remain so.

I can understand lay people being offended. It is a most unfortunate word in modern terms directly connected to lay people as sole source of contamination I think and do wonder if lay people were the sole cause of what had eventuated in many religious orders etc. prior to V2 and will be solely so in the future if allowed. We all need to have a ‘firm grip’ on our vocation and call and to avoid what may tempt/take us away from same. We are all going to be subject to temptation in one way or another probably and Grace is always with us to resist and remain faithful.

• and I am off topic!

TS

Obviously, the choices to deviate from the charism and mandates of the original founders were not made by the laity. They were made by the religious. Something that happened in history, which does not happen today, as much, was the financial preasure that the laity put on religious to get their way.

There is a wonderful example in the life of St. Teresa of Avila. One of the reasons that Carmel needed a reform was the that nuns had become so dependent on the financial support of the laity, that they had placed themselves at the beck and call of the laity. They no longer prayed as the Carmelite tradition said they should. They had people in and out of their houses who wanted to receive spiritual guidance from the nuns, when in fact they were supposed to live an enclosed life. Often, their houses were given to them by the wealthy, with strngs attached. Nuns were often called out of the monastery to spend weeks or months with some woman who was going to have a baby and needed spiritual consolations from them. This whole idea of offering spiritual consolations to the laity sounds good on the surfface, but it’s horrible. These orders were not founded for that purpose. Their service to the laity was to be done in silence and anonymity. The longer the nuns spent among the laity, the more they became like them.

Among the Franciscans we saw the same thing with the ordination of men. During the early days, all kinds of men became brothers. Some were priests, but there were also lawyers, bakers, farmers, teachers, preachers and so forth. When Francis sent the brothers to the four corners of the world the first thing that laity asked was, “What good are you, if you can’t celebrate mass or hear confessions?” The brothers often felt dismissed. They came back to their superiors asking for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Eventually, the order ordained so many that we had a surplus of priests.

Such a large number of ordained brothers may look good to the layman in the pew. It’s horrible to those of us who have to live in these houses when men skip community events because they have to celebrate a parish mass or hear confessions. It tears a house apart. It complicates things when you want to assign a group of brothers to run a parish, but none of them are priests. People get upset if you don’t bring a priest. They don’t realize that the brothers come to the parish to teach the Gospel, to convert Catholics back to the Catholic faith and to teach the faithful to live the Catholic faith according to the spirit and vision of St. Francis of Assisi. They always have a brother or two who comes from another house for mass on Sundays and confessions on Saturdays or they borrow a priest from another religious order or from among the diocesan priests, many of whom teach all week or do administrative work and want to celebrate sacraments on weekend. What these men often did was to succumb to the preasure.

Today, Vatican II has said, that we cannot succumb to the preasure. St. Francis did not do so. If a parish or diocese did not accept the friars as the Holy Spirit inspired them to live and be, they simply went on to another place.

When it comes to religious orders, I believe that the key is for the religious to make it clear why there are there and what their charism is. The laity is to understand the charism and to accept it as is, not try to get the religious to accommodate to their needs. This is the only way that we’re going to get back to the 13th century, which is where we want to go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

Obviously, the choices to deviate from the charism and mandates of the original founders were not made by the laity. They were made by the religious. Something that happened in history, which does not happen today, as much, was the financial preasure that the laity put on religious to get their way.

There is a wonderful example in the life of St. Teresa of Avila. One of the reasons that Carmel needed a reform was the that nuns had become so dependent on the financial support of the laity, that they had placed themselves at the beck and call of the laity. They no longer prayed as the Carmelite tradition said they should. They had people in and out of their houses who wanted to receive spiritual guidance from the nuns, when in fact they were supposed to live an enclosed life. Often, their houses were given to them by the wealthy, with strngs attached. Nuns were often called out of the monastery to spend weeks or months with some woman who was going to have a baby and needed spiritual consolations from them. This whole idea of offering spiritual consolations to the laity sounds good on the surfface, but it’s horrible. These orders were not founded for that purpose. Their service to the laity was to be done in silence and anonymity. The longer the nuns spent among the laity, the more they became like them.

