Opinions on an order?

[strgzr99]

JR,

I am aware of the requirements for the canonical novitiate.

I asked if the OP (original poster) has discussed options with the Dominicans he talked to. Could he resume his schooling* after* the canonical novitiate, for example? If the answer is no, then so be it.

And, to the original poster, what happened to the Paulists?

Have you considered the Jesuits?

And, if your heart is set on the Dominicans, can you complete your degree?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

JR,

I am aware of the requirements for the canonical novitiate.

I asked if the OP (original poster) has discussed options with the Dominicans he talked to. Could he resume his schooling* after* the canonical novitiate, for example? If the answer is no, then so be it.

And, to the original poster, what happened to the Paulists?

Have you considered the Jesuits?

And, if your heart is set on the Dominicans, can you complete your degree?

Now, I’m confused. How many communities are we talking about here? Jesuits, Dominicans and Paulists are not even in the same categories of religious lfie.

The Jesuits are canonically a society. Dominicans are canonically mendicants. Paulists are canonically clerks regular. All live very different ways of life. What they have in common is ministry. They’re all preachers and teachers. But the daily life is very different.

Is the OP looking for a particular ministry or a particular lifestyle? That’s important.

As far as completing one’s education after novitiate, the orders, not the congregations, do not admit men without a BA. During the period of simple vows, the religious is expected to begin formal preparation for ministry, while continuing religious formation. That’s why we encourage men to complete their BA before the novitiate. Life after novitiate takes on two tracks: ministerial preparation and religious formation. Working on an undergraduate degree at the same time can be an overload. We want to protect our men from burnout before they make solemn vows.

In congregations, the situation is different. The Paulist are a congregation, they are not an order. Most congregations are clerks, not mendicants. Clerks do not have the intense requirements of community life. Nor do they have a period of simple profession, because they never make solemn vows. They make perpetual vows, which are totally different. Therefore, the formation is different. In other words, clerks were founded for ministry, whereas mendicants are founded for the mixed life: contemplative and apostolic. The time that a mendicant would dedicate to the contemplative life is not required among clerks. There is the possibility of going to school, if the community has the financial resources and if they can fit that into their formation program. Some formation programs are more structured than others. For example, many of the clerical communities divide the time in the juniorate between advanced studies in whatever they do and apostolic activity. Others are less demanding on apostolic activity during their juniorate, leaving the junior professed with more time on his hands. However, if there is a graduate degree that has to be pursued during this time, it stands to reason that one have the undergraduate degree completed. Clerks usually have less structured community life than mendicants, which also frees up some time.

Since we do not know what the Paulist formatioin program looks like, it is best to go back to them and see what they require for admission. If they require an undergraduate degree and you already have a two-year degree, it may not take so long to finish a BA or BS. Most communities prefer a BA with a major in philosophy. But again, go ask them and see what they suggest.

That’s the best advice that we can give here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

JR,

I am aware of the requirements for the canonical novitiate.

I asked if the OP (original poster) has discussed options with the Dominicans he talked to. Could he resume his schooling* after* the canonical novitiate, for example? If the answer is no, then so be it.

And, to the original poster, what happened to the Paulists?

Have you considered the Jesuits?

And, if your heart is set on the Dominicans, can you complete your degree?

You were the one who asked if he could go to school during the novitiate. That’s what I responded to. The answer to that is, no. Canon Law does not allow it.

The option would be to go to school before entering or after simple profession, if he were to enter the Dominicans. If he were to enter the Paulists, they don’t make simple profession, because they’re not a religious order. They are a religious congregation of clerks regular.

But I’m confused too. How did we go from the Paulists to the Dominicans? That’s like going from the Carthusians to the Maryknolls.

The Dominicans are mendicants and the Paulists are clerks. The two live very different lifestyles. The only thing that they have in common is their ministry. Both are preachers and teachers. Are we looking for a community based on ministry or based on lifestyle?

The mendicants make different vows and live in fraternities. The clerks make other vows and live in communities. They are not the same at all.

My advice to a young man or not so young is this.

