Pope orders new rules on relations between bishops, religious orders

[JReducation]

For me, as a religious, this is very exciting for a number of reasons. This document about religious brothers, which Pope Benedict asked the curia to work on is finally going to be written. This is an important document, because the brothers in many communities are being ignored or ill used. Unfortunately, the laity is learning to do as it sees some orders do, which is what Pope Benedict commented on to superiors.

It’s also exciting to see that Rome is finally going to make it clear that dioceses must respect the charisms of religious communities and not use communities for their needs alone. This was a concern that superiors communicated to Pope Francis. Because the laity is learning this as well.

At the end of the day, it’s not the laity’s fault that its expectations of religious and its treatment of some religious is inappropriate when such expectations and behaviors is modeled for them by the local clergy.

There has been some serious trouble. Some superiors have gotten fed up with certain situations and have pulled their men with only 24 hours notice. Walking to your church for morning mass and finding that no one is home can be rather traumatic for some people or walking to your school and finding that the brothers are not there and you have your homework in you hand. Had you known that the math teacher was going to bail out the night before, you would have played video games instead.

Fortunately, in my lifetime, I’ve only seen this happen twice. But there should never situations where the dialogue simple collapses and people walk in frustration. There have to be better systems in place and rules of engagement that are clear.

Anyway, for what it’s worth. Here’s the article.

Pope outlines new rules . . .

 

[McCall1981]

For me, as a religious, this is very exciting for a number of reasons. This document about religious brothers, which Pope Benedict asked the curia to work on is finally going to be written. This is an important document, because the brothers in many communities are being ignored or ill used. Unfortunately, the laity is learning to do as it sees some orders do, which is what Pope Benedict commented on to superiors.

It’s also exciting to see that Rome is finally going to make it clear that dioceses must respect the charisms of religious communities and not use communities for their needs alone. This was a concern that superiors communicated to Pope Francis. Because the laity is learning this as well.

At the end of the day, it’s not the laity’s fault that its expectations of religious and its treatment of some religious is inappropriate when such expectations and behaviors is modeled for them by the local clergy.

There has been some serious trouble. Some superiors have gotten fed up with certain situations and have pulled their men with only 24 hours notice. Walking to your church for morning mass and finding that no one is home can be rather traumatic for some people or walking to your school and finding that the brothers are not there and you have your homework in you hand. Had you known that the math teacher was going to bail out the night before, you would have played video games instead.

Fortunately, in my lifetime, I’ve only seen this happen twice. But there should never situations where the dialogue simple collapses and people walk in frustration. There have to be better systems in place and rules of engagement that are clear.

Anyway, for what it’s worth. Here’s the article.

Pope outlines new rules . . .

The article keeps saying there will be new rules, but doesn’t say what they are. Could you explain what these new rules will be? Or do we just not know yet?

 

[Avila123]

I would just like to see anyone ignoring Brother Lawrence. Even tucked away in the kitchen, people somehow found him and sought his counsel.

I wish we had more religious in our corner of the diocese, maybe with clarity and understanding there will be the appropriate mutual support and team working. Both parish, Diocese and Religious Orders have their roles which should overlap as we are one Church and surely it would benefit everyone to work together with mutual respect and consideration?

We are looking at re-invigorating the Diocese and one team will be leading on spirituality e.g. introducing the laity to the spirituality of the different religious orders. That is the group output that I am most excited about. It would be fantastic if a member of the Order who lives and breaths that way of life could explain it (I would even pay to get that kind of nourishment).

God bless.

 

[JReducation]

The article keeps saying there will be new rules, but doesn’t say what they are. Could you explain what these new rules will be? Or do we just not know yet?

I can only explain what the religious men have asked. I don’t know what Rome is going to give.

1. Bishops and laity must provide financial support for the apostolate of religious in their dioceses.
2. Bishops and laity may not interfere or comment on the internal affairs of religious.
3. Bishops and laity must respect the charism of the orders and congregations and not ask them to take on duties and ministries that the founders did not intend for them to do.
4. Bishops and laity must respect that the highest authority in any religious community is the general chapter, not the needs of the local Church. Those needs are to be taken care of by secular clergy.
5. Bishops and laity must accept non ordained male religious as they do priests, meaning that they must be accepted as superiors even in parishes where there is a priest as pastor.
6. Bishops and laity must accept that religious orders and congregations have a preferential option for the poor, not the middle class, unless that was the intent of the founder.

