Question about the Jesuit vow of poverty

[Don_Ruggero]

Jesuits–like most women and men religious these days–are mature adults and treated as such. The member works out a budget in discernment with the community. Obviously, the budget for a professor is going to be different from that for a retired person, or for someone whose ministry does not involve books, travel, etc. But the idea behind the vow of poverty is not to be attached to goods, or to be into materialism.

Precisely.

I don’t know a single modern religious who asks for money to buy a pair of pants, for instance!

Exactly.

 

[nunsuch]

I am affiliated with a religious congregation of sisters in which virtually everyone has at least a Masters degree, and in which new members are (in addition to whatever other credentials they may have or pursue) expected to do graduate work in theology. The idea behind this is that the sisters are to be qualified for the ministries they carry out in the name of the community. This is hardly a violation of the vow of poverty; it is using the gifts God has given to the sisters and the community to the greatest extent possible. Once a sister begins working in a ministry, she discerns a personal budget with her Mission Counselor (a member of the leadership Council). But her salary itself goes to the congregation. Some people obviously need larger budgets than others, but no one lives extravagantly or without mindfulness. If you think that the vow of poverty is some sort of penury, then you really need to learn more about the vows!

Similarly, obedience doesn’t mean mindlessly following orders. It means listening to the voice of God–through prayer, through mutual discernment with one’s community, through lectio divina–and being obedient to God. This is a challenging responsibility–much more difficult, in fact, than mindlessly following orders (which is actually very easy, if not necessarily wise). Again, there is so much that has been written on the vows; if you are interested in pursuing religious life, you should read some of it. In any event, no one takes vows these days without rigorous and serious prayer and study about what they mean.

 

[nunsuch]

People in formation are Novices, not “novitiates.” And I would be astonished if their stipends went to a parish. They would go to the religious order or congregation.

 

[F_Marturana]

I remember a Jesuit priest explaining it this way. An individual priest doesn’t own anything. All his monetary possessions go to the order.

His father didn’t want him to be a priest and told him he’d disinherit him if he did. The son told him he couldn’t keep the inheritance anyway.

 

[jack63]

if you are interested in pursuing religious life, you should read some of it. In any event,no one takes vows these days without rigorous and serious prayer and study about what they mean.

I totally agree. I in no way mean to put down or criticize the vows you take. Taking them can and should be a deeply noble thing. No doubt the novices understand the vows really well before they take them.

If you think that the vow of poverty is some sort of penury, then you really need to learn more about the vows!

I know it means the order pools resources rather than any member is destitute. I get that.

People in formation are Novices, not “novitiates.”

See…I didn’t know that…I’m not a priest, Jesuit, pastor, or bishop hiding behind a screen name. I try to be a good catholic…I wasn’t raised catholic. I converted…it is a long story…which I’m not going to talk about online. However, I sometimes feel like I have a lot of catching up to do the Catholic church’s deep 2000 year old wisdom and traditions…honestly it is one of the things that attracted me. Sometimes I question things that perhaps a person raised catholic would not question…

…like the vow of poverty for religious orders.

For example, a religious order pools resources and discerns a budget and mission for an individual member. Is this the right model to spread the gospel? For example the pope (I think he is great and deeply wise…even the criticism I read of him only make me like him more) wants to have a debate about using viri probati in Brazil because of a significant priest shortage…people in the amazon are leaving the catholic church because the rarely see priests. Basically, the pope wants to have a debate about whether families who have certainly not taken a vow of poverty and are not celibate could do a job that nobody else in the catholic church is doing. 100-200 years ago this would the job of the Jesuits. Today in some of some of the coolest, wealthiest cities in the US with the most exciting cultural events and best food you’ll find a lot of Jesuit priests…e.g. Seattle, Minneapolis, Ann Arbor, Boston, Washington DC, New Orleans etc…this weighs on me. On another hand, I know Jesus came to rich and poor alike, so I’m not putting the Jesuits down for being in these places.

Second, Jesuits have been calling for married priests for years. In the days of JPII, they would get censored. They’re still calling for it. Am I really to believe it would not apply to their order? A married couple can’t pool resources with other married couples. It is not a good model.

 

[HeDa]

The Jesuits are one of the largest religious orders for males within the Catholic church. They work where they are needed as in parishes, schools, refugee camps, research, newspapers and magazines, ethical teaching at public hospitals etc etc etc.

