"Pope Francis Digs at Vatican's Narcissistic Nature.."

[JReducation]

I am not very knowledgeable about Saint Francis. I have not read all of his writings for starters. I have only read the Little Flower (or something like that - it is very inspiring - written by one of his friars - I think). So, I will have to read what he wrote or the friar regarding the priest that was committing adultery. Can you provide a link to the actual text?

Nonetheless, he wrote this:

“God inspired me, too, and still inspires me with such great faith in priests who live according to the laws of the holy Church of Rome, because of their dignity, that if they persecuted me, I should still be ready to turn to them for aid. And if I were as wise as Solomon and met the poorest priests of the world, I would still refuse to preach against their will in the parishes in which they live. I am determined to reverence, love and honour priests and all others as my superiors. I refuse to consider their sins, because I can see the Son of God in them and they are better than I. I do this because in this world I cannot see the most high Son of God with my own eyes, except for his most holy Body and Blood which they receive and they alone administer to others.” ewtn.com/library/MARY/FRANTES.htm

This comes from the Testament that I mentioned in my post above. That’s why I said that Francis never said this, but wrote in his Testament. But we have to take it in context. If you don’t, you run the risk of doing great harm to a religious order. We have had enough harm done.

When Francis wrote this the term “priest” was not used to speak about religious who were priests, it was used to speak about secular priests. What we call diocesan priests. Priests in religious orders were referred to as “the clerics”.

The danger in over generalizing this without understanding it is that it has been used to promote clericalism in religious life. Clericalism almost destroyed male religious life between Vatican I and Vatican II. We’re finally getting past it. We needed to get past that large number of priests in religious orders that was never meant to be. It was never the intent of the founders of orders, except for Dominic and Ignatius to have orders of priests. They were not necessary to the life of a religious order and are sill not.

But when people clericalize they tend to make the priesthood essential to the religious life and when that happens, the religious life takes a back seat to the priesthood. This is why we had so many priests in religious life until about 1990 when the numbers finally started to drop. It was easy to be a priest in a religious order, you were expected to be a good priest. Whether or not you were a good religious is not important in a clericalized society. The laity, not knowing any better, because no one had taught it anything different, innocently contributed to clericalism in religious life. We’re trying very hard to discourage it by keeping down the number of men that we ordain, by insisting the the laity deal with all religious, by insisting that in community all religious have rights and duties according to the rules and constitutions of the religious community and not according to social conventions that create a caste system. As a superior, I can tell you that this is not easy to do. I fight this everyday with the lay people who volunteer at our centers. They can be unkind to the non-clerical brothers and overly protective of our ordained brothers.

The other day, when I read what Pope Francis had said about the leprosy of the papacy I had to chuckle. Because clericalism has been the leprosy of the religious life form more than 100 years. I knew exactly what he meant. I would not have used that term, leprosy, but I don’t come from country where we have this disease.

 

[JReducation]

It sure does. I can only hope and pray the state of my soul would be as that of Saint Francis when he died. Saint Francis knew that he did not have any last sins to confess etc… I mean look at how he ‘rebuilt’ the Church (with this beautiful order) and he had the stigmata of Jesus. But, if he understood there were some sins he had just become aware or just committed he would want a priest to confess, would he not?

Yes he would. It was at the moment when the ordained brother serves his brothers through the ministerial priesthood. As soon as the confession is over, he returns to the rank and file.

how about the Viaticum or the anointing of the sick, did he receive these before he died?

We assume that he did, but we have no written information about it. We assume so because it was always the practice of the Church and Brother Elias, his vicar, was a priest.

Did he say he wanted to be with Brother Leo after he had received the Sacraments?

We know nothing about Francis and the sacraments other than his great love for the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Most of Francis teaching and preaching center around the cross, God’s love, repentance, penance, fraternity and the presence of God.

The Fioretti is not a historical work. Do not take what’s in there as historical fact. Most of it is not. The Fioretti is a collection of stories by different authors. It seems to have been started about 100 years after Francis died. The collection goes on for about another 100 years. There were many more stories that were not included in the final edition.

Like many charismatic figures, Francis drew a lot of attention. He had written so little that an oral tradition began about him. Many of these stories were myths or paraphrases of actual stories. It was for this reason that the general chapter pulled Bonaventure out of his office as cardinal bishop and brought him back to the order to be the superior general. The general chapter commanded Bonaventure to write the definitive biography of St. Francis, which he did.

Bonaventure’s biography is the only biography that the Franciscan family recognizes as definitive. There are many biographies of St. Francis by different authors. We certainly encourage people to read as much as possible about St. Francis. But when someone wants to know something definitive, we point him to Bonaventure’s biography. There is also an anthology called the Omnibus of Sources, which has been approved by the Council of Franciscan Superiors. It has approved writings about St. Francis that we can rely on as being correct.

The Little Flowers are very inspiring and one should and can read them for inspiration, always remembering that the spiritual message is the key, not the story. The stories are usually fictional or deviations from the actual story.

Personally, I love the stories. Some of the make me laugh and others make me think very profoundly.

 

[Abba]

I want to thank the staff of Catholic Answers forum for giving me the opportunity to discuss with a Franciscan superior. I would have probably never in my life had such an opportunity. This is the internet at its best!

Brother JR, thank you for discussing with me and providing a little window into your order. I love monasteries and religious orders and have always held an interest to learn and apply their spiritual wisdom in my own life in the world. I have visited some monasteries but have always have to stay outside as a tourist or female. I visited the Carthusian in Chartreusse but, the tourist are kept at a distance and not given much opportunity to discuss. I love the liquor though that they make from wild flowers. Brother, it has been an honor to discuss with you.

Please note we will be swinging right back on topic, asap.

 

[Abba]

Those were the Benedictines.

Really? Why the Benedictines?

The Jesuits were very much like the Franciscans. They were very well educated as were the Franciscans and like the Franciscans, they were mendicants. They ceased to be mendicants when it became clear that they would have to pray, play, eat and work together. St. Ignatius wanted each to be autonomous and to be spontaneous. Among mendicants the community life is essential. No community life = no religious life. Ignatius got a dispensation from the pope, abolished the rule of community and gave the Jesuits his constitution, which left them free to be his own man as long as the superior general approved. That’s the way it is to this day.

Interesting.