If you’re looking for a community life, then look at the mendicants and the monastic orders.

If you’re looking for a ministry, then look at the clerks.

The ministry of the mendicants is always going to be structured around their community life and comes second to their community life. It flows from community life.

The community life of the clerks is always structured around the ministry and community life comes second. Community life is governed by the needs of the ministry.

The Jesuits are in a league all of there own. They are a an order of clerks. In fact, they are the only order of clerks in the Church. Like other clerks, their life revolves around their ministry. Like other orders, they are attached to a community. However, they are not boiund by a rule like other orders. Therefore, their way of life is not static as is that of the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Trinitarians, Basilians or Benedictines. The Jesuits have the privilege of changing their way of life through a democratic process called a Congress. Other orders do not. You do not have the guarantee that the Jesuit Order that you join today will be the same in 20 years. This is their beauty. They are the most free of religious, because St. Ignatius left it up to them to make their own rules as they go along.

My suggestion is that if the OP is attracted to the Paulist, that he go back to them and ask what he needs to do to meet the admission requirements. If it’s a matter of two more years in school, that doesn’t sound too bad.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just a quick note, the canonical novitiate is a year and a day. If an order has a 24 month novitiate the second year of it may be a bit less strict than the canonical year and schooling is an option.

I know at least one group of sisters that does this.

 

[JReducation]

Just a quick note, the canonical novitiate is a year and a day. If an order has a 24 month novitiate the second year of it may be a bit less strict than the canonical year and schooling is an option.

I know at least one group of sisters that does this.

You are correct, though the Code of 1983 allows for the canonical year to be shortened, but never more than 30 days. I have to reread it, because I believe that the actual wording may be that whatever you cut off cannot add up to 30. In that case, it would be no more than 29 days. But there are criteria that have to be applied to shorten the canonical year. You can’t do it, because you want to cut down your AC bills in the summer or some silly thing like that. It was designed to leave room for men and women who may have to be away from the novitiate house for legitimate reasons. I know that we allowed a novice to spend two weeks with his father when his mother suddenly died.

That being said, during all my years as superior and in formation work, I have never seen permission granted for schooling during the canonical year. Even apostolic activity is to be kept to a minimum.

The new code of canon law does not mention the differences between orders and congregations. Many lay people assume that because it’s not mentioned the difference has been abrogated. This is not true either. The Code does not abrogate it. These differences are now addressed individually with the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. Congregations often have more latitude as far as what their novices can do or not do, because congregations were founded for a particular ministry, whereas religious orders were founded around a way of life.

I know that in your Carmelite family and my Franciscan family, we have congregations and orders. The friars and nuns belong to orders. The sisters belong to congregations. But if we look at our sisters, they were founded for particular ministries to be executed with the Carmelite or Franciscan spirit. If we look at our orders, ministry is not mentioned by the founders.

The ministry that the Hermits of Mt. Carmel received from St. Elijah was to contemplate God in solitude. The ministry that the Friars Minor received from St. Francis was to be free from you guys.

Sorry, I had to get that in. In reality, it was to live brotherhood free of structures so as to find God in all things and eliminate everything that got in the way, even the monastic structures and rules or the ministry, if necessary. I LOVE MY CARMELITES.

Relating all of this back to the subject of this thread, when one is looking at religious communities one has to ask themselves whether one hears a call to a specific ministry or to a specific way of life. If I hear a call to a life of brotherhood, then I have to narrow down my options to those communities where the common life is the focus and ministry flows out of it.

If I hear a call to teaching (for example), then I have to narrow down my options to those communities where teaching is the focus and the common life is structured to support that ministry, as is the case with the Christian Brothers or Salesians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[1234]

Just a quick note, the canonical novitiate is a year and a day. If an order has a 24 month novitiate the second year of it may be a bit less strict than the canonical year and schooling is an option.

I know at least one group of sisters that does this.

