Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[JReducation]

I added to the post above.

I’ll try ceasing my questions very soon though, as I think I’m really drawing this thread into a tangent.

We’re clear that we have to obey. Belief is a difficult thing to enforce. But we can train ourselves to trust.

My way of doing it is this. I always trust that what the pope says is true, even if I can’t wrap my head around it. I always assume that the problem lies with me, not him. But the chances are far greater than I’m mistaken than he is mistaken. If he is mistaken. someone with authority will catch the mistake and challenge it.

When I raise my question, I’m really asking for help to correct MY thinking, not the pope’s.

The same applies to the topic of this thread. The Church has spoken on this many times. If I have a problem with this position, then I must ask myself and the Church, what is my problem and how can I fix it so that I can walk to the beat of the Church.

As human beings we have a tendency to think in reverse. If I have a problem with the Church’s teaching on celibacy, there must be something wrong with the teaching.

Without realizing it, we’re simply shifting infallibility from the Church to ourselves. We’re not wrong. The Church is wrong. You see what we’re doing?

Infallibitility was only granted to the Church and to Peter, not to individuals or groups. Whatever the Church has said on the issue of celibacy stands. To spend time trying to debate its merits is futile, because we won’t change God’s mind on the issue. If we spend time trying to understand why this is so, that’s a good thing. It’s a learning experience. If we spend time challenging it, that’s a waste of time.

Unfortunately, secularism has taught us a great falsehood. It has taught us that we should question everything to the point of weariness. St. Paul says “question everything and keep the good.” He did not say keep questioning until you drop. In fact, he refused to put up with that kind of questioning. He always reminds us in his letters that he has transmitted what he has received. It his way of saying, “I’ve given you what you need to know and this conversation is over.”

So why does he make the statement about questions? He’s trying to say that it’s important to test everything that is unfamiliar, not everything that has been revealed. In this case, the point is moot. Celibacy has been revealed to us. It is what it is. We can and should try to learn about it. The only way that we’re going to understand celibacy is if we understand marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rachael_maria]

Thank you for those of you who have explained more about this. Youre explanations are all good but it is just that I still feel not good about all of this. Am I the only one who has hurt feelings that God doesn’t choose me to be one of the special ones? What exactly should I do about feeling this way? I can understand that the saints do not feel more or less loved than the other saints. Maybe this is why I am not a saint. I do feel less loved based on God thinking that the way of life He apparently wants for me is inferior and less intimate with Him than what He wants of others. I would not think that if He didn’t say that but it is important enough for Him to make that point for it to be dogma. That makes it very important to Him. I don’t even know if abortion being wrong is a dogma. Is it more important to God to say that life religious is superior to other people than to say that abortion is wrong? Maybe abortion being wrong is a dogma? I could be wrong about that.

What I am trying to say is that I am not sure what God’s point was in creating me if He doesn’t want real intimacy. It is sort of like having a crush but the person does not really want to be close to you, he wants someone else. I keep longing for God but then I feel like He just wants to be close to the religious because that is why He calls them to be closer. This has been bothering me for a long time.

 

[rachael_maria]

I forgot to say that I do not want to start an argument and that I think that everything you have all said already makes sense. It is like my head wants to understand but my heart is just sad.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for those of you who have explained more about this. Youre explanations are all good but it is just that I still feel not good about all of this. Am I the only one who has hurt feelings that God doesn’t choose me to be one of the special ones? What exactly should I do about feeling this way? I can understand that the saints do not feel more or less loved than the other saints. Maybe this is why I am not a saint. I do feel less loved based on God thinking that the way of life He apparently wants for me is inferior and less intimate with Him than what He wants of others. I would not think that if He didn’t say that but it is important enough for Him to make that point for it to be dogma. That makes it very important to Him. I don’t even know if abortion being wrong is a dogma. Is it more important to God to say that life religious is superior to other people than to say that abortion is wrong? Maybe abortion being wrong is a dogma? I could be wrong about that.