There was a brief period, between the 1800s to about 1970 … During that time, they did open many universities and other centers of learning. However, this structured and orderly way of life almost destroyed them.

I am thinking back to the 16th century and continuing on. I have the impression that the Jesuits were the intellectuals and established universities, collected manuscripts and preserved them, etc… and were the intellectuals to challenge the reformers. No? I just have that impression that they were the intellectuals…

They started to look like the rest of us religious. The only difference between a Jesuit and Dominican, Franciscan or Carmelite was that the Jesuit did not wear a habit. It was horrible. They looked and acted like us. Nothing could have been further from the mind of Ignatius and his early brothers, such as Francis Xavier than to look like religious or to enter a Jesuit house and feel as if you had entered a monastery with all of the rules and all the controls in place so that every Jesuit said and did the right thing, but no spontaneity and no spark.

Interesting.

So, the Jesuits did not have monasteries?

They were founded to rattle the world, not to merge into the folds of the fabric of religious life. Ignatius could have joined one of the existing orders for that matter. He dearly loved St. Francis and imitated his poverty and his attachment to Scripture. He didn’t enter the Franciscans, because we’re too structured. We’re probably the least structured of the religious orders of men.

Interesting.

 

[Brendan_64]

They were founded to rattle the world, not to merge into the folds of the fabric of religious life. Ignatius could have joined one of the existing orders for that matter.

That is one of the things I really admire about the Jesuits. We had a Jesuit parish priest once. Lived very modestly and had no luxuries (rode a bicycle etc.), intellectually as sharp as a razor, outspoken, said what he thought (regardless of who it offended), didn’t care about treading on people’s toes, and was very much his own man. His bishop didn’t seem too keen on him as he wasn’t the sort of man that could be ‘controlled’. If he believed that something was the right thing to do, then nobody, not even the bishop could stop him.

I love the Jesuits, and I think it’s great having a Jesuit Pope who’s not afraid of upsetting people within the Church in order to do what he thinks is right. Given the corruption within our Church I think that is exactly what we need right now.

 

[Abba]

This comes from the Testament that I mentioned in my post above.

When I pasted it, I thought that may be what you were referring to… oh, well.

That’s why I said that Francis never said this, but wrote in his Testament. But we have to take it in context. If you don’t, you run the risk of doing great harm to a religious order. We have had enough harm done.

I certainly do not want to cause any harm to the order.

When Francis wrote this the term “priest” was not used to speak about religious who were priests, it was used to speak about secular priests. What we call diocesan priests. Priests in religious orders were referred to as “the clerics”.

The danger in over generalizing this without understanding it is that it has been used to promote clericalism in religious life. Clericalism almost destroyed male religious life between Vatican I and Vatican II. We’re finally getting past it. We needed to get past that large number of priests in religious orders that was never meant to be. It was never the intent of the founders of orders, except for Dominic and Ignatius to have orders of priests. They were not necessary to the life of a religious order and are sill not.

But when people clericalize they tend to make the priesthood essential to the religious life and when that happens, the religious life takes a back seat to the priesthood. This is why we had so many priests in religious life until about 1990 when the numbers finally started to drop. It was easy to be a priest in a religious order, you were expected to be a good priest. Whether or not you were a good religious is not important in a clericalized society. The laity, not knowing any better, because no one had taught it anything different, innocently contributed to clericalism in religious life. We’re trying very hard to discourage it by keeping down the number of men that we ordain, by insisting the the laity deal with all religious, by insisting that in community all religious have rights and duties according to the rules and constitutions of the religious community and not according to social conventions that create a caste system. As a superior, I can tell you that this is not easy to do. I fight this everyday with the lay people who volunteer at our centers. They can be unkind to the non-clerical brothers and overly protective of our ordained brothers.

I understand now, that within the order they fall back in rank and file after they perform their priestly duties. I respect the rules of the order and understand that within the order an ordain priest is one just like any other brother.

The other day, when I read what Pope Francis had said about the leprosy of the papacy I had to chuckle. Because clericalism has been the leprosy of the religious life form more than 100 years. I knew exactly what he meant. I would not have used that term, leprosy, but I don’t come from country where we have this disease.

I read the interview in Spanish, thinking the English is not very clear to me. But, the Spanish is leaving me in the same situation as the English. To be honest, it is not clear to me that the Pope was referring to the ‘leprosy’ of the Vatican as being that of ‘clericalism’. he did say that he dislikes it or detests it but when he used ‘leprosy’ he was referring to the narcissism which may not necessarily be the same as “clericalism”. There seems to be an atmosphere that is Vatican centric (looks out for the interests of the Vatican and people who work there seem to be very serviceable to the clerics and in turn the clerics have been letting themselves enjoy the attention. This is what I gather from what he said.

P.s. I found the book online and will read at some point: The Life of Saint Francis by Bonaventure archive.org/stream/lifesaintfranci02bonagoog#page/n10/mode/2up

P.p.s. So, the story of the priest that was committing adultery was not recorded by Bonaventure?

 

[JReducation]

I want to thank the staff of Catholic Answers forum for giving me the opportunity to discuss with a Franciscan superior. I would have probably never in my life had such an opportunity. This is the internet at its best!

Brother JR, thank you for discussing with me and providing a little window into your order.

On behalf of all my Franciscan brothers and sisters, I accept your thanks.

I love monasteries and religious orders and have always held an interest to learn and apply their spiritual wisdom in my own life in the world. I have visited some monasteries but have always have to stay outside as a tourist or female.

Just for the record, Franciscan men do not live in monasteries. The word has been applied to many of our large houses, because on the outside, they look like monasteries. Unfortunately, between Vatican I and Vatican II, the Church pushed us into the monastic mode. We had enclosures, priests and lay brothers, just like the some of the monasteries.

The enclosures are gone and so is the stratification. In early Franciscan days, our houses were called friaries, meaning the friars’ house. Larger houses were called convents. Then we went to monasteries when the enclosure was imposed on us. Now we’re back to friary in the English speaking world or simply community house. The term convent is again in use in other languages.

The difference is that our houses do not have an enclosure. Women and laymen are allowed to enter. It’s up to the local superior to decide what areas are off limits to guests. Usually, on big occasions, the entire house is open to guests. That is not the norm. The sleeping areas are usually off limits for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with modesty. The dormitory is also the place where religious enjoy alone time with God.

Really? Why the Benedictines?

We have to understand that the Church is like any other building. No one begins from scratch. We build upon the foundation that was there. Christian culture in Europe was preserved by the Benedictines in their monasteries and abbeys. They had great libraries. The stored great works of art. Great writings came from there. It was in monasteries that men like Jerome, Bernard, Augustine, Gregory, Albert, and other great scholars did their work. The monasteries were the center of education until the end of the Middle Ages. Monastic life follows the Rule of St. Benedict, with the exception of the Augustinian Canons and the Augustinian Friars who follow the Rule of St. Augustine.

Had it not been for the monks, men like St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Lawrence of Brindisi, St. Anthony of Padua, and St. Ignatius of Loyola would not have found any books, bibles and biblical commentaries from which to teach. They would not have the concept of schools and universities.

The first Catholic universities were founded by Franciscans, Dominicans and Carmelites. They were joint effort. That’s why you go to Oxford and you’ll find colleges at Oxford university named after each of these orders. Black Friars (Dominicans), White Friars (Carmelites) and Grey Friars (Franciscans). The colors were those of the mantles worn over their habits.

When the Jesuits arrive on the scene, universities are well established and these three order have control of the Catholic universities. The early Jesuits were educated by the friars from these orders. The Jesuits then went on to educate the diocesan clergy and the laity. When people talk about Jesuit education, it’s a younger phenomenon. What made it so impressive and so influential was the Jesuit’s outreach to the laity. They educated more laymen than did the friars.

So, the Jesuits did not have monasteries?

No. The Jesuits have never had religious houses. They are religious. In fact, they are one of the few religious orders that has the privilege of making solemn vows and also one of the few religious orders that is exempt for all Church control and authority except the pope himself. They are very special to the Church and other religious acknowledge this and we bow to this. They are bigger and better than we are, probably closer to God than the rest of us. However, they were not supposed to look like religious. They were supposed to look like and blend in with secular priests. They had no visible signs of religious life, including a religious house. Though they did have a religious government.

This brings us back full circle to Pope Francis. He’s not supposed to stand out as a religious. But he and I made the exact same solemn vows. We pray the exact same breviary, except that I pray it in public and he prays it in secret where no on can see him. We embrace the same intense poverty and promote the social gospel of the Church, except that as a Franciscan I promote it by my apostolate and as a Jesuit he must promote it by his apostolate and by pushing the Church in that direction. We both vow to obey the pope. But as a Franciscan, my vow of obedience to the pope means that I never question the pope as long as he does not command me to sin. As a Jesuit, his vow of obedience to the pope is to go where the pope sends him, but he is to question the pope at every step in order to keep the pope focused. He serves the pope in a different way. Now that he’s the pope, his brother challenge him and keep him focussed.

 

[JReducation]

That is one of the things I really admire about the Jesuits. We had a Jesuit parish priest once. Lived very modestly and had no luxuries (rode a bicycle etc.), intellectually as sharp as a razor, outspoken, said what he thought (regardless of who it offended), didn’t care about treading on people’s toes, and was very much his own man. His bishop didn’t seem too keen on him as he wasn’t the sort of man that could be ‘controlled’. If he believed that something was the right thing to do, then nobody, not even the bishop could stop him.

I love the Jesuits, and I think it’s great having a Jesuit Pope who’s not afraid of upsetting people within the Church in order to do what he thinks is right. Given the corruption within our Church I think that is exactly what we need right now.

This often gets them into trouble with the laity. Because bishops don’t like what they say or do, but they can’t discipline them or they will be penalized by the pope. Jesuits and friars are protected species. Jesuits and bishops are human. Many Jesuits have done or said some really dumb things. Many bishops, because they’re human, have made the situation worse by reacting to them in a passive aggressive manner. Since they can’t punish the Jesuits, they allow or even promote gossip among the laity or in the media. Remember, I said that every Jesuit and bishop is human. Then I said SOME Jesuits and SOME bishops have done dumb things or passive aggressive thing. This is not the norm or even the majority. But to read the press, one would think that 20,000 Jesuits were going to hell in a handbasket. Because the lay faithful does not know that the Jesuit over there who opened his mouth and said something that rattle everyone is supposed to rattle everyone.

I read the interview in Spanish, thinking the English is not very clear to me. But, the Spanish is leaving me in the same situation as the English. To be honest, it is not clear to me that the Pope was referring to the ‘leprosy’ of the Vatican as being that of ‘clericalism’. he did say that he dislikes it or detests it but when he used ‘leprosy’ he was referring to the narcissism which may not necessarily be the same as “clericalism”. There seems to be an atmosphere that is Vatican centric (looks out for the interests of the Vatican and people who work there seem to be very serviceable to the clerics and in turn the clerics have been letting themselves enjoy the attention. This is what I gather from what he said.

You and I both understood the same thing. I believe the pope was speaking about the narcissism of many who work in the Vatican. He was not speaking about the cardinals who run the curia either. Usually, the narcissism is promoted by those who like to lick boots. Just like among Franciscans we have laymen who love to put the priests on pedestals, hoping to get a few more bonus points, in the Vatican, there are some who will put cardinals on pedestals and inflate their egos.

These folks to inflate the egos of the other person, the pope says are like leprosy. I would have used the word, cancer because most people have seen cancer. Both are diseases that slowly eat away at your life.

If you’re inflating priests at the local level or inflating cardinals at the curia in Rome, you’re a cancer. You’re not helping these men become holy and you’re not helping them live the life that God called them to live. You’re encouraging their base instincts instead of their virtues.

The best support that you can give to a priest, brother, bishop or cardinal is to help him with his work and support him with your prayers. Don’t kiss his boots.

P.s. I found the book online and will read at some point: The Life of Saint Francis by Bonaventure archive.org/stream/lifesaintfranci02bonagoog#page/n10/mode/2up

P.p.s. So, the story of the priest that was committing adultery was not recorded by Bonaventure?

There is a story about a brother who brought the gossip to Francis that there was a priest living in sin. We’re not told what the sin was. But we can assume that he was not chaste. In those days, our early brothers were very sensitive men. Sexual sins were the worse of the worse for them, even worse than murder. It was a cultural thing. Maybe it is still the case today. We pay too much attention to sex. Some people get drawn into impure acts and other get drawn into a kind of scrupulosity. In both cases, they are excessively engaged with sex and their vision of life, God, sin, good, evil, humanity and salvation is defined by sex. For the promiscuous person, sex is the source and end of his “joy”. For the scrupulous person, sex is the worse of all evils and the source of all suffering.

I call this bipolar morality. Unfortunately, everything else gets ignored. I believe this is what the Holy Father may have meant when he said that we don’t have to talk about abortion, homosexuality and contraception all the time. I don’t feel that he was telling me that my brothers and I have stop defending the unborn or proclaiming the Gospel of Life. I think he’s saying that we need people to speak about the other moral issues in our society.

I’m thinking of the post French Revolution Church. That’s when religious congregations came into existence. Religious orders were not active in the apostolate. Congregations were founded to care for the sick, teach the poor, catechise the unchurched, house and feed orphans, widows and old people, heal family life, rescue captives, and much more. There was a sense of balance. The Church understood that there was a lot of work to be done in the world and founders of religious congregations as well as lay cooperators and lay groups dispersed in many different directions and addressed many evils. They were not obsessed with one evil.

 

[Abba]

.

I’m thinking of the post French Revolution Church. That’s when religious congregations came into existence. Religious orders were not active in the apostolate. Congregations were founded to care for the sick, teach the poor, catechise the unchurched, house and feed orphans, widows and old people, heal family life, rescue captives, and much more. There was a sense of balance. The Church understood that there was a lot of work to be done in the world and founders of religious congregations as well as lay cooperators and lay groups dispersed in many different directions and addressed many evils. They were not obsessed with one evil.

I experienced the abortion advocacy as an ‘obsession’ when it was used as a trump card for my concern with the war in the Middle East. There have been so much death in the Middle East, contamination with depleted Uranium, destruction, human/social engineering, cruelty, human rights violations, etc., etc., etc. I also speak for pro-life not only concerning abortion but also euthanasia which happens more often than people may be aware of to our elderly. However, when people argued to forget peace and just to concern myself with the priority of abortion - it seemed very off balance to me. I am really glad the Pope noted and stated the ‘obsession’. We can work for a cause which is very important that being the life of innocent and vulnerable unborn but we cannot become callous to the needs of others to the point of pushing the position of ‘just ignore them’ the most important thing is the advocacy of the pro-life movement. An argument used was the amount of people dying in the Middle East with the amount of unborn dying and so ignore all those who may be suffering because there are more in this cause. A bit much. It’s good to see that a balance is the goal.

+++

With yours and other contributors here I have come to understand better the background of the Pope. I understand why he wants to eliminate the honorary position of monsignor, and I understand that he relates to Jesus as the poor carpenter from Nazareth and so, he embraces poverty. I can see why he would not want to live in the palace.

I will say that I know Jesus as King of Kings and so the court and the palace to me only reflect Our Lord’s kingship. It’s actually not a contradiction but, a reflection of who we are serving. However, it can be abused, as it has been, but it is not that it is bad. I think that no matter what spirituality we may focus on we cannot deny that Jesus is our king and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Judge of Judges, absolute love, wisdom and mercy. Maybe the relationship Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has with Jesus is similar or at least the king part is emphasized so that he did not feel the atmosphere of the palace etc… contrary to his faith. I just don’t think it is wise to not recognize this and leave the previous Popes who enjoyed the kingdom atmosphere looking as though it had nothing to do with their faith and spirituality. What do you think?
+++
I was watching an interview of an ‘ex-priest’ which was recorded back in the spring and the priest mentions a lot of what is going on now, “horizontal”, “conscience”, and other things (I have not learned about Opus Dei nor Liberal Theology). The priest was expecting the issues that are being addressed now to be addressed. Warning he says somethings that are not nice: matthewfox.org/press/farewell-to-benedict-xvi-inquisitor-pope/

 

[Strevel]

I agree with the Holy Father that the Vatican, and some local structures are to narcissistic. The clergy is sometimes worse that the Court of France in the 1700’s under Marie Antoinette. That is the wrong social approach to take. People see it and know that it is not about Christ with that person, but about the “finery” attached.

I enjoy the fact that he speaks his mind, and brings fresh air into the crypt. You may dissagree with his views, but can you state that the information is innacutrate? No, what he has stated is to the point. Many Priests think that it is all about “them”. It is about Christ, and they are the foot soldiers. Respect the Clergy, listen to them, and call them on things when needed. But do not argue theology.

When you see a town of poor people with earthen floors walking into a Church with Priests that have gloves on (and …why?) that cost more than the people in there make in a month…there is an obvious and glaring disparity. Serve Christ and not your own ego.

…verbum factorem est…

Don

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20769734-pope-francis-digs-at-vaticans-narcissistic-nature-calls-for-change?fb_action_ids=10152208310359338&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=AddThis_Blogs&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210152208310359338%22%3A636660293031812%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210152208310359338%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=%7B%2210152208310359338%22%3A%22AddThis_Blogs%22%7D

 

[JReducation]

One must be very careful here to be balanced. In the Holy Father’s statement, he does not clarify certain points, probably because he’s not writing an encyclical. He’s trying to make a point and those whom he’s speaking about know who they are. He does not need to give every detail and possible situation in such a statement, as would be the case if he were writing an encyclical or making a formal statement to the clergy and religious.

Let’s break this down here so as not to go beating up some poor priest for being rich. There are secular Catholics and regular Catholics. A secular Catholic is anyone who is not a member of a religious community; that is, anyone who has not made vows. Therefore, he is not a consecrated Catholic. Among secular Catholics there are priest and other men and women who live in service of the Church. But they do not make a vow of poverty, nor a vow of obedience, nor a vow of chastity. The PROMISE obedience to a bishop, but it’s on a limited number of areas. The PROMISE not to marry (celibacy). That’s it. These priests are usually attached to dioceses. We call them diocesan priests.

Today, we have many secular priests who are not attached to a diocese, but are attached to some society such as Maryknoll, Our Lady of the Trinity (Fr. Corapi), Vicentians, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, SSPX, Missionhurst and others like these. These men are just as secular as the married man who works for IBM.

If a secular priest is the son of Bill Gates and he inherits Microsoft, Canon Law says that he has a right to inherit it and a right to own it. Canon Law places restrictions on his lifestyle, but not on what he can own. The Church has no jurisdiction there. He is bound to live a simple life so as not to scandalize. But he can be a millionaire and leave his millions to whomever he pleases. This is true for some congregations as well. St. Katherine Drexell was a religious sister and one of the most wealthy women in America at her time. She was known as the Millionaire Nun. But you would never know it, because of the simplicity of her life. She spent her millions building schools for black and Native American children. These folks do not fall under the umbrella that the Holy Father is describing.

But he can’t go into a detailed explanation of who does fall under this umbrella and who does not. It would turn into a two hour lecture on temporal goods. That’s not what he was going for. He was trying to do the typical Jesuit thing, to rattle those who don’t fall under this umbrella, but act as if they do.

There are consecrated men and women who are not seculars. They belong to religious institutes: religious orders, religious congregations, public associations of the faithful and private associations of the faithful. All of us in one of these categories are usually referred to as “religious”. Some are priests, the majority are not. But we do make a vow of obedience to our superiors and our statutes. We make a vow of chastity, which not only binds us to celibacy (not getting married), but also bind us to live in fraternity with brothers or sisters. In other words, we become part of a family. And we make a vow of poverty, which binds us to own nothing. This means that the individual can own nothing. The institute may be allowed to own property as a corporation. Some institutes can’t even do that. For example, my community, Franciscans of Life. We cannot own property as individuals or as a community. We have no property of our own, not eve the house in which we live… It’s all borrowed, rented or paid for through charity.

The pope does not have the moral authority to demand that anyone in the above named groups: secular or consecrated live differently. Their way of life has been revealed by God to the Church as salvific.

HOWEVER, the pope has a moral duty and right, to call each person in these groups to live according to their callling.

A secular priest or a secular man who is married is not called to live without owning property. That’s not Christ’s intent. Nonetheless, it is Christ’s intent that he use whatever material resources he has for the common good. he does not have to deprive himself. But he may not lavish on himself while others suffer hunger. There is never the excuse that others are poor because they’r lazy, they’re addicts, or they’re not doing anything for themselves. That is not for us to judge. That is for Christ and their souls when the time comes If I’m a secular priest and my father is Bill Gates, I can inherit Microsoft. I can have a warm coat, a nice suit and a comfortable home. However, I don’t need that most expensive coat or the most expensive home, just because I’m a millionaire. I have a duty to limit myself to what I need, not to go for everything I want.

If I’m a secular man or woman, married and a parent. The same rule applies. I have a right to everything that I need. I can be very wealthy. But my wealth is not a license to buy every kid in my home an iPhone, iPad, his own TV, his own car when he turns 16 or to send him to the most expensive school when another will do just as well. God’s gifts to us are for the common good. I must provide for what my family needs, not for everything that my family wants.

 

[JReducation]

I have a very good friend who has the best heart in the world, but he struggles with this. All of his kids have a laptop, iPad, IPhone, TV in every room, private bathroom and as soon as they turn 16 “they need a car”. I recently explained to him that purchasing a car for a 16 yr old, just because he’s 16 can be a violation of justice. One has to examine whether or not the additional car is for the benefit of the family or the kid. The kid has no right to the car. He did not work for it. He does not pay the insurance. He does not pay for the fuel and maintenance. What has the kid done, monetarily to own the car? What contribution is the kid making to the family? Is he using the car for the benefit of the family? The same rule applies to a secular priest, be he attached to a diocese or to a society, whether he works at a parish or in the Vatican.

There is a question of justice. The question the pope is asking and the challenge that he’s throwing down is what need do SOME people have for SOME of the luxuries that they enjoy? If they’re is no need, then these luxuries are only self-serving. If they serve the Church, that’s a whole other thing.

The same would apply to religious in service of the Church, such as the pope himself. He’s not only a priest. He’s also a consecrated religious. He has a solemn vow to own nothing. Because he is the pope, he needs a car. He has to travel. He needs books. He needs medical insurance, little things that other Jesuits don’t get or only get if they absolutely need it.

However there are some religious who go to work for the Vatican, where they have access to money and comfort and they forget that they are consecrated religious who are not supposed to own anything, not even what we need. They begin to store things and acquire privileges.

The pope is speaking to these religious and secular (clergy and lay) who work in the Vatican and use their position to nurture their ego by hoarding what they want. This usually goes far beyond what they really need. Of course the religious should not even have what he or she needs, but only what his or her community allows.

But in such a brief statement, the pope could not break this down as I have. He probably figures that those who should be applying these rules to themselves know who they are. He doesn’t have to spell it out.

Unfortunately, when the rest of the world hears such an informal pronouncement, it assumes that this for every priest, bishop, sister or brother. That’s not the case. It actually includes laymen as well. You have certain rights within certain states in life. Anything over and beyond that is not a right. It’s a privilege. If you treat it as a right, then you’ve crossed the line into narcissism.

 

[Abba]

Don’t kiss his boots.

Actually I am not a jacket duster and can be a bit blunt at times and speak without hair in my tongue. As I said, I understand and respect the religious life and how some who have been called to be priests have joined the religious life and as such are equal to their brothers in a community. I reverence, honor and love priests not because of things of this world but because I am prompted by the spirit. It is not to honor and reverence a man to make him feel good and important and to take care of him, but instead, it is a recognition in my soul that he is a priest. Jesus is the high priest and the priesthood is sacred. It can not merely be presented as an office whose duties are done and that’s it back to the ranks at least not in the world.

At least, not in the world, in the monastic life it is acceptable, but the sacredness of the priesthood must be recognized in the world. In a religious order you can have an engineer and that is an important profession. The engineer builds xyz which the order needs and the brother once done can go back to the rank and file. Being an engineer is a worldly position, but a priest has a mark in his soul for all eternity and his calling is sacred, I am just saying, that it is fine for a priest to be a brother it is a combination or a practice of two callings but his priesthood is sacred. Which to be honest seem to be in conflict when the holiness of the priesthood is not recognized. Yes, the religious life is sanctifying but what of the priests? The non-religious priests sanctify the laity directly and that practice is closer to their true calling - when of course priests live in accordance to the teachings of the Church.

I can see where there would be a conflict in accepting priests to be brothers and then I can also see how there can be a harmony as long as the vows a brother/priest has made in a religious order are understood as acceptable insofar as he is practicing two callings but it can not be acceptable to promote or consider that the priesthood out side of religious life is something that can be brought down as after duty done go back to rank and file or to treat them with indifference or lack of reverence and respect.

I don’t see the idea that a superior would select from his group one or two to be priests and which ones. Certainly, the prompting of the spirit must be recognized here. It is not the Superior who selects who will be priests but Jesus who calls and the Superior may recognize this and select. I find the idea of a Superior deciding who will be priest without recognizing the role of Jesus in this a bit strange. Is that what you are saying?

I love the religious life and it is true it is sanctifying and offers us a peak at heaven as you said, but the priesthood is very special and I just wish I was more eloquent and articulate. :sad_yes:

+++
Speaking of a peak at heaven; that is what the Vatican also offers with the kingdom thing because Our Lord is king.

I think some people have used the pro-life movement to also promote their own political interests (e.g. pro war) which pushed for its promotion beyond its interests. I certainly hope that this anti-clerical stuff is not promoted for other reasons which are foreign to the original purpose and does not hurt the priesthood

.

 

[JReducation]

You have to understand is that except for the orders that were founded as orders of priests, because the ministry of the order is priestly, in the other religious order the priesthood is not essential. Church tradition and law is very clear that a priest who belongs to an order that is not a clerical order is part of the rank and file within the community and outside of the community.

For example, if you observe many Franciscan communities are reverting back to the title Brother or Friar, depending on the country. This makes the priests anonymous in public. Other communities, such as the Franciscans of the Renewal, will uses the title Father, but their priests may not function as priests except to hear confessions and celebrate mass. They may not be chaplains or run parishes, because it sets them apart in the eyes of the laity, which is contrary to the will of St. Francis.

Among the Cistercians, they have reverted to the use of Brother for the same reason. It is contrary to the mind of St. Bernard. When they go out to preach or you come in for spiritual guidance, the monk who greets you introduces himself as Brother and he will never tell you if he’s ordained or not, unless you ask to go to confession.

In religious orders such as Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelite, Servites, Augustinian Friars (not the canons), the superior’s voice is the voice of Christ. If Christ is going to call someone to the priesthood, he only calls through the superior. Therefore, no bishop can ordain a religious without the permission of the superior. Otherwise, the ordination in illicit and the bishop and the priest can be suspended.

Another common thing that happens in the mendicant and monastic communities is that the ordained may only celebrate mass when the superior gives permission and can only hear confessions when the superior grants faculties. The rules for that are different from one community to another. I know that among the Carmelites in the American provinces and the Franciscan communities, if there is only one mass, the ordained can concelebrate or the superior may choose one man to celebrate the mass and everyone else is part of the congregation. It’s really the superior’s call to make. If there are more than one mass and more than priest, then whoever is available is placed on the schedule. Some superiors have very strict rules against private masses. If you’re not up for celebration of the mass, you do not have permission to celebrate mass that day. Other superiors are more lenient about it and give a blanket permission to celebrate a private mass as long as you attend community mass.

As to the service outside of the community, this too is changing. There was a time when the religious priest built his schedule around the parish, school or hospital. This is no longer the case. The schedules are now built around the schedule of the community. You must be present for Liturgy of the Hours, community meals, community recreation, the house chapter, special occasions, annual community retreat, visitation by the major superior. You must be available for a transfer on a moment’s notice, regardless of what you do for the parish or some other ministry.

You’ll find that a religious who is hearing confessions will get up a certain time and leave, even if there are people waiting. He has to get back to the community. He has to apologize to the people, encourage them to make an appointment and leave. Superiors will have their heads of they make it a practice of being late for something always with the same excuse, “I was hearing confessions.”

If you’re assigned as a confessor, you must schedule your time for confessions so that it does not cause you to be late or to miss community functions. Even Padre Pio had to leave the confessional for community functions and then he’d return. People paint a mythological picture of him sitting there from sunrise to sunset. This is not quite accurate. He did have confessions from sunrise to sunset and probably later, but he did not miss a single community function. He ate with the brothers, recreated with them and prayed with them. It’s really up to the guardian of the house how many hours you spend in priestly ministry.

Then there are religious who are ordained and are very good at other things. They don’t do priestly ministry. They teach, serve as school counselors or do social work. Others do street ministry, just walking the streets making friends. Some run soup kitchens or shelters for the homeless and some are administrators. We have a brother who is a priest who is our maintenance man. He can fix anything. From Monday through Friday he serves our apostolate by going from place to place doing maintenance. He’s very good at it and very happy at it. On weekends, he helps out at a local parish for a few hours on Sat and Sunday.

There is a Benedictine community in Alabama that was asked to cover a parish. The abbott agreed to do so provided that the life of the monks would not be overruled by the priestly ministry. The monks travel about 25 miles each way to go to the parish and do whatever they do there and return to the abbey. They’re never available after 4:00 PM. The abbot is very careful to protect the monastic life.

This is built into Church law and the Holy See has reminded religious communities over and over again of their obligation to preserve their charism and to remember that the priesthood is accidental to the religious life, not essential and that priests who are religious are not to be set apart inside or outside. The last time this was addressed was when Bl. John Paul wrote Vita Consecrata.

To go back to the topic of this thread, this is what the Holy Father is harping about. Each person has to be what he was called to be and not beyond that. When you do, that’s when you run the risk of singularizing yourself. It’s the beginning or narcissism

 

[Abba]

Hello Bro. Jr,

You have to understand is that except for the orders that were founded as orders of priests, because the ministry of the order is priestly, in the other religious order the priesthood is not essential. Church tradition and law is very clear that a priest who belongs to an order that is not a clerical order is part of the rank and file within the community and outside of the community.

I understand.

For example, if you observe many Franciscan communities are reverting back to the title Brother or Friar, depending on the country. This makes the priests anonymous in public. Other communities, such as the Franciscans of the Renewal, will uses the title Father, but their priests may not function as priests except to hear confessions and celebrate mass. They may not be chaplains or run parishes, because it sets them apart in the eyes of the laity, which is contrary to the will of St. Francis.