This is a big concern because of Catholic schools. Some communities were founded to run schools, but only for the poor. As the schools become middle class, they no longer have an obligation to be there. In some instances, their founders have left specific instructions that they must leave. But there is often a conflict over this.

Then there are things about who owns what, how much time should be given before a religious community pulls out of a ministry, the respect that bishops and laity must show toward religious superiors.

This has been a big complaint. Pope Francis is no stranger to this, because he was a religious superior. It happens more in parishes and schools than any other place. I guess because superiors are not visible, they are often forgotten. Demands are made of the religious that only the superior can make. Complaints are filed with the bishop and the superior is left out of the loop. Since the bishop has no authority to correct a religious, the problem goes unaddressed. When all hell breaks loose, then the superior is the one who has to pick up the pieces.

There has been a lot of talk between bishops and superiors about coordinating their efforts rather than duplicating. When you duplicate, but you have the same pool of vocations, you don’t have enough for the diocese or the religious community. This is a big concern, because the large families are no longer there. There was a time when you had 8 boys. One became a diocesan priest and the other became a Dominican. That’s no longer the case. You have a family with 2.3 children and only one is a boy. He wants to be a preacher. Who should get him.

Finally, there is the question about the role of the bishop over all the baptized, including religious. Religious are not incardinated into any diocese, not even the one in which they are baptized. We become “diocese free”, for lack of a better term. There is a tendency in some religious to translate that into freedom from the bishop. That’s not what this means. It means that the bishop has no authority over me, but it does not mean that the bishop ceases to be the pastor of the diocese and I cease to belong to the sheep. Whatever rules he makes for his diocese, I’m bound to comply with them as long as they don’t trump the rules given by my founder or the general chapter of my community. When that happens, I’m bound to inform the bishop, not simply ignore him. In other words, I’m still bound to love the bishop and obey him as the Successor to the Apostles.

The bishop remains that highest authority in matters of faith, morals and Church discipline, not the religious who teaches theology or is involved in some ministry in his diocese. I have no right to teach anything contrary to what the bishop teaches. Nor do I have the right think anything that is contrary to how the bishop thinks, unless there is a conflict with my community. Again, inform the bishop.

This business of “I can think whatever I want, because I’m not supposed to hang up my brain at the door” is nonsense. We never asked people to hang up their brain at the door, yet people always obeyed their bishops and complied with the authority in their diocese. When there was a problem, no one took the law into their own hands. Issues were taken to Rome.

 

[McCall1981]

I can only explain what the religious men have asked. I don’t know what Rome is going to give.

1. Bishops and laity must provide financial support for the apostolate of religious in their dioceses.
2. Bishops and laity may not interfere or comment on the internal affairs of religious.
3. Bishops and laity must respect the charism of the orders and congregations and not ask them to take on duties and ministries that the founders did not intend for them to do.
4. Bishop[s and laity must respect that the highest authority in any religious community is the general chapter, not the needs of the local Church. Those needs are to be taken care of by secular clergy.
5. Bishops and laity must accept non ordained male religious as they do priests, meaning that they must be accepted as superiors even in parishes where there is a priest as pastor.
6. Bishops and laity must accept that religious orders and congregations have a preferential option for the poor, not the middle class, unless that was the intent of the founder.

This is a big concern because of Catholic schools. Some communities were founded to run schools, but only for the poor. As the schools become middle class, they no longer have an obligation to be there. In some instances, their founders have left specific instructions that they must leave. But there is often a conflict over this.

Then there are things about who owns what, how much time should be given before a religious community pulls out of a ministry, the respect that bishops and laity must show toward religious superiors.

This has been a big complaint. Pope Francis is no stranger to this, because he was a religious superior. It happens more in parishes and schools than any other place. I guess because superiors are not visible, they are often forgotten. Demands are made of the religious that only the superior can make. Complaints are filed with the bishop and the superior is left out of the loop. Since the bishop has no authority to correct a religious, the problem goes unaddressed. When all hell breaks loose, then the superior is the one who has to pick up the pieces.

There has been a lot of talk between bishops and superiors about coordinating their efforts rather than duplicating. When you duplicate, but you have the same pool of vocations, you don’t have enough for the diocese or the religious community. This is a big concern, because the large families are no longer there. There was a time when you had 8 boys. One became a diocesan priest and the other became a Dominican. That’s no longer the case. You have a family with 2.3 children and only one is a boy. He wants to be a preacher. Who should get him.

Finally, there is the question about the role of the bishop over all the baptized, including religious. Religious are not incardinated into any diocese, not even the one in which they are baptized. We become “diocese free”, for lack of a better term. There is a tendency in some religious to translate that into freedom from the bishop. That’s not what this means. It means that the bishop has no authority over me, but it does not mean that the bishop ceases to be the pastor of the diocese and I cease to belong to the sheep. Whatever rules he makes for his diocese, I’m bound to comply with them as long as they don’t trump the rules given by my founder or the general chapter of my community. When that happens, I’m bound to inform the bishop, not simply ignore him. In other words, I’m still bound to love the bishop and obey him as the Successor to the Apostles.

The bishop remains that highest authority in matters of faith, morals and Church discipline, not the religious who teaches theology or is involved in some ministry in his diocese. I have no right to teach anything contrary to what the bishop teaches. Nor do I have the right think anything that is contrary to how the bishop thinks, unless there is a conflict with my community. Again, inform the bishop.

This business of “I can think whatever I want, because I’m not supposed to hang up my brain at the door” is nonsense. We never asked people to hang up their brain at the door, yet people always obeyed their bishops and complied with the authority in their diocese. When there was a problem, no one took the law into their own hands. Issues were taken to Rome.

I see, thanks!

I was confused about whether the new rules where known yet or not, so that helps.
[/quote]

 

[Farley4334]

I agree with #s 3, 4, and 6 but not 1, 2, or 5.

3, 4, and 6 are asking for the recognition that the religious orders are separate from the diocese and therefore should be allowed to live out their order the way the see fit.

But then 1, 2, and 5 fly against that saying the diocese must give them money, be silent, and accept ordered members as superiors.

They either need to want to be independent or not. Not, independent in the things they give but dependent in the things they take.

For example, let’s say we have a LWCR congregation in our diocese who have little respect for the hierarchy of the Church, the Magisterium, or certain church teachings. I certainly don’t want my money going to them, I feel the bishop or any priest or lay person should be able to point out the dangers of the order’s teaching, and they certainly shouldn’t be guaranteed places of authority.

 

[JReducation]

I see, thanks!

I was confused about whether the new rules where known yet or not, so that helps.

I believe that way may get a document that works, because we have a pope who has been an archbishop and is also a religious. Not only does he have theological knowledge of the two traditions, apostolic succession and religious life, but he has experience.

Vatican II tried to address issues that arose after Vatican I, but did not go far enough. Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict both tried to address those same issues, but their work was so scholarly and so difficult to understand that it ended up in libraries. I mean, seriously, Vita Consecrata is a beautiful document. But one has to be a philosopher to get all of the nuances and layers in the document.

Cardinal Ratzinger tried to get some rules down on paper, but they were not helpful, because they seemed to protect the interests of priests and sisters. Brothers and nuns were left in the cold. After the fiasco that his planning committee pulled in Spain during WYD, where the brothers and nuns were excluded from a mass for religious, only sisters and religious who were priests or studying to be priests were invited, many brothers and nuns felt very hurt and felt that the Vatican’s people did not appreciate us or consider us as part of religious life and the Holy Father was embarrassed.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with #s 3, 4, and 6 but not 1, 2, or 5.

3, 4, and 6 are asking for the recognition that the religious orders are separate from the diocese and therefore should be allowed to live out their order the way the see fit.

But then 1, 2, and 5 fly against that saying the diocese must give them money, be silent, and accept ordered members as superiors.

They either need to want to be independent or not. Not, independent in the things they give but dependent in the things they take.

For example, let’s say we have a LWCR congregation in our diocese who have little respect for the hierarchy of the Church, the Magisterium, or certain church teachings. I certainly don’t want my money going to them, I feel the bishop or any priest or lay person should be able to point out the dangers of the order’s teaching, and they certainly shouldn’t be guaranteed places of authority.

Actually, 1,2 and 5 come from the Council of Trent.

The Council ruled that the local Churches have a financial obligation to support the works of charity of religious orders. That was one ruling.

The Council also ruled that in those orders where there is no distinction between an ordained member and a non ordained member, as is the case with Franciscans, there is no reason why a non ordained friar cannot be superior of a house. The argument that the house is attached to a parish was not justifiable, because the superior could appoint a pastor who would answer to him.

The council also ruled that all male religious are exempt from the authority of the bishop and the influence of the laity by virtue of the fact that we make solemn vows, which places us under the protection of the pope. Women religious who are cloistered nuns also make solemn vows. Therefore, they are also under the protection of the pope.

Equally under the protection of the pope are all institutes that the pope raises up as pontifical institutes, even though they make simple vows, not solemn vows.

What is being asked here is that these be enforced. Over the years, they have not been enforced.

I’m not a fortune teller, but I do believe that the Holy Father, being a religious himself and in solemn vows, is going to demand that the two congregations come up with something that makes it easier for the bishops to enlist the help of religious, but at the same time protects the religious from the governance of the bishops and the laity as St. Ignatius had proposed. The idea of the Right of Exemption for Religious came from St. Ignatius. The Church simply adopted it and made it part of her disciplines to this day.

 

[powerofk]

FWIW, most Catholic schools were originally intended for poor Catholic children, and were fully supported by donations made to them by the dioceses and parishes. They depended on religious brothers, sisters, and priests to run them. As fewer people went into religious life, these schools had to hire lay teachers, who required an actual income. This caused the schools to have to charge higher and higher tuition to pay their teachers. This, in turn, caused most Catholic schools to be primarily focused on students in the middle class, as poor families could no longer afford to send their students there even with discounts from parishes and government vouchers, where available.

Regardless, though, this certainly will affect some dioceses much more than others. Some dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, have many orders of religious within their boundaries and rely much on the orders to help deal with the shortage of diocesan priests. Other dioceses have very few religious residing within their boundaries - so little, in fact, that the only time a layperson in one of these dioceses might see a religious brother, sister, or priest is on TV or on a retreat or pilgrimage.

 

[Farley4334]

Perhaps that will have some good (though harsh) unintended consequences then. I’m all for supporting good holy orders, the problem is they are not all there is. So the unintended consequence I could see from these new rules is having bishops asking some religious orders to leave their diocese.

If I’m a bishop and I am required to support all religious orders in my diocese, I’m going to be very particular about which orders I allow to be there. So I’d be prepared for a mainstream media scandal, but ultimately I think it would be good. (I’m one of those people who between a smaller more faithful church and a larger less faithful one, roots for the former.)

 

[commenter]

None of this seems to take into account the needs or rights of the laity. As a parent, my canonical rights were sometimes curtailed by the actions of religious, who used their power to push through a deplorable sex education curriculum that excluded parent (name removed by moderator)ut. I contacted the bishop, with written documentation, but he chose not to get involved. I guess the kind of change the OP suggests would make it less likely a bishop or pastor would get involved, on the side of parents.

I could give other examples of abuses committed by a minority of religious, that impact on LAITY. A few religious are able to use their connections to get positions or appointments to influence that laity can’t access. I am not talking about internal affairs of their congregations, but religious who invite pro abortion politicians to campuses, who support politicians hostile to Catholic schools, and other things that impact on FAMILIES. In the list of demands that the OP lists, there’s no hint of the Catholic teaching on solidarity, that the first responsibility of religious and laity is the people in their home town. It may be politically correct and popular to empower the religious to stand up to the authority of the bishop, since the bishops are attacked by the media right now; but how does empowering the religious affect the authority of parents?

The OP might say this has nothing to do with the laity; but laity, especially parents, are the ones whose canonical rights are impacted when powerful groups can’t really be held accountable. I respect the founders of religious orders. But sometimes religious use that as an excuse. The founders didn’t intend their followers to act like a labor union, to assert their way, in dealing with bishops and laity. The real “founder” for every religious order and every Catholic lay organization, is Christ.

 

[TimothyH]

Perhaps that will have some good (though harsh) unintended consequences then. I’m all for supporting good holy orders, the problem is they are not all there is. So the unintended consequence I could see from these new rules is having bishops asking some religious orders to leave their diocese.

If I’m a bishop and I am required to support all religious orders in my diocese, I’m going to be very particular about which orders I allow to be there. So I’d be prepared for a mainstream media scandal, but ultimately I think it would be good. (I’m one of those people who between a smaller more faithful church and a larger less faithful one, roots for the former.)

It is not the Church which is made impure by the presence of the sinner.

and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. (Matthew 8:2-3)

It is the sinner who is made pure by the Christ through the Church.

-Tim-

 

[pnewton]

I look forward to any new developments. I think these are all good, though more as principles, and as the above post points out, they are in need of balance. For example, it is great that a diocese should support Franciscans for Life. However, if a religious group is partnering with a group like Planned Parenthood, should not the bishop have the authority to stop funds from his diocese from supporting that?