What I am trying to say is that I am not sure what God’s point was in creating me if He doesn’t want real intimacy. It is sort of like having a crush but the person does not really want to be close to you, he wants someone else. I keep longing for God but then I feel like He just wants to be close to the religious because that is why He calls them to be closer. This has been bothering me for a long time.

God does not love you any less. Remember the apostles. John was the beloved disciple. In the end, he was the one who remained celibate. However, it was Peter whom Christ chose to be his Vicar. God loves us all. But each of us is different and God loves us as we are.

The fact that celibate men and women are consecrated to an intimate life with Christ, does not mean that the married person cannot have a very personal relationship with Christ. If that were the case, then we would not have so many married saints. We’ve had saints who were married and many who were parents: Monica, Elizabeth of Hungrary, Louis King of France, Thomas More, Elizabeth Seton, Joaquina of Vedruna, Giana Molla, Catherine of Genoa, Rita of Cassia, the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, and Joseph. In the Old Testament you have the Patriarchs, King David, Issaiah, Jeremiah, Noah, Moses, Elizabeth and Zachariah, Joachim and Ann. These were all great saints.

Do you honestly believe that God loves Mother Teresa more than he loves the Virgin Mary, because Mother Teresa was a religious and the Virgin Mary was not? Mary was chaste and a virgin, but she was not celibate. She was validly married. Now there is a brain teaser for you. Not celibate, but a virgin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ocarm]

What I am trying to say is that I am not sure what God’s point was in creating me if He doesn’t want real intimacy. It is sort of like having a crush but the person does not really want to be close to you, he wants someone else. I keep longing for God but then I feel like He just wants to be close to the religious because that is why He calls them to be closer. This has been bothering me for a long time.

Its perhaps worth remembering that wanting is not the same as having.

Working on the principle that celibate life fully lived is superior to other states, let’s also remember how difficult that is to achieve. Jesus said that sexual acts were committed in the heart, and not just in the body.

Although celibate religious aim at this putative higher state, I don’t think any of us actually achieve true celibate chastity in the sense of never being distracted by our sexuality or falling into sinful thoughts. Its arguable that God gives us this chance to achieve intimacy with Him in this way because we would otherwise fall into even greater sin.

I remember a formator telling me that he once attended a retreat for male religious from various institutes, and that on one occasion during recreation a subgroup of the retreatants made a few ribald remarks, followed by some blatantly misogynist remarks. Afterwards the matter was raised in a group session, and the director pointed out that this kind of discomfort with or denigration of women was a failure in chastity, because the men involved had not come to terms with their own gender identity and sense of self, or their perception of women: in other words, they had not achieved the kind of intimacy with God that celibate chastity aims to bring, which would be to see all people as God sees them and have equal love and respect for all. The discussion that followed this challenge was highly productive.

That these men had failed to demonstrate this quality was regrettable, but not surprising; all religious fail in this respect often, and on this occasion their failure brought them closer to understanding. And this is an important point. We don’t enter religious life and suddenly become poor, chaste and obedient: instead we learn how to live the vows over time, and not without many setbacks, and never learn them perfectly. By calling you to a different life, not as a religious, God thinks you will undergo this learning in a different way, and become holier than if you tried it by the religious route.

Only the saints even get close to perfection through this learning process, be they secular or religious, and even they aren’t perfect. So as religious we don’t typically have a more intimate relationship with God, we simply aspire to it. And fail.

Like I said, wanting something - that total union with God - is not the same as having it.

 

[rachael_maria]

BrJR and Mike, thanks for your answers. When I was in a convent the sisters talked about Mary being the perfect model for consecrated life. Maybe that is not true since she was not celibate? I think the sister said it was from a document on religious life. Maybe Vida Consecrata. I have not read the whole thing. Anyway thanks for your answers. It helps even though my feelings are still hurt. I just don’t understand why it is this way and it makes me sad and discouraged. When I pray it just makes me feel worse. I left the forums for a while because they made me feel worse too. I think your answers are going to help me though.

 

[JReducation]

Its perhaps worth remembering that wanting is not the same as having.

Working on the principle that celibate life fully lived is superior to other states, let’s also remember how difficult that is to achieve. Jesus said that sexual acts were committed in the heart, and not just in the body.

Although celibate religious aim at this putative higher state, I don’t think any of us actually achieve true celibate chastity in the sense of never being distracted by our sexuality or falling into sinful thoughts. Its arguable that God gives us this chance to achieve intimacy with Him in this way because we would otherwise fall into even greater sin.

I remember a formator telling me that he once attended a retreat for male religious from various institutes, and that on one occasion during recreation a subgroup of the retreatants made a few ribald remarks, followed by some blatantly misogynist remarks. Afterwards the matter was raised in a group session, and the director pointed out that this kind of discomfort with or denigration of women was a failure in chastity, because the men involved had not come to terms with their own gender identity and sense of self, or their perception of women: in other words, they had not achieved the kind of intimacy with God that celibate chastity aims to bring, which would be to see all people as God sees them and have equal love and respect for all. The discussion that followed this challenge was highly productive.

That these men had failed to demonstrate this quality was regrettable, but not surprising; all religious fail in this respect often, and on this occasion their failure brought them closer to understanding. And this is an important point. We don’t enter religious life and suddenly become poor, chaste and obedient: instead we learn how to live the vows over time, and not without many setbacks, and never learn them perfectly. By calling you to a different life, not as a religious, God thinks you will undergo this learning in a different way, and become holier than if you tried it by the religious route.

Only the saints even get close to perfection through this learning process, be they secular or religious, and even they aren’t perfect. So as religious we don’t typically have a more intimate relationship with God, we simply aspire to it. And fail.

Like I said, wanting something - that total union with God - is not the same as having it.

I don’t know if I agree with the failing part. I do believe that we take two steps forward and one bakward, like any human being. But the rate of failure is not that high either. You’re always moving forward, if you’re really trying. In my mind, to fail is to get nowhere. In all of my years of religious life I have seen many good men and women move forward continuously. There are stumbling blocks, challenges and struggles, but for those who are faithful, failure is not an option that they are willing to setttle for. They keep going and get better at it each day.

As far as the intimacy with God is concerned, when the Church speaks about this, what she’s talking about is that the relationship between the religious and God has not mediator. The relationship between the married person and God has the spouse through whom God mediates his love, grace and will. He makes himself known to the spouses through each other, if they are truly working on their marriage.

It’s interesting that we’re on this topic. I just came back from a meeting and luncheon with our bishop. It was for all the religious of the diocese to get to meet our new bishop. The room was shaking. He blasted the religious. Before expalining further, in fairness to the new Archbishop, he also blasted the secular clergy last Saturday.

Today he blasted the religious in his diocese and asked us to move out if were were unwilling to do these things: wear a habit (even sisters have to put on a veil), pray in community, simplify our way of life to reflect greater poverty, and set a good example for the faithful by obeying our superiors and the bishops. He pointed out that he was not going to get involved in the internal affairs of each religious institute, because that is not his place. But as bishop, he must protect the faithful from bad example and therefore, he has the right to decide what religious can serve in his diocese and which ones cannot. The room was dead silent. You could hear a pin drop.

He then went on to speak about the ministries that religious do in his diocese. He made it very clear that if you are caught teaching or allowing someone to teach dissent from the Church, you will be asked to leave the diocese, no questions asked. He’d rather have less, but greater quality.

The men took it better than the women religious. I’m never sure why women religious seem to get more upset about these things than men religious do. But I’ve noticed that male religious don’t seem to be as sensitive to the bishops as women religious can be, no all. It would be unfair to say that. I noticed that the veil thing triggered some real anger with some sisters. The men didn’t have a problem with the habit at all. But then, most male communities still keep the habit, with few exceptions.

Anyway, I thought I’d share that. I’m seeing a change in the demands that are being placed on religious and I believe it’s a good change. We have done great harm to the Church and to our own religious communities over the last 50 years or so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

I don’t know if I agree with the failing part. I do believe that we take two steps forward and one bakward, like any human being. But the rate of failure is not that high either. You’re always moving forward, if you’re really trying. In my mind, to fail is to get nowhere. In all of my years of religious life I have seen many good men and women move forward continuously. There are stumbling blocks, challenges and struggles, but for those who are faithful, failure is not an option that they are willing to setttle for. They keep going and get better at it each day.