They would be set apart by the laity. Could it be that there is some spiritual grounds for this? Isn’t this what happened with Father Pio when the laity insisted that he keeps ministering to them? It wasn’t as a Franciscan friar but as Father Pio that the laity recognized him.

Again, Bro Jr, this is a great opportunity that you are offering the readers of your posts to get an inside look into religious life. It is beautiful and I respect the rules within the community and for the religious.

I just have a problem as a laity extending those rules to the world where the priest has a different status and the aspect of the priesthood that is sacred and eternal and brings us close to Jesus is very prominent. A priest is a priest out here. I respect that within a religious community he falls back to rank and file after performing his priestly duties. I understand and respect that, really thanks to you and to your explanations.

However, I still maintain that outside of a religious community a priest has a very special and permanent position which merits reverence, honor, love and respect. I think it would be wrong for a laity to treat a priest as any other man after he is done with Mass or Confession because he continues to be a priest.

It is not about spoiling a priest it’s about giving him the honor due to the priesthood out here in the world. It may be the case that some clerics at the Vatican got used to the service that is provided (possibly cleaners, tailor, courtesy cabs etc…) and they may need some pegs knocked off but their superiors; but for the laity to treat as their equal a priest - I don’t see. Can you see it from my perspective as a laity?

My post above looks somewhat abrupt and I apologize for that it was not my intention. It’s good to start these post sometimes with a hello and a better introduction. I was noting that it is not out of a sentiment or what have you to lick their boots but out of a spiritual recognition that they are priests that I give them like no other human beings - reverence, honor and respect and love.

Among the Cistercians, they have reverted to the use of Brother for the same reason. It is contrary to the mind of St. Bernard. When they go out to preach or you come in for spiritual guidance, the monk who greets you introduces himself as Brother and he will never tell you if he’s ordained or not, unless you ask to go to confession…

I understand, thank you for the information.

To go back to the topic of this thread, this is what the Holy Father is harping about. Each person has to be what he was called to be and not beyond that. When you do, that’s when you run the risk of singularizing yourself. It’s the beginning or narcissism

What? I can see that if a person was called to religious life and is ordained he is a religious first - that is clear now. But, I don’t see how you are connecting it back to the Holy Father and possibly his comment on narcissism.

 

[epan]

Conscience is not about what “you think”. It is about what you “know”, deep down, intuitively to be right and wrong, to be true and untrue. Conscience, is, as Blessed John Henry Newman once said (quoted in the Catechism), “the aboriginal Vicar of Christ”. Even if a non-believer has an erroneous conscience, suffering under invincible ignorance, he can discern the truth “through a glass darkly” and that is enough to bring him closer to his Saviour who is close to every human heart, urging us all towards the acceptance of divine grace, and perhaps lead him to live a moral life. This is well explained by St. Paul in the Book of Romans in relation to Gentiles who don’t have “the law”. The pope is addressing himself to non-believers such as the interviewer, people who have not been blessed with the sure knowledge of divine revelation. He is not speaking primarily in this part of the interview to Catholics but rather to all men and women of good will as a whole, particularly outside the body of the Church.

I think that you have simply misinterpreted what the pope has said, perhaps, because he is phrasing himself in a casual, conversational manner as well as to an atheist who would not understand specifically Catholic terminology. The context is fairly key here.

My great grandmother “knew” deep down that it was immoral for the races to intermingle. She also knew that this was the natural order of things, even dictated by Natural Law as she knew it. She also knew that any person who did not know what she knew in this respect had something wrong with them. It was just natural.

We run into this all the time. People consider their opinions to be factual, even when the basis is faulty.

 

[JReducation]

What? I can see that if a person was called to religious life and is ordained he is a religious first - that is clear now. But, I don’t see how you are connecting it back to the Holy Father and possibly his comment on narcissism.

Take for example during the period between Vatican I and Vatican II. I can speak about the Franciscan experience best, but this was not unique to Franciscans. Franciscans were founded as one family of brothers. In Francis’ mind, his brothers were not to singualarize themselves nor permit the laity to singularize them. They were to discourage this. Superiors were to pull the brothers our of any situation where brothers were singularized. For example, Francis pulled Anthony out of a number of assignments, because he was singualarized for his scholarship. Anthony was not a priest yet. Francis withheld permission for Anthony to be ordained until the 15th year of Anthony’s religious life. He dearly loved Anthony and the other way around.

Then came Vatican I and bishops were asked to take a bigger role in mission work. The bishops of many countries did not have enough priests. They asked religious superiors to lend them priests. It was agreed. Religious were sent to places where no diocesan priest would go. These were usually very poor places out in the woods or in parts of cities where there were only slums and the income of the parish was not enough to support a priest. The religious lived off charity.

As time passed, some things happened that changed the order (many other orders too). Parishes grew financially. They were in better shape to afford a priest. Instead of returning the parishes to the diocese, we kept them. We suddenly found ourselves being an order for parish ministry. This was not what Francis had in mind.

As time passed, the brother priests dropped the title Brother and Friar and changed to Father. Now, the lay faithful looked at the religious community as having two kinds of members, brothers and priests. The next thing was to change the formation program. If a man had academic abilities, he would be persuaded to become a priest. If he did not have those abilities, he would be persuaded to become a brother. Now you have two kinds of religious. The “smart” one and the “dumb one”. The smart one becomes a priest and the dumb one becomes a brother. Though many of these brothers were very talented.

As if that were not enough separation, it was decided that the brothers could no longer hold office. They were not educated enough. That’s obvious. If the brothers were men with lower IQs, they couldn’t get Masters and Doctorates. They could no longer be superiors, formation directors or be on the community council. Then it went to the next level. The brothers don’t really understand the issues that face us; therefore, they should not have a vote in community matters, unless we’re voting on something for the house such as whether to paint or not to paint. But they certainly should not vote on whether or not we close a parish and open a school. It’s too complicated for them to understand.

Now followed the better part. Since the brothers are not well educated, they should not be involved in the parish at all. They should do the laundry, cook, clean the house, shine shoes for the priests, wait on tables for the priests, clean up after the priests and do the dishes. After they have done these things they can go to their recreation room. They cannot recreate with the priests and should not speak to the priests unless spoken to by a priest.