Among the Franciscans we saw the same thing with the ordination of men. During the early days, all kinds of men became brothers. Some were priests, but there were also lawyers, bakers, farmers, teachers, preachers and so forth. When Francis sent the brothers to the four corners of the world the first thing that laity asked was, “What good are you, if you can’t celebrate mass or hear confessions?” The brothers often felt dismissed. They came back to their superiors asking for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Eventually, the order ordained so many that we had a surplus of priests.

Such a large number of ordained brothers may look good to the layman in the pew. It’s horrible to those of us who have to live in these houses when men skip community events because they have to celebrate a parish mass or hear confessions. It tears a house apart. It complicates things when you want to assign a group of brothers to run a parish, but none of them are priests. People get upset if you don’t bring a priest. They don’t realize that the brothers come to the parish to teach the Gospel, to convert Catholics back to the Catholic faith and to teach the faithful to live the Catholic faith according to the spirit and vision of St. Francis of Assisi. They always have a brother or two who comes from another house for mass on Sundays and confessions on Saturdays or they borrow a priest from another religious order or from among the diocesan priests, many of whom teach all wee or do administrative work and want to celebrate sacraments on weekend. What these men often did was to succumb to the preasure.

Today, Vatican II has said, that we cannot succumb to the preasure. St. Francis did not do so. If a parish or diocese did not accept the friars as the Holy Spirit inspired them to live and be, they simply went on to another place.

When it comes to religious orders, I believe that the key is for the religious to make it clear why there are there and what their charism is. The laity is to understand the charism and to accept it as is, not try to get the religious to accommodate to their needs. This the only way that we’re going to get back to the 13th century, which is where we want to go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is one of your many excellent posts, Brother.

 

[1234]

Yes. In fact you might find even the Anglicans, though they are laid-back about just about everything else, would be very hesitant about a Catholic who wanted to convert to Anglicanism just so that he could be a married “priest”. And of course the Catholic Church teaches that the Anglican “priesthood” is null and void, and that the anglican church teaches heresy. It’s not worth giving up the true faith just to be a married clergyman.
And no, even if you joined an anglican parish/diocese which was about to be or had been incorporated into the Catholic Church under Anglicanorum Coetibus, you wouldn’t be allowed to be a married priest in it.

The ECA–Episcopal Church of America–wasn’t so hesitant about accepting an RC priest in Miama last year who left the RC to marry his girlfriend, Fr. Cutie (Coo-tee-AY) a very popular (and good looking) Spanish-speaking priest who hosted Catholic radio shows, who was photo’ed with his girl friend in May 2009, left the RC church, swam the Thames, married, and was ordained an Episcopal priest just about one year later, in May 2010.

Fast work.

 

[TiggerS]

Obviously, the choices to deviate from the charism and mandates of the original founders were not made by the laity. They were made by the religious. Something that happened in history, which does not happen today, as much, was the financial preasure that the laity put on religious to get their way.

Edited

When it comes to religious orders, I believe that the key is for the religious to make it clear why there are there and what their charism is. The laity is to understand the charism and to accept it as is, not try to get the religious to accommodate to their needs. This is the only way that we’re going to get back to the 13th century, which is where we want to go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well said. The lessons of history unlearned are bound to be repeated

TS

 

[JReducation]

Well said. The lessons of history unlearned are bound to be repeated

TS

I just had this conversation today with someone in the archdiocese. I was trying to explain why it was wrong for those who work in pro-life to put preasure on every priest and religious in the diocese to be active in pro-life work.

My explanation went something like this.

“Every priest and religious, along with every human being, is called to defend the dignity of life. However, not everyone is given the same charism. There are those whose charism it is to get out there in the trenches and do this work. Then there are those who in the silence and solitude of prayer and contemplation do just as much good.”

The person could not understand why it was wrong to tell the lay faithful to simply ignore those priests and religious who are not actively pro-life. To which I responded.

“When you say that to the faithful, you’re encouraging them to decide for the religious and the clergy what they should be doing, when they should do it, and how they should do it. Often, there are ministries that are not appropriate for certain charisms. Charisms are given to entire religious communities and also to individuals. To tell people that they should ignore those who do not have a certain charism is to encourage them to divide the Body of Christ.”

The person asked me for an example, so I pointed to the Carthusians. She did not know who they were. I explained that they do not engage in anything in the secular world, not even in the defense of the unborn. However, that does not make them less pro-life.

