Religious Orders that wear Cassocks?

[JReducation]

Hi ByzCath,

I have been looking for the Church’s definition of an “order” for a while now, and I would appreciate it if you could point me to the document with this definition…

There is no such document. The distinction comes from tradition. An order is a group of men or women who make a solemn commitment to live according to the rule and constitutions or a religious institute. A congregation makes a simple commitment to the constitutions and they do not have a rule of their own. They may follow the rule of one of the orders. For example, Mother Teresa borrowed from the Franciscan, Carmelite and Benedictine rules to write the constitutions for the Missionaries of Charity.

The newer religious communities founded after the Discalced Carmelites and Visitation Nuns are congregations. To the best of my knowledge, the Discalced Carmelites and the Visitation Nuns were the last orders founded in the Church.

Discalced Carmelites were not actually founded. They were a province of the Carmelite Order that eventually became autonomous. The original Discalced Carmelites had already made vows as Carmelites in the order, meaning St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. They follow the Rule of Carmel. That, never changed. The difference was in emphasis, not in the rule.

After this period, the religious communities that came into existence were mostly apostolic communities. They could not follow the rigorous schedule or prayer and the rigorous ascetical practices of the orders, because of their need to conserve energy and time for the active apostolate. They gathered in communities called congregations.

The great difference between an order and a congregation is the difference between simple and solemn vows.

Congregations make simple vows:

Poverty: the individual may own property and the community may own property as dictated by their constitutions.

Celibate Chastity: if the individual attempts to marry without permission, the marriage is valid and the vow is automatically suspended

Obedience: may be of Pontifical or Diocesan Right. If they are of Pontifical Right they are bound to the Holy See, if they are of Diocesan Right they are bound to the local bishop.

Liturgy of the Hours: Are not bound to pray the LOH under pain of sin.

Orders make solemn vows:

Poverty: the individual may NOT own property and in some cases neither can the community, depending on the privileges given to them by the Holy See.

Celibate Chastity: if the individual attempts to marry, the marriage is invalid, because the vow overrides the sacrament of marriage.

Liturgy of the Hours: bound to pray the LOH under pain of sin, unless otherwise dictated by Rome.

Obedience: the individual is part of an organized religious family that is always of Pontifical Right. They are bound to obey the Holy Father and are not bound to the local bishop or the local laity, with the exception of any ministry that they undertake in the name of the local bishop. In that case, the bishop has authority over the ministry, but never over the individual religious, their life style, their internal affairs or the institutions that are owned by them.

The Franciscans of the Renewal are a diocesan congregation bound to the Archbishop of New York, not to the Franciscan Council of Superiors General.

The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word are a diocesan congregation bound to the bishop of Birmingham, not to the Franciscan Council of Superiors General.

Women who are members of congregations are sisters, not nuns.

The Secular Franciscans are an order. They are of Pontifical Right and are bound to the Holy See, not to the local bishop. They have a superior general who is part of the Franciscan Council of Superiors General and must always be a secular man or woman.

Even though they are secular men and women, they make a solemn profession to follow the rule of St. Francis. Some are celibate and others are married. Some are deacons, priests, bishops and others are lay men and lay women. They also have a rule that can only be changed by the Holy Father.

The dispensation for a person to leave a congregation is granted by the Major Superior of the Congregation. The Dispensation for a person to leave an Order is granted by the Sacred Congregation for Religous and Secular Institutes with the blessing of the Holy See.

The vows of an order are considered to be a deeper commitment to the same evangelical counsels. Externally, there is little difference. The differences are more visible in terms of ownership, obedience and marriage.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[ack]

There is no such document. The distinction comes from tradition. An order is a group of men or women who make a solemn commitment to live according to the rule and constitutions or a religious institute.

.
.
.

The great difference between an order and a congregation is the difference between simple and solemn vows.

This sounds like a good definition to me.

The newer religious communities founded after the Discalced Carmelites and Visitation Nuns are congregations. To the best of my knowledge, the Discalced Carmelites and the Visitation Nuns were the last orders founded in the Church.

I don’t agree with this one. For example, the Institute of the Incarnate Word (mentioned earlier in this thread) was founded in the 1980s, but the members take solemn vows, they “make a solemn commitment to live according to the rule and constitutions of a religious institute”, and they do all the other things that you mentioned regarding religious orders. In other words, they have all the characteristics of an order. In addition, their approved constitution does use the word “order” in some places when discussing the organization of the group.

