Nuns being brides of christ?

[rachael_maria]

So, where do people get the idea that there is an objective superiority to consecrated life?

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32
“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)

Of course, this is not to say that religious life is the better for every person- it isn’t! God’s Will is always the best for the person.

I am not personally called to religious life but I did live in a convent filled with beautiful sisters- who were not the least bit “sentimental” and who considered themselves to be brides of Christ. This is not the least bit uncommon among sisters, many of whom are very well-educated, teach theology, etc. I wonder if anyone would want to tell the Alma Mercy Sisters, many of whom teach theology, are physicians, etc…or the Domincan Sisters of Nashville or the Alahambra Carmelites…come to think of it any one of the top ten convents in terms of new vocations in the U.S…how misguided and theologically inaccurate they are to consider themselves to be spouses of Christ. These are not exactly flaky women. I wish they were here to tell you themselves…but alas they are busy living the life God has called them to.

Peace of Christ to all!

 

[JReducation]

But by using the word “superior” in connection with the priesthood and religious life and because the use of the word is misunderstood, it rather leaves in the minds of many of the faithful, if not even most of them, that the lay state is inferior to the priesthood or religious life.

Sometimes the language of the Church is like cracking a code. There is an order of hierarchy in the Church. At the bottom of that order you have the laity and at the top you have the clergy. Within the clergy there is also an order of hierarchy. At the bottom are the deacons and at the top are the bishops. Religious are not included in this hierarchy. We’re in another category by ourselves. Anyway, the term superior is used to define hierarchy, authority, rank, place, etc. It is not used to say that a cleric is holier than a layman. This would not be true. Is the place of the cleric superior to that of a layman? Yes, even if that cleric is a deacon. But we are describing a hierarchy of relationships, not holiness.

Certainly, the call and vocation to the priesthood is the most noble of calls and that of major accountability and responsibility and in a lesser way the religious life -

Actually this is not correct. The priesthood and the religious life cannot be compared. It would be like comparing mammals to birds. The only thing they have in common is that both are animals. The onlly thing that the priesthood and religiuos life have in common is that they are both calls by Christ. But one is a call to ministry (Holy Orders) and the other is a call to the perfection of charity (Religiuos Life). The responsibilities and accountability are different. That is why is possible for Christ to call males to both: Holy Orders AND religious life. Sometimes he calls only to one or the other.

A person on outside of the priesthood and religious life may rise to as high or even higher level of holiness than those within these states of life.

This is absolutely true. The best example that I can offer is Catherine of Siena. She was neither a religious nor a priest. She was a secular lay woman. She became a saint and a Doctor of the Church. She is the only Doctor who is neither a religious or a priest.

I have problems even with"better than" simply because for example it leaves out in the cold and almost as second class citizens those who have perhaps from birth impediments to both religious life and the priesthood. Are they then excluded by God from the 'superior ’ and ‘better than’ states of life? and if ‘superior’ and ‘better than’ can apply then I think they are indeed second class citizens in The Church excluded by canonical impediments to the ‘superior’ and ‘better than’. This is why I think these terms are perhaps dangerous - although I realize that this may be too strong a word although if I think it through, perhaps not.

We’ve already cleared the “better than”, “superior”, and “more intimately”. Now we have to clear up who is called and who is not. Religious life and Holy Orders are not for everyone. But we already know this. But what we don’t always think about is that they are for a select few. I use the word “select” deliberately. The Church has always selected those who are called to either religious life or the priesthood. Neither are a right. No one has a right to be a religious and no one has a right to be ordained. It is a privilege that Christ grants to some. That’s why we call it a gift. We do not earn it. We cannot ask for it. We cannot dictate to the Church who should be called. All we do is present ourselves before the Church and profess that we feel called. The bishop or the religious superior, speaking for Christ, tell us if we are called or if our feelings are just fleeting thoughts.

It’s not a matter of a person born with an impediment. The greatest impediment is the Church saying that you are not called. Once that is said, the case is closed. Now, it has happened that someone has not been called to serve as a Carmelite Friar, but is called to serve as a secular priest in a diocese or the opposite. He may not be called to be a secular priest, but may be called to be a Carmelite and a priest or simply a Carmelite. One has to look for answers according to guidance of the Spirit.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

So, where do people get the idea that there is an objective superiority to consecrated life?

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32
“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)

Greetings Rachael_Maria - The key term in what you have quoted above from Vita Consecrata is “objective superiority”. And the term is of course quite correct. The problem is that the rank and file of the faithful in the main read it wrongly as simply “superiority” failing to insight that the term is qualified by “objective”. And thus arrive at the conclusion that the religious life is superior full stop. It is not superior full stop - it is “objectively superior” and of course since it is a vocation and call from God to a human being, one must factor in the subjective element which, of course, is God’s Will for a person and nothing is more superior than that. A person longing to make Christ the centre and crown of his or her life can thus feel that it can only be achieved in the religious life and may hence omit to sight that it is in fulfilling God’s Will for their lives that they will make Christ the centre and crown of their lives.
The public witness of religious life to Christ and His Gospel and to the transcendent and life eternal is of vital importance in The Church and in our world - but it is God’s Will on earth that is of most and utmost importance (“Thy Kingdom come and Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”).
My problem is not with what The Church is saying, but how She is saying it which conveys to those unfamiliar with theology (including me) a false understanding of what She is in reality actually stating.

Of course, this is not to say that religious life is the better for every person- it isn’t! God’s Will is always the best for the person.

Absolutely.

I am not personally called to religious life but I did live in a convent filled with beautiful sisters- who were not the least bit “sentimental” and who considered themselves to be brides of Christ.

Actually I lived in monastic life for a while and high on the list of why I left was because I could not consider myself superior to anyone else. In fact I knew I was not - far from that. I knew that if I persevered in monastic life it did not make me superior in any way shape or form, it merely meant that God was calling me to monastic life and providing the Grace to life it - no merit at all to me. But I was not expected to think that way. I was to regard myself as superior and especially blest. I would certainly be especially blest with the Graces of a monastic vocation, just as God would provide the Grace for the marriage vocation and especially bless the maried or the single in the single way of life. That is how I viewed myself, but not expected to do so. I was expected to consider myself superior somehow.
I do not mean that all religious think this way, but my experience (and hence limited) was that certainly some do.

This is not the least bit uncommon among sisters, many of whom are very well-educated, teach theology, etc. I wonder if anyone would want to tell the Alma Mercy Sisters, many of whom teach theology, are physicians, etc…or the Domincan Sisters of Nashville or the Alahambra Carmelites…come to think of it any one of the top ten convents in terms of new vocations in the U.S…how misguided and theologically inaccurate they are to consider themselves to be spouses of Christ. These are not exactly flaky women. I wish they were here to tell you themselves…but alas they are busy living the life God has called them to.

My problem is on the theological level I think. If The Church is the Spouse of Christ and the baptized faithful are The Church, are not then all the faithful Spouses of Christ which is marital terminology as is the term “bride” and a “spouse” is the marital partner or bride from one aspect?

God bless you also and Peace

TS

 

[Rising_Suns]

I believe that the Church has turned away from saying that the consecrated life or the clergy is the superior call and rightly so as it seems to create a view that any other life is inferior in someway.

Dear ByzCath,
At the moment, I cannot respond to all the comments on this thread that I would like to. But I think it is important just to emphasize that the teaching of the Church does not change on these matters, particularly regarding the superiority of the consecrated life. Those who believe that this reality denigrates marriage misunderstand the Church’s teaching. As Saint Ambrose noted in a treatise on virginity; “I am comparing good things with good things, that it may be clear which is the more excellent.”

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32
“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says:* I would that all men were even as myself; * that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

     **Catechism of the Catholic Church,  p. 916 **

“The state of the consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a *“more intimate” *consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ’s faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.”

     I Corinthians Chp. VII 
    "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. [v.1]  Indeed, I wish that everyone were like I am [celibate]. [v.7] I should  like you to be free from anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about    the things of the Lord; how he may please the Lord. But a married man is  anxious about the things of   the world; how he may please his wife,  and he is divided. [v.32] Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a  wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried  woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in  their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that." [v.28] (see  also Mark 12:18-27, Mtt 19:10-12, 2 Timothy Ch. 2:3)

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32
“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”****

 

[TiggerS]

Sometimes the language of the Church is like cracking a code. There is an order of hierarchy in the Church. At the bottom of that order you have the laity and at the top you have the clergy. Within the clergy there is also an order of hierarchy. At the bottom are the deacons and at the top are the bishops. Religious are not included in this hierarchy. We’re in another category by ourselves. Anyway, the term superior is used to define hierarchy, authority, rank, place, etc. It is not used to say that a cleric is holier than a layman. This would not be true. Is the place of the cleric superior to that of a layman? Yes, even if that cleric is a deacon. But we are describing a hierarchy of relationships, not holiness.

Hello JReducation - I understand the above and agree completely. My problem is with how The Church conveys these realities and the language used which is confusing to the ordinary person.

Actually this is not correct. The priesthood and the religious life cannot be compared. It would be like comparing mammals to birds. The only thing they have in common is that both are animals. The onlly thing that the priesthood and religiuos life have in common is that they are both calls by Christ. But one is a call to ministry (Holy Orders) and the other is a call to the perfection of charity (Religiuos Life). The responsibilities and accountability are different. That is why is possible for Christ to call males to both: Holy Orders AND religious life. Sometimes he calls only to one or the other.

I understand the above also. Again, my problem is that due to the language used and possibly also the lack of qualifiction so the ordinary member of the faithful can understand, that confusion abounds as to what The Church is actually saying and how to fit religious life and the priesthood in this instance into the overall picture, meaning including the subjective.

This is absolutely true. The best example that I can offer is Catherine of Siena. She was neither a religious nor a priest. She was a secular lay woman. She became a saint and a Doctor of the Church. She is the only Doctor who is neither a religious or a priest.

Agree and one of my favorites.

We’ve already cleared the “better than”, “superior”, and “more intimately”. Now we have to clear up who is called and who is not. Religious life and Holy Orders are not for everyone. But we already know this. But what we don’t always think about is that they are for a select few. I use the word “select” deliberately. The Church has always selected those who are called to either religious life or the priesthood. Neither are a right. No one has a right to be a religious and no one has a right to be ordained. It is a privilege that Christ grants to some. That’s why we call it a gift. We do not earn it. We cannot ask for it. We cannot dictate to the Church who should be called. All we do is present ourselves before the Church and profess that we feel called. The bishop or the religious superior, speaking for Christ, tell us if we are called or if our feelings are just fleeting thoughts

I agree again, especially since it is God who grants the necessary qualifications and lack of impediments for a particular vocation. But, again, due to the language used in the overall so that all fits properly into correct theological context and the whole picutre, the language that IS used while not confusing to the theologically minded and educated Catholic, is confusing to those not thus blessed. And what The Church teaches ideally should be for all, not a selected few.

It’s not a matter of a person born with an impediment. The greatest impediment is the Church saying that you are not called. Once that is said, the case is closed. Now, it has happened that someone has not been called to serve as a Carmelite Friar, but is called to serve as a secular priest in a diocese or the opposite. He may not be called to be a secular priest, but may be called to be a Carmelite and a priest or simply a Carmelite. One has to look for answers according to guidance of the Spirit.

I understand the above - but it is demeaning to a person who has an ardent desire to make Christ the crown and centre of his or her life to be refused religious life or the priesthood in the case of males, because they just don’t match up. That is telling only half the story without an explanation that it is God who has not supplied the qualitities and lack of impediments and therefore one can be confident that one is not called to these states of life and that by embracing God’s Will in every way one can still make Christ the centre and crown of one’s life and that God has His Divine Good Reasons for not supplying the qualities and lack of impediments - that He has in fact some other way of life in mind for the person to acquire holiness and sanctification and make Christ the crown and centre of his or her life - and that this is a wondrous service to The Church.
We need the language and qualifications to language etc. if necessary to embrace all without exception- not just the priviledged few. And in the light of The Gospel, most especially not only the priviledged few. I would even challenge what “priviledged” may mean in the light of The Lord and His Gospel.
In my opinion.

TS
I have to go now and may not have time to return to this thread for a while.

 

[TiggerS]

Dear ByzCath,
At the moment, I cannot respond to all the comments on this thread that I would like to. But I think it is important just to emphasize that the teaching of the Church does not change on these matters, particularly regarding the superiority of the consecrated life. Those who believe that this reality denigrates marriage misunderstand the Church’s teaching. As Saint Ambrose noted in a treatise on virginity; “I am comparing good things with good things, that it may be clear which is the more excellent.”

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32
“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says:* I would that all men were even as myself; *that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

**Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 916 **
“The state of the consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a *“more intimate” *consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God. In the consecrated life, Christ’s faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.”

I Corinthians Chp. VII
“It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman. [v.1] Indeed, I wish that everyone were like I am [celibate]. [v.7] I should like you to be free from anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord; how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world; how he may please his wife, and he is divided. [v.32] Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.” [v.28] (see also Mark 12:18-27, Mtt 19:10-12, 2 Timothy Ch. 2:3)

Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32
“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”

I agree with all the above; however, if God does not call a person to the celibate or chaste state in the priesthood and/or religious life TOGETHER WITH THE GRACES NECESSARY TO LIVE THE VOCATION, to enter these states would be disastorous for the person unless God subsequently did grant the necessary Graces, which can happen. Furthermore, there is never any merit to the actual person called to the priesthood and/or religious life, since it is God who has supplied all necessary through Grace and the Grace of a vocation to His Own Purposes and Will. My problem being that very often the language that The Church uses can convey the impression of superior and inferior people in The Church - rather than the role itself being superior or inferior to the superior (of course). It is a very special blessing and Grace to be called to the priesthood and/or religious life and to be highly prized and valued, but no person deserves it. God according to His Good Will and Pleasure calls and together with the call all the Grace that is necessary.
“The Spirit blows where He May”
Luke Ch17 "7 But which of you having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say to him, when he is come from the field: Immediately go, sit down to meat: 8 And will not rather say to him: Make ready my supper, and gird thyself, and serve me, whilst I eat and drink, and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? 9 Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him? 10 I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do. "

TS

 

[JReducation]

Greetings Rachael_Maria - The key term in what you have quoted above from Vita Consecrata is “objective superiority”. And the term is of course quite correct. The problem is that the rank and file of the faithful in the main read it wrongly as simply “superiority” failing to insight that the term is qualified by “objective”.

In Catholic theology, objective means that something is what we say it is on its own merits. Subjective is what we make of it. For example, when the Holy Father says that the consecrated life is superior he proceeds to explain what the consecrated life does for the Church that no other form of life can do, neither the priesthood, marriage or the single life.

He is not saying that every religoius fulfills this. That’s the subjective level. Unfortunately the call is to be all these things. The reality is that we are sinful men and women.

This is like saying that marriage is an objective sign of the relationship between Christ and the Church. This is true, without a doubt. But some married couples live in hell. Subjectively, it is not always true. But the weakness or sinfulness of the person does not take away from the signficance of the state in life. Marriage remains what it is, regardless of the fact that there may be only one good married couple in the world. Religious life remains what it is, even if there is only one religious who fulfills these ideals. The suepriority is in the way of life.

We go back to the ranking system that the Cathoilc Church uses. She looks at different ways of life and how they impact on the Church and she ranks them. But that is not a ranking of the persons. The people can be saints or jerks.

The public witness of religious life to Christ and His Gospel and to the transcendent and life eternal is of vital importance in The Church and in our world - but it is God’s Will on earth that is of most and utmost importance (“Thy Kingdom come and Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”). My problem is not with what The Church is saying, but how She is saying it which conveys to those unfamiliar with theology (including me) a false understanding of what She is in reality actually stating.

The Church is saying that the consecrated life bridges the present with eternity and therefore, it is a superior way of life, because no other way of life can do that. The question is why not?

There are two reasons why not. First, Christ has not willed it. Second, the Church has never acknowledged it. Ultimately, the Church can only acknowledge what Christ reveals, not what we believe should be the case. But again, this term is not being applied to state of holiness. All men and women are called to holiness, each according to God’s will.

The best way that I explain it is with the parable of the talents. God wills to give some people moer and other people less. The reason is that he gives each one what he wishes. Let us remember what Jesus said when he spoke about the employer who paid some according to the agreed wage and to others he gave more. He said that the Lord has the right to do that. It is not the individual who has the right or has earned the right to receive a special grace to the consecrated life. That’t not the case at all. Some of the most serious sinners have been called to the consecrated life.

My problem is on the theological level I think. If The Church is the Spouse of Christ and the baptized faithful are The Church, are not then all the faithful Spouses of Christ which is marital terminology as is the term “bride” and a “spouse” is the marital partner or bride from one aspect?

TS

Each individual is not the spouse of Christ, because none of us is the Church. We are part of the Church. Together we make up the Church. Individually, we are not the Church. Your arm is a part of you, but it is not you.

We can use the human body to explain what you may have been told in the monastery. The body needs all of its vital organs. However, we agree that the brain is the one organ that cannot be replaced. We can use the word superior to describe the brain. It is not more vital than the heart. But the heart can be replaced and the brain cannot.

What John Paul II was trying to say is that the Church cannot replace the consecrated life, if it were to lose it. The Consecrated LIfe is the tangible sign of the coming Kingdom. There is no other tangible sign in the world except religious life. Because married people, single people and priests do not live as we are going to live in the Kingdom of God. That’s what he’s saying. this places a grave moral duty on the shoulders of religious men and women. We have to be tangible signs of life in the Kingdom through our words, actions, attitudes and our prayer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

I can basically agree with all that for sure. But what ordinary Catholics especially perhaps (though not perhaps only) need to grasp is that it is God’s Will and Grace that we have religious and the priesthood in the first place and that it is according to God’s Will and Purposes that one is called here, another there, or to the married state or the single state.
We need to be able to grasp the mentality that we are indeed one in Christ with many different functions, each is important in God’s Divine Plan. If we don’t have a priesthood we don’t have The Mass and Sacraments, but then without marriage and children, the priesthood and religious life would cease to exist for example - life on earth itself would cease to exist. We are all connected into the one Body - and each has a very important part to play that only that person can complete in God’s Grace and according to God’s Will. We need to be able to sight and value our particular role in the scheme of things - and value it uniquely and highly and as our only source of real happiness - and we need from The Church the language to grasp these things. Perhaps if we did, our young people may seriously begin to consider God’s Will for them as vital to their future and happiness and perhaps (I dont know of course) religious and priestly vocations might increase.

I am not stating that theolgoically objectively speaking that the celibate state is not superior to marriage, for it is theologically objectively superior. I am not stating that theologically objectively speaking there are not ‘ranks’ of value and importance to The Church per se. What I am stating is that the theological objective element is completed by the theological subjective element in the living Church governed by God’s Will and His Grace. This is what to my mind the rank and file as it were of the faithful do not grasp in pondering Church statements and language used.
I am familiar with St. Paul’s Doctrine of The Mystical Body and a favorite doctrine of mine - one that I relate to often. Also with the parable of the talents and I think I have covered this in previous posts, though not referring to this particular parable per se.

TS

 

[JReducation]

I can basically agree with all that for sure. But what ordinary Catholics especially perhaps (though not perhaps only) need to grasp is that it is God’s Will and Grace that we have religious and the priesthood in the first place and that it is according to God’s Will and Purposes that one is called here, another there, or to the married state or the single state.
We need to be able to grasp the mentality that we are indeed one in Christ with many different functions, each is important in God’s Divine Plan. If we don’t have a priesthood we don’t have The Mass and Sacraments, but then without marriage and children, the priesthood and religious life would cease to exist for example - life on earth itself would cease to exist. We are all connected into the one Body - and each has a very important part to play that only that person can complete in God’s Grace and according to God’s Will. We need to be able to sight and value our particular role in the scheme of things - and value it uniquely and highly and as our only source of real happiness - and we need from The Church the language to grasp these things. Perhaps if we did, our young people may seriously begin to consider God’s Will for them as vital to their future and happiness and perhaps (I dont know of course) religious and priestly vocations might increase.

I am not stating that theolgoically objectively speaking that the celibate state is not superior to marriage, for it is theologically objectively superior. I am not stating that theologically objectively speaking there are not ‘ranks’ of value and importance to The Church per se. What I am stating is that the theological objective element is completed by the theological subjective element in the living Church governed by God’s Will and His Grace. This is what to my mind the rank and file as it were of the faithful do not grasp in pondering Church statements and language used.
I am familiar with St. Paul’s Doctrine of The Mystical Body and a favorite doctrine of mine - one that I relate to often. Also with the parable of the talents and I think I have covered this in previous posts, though not referring to this particular parable per se.

TS

The Church has to speak in objective terms. She cannot address every possible situation. The application has to be made in catechesis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

Each individual is not the spouse of Christ, because none of us is the Church. We are part of the Church. Together we make up the Church. Individually, we are not the Church. Your arm is a part of you, but it is not you.

Thank you for this point, JReducation, it is a new thought for me and one that makes real sense to me and I need to give it more prayerful thought as there is something lingering somewhere out of what you said that is yet to fall into place and be expanded into the overall. Thank you again.

TS

 

[Ocarm]

On the other hand and collectively speaking, the priesthood and religious life is ‘superior’ to the lay state because it is structured to serve The Kingdom directly.

A small but important point: if you are contrasting priesthood and religious life with the rest of the faithful, the latter should not be referred to as ‘lay’ to distinguish them from the former, inasmuch as the majority of religious are also lay people because they are not ordained. The better word is ‘secular’ although that can also be misleading because most priests are secular men. Confused? It is a little complicated.

Perhaps another post on the subject might be of assistance:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6270401#post6270401

Hope this helps.

 

[JReducation]

A small but important point: if you are contrasting priesthood and religious life with the rest of the faithful, the latter should not be referred to as ‘lay’ to distinguish them from the former, inasmuch as the majority of religious are also lay people because they are not ordained. The better word is ‘secular’ although that can also be misleading because most priests are secular men. Confused? It is a little complicated.

Perhaps another post on the subject might be of assistance:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6270401#post6270401

Hope this helps.

Brother,

There is an discussion at the Canon Law Society of America, which is the organism that the Vatican uses to settle canonical questions, that religious are neither clerics nor properly lay. But what does give me a chuckle is that the canons and the canonists don’t know exactly where to classify us.

I just let people use the terms clergy, religious and lay to avoid confusion. I do explain the canonical use of lay and cleric.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ocarm]

Brother,

There is an discussion at the Canon Law Society of America, which is the organism that the Vatican uses to settle canonical questions, that religious are neither clerics nor properly lay. But what does give me a chuckle is that the canons and the canonists don’t know exactly where to classify us.

That’s interesting, because I discussed this with a canon lawyer only this past week, and he informed me that the relevant canon:

*Can. 588 §1. By its very nature, the state of consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay.

§2. That institute is called clerical which, by reason of the purpose or design intended by the founder or by virtue of legitimate tradition, is under the direction of clerics, assumes the exercise of sacred orders, and is recognized as such by the authority of the Church.

§3. That institute is called lay which, recognized as such by the authority of the Church, has by virtue of its nature, character, and purpose a proper function defined by the founder or by legitimate tradition, which does not include the exercise of sacred orders.*

• should be interpreted as meaning that consecrated life is, in and of itself, not to be assumed to be either clerical or lay, but can be either or both.

A parallel would be to say that being human does not specifically indicate that a person is male, or that one is female. But it does mean that the person is either one or the other.

Now obviously I’m not going to argue with you, Brother JR. (I wouldn’t dare ). But he was very clear that this is the default understanding of the canon as indicated in various judgments from the appropriate authority. Of course, they would be entitled to ‘change their minds’ on that and offer us a new definition if they so wish. (Thereby making lots of work for canon lawyers!).

By the way, the Canon Law society of America doesn’t have jurisdiction over the code internationally, does it? Did you mean the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s interesting, because I discussed this with a canon lawyer only this past week, and he informed me that the relevant canon:

*Can. 588 §1. By its very nature, the state of consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay.

§2. That institute is called clerical which, by reason of the purpose or design intended by the founder or by virtue of legitimate tradition, is under the direction of clerics, assumes the exercise of sacred orders, and is recognized as such by the authority of the Church.

§3. That institute is called lay which, recognized as such by the authority of the Church, has by virtue of its nature, character, and purpose a proper function defined by the founder or by legitimate tradition, which does not include the exercise of sacred orders.*

• should be interpreted as meaning that consecrated life is, in and of itself, not to be assumed to be either clerical or lay, but can be either or both.

A parallel would be to say that being human does not specifically indicate that a person is male, or that one is female. But it does mean that the person is either one or the other.

Now obviously I’m not going to argue with you, Brother JR. (I wouldn’t dare ). But he was very clear that this is the default understanding of the canon as indicated in various judgments from the appropriate authority. Of course, they would be entitled to ‘change their minds’ on that and offer us a new definition if they so wish. (Thereby making lots of work for canon lawyers!).

By the way, the Canon Law society of America doesn’t have jurisdiction over the code internationally, does it? Did you mean the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts?

Br Mike,
This is a very interesting canon, especially when one reads this one which precedes it.

Can. 207 §1 By divine institution, among Christ’s faithful there are in the Church sacred ministers, who in law are also called clerics - the others are called lay people.

**§2 **Drawn from both groups are those of Christ’s faithful who, professing the evangelical counsels through vows or other sacred bonds recognised and approved by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and promote the salvific mission of the Church. Their state, although it does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, does pertain to its life and holiness.

 

[JReducation]

That’s interesting, because I discussed this with a canon lawyer only this past week, and he informed me that the relevant canon:

Can. 588 §1. By its very nature, the state of consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay.

This is the point that is being discussed. I’m not a canon lawyer. I studied and taught Mytical Theology most of my life and later became interested in psychology. Yes, I’m also a psychologist. I just mention this because I don’t want anyone taking what I’m saying as a professional and authoritative opinion. It is not.

But one of our sisters, who is a canon law and is stationed full-time in Washington doing this explained to me that there is another question on the table.

The first point is what your friend told you, which as been held since I can remember. Trust me, I’m old. That was the the religious life was neither lay or clerical, because both lay and clerics could be religious.

But the new argument on the table is also very interesting. I’ll try to say it as closely as it was explained to me.

It was something like, if the religious no longer come under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, but under their major superior do they continue to be part of the lay faithful.

It’s very interesting. I still choose to let the faithful use the classificiation that works for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It was something like, if the religious no longer come under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, but under their major superior do they continue to be part of the lay faithful.

This is an interesting question and only applies to those religious orders of Pontifical Right.

It must be noted that our superiors are our ordinary just as the bishop is the ordinary for his diocese.

There are lay people who do not fall under the local ordinary, those who are serving in the military, they fall under the ordinary of the Archdiocese of the Military, do they cease to be lay people while serving in the military?

Interesting question.

I find it odd that in canon 207 the code states that there are two forms of life in the Church, clerical and lay, but then in canon 588 it states that consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay.

Then what is it? The code is silent on that.

 

[JReducation]

This is an interesting question and only applies to those religious orders of Pontifical Right.

It must be noted that our superiors are our ordinary just as the bishop is the ordinary for his diocese.

There are lay people who do not fall under the local ordinary, those who are serving in the military, they fall under the ordinary of the Archdiocese of the Military, do they cease to be lay people while serving in the military?

Interesting question.

I find it odd that in canon 207 the code states that there are two forms of life in the Church, clerical and lay, but then in canon 588 it states that consecrated life is neither clerical nor lay.

Then what is it? The code is silent on that.

Canon 588 was added because of the question above.

People in the military don’t have the same problem, because they do belong to a diocese and they have a bishop.

Religious of Pontifical Right work within a diocese, but do not belong to it and we don’t have a bishop. We have an Ordinary, but not a bishop. We are in a very interesting canonical situation.

I don’t worry about it. It’s not important. The important thing is the vision and mission of the religious community. Lay, cleric or other is irrelevant unless it interferes with the vision of the founder.

The Franciscan family went through this in the 1970s and again in the 1990s. It was finally decided that each branch had to request the status: lay or clerical. To the Vatican’s surprise, over 90% requested to be classified as a lay religious community. To be a clerical religious institute meant that the lay brothers could not be Ministers, Guardians and Formation Directors. That would be contrary to the rule. There was a conflict between the Rule of St. Francis, which has a Papal Bull that says it may never be changed and Canon Law which imposed a change that the rule forbids and which Pope Honorius III sealed.

The way around it was to leave the canon as it is, regarding the government of religious orders of men and to have each religious order present their case for a change in status. I know that Franciscans were not the only ones. Marianists also made a case and they too are classified as a lay congregation, the Missionaries of the Poor, and the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s brothers).

It’s all very interesint for academics, I guess. Canon law was never very interesting to me when I was theology. It was the one class that dreaded. The only part that I found interesting was the part on marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Franciscan family went through this in the 1970s and again in the 1990s. It was finally decided that each branch had to request the status: lay or clerical. To the Vatican’s surprise, over 90% requested to be classified as a lay religious community. To be a clerical religious institute meant that the lay brothers could not be Ministers, Guardians and Formation Directors. That would be contrary to the rule. There was a conflict between the Rule of St. Francis, which has a Papal Bull that says it may never be changed and Canon Law which imposed a change that the rule forbids and which Pope Honorius III sealed.

We Carmelites are a clerical order but we do not have any prohibitions against lay brothers from serving as priors, councilors, or formation directors but that is laid out in our Constitutions. As you may be aware, our rule is very short.

I find it strange that the Church states that there are two forms (or states) in life, clerical and lay, but then goes on to say that consecrated life is neither of these.

So we are in some sort of “limbo” living a life that is neither of the forms that are part of the Body of Christ. There needs to be some sort of clarification.

 

[JReducation]

We Carmelites are a clerical order but we do not have any prohibitions against lay brothers from serving as priors, councilors, or formation directors but that is laid out in our Constitutions. As you may be aware, our rule is very short.

I find it strange that the Church states that there are two forms (or states) in life, clerical and lay, but then goes on to say that consecrated life is neither of these.

So we are in some sort of “limbo” living a life that is neither of the forms that are part of the Body of Christ. There needs to be some sort of clarification.

I know that the Carmelites are a clerical order and that the Prior General must be a cleric. Our Minister General need not be a cleric.

You’re rule is very short. Our own is not as detailed as that of St. Benedict, but it has more statutes within the rule than does the Rule of St. Albert. Then St. Francis wrote the admonitions and his last testament and made them all binding under obedience. He wanted to make sure that we understood what he was saying. LOL

As far as the canon, I’m sure that in time there will be a clarification. As long as the law does not interfere with the work of the Gospel, I don’t worry about it. We have many more important concerns in religious life. Let it go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ocarm]

I find it strange that the Church states that there are two forms (or states) in life, clerical and lay, but then goes on to say that consecrated life is neither of these.

As I tried to explain above in post #53 (but obviously failed miserably ) canon 588 does not actually mean that religious are neither clerical or lay in the sense that they are a separate category; it means that religious can be either clerical or lay. So in this usage, ‘neither’ is intended positively, as in neither state is excluded.

The example I used above would by this usage be phrased: By its very nature, the state of being human is neither exclusive to men nor exclusive to women.

I know that the canon doesn’t seem to say that, but the defined understanding is that this is what it should be understood to mean, however it may sound! It may be dissatisfaction with this that has led to the review Brother JR mentions.

So we are in some sort of “limbo” living a life that is neither of the forms that are part of the Body of Christ. There needs to be some sort of clarification.

Fortunately, brother, we aren’t really in limbo. We are still in the state that the 1983 code specifies until a definitive ruling emerges from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts to say otherwise. But as Brother JR says, a label in and of itself is not determinant of the work that we do or the lives that we live.

Canon law, in my humble opinion, is most useful when it identifies rights and obligations; it is least useful when it becomes concerned with details that are actually irrelevant to those rights and obligations. Having said that, I find canon law to be a fascinating and generally liberating instrument for making the church functional so that we can actually get on with the more important task of serving Christ and our fellow human beings.

With regard to the status of our order as a clerical institute, this dictates that prior provincials and the prior general must be priests. I believe the OFMs (I’m not sure regarding the Capuchins and Conventuals) have tried to establish themselves as a mixed institute (consisting of both clerics and lay members), but no final decision has been made and the issue remains live; they have postulated a lay brother as provincial at least once.

Given that we are a de jure clerical institute but a de facto mixed institute, this may be an issue for us too to consider. Hopefully canon law will catch up with the complexity of the situation in the future.

And since this is all a long way from the OP’s question, I will belatedly stop there. Best wishes to all.