As far as the intimacy with God is concerned, when the Church speaks about this, what she’s talking about is that the relationship between the religious and God has not mediator. The relationship between the married person and God has the spouse through whom God mediates his love, grace and will. He makes himself known to the spouses through each other, if they are truly working on their marriage.

It’s interesting that we’re on this topic. I just came back from a meeting and luncheon with our bishop. It was for all the religious of the diocese to get to meet our new bishop. The room was shaking. He blasted the religious. Before expalining further, in fairness to the new Archbishop, he also blasted the secular clergy last Saturday.

Today he blasted the religious in his diocese and asked us to move out if were were unwilling to do these things: wear a habit (even sisters have to put on a veil), pray in community, simplify our way of life to reflect greater poverty, and set a good example for the faithful by obeying our superiors and the bishops. He pointed out that he was not going to get involved in the internal affairs of each religious institute, because that is not his place. But as bishop, he must protect the faithful from bad example and therefore, he has the right to decide what religious can serve in his diocese and which ones cannot. The room was dead silent. You could hear a pin drop.

He then went on to speak about the ministries that religious do in his diocese. He made it very clear that if you are caught teaching or allowing someone to teach dissent from the Church, you will be asked to leave the diocese, no questions asked. He’d rather have less, but greater quality.

The men took it better than the women religious. I’m never sure why women religious seem to get more upset about these things than men religious do. But I’ve noticed that male religious don’t seem to be as sensitive to the bishops as women religious can be, no all. It would be unfair to say that. I noticed that the veil thing triggered some real anger with some sisters. The men didn’t have a problem with the habit at all. But then, most male communities still keep the habit, with few exceptions.

Anyway, I thought I’d share that. I’m seeing a change in the demands that are being placed on religious and I believe it’s a good change. We have done great harm to the Church and to our own religious communities over the last 50 years or so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Fascinating. Even bishops have limitations on what they can and cannot demand of religious men and women. If the women religious institutes concerned do not have the requirement of wearing a veil and are of pontifical right, the bishop has no right whatsoever to demand that they wear veils.

 

[simple_soul]

BrJR and Mike, thanks for your answers. When I was in a convent the sisters talked about Mary being the perfect model for consecrated life. Maybe that is not true since she was not celibate? I think the sister said it was from a document on religious life. Maybe Vida Consecrata. I have not read the whole thing. Anyway thanks for your answers. It helps even though my feelings are still hurt. I just don’t understand why it is this way and it makes me sad and discouraged. When I pray it just makes me feel worse. I left the forums for a while because they made me feel worse too. I think your answers are going to help me though.

*Dear racheal_maria, this sarrow and hurt sounds familiar to me.
If it is the same, what helps me get through it is Jesus. All I have to do is remember Him and His words in the garden of Gethsemani, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. But, not my will but Yours be done.”

With my love and prayers

 

[JReducation]

Fascinating. Even bishops have limitations on what they can and cannot demand of religious men and women. If the women religious institutes concerned do not have the requirement of wearing a veil and are of pontifical right, the bishop has no right whatsoever to demand that they wear veils.

He does and he doesn’t. It’s tricky. The bishop may not interfere in the internal affairs of any institute of Pontifical Right, male or female. However, the bishop may have rules about who may or may not work in diocesan ministries. This is what has been said by some bishops in different dioceses around the world. No habit, no veil, you may not enter my diocese or you must leave my diocese.

The very first bishop to put this to the test was Bishop Fremiot Torres, the bishop of Ponce, Puerto Rico in 1975. The sisters took the case to Rome and lost. They had to leave the diocese or put on veils if they wanted to stay. Later, it was tested again by the bishop of Philadelphia. I can’t remember his name right now. He’s long deceased. That case was also lost by the sisters. That was during the late 1970s or early 1980s. John Pau II heard the second case and upheld what Paul VI had upheld in the Ponce case. It was after this that John Paul II wrote his letter on religious life and about habits.

Again, the issue comes up, this time with male religious in the diocese of Arlington, VA. Again the bishop prevails. The religious men had to put on the habit or leave the diocese. Only the Trappists and Capuchin-Franciscans remained.

Now the sisters are going through the visitation and one of the points on the Vatican visitation is the issue of the habit. The Holy See does have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of institutes of Pontifical Right. There are many concerns in that visitation, but the habit is on that agenda.

For most male communities, as I have said, this is not a problem. Most of us have habits, cassocks or Roman collars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank-you for sharing that, JR. What you’ve related is very exciting. I wish all the bishops presented so powerful a stand against division, but I’m glad that yours did!

Thanks for your comments also about trust . I’m still working to understand all this, but I’ll table it for another thread and time.

BrJR and Mike, thanks for your answers. When I was in a convent the sisters talked about Mary being the perfect model for consecrated life. Maybe that is not true since she was not celibate? I think the sister said it was from a document on religious life. Maybe Vida Consecrata. I have not read the whole thing. Anyway thanks for your answers. It helps even though my feelings are still hurt. I just don’t understand why it is this way and it makes me sad and discouraged. When I pray it just makes me feel worse. I left the forums for a while because they made me feel worse too. I think your answers are going to help me though.

God’s love is infinite, and He gives all of Himself to each Catholic in the Holy Eucharist. Each time you or anyone else partakes of the Eucharist, you are receiving all of God’s love, His whole Divine Person, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. There is no part of Him He keeps away from you. The Divine Sacrament promises His everlasting love in all its fullness for you and for everyone.

The call of the religious is often, though not always, a call that we abandon ourselves more fully in greater self-sacrifice. That is why the religious often experience deeper intimacy with God, which is NOT the same thing as receiving deeper love, for His love for all is infinite. This deeper intimacy is the result of their suffering and abandoning themselves more. Married people who suffer a great deal also enter the same depth of intimacy, or more. The more we suffer willingly for God and accept His will for us, the more we can become one with Him, for then we are uniting ourselves to Him truly out of love and not self-interest or because it’s easy. This is because no one enjoys suffering and self-abandonment, and they do it willingly for Jesus only out of love for Him. Acceptance of His will, especially when it is contrary to our own, is love for Jesus.

St. Therese of Lisieux wondered once why some people are called to be great saints and others to be little ones, with less love for God. She felt that the Spirit revealed the answer to her in the appearance of a meadow. The meadow is less beautiful if all the flowers are the same, but if there are wildflowers and roses, small daisies and large plants, the beauty of the whole is made perfect, while the beauty of each individual item is just as it should be. So it is with souls. Less loving souls (which still are true lovers of God), like Therese believed she was, are just as loving and beautiful as God wants them to be, perfect according to the will of God. The variety contributes just what God wants to the perfection of the whole.

The garden of God is more beautiful because souls like yours and mine are smaller and souls like the married Saint Thomas More and the religious Saint Teresa of Avila have the highest places in the Kingdom of God. But our souls will be just as perfect as they should be, and their perfection will add just what it should to the perfect beauty of the whole garden of Christ’s Body. We just need to trust the Gardener!

 

[JReducation]

Thank-you for sharing that, JR. What you’ve related is very exciting. I wish all the bishops presented so powerful a stand against division, but I’m glad that yours did!

God’s love is infinite, and He gives all of Himself to each Catholic in the Holy Eucharist. Each time you or anyone else partakes of the Eucharist, you are receiving all of God’s love, His whole Divine Person, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. There is no part of Him He keeps away from you. The Divine Sacrament promises His everlasting love in all its fullness for you and for everyone.

The call of the religious is often, though not always, a call that we abandon ourselves more fully in greater self-sacrifice. That is why the religious often experience deeper intimacy with God, which is NOT the same thing as receiving deeper love, for His love for all is infinite. This deeper intimacy is the result of their suffering and abandoning themselves more. Married people who suffer a great deal also enter the same depth of intimacy, or more. The more we suffer willingly for God and accept His will for us, the more we can become one with Him, for then we are uniting ourselves to Him truly out of love and not self-interest or because it’s easy. This is because no one wants to suffer or abandon themselves, unless God’s Spirit moves them to love Jesus that much.

I always keep referring back to the example of Jesus’ friends and disciples. The scriptures always mention John the Beloved Disciple. Obviously there was a great intimacy between John and Jesus. Yet, it is Peter who is left holding the keys.

No one can argue God’s love for his mother, but he does not call her to the priesthood. That does not mean that loved her less than he did the 12 apostles.

I sometimes believe that people confuse intimacy with degrees of love. There is no question, that intimacy that is pure is based on love. That does not mean that there is no love for the person who has less intimacy.

Did Jesus take all of the Apostles to Mt. Tabor to witness the Transfiguation? No. He took those with whom he was more intimate. Yet he prays for all of them before his arrest and washes their feet at the Last Supper.

Maybe I’m being naive here or not understanding something. Because I don’t understand why some lay people feel less loved or like second class Catholics because they are not called to consecrated celibacy. It has nothing to do with the state of one’s soul or with the degree of sanctity. The most intimate can also go to hell.

I believe that the reason that the Church spoke in this at all was because of the abuses at the time, most of them by priests who were not observing celibacy in the false belief that it was not that important.

The Church was also trying to protect clergy and religious men and women from the laity. There was a time when the those who made generous donations to convents and monasteries felt that they had some kind of hold on the clergy and the religious. They were very condescending toward the clergy and religious. The Church had to set the record straight. It was not the money that you donated that gave you a special place in God’s heart, but the way of life to which he called you.

I wonder if sometimes we believe that God loves us all the same way and with the same intensity? I’m not sure that’s the case. God is a father. Fathers don’t love all of their children the same way or with the same intensity. But good fathers do love all of their children as individuals. I have two children and my relationship with each of them is very different. My duaghter and I have a very open relationship. We talk about everything from sex to politics. My relationship with my son is very quiet. We do not talk as much. But when we do, we enjoy each other’s company and the conversation. Yet, he has a very special place in my heart. I feel a greater tenderness for him than I do for my duaghter. That being said, I’m proud to say that I have always been there for both of them in very different ways. They are present to me in different ways. My son is much more intimate than my duaghter. He tries to stay close by. He has even opted to live up the street from our community house, while my daughter lives 1,000 miles away. That’s how things work with God as well. I have greater intimacy with my son than I do with my daugher. But my daughter and I have more things in common.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SerraSemper]

He does and he doesn’t. It’s tricky. The bishop may not interfere in the internal affairs of any institute of Pontifical Right, male or female. However, the bishop may have rules about who may or may not work in diocesan ministries. This is what has been said by some bishops in different dioceses around the world. No habit, no veil, you may not enter my diocese or you must leave my diocese.

The very first bishop to put this to the test was Bishop Fremiot Torres, the bishop of Ponce, Puerto Rico in 1975. The sisters took the case to Rome and lost. They had to leave the diocese or put on veils if they wanted to stay. Later, it was tested again by the bishop of Philadelphia. I can’t remember his name right now. He’s long deceased. That case was also lost by the sisters. That was during the late 1970s or early 1980s. John Pau II heard the second case and upheld what Paul VI had upheld in the Ponce case. It was after this that John Paul II wrote his letter on religious life and about habits.

Again, the issue comes up, this time with male religious in the diocese of Arlington, VA. Again the bishop prevails. The religious men had to put on the habit or leave the diocese. Only the Trappists and Capuchin-Franciscans remained.

Now the sisters are going through the visitation and one of the points on the Vatican visitation is the issue of the habit. The Holy See does have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of institutes of Pontifical Right. There are many concerns in that visitation, but the habit is on that agenda.

For most male communities, as I have said, this is not a problem. Most of us have habits, cassocks or Roman collars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The veil and habit are not synonymous. Further, a bishop cannot require what is not required in the constitutions of the pontifical right community. To demand the use of a habit where a habit is specified in the constitutions is one thing. To demand a veil in an institute which does not require it is quite another. John Paul II himself recognized that there are communities founded without a veil and this forms a part of our heritage in Vita Consecrata:

Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place. Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable. Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation. - VC, 25

 

[JReducation]

The veil and habit are not synonymous. Further, a bishop cannot require what is not required in the constitutions of the pontifical right community. To demand the use of a habit where a habit is specified in the constitutions is one thing. To demand a veil in an institute which does not require it is quite another. John Paul II himself recognized that there are communities founded without a veil and this forms a part of our heritage in Vita Consecrata:

Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place. Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable. Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation. - VC, 25

All of us who are religious know this and are aware of this document. But it does not take away from the bishop’s authority to decide what he wants in his diocese. These bishops are not saying that the religious must do what is contrary to their statutes. They’re saying, if you don’t have a veil (women) and a habit of some kind (both), I don’t want you working in my diocese. This the bishops may say and they have done it. I just remembered the other bishop, I’m almost sure he was from Philly, Cardinal Crowe. He won. Religious has to leave his diocese. Bishop Torres made religious leave his diocese. The bishop of Arlington, who is now deceased and I can’t recall his name, also made religious leave his diocese.

They were not telling anyone to change their statutes. They were saying who could work in their dioceses and who could not.

I believe that this is the point that many religious fail to remember. The institute has its rights, but so does the bishop. If you’re in his parishes, his schools, his institutions, you work on his terms. One of the groups that had to leave the Ponc diocese were the Missionary Servants of the Blessed Trinity (sisters). They are an institute of Pontifical Right. Another group that had to leave were the Sisters of Divine Providence, another institute of Pontifical Right.

In Arlington, the De la Salle Brothers had to leave. They ran one of the diocesan schools. The bishop said that he would prefer to hire lay people to run the school.

I don’t know who may have left Philadelphia. But I know that it was the talk of the Mid-Atlantic for a long time. I am more familiar with Ponce and Arlington because I was stationed in both dioceses when the bishops put these requirements on the table. They would only grant permission to communities who met their criteria. And we were told that we had no voice over the matter, because the bishop was not involving himself in internal matters. He was being very explicit out ministriesin his diocese that were diocesan.

We can quote canon law, but so can the bishops. I have yet to see a bishop lose a battle to a religious community except in matters that are out of his jurisdiction. Most bishops are prudent enough to know what is outside of their jurisdiction. I believe most of these men are good men and mean well for their dioceses, even when I disagree with them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rachael_maria]

Dear racheal_maria, this sarrow and hurt sounds familiar to me.
If it is the same, what helps me get through it is Jesus. All I have to do is remember Him and His words in the garden of Gethsemani, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. But, not my will but Yours be done."

With my love and prayers

Dear Simple Soul, thanks for being so kind and for understanding. Peace to you!

 

[rachael_maria]

It would seem to me that the only point of existing is to have intimacy with God. This is at least a little different than with a natural father. I am not a parent so maybe I just do not understand this. My father could hate me let alone not have a great deal of intimacy with me without it making or breaking my world. Even still it would hurt my feelings if he loved my sibling more than me. God not wanting intimacy with me shatters the entire reason for my existence from now until eternity. Whyelse exist? I do not think that there is any other reason that would be worth it. I am understanding that it is just hurt feelings here though and maybe God really does want intimacy with me. Or does He really only want that with religious? Maybe He does love them more? I am so confused. I do not want to be difficult. It is just that I am so sad about this. I will try to drop this subject soon. What exactly does the Church mean by intimacy with God?

 

[rachael_maria]

Also thanks to Lief for your beautiful post!

 

[Hanael]

Is the priestly and/or virginal state of life more blessed than married life? If so, why? Could this this imply that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers more grace than the sacrament of Matrimony? See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.

I’d feel the monastic way of life was the better way than being a priest or living a virginal life out in the world, but that’s if I was inclined to believe that.

I don’t believe that it is a better way of life, even though St. Jerome would disagree with me on that for the post part. I feel it’s on equal footing because both ways of life are doing something that was cherished in the bible.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Also thanks to Lief for your beautiful post!

Here’s the quote I was referring to from St. Therese of Lisieux. I think you should consider it carefully when pondering God’s love and how He raises some souls to deeper intimacy with Him than He does others, even while He passionately and powerfully loves them all, gives them all of Himself and asks all of themselves.

“He set before me the book of nature; I understood how all the flowers He has created are beautiful, how the splendor of the rose and the whiteness of the Lily do not take away the perfume of the little violet or the delightful simplicity of the daisy. I understood that if all flowers wanted to be roses, nature would lose her springtime beauty, and the fields would no longer be decked out with little wild flowers. And so it is in the world of souls, Jesus’ garden. He willed to create great souls comparable to lilies and roses, but He has created smaller ones and these must be content to be daisies or violets destined to give joy to God’s glances when He looks down at His feet. Perfection consists in doing His will, in being what He wills us to be.”

~St. Therese of Lisieux

Note that she says, “Perfection consists in being what He wills us to be,” NOT “perfection consists in being a religious.” We can be perfectly intimate with Him in the heights of devotion and love whether a religious or not. The point is that we must be what He calls us to be and be content through submission to His will, whatever that will is!

 

[JReducation]

It would seem to me that the only point of existing is to have intimacy with God. This is at least a little different than with a natural father. I am not a parent so maybe I just do not understand this. My father could hate me let alone not have a great deal of intimacy with me without it making or breaking my world. Even still it would hurt my feelings if he loved my sibling more than me. God not wanting intimacy with me shatters the entire reason for my existence from now until eternity. Whyelse exist? I do not think that there is any other reason that would be worth it. I am understanding that it is just hurt feelings here though and maybe God really does want intimacy with me. Or does He really only want that with religious? Maybe He does love them more? I am so confused. I do not want to be difficult. It is just that I am so sad about this. I will try to drop this subject soon. What exactly does the Church mean by intimacy with God?

I believe that God wants intimacy with all his children. I believe that the doctrine on religious life is being taken to mean something negative for the laity, which is not its intent at all. Along with that doctrine there is also the doctrine on the universal call to holiness.

What I see, not in your case, but in others, is that some people believe that we are all the same and that all things are equal. That’s what the Church is saying is not accurate. When the Council of Trent said that those who would say that the married life was superior to the consecrated celibate life were to be anathema, the Council was trying to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen again.

That misunderstanding was then and is again the idea that the celibate life and marriage are of equal value. The Church is trying to clarify that this statement is not supported by scripture nor by tradition. However, the Church has never said that indviduals, married or celibate, are more or less loved by God or more or less desired by God.

My simple, maybe simplistic, way of explaining it is to use a very worldly image. You have one person who has a job that pays $1,000,000.00 per year and the other person who has the job that pays $50,000.00 per year. The first job is more desireable. But that is not a statement about the employees in the two different positions. The statement is simply about the two positions. The employee who makes $50,000.00 may be a more honest, harder working, and more talented person than the other. That makes him more valuable to his company than the employee with the higher paying salary who may be less talented, a little sly, and a clock-watcher. He got the job because he looked promising, but once he got in, he dropped the ball and is not living up to the expectations.

The same applies to the teaching in scripture about celibacy and marriage. Celibacy is the more desireable of the two vocations. But that’s a statement about the two states in life, not about the individuals. There are cellibate people who are very holy men and women. There are also those who should not be there at all. There are married people who are holy and committed spouses and parents. There are others who put little or no effort into their marriage.

In the end, what benefit is it to the person to be in one state or the other, regardless of which is more desireable? The benefit really depends on the person’s fidelity. The more faithful one is to one’s state in life, the closer one is to God. God does not ask for perfection, he asks for fidelity.

If you are faithful in your state in life, there is nothing to be sad about. Fidelity comes through the presence of grace in our lives and at the same time, the more faithful we are the more grace we receive. What is the definition of grace? Grace is the working of the God in our lives. That’s intimacy. Grace is the expression of God’s intimacy with us. He gives it freely and we can earn more if we respond to it faithfully.

Does that make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF