Religious Priests And Secular Priests: Does The Laity Appreciate The Difference?

[JReducation]

This thread is for the purpose of education, NOT DEBATE. Several of us on CAF have been discussing the possibility of this thread for several days now and how to introduce it. Much thought and back and forth PMing has gone into this. It is not a place to bash or offend religious and their respective religious communities.

We ask that those who post here remember that this is an opportunity to ask questions and answer the questions of other posters with information that you may have and someone else needs. Thank You for your understanding.

Several of us have noticed that the average lay person knows very little about religious life and much less about the difference between the priesthood and religious life. The blame for this can be placed at the feet of religious who work in our parishes and other institutions. They should take the time to explain these things to those to whom they minister.

Religious orders staff many of our parishes. Often we expect these priests to respond to our needs and desires. We are disappointed when this does not happen. First, we must understand that there are teachings of the Catholic Church that apply to all Catholics, regardless of who they are or what organization they belong to.

One person who has taken the time to explain this to the faithful is Cardinal Sean, OFM Cap, the Capuchin-Franciscan archbishop of Boston. Here is a link to his explanation on the charism of his order.

cardinalseansblog.org/?m=200711

Often, we the laity put religious priests on the spot. We get angry because they don’t act on things that we would like to see happen. We don’t know that they belong to a community and that their community has goals of its own and a mission that was given to them by their founders and approved by the Church. We don’t’ understand that they have to obey their religious superiors and the consensus of their brothers. In such cases we have to either accept the religious community as it is or ask the Bishop to remove them. If we choose to ask that a religious community leave a parish, we must understand that the Bishop has to replace those priests and he may not have priests of his own (diocesan priest/secular priests). It’s risky business to challenge a religious community, unless we’re ready to replace them and have the man power to do so.

Most importantly, it is a lack of charity on our part not to understand their commitment to religious life and how that commitment sanctifies the Church, even if we have to live with some things that we don’t like. Are we ready to understand and appreciate the gift of religious life among us?

That being said, there are also men who are priests and religious. They are both. They are very different from secular priests, usually called diocesan priests. A man who is a priest and a religious has a primary commitment to his religious family. Being a priest within a religious family called an order or a congregation does not make him different from his brothers in the religious life. We often call these priests “religious priests”.

A religious priest is first and foremost a religious. Being a Franciscan, Dominican, Jesuit, Vincentian, Carmelite and so forth is a way of life for these men. Being a priest is a “state” within the Church, not a way of life. The Sacrament of Orders changes a man at a level of existence. He stands in Christ’s place at the celebration of the sacraments. However, it does not impose on him a rule of life that he must follow. This rule of life is imposed by the religious community to which he belongs. For example, Capuchins are to be poor, brothers to each other, subservient to their religious superior as if he were Christ and St. Francis. His only duty to the local bishop is to run the parish as the bishop wants, as long as it does not conflict with what his superiors want. Bishops understand this when they invite religious to take over a parish. They understand that everything that a religious priest does in a parish is subject to the approval of his superior (not the Bishop) and his brothers. There are agreements and fraternal understandings between bishops and major religious superiors.

A simple example: a religious cannot decide to celebrate the Tridentine mass in a parish, because the bishop has given permission. Nor does the bishop demand this of him. The religious must get the approval from his superiors and his brothers. Usually, superiors and communities are not going to refuse anything that does not interfere or is in conflict with the goals of the order, unless you have a very unreasonable superior. Even in that case, the religious has made a vow of obedience without questioning and must obey the superior in all matters, except sin, regardless of reason.

JR

 

[Phemie]

Thank you for that, it may well explain why our pastor was so reluctant to become our pastor. His charism is probably not appropriate to our situation and more appropriate to the situation in the mission down the road, the place where his heart is. The problem is that that comes across as a “couldn’t care less about you” attitude, leaving our parishioners angry and resentful and feeling that they have no shepherd.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for that, it may well explain why our pastor was so reluctant to become our pastor. His charism is probably not appropriate to our situation and more appropriate to the situation in the mission down the road, the place where his heart is. The problem is that that comes across as a “couldn’t care less about you” attitude, leaving our parishioners angry and resentful and feeling that they have no shepherd.