Then came the kicker which broke the camel’s back and which sent Pope John XXIII into orbit. Since the brothers don’t have to hear confessions, celebrate mass, visit the sick and take care of the people, they should be responsible for keeping the Liturgy of the Hours going. The priests are excused from the LOTH to serve the lay faithful who really need them. The priest can pray the LOTH whenever it’s convenient to him. Now you had religious brother priests praying five hours of the LOTH in one sitting to get it over with. The non ordained brothers doing the regular five hours of prayer during the day and night.

Something had to be done. This was not only the Franciscan experience. This was the experience of many orders. To top it off, men were being told that it was a special grace and blessing to enter religious life in order to serve priests. When Pope John XXIII heard this, he almost had an apoplexy. Nothing could have been further from the minds of Benedict, Albert, Bernard, Francis, John of the Cross, John Bosco, Bridgette or Teresa of Calcutta when they founded their respective communities of men.

Finally, Pope Paul VI visited Padre Pio and said, “This is not Franciscan.” Fortunately, Padre Pio was very humble and admitted that it was not. But he had no idea how to change it. A special superior was sent to reorganize the mindset, not the ministry. The friars were to learn that when a Franciscan hears a confession he is a brother in service of his brothers and sisters. He is not a diocesan priest who is a father to his flock. Franciscans have brethren, not flocks. No Franciscan is a shepherd, not even Francis.

No Franciscan is ever to be held in higher esteem than St. Francis, who was never a priest. To hold any Franciscan in higher esteem than St. Francis, would mean that if Francis came back today, he would not be legally able to run his own order. The clerics had fallen into a culture of narcissism. Everything in the religious life was at the service of their priesthood, but in Francis’ mind, the brothers who were priests were at the service of the brotherhood and at the service of brothers and sisters outside of the brotherhood, only with the permission of the superior. The superior could not grant such permission if there was a danger of singularization. Singularization leads to pride.

 

[JReducation]

The Holy Father speaks about narcissism. What is narcissism? It’s a form of pride. It’s a dysfunctional love of self, one’s office or one’s place in the Church. This is why in another conversation the Holy Father said that when he sees such clericalism as I described above, even he feels anticlerical. For a priest, bishop or religious to feel anticlerical does not mean that he is against the priesthood. It means that he opposes any behavior on the part of the priest or the laity that places the priest above those who are equal to him. I means that he opposes any customs that makes it appear as if priests (including bishops) must always be in control, even when they don’t know how to get the job done. It means that one opposes the turning everything that a priest does into priestly ministry. Priestly ministry is the celebration of the sacraments. Anything else beyond that is part of the Church’s apostolic work and should be appreciated as such. It is not the person’s work or that of his clerical state. Running a congregation at the Vatican does not require Holy Orders. So why is it that every head of a congregation is a bishop?

These are the things that the Holy Father is pointing to that contribute to narcissism. Just like in religiuos life, many things that had nothing to do with sacraments, became the sole right of the priests and other religious were reduced to servants, at the Vatican, people are often reduced to servants of those who hold certain offices, because they are bishops. But you don’t have to be a bishop to push papers. There is the connection.

The pope, because he is a religious and has seen this in religious life, can recognize this disease whenever he sees it. Once one has lived with it, one never forgets it. You can recognize it anywhere.

We have to simplify the curia, just as we are simplifying religious life. People have to go back to the mindset that they are there to serve their brothers not to be their fathers. The only person who has the right to be a shepherd is the local bishop of the diocese. That’s his job. He has the right to be treated like a father and a shepherd. Pope Francis says that he has a duty to smell like the sheep. I won’t get into that one.

 

[jimkhong]

here is a story about a brother who brought the gossip to Francis that there was a priest living in sin. We’re not told what the sin was. But we can assume that he was not chaste. In those days, our early brothers were very sensitive men. Sexual sins were the worse of the worse for them, even worse than murder. It was a cultural thing. Maybe it is still the case today.

Br JR, I think you will make a very poor soap opera scriptwriter. I cannot find anywhere in your post what the response of Francis was.

Thank you for an excellent exposition of the life of a religious priest, etc. It certainly helps with the questions many ask about Jesuits and other religious priests.

One point about Jesuit community life (I am not Jesuit myself; although very close to them and Ignatian in my outlook, I decided not to join). The Jesuits do have some requirement for community life though nowhere as broad as in other religious orders. Our local Jesuit community still have the requirement for a weekly community meal, wherever they reside. Still, it would be correct to say that Jesuit community life is sometimes more a facade and some of the inter-personality squabbles in the local community can be rather in appropriate.

One of the problem is that (sorry for the over-generalisation), while many priests join the priesthood due to a desire to serve, most of the Jesuits I know join in for a specific idea about what they want to do. Put these strong personalities (enhanced even more by their 13-year training) together and what do you get? Where it works out, the individual Jesuit can be rather single-minded about what he thinks God wants him to do.

The motto of the Jesuits is AMDG For the Greater Glory of God. Which means they can do anything in the Church, wherever the work is needed. In US, they known for education but here in Asia, they were exemplary in the missions. Not only they brought Christianity to Asia, but they brought Asian indentities into Christianity. They did more than dress in secular clothes. In 16th century China, European Jesuits dressed as mandarins and studied the language, philosophy and culture like mandarins did. While this was very controversial in Europe and the Curia, they came close to converting the Emperor. During the Chinese Rites dispute (when Chinese Jesuits were praying the Liturgy of the Hours in Chinese - three centuries ahead of their time) and the Pope wrote to forbid it, the Chinese Emperor himself wrote to the Pope to ask him to reconsider.

In India, Jesuits dressed as wandering swamis. In Japan, they had a great influence over Japanese life. Did you know tempura was Lent food introduced by Portuguese Jesuits to the Japanese? The seed they planted was so strong that despite a persecution in which all priests were expelled or martyred, the faith survived for two centuries without any priests. The response of European priests when they discovered these Christians, though, still rankle to this day.

We in Asia owe a lot to Jesuits and we look forward to a Jesuit Pope. I pray for his protection and may a Jesuit Pope do for the universal Church what Jesuit missionaries did for the Asian Church.

 

[Abba]

Thank you for an excellent exposition of the life of a religious priest, etc. It certainly helps with the questions many ask about Jesuits and other religious priests.

Indeed.

I cannot find anywhere in your post what the response of Francis was.

I am still waiting to know if Bonaventure wrote about it.