Religious obedience

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

When I said that you would not like this part, I was not trying to pick on you. You know this. You know me well. What I was referring to is precissely what you’re saying about how the two families have evolved.

The Carmelites have evolved toward collegiality. Franciscans are much more linear. Francis is the Holy Father and all of his successors are Ministers whose service to the fraternity is to guide us according to the vision and commands of the Holy Father, because the Holy Father is the Perfect Christian, which we all aspire to be.

Francis did like dialogue. He consulted a great deal with hsi subordinates. But he always made it very clear that he was Father (not in the clericall sense, because Francis was a layman). He was the patriarch. He did not give up that role, even when he resigned from the office of General Minister or when priests and bishops joined the order. He was their father and they were simply Brother N.

We’re probably one of the few religious families who at one point has a General Minister and a Father who trumped the superior general. While Francis no longer governed the order, because he was too sick to do so, the General Minister was bound to obey him, because it was in the rule. The brothers and sisters were bound to obey the General Minister. Francis sent them direction and guidance through the Minister.

To this day, we have some dialogue, but we have not lost the Patriarchy. Is there such a word?

In other words, when in doubt, “What would Francis do? What would Francis command us? How would Francis use this opportunity to become more like Christ?”

When I made that statement, I was pointing out the differences in vocations. Carmelites don’t use Albert as the teacher. He is the Law Giver. Your Priors can expand the options according to their discretion.

For us, Francis is Fahter and teacher. Dialogue has boundaries. The conclusions must be consistent with the way to Christ that Francis teaches and commands. We don’t contradict the Father and teacher, because he has proven himself to be the Mirror of Perfection.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I understand now. Thanks for the clarification, at least in my mind.

I did discern with the Franciscans. The WI Province of the OFMs as they have the Byzantine Franciscans, but your strict view of poverty and possibly this would have caused me problems, as I see it now. I did not see it then I just knew I was not called there and was called to the Carmelties.

I marvel at times at the way the Holy Spirit works in our lives when we are open to it.

 

[JReducation]

St. Catherine of Siena on obedience…

Catherine again brings out that theme. Obedience is pleasing to God and man, even more so when authority is mistaken. That kind of obedience is heroic.

She also repeats what Francis and Dominic has said before her. The pope must be obeyed, even if he’s a devil, because his the Vicar and the holder of the keys. The pope would have to command us to sin to justfiy disobedience. This is what Catherine is saying.

In the original Latin, it actually refers to the insanity of authority. In other words, not all people in authority have a full bag of chips, but that does not take away thei right to govern.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I understand now. Thanks for the clarification, at least in my mind.

I did discern with the Franciscans. The WI Province of the OFMs as they have the Byzantine Franciscans, but your strict view of poverty and possibly this would have caused me problems, as I see it now. I did not see it then I just knew I was not called there and was called to the Carmelties.

I marvel at times at the way the Holy Spirit works in our lives when we are open to it.

I looked at the Carmelites, both O’Carm and OCD, because of my love for Teresa. The woman drives me. But I could not feel comfortable with three choices of cereal for breakfast and a brotherhood where the brothers are not equal.

When I went to the Caps the fist two things that struck me about them was that they had no choices for meals and you had to ask who was a cleric and who was a non-cleric. The focus was on poverty and obedience, not on the priesthood or on the apostolate. Poverty and obedience are two side of one coin and Francis makes them goals, not means.

In Carmel they are a means to the contemplative life. In Franciscanism, the contemplative life leads to perfect obedience and perfect poverty.

It’s wonderful how the Holy Spirit leads some from north to south and others from south to north and everyone ends up in the same place.

The key is to obey by being where God wants you to be. This applies to laity as well. Often, lay people think of obedience as a promise that diocesan priests make or vows that religious make. Obedience is a way of life that was modeled for us by Christ and his mother.

Religious simply vow to live as Christ and his mother. This does not mean that the laity is not called to the same life. The difference between us is that the religious makes a covenant with God and the Church to obey as Christ and his mother obeyed. Covenant or not, everyone is called to do the same.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I looked at the Carmelites, both O’Carm and OCD, because of my love for Teresa. The woman drives me. But I could not feel comfortable with three choices of cereal for breakfast and a brotherhood where the brothers are not equal.

Nice, you have a great memory Brother!

We have made great strides in becoming a true brotherhood of brothers. Especially with the “younger” members.

Just a note: Younger is in quotes because while I will be turning 44 next year I am considered a “young” member of the order because I have few years in the vowed life. As to that, I am the “youngest” member in the house even though there is a friar who is 9 years younger than me.

 

[JReducation]

Nice, you have a great memory Brother!

We have made great strides in becoming a true brotherhood of brothers. Especially with the “younger” members.

Just a note: Younger is in quotes because while I will be turning 44 next year I am considered a “young” member of the order because I have few years in the vowed life. As to that, I am the “youngest” member in the house even though there is a friar who is 9 years younger than me.

Younger is a relative term. One may be younger in the religious life and older in years. This actually impacts on obedience. Sometimes, it’s a challenge taking orders form one who is young enough to be your son.

I was the superior until the Feast of Penetecost, last year. I was glad when my term was over. It’s the hardest job in the world. But the funniest thing happened. The man elected to be my superior was one of my students when he was in theology and I flunked him. He had to take my class twice. Now, this kid is my superior.

I know this happens to the laity as well. How often do laymen have to work for a younger boss? That boss has a divine right to obedience. He is in a legitimate position of authority and as long as he does not command sin, justice requires that you obey. Afterall, he pays your salary.

The Fathers were very clear on this point. Obedience was all about justice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[santodomingo]

Thank you Brother JR for those beautiful posts!

All I can say is that you must be a very special person if you can live up to Francis´ standard of obedience. When I read what you had to say on blind obedience it sent a chill through my spine. Is it just me, or is this really scary? Being bound like this to another human being is a BIG thing. I can understand why a monk I knew once told me that by far the hardest vow to fulfull is that of obedience.

 

[JReducation]

Obedience is like anything else. There are going to be different perceptions. Our Franciscan family is huge, probably the largest in the Church, if you combine all of the orders and congregations that make up the family. There are over one million Franciscan men and women around the world. Every Franciscan is going to feel differently about obedience. For example, Francis was much more demanding on the men than he was on the women. You will find that Franciscan sisters and nuns have much more flexibility than friars do. For one thing, Francis allowed Franciscan women to govern themselves. He wrote a rule for them and cut them loose. Within a year after his death, Mother Clare had rewritten the rule, because she felt that it was too lenient on poverty. He wrote a rule for the secular order. Their rule also is rather interesting, because he commands them to live a life of penance. They were the first secular order ever founded. No one had ever thought of that concept. Francis bound them under some rather strict rules.

Aside from the fasting, abstinence, life of prayer and Christian virtue that they are commanded to live, they were ordered not to take up arms for any nation, not even in defense of their own nation. He forbade allegiances. They could not pledge allegiance to their own nations or their own flags, nor could they make oaths. This frustrated the monarchs of the time. Many men and women joined the Secular Order of Penance. They could not be relied upon to serve in the army, to take oaths in court or to swear allegiance to their country. But this was a calculated move on Francis’ part. He was determined to bring some semblance of peace to the world. If he could not bring the world to peace by preaching, he would do it by decimating its armies. It actually worked. Many small feudal kingdoms and city-states had to stop their fighting, because they could not defend themselves or attack each other. They did not have the army, nor would the Secular Franciscans pay the taxes to pay mercenaries. That’s how strong a hold Francis had on his secular sons and daughters. It wasn’t until about the 1400s when the Catholics were needed to defend France. That’s how, the Secular Franciscan Joan of Arc was able to join the army.

Here is an interesting note. Joan cross-dressed even when she was not in battle. The Rule actually allowed Franciscan women to cross-dress. There were many arguments about this, because some held that scripture condemned such a thing. The papacy supported it on the grounds that the reasons for the biblical condemnation and the Franciscan approval were very different, but shared a common end. While scripture condemned cross-dressing, because it was a common behavior among pagans engaged in all kinds of sexual perversions, Joan and other Secular Franciscan women cross-dressed as a means of discouraging male attention in order to preserve their chastity. They wore men’s clothing or habits similar to that of the friars, with their hair was cut very short and exposed, no veils. This had been approved by Francis. What Francis and Paul had in mind was the preservation of chastity. Obedience, not only commands and binds, but it also unbinds from different rules and disciplines for a more noble purpose.

What Francis teaches us is that the proper role of obedience is not to control, but to protect man’s innocence. Therefore, there are times when authority must reign in, but there are other times when authority must allow as much slack as possible to achieve the greater good. If we pay attention to this, being in any position of authority, ecclesial or secular, is a grave moral responsibility if one has his heart set on exercising authority with an Evangelical Spirit. What Francis taught religious and civil leaders was to imitate the Christ’s exercise of authority. It is Jesus who becomes indignant with the thieves who passed themselves off as tax-collectors and merchants in the temple, while all the time they were just exploiting the poor. He cuts them no slack. But it is also Jesus to tells the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, because those who wanted to persecute her were committing a grave act of injustice. The Deutorocanonical Law said that both parties should be stoned. Here was the woman, but where was her partner? In light of this unjust application of the law, Christ dispenses her from the punishment. Francis looks at these behaviors in Christ. He not only learns to obey as Christ obeyed, but he also learned to govern as Christ governed. He imparted this teaching to civil and ecclesial authority.

 

[JReducation]

In writing to civil authority he has this to say to the leaders of nations, ** To all podestàs, and consuls, judges and governors, in whatever part of the world, and to all others to whom this letter may come, Brother Francis, your little and contemptible servant, wishes health and peace to you. Consider and see that the day of death draws nigh. I ask you, therefore, with such reverence as I can, not to forget the Lord because of the cares and solicitudes of this world and not to turn aside from His commandments, for all those who forget Him and decline from His commandments are cursed and they shall be forgotten by Him. **

This is extremely important for Catholics today, especially American and European Catholics. We have a mistaken notion that the Church and religious should not involve themselves in politics or tell the State what to do or not to do. What Francis teaches us by his letters and sermons to the rulers of his time is just the opposite. Consecrated religious have a right to tell the government how to behave. Observe, that in this citation, Francis is not speaking to one level of government. He begins with the podestas (rulers) and goes right down the line to everyone involved in the exercise of civil law. He reminds them they their day of death will come and if they forget the their faith, because they’re too busy with the matters of the world (secular affairs) and they turn away from God’s commandments, they shall be cursed and God will forget them at their hour of death.

Francis, exercises authority over civil rulers. He commands them to comply with the faith, with the commandments and to avoid being distracted by secularism. They are to govern by faith, not by the concerns of the world. He threatens them with eternal damnation if they disobey. However, Francis was a very holy man. He always approached, even secular authority with great reverence, as you can see in his greeting. He acknowledge the legitimate authority of the secular state. However, he denied that the state had the right to replace the faith with the concerns of the world. In today’s language, the state does not have the right to replace the law of God with the law of the voters. There is a line that the state may not cross and if it does, it is those in political power who will be damned to hell, not the citizens.

We see a Francis who teaches us to obey as Christ obeyed, without question, without resentment, even when authority is mistaken. But we also see a Francis who teaches us to govern as Christ governed, with compassion for those who are being abused and with severity for those who are responsible for their citizens. He did not tolerate fools gladly and was quick to put a curse on someone who failed to comply with what he commanded. He commanded absolute obedience from the governed. However, he commanded perfect faith and justice from those who responsible for governing.

Contrary to our American mentality, he always taught his sons and daughters that they have every right to intervene in the affairs of the state, whenever the state fails to comply with the scriptures and with ecclesial authorities. Through the centuries, there have been explosive confrontations between Franciscans and civil governments. In Latin America, the Franciscans threatened to deny absolution and Holy Communion to any white man who abused an Indian. They later asked the Dominican theologians to write a defense for the Indians to send to the King of Spain. The Dominicans did so. The great Bartolome de las Casas argued that the treatment of the white man toward the Native Americans was barbaric, because they forced Baptism on the Indians by threatening to take things away from them. They also tried to steal land from the Indians, which the Dominicans argued that the white man had no right to claim as his own. While the Dominicans were writing, at the request of the Franciscans, the Franciscans were buffering by threatening the governors with excommunication. The Franciscans and Dominicans saved the Latin American Indian from extinction, which the Protesants were unable or unwilling to do in the USA.

The Spanish and Portuguese governors argued that the friars had no jurisdiction, because these were not ecclesial matters. The friars argued that it was their duty to act in the same manner as their Father, which was to remind the state of its moral duty before God. The Franciscans went as far as imposing on the white laity to refuse to pay taxes to the governors until the governors acted as Catholics.

Obedience, has always been the special vocation of the Franciscan. But it has always been coupled with poverty. One obeys, because one own nothing, not even his will. One governs with justice and according to the law of God, because the ruler has a debt with God. Both the ruler and the governed are poor. This points back to Christ Crucified. As God he is ruler. As man, he is the governed. But the God-Man is truly poor. He obeys and fulfills the Will of the Father. Powerful stuff.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

I believe in Hungary? Is that correct Laszlo?

Yes, I forget to tell it, for me that is the past.

As a matter of fact with the exception of Poland all over the Communist block the religious orders were dissolved. The communists were extremely afraid of the spiritual power what the vows and especially the obedience represent.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I forget to tell it, for me that is the past.

As a matter of fact with the exception of Poland all over the Communist block the religious orders were dissolved. The communists were extremely afraid of the spiritual power what the vows and especially the obedience represent.

Hi Laszlo . . . I think you may be confusing disbanded and dissolved. Only the keeper of the Keys can dissolve (suppress) a monastery, a religious order, a secular order, a congretion, a clerical society or a secular institute. Even the founder cannot dissolve it, nor can a bishop or an army of bishops.

What happened in many countries was that the religious were disbanded by the government. In other words, their houses were taken away from them and they had to disperse. The order continues to exist. The individual religious continue to be a religious.

The Holy Father has several options. The one he chooses will depend on different factors.

1. He can allow the community to exist underground.
2. He can allow the religious to join other houses in countries where they’re welcome, if they can leave. It’s not always possible to leave the country, especially Communist countries.
3. He can suspend the vows. The religious can live as laymen and if ever the conditions are right, the vows kick in again, because they are suspended not dispensed.
4. He can dispense the vows, honorably, so that if the person wants to marry or later join another community, or whatever she or he wants to do, it can be done without canonical complications.

But these choices can only be made by the Pontiff, because he does this under a very special title that is rarely used, The Keeper of the Keys, meaning that he can bind and unbind, lock and unlock. If he disbands the institute, he is unlocking it and it ceases to exist. The canonical term for disbanding is suppressing.

In the Communist countries only the national religious communities were suppressed by the pope. If you had a religious order that existed only in Yugoslavia, then it was suppressed by the pope. It ceased to exist. The government made its existence impossible. The pope suppresses it.

The international religious communities had a different scenario. We could not be suppressed. The Soviets could disband the Jesuits, but those Jesuits continue to be Jesuits. The pope cannot suppress the Jesuits, because they exist in other countries. If he decrees that the Jesuits are suppressed, the entire Society of Jesus is suddenly gone, all 18,000 of them. What the pope does is he suppresses only that region of the Society of Jesus. He would say that the Yugoslav province no longer exists, but the Yugoslav Jesuits continue to be Jesuits and are bound to live the Jesuit life. When possible, they must leave Yugoslavia and find a Jesuit house.

This happened in Cuba. The Cuban government allowed the religious to leave. They were reassigned all over the world.

In the Soviet Union, there are very few Catholic religious, because most of the Catholics in the Soviety Block were Eastern Catholics. There are very few orders that have Eastern Catholics. Most of the religious in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches are monks. Many of the monasteries were allowed to exist, but with all kinds of restrictioins. Some of them died by atrition, because they were not allowed to accept new members.

For example, there are Eastern Catholic Franciscans. They are part of the same Franciscan family as the Roman Catholic Franciscans. They are the Friars Minor Observants (OFM). They managed to leave the Soviet Block and establish themselves in the USA. The General Minister of the Order is a Roman Catholic, but he still governs the Eastern Catholic Franciscans.

The government can cause a community to disband, but it does not have the power to dissolve it. To dissolve it means that it is suppressed. It ceases to exist. Governments do not have the Divine authority to do that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

Hi Laszlo . . . I think you may be confusing disbanded and dissolved. Only the keeper of the Keys can dissolve (suppress) a monastery, a religious order, a secular order, a congretion, a clerical society or a secular institute. Even the founder cannot dissolve it, nor can a bishop or an army of bishops.

Any mortal power is limited. Some quarter of the religious were imprisoned or sent to internal exile, the rest were expelled to their houses. In short term those who wanted to keep connection with each other were imprisoned. Slow change came after 1953, again a strengthening of the power between 1956 and 1958, again once in 1962. Any dictature needs enemies.

Their houses were restored after 1990. The bottom line, that those who were obedient to their superiors had greater chance for the survival, than those who wanted to go in their own way.

This is experimental finding, not theoretical. I believe that the prior or abbot does not know better what is to be done is a given extreme situation than others, but God stands with his decision, and His grace is more important than our wisdom.

 

[JReducation]

Any mortal power is limited. Some quarter of the religious were imprisoned or sent to internal exile, the rest were expelled to their houses. In short term those who wanted to keep connection with each other were imprisoned. Slow change came after 1953, again a strengthening of the power between 1956 and 1958, again once in 1962. Any dictature needs enemies.

Their houses were restored after 1990. The bottom line, that those who were obedient to their superiors had greater chance for the survival, than those who wanted to go in their own way.

This is experimental finding, not theoretical. I believe that the prior or abbot does not know better what is to be done is a given extreme situation than others, but God stands with his decision, and His grace is more important than our wisdom.

I’m unsure what you’re trying to say. I was simply responding to the statement “the government disbanded the religious orders” by explaining that governments cannot do that. They can disperse them, but not dispand them. Only the pope can do that.

What happened in Communist countries was not so simple. Many of these men were dispensed from their vows, because they could not fulfill their commitment without a community. The popes issued dispensations. They may have appeared to go their own way, but the truth is that they were given permission to do so and to make a new life for themselves.

Others were not given dispensations, because there were other alternatives. They could go underground or they could leave the country.

These men did not ask for the dispensations. The pope imposed them as an act of charity. The Church does not want to keep anyone bound to something where they will fail through no fault of their own. To be bound to live the fraternal life without a fraternity is illogical. The popes would dispense such a person, not at his or her request. It would be imposed as an act of charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Superiors may not be the confessors or spiritual directors of their subordinates. Their jurisdiction must be in external affairs.

Hmmm… is that explicity taught in general? Because although I am not in a religious order, my parish pastor is my superior to whom I am obliged to obey (as is my bishop and pope) (external forum), but any of these clerics could also be my confessor (internal forum). Yet, neither of these priest must be my confessor, as I have other options. Would it be incorrect for the bishop to be my confessor and the ordinary to whom I am bound to obey?

 

[JReducation]

Hmmm… is that explicity taught in general? Because although I am not in a religious order, my parish pastor is my superior to whom I am obliged to obey (as is my bishop and pope) (external forum), but any of these clerics could also be my confessor (internal forum). Yet, neither of these priest must be my confessor, as I have other options. Would it be incorrect for the bishop to be my confessor and the ordinary to whom I am bound to obey?

It would be contrary to canon law if you had made a vow of obedience to either of them. Otherwise, they are not your canonical superiors. They are authorities in all matters that pertain to the Church, not to your daily life. A diocesan priest can go to confession to his pastor. It’s not advisable. But there is nothing against it in Canon Law. The diocesan clergy do not make vows of obedience. They make a promise to obey the bishop, but only in matters that affect the diocese, not in personal matters. The bishop cannot tell them that they cannot go to a movie. Whereas, a superior can tell you that you may not go outside without permission. I had a superior who had a rule very close to this. We could not step off the grounds without his permission. We were allowed as far as the fence. Permission was a given for school or for ministry. For anything else, even a walk, you had to ask. I had another who required that you show him your mail before sending it out. A bishop cannot require such obedience of diocesan priests. They are not consecrated men. They are priests. It’s a whole other world.

You are safe. Unless your confessor and your are religious and he is your superior, you have no problems.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[laszlo]

I’m unsure what you’re trying to say. I was simply responding to the statement “the government disbanded the religious orders” by explaining that governments cannot do that. They can disperse them, but not dispand them. Only the pope can do that.

I used the word dissolved. You disliked it, corrected me that they were disbanded, now you don’t like the word disbanded neither.

Dissolve: a : to cause to disperse or disappear : destroy <do not dissolve and deface the laws of charity — Francis Bacon> b : to separate into component parts : disintegrate c : to bring to an end : terminate d : annul

Meaning a./ and b./ apply to what happened.

The Latins were right: 'De gustibus et nominibus nos est disputandum. ’

 

[JReducation]

I used the word dissolved. You disliked it, corrected me that they were disbanded, now you don’t like the word disbanded neither.

Dissolve: a : to cause to disperse or disappear : destroy <do not dissolve and deface the laws of charity — Francis Bacon> b : to separate into component parts : disintegrate c : to bring to an end : terminate d : annul

Meaning a./ and b./ apply to what happened.

The Latins were right: 'De gustibus et nominibus nos est disputandum. ’

It’s not that I like it or don’t like it. I should explain that I’m reading this through the eyes of a religious superior, which I was. Canonically, those words have different meanings than they do in the secular world.

No temporal government or ecclesial authority can make a religious or secular order dissolve, disappear or terminate it. Only the pope can do that. That’s how I was reading the language.

A civil government can do whatever it needs to do to send the order in all directions, but the order continues to exist. The jurisdiction also continues to exist, even if there are no representatives of the community present.

For a long time, there was the Franciscan Province of Jerusalem, but there were no friars in Jerusalem until Francis struck a deal with the Sultan. However, the jurisdiction had been erected with the permission of the pope and only the pope could cause it to cease to exist. When the time came, the friars did not need the pope’s permission to go to Jerusalem. The province already existed and its headquarters were in Jerusalem, even though they had never been occupied.

With the fall of The Wall, those religious and secular orders that still have provinces in the former Communist Block, can return without asking for permission from the local bishops or the pope. Those Provinces never ceased to exist, even though the religious were not present. The Major Superior informs the local bishop that they are returning. They negotiate what they will be doing, etc.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[floresco]

I want to discuss the significance, difficulties and limits of religious obedience. I would be especially excited to hear from those who are presently living under obedience (that doesn´t include husbands BTW!)

I realize this was a joke but if we are talking about traditional understanding of obedience wives were under obedience to husbands.

I’m coming to this discussion a bit late. Brother JR sent me.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

It’s not that I like it or don’t like it. I should explain that I’m reading this through the eyes of a religious superior, which I was.

JR, just to confirm, you are only a secular or third Order Fransican, right? According to your earlier posts, you only converted to the Church about 7 years ago after your wife died in a car accident. You stated that you are currently raising your autistic son.

So, when you say you are a “religious” you do mean simply a Third Order, or secular Franciscan, right?

 

[simple_soul]

I realize this was a joke but if we are talking about traditional understanding of obedience wives were under obedience to husbands.

I’m coming to this discussion a bit late. Brother JR sent me.

*Unfortunately I did not really “get” the joke.
I would very much like to know what the traditional understanding of a wife’s obedience to her husband is and should we still be keeping this tradition?
*

 

[floresco]

I would very much like to know what the traditional understanding of a wife’s obedience to her husband is and should we still be keeping this tradition?

Introduction to the Devout Life is addressed to a married woman. As I recall, it speaks of her obedience to her husband as a duty comparable to religious obedience. As recently as Mere Christianity (1944) C.S. Lewis wrote of the wife’s obedience as a basic tenet of Christianity that was common to all Christians.

But if people get alarmed at the idea of “blind obedience” in religious obedience, they will practically start hyper-ventilating if one talks about obedience in marriage. The concept of obedience has very negative connotations to the modern mind. Shall we predict how many posts it takes until someone says “Stepford Wives”?