Is your pastor a member of a religious order or congregation?

Priests who belong to religious orders or congregations do not have to accept a pastorship. However, a superior can order them to do so. That’s a little secret that many lay people do not know.

Bishops will normally not appoint a reluctant pastor. But a religious superior can demand it under holy obedience. It’s not commonly done. They usually try to persuade the individual, but they have the power to command it.

You mentioned the missions. If he’s a religious and belongs to a community that has missions or that is a missionary congregation, it would stand to reason that he would prefer to follow the charism of his community. That’s why he joined that particular community.

For example, a Divine Word Missionary would prefer to be in the missions than stuch in a parish in the USA. This is not what the congregation was founded to do. They were not founded to be parish priests. Many of them run parishes as a favour to the laity and to the bishop, when the diocese has a shortage of its own priests. But that doesn’t mean that they have to like it.

The good thing is that the parishioners can get the benefit of the spirituality of the religious community, which they wouldn’t get from a secular priest. Secular priests do not belong to religious communities. Each of them develops his spirituality according to the guidance of his spiritual director.

Religious follow the spirituality of their founder and their constitutions.

You’re right, that the laity can misunderstand it. It can look as if the individual doesn’t give a darn about them. When in fact, the individual is trying to be faithful to what he promised and is being asked to do something different.

This happened with the Franciscans at Franciscan University. People got angry because the friars would not agree to celebrate the TLM on campus. The reality was that the superior had said that the univesity was the domain of the order, not the diocese. It is not a parish and does not have to provide what would normally be the duty of a parish. The university was founded to promote Franciscan tradition and to educate in the Franciscan tradition. There was a lot of misunderstanding over this.

I heard, but do not know for sure, that the friars have allowed a TLM mass on campus, after consulting with their superior. Some people wanted to get the bishop involved. They didn’t understand that in the case of a university that belongs to a religious order, the Bishop only has authority over anything that is against Church law or morality. Even then, the Bishop has to take his case the the major superior and let him fix the problem.

People don’t always understand what a complicated process this is.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

JR

 

[drafdog]

Another point worth mentioning is the vows taken by members of religious congregations. They take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. As mentioned in the original post the last refers to the authority of the congregation, not the local ordinary. The first vow, that of poverty, is not part of a secular priest’s commitment.
Religious congregations which staff parishes in the US frequently do so in order to have a base from which to draw future members. The order which staffed the parish where I grew up was constantly talking to the young men in the parish about considering a call to religious life. It’s a major part of their work in US parishes. If the order does not have sufficient manpower to continue they may decide to withdraw from service to a particular parish. This is normally done in consultation between the head of the order and the bishop. Again an example from my home parish: the parish name was changed when the order took over administration, but it has been called by the new name for so long that when the order withdrew, the name given it by the order was retained. Unfortunately the parish which was once staffed by four order priests now has only one secular priest.

Matthew

 

[maryj]

We have a senior associate who is a crosier, I believe this is a religious order. I know that he has taken a vow of poverty, he will be leaving us(after ten years) to go back to his community, and we are perplexed about what to give him as a thank you/going away gift since he is not allowed to “have” money for himself. But this is all I know about religious orders, which isn’t much.

 

[Phemie]

Is your pastor a member of a religious order or congregation?

Priests who belong to religious orders or congregations do not have to accept a pastorship. However, a superior can order them to do so. That’s a little secret that many lay people do not know.

Bishops will normally not appoint a reluctant pastor. But a religious superior can demand it under holy obedience. It’s not commonly done. They usually try to persuade the individual, but they have the power to command it.

He’s Oblate of Mary Immaculate. Before the recent realignment all the priests in our diocese, but 2, were OMI, as is the Bishop. The only priest to come out of our pre-alignment diocese is OMI.

I think he only accepted the pastorship because the bishop, his best friend and seminary classmate, begged. Unfortunately he has made it very clear, by saying it out loud, that he didn’t want to be here. That has caused resentment.