She then asked me how come we, the Franciscan Brothers of Life, can be engaged in this ministry and others can go about their business. I tried to explain that we do this ministry is a body. The unity of the religious family is the highest priority of any superior. We are coming out of an era, between 1960 - 2000, when there was so much emphasis placed on individual charisms that communities were decimated, because they lost their identity. Charisms, gifts, ministries and interests defined the religious and the cleric. When you do that, to the detriment of the vision of the founder and the tradition of the community, you cease to be what the Holy Spirit intended.

I thought I’d share this as an example of good lay people who are trying to do something good, but do not understand the structure and mission of religious life or the priesthood. Their desire is to reign in these men and women or relegate them to the ignore shelf.

You cannot do a good at the expense of another good. Today, we are seeing many religious communities pulling back and saying that they will not go down that path again. Those that have not yet figured out that they cannot do one good at the expense of another good are in serious trouble. This is why I always tell people, “If you have a concern about clergy or religious, go to their superiors. It is the job of the superior to look out for the welfare of those under him or her, just as a parent looks out for the welfare of his children.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

thought I’d share this as an example of good lay people who are trying to do something good, but do not understand the structure and mission of religious life or the priesthood. Their desire is to reign in these men and women or relegate them to the ignore shelf

I thought it a good example too, Brother. I know our parish priest is having problems with ‘power cells’ or cliques in the parish that want to dictate to him what to do and how to do it and when and why. I truly feel sorry for him since he is called to be the shepherd of the parish and trying to unite rather than divide - and some so easily take offence where none was intended and can strive to create divisions in a parish. It is a grief to any pp. There is, I think, still that misunderstanding of Vatican2 where some laity feel they not only have the right but resposibility to dictate rather than the call to humble obedience. There is a vast difference between asking questions of why etc. humbly seeking understanding - and on the other hand dictating to authority. It is the underlying spirit that is concerning. If one has problems with a pp for example, then speak with him - and “with him” not “at him” and if it cannot be resolved and it is serious, then take it privately to one’s bishop for a decision and after informing one’s pp of the intended approach - and be aware of who is going to make the decision and in a spirit of humble obedience. If it is not serious, then to act in the interests of Peace and unity in the parish.
Hence there is a similarity with religious families, where each member is bound to obedience to their superior, or head of this particular family in The Church. And the superior has the burden of ensuring the rule is observed and the gift of The Holy Spirit preserved.

The other problem I am aware of is that, I would venture, most lay Catholics have a very poor understanding of the structure of The Church of the priesthood and religious life and how it fits into the structure of The Church - right across the board, meaning the active and the contemplative and the diocesan priest, and indeed the role of the laity. We are suffering too under the burden of the ‘age of reason’ and what is often applied is logic and reason, rather than sensitivity to how The Holy Spirit may be guiding and leading, inspiring, and sometimes this confounds logic and reason.

The other thing that can happen once a person becomes (and commendably I mean) totally passionate and active about some cause is a corresponding lack of understanding that the gift is theirs and cannot be imposed on others. For example, I am fairly confident that most Catholics are very much pro-life or against abortion and euthenasia, the sacredness of life, but not all are called to be totally committed and involved in these issues as their primary focus. They are called elsewhere. This is what I mean about logic and reasonings being applied, rather then being sensitive to The Holy Spirit and indeed vitally aware that any increase will be God’s and in His Way not ours.
It can happen too, that when a person is gifted with some particular gift that a certain pride takes over and they view it as making them special, rather than a gift from The Spirit for good stewardship for the life of the whole Church. Sometimes then they come to look down on those who are not thus gifted and this spoils. It is very sad and even concerning and a complete misunderstanding that no gift at all is ever deserved even in the most minute manner - The Spirit indeed simply blows wherever He Will and for the good of the whole Church and the world. Gifted people should be moved, methinks, to the most profound and intense humility before his or her brothers and sisters, not to mention The Divine Giver of Gifts.

Vatican2 did usher in major changes and intitially anyway much confusion and I think we are still in the post V2 period of sorting things out and it will be a journey and perhaps a long one even still, I think, where we need to strive for Peace and unity on all levels, rather then arguments and division - without of course surrendering truth and if we do need to assert truth to do so with a gentle and meek spirit. There is that beautiful saying sometimes attributed to St. Augustine: “In essentials, unity - in non essentials, liberty - and in all things love”. So often and sometimes in reading posts on CAF here, we know we are right and we intend to hammer it home and all in the way get out of the way or be walked over.