Obedience: the individual is part of an organized religious family that is always of Pontifical Right. They are bound to obey the Holy Father and are not bound to the local bishop or the local laity, with the exception of any ministry that they undertake in the name of the local bishop. In that case, the bishop has authority over the ministry, but never over the individual religious, their life style, their internal affairs or the institutions that are owned by them.

What you’re describing here might be a special case relevant to the Franciscans, but is it true for all orders? If this is true for all orders, the answer should be found somewhere in Canon Law because it deals with obedience to the bishop.

 

[ack]

Obedience: the individual is part of an organized religious family that is always of Pontifical Right. They are bound to obey the Holy Father and are not bound to the local bishop or the local laity, with the exception of any ministry that they undertake in the name of the local bishop. In that case, the bishop has authority over the ministry, but never over the individual religious, their life style, their internal affairs or the institutions that are owned by them.

After some Canon Law research, I discovered that this one IS true for all orders and religious institutes of pontifical right. (Furthermore, It goes without saying that vowed members of orders are also bound to their own superiors, as well as the Holy Father.)

 

[JReducation]

After some Canon Law research, I discovered that this one IS true for all orders and religious institutes of pontifical right. (Furthermore, It goes without saying that vowed members of orders are also bound to their own superiors, as well as the Holy Father.)

This is correct.

JR

 

[JReducation]

This sounds like a good definition to me.

I don’t agree with this one. For example, the Institute of the Incarnate Word (mentioned earlier in this thread) was founded in the 1980s, but the members take solemn vows, they “make a solemn commitment to live according to the rule and constitutions of a religious institute”, and they do all the other things that you mentioned regarding religious orders. In other words, they have all the characteristics of an order. In addition, their approved constitution does use the word “order” in some places when discussing the organization of the group.

A solemn commitment is not the same as Solemn Vows. One of the characteristics of Solemn Vows has to do with the issue of marriage. If the solemn commitment overrides the sacrament of marriage, then it is a solemn vow. It not, it is a simple vow.

What you’re describing here might be a special case relevant to the Franciscans, but is it true for all orders? If this is true for all orders, the answer should be found somewhere in Canon Law because it deals with obedience to the bishop.

This is true of all Orders with capital O.

JR

 

[ack]

ack;4891781:

I don’t agree with this one. For example, the Institute of the Incarnate Word (mentioned earlier in this thread) was founded in the 1980s, but the members take solemn vows, they “make a solemn commitment to live according to the rule and constitutions of a religious institute”, and they do all the other things that you mentioned regarding religious orders. In other words, they have all the characteristics of an order. In addition, their approved constitution does use the word “order” in some places when discussing the organization of the group.

A solemn commitment is not the same as Solemn Vows. One of the characteristics of Solemn Vows has to do with the issue of marriage. If the solemn commitment overrides the sacrament of marriage, then it is a solemn vow. It not, it is a simple vow.

Hi JR,

I’m not sure what you’re implying in your post. If a member of the Institute of the Incarnate Word attempted to marry, the attempted marriage would certainly be invalid (as it would for anyone who took perpetual a vow of chastity.) In other words, members of the institute in question do take solemn vows.

To recap my argument, many newer religious institutes exhibit some or all of the characteristics of religious orders. Therefore, I see no reason why we must forever reserve the term “order” to refer to groups founded in the medieval period, as this does not make it easier for us to grasp the substantive similarities and differences between these groups. (Especially because the taxonomy of “institutions” or “groups” in the church was completely reordered with the 1983 revision of Canon Law.)

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

I’m not sure what you’re implying in your post. If a member of the Institute of the Incarnate Word attempted to marry, the attempted marriage would certainly be invalid (as it would for anyone who took perpetual a vow of chastity.) In other words, members of the institute in question do take solemn vows.

To recap my argument, many newer religious institutes exhibit some or all of the characteristics of religious orders. Therefore, I see no reason why we must forever reserve the term “order” to refer to groups founded in the medieval period, as this does not make it easier for us to grasp the substantive similarities and differences between these groups. (Especially because the taxonomy of “institutions” or “groups” in the church was completely reordered with the 1983 revision of Canon Law.)

The taxanomy was reworked to make it easier for canon lawyers, but he rules of the Sacred Congregation for Religious remain in place.

As to solemn and simple vows. There is a difference. If the Sacred Congregation for religious accaepts that a perpetual vow of chastity invalidates any unlawful attempt to marry, then the vow is solemn. If it does not invalidate the marriage, but simply makes it illicit, then the vow is simple. That is the difference. That determination is made by the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, not by Canon Law. To the best of my knowledge the last order with solemn vows was the Visitation Order.

In addition, you have the issue of Ordinary jurisdiction. The major superiors of Orders have Ordinary jurisdiction. The major superiors of Congregations and Secular Institutes may or may not have ordinary jursidiction, depending on their status with the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. Ordinary jurisdiction means that they have all the legal authority of a bishop, though not the sacramental authority.

In addition, the members may never leave the institute without the approval of the Holy See. Such is not the case with congregations, in which the major superior may dispense from the vows. The major superiors of orders do not have the authority to dispense from vows, because they are solemn vows. Only the Holy See or the Apostolic See can dispense from those. Solemn vows are considered as binding as priestly vows of celibacy and obedience.

The Church has not changed this tradition, nor have the General Chapters of the Orders involved. The Rules and Constitutions of the Orders involved remain in effect until such time as the Holy See, not Canon Law, approves a change. To date, none of the orders have been allowed to change their status, with the exception that some have been allowed to change their status from clerical orders to lay orders, such as the Friars Minor.

Frarternally,

JR

 

[Ocarm]

The Church has not changed this tradition, nor have the General Chapters of the Orders involved. The Rules and Constitutions of the Orders involved remain in effect until such time as the Holy See, not Canon Law, approves a change. To date, none of the orders have been allowed to change their status, with the exception that some have been allowed to change their status from clerical orders to lay orders, such as the Friars Minor.

Frarternally,

JR

Thank you for your detailed answers on this and other threads. Are you saying that some Franciscan Friars have changed their status from clerical to lay order recently? I was discussing this very issue with OFMs here in the UK only recently and they made no mention of a change.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The taxanomy was reworked to make it easier for canon lawyers, but he rules of the Sacred Congregation for Religious remain in place.

As to solemn and simple vows. There is a difference. If the Sacred Congregation for religious accaepts that a perpetual vow of chastity invalidates any unlawful attempt to marry, then the vow is solemn. If it does not invalidate the marriage, but simply makes it illicit, then the vow is simple. That is the difference. That determination is made by the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, not by Canon Law. To the best of my knowledge the last order with solemn vows was the Visitation Order.

In addition, you have the issue of Ordinary jurisdiction. The major superiors of Orders have Ordinary jurisdiction. The major superiors of Congregations and Secular Institutes may or may not have ordinary jursidiction, depending on their status with the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. Ordinary jurisdiction means that they have all the legal authority of a bishop, though not the sacramental authority.

In addition, the members may never leave the institute without the approval of the Holy See. Such is not the case with congregations, in which the major superior may dispense from the vows. The major superiors of orders do not have the authority to dispense from vows, because they are solemn vows. Only the Holy See or the Apostolic See can dispense from those. Solemn vows are considered as binding as priestly vows of celibacy and obedience.

The Church has not changed this tradition, nor have the General Chapters of the Orders involved. The Rules and Constitutions of the Orders involved remain in effect until such time as the Holy See, not Canon Law, approves a change. To date, none of the orders have been allowed to change their status, with the exception that some have been allowed to change their status from clerical orders to lay orders, such as the Friars Minor.

Frarternally,

JR

Great post JR but I would change one thing. (just to muddy the waters even more )

You said, “Solemn vows are considered as binding as priestly vows of celibacy and obedience.” I would change one word.

I would make it read, “Solemn vows are considered as binding as priestly promises of celibacy and obedience.”

As secular priests (which I think you are speaking of here) do not make vows.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your detailed answers on this and other threads. Are you saying that some Franciscan Friars have changed their status from clerical to lay order recently? I was discussing this very issue with OFMs here in the UK only recently and they made no mention of a change.

Thanks in advance.

The change was in government. When the Friars Minor were founded, they were founded as a brotherhood. Every brother has a vote and the right to be elected or appointed superior at any level.

In later years, the bishops asked the Friars to take over many ministries that were ordinarily administered by diocesan priests. This required that they ordain more friars. Prior to this the number of ordained and lay friars was about 60:40. With the passing of time the number of ordained and lay friars became about 90:10.

As a result, the order gradually became an order of priests, with lay brothers who served as servants to the priests. The lay brothers lost their right to hold office, study theology, pray the Liturgy of the Hours in community, sit at the same table as the friar priests for meals, preach and teach, and do other ministries.

The friar priests lost the title Brother and became known as Father, like diocesan priests. Gradually, they were dispensed from praying with the community, eating with the community, recreating with the community and other community functions, because they had to dispense sacraments and run parishes.

In recent years, the three branches of the Friars Minor and the TOR friars, petitioned Rome to help them fix this situation and return to their original charism. Rome gave the approval. Today, all Franciscan Friars are Brothers, they all have the right to vote, hold office, study and minister. All friars are bound to pray the Liturgy of the Hours in community, recreate together, have common meals, share in manual labour, and work in other ministries that are not parish ministry.

The formation program has also recovered the ancient tradition. Men enter the Order to be friars, not to be priests. If a man wants to be a priest more than he wants to be a friar, the vocation directors refer him to the local diocese. Diocesan priests are not religious. Men who approach a Franciscan vocation director with a vocation to the priesthood, but not to religious life are directed to the secular priesthood within the diocese.

The Order is also abandoning parishes that require too much time away from community life or where the laity demand too much from the friars, not respecting that their primary vocation is to be a brotherhood to each other. This has happened a great deal. The laity often feels that they have the right to make demands on the friars as if they were ordinary parish priests, when they are not. They are religious brothers and the priesthood is one of the many vocations found within the vocation to be a Franciscan.

This change back to the roots is slow, but it is happening all around the world. It is happening much more quickly among the Capuchins and the Conventuals, because they are the smaller branches of the Friars Minor. The OFMs are very large and still have many men who have lived in this clerical model. These men are not comfortable cooking, scrubbing floors, giving up a parish to spend the day praying the Liturgy of the Hours or walking the streets picking up poor people. No one wants to do them psychological violence by forcing them to embrace a form of Franciscanism that is alien to them, even if it was the original form of the order. That would not be the charitable or fraternal thing to do. The change is comming from the younger generation.

The return to the original way of life within the fraternity, as brothers whose primary vocation is to live the Gospel as one brotherhood, in obedience, without property and in chastity is a return to the lay status, because it does away with all the distinctions between friars: priests, lawyers, teaches, cooks, nurses, social workers, catechists, and so forth. It equalizes them and levels the playing field to the point that they are no distinguishable by their clothing or by their title. The Conventuals have adopted the title Friar and the Capuchins have adopted Brother. I’m not sure what title the OFMs use. I have very little contact with OFMs.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Great post JR but I would change one thing. (just to muddy the waters even more )

You said, “Solemn vows are considered as binding as priestly vows of celibacy and obedience.” I would change one word.

I would make it read, “Solemn vows are considered as binding as priestly promises of celibacy and obedience.”

As secular priests (which I think you are speaking of here) do not make vows.

This is true. I thought that would muddy the waters and confuse some people, because everyone thinks that every priest is a religious and every religous male is a priest.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[ack]

Hello JReducation,

Where is this definition coming from? In every definition of “solemn” and “simple” vows that I’ve seen, the nature of the vows relates to the vow of poverty (renouncing property vs its use) and has nothing to do to the vow of celibacy.

It is true that the CICLSAL (not the Sacred Congregation for Religious – they haven’t been called that for decades – are you using old sources?) has the authority to decide if vows are solemn or simple, and not Canon Law. In fact, Canon Law explicitly delegates this decision (c1192 par 2)

As to solemn and simple vows. There is a difference. If the Sacred Congregation for religious accaepts that a perpetual vow of chastity invalidates any unlawful attempt to marry, then the vow is solemn. If it does not invalidate the marriage, but simply makes it illicit, then the vow is simple. That is the difference. That determination is made by the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, not by Canon Law. To the best of my knowledge the last order with solemn vows was the Visitation Order.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I find it interesting that non-religious will actually argue with religious as to what the “rules” are on being a religious.

Do you not think that we might have an inside view to this that a non-religious does not?

 

[JReducation]

Hello JReducation,

Where is this definition coming from? In every definition of “solemn” and “simple” vows that I’ve seen, the nature of the vows relates to the vow of poverty (renouncing property vs its use) and has nothing to do to the vow of celibacy.

It is both celibacy and poverty. A simple vow can be “trumped” by an illicit marriage. A solemn vow cannot. The vow remains in effect and the marriage is invalid. This comes from the CICLSAL better known by religious as the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes

It is true that the CICLSAL (not the Sacred Congregation for Religious – they haven’t been called that for decades – are you using old sources?) has the authority to decide if vows are solemn or simple, and not Canon Law. In fact, Canon Law explicitly delegates this decision (c1192 par 2)

The 1983 code did not abrogate the difference between solemn and simple vows. It left them in place according to the traditions, rule and constitutions of the religious communities. What Canon Law did was simplify the language regarding formation, election of superiors, admission to a community, and other details that affect ALL religious and secular institutes. This was done for the benefit of superiors and canon lawyers. But religious communities, to this day, still get their status from the Sacred Congregation, the Holy See or the local bishop if they are diocesan.

To know whether the community makes simple or solemn vows you must look at their constitution. They spell it out. In the case of religious institutes of Pontifical Right there is always a decree from the Holy See that establishes their status and defines their profession. For example, the Friars Minor, the Poor Clares, the Dominican Friars, the Dominican nuns, the Augustinian Friars, the Carmelite Friars of both orders, the Carmelite Nuns, the Third Order Regular Franciscans, Mercederians (sp?), Trinitarian Friars, Visitation Nuns and the enclosed branches of the Benedictine family all make solemn vows.

Then there are solemn promises and promises. Secular Orders make solemn promises. Secular Institutes make promises.

I am not looking at outdated material. In fact, I was looking at the Constitutions of my own community again and it is very clearly spelled out in the chapter on profession of vows. We are Franciscan Brothers, but we do not make solemn vows, because we are not Friars Minor. However, we do make vows of celibacy, poverty and obedience. We were a Secular Franciscan Fraternity that evolved into a mendicant fraternity. The same applies to the Franciscans of the Renewal and the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. They evolved into a mendicant fraternity, but outside of the Friars Minor (OFM, Capuchin, Conventual).

This is the description provided by the Congregation. As you can see there is little said about them in Canon Law. There is more in Canon Law about congregations, because there are more of them.

Some Institutes are called Orders: these are Institutes in which, for historical reasons or because of their character or nature, solemn vows are made by at least some of the members. All members of these orders are called regulars, and if they are women they are called nuns (“moniales”). Other religious institutes are called congregations, or religious congregations. Their members are called religious of simple vows (can. 1192.2). The orders are older than the congregations.

pissoff.enemy.org/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_profile_en.html

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I find it interesting that non-religious will actually argue with religious as to what the “rules” are on being a religious.

Do you not think that we might have an inside view to this that a non-religious does not?

I’m wondering the same thing too. We have two religious here, from two religious families telling all of you how our vows work and what our Rule and Constitutions say. What else can we say?

Here is a perfect example. Brother David belongs to an Order that makes solemn vows. I belong to an Order where solemn vows are not the norm. The difference is our histories.

The Carmelites always made solemn vows. The only Franciscans who made solemn vows are the Friars Minor, the Third Order Regular Friars, and the Poor Clares. Other members of the Franciscan Order make simple vows because we evolved from the Secular Franciscans who do not make Solemn Vows. Even though we are the Order of St. Francis (OSF) we have never had a tradition of solemn vows.

We’re sharing with everyone how we function and how we commit ourselves to the evangelical counsels and there are still secular men and women who are saying that we are wrong about our own vows. I don’t get it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ridgerunner]

A couple of years ago, I was in an airport waiting for my plane to arrive. I saw a very dignified-looking priest walk into the next waiting area, wearing one of those cassocks just like the Jesuits used to wear…you know, the ones with the million little buttons down the front and a broad black sash around the stomach with a fringed end of it hanging down at the side. It had been a good 25 years since I had seen a priest in one of those, maybe more. He was carrying what looked like a Breviary zipped into a case. I was impressed, and heartened really, that a priest nowadays would appear in a public place in a cassock like that.

I went up to him and asked him if perhaps he was a Jesuit.

“No. Society of St. Pius the Tenth”, he said.

“Ohhhhhhhh. Yesssssss.” I said, otherwise speechless, and returned to my seat.

 

[JReducation]

A couple of years ago, I was in an airport waiting for my plane to arrive. I saw a very dignified-looking priest walk into the next waiting area, wearing one of those cassocks just like the Jesuits used to wear…you know, the ones with the million little buttons down the front and a broad black sash around the stomach with a fringed end of it hanging down at the side. It had been a good 25 years since I had seen a priest in one of those, maybe more. He was carrying what looked like a Breviary zipped into a case. I was impressed, and heartened really, that a priest nowadays would appear in a public place in a cassock like that.

I went up to him and asked him if perhaps he was a Jesuit.

“No. Society of St. Pius the Tenth”, he said.

“Ohhhhhhhh. Yesssssss.” I said, otherwise speechless, and returned to my seat.

Cassocks are very nice looking. Many priests don’t wear them because of climate or because they can’t afford them. They can cost over $300.00 each. Most diocesan priests do not get paid more than $12,000.00 a year. From that they have to cover all of their expenses. The dioceses do not provide them with anything except housing at the rectory until they retire. Then they’re on their own. Clerical shirt and slacks cost less than $50.00.

The same is happening with religious habits. It costs my community $290.00 per habit We no longer have lay brothers who make them. Our lay brothers are involved in ministry, administration of the order, seminary work, chaplaincies and other. We have to send out to a company that makes them for us. We each get one. Those who want to wear it daily have to do a lot of laundry.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF

 

[Ocarm]

I find it interesting that non-religious will actually argue with religious as to what the “rules” are on being a religious.

Do you not think that we might have an inside view to this that a non-religious does not?

Well, such contributions aren’t all that uncommon, are they? I’ve met many lay people who feel let down by religious life as lived today, and who are keen to offer regular advice on how we could improve things. Wearing habits 24/7 (cassocks or not) is often high on the list.

Joking aside, I think there is an issue worthy of consideration here, as JR alluded to in an earlier post:

The Order is also abandoning parishes that require too much time away from community life or where the laity demand too much from the friars, not respecting that their primary vocation is to be a brotherhood to each other. This has happened a great deal. The laity often feels that they have the right to make demands on the friars as if they were ordinary parish priests, when they are not.

There is obviously a substantial difference between diocesan priests, who are indeed the servants of their parishes, and religious, who typically have a more focussed ministry or apostolate, and as JR indicated in detail in the above post, problems often result when the roles are combined. I’m sometimes concerned by the manner in which lay people (and bishops and secular priests) see religious predominantly as flag-wavers for the diocese or the magisterium, when they are in fact called to a more specific witness to Christ.

Perfectae Caritatis asks religious to regain the spirit of their founders, and the lives of these men and women were usually prophetic, not conformist - as a non-Franciscan, it nevertheless seems to me that St Francis was very much a revolutionary and a great challenge to the Church in his own day, but is sometimes reduced by bad hagiographers to a cuddly and vaguely hippyish figure who loved animals. He wasn’t just a man who wore a habit and accepted the church as is, but someone who was called to change it.

This probably seems off-topic (and maybe it is) but I suppose I’m addressing the intent of the OP, which implies that religious are who they are because of how they look, and that how they look is thus central to charism and apostolate. I think that’s actually quite a dangerous assumption. Anyone can put on religious garb, but living out the charism of a religious community is a lifelong struggle; just like anyone can attend mass, but leaving when the service is over and going out into the world to give Jesus to the people whom we meet (which is what the dismissal asks us to do) is much harder. Witness is a lot more complex than making choices regarding the clothes that we wear.

Perhaps this sounds condemnatory or self-pitying, but I do think the whole church has to engage with what religious life intends, and not try to co-opt it into something more comfortable and easily defined. And religious have to work hard to export the reality of this in a helpful and empowering way.

And with that said, belated fraternal greetings from the UK province, Brother David.

 

[JReducation]

Well, such contributions aren’t all that uncommon, are they? I’ve met many lay people who feel let down by religious life as lived today, and who are keen to offer regular advice on how we could improve things. Wearing habits 24/7 (cassocks or not) is often high on the list.

Joking aside, I think there is an issue worthy of consideration here, as JR alluded to in an earlier post:

There is obviously a substantial difference between diocesan priests, who are indeed the servants of their parishes, and religious, who typically have a more focussed ministry or apostolate, and as JR indicated in detail in the above post, problems often result when the roles are combined. And with that said, belated fraternal greetings from the UK province, Brother David.

Very well said Mike. Or is it Br. Mike?

I once saw a movie, can’t remember the name, and there was one line that I will never forget. “Ideas are plenty, solutions are few.”

As we move into the 21st century and older religious communities adapt the prophetic voice of their founders to their members today and the Church of today, and as new religious communities are born, we have to remember that life is not so simple as saying wear this or preach that.

There are many other factors that are unknown to the Catholic in the pews and that should remain unknown, because they are part of the interior life of a family, in this case, a religious family. One of the reasons why the Church created the status of Religious of Pontifical Right was to keep religious as far away as possible from the influence and control of the laity and the bishops. This provided the religious the space and freedom to evolve according to the mind of their founders and the will of the Chapter.

Some people may not know that founders wrote chapters into their Rule. These are not chapters of the rule, but a fraternal gathering of the brotherhood or sisterhood with the canonical authority to interpret the vision of the founder and to redefine the direction of the religous community. Even the Major Superior is subject, under obedience, to the voice and vote of the community’s chapter. This is the second highest authority in a religious community of Pontifical Right, second only to the Holy Father. Even canon law does not overrule a community chapter. Canon law is very clear on the respect owed to the government and statutes of the religious institute created at the Chapter.

Another important thing to remember is that we are moving away from the parish priest model. Will there be religious men who serve as parish priests? Yes. Parish ministry is a valid ministry in many communities. Will parish ministry have the place of prominence that it has had in the past 150 years? No, not among religious. If a religious order commits to too many parishes, let’s say that half of its religious are in parish ministry, then it becomes subject to the local diocese made up of bishop and laity. That defeats the intent of declaring them exempt religious communities that can only be governed by the Holy Father and by their Chapter.

Just to preserve their autonomy to grow in a prophetic manner, they have to pull back from ministries where bishops and laity have any kind of authority. Otherwise, we all know what bishops and laity want. They want priests. The consecrated life lived in community, the contemplative life, the life of solitude, the missionary life, the mendicant life, unity and equality of all the religious is not a priority to the bishops or the laity, because their priority is to staff parishes.

One can understand why this would be their priority. They are hurting for priests. But religioius can no longer meet this need at the expense of their identity and at the sacrifice of their members. When a friar or a monk returns to his community after 20 years in parishes where he has prayed on his own, made his own schedule, managed his own money, had his own car, had a cook and housekeeper, had his own computer and cell phone, entered and left the house without consulting anyone, the obedience of religious life becomes stiffling.

It is very difficult to ask for permission to use money, to share a car with five other people, to get up and follow a common schedule of prayer, silence, recreation and lectio divina. It is hard to submit to the authority of a superior who may not even be a priest. It is hard to go back to wearing a habit. It may also be very hard to do others laundry, cooking, washing dishes, not being able to choose the furniture you like or paint the house the color that you like. All of these things are part of the normal routine of a friary or a monastery. For those who have lived in rectories or in anexes to hospitals or served as military chaplains for years, these things are a culture shock. Many men leave the religioius life, because they find it difficult going from Father back to Brother.

It was this kind of injustice, among other things, the the Vatican Council wanted to heal. It is an injustice to the individual religious who is returning to his community and to the religious who have to live with him. It’s like a spouse returning home after years of independent living and having to pick up on the duties of married and family life again. Some can handle it. Others cannot do it.

The Church wants to protect the unity of the religious orders and congregations and allow them to deal with their mission and prupose, rather than have others intervene in it. Even the Holy Father keeps an arms distance. Everyone is becoming more conscious of the difference between a secular priest and a vowed religious and the hierarchy is becoming more sensitive to not stepping over the line in the sand.

The Church must function in unity, but allowing for diversity of gifts and persons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

Another important thing to remember is that we are moving away from the parish priest model. Will there be religious men who serve as parish priests? Yes. Parish ministry is a valid ministry in many communities. Will parish ministry have the place of prominence that it has had in the past 150 years? No, not among religious. If a religious order commits to too many parishes, let’s say that half of its religious are in parish ministry, then it becomes subject to the local diocese made up of bishop and laity. That defeats the intent of declaring them exempt religious communities that can only be governed by the Holy Father and by their Chapter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Br. JR,

I was just wondering. If the regular members of religious families move away from the model, how would this affect the secular orders?

Thanks,

albertziggy