I do know about the superior and I was advised to not bother with the bishop if I have concerns, but to contact his superior directly.

 

[JReducation]

Another point worth mentioning is the vows taken by members of religious congregations. They take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. As mentioned in the original post the last refers to the authority of the congregation, not the local ordinary. The first vow, that of poverty, is not part of a secular priest’s commitment.

We should add here that religious made a vow of chastity and secular priests make a vow of celibacy. Celibacy means no marriage. Chastity includes celibacy, but also includes a commitment to the religious community. Even if celibacy was ever eliminated from the priesthood, religious would still be celibate. They are married to their community. Their vow overrules the sacrament of marriage. The sacrament of marriage would not be available to them, because of their commitment to live within a community.

If the order does not have sufficient manpower to continue they may decide to withdraw from service to a particular parish.

Also, if the laity push them in directions that they can’t go, because of a conflict of interest between the laity and the religious community, they reserve the right to return the parish to the Bishop. There need not be consultation. Their Major Superior is also an Ordianry. If he says they leave, they leave.

I knew a case where a religious superior pulled his religious out of four parishes with a one month notice to the bishop. The bishop had to merge three parishes into one. It was mendicant community who was bound to pray the Divine Office five hours a day, eat together every day, spend an hour in recreation together and go to bed at the same time and rise at the same time. The laity wanted them to be as available as diocesan priests are. The reiligious tried to build a parish schedule around their religious obligations and people still complained.

Again an example from my home parish: the parish name was changed when the order took over administration

This is sometimes built into the contract between the bishop and the religious.

In our parish the contract is that the order provides three priests for the parish, but there are seven religious living at the house and the superior is not a priest. He is a theologian and teaches theology at a local college. The pastor has to answer to the superior when issues come up that may be in conflict with the religious community. For example, the community goes on an annual retreat with their other brothers to their motherhouse. The close the parish for one week. The pastor asked to be excused and the superior denied the permission. The pastor had to ask the bishop to send a priest to cover for a week.

On the other hand, religious come cheap. Diocesan priests get paid a salary and the diocese has to provide health insurance and retirement insurance for them. Religious get a fixed amount of money from the parish, no matter how many religious live in the house. Because they take a vow of poverty, they do not have medical insurance or retirement plans. Also they don’t each have a car. There are two or three community cars and the parish gives them a car allowance. In our parish, we have three cars and seven religious. If they were seven diocesan priests, there would be seven car allowances to be paid. Each diocesan priest is allowed to own his personal car. Religious may not own cars. The parish owns the cars and when the religious leave, the cars stay. If the religious order wants more cars, it has to pay for them and maintain them, but cannot charge the parish for them.

As to the name thing, there is also another little secret that people don’t know. The major mendicant and monastic orders: Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites, Dominicans and Augustinians do not follow the Church’s liturgical calender to the letter.

They have their own sacramentary, their own lectionary and their own liturgical calendar. The laity usually doesn’t even notice that a parish is celebrating a feast of a saint that the rest of the Church does not. This is feast proper to the religious of that house.

For example, in a Franciscan parish the Oct 4 is the Solmenity of St. Francis. It’s celebrated using the same form as the Christmas liturgy or the Immaculate Conception. The rest of the church simply remembers St. Francis that day, but celebrates a simple liturgy, without gloria and three readings and the pomp and circumstance.

Great post Matthew. It provided a lot to discuss.

JR

 

[benedictgal]

In my diocese, we have Oblates, Salesians, SOLTs and the Congregation of St. John. We had Benedictines and Franciscans, but, I’m not sure if they still exist in Hebbronville. In Austin, the Paulists are still there.

Of these, the ones I have had personal contact with are the Oblates, the St. Johns, the Salesians and the Paulists.

A friend of mine (whom I knew from seminarian to priest) explained to me that the Paulist vow is not necessarily one of poverty, but, rather, of Gospel simplicity. Just as JR noted in his last post, the Paulists, too, have their principal feast day; in their case, it is the Conversion of St. Paul. They are allowed to celebrate this Solemnity on the Sunday closest to January 25th. In my old parish, we would go all out, complete with the Gloria and all of the solemnity the feast deserves.