This arrangement used to be the* rule* in women’s teaching communities. The ‘novitiate’ is usually thought of as lasting two years, maybe more, but the *canonical *novitiate is a given, of a certain length and of a certain nature, concentrating on learning the rule, prayer, the requirements of religious life. Its nature is determined by canon law, whence the name. It’s typically described as ‘intense’. However, after completing this year, the 2ud year novices often went to college.

In view of the requirements, completing college does not sound like an option in the Dominican provinces the OP spoke to, unless the post canonical novitiate education is intended to be post-collegiate.

As far as the mendicant vs. clerk structure of the communities he’s considering, this preference is for the OP to determine. The vocation directors of the communities can explain the differences to him.

 

[ChristianSurfer]

But I’m confused too. How did we go from the Paulists to the Dominicans? That’s like going from the Carthusians to the Maryknolls.

The Dominicans are mendicants and the Paulists are clerks. The two live very different lifestyles. The only thing that they have in common is their ministry. Both are preachers and teachers. Are we looking for a community based on ministry or based on lifestyle?

The mendicants make different vows and live in fraternities. The clerks make other vows and live in communities. They are not the same at all.

My advice to a young man or not so young is this.

If you’re looking for a community life, then look at the mendicants and the monastic orders.

If you’re looking for a ministry, then look at the clerks.

The ministry of the mendicants is always going to be structured around their community life and comes second to their community life. It flows from community life.

The community life of the clerks is always structured around the ministry and community life comes second. Community life is governed by the needs of the ministry.

Thank you Br. JR you helped shed some light on this I had no idea there was a difference.
So whats the difference between community life of the clerks and the diocesan community life? And what is the lifestyle difference thats focused on more in the mendicants.

and i googled What’s the difference between religious order priests and Diocesan priests?

and this website was the first link

and in one of your posts from 08 was

The work of the Church their life as religious can never be in conflict. If they are, the Church herself says that they must first attend to thier religious life, then to other things.

How many various activities are there that call for the religious priests’ attendance amongst the order itself.

 

[ChristianSurfer]

JR,

I am aware of the requirements for the canonical novitiate.

I asked if the OP (original poster) has discussed options with the Dominicans he talked to. Could he resume his schooling* after* the canonical novitiate, for example? If the answer is no, then so be it.

And, to the original poster, what happened to the Paulists?

Have you considered the Jesuits?

And, if your heart is set on the Dominicans, can you complete your degree?

Well I’m set on being a priest but im trying to discern where to go from here. I haven’t considered the Jesuits because I hear there a little liberal/ tend to make the most liturgical abuses this may be a popular misconception or rumor(happens to everybody) but I have heard this from various people. And for the Paulists I was going for something more orthodox

 

[ChristianSurfer]

Also thanks to everyone who posted , it helped. I should have made my original post more general so this thread could have helped more than just me but thanks for helping out one confused discerner.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Thank you Br. JR you helped shed some light on this I had no idea there was a difference.
So whats the difference between community life of the clerks and the diocesan community life? And what is the lifestyle difference thats focused on more in the mendicants.

and i googled What’s the difference between religious order priests and Diocesan priests?

and this website was the first link

and in one of your posts from 08 was

How many various activities are there that call for the religious priests’ attendance amongst the order itself.

Clerks Regular is the proper title to religious communities of priests that are founded for a specific mission: teaching, preaching, caring for the sick and so forth. What makes them different from other religious is that their community life is built around their ministry. For example, the Jesuits buid their life around teaching and preaching. Whereas Franiscans or Carmelites, because they are friars, accommodate their work into their daily schedule of prayer and other community duties.

You ask how many activities would call religious priests to attendance amongst the order itself. That’s going to depend upon the community. Some communities have greater demands than others. But generally speaking there are certain things that a religious must be present for:

1. prayer
2. recreation
3. meals
4. manual labor
5. retreat
6. community meeting
7. community holidays
8. direct service to the community doing formation work, caring for their elderly and sick, administration, leadeship roles. Any of these assignments can take a religious priest out of circulation for years.

Even if a religious priest has to leave the confessional at a certain time, because he has to go to community recreation or community prayer, he is still serving the Church, because he is doing what Christ has called him to do. Christ as called him to consecrate his life to him, through this brotherhood. And it is through this brotherhood that he will receive the grace and support to go back out there and serve the faithful.

As we tell the young friars who are going to be both: friar and priest, “you cannot go among the people of God as their brother, if you do not live as a brother. You will be a priest and they will see you as a priest. They will never know that you’r their brother, because you do not live and work as a brother. If that’s not important to you, then why join us? Become a diocesan priest.”

It’s interesting, because those lay people who live in places where they are served by priests who are alo religious can tell the difference between the religious and the diocesan. This does not mean that the diocesan is less holy or a bad priest. It means that the two men, side by side, are very different from each other in the manner that they walk, talk, preach, deal with others, see the world, view the Church and live the Gospel. I like to compare it to the difference between turkey and chicken. Both are birds, but they are not the same. The priest who is a diocesan is very much a priest and may be a saint, but he is not a Salesian. The priest who is a Salesian is also a priest, but he is not a secular man.

What they have in common is the priesthood. The way that they live is very different, like chicken and turkey.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Br. JR you helped shed some light on this I had no idea there was a difference.
So whats the difference between community life of the clerks and the diocesan community life? And what is the lifestyle difference thats focused on more in the mendicants.

and i googled What’s the difference between religious order priests and Diocesan priests?

and this website was the first link

and in one of your posts from 08 was

How many various activities are there that call for the religious priests’ attendance amongst the order itself.

Clerks Regular is the proper title to religious communities of priests that are founded for a specific mission: teaching, preaching, caring for the sick and so forth. What makes them different from other religious is that their community life is built around their ministry. For example, the Jesuits buid their life around teaching and preaching. Whereas Franiscans or Carmelites, because they are friars, accommodate their work into their daily schedule of prayer and other community duties.

You ask how many activities would call religious priests to attendance amongst the order itself. That’s going to depend upon the community. Some communities have greater demands than others. But generally speaking there are certain things that a religious must be present for:

1. prayer
2. recreation
3. meals
4. manual labor
5. retreat
6. community meeting
7. community holidays
8. direct service to the community doing formation work, caring for their elderly and sick, administration, leadeship roles. Any of these assignments can take a religious priest out of circulation for years.

Even if a religious priest has to leave the confessional at a certain time, because he has to go to community recreation or community prayer, he is still serving the Church, because he is doing what Christ has called him to do. Christ as called him to consecrate his life to him, through this brotherhood. And it is through this brotherhood that he will receive the grace and support to go back out there and serve the faithful.

As we tell the young friars who are going to be both: friar and priest, “you cannot go among the people of God as their brother, if you do not live as a brother. You will be a priest and they will see you as a priest. They will never know that you’r their brother, because you do not live and work as a brother. If that’s not important to you, then why join us? Become a diocesan priest.”

It’s interesting, because those lay people who live in places where they are served by priests who are alo religious can tell the difference between the religious and the diocesan. This does not mean that the diocesan is less holy or a bad priest. It means that the two men, side by side, are very different from each other in the manner that they walk, talk, preach, deal with others, see the world, view the Church and live the Gospel. I like to compare it to the difference between turkey and chicken. Both are birds, but they are not the same. The priest who is a diocesan is very much a priest and may be a saint, but he is not a Salesian. The priest who is a Salesian is also a priest, but he is not a secular man.

What they have in common is the priesthood. The way that they live is very different, like chicken and turkey.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ChristianSurfer]

Clerks Regular is the proper title to religious communities of priests that are founded for a specific mission: teaching, preaching, caring for the sick and so forth. What makes them different from other religious is that their community life is built around their ministry. For example, the Jesuits buid their life around teaching and preaching. Whereas Franiscans or Carmelites, because they are friars, accommodate their work into their daily schedule of prayer and other community duties.

You ask how many activities would call religious priests to attendance amongst the order itself. That’s going to depend upon the community. Some communities have greater demands than others. But generally speaking there are certain things that a religious must be present for:

1. prayer
2. recreation
3. meals
4. manual labor
5. retreat
6. community meeting
7. community holidays
8. direct service to the community doing formation work, caring for their elderly and sick, administration, leadeship roles. Any of these assignments can take a religious priest out of circulation for years.

Even if a religious priest has to leave the confessional at a certain time, because he has to go to community recreation or community prayer, he is still serving the Church, because he is doing what Christ has called him to do. Christ as called him to consecrate his life to him, through this brotherhood. And it is through this brotherhood that he will receive the grace and support to go back out there and serve the faithful.

As we tell the young friars who are going to be both: friar and priest, “you cannot go among the people of God as their brother, if you do not live as a brother. You will be a priest and they will see you as a priest. They will never know that you’r their brother, because you do not live and work as a brother. If that’s not important to you, then why join us? Become a diocesan priest.”

It’s interesting, because those lay people who live in places where they are served by priests who are alo religious can tell the difference between the religious and the diocesan. This does not mean that the diocesan is less holy or a bad priest. It means that the two men, side by side, are very different from each other in the manner that they walk, talk, preach, deal with others, see the world, view the Church and live the Gospel. I like to compare it to the difference between turkey and chicken. Both are birds, but they are not the same. The priest who is a diocesan is very much a priest and may be a saint, but he is not a Salesian. The priest who is a Salesian is also a priest, but he is not a secular man.

What they have in common is the priesthood. The way that they live is very different, like chicken and turkey.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Would a friar have the time available to become a parish priest? And do the TORs have the same set up as friars? I know they follow the rule of st francis

 

[JReducation]

Would a friar have the time available to become a parish priest? And do the TORs have the same set up as friars? I know they follow the rule of st francis

The TORs are Franciscan Friars. They follow one of St. Francis’ three rules, the Rule for the Brothers of Penance. They accommoidate their work around their lifestyle. There are some things that they can do in a parish and there are oher things that they may have to delegate to lay ministers. Then there are extras that they can bring to a parish that a Jesuit may not bring. For one thing, they bring the spirit of St. Francis to everything that they do. In addition, not every friar that they assign to a parish is a priest. Many friars are not priests; but they are pastoral associates. They serve parishes in many capacities: preachers, retreat mastrs, pastoral councilors, spiritual directors, sacramental preparation, administrators, DREs, overseeing the different ministries of the parish. Even if you have only one friar who is a priest(worse case scenario), if you have four or five friars, you should be able to take care of a parish. You may have to borrow priests to celebrate mass and sacraments or use deacons who live in the parish.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Old_Medic]

My experience with the Paulists was through their ministry at St. Mark’s University Parish in Goleta, Ca.

They were ultra-liberal in all context, being way out on the ultra fringe of liberality within the church. They effectively destroyed the parish (this was a combination of a Student Center AND a Canonical Parish). The Pastor was an alcoholic, his primary associate was a very sick gay priest who flaunted his homosexuality. He played on the fears and paranoia of the pastor, and eventually got the pastor to exclude from the Parish anyone that did not live within the Cannonical boundaries of the Parish. This destroyed the financial structure of the Parish (the people that gave money were the families, and most of them were “kicked out”.

We contacted the Head of the Paulists, and our concerns were totally ignored. The pastor never got any treatment for his disease, and he eventually left the community and became a Diocesean Priest.

The staff sold off a theater quality projection and sound system (they used to show first run movies in their hall), sold off tens of thousands of dollars in donated art works for pennies on the dollar, renovated the church to a “Church in the Round” and eliminated the Parish Hall in the process (the Church used to be divided by a moveable wall, so that the back 2/3 could be used as a Parish Hall). This church had been erected, fully paid for and with an endowment of over $200,000. The Paulists spent every cent of that endowment, and ran up bills for tens of thousands that the Arch Diocese had to pay.

My wife and I were married there in 1978 (we had the largest wedding party in the entire history of the Parish). The primary celebrant showed up drunk for our wedding (we had to take an hour to sober him up enough to celebrate the Mass). The wedding was delayed for almost an hour and a half because of this.

The Paulists eventually abandoned the Parish, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles could not provide a Priest to man it on a full-time basis. The former Parish is now getting along with “Rent-A-Priests”.

The Paulist’s are NOT an “Order” as most of us would think of an “Order”. They are a “Community of the Free Table”, and they do NOT take any vow of poverty. Lots of them are quite well off, and it is not at all uncommon for them to flaunt their wealth.

They do some very good work, especially through Paulist Communications. But, they also have done a great deal of harm, especially in the Parishes and University Centers that they have used up and then abandoned.

Personally, I have absolutely no respect for them as a Community. I have a great deal of respect for individual Paulist Priests, but as a Community I would never recommend that any person of piety even consider them.

 

[JReducation]

My experience with the Paulists was through their ministry at St. Mark’s University Parish in Goleta, Ca.

They were ultra-liberal in all context, being way out on the ultra fringe of liberality within the church. They effectively destroyed the parish (this was a combination of a Student Center AND a Canonical Parish). The Pastor was an alcoholic, his primary associate was a very sick gay priest who flaunted his homosexuality. He played on the fears and paranoia of the pastor, and eventually got the pastor to exclude from the Parish anyone that did not live within the Cannonical boundaries of the Parish. This destroyed the financial structure of the Parish (the people that gave money were the families, and most of them were “kicked out”.

We contacted the Head of the Paulists, and our concerns were totally ignored. The pastor never got any treatment for his disease, and he eventually left the community and became a Diocesean Priest.

The staff sold off a theater quality projection and sound system (they used to show first run movies in their hall), sold off tens of thousands of dollars in donated art works for pennies on the dollar, renovated the church to a “Church in the Round” and eliminated the Parish Hall in the process (the Church used to be divided by a moveable wall, so that the back 2/3 could be used as a Parish Hall). This church had been erected, fully paid for and with an endowment of over $200,000. The Paulists spent every cent of that endowment, and ran up bills for tens of thousands that the Arch Diocese had to pay.

My wife and I were married there in 1978 (we had the largest wedding party in the entire history of the Parish). The primary celebrant showed up drunk for our wedding (we had to take an hour to sober him up enough to celebrate the Mass). The wedding was delayed for almost an hour and a half because of this.

The Paulists eventually abandoned the Parish, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles could not provide a Priest to man it on a full-time basis. The former Parish is now getting along with “Rent-A-Priests”.

The Paulist’s are NOT an “Order” as most of us would think of an “Order”. They are a “Community of the Free Table”, and they do NOT take any vow of poverty. Lots of them are quite well off, and it is not at all uncommon for them to flaunt their wealth.

They do some very good work, especially through Paulist Communications. But, they also have done a great deal of harm, especially in the Parishes and University Centers that they have used up and then abandoned.

Personally, I have absolutely no respect for them as a Community. I have a great deal of respect for individual Paulist Priests, but as a Community I would never recommend that any person of piety even consider them.

How necessary was it for you to post all of this information that people need not know? What good have you accomplished? How much harm have you done here?

If Christ is calling a young man to be a Paulist, are you helping Christ or sabbotaging his work with this kind of post?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How necessary was it for you to post all of this information that people need not know? What good have you accomplished? How much harm have you done here?

I agree but sometimes what we have to say about others and the way we chose to do so says so much more about ourselves than it does about who we are talking about.

If Christ is calling a young man to be a Paulist, are you helping Christ or sabbotaging his work with this kind of post?

My spiritual director while I lived in Washington, D.C., was the Paulist in charge of their formation program. He was a great guy and our direction sessions went very well and helped me greatly during my first year of theology which was also my first year in temporary vows.

Again, as I stated elsewhere, we did not get into ecclesiology or any other deep theological discussions as that is not what spiritual direction has been for me. It is more about my personal spiritual life and growth.

I also want to add that the Liturgies I attended at their house. Two I believe with one of them being a Frist Promise Mass, were wonderful and without abuse.

 

[Ocarm]

They were ultra-liberal in all context, being way out on the ultra fringe of liberality within the church. They effectively destroyed the parish (this was a combination of a Student Center AND a Canonical Parish). The Pastor was an alcoholic, his primary associate was a very sick gay priest who flaunted his homosexuality. He played on the fears and paranoia of the pastor, and eventually got the pastor to exclude from the Parish anyone that did not live within the Cannonical boundaries of the Parish. This destroyed the financial structure of the Parish (the people that gave money were the families, and most of them were “kicked out”.

I feel uncomfortable quoting you, so little charity is there in your words, but I want to emphasise how disturbing this paragraph was to read. Since you’ve named times and places, you seem to me to have opened youself to libel claims, especially inasmuch as a big chunk of what you say is opinion and interpretation rather than hard fact.

I see on your personal profile that you are a retired psychologist and counsellor. As a fellow mental health professional, I’m astonished that you feel this is a reasonable or ethical way to characterise people in a public forum. I agree entirely with Brother JR. You have shared a lot of information for no good cause - and without prejudice to the truth of these matters (of which obviously I have no knowledge) you have done so without presenting any proof.

If you really couldn’t resist trashing the Paulists - and with respect, I don’t quite understand how or why you claim to have such a comprehensive knowledge of the entire institute as opposed to the men you have yourself met - I don’t see why you couldn’t have limited yourself to a comment along the lines of ‘I’ve had some negative experiences of them.’ Even that would have been unhelpful. This is shameful.

Quoting canon law isn’t always instructive, but in this instance I think it is:

Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.

You have failed in this obligation, and for no good reason that I can see.

 

[CDNowak]

They do some very good work, especially through Paulist Communications. But, they also have done a great deal of harm, especially in the Parishes and University Centers that they have used up and then abandoned.

Personally, I have absolutely no respect for them as a Community.** I have a great deal of respect for individual Paulist Priests**, but as a Community I would never recommend that any person of piety even consider them.

RANT Warning!

Hmm, this seems OT, and in my experience a charitable characterization of the community in question. Since all any of us can base our characterization only on our own experiences, I have trouble seeing the same issues that the previous three posters have. Could the poster have worded things better (omitting the date)? Possibly. Is it a violation of canon law? No.

Certainly airbrushing concerns about an order (as OCarm seems to want) when asked for opinions and experiences is shameful. It smacks of the atmosphere that prevents abuse from being exposed. That such a suggestion should come from the religious on the board, well, perhaps that is part of the reason why the laity are reluctant to listen to them.

 

[Ocarm]

Certainly airbrushing concerns about an order (as OCarm seems to want) when asked for opinions and experiences is shameful. It smacks of the atmosphere that prevents abuse from being exposed.

That’s a pretty appalling characterisation of what I said. Contrary to the belief of many posters here on CAF, this isn’t the place in which to address serious complaints about anyone, secular or religious, priest or layperson. There is a proper process for such things, and a proper phraseology to use. And failure to adhere to that is a breach of canon law - not to mention the Christian charity upon which the code is based - whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

Making legitimate accusations in the proper forum is one thing, and is both a right and an obligation. The post in question is something else altogether. Its a shame that you are defending the right to make a charge of serious wrongdoing without accountability; and I’m quite sure you wouldn’t stand for similar treatment here, or see this as a place for serious grievances about you to be aired.

That such a suggestion should come from the religious on the board, well, perhaps that is part of the reason why the laity are reluctant to listen to them.

And that I should express disquiet at a poster’s lack of balance and then, effectively, be accused of fostering the kind of cover-up that occurred with the sexual abuse scandals in the church -

It smacks of the atmosphere that prevents abuse from being exposed.

(I’ll just quote that again just so as there’s no doubt of what I mean)

• is profoundly sad and saddening. And it does you no credit whatsoever.

I actually feel sickened to have that charge made against me. I hope you have the decency to regret making it.

 

[CDNowak]

I have taken this matter off-thread as should have happened after post 32.
I apologize for personally not doing so soon myself.