The thing is, where both sides (all three, counting the laity) are reasonable, guidelines are sufficient. When extreme issues come up, then better refined rules are needed. I believe it sufficient for me that Pope Francis sees a need. He’s the macro, me’s the micro, right?

May God bless all the religious for their service and dedication.

 

[powerofk]

Right. We, the laity, are actually the most important part of the Church. Sure, only a priest can confect the Eucharist or absolve sins in Confession (both, of course, done by the priest in persona Christi), but without sheep, a shepherd has no job. Besides, we are the hands and feet of Jesus in the world. We are the ones who are called to live the Gospel in the midst of wolves, and we are the ones who are called to teach the Gospel by word and deed to our families and everyone we meet.

Jesus instituted priests and bishops to feed us, both with His Body and Blood, to strengthen us for our mission, and with instruction, to learn how to make the Gospel relevant in today’s world. The prime focus of the bishops must be how to best help the laity in their dioceses to bring Jesus Christ to the world.

Many bishops have the gifts of having religious orders within their dioceses - the key for the bishops is to understand the charisms of the orders and use them to best help the laity in their dioceses. If a religious order has a special concern for the poor, then the bishop, if asked for (name removed by moderator)ut, could give the order suggestions where their special charism could be used - not to order them to do so, but as support. The purpose of religious orders, to a layperson, is to help the local Church in ways that the bishop and diocesan priests cannot due to logistical and administrative duties. It is of utmost importance that religious orders and the bishop work well together - if they do not (and the problems are brought out into the public) - it can cause problems for the laity, and the sheep end up being neglected.

 

[commenter]

I look forward to any new developments. I think these are all good, though more as principles, and as the above post points out, they are in need of balance. For example, it is great that a diocese should support Franciscans for Life. However, if a religious group is partnering with a group like Planned Parenthood, should not the bishop have the authority to stop funds from his diocese from supporting that?

The thing is, where both sides (all three, counting the laity) are reasonable, guidelines are sufficient. When extreme issues come up, then better refined rules are needed. I believe it sufficient for me that Pope Francis sees a need. He’s the macro, me’s the micro, right?

May God bless all the religious for their service and dedication.

I agree, a balance of rights and responsibilities is needed. Most religious are very good, so it’s tempting to ignore the minority that use religious power to promote some other agenda. It’s tempting to say, let the normal process of correction play out within their communities.
Unfortunately, in recent decades the normal internal process of correction has not worked in many communities. Abuses linger for decades. I am referring to abuses that interfere with parental rights as primary educators. I refer to abuses in the Public Square - for instance, that a dozen dissenting religious can get more sympathetic coverage in the anti-Catholic media than hundreds of prolifers in a city; that the right of the laity to participate as Catholics in the social and political realm is weakened by a few religious.

One of the good things of the Catholic Church is that we learn from experience. Disciplinary rules were developed centuries ago when “abuses” meant monks living in luxury in a remote monastery, where it was prudent for bishops to step aside and wait 20 years for the proper, canonical authorities and processes from the order, itself. No one really got hurt by the delay. They never envisioned situations where rogue religious would be compromising the Faith on national TV, or interfering with parental rights. The former internal processes by religious superiors has not worked well lately, too much is lost when superiors respond late, or not at all; which happens nowadays.

When religious communities are allowed to elevate autonomy from bishop and laity to an extreme, the biggest losers, ironically, are vocations to religious life. The few bad apples undermine credibility of the many.

 

[JReducation]

FWIW, most Catholic schools were originally intended for poor Catholic children, and were fully supported by donations made to them by the dioceses and parishes. They depended on religious brothers, sisters, and priests to run them. As fewer people went into religious life, these schools had to hire lay teachers, who required an actual income. This caused the schools to have to charge higher and higher tuition to pay their teachers. This, in turn, caused most Catholic schools to be primarily focused on students in the middle class, as poor families could no longer afford to send their students there even with discounts from parishes and government vouchers, where available.

Regardless, though, this certainly will affect some dioceses much more than others. Some dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, have many orders of religious within their boundaries and rely much on the orders to help deal with the shortage of diocesan priests. Other dioceses have very few religious residing within their boundaries - so little, in fact, that the only time a layperson in one of these dioceses might see a religious brother, sister, or priest is on TV or on a retreat or pilgrimage.

Let’s just wait and see… speculation is not helpful

Perhaps that will have some good (though harsh) unintended consequences then. I’m all for supporting good holy orders, the problem is they are not all there is. So the unintended consequence I could see from these new rules is having bishops asking some religious orders to leave their diocese.

If I’m a bishop and I am required to support all religious orders in my diocese, I’m going to be very particular about which orders I allow to be there. So I’d be prepared for a mainstream media scandal, but ultimately I think it would be good. (I’m one of those people who between a smaller more faithful church and a larger less faithful one, roots for the former.)

A bishop does not have the power to ask a religious order to leave his diocese. That’s called suppression. Only the pope can suppress. A bishop decides who enters.

 

[JReducation]

I believe this is going to be a very positive document. The two congregations are working together. That gives everyone a chance to see what each side needs, wants and can bring to the table.

The religious superiors and bishops will be working as partners. That’s another good thing.

Both Holy Fathers have asked them to pay special attention to the role of the religious brother and the lay brother. Canon Law asked this also, back in 1983. But the problem there is that there is so much in Canon Law that it’s easy to forget. Only a few bishops began to promote brothers’ vocations: Cardinal Sean of Boston began to promote Franciscan brothers (not the priests), Cardinal Dolan of NY, began to promote the Franciscan brothers as well. Archbishop Wenski of Miami also promotes Franciscan brothers. I don’t know of other diocese where the bishops have actually mentioned it. Maybe they have and it has not gotten around. Pope Francis has asked again that this be a priority.

They’ll have to address the family. The pool of vocations is small. Unless you do something with the family, you’re not going to have vocations. This will benefit the family.

Traditionalists are going to like it, because the doctrines of Trent regarding religious life will be “resurrected”. They’re not dead, because they’re doctrinal points. They can’t die. But people don’t really know them. I imagine these being introduced into religious education. That will be good. I can also see them being taught to diocesan seminarians. This will be good for them. There are diocesan priests who point blank admit that they know nothing about religious life and they don’t know how to guide a vocation to the religious life other than to refer him or her to a vocation director. Many will also tell you that they don’t know how to serve as spiritual directors to religious, because the don’t understand this way of life. They reduce spiritual direction to confession. Confession is not spiritual direction.

I think it will help religious. Most of us who are elected or appointed superiors want to work with bishops, but it needs to be coordinated so that the charism of the community is transparent, not just the work. When you walk into a parish, school or other place run by a religious community, it should smell like them. You should be able to see the faithful at a parish run by religious grow in the spirituality of the order. That spirituality should be conveyed from the pulpit. After all, every school of religious life comes from the Gospel. It´s just a difference in emphasis.

I know it can happen, because I’ve seen parishes run by certain religious orders and the laity reflects the spirit of the order. Most of the time, the laity does not realize it.

This will be a good thing. The particular are anyone’s guess. I think we should not try to guess. Let’s wait and see.

 

[Marysann]

Thank you BrotherJR for explaining all of this to us. I have seen so many scare headlines on certain Catholic news sites that I was afraid to read them. Our Holy Father is so wise. I pray each day for the religious who serve us by their example and their work.

 

[bcuster]

Brother JR,
I spent 7 years in a religious community in the late 70s and early 80s. I read this article with great joy. Here is a quote I particularly understood.

“Formation is a work of art, not a police action,” the pope said. “We must form their hearts. Otherwise we are creating little monsters. And then these little monsters mold the People of God. This really gives me goose bumps.”

Before I left the community, I felt I had become one of those “little monsters.” It was a hard transition back into the life of the Church. I am hopeful, now, that our Holy Father understands religious communities from the inside.

 

[m134e5]

A bishop does not have the power to ask a religious order to leave his diocese. That’s called suppression. Only the pope can suppress. A bishop decides who enters.

What is a bishop to do then if members of a religious community are teaching bad theology in his diocese? Just let them? Shouldn’t a bishop, who is the chief shepherd of the diocese, be able to ask a religious community to leave (or at least silence them) if there is a good reason? One example comes to mind, say a community was notorious for teaching bad theology to the laity. A good bishop would not want them to be able to serve in the diocese in any capacity which would give them an opportunity to teach that theology to the lay faithful of his diocese. What are they to do? They will make an account to God for the souls entrusted to their care, so surely they are not powerless to silence- or, if need be, remove- a community from their diocese.