One of the Salesian priests explained to me that when a Salesian is elevated to the dignity of bishop, he resigns from the order, but, can still maintain the SDB designation, as has been the case with Tarisco Cardinal Berone and the cardinal from Honduras (whom I got to meet when he was down here). Prior to our break from Corpus Christi, our second-to-last bishop was a Franciscan (he is now Archbishop of Puerto Rico). Sometimes we would see him in his Franciscan habit, but, he would also wear his cassock.

Of the orders I’ve mentioned, the ones who are truly not of the world are the St. Johns. For the most part, they emulate the Apostle and Evangelist. Even though one of them and I disagree on the type of music used for the youth Masses, the congregation is farily orthodox and they do employ a lot of Latin in their Masses. They also chant the Divine Office.

Now, there have been some issues regarding indiscretions that have occurred in some of these Orders’ methods of celebrating the Mass which do not have anything to do with their particular charisms. I did have issues with the Oblate administrator (who also oversaw the Cursillo movement) over a communal penance service that included writing down one’s sins and then burning them and other anamolies that are not allowed. The Salesians have also employed a strange practice of having the bride and groom assist the priest at the offertory (they raise the bread and wine while the priest says the prayer). I know the Salesians first hand because I spent nine years being educated by the Daughters of Mary Help of Christian. The chief charism that Don Bosco was emphatic about was fidelity to Rome and to the Holy Father. When the nuns started bringing liturgical dance, I challenged them on it because it was going against what Don Bosco taught. Don Bosco never, ever advocated a loose celebration of the liturgy.

JReduction, I can understand some of your points because you and I have been sending each other PMs; however, while there may be particular charisms within the Orders, that does not necessarily give them free reign to celebrate the Mass as they wish. This is not to denigrate any of them; however, such liberty is not wholesale. I thnk that even St. Franics and St. Dominic would admit that much. Certainly Don Bosco, who is my spiritual father, would never agree to compromising the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now, I do understand that some of the religious orders may have their own version of the Roman Missal and their own calendars. However, shouldn’t there be at least some uniformity? The celebration of the Mass shouldn’t be that radically different from the rest of the Church? In the example I gave regarding the bizarre ritual at the Salesian wedding, our bishop found out and told the order to stop that practice. Having been somewhat tramautized at the last of their weddings I attended (which happened to be that of my cousin), I haven’t been to one since.

Now, regarding the issue of owning property, such as vehicles, the Paulists had about six priests living in their house. Five of them had cars (provided by the parish–gently used). The only one who didn’t drive was about 90 years old and couldn’t drive anyway. I was privileged to be his ride on numerous occasions. The St. Johns, on the other hand, have about three or four priests and two or three cars. These are rather old and may or may not have air-condition, which is a real penance for them since we have been hitting the high 90s and will probably see 100 degrees tomorrow.

 

[JReducation]

We have a senior associate who is a crosier, I believe this is a religious order. I know that he has taken a vow of poverty, he will be leaving us(after ten years) to go back to his community, and we are perplexed about what to give him as a thank you/going away gift since he is not allowed to “have” money for himself. But this is all I know about religious orders, which isn’t much.

Crosiers are religious. It’s a very old order. As a religious, no matter what you give him, he has to ask for permission to keep it. If it’s something that he can use, the superior usually allows it. They are usually very kind.

A nice gift, if you can arrange it, would be a picture of the parishioner in a nice frame. Those are keepsakes.

You can always give him a donation that is meant for the work of his order. This way the parish can’t keep the money. He doesn’t have it for himself, but it will benefit is religious family.

Whatever you do, don’t give him religioius articles. You can’t imagine how many of those religious get and they just put on a community shelf, because they have too many a plaque is a bad idea too.

I wish I can help more.

JR

 

[thistle]

You’ll have to educate me further as the expression “secular priest” to me seems a contradiction in terms. A priest by definition is ordained. A non-ordained man is not a priest.

 

[JReducation]

In my diocese, we have Oblates, Salesians, SOLTs and the Congregation of St. John. We had Benedictines and Franciscans, but, I’m not sure if they still exist in Hebbronville. In Austin, the Paulists are still there.

Of these, the ones I have had personal contact with are the Oblates, the St. Johns, the Salesians and the Paulists.

A friend of mine (whom I knew from seminarian to priest) explained to me that the Paulist vow is not necessarily one of poverty, but, rather, of Gospel simplicity. Just as JR noted in his last post, the Paulists, too, have their principal feast day; in their case, it is the Conversion of St. Paul. They are allowed to celebrate this Solemnity on the Sunday closest to January 25th. In my old parish, we would go all out, complete with the Gloria and all of the solemnity the feast deserves.

I took the liberty of shortening your post so I had some space to respond, not out of disrespect.

I’ll begin with your point the the liturgy. All religioius founders have protected the sacredness of the liturgy. Therefore, no religious community has the right to violate this.

Religious founders have added some elements or changed some things, without taking away from the sacredness of the liturgy. These have been allowed by the Church.

For example, the Dominicans has their own rite. Many people don’t know this. They did not follow the Tridentine mass. St. Dominic gave them a form of their own which as approved by the Church. It was very similar to the Tridentine form, with some minor changes that were hardly noticeable. I’m not sure what year their General Chapter decided to change over to the NO. This was a decision of the Order. This an order can do. They cannot trample on the sacredness of the liturgy, NO or TLM. That’s a NO NO.

St. Francis took our Gregorian chant from the Franciscans and replaced it with Laudas in the vernacular and also plain chant. He also introduced pageantry such as the Christmas pageant and the Stations of the Cross. Franciscans do not chant the office, because it was not in the spirit of St. Francis, not even plain chant. They chant parts of the mass, but only using plain chant, not traditional Gregorian chant. Their General Chapter has elected to keep it this way. Francis’ reasoning was to allow more men to enter the Friars Minor. In the past, if you could not perform Gregorian Chant you could not be a religious. St. Francis also wanted the number of priests in the order to be kept to a small number, because the order was to be a community of Brother preachers and penitents.

As to what happens when a religious becomes a bishop, the new code of canon law has changed that. They remain part of their religious orders. There is not choice. They are bound to the rules of their order. Their vow of obedience is transferred to the Holy Father, which for most religious doesn’t change anything, because obedience always included the Holy Father. It only releases them from the authority of the major superior of the order or congregation. This rule only applies to those who became bishops after the new code of Canon Law. Under the old code, they were separated from their communities.

This is why your Franciscan friend who became a bishop in Puerto Rico wears his habit, as does Cardinal Sean and Archbishop Chaput. Franciscans are always members of their orders, even if they become religious and they are bound to follow the rules of the general chapter. The major superior cannot intervene in anything that has to do with their duties as a bishop. This is what the new canons say. Their spiritual obligations as Franciscans are still binding. There was another change in the new canons. Religious who become bishops can acquire personal property as long as it is in keeping with the tradition of their community. They can own a house or car, but obviously a Franciscan is not going to own a Lincoln or Cadillac.

When they retire, they may return to their order and the order has to take them back. The new canon says that the diocese must make provisions for a retired bishop who has no place to go. But this is not the case with religious. They can return to their order, but they don’t have to. They can retire in some other place, but they still remain part of their order. They are bound by its rule and the spirit of its founder.

JR

 

[JReducation]

You’ll have to educate me further as the expression “secular priest” to me seems a contradiction in terms. A priest by definition is ordained. A non-ordained man is not a priest.

Secular is any man or woman who is not a member of a religious order.

Deacons, priests and bishops are clerics, hence the word clergy.

Only those who are members of religious orders are Religious. To be a religioius you have to be a member of a community that makes vows of poverty, chastity and obedience for life.

A diocesan priest does not belong to such a community. He is a preist (cleric), but not a religious. He lives independently. He does not take the three vows. He does not follow the rule of a founder or the spirituality of a specific founder. His obedience is to the bishop of his diocese in matters that have to do with ministry. His personal life is his to govern.

For example, a secular/diocesan priest does not ask for permission to buy shoes. He has no community schedule, no community prayer, no community dress code, no community rule, no community recreation, no community house.

He can own his own car, his own house, have a bank account, have medical, dental and retirement insurance, all of which religious cannot have.

He decides when he prays, how he recreates, how he uses his money, where he lives, what he wears, how to live his spiritual life. These things are deicded for religious by their founders, their community in a chapter (vote), and by their superiors.

A religious has not voice of his own in the community, except when they vote. He may expresss his opinion, but he may not act on it unless it is allowed by the superior or the community. Secular priests, don’t have these restraints.

Secular priests are like you and me, except that they are priests. No one tells you that you can’t have an opinion. No one tells a secular priest that either. In the case of a religious, the superior can take away their right to have an opinion and they simply have to obey the superior’s opinion.

Like you and me, secular priets can spend time with their families. Religious visit their families once a year, if at all. Each community has its own rules regarding this.

You can have your own money, so can secular priests. Religious do not. They have to ask for money to buy a stick of gum.

The poverty rule is different from one community to another. In some communities of religioius it’s very strict. No one owns anything. In other communities its a matter of sharing what they own and living a simple life.

That’s how the term religious came about. These people take vows and live withing communities that govern every moment of their lives.

Seculars do not.

If you are not a priest, deacon or bishop you are lay.

You and I are lay and secular.

Are you completely confused yet? LOL

JR

 

[elt1956]

We have a senior associate who is a crosier, I believe this is a religious order. I know that he has taken a vow of poverty, he will be leaving us(after ten years) to go back to his community, and we are perplexed about what to give him as a thank you/going away gift since he is not allowed to “have” money for himself. But this is all I know about religious orders, which isn’t much.

Maybe a religious bouquet, or promising to say a rosary for him would be appropriate??? Peace.

 

[JReducation]

Maybe a religious bouquet, or promising to say a rosary for him would be appropriate??? Peace.

It sounds good to me. You can send me one too!

JR

 

[elt1956]

It sounds good to me. You can send me one too!

JR

It’s on the way JR. Do you feel the vibes?? Peace.

 

[JReducation]

Those of us who discussed this thread really wanted to focus, not on what are obviously violations of Church law, doctrine or morals. Those stand for everyone, whether you’re a lay person, religious or secular priest.

Our concer is with those who become upset when religious don’t respond as they expect in some other area and they bash these poor people who are really doing us a favor.

For my part, being part of a relgious family, I believe that we should show both charity and gratitude. Religious orders and religious congregations do not have an obligation to minister to us in parishes. Very few of them were founded to run parishes.

Those that run parishes usually do it as a favour to us, because the diocese has a shortage of priests and asks the religious to take over a parish. I figured that if we understood this, maybe we could be more appreciative and try to understand before we go on the attack.

I live in a parish run by a mendicant order. Mendicants are a blend between contemplatives and active. They spend a great deal of time in prayer, silence, community meals, community recreation, community prayer and other community functions. Often they have to leave the parish for a day or a week for community affairs. Therefore, many of our ministries are run by the laity.

Nonetheless, we have more than 100 different ministries in our parish, a religious education centre for kids, youth and adults, and six liturgies every weekend that are standing room only. The parishioners love the Brothers.

Even the Brothers who are not priests (four of them) make a great contribution to the parish. One of them is a mental health counselor, one is a theologian, one is a handyman, the other is a Director of Religious Education. They have trained the laity in stewardship, to be stewards of their own parish.

We didn’t need to change to Tridentine Liturgy or give up altar girls or give up our Life Teen mass to get all of this happening. We even have a trolley that goes back and forth between the parish and the local senior citizen residence to bring the seniors to church for mass, confession and other parish activities.

Our Life Teen Mass attracts about 1000 kids every Sunday. They meet after mass for religious education and RCIT for those youngsters who want to enter the Church. The kids take care of mistering to their peers in the local public high school. The have a strong peer counseling ministry going, thanks to the Brother who is a mental health counselor who trains the kids in such things as crisis resolution, conflict mediation and other.

We have to ask priests from the local Catholic college to come help with confessions.

Our religious superior is not a priest, but he is very supportive of his priests and when they need more manpower, he gets it from the other friaries or from other places. He is a great support to the pastor.

It is so beautiful to see our pastor’s humility when he says, “I have to get permission from Father Superior.” It’s edifying.

People love the parish, because they understand what the life of the friars adds to the parish.

JR

 

[elt1956]

You’ll have to educate me further as the expression “secular priest” to me seems a contradiction in terms. A priest by definition is ordained. A non-ordained man is not a priest.

Thistle, read the first post of the thread. That explains a lot about secular and religious priests. Thanks. Peace.

 

[Cat]

Thanks so much for this wonderful thread! I am enjoying reading every bit of your information and learning so much here. (I’m a convert from evangelical Protestantism, so this is all new to me.)

My husband and I were talking over dinner last night about the difference between secular and religious priests.

I play piano for an Italian parish that is ministered by the Conventual Franciscans. I’ll PM you, JReducation, with the specifics. You might know our priests.

I also attend my neighborhood parish, which is ministered to by diocescan priests.

Although I love the priests in my neighborhood parish, I am absolutely in awe of the Franciscan priests in the Italian parish. To me, they are living models of Jesus. I see Him every time I see them. It’s like the human man is transparent and Jesus shines through him.

Both of my daughters have attended this parish with me whenever they are home. My older daughter (who just became Catholic, BTW), attended Christmas Eve Children’s Mass at this parish, and cried all the way through it. She also attended New Year’s Mass, and when the Franciscan priest did the homily on Mary, my daughter took a volume of notes and cried during most of the homily. She took her notes home and shared them with her RCIA class and asked if she could get more “stuff” from this priest. (He has a series of CDs out.) She is very devoted to the Blessed Mother.

My younger daughter also attended some holiday masses at this parish. She is not Catholic, but she also was extremely moved when the Franciscan priest did a homily on the role of women.

What I’m trying to say is that these Franciscan priests have a lot of wisdom to impart.

And that’s what my husband and I were talking about over dinner last night. We were saying that it would be nice if the religious priests didn’t have to be in charge of parishes because parish “work” takes up so much of their time, and it would be wonderful if that time could be used to impart all the wisdom of their order to us, the laypeople. I often think how wonderful it would be to just sit at the feet of the Franciscans and listen to them talk and sing! (They sing beautifully.)

 

[lampstand]

After reading this, the issue makes even less sense to me now. I find it very perturbing. If someone doesn’t want to serve in certain capacities, they should make that clear as soon as they arrive in a parish. It’s only fair. It’s like saying I want to be an ambulance driver, but I hate sirens…

 

[JReducation]

After reading this, the issue makes even less sense to me now. I find it very perturbing. If someone doesn’t want to serve in certain capacities, they should make that clear as soon as they arrive in a parish. It’s only fair. It’s like saying I want to be an ambulance driver, but I hate sirens…

Lampstand

Religious don’t always have this option. They make a vow of obedience to the the Holy Father, their founder, their superior and the chapter of their community.

Usually, if a superior has several people to choose from, he’ll ask a religioius if he wants to take an assignment. When that’s not possible, he simply orders him to take it.

Those who join religious orders and religious congregations know that they will not have a will of their own (except in cases of sin). This is part of the bargain when you enter religious life and when you make perpetual vows. You go where you are told to go and do what you are told to do.

You only have a choice and an opinion if the community and the superior give you that privilege. Otherwise, that’s it. It is what it is.

Every religious is trained to respond with loving obedience even when he or she is asked to do something that is not what they want to do. Their love for Christ should be enough to support them when they are assigned to places they don’t want to go or asked not to do something that they want to do.

However, all of us are human. Even though we love Jesus and want to please him, sometimes it’s hard to show the joy. I guess, joy is not a requirement. Obedience out of love is the requirement.

One can obey out of love and still feel miserable. It happens to all of us.

JR