TS

 

[JReducation]

Tigger has made some very good points in this previous post. I’d like share something of my own experience regarding Vatican II. I happen to be the Major Superior of my community. We’re not a large community at all. We are a small community that emerged from the Capuchin Franciscan obedience, several years ago.

Among other duties, one of my duties is to make sure that our men get on-going formation. I always try to explain to our guys that they cannot blame Vatican II for the circumstances of the world today. That’s just dumb. Most people are not even Catholic. The world was already in a state of rapid change when Vatican II came along. I remember reading Pope John XXIII’s memoirs. One of the reasons that he wrote for calling Vatican II was because he felt that the world around us was moving faster than the Church. Vatican II did not turn our world upside down. There were many social, political and economic factors at work. The Catholics at that time were part of the rapidly changing world. The Church needed to define her place in that world.

I always tell my brothers that what Vatican II did was try to take what had been said and done by the Church and restate it in a manner that made sense to modern man. It also tried to make changes in areas that worked once upon a time, but Pope John knew were not going to continue working. It was not an attempt to invalidate what came before, but an attempt to put in place some things that could work in the present.

Not everything that Vatican II tried to execute worked. But they had no preconceived notions that everything was going to work. However, they had to do something. The idea always was that you could always tweak and fine-tune whatever changes you made. Nothing that was changed was dogmatic or moral. It was all pastoral and disciplinary. That which is pastoral and disciplinary is not written in stone.

The tragedy was that there emerged two extremes. I guess whenever you try to make changes, extremes are almost impossible to avoid. You just have to bite the bullet and deal with them as they arise. There was an extreme right and left.

Human nature being what it is, people at the extremes tend to be very loud and very aggressive in their positions. We saw this with Civil Rights groups: Black, women, gays, and other people who had been feeling left on the fringes of society. There were great people who took advantage of the changing social thinking and brought about great changes that were necessary, such as Martin Luther King. He and many leaders in different areas of life and faith did a great deal of good with the opportunities that presented themselves. Nonetheless, other people did a great deal of damage with the opportunities that presented themselves.

What I always tell the brothers is that the damage that has been done is the fault of Original Sin, not the fault of Vatican II. Our fight must be to combat the temptations that are rooted in Original Sin. One of the greatest temptations is to take what is a gift, such as the call of Vatican II to reform our Church and our way of doing things, and turn it into a campaign to make things happen our way.

This takes me to the vocation of the laity. The call of the laity is to permeate the secular sphere with the message of the Gospel. Vatican II was very emphatic about that. The clergy was ordered to step down from its clerical pedestal and assist the laity by supporting any effort on the part of the layman to convert the secular world. The clergy was to give the laity the education and guidance necessary to go out and conquer the world for God. The laity was to make good use of what the clergy could teach.

The religious, man or woman, ordained or non-cleric, was to return to his or her roots and to recover the vision of the founder. These founders had a worldview that remains valid to this day. That worldview had been lost under layers and layers of customs and rules that never entered the minds of these great founders. This was the simplification that Vatican II asked us, religious, to undergo. The simplification was to be like our spiritual fathers and mothers. By doing so, we would provide for the people of God spiritual food. It could be in the form of apostolic work, prayer, penance, or simply a presence that said to the world, God is still here and he still loves us.

I always tell my brothers, “Don’t blame Vatican II, because we messed up. Blame human nature and pride for not following what Vatican II said. Since we know that the root of the problem lies in human nature and pride, then we must focus our energy and attention to discipline our nature and to detox our minds of pride and replace it with a loving obedience. The first sign of discipline and obedience is to work to become the person that we are meant to be.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wina]

T
I always tell my brothers, “Don’t blame Vatican II, because we messed up. Blame human nature and pride for not following what Vatican II said. Since we know that the root of the problem lies in human nature and pride, then we must focus our energy and attention to discipline our nature and to detox our minds of pride and replace it with a loving obedience. The first sign of discipline and obedience is to work to become the person that we are meant to be.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Agreed