A convert who has been taught well, will know more about the Catholic faith, than someone who hasn’t received any more since they received the Sacrament of Confirmation X decades ago. It could be a bit overwhelming to catch up on 2000 years of teaching and history

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’m not quite sure why the idea of the Jesuits discussing optional celibacy for diocesan priests bothers you so much. In any case, if the Catholic Church were to do this, we would probably follow the model used by the Orthodox. They have married priests. They also have members of religious orders – they are two different callings. Their bishops come from the ranks of the religious orders.

 

[jack63]

I’m not quite sure why the idea of the Jesuits discussing optional celibacy for diocesan priests bothers you so much.

It does bother me because I don’t believe they are referring to just diocesan priests. I believe they are discussing massively changing their order. Any person not well versed in Catholicism who hears a catholic priest say “Catholic priests should be married” will immediately think “this specific catholic priest would like to get married or would have liked to have been married”.

Any link that would clarify this point would be very helpful.

 

[nunsuch]

There are no “links” that can help here. What you need to understand is the difference between secular and religious order priests. Even if the discipline (and it is a discipline, not a dogma) on celibate clergy were changed, it would NOT apply to members of religious congregations. They all take vows of chastity–which means remaining chaste according to one’s state of life. For a religious, that means promising never to marry. Any source on religious life will explain that.

So, even if some Jesuits (hardly all) might propose re-thinking priestly celibacy, it would not apply to them, or to members of other religious orders. It would only apply to secular priests. And, as Suscipe indicated, they would probably adopt a policy like that of the Eastern churches–that one could marry only before ordination, not after.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Here’s a question – maybe too early to narrow it to the Jesuits? Have you thought about Dominicans, Holy Cross brothers, Benedictines, Franciscans, etc? Maybe you would feel more at home in another order? They certainly have academics as well.

 

[jack63]

Here’s a question – maybe too early to narrow it to the Jesuits? Have you thought about Dominicans, Holy Cross brothers, Benedictines, Franciscans, etc? Maybe you would feel more at home in another order? They certainly have academics as well.

A good point. This conversation has emphasized to me that much more research is needed on my part. Of course becoming a Deacon is also a possibility at some point in my life too or an oblate with a specific order.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Jack63,
It seems like you have bee giving it a lot of thought!
I hope the way becomes clear to you soon - - maybe just try it, and see what happens?
Good luck - - God bless you. I think you have a lot to offer the world and the church. I bet any order would be thrilled to have you join - - or maybe God has another plan for you!

 

[jack63]

From today’s ash Wednesday reading Joel 2:12-18…

"Rend your heart, not your garments…

For whatever it is worth, rending the heart seems far less complicated and easier to do in this case. The garments are what make things complicated.

 

[jack63]

I reflected on this conversation and did more research.

First, I really do think that all of my gifts whether it be education, wealth, my time, etc are at their core gifts from god that should be freely given. At the same time I think of the prayer by Thomas Merton

“My Lord God,
I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.

I cannot know for certain where it will end.
Nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think that I am following
your will does not mean that I am actually doing so………”

The point is, at the very least, you must think very carefully and pray about how you choose to give your gifts.

With all of that being said, I am even more bothered by a high ranking Jesuit discussing married priests. It is not that I don’t agree with him. In fact, I agree with him, and I think it would be great to have married Jesuit priests and Diocesan priests. I learned this was specifically discussed in in Jesuit general congregations in the 60’s and 70’s. Married Jesuit members are very much on the table and have been so for a while.

The issue is that if this is not thought through really well, this type of change could potentially really hurt the order’s members because the vow of poverty would have to change. It may not make much of a difference in a more socialist country, but in the US this would be a major issue. My hope is that the next high ranking Jesuit to discuss this tries to clarify how this might apply to his order.

PS: I still deeply admire the Jesuits. You have examples like Pedro Arrupe and his fellow Jesuits being the first to enter Hiroshima after it was hit by an atomic bomb to care for the dying. This happened after Arrupe was held by the Japanese for nearly a month, denied communion and interrogated constantly. Wow!

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Well, you could observe this and see where it goes. Change like this in the church can take quite a while to go into effect.

 

[runningdude]

You wouldn’t receive an inheritance. If someone left you one it would go to the order, but knowing that most people probably wouldn’t leave it to you.

You could also “bypass” your inheritance, so that it would go to your heirs rather than the order if you so choose. It would never be your assets, so their would be no obligation to yield it to the order.

 

[jack63]

You could also “bypass” your inheritance, so that it would go to your heirs rather than the order if you so choose. It would never be your assets, so their would be no obligation to yield it to the order.

Yes…I thought about something like that. I trust can skip a generation. However, whatever I do needs to be sincere. As some of the responses pointed out, if I go in and don’t handle this in a sincere way, it would effect my outlook or my potential success through a formation. There is certainly some truth to those comments.

Well, you could observe this and see where it goes. Change like this in the church can take quite a while to go into effect.

Actually, while I see what your saying, I think I disagree. If the Latin rite allows married priests to be ordained in Brazil, I think the flood gates are open…basically forever…

This is another article I liked and read…man if people knew “I” was reading this stuff…oh well…

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...-will-the-2019-synod-discuss-married-priests/

There was one part I found interesting.

In his latest interview, Bishop Kräutler says he thinks the synod might look at “the proposal of the emeritus bishop Fritz Lobinger”. Bishop Lobinger has suggested that local “elders”, or “viri probati”, might be ordained to celebrate Mass and the sacraments. In this vision, there would be “two different forms of priesthood”: the viri probati would not receive seminary education, could marry, and would be “as distinct as possible” from priests.

If the Jesuits did something like this, I would very interested. My only concern is that maybe some “shortened” seminary like education would be useful for “viri probati” rather than no seminary education. To make a very “worldly” comparison…It would be like the difference between a young man getting a real MBA versus an older man getting an executive MBA. They are both educated in some ways similarly, but the education prepares the older priest for a different type of role and takes the reality of his life into account.

 

[dochawk]

The abolition of the celibate discipline is unorthodox.

Why are you spreading this contradiction of Catholic teaching on a Catholic website? It simply is not true, or is so misstated as to be misleading.

Celibacy is not chastity, nor has it ever been. Since the First Century, celibacy has been a matter of not marrying after orders. Depending upon church, this was for the Diaconate or sub-Diaconate and higher.

The suggestions, including from those in religious orders, for a return to the ordination of married men (not for the marriage of priests) are for the “secular” diocesan priests, not the religious orders (for which there is no historical precedent for joining while married, save for certain cases of the spouses living apart for this purpose after the children are raised.

The unbroken Tradition in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches is that married clergy is the norm (at least until fairly recently, and possibly still, the Russian Orthodox would not ordain an unmarried man as a non-monastic priest).

Western theology is quite clear that an unmarried clergy is a matter of discipline, not theology (again, this is for the diocesan priests, not the monasteries and orders, for whom marriage would make no sense).

As long as I’m at it . . . .

“Poverty” is generally different for the orders and the diocesan priests, being “personal poverty” for the orders, and actually owning nothing. By comparison, it is typical for a diocesan priest to own his car and receive a salary.

Universal celibacy in the west is not as recent as most think; it wasn’t actually mandatory until the eleventh or twelfth century, although it had been the norm for centuries by then. Concubines remained all too common even then . . .

I spent eight years in Jesuit schools, and celibacy is the only reason I didn’t enter their seminary.

I recall in high school that the principal had not yet taken final vows; he did it while we were there.

As for the original question, if giving up the property is a problem, an order is probably not the right way to go. The vow of poverty involves giving up these concerns.

hawk

 

[jack63]

Thanks for the response…

religious orders (for which there is no historical precedent for joining while married

Agreed.

The suggestions, including from those in religious orders, for a return to the ordination of married men (not for the marriage of priests) are for the “secular” diocesan priests, not the religious orders

Don’t agree. Would it be helpful to provide references? I’m not here to win an argument or to play “Gotcha!”. However, I can provide references that this was, at least initially discussed in the the Jesuit general congregations from the 60s and 70s. Perhaps I am missing something or taking something out of context in what I’ve read. It will take me a while to dig this up.

(again, this is for the diocesan priests, not the monasteries and orders, for whom marriage would make no sense).

I agree and disagree. I agree for monastic orders this makes no sense. I understand the Jesuits are not a monastic order. They are educators, researchers, and missionaries. Married couples and married men, in many cases, have clear advantages in these areas.

 

[Crocus]

Bishop Lobinger has suggested that local “elders”, or “viri probati”, might be ordained to celebrate Mass and the sacraments. In this vision, there would be “two different forms of priesthood”: the viri probati would not receive seminary education, could marry, and would be “as distinct as possible” from priests.

If the Jesuits did something like this, I would very interested.

My understanding of the proposal is that the “viri probati,” would be recruited from among local elders already in the community. Their role would be to provide sacraments not otherwise available due to lack of regular ordained priests; an exceptional accommodation created to serve a unique situation. There is a reason the two different forms would be as distinct as possible.

You presumably would not fit the criteria for this exceptional role.