Let's talk about religious life for men

[JReducation]

I wanted to write this post on male religious life, because there is a lot of discussion on this forum about priesthood, celibacy, sisters, and questions about what order does what, etc. However, I get the impression that we use the same words, but we don’t mean the same thing.

Theologically, there is no such thing as male religious life. There is religious life. Religious can be male or female. But for the sake of this thread, I narrowed down the topic to males and religious life. I’m leaving out women and priests. Not because they are not important, but because it confuses the issue. We do it all the time. We say incorrect things like: Dominican Priests, Franciscan Fathers, Carmelite Priests, Jesuit Fathers and so forth. We call everything in a habit or in vows an order. We refer to the vows that priests make. In reality, priests do not make vows. Secular ones make two promises.

Augustinians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Trinitarians, Franciscans (all 120 versions) are friars. Benedictines (all five branches) are monks. Carthusians are hermits. Jesuits are Clerks. Christian Brothers are consecrated lay men. These different states are what makes all of them religious, not Holy Orders.

Another mistake I commonly hear is the use of the term, “religious orders” then they begin to talk about the Redemptorist up the street. I always end up thinking to myself, “You’re confused because you’re expecting a congregation to be like a religious order or the other way around. Orders and Congregations have as much in common as dogs and wolves. The Church tried to help by using Institutes of Consecrated Life. But I don’t think it clarified matters.

I hope that this discussion will help those discerning understand the uniqueness of male religious. I think that the answers may help our usual visitors clarify some mistaken notions about religious life for men.

Some questions that came to my mind were:

1. 
   *]When you hear male religious, what do you think?
   *]What do you imagine we are or do?
   *]How do you imagine we live, not how do we make a living, but how we live?
   *]Why would God call male religious life into existence, if he already gave us the priesthood?
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[ThomasEugene]

first, i would like to thank you Brother for informing us… You are very intelligent and a good teacher!! you’re the best!

i remember a blogpost from a fellow Filipino. She said, “I went to the perpetual ordination of a Jesuit priest.” I fell from my chair actually. This is a common problem in our country: they expect you to be a priest right after entering an order, calling all religious houses as “seminaries”. Then when you explain to them that you’re not entering to become a priest, raising an eyebrow they might say, “what are you going to do then?”

So (I hope I got this right) men are not aspiring to be priests when they enter religious life. These brothers can be ordained if God wants it but not necessarily. There are brothers who are priests.

We have a prayer group, and we meet at the Christian Brothers’ Novitiate House, so I got a little exposure of their life. We always see them during their free time/recreation but we do not have the chance to be with them the whole day. But the first time I went there, I was so much at peace. They’re praying a lot actually. They do the cleaning of their house. One time I saw a novice talking to an older brother, and I know there’s a spiritual direction going on.

so these are my thoughts on brother’s questions.

My question is, how do you explain “religious men” to those who seem not to understand? is it okay to say, “a male counterpart to nuns/sisters”?

 

[ThomasEugene]

is it because i am here that no one replies? nah just kidding!

 

[awatkins69]

To question 3, I imagine that religious live extremely harsh lives of asceticism and self-denial. Actually, I always kind of thought every member of the clergy was like this kind of. Is this true? Canonically speaking, are you guys obligated to live very ascetic lifestyles?

 

[JReducation]

To question 3, I imagine that religious live extremely harsh lives of asceticism and self-denial. Actually, I always kind of thought every member of the clergy was like this kind of. Is this true? Canonically speaking, are you guys obligated to live very ascetic lifestyles?

To answer the question we have to make some distinctions here. They are rather detailed, so be patient with me.

1. 
   *]Not all members of the clergy are consecrated religious. A member of the clergy is any ordained man: deacon, priest or bishop. The Sacrament of Holy Orders does not include consecration. In other words, ordained men are not consecrated men.
   
   *]Consecrated men are those who make vows in a religious community. They must make at least a vow of obedience. Most consecrated men profess three vows: obedience, poverty and chastity. The reason that some consecrated men only vow obedience is because the rule that they vow to follow demands poverty and chastity. There is no need to specify the other two evangelical counsels in the act of profession. These men are known as religious.
   
   *]Some men do both, they make vows within a religious community and they are ordained. These men go by many titles: clerical religious, regular priests, ordained brothers and religious priests. Religious priest is an incorrect title that is only used by the laity. The Church does not recognize that title and does not use it, because it implies that these priests belong to another priesthood. All deacons, priests and bishops share in the same priesthood of Jesus Christ. But most of them are not consecrated men. Meaning, most never make vows and do not belong to a religious community. They are secular men with the same rights as other secular Catholic men, except the right to marry. They make a promise of celibacy, which is very different from a vow of chastity.
   
   As to your question about religious life and ascetisim . . . . not all religious communities practice asceticism. There are religious communities that are founded for very specific ministries. The most common are: parish work, teaching, and healthcare. These religious make vows, live in community, share a common life of prayer and work together in the same ministry. They own all things in common. But the community can live comfortably, as long as they live simply. They are required to pray the Liturgy of the Hours together, share meals, participate in community recreation, and obey the constitutions of their community.
   
   Other communities were founded to live a particular way of life. The founders did not focus on ministry. They focused on a life of prayer, penance, silence, brotherhood, poverty, detachment, contemplation and charity. The members of these communities follow certain ascetical practices such as: fasting and abstinence, the discipline, periods of silence, and very strict poverty. These religious own very little in common and absolutely nothing as individuals. They usually work among the poorest of the poor. Community life is their first duty, service outside of the community flows from their life in common. The more they love and serve each other as brothers, the more they have to offer the rest of the Church. Therefore, these men spend more time together than other religious. This is part of their asceticism. They may pray all the hours of the Divine Office together, have silent prayer together, daily community recreation, annual community retreat, weekly community meetings called a house chapter. They probably wear a habit all the time. Some of them never leave the religious house, but serve the community from within doing manual labor and maintaining the religious house while their brothers go out to serve others. These men are often called mendicants, because their income is from donations and they are not bound to any diocese or any monastery. They are reassigned on a regular basis from one play to another.
   
   Then you have the communities of monks and hermits. These men own nothing as individuals. They have very few personal possessions. But they are very wealthy as a community. They have to be wealthy in order to support themselves and to protect themselves from the outside world. By owning land, factories and workshops they can generate income to support the community and they don’t have to depend on others. This frees them from the control of the laity and the bishops, because they are self-sufficient. Their lives are very ascetical. Even though they have property that generates income, each monk has only the basics: clothing, bed, books, food and medicine. They live in enclosed communities where they spend most of their day in prayer or doing work. They rarely leave their monasteries or have outside apostolates. Some monasteries have adjacent schools, colleges or retreat centers that the monks serve. This way they can serve others without having to go outside.
   
   One more thing. There are two words that are deliberately left out of Canon Law: asceticism and love. The law deals only with discipline, not the soul. Does this clarify some things?
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

first, i would like to thank you Brother for informing us… You are very intelligent and a good teacher!! you’re the best!

i remember a blogpost from a fellow Filipino. She said, “I went to the perpetual ordination of a Jesuit priest.” I fell from my chair actually. This is a common problem in our country: they expect you to be a priest right after entering an order, calling all religious houses as “seminaries”. Then when you explain to them that you’re not entering to become a priest, raising an eyebrow they might say, “what are you going to do then?”

So (I hope I got this right) men are not aspiring to be priests when they enter religious life. These brothers can be ordained if God wants it but not necessarily. There are brothers who are priests.

There are religious congregations for priests and a couple of religious orders too. These religious are expected to be ordained. But they enter these communities because they feel called to exercise their priestly ministry as consecrated men.

In most cases, the religiuos community does not focus on the priesthood. Your enter the community to be a Jesuit, Dominican, Carmelite, Trappist, Franciscan, etc. The focus of the formation is the religious life. The priesthood is second to the religious life in the sense that it is a vocation within a vocation.

There are religious orders and congregations where the focus is the religious life, meaning the life in community and vows. In those communities, the members may be ordained if the superior calls him to Holy Orders, but it may never happen and the brothers are fine with that too. They did not enter to be priests. They entered to be religious. The ministries of these communities do not require Holy Orders. This is the case with most Franciscan communities, Trappists, the Society of Mary, the Missionaries of Charity, the Missionaries of the Poor, Benedictines, and several others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimcav]

This might be a tough question and I hope it doesn’t derail your thread, which as always, is very interesting, but how do you feel about consecrated lay people?

This is a rather recent development in the Church and it is a way for lay people to take the Evangelical vows of chastity, poverty, obediance and maybe a special one specific to the order or congregaton, without actually living in community. They take private vows as opposed to public ones, so they are not considered “religious”, they don’t wear a habit and they cannot become priests, deacons etc., like those in an order or community.

Do you feel this is a postive step? Does it it take away people that would otherwise consider taking public religious vows if it weren’t for this option? Do consecrated lay people help a religious community?

 

[JReducation]

This might be a tough question and I hope it doesn’t derail your thread, which as always, is very interesting, but how do you feel about consecrated lay people?

This is a rather recent development in the Church and it is a way for lay people to take the Evangelical vows of chastity, poverty, obediance and maybe a special one specific to the order or congregaton, without actually living in community. They take private vows as opposed to public ones, so they are not considered “religious”, they don’t wear a habit and they cannot become priests, deacons etc., like those in an order or community.

Do you feel this is a postive step? Does it it take away people that would otherwise consider taking public religious vows if it weren’t for this option? Do consecrated lay people help a religious community?

Consecrated lay people are not as new as you think. St. Catherine of Siena, St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Joan of Arce, Matt Talbot, Catherine de Hueck Doherty and Dorothy Day were all consecrated lay people. Opus Dei has many consecrated lay people. Secular Orders have always allowed for consecrated lay people.

Consecrated lay people make the same vows as religious do, but they are private as you ponited out. They do not take away from religious life. It is another vocation. There are also secular institutes where the members make vows, live in community, but are not religious. Many consecrated lay people do become clerics: deacons, priests and bishops. Two very famous ones were Pius X and John XXIII. Because they are not religious, these men are still considered secular men, even though they are ordained. But they live their independent lives according to the Evangelical Councils and a particular Rule of Life that they follow. Some have their own rule of life approved by their spiritual directors or bishops. Others adopt an established Rule of Life. For example, Pius X, John XXIII, Joan of Arc, and Elizabeth of Hungary followed the Rule of St. Francis. Canonically, they were Franciscans, even though they were not Franciscan religious. Catherine of Siena followed the Augustinian Rule and the spirituality of St. Dominic. Canonically she was a Dominican, but not a Dominican religious.

These individuals have made signficant contributions to the Church and her ministry. Some have an ecclective spirituality, such as Catherine de Hueck and Dorothy Day. Some of these consecrated lay men founded religious orders. Francis of Assisi was a consecrated penitent. Because he gathered brothers around him the local bishop encouraged him to go to Rome and have his rule of life approved and his community erected as a religious community in 1209. But they were consecrated lay men prior to being religious.

The important thing for a consecrated lay person is the spiritual director. A consecrated lay person is one who lives the evangelical counsels while remaining in the secular state. The actual canonical status is that of consecrated secular man or woman.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimcav]

I stand corrected!

I thought consecrated lay people were fairly new to the Church, but obviously the names you stated are from previous generations and were great contributors to the Church. I’m also glad to hear the these people are considered as a seperate vocation from those in religious life and don’t take away from them. I’m very happy to know that I could follow in the foot-steps of St. Francis of Assisi as a consecrated secular man!

Can you explain private vows as compared to public vows?

 

[JReducation]

I stand corrected!

I thought consecrated lay people were fairly new to the Church, but obviously the names you stated are from previous generations and were great contributors to the Church. I’m also glad to hear the these people are considered as a seperate vocation from those in religious life and don’t take away from them. I’m very happy to know that I could follow in the foot-steps of St. Francis of Assisi as a consecrated secular man!

Can you explain private vows as compared to public vows?

Private vows are as the word says, private. The person making the vows is not committing to a particular way of life. He can be. As I said, some people have vowed to live the Evangelical Counsels according to a particular rule. But it’s not necessary that you follow a particular rule. However, it is strongly recommended that you have a plan of life.

The best way to understand private vows is to understand public vows. Sometimes you can define something better by explaining what it’s not. Those of us who make public vows make them in a liturgical celebration where the priest receives the vows in the name of the Church and the religious superior receives them in the name of the order or congregation that you’re joining. The vows are both a profession of faith and a liturgical act. They are public, even if no one is there except the priest celebrating the mass, the superior and the candidate, because all liturgical acts are public and because they are being accepted by the Church for the good of the individual, the religious community and the universal Church. In other words, the Church is sanctified by the profession of the Evangelical Counsels, even if the person is a failure living them. The very act of professing them is a moment of great grace for the universal Church. Every member of the Church is blessed with special graces every time a religious makes vows. The act itself is a means to holiness.

The Church only recognizes as public those vows where the individual will live them in a canonically erected religious order or secular order. These orders have been erected by the Church for the salvation of the Church. Again there is that public nature. This is not just about me and God, but it’s about us. The individual consecrates his life to Christ for the salvation of his soul and he saves his soul by praying with the Church, serving the Church in some specific manner and living as a public witness to the like in the Kingdom. Public vows are an eschatological testimony for the good of the Church. The religious lives his life on earth the same way that we will all live eternally in heaven.

In private vows, the Church does not receive the vows. The vows are received by an individual priest or bishop. He does not have the authority to receive them in the name of the Church. He can only receive them in the name of Christ. This alone is very interesting in the theology of the whole thing. Because both private and public vows are received in the name of Christ, but public vows are received in the name of the Head and the Body. Also, in private vows the Church has little or no jurisdiction over the individual. Even though you make a vow of obedience, you are making it to God, not to the Church. In a public vow you are submitting to the authority of Christ and his Church as that authority is expressed through your superior. But a person in private vows has no superior but his conscience. Even though you are bound to obey the Church, because you are in vows, the Church has no way of governing you, because it doesn’t know that you are in vows. These vows are not recorded anywhere.

There is a legal technicality with private vows. Any priest or bishop can dispense from private vows. Public vows must be dispensed by the proper ecclesial authority. If you belong to an order only the Holy See can dispense from the vows. If you belong to a congregation, the Major Superior can dispense. This only applies to males. In the case of females it is a whole other set of rules. Very few females are allowed to belong to religious orders. Most females belong to congregations. Another way of saying it is that there are very few religious orders of women. Actually there are only five religious orders of women. All the other communities are congregations.

Another difference between public and private vows is that a violation of a public vow can be punishable by excommunication. That is not the case in private vows. The reason is that a public vow commits you to the Church. The private vow does not. If you’re not legally bound to the Church how can you be excommunicated for violating your vows? The Church has as much jurisdiction over a person in private vows as it does over any other person.

There is another detail. Private vows can never be solemn vows. Solemn vows must always be public. Here is an interesting fact. Marriage vows are public vows and they are solemn vows. They are not the same vows as those made by religious. We vow to observe the Evangelical Counsels and couples vow to love each other until death. But the vows are solemn and binding. However, the marriage vows constitute a sacrament and the Evangelical Counsels are not a sacrament. You cannot get a dispensation from a sacrament. The Church does not have the authority to undo the sacrament.

Does this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimcav]

Thank you JR!

Your answer is a big help and it goes a long way into understanding the differences in the two types of vows.

I will read your post over a few times to digest it all because it’s very in-depth and full of good information. Thanks to you, I now now have a better understanding of what I am discerning for my life.

 

[albertziggy]

Hi Br. JR,

Terminologies can be very confusing.

For instance, in this post, ‘religious’ means people who live in communities with vows. In some posts, religious covers also hermits, and even those who are members of third/secular orders (hence the term ‘secular religious).

Consecrated persons here are persons who are in vows. Yet, there are people who make promises and even live in community but are still considered ‘consecrated’ (e.g., Daughters of Charity). Then there are the members of secular/third orders who do not make private vows, but are considered consecrated.

Thanks.

albertiziggy

 

[JReducation]

Hi Br. JR,

Terminologies can be very confusing.

For instance, in this post, ‘religious’ means people who live in communities with vows. In some posts, religious covers also hermits, and even those who are members of third/secular orders (hence the term ‘secular religious).

Consecrated persons here are persons who are in vows. Yet, there are people who make promises and even live in community but are still considered ‘consecrated’ (e.g., Daughters of Charity). Then there are the members of secular/third orders who do not make private vows, but are considered consecrated.

Thanks.

albertiziggy

You’re right that terms are being used almost interchangeably. That’s why I started this thread, because I believe that the folks who come to this forum need to understand the terms as the Church uses them, especially in Canon Law.

Religious is a man or woman who lives a vowed life in a canonically erected institute of religious life. This does not include diocesan hermits, secular orders, confraternities, priestly fraternities, societies of priests, secular institutes or societies such as the Daughters of Charity. The Daughters of Charity come under Societies of Apostolic Life, not Institutes of Consecrated Life. Canonically, they are not religious sisters, because they never make perpetual vows.

Secular Orders are not religious orders. They are secular, meaning that the members do not live a vowed life in institute of consecrated life. However, they are under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, because said Congregation governs all orders. But canonically you cannot be both secular and religious.

You can be:

• Secular and cleric
• Secular and lay
• Religious and cleric
• Religious and lay

Members of secular orders are either: secular and lay or secular and cleric. But notice that they are not religious. They remain in the seuclar state, even though they make a public profession to live by the rule of their order.

Consecrated life comes in two forms: under public vows and private vows. My previous post explains how the Church treats the different vows. The section in Canon Law on the faithful has all kinds of information on this subject. It’s too long to quote here.

Religious ordinarily belong to either an order or a congregation. Religious men can be clerics, but it’s not a requirement of the Church. Some religious institutes do require that their men be clerics, but that’s what is referred to as common law, meaning the law that is common to that institute, not the universal law of the Church.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss only male religious and their life. The reason that I created it that way is because many people don’t understand it. There is another thread on celibacy that is a prime example. One poster took me to task because I made a distinction between the vow of chastity made by religious and the promise of celibacy made by secular clerics. The person tried to prove the point by quoting the definition of celibacy from Pope John Paul’s encyclical Vita Consacrata, not realizing that the title of the encyclical itself tells you that he’s not speaking about priestly celibacy, but about the vow of chastity, because priesthood does not fall under consecrated life, even though many male religious are ALSO priests.

But those men, who are religious, do not make a promise of celibacy if they are ordained, because the vow of chastity includes celibacy and more. It would be redundant to ask them to promise something that is already included in their profession.

The discussion on the celibacy thread is an excellent view of people’s lack of understanding of religious life for men. They keep referring to priests as consecrated men, which is not accurate. They also keep referring to the vow of celibacy, which is also inaccurate. Only those who belong to religious orders and religious congregations are canonically consecrated men, whether they are priests or not. And those secular men who are single make a promise of celibacy a few moments before they are ordained deacons, not a vow of chastity. It is Church law whether they are permanent deacons or transitional.

The vow of consecrated chastity includes celibacy and more. The promise of celibacy does not include consecrated chastity. Only religious make a vow of consecrated chastity. All male religious bind themselves to consecrated chastity. Everyone is bound to a life of chastity, but not consecrated chastity. There is a difference. Chastity is a state of purity. Consecrated chastity is a conscious and public profession of one’s faith that life in the Kingdom of God is lived in intimacy with Christ without marriage, because in the Kingdom men and women are not given in marriage. Because one believes that this is what awaits us in the Kingdom of Heaven, one publicly professes this belief and vows to begin this life on Earth and continue it in eternity. This is what makes a religious different from other men and women.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

You’re right that terms are being used almost interchangeably. That’s why I started this thread, because I believe that the folks who come to this forum need to understand the terms as the Church uses them, especially in Canon Law.

Because one believes that this is what awaits us in the Kingdom of Heaven, one publicly professes this belief and vows to begin this life on Earth and continue it in eternity. This is what makes a religious different from other men and women.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks Br. JR for trying to explaining these things. It is difficult to accept the explanation after going through and absorbing the information stated in the past posts (i.e., what/who we are, etc.), so I would rather stick to the old ones so as not to get lost in the process.

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[JReducation]

Thanks Br. JR for trying to explaining these things. It is difficult to accept the explanation after going through and absorbing the information stated in the past posts (i.e., what/who we are, etc.), so I would rather stick to the old ones so as not to get lost in the process.

In Christ,
albertziggy

Please don’t get lost. The Church wants us to understand, but not to get totally confused. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Red_Meg]

Opus Dei has many consecrated lay people.

Brother JR–

You’re such a dear, I hate to disagree with you. But Opus Dei has no consecrated lay people. Not a one. Even the numeraries and associates, who have vocations to apostolic celibacy, are not deemed “consecrated.” There are no vows involved, either public or private. It is strictly a matter of promising on one’s word of honor as a Christian.

I do apologize for getting slightly OT here, it’s just a small point that needs clarification.

Best regards,

Margaret

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR–

You’re such a dear, I hate to disagree with you. But Opus Dei has no consecrated lay people. Not a one. Even the numeraries and associates, who have vocations to apostolic celibacy, are not deemed “consecrated.” There are no vows involved, either public or private. It is strictly a matter of promising on one’s word of honor as a Christian.

I do apologize for getting slightly OT here, it’s just a small point that needs clarification.

Best regards,

Margaret

Let’s thank Margaret for that clarification. I made a mistake. I thought that the numeraries were consecrated lay people, because of the apostolic celibacy. That’s a good point to have clarified.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jimcav]

Can you explain the definition of the evangelical vows of poverty, chastity and obediance for lay people?

For instance, chastity has a different meaning for a married lay person than it does for a religious.

And for a lay person in a third order, confraternity, or another secular association, that takes the private vow of obediance, who exactly is he or she obediant to, the order, or to God? I mean, can an order have any direct control over an individual who is not a religious member of that order?

Thanks ahead of time!

 

[JReducation]

Can you explain the definition of the evangelical vows of poverty, chastity and obediance for lay people?

For instance, chastity has a different meaning for a married lay person than it does for a religious.

And for a lay person in a third order, confraternity, or another secular association, that takes the private vow of obediance, who exactly is he or she obediant to, the order, or to God? I mean, can an order have any direct control over an individual who is not a religious member of that order?

Thanks ahead of time!

The Evangelical Counsels are the same for everyone: obedience, poverty and chastity. The difference between the secular person who makes private vows and the religious who makes public vows is that the religious is part of an institute of consecrated life. They both involve celibacy, because the vow of chastity includes celibacy and more.

All people are called to live chaste lives according to their state in life. If you’re single, you are to be celibate until you marry. If you’re married you are still to be chaste, meaning that you do not belong to anyone else except your spouse.

Some people in Secular Orders make private vows. In that case the vow of obedience is applied to the superior of the fraternity and to its statutes. If you are a member of the order, then you should answer to the superior of the fraternity. I always encourage members of Secular Orders to consult with their superior or whatever they call the authority figure, before they make the vows. This way you coordinate things between you and the order.

I hope that